THE SIXTIETH DAY

Carson City (Thursday), April 3, 2003

Senate called to order at 11:19 a.m.

President Hunt presiding.

Roll called.

All present.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Reverend Larry Schneider.

In the light of God’s presence, we clearly see the way to our good and the good of the Nevada citizens we serve. Living in the moment in an awareness of God’s presence, we are always being guided to what is for the highest good. We recognize this good with such clarity that we know we are meant to claim it. God is constantly shining the light of revelation on the good that is awaiting our acceptance of it. Today, as we are again joined in a sacred mission of governing, we dedicate ourselves to following where that sacred light leads us.

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. 24, 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 Government Affairs, to which were referred Senate Bills Nos. 16, 78, 181, 236, 277, 329, 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 Government Affairs, 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 be adopted as amended.

Ann O'Connell, Chairman

Madam President:

Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred Senate Bill No. 394, has had the same under consideration, and begs leave to report the same back with the recommendation: Do pass.

Mark E. Amodei, Chairman

MESSAGES FROM THE ASSEMBLY

Assembly Chamber, Carson City, April 2, 2003

To the Honorable the Senate:

I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed Assembly Bill No. 178.

Also, I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Assembly on this day passed, as amended, Assembly Bills Nos. 48, 145.

Diane Keetch

Assistant Chief Clerk of the Assembly

WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS

Notice of Exemption

April 3, 2003

The Fiscal Analysis Division, pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.6, has determined the exemption of: Senate Bills Nos. 265, 289, 290, 314, 330, 331, 340, 409, 420.

Gary Ghiggeri

Fiscal Analysis Division

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES

By Senators McGinness, Amodei, Care, Carlton, Cegavske, Coffin, Hardy, Mathews, Neal, Nolan, O'Connell, Raggio, Rawson, Rhoads, Schneider, Shaffer, Tiffany, Titus, Townsend, Washington, Wiener; Assemblymen Knecht, Anderson, Andonov, Angle, Arberry, Atkinson, Beers, Brown, Buckley, Carpenter, Chowning, Christensen, Claborn, Collins, Conklin, Geddes, Gibbons, Giunchigliani, Goicoechea, Goldwater, Grady, Griffin, Gustavson, Hardy, Hettrick, Horne, Koivisto, Leslie, Mabey, Manendo, Marvel, McClain, McCleary, Mortenson, Oceguera, Ohrenschall, Parks, Perkins, Pierce, Sherer, Weber and Williams:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 27—Designating April 3, 2003, as Kiwanis Day in the State of Nevada.

Whereas, Eighty-eight years ago the “Benevolent Order 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 “Nunc Kee-wanis,” an Otchipew Native American phrase which means “We make a noise,” “We have a good time” or “We trade or advertise”; and

Whereas, The members of Kiwanis work toward six principles, (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 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 3, 2003, as Kiwanis Day in the State of Nevada, in recognition of the dedication toward helping others and the accomplishments achieved by the 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 Mark W. McDonald and Governor-Elect Les G. Wixon, Lieutenant Governor Paul A. Richied and Lieutenant Governor-Elect Edward Lynn of Division 23, Lieutenant Governor Phillip A. Kohen and Lieutenant Governor-Elect Elaine Goings of Division 28, and Lieutenant Governor George H. Alm and Lieutenant Governor-Elect Steven Lee 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. The resolution speaks to what Kiwanis is all about—a unique service opportunity. Making noise and having a good time is probably indicative of what goes on at Kiwanis, but that is also the superficial part. I compare it to what goes on here on the floor as, sometimes, we pay semi-attention, but knowing the real work is accomplished in the committees where we read the bills line by line. Kiwanis’ real work is accomplished on a Saturday morning by helping to put in a park, or it is the Kiwanis Club in Fallon cooking pancakes at 5:30 a.m. for the Little League opening day, as we will be doing on April 12. Kiwanis members dedicate their time to kids, seniors, solving domestic violence issues, to parks, senior centers and in giving food baskets during the holidays. The list of community services goes on-and-on, and I could not estimate how many man or person hours of service go into Kiwanis and their operations.

I would hope that everyone would support this resolution. It is a great organization, not saying that other service organizations are not as good, but we are all in it for service to our communities, and I urge your support.

Resolution adopted.

Senator McGinness moved that all rules be suspended and that Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 27 be immediately transmitted to the Assembly.

Motion carried unanimously.

Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 15.

Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the resolution, as amended.

Remarks by Senator Rawson.

Resolution adopted, as amended.

Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND REFERENCE

Assembly Bill No. 48.

Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.

Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 145.

Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Commerce and Labor.

Motion carried.

Assembly Bill No. 178.

Senator Rawson moved that the bill be referred to the Committee on Transportation.

Motion carried.

SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT

Senate Bill No. 15.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Transportation:

Amendment No. 44.

Amend section 1, pages 1 and 2, by deleting lines 14 and 15 on page 1 and lines 1 through 3 on page 2, and inserting: “the Department:

(a) Shall issue those plates for a passenger car or light commercial vehicle upon application by a person who is entitled to license plates pursuant to NRS 482.265 and who otherwise complies with the requirements for registration and licensing pursuant to this chapter; and

(b) May, except as otherwise provided in this paragraph and after approving the final design of the plates, issue those plates for a trailer or other type of vehicle that is not a passenger car or light commercial vehicle upon application by a person who is entitled to license plates pursuant to NRS 482.265 and who otherwise complies with the requirements for registration and licensing pursuant to this chapter if the Department determines that the manufacture of the plates for such other types of vehicles is feasible. If the Department incurs additional costs to manufacture the plates described in this paragraph, including, without limitation, costs associated with the purchase, manufacture or modification of dies or other equipment as necessary to manufacture the plates for such other types of vehicles, those additional costs must be paid from private sources without any expense to the State of Nevada.

A person may request that personalized”.

Amend section 1, page 2, by deleting lines 13 through 24 and inserting:

“4. In addition to all other applicable registration and license fees and governmental services taxes and the fee prescribed in subsection 3, a person who requests a set of license plates for the support of wildlife in Nevada must pay for the initial issuance of the plates an additional fee of $25 and for each renewal of the plates an additional fee of $20, to be distributed pursuant to subsection 5.

5. The Department shall deposit the fees collected pursuant to subsection 4 with the State Treasurer for credit to the State General Fund. The State Treasurer shall, on a quarterly basis, distribute the fees deposited pursuant to this subsection to the Nevada Wildlife Record Book Committee or its successor. The fees distributed to the Committee or its successor pursuant to this subsection:

(a) Must be used by the Committee or its successor for the support of wildlife in Nevada, including, without limitation, for purposes of:

(1) The education of persons regarding wildlife in Nevada;

(2) The improvement of habitat for wildlife in Nevada; and

(3) The establishment, maintenance and support of an interpretive center regarding wildlife in Nevada; and

(b) May be used by the Committee or its successor to provide grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to carry out the purposes described in paragraph (a).”.

Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sections 4 and 5 and renumbering sections 6 and 7 as sections 4 and 5.

Senator Nolan moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senators Nolan and Townsend.

Senator Townsend moved that Senate Bill No. 15 be taken from the Second Reading File and placed on the Secretary’s desk.

Remarks by Senator Townsend.

Motion carried.

Senate Bill No. 33.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:

Amendment No. 49.

Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 37, by deleting “Each” and inserting “1. Each”.

Amend sec. 2, page 2, line 40, by deleting “full” and inserting “complete”.

Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting lines 42 through 45 and inserting: “body to forward the fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for its report on the criminal history of the applicant and for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its report on the criminal history of the applicant.

2. If the reports on the criminal history of an applicant indicate that the applicant has not been convicted of a felony or an offense involving moral turpitude, the governing body of the charter school may employ the applicant.

3. If a report on the criminal history of an applicant indicates that the applicant has been convicted of a felony or an offense involving moral turpitude and the governing body of the charter school does not disqualify the applicant from further consideration of employment on the basis of that report, the governing body shall, upon the written authorization of the applicant, forward a copy of the report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. If the applicant refuses to provide his written authorization to forward a copy of the report pursuant to this subsection, the charter school shall not employ the applicant.

4. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, shall promptly review the report to determine whether the conviction of the applicant is related or unrelated to the position with the charter school for which the applicant has applied. If the applicant desires employment with the charter school, he shall, upon the request of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, provide any further information that the Superintendent or his designee determines is necessary to make the determination. If the governing body of the charter school desires to employ the applicant, the governing body shall, upon the request of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, provide any further information that the Superintendent or his designee determines is necessary to make the determination. The Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, shall provide written notice of the determination to the applicant and to the governing body of the charter school.

5. If the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, determines that the conviction of the applicant is related to the position with the charter school for which the applicant has applied, the governing body of the charter school shall not employ the applicant. If the Superintendent of Public Instruction, or his designee, determines that the conviction of the applicant is unrelated to the position with the charter school for which the applicant has applied, the governing body of the charter school may employ the applicant for that position.”.

Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 35, by deleting “A” and inserting:

“[A] Except as otherwise provided in section 2 of this act, a”.

Amend sec. 3, page 3, line 42, by deleting “A” and inserting:

“[A] Except as otherwise provided in section 2 of this act, a”.

Amend sec. 3, page 4, by deleting lines 5 through 12 and inserting:

“5. A charter school shall not employ a person pursuant to this”.

Amend sec. 6, page 8, by deleting line 14 and inserting:

“3. On or before [September 1] the last day of the first school month of each school year or”.

Amend sec. 6, page 8, line 15, after “each” by inserting “school”.

Amend sec. 6, page 8, by deleting line 20 and inserting:

“or before [September 1 or January] the last day of the first school month of each school year or February 1 of each school”.

Amend sec. 7, page 9, by deleting line 24 and inserting:

“4. On or before [September 1 or January] the last day of the first school month of each school year or February”.

Amend sec. 7, page 9, line 25, after “each” by inserting “school”.

Amend the title of the bill by deleting the sixth through eighth lines and inserting:

“employment; prohibiting the governing body of a charter school from employing certain nonlicensed persons under certain circumstances; revising provisions governing the”.

Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Rawson.

Amendment adopted.

Senator Rawson moved that Senate Bill No. 33 be re-referred to the Committee on Finance upon return from reprint.

Remarks by Senator Rawson.

Motion carried.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to the Committee on Finance.

Senate Bill No. 44.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:

Amendment No. 50.

Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting lines 32 and 33 and inserting: “subsection 2 of NRS 388.720, must not exceed the ratio set forth in that plan for the grade levels specified in the plan.”.

Amend sec. 2, page 2, by deleting line 36 and inserting: “paragraph (a) or a grade level specified in a plan that is developed pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 388.720, as applicable for the school district, must be”.

Amend sec. 2, page 3, by deleting line 12 and inserting: “paragraph (a) of subsection 1 or the grade levels specified in a plan that is developed pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 388.720, as applicable, for each”.

Amend sec. 2, page 3, by deleting lines 26 and 27 and inserting:

“3] the grade levels specified in paragraph (a) of subsection 1 or the grade levels specified in a plan that is developed pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 388.720, as applicable, for each school district.”.

Amend sec. 4, page 4, by deleting lines 9 through 13 and inserting: “district’s pupil-teacher ratios in elementary school within the limits of available financial support specifically set aside for the reduction of pupil-teacher ratios in kindergarten and grades 1, 2 and 3. A plan developed pursuant to this subsection must be designed to reduce the pupil-teacher ratios per class to not more than 22 pupils per teacher for:

(a) Kindergarten and grades 1 to 6, inclusive, for those elementary schools within the school district that include grade 6.

(b) Kindergarten and grades 1 to 5, inclusive, for those elementary schools within the school district that do not include grade 6.

A plan developed pursuant to this subsection must be submitted to the State Board.”.

Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Rawson.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES

Senator Rhoads moved that Senate Bill No. 109 be taken from the Second Reading File and placed on the Secretary’s desk.

Remarks by Senator Rhoads.

Motion carried.

SECOND READING AND AMENDMENT

Senate Bill No. 59.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Human Resources and Facilities:

Amendment No. 51.

Amend sec. 2, pages 3 and 4, by deleting lines 13 through 45 on page 3 and lines 1 through 17 on page 4, and inserting:

“2. Except for an alternative schedule described in subsection 3, the Superintendent of Public Instruction may, upon application by the board of trustees of a school district, authorize the school district to provide a program of instruction based on an alternative schedule if the number of minutes of instruction to be provided is equal to or greater than the number of minutes of instruction that would be provided in a program of instruction consisting of 180 school days. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall notify the board of trustees of the school district of the approval or denial of the application not later than 30 days after the Superintendent of Public Instruction receives the application.

3. The Superintendent of Public Instruction may, upon application by [a] the board of trustees[,] of a school district, authorize a reduction of not more than 15 school days in [a] that particular district to establish or maintain an alternative schedule consisting of a 12-month school program [or a program involving alternative scheduling,] if the board of trustees demonstrates that the proposed alternative schedule for the program provides for a [greater] number of minutes of instruction that is equal to or greater than that which would be provided under a program consisting of 180 school days. Before authorizing a reduction in the number of required school days pursuant to this subsection, the Superintendent of Public Instruction must find that the proposed alternative schedule will be used to alleviate problems associated with a growth in enrollment or overcrowding . [, or to establish and maintain a program of alternative schooling, including, without limitation, a program of distance education provided by the board of trustees pursuant to NRS 388.820 to 388.874, inclusive.

3.] 4. The Superintendent of Public Instruction may, upon application by a board of trustees, authorize the addition of minutes of instruction to any scheduled day of free school if days of free school are lost because of any interscholastic activity. Not more than 5 days of free school so lost may be rescheduled in this manner.[

4.] The provisions of this subsection do not apply to an alternative schedule approved pursuant to subsection 2.

5. The number of minutes of instruction required for a particular group of pupils in a program of instruction based on an alternative schedule approved pursuant to this section must be determined by multiplying the appropriate minimum daily period of instruction established by the State Board by regulation for that particular group of pupils by 180.

6. Each school district shall schedule at least 3 contingent days of school , or its equivalent if the school district operates under an alternative schedule authorized pursuant to this section, in addition to the number of days required by this section, which must be used if a natural disaster, inclement weather or an accident necessitates the closing of a majority of the facilities within the district.

[5.] 7. If more than 3 days of free school , or its equivalent if the school district operates under an alternative schedule authorized pursuant to this section, are lost because a natural disaster, inclement weather or an accident necessitates the closing of a majority of the facilities within a school district, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, upon application by the school district, may permit the additional days lost to be counted as school days in session. The application must be submitted in the manner prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

[6.] 8. The State Board shall adopt regulations providing procedures for changing schedules of instruction to be used if a natural disaster, inclement weather or an accident necessitates the closing of a particular school within a school district.”.

Amend the bill as a whole by renumbering sec. 7 as sec. 8 and adding a new section designated sec. 7, following sec. 6, to read as follows:

“Sec. 7. 1. If the board of trustees of a school district provides a program of instruction based upon an alternative schedule pursuant to subsection 2 of section 2 of this act, the board of trustees shall, on or before December 31, 2004, submit a written report to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The report must include:

(a) A description of the alternative schedule; and

(b) An evaluation of the effect of the alternative schedule on the pupils, parents and legal guardians and community.

2. The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall:

(a) Compile the reports, if any, submitted pursuant to subsection 1; and

(b) On or before February 1, 2005, submit a written report of the compilation to the Director of the Legislative Counsel Bureau for transmission to the 73rd Session of the Nevada Legislature.”.

Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

“AN ACT relating to education; revising provisions governing approval by the Superintendent of Public Instruction for the board of trustees of a school district to provide a program of instruction based on an alternative schedule; requiring certain reports regarding alternative schedules to be prepared by the boards of trustees of certain school districts and the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”.

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

“SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing alternative schedules of school districts. (BDR 34‑736)”.

Senator Rawson moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Rawson.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 126.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Commerce and Labor:

Amendment No. 101.

Amend the bill as a whole by deleting section 1 and adding new sections designated sections 1 through 4, following the enacting clause, to read as follows:

“Section 1. NRS 702.060 is hereby amended to read as follows:

702.060 “Municipal or local governmental utility” includes, without limitation:

1. A utility established pursuant to chapter 709 or 710 of NRS.

2. Any other utility that is owned, operated or controlled by [a] any county, city , town or other local governmental entity.

Sec. 2. NRS 702.150 is hereby amended to read as follows:

702.150 1. The provisions of NRS 702.160 do not apply to any therm of natural gas or any kilowatt-hour of electricity that a retail customer purchases from:

(a) A rural electric cooperative established pursuant to chapter 81 of NRS.

(b) A general improvement district established pursuant to chapter 318 of NRS.

(c) A cooperative association, nonprofit corporation, nonprofit association or provider of service which is declared to be a public utility pursuant to NRS 704.673 and which provides service only to its members.

(d) A municipal or local governmental utility.

2. If a retail customer is exempted from paying the universal energy charge pursuant to subsection 1, the retail customer may not receive money or other assistance from:

(a) The Welfare Division pursuant to NRS 702.260 for any utility service for which the retail customer is exempted from paying the universal energy charge; or

(b) The Housing Division pursuant to NRS 702.270.

Sec. 3. NRS 702.160 is hereby amended to read as follows:

702.160 1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and NRS 702.150, each retail customer shall pay:

(a) A universal energy charge of 3.30 mills on each therm of natural gas that the retail customer purchases from another person for consumption in this state; and

(b) A universal energy charge of 0.39 mills on each kilowatt-hour of electricity that the retail customer purchases from another person for consumption in this state.

2. The provisions of subsection 1 do not apply to:

(a) Any therm of natural gas used as a source of energy to generate electricity.

(b) Any kilowatt-hour of electricity used in industries utilizing electrolytic-manufacturing processes.

3. If a retail customer uses the distribution services of a public utility [or municipal utility] to acquire natural gas or electricity that is subject to the universal energy charge, the public utility [or municipal utility] providing the distribution services shall:

(a) Collect the universal energy charge from each such retail customer;

(b) Ensure that the universal energy charge is set forth as a separate item or entry on the bill of each such retail customer; and

(c) Not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter, remit to the Commission the total amount of money collected by the public utility [or municipal utility] for the universal energy charge for the immediately preceding calendar quarter.

4. If a retail customer does not use the distribution services of a public utility [or municipal utility] to acquire natural gas or electricity that is subject to the universal energy charge, not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the retail customer shall remit to the Commission the total amount of money owed by the retail customer for the universal energy charge for the immediately preceding calendar quarter.

5. If, during a calendar quarter, a single retail customer or multiple retail customers under common ownership and control pay, in the aggregate, a universal energy charge of more than $25,000 for all consumption of natural gas and electricity during the calendar quarter, such retail customers are entitled to a refund, for that calendar quarter, of the amount of the universal energy charge that exceeds $25,000. To receive a refund pursuant to this section, not later than 90 days after the end of the calendar quarter for which the refund is requested, such retail customers must file with the Commission a request for a refund. If a request for a refund is filed with the Commission:

(a) The Commission shall determine and certify the amount of the refund; and

(b) The refund must be paid as other claims against the State are paid from money in the Fund.

Sec. 4. NRS 702.170 is hereby amended to read as follows:

702.170 1. The Commission shall adopt regulations to carry out and enforce the provisions of NRS 702.160. Such regulations may require public utilities [, municipal utilities] and retail customers that are required to collect or remit money for the universal energy charge to file reports and to provide the Commission with information relating to compliance with the requirements of the universal energy charge.

2. In carrying out the provisions of NRS 702.160, the Commission shall solicit advice from the Consumer’s Advocate of the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the Office of the Attorney General, public utilities [and municipal utilities] and other knowledgeable persons.

3. The Commission may conduct audits and investigations of public utilities [, municipal utilities] and retail customers that are required to collect or remit money for the universal energy charge, if the Commission determines that such audits and investigations are necessary to verify compliance with the requirements of the universal energy charge. In conducting such audits and investigations, the Commission may exercise any of the investigative powers granted to the Commission pursuant to chapter 703 of NRS, including, without limitation, the power to issue orders to compel the appearance of witnesses and the production of books, accounts, papers and records.

4. To carry out its powers and duties pursuant to this chapter, the Commission is entitled to an administrative charge of not more than 3 percent of the money collected for the universal energy charge. After deduction of its administrative charge, the Commission shall deposit the remaining money collected for the universal energy charge in the State Treasury for credit to the Fund.

5. The Commission may bring an appropriate action in its own name for recovery of any money that a person fails to pay, collect or remit in violation of the requirements of the universal energy charge.”.

Amend the title of the bill, second line, by deleting “certain municipal” and inserting: “municipal and local governmental”.

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

“SUMMARY—Exempts retail customers who purchase energy from municipal and local governmental utilities from payment of universal energy charge. (BDR 58‑344)”.

Senator Hardy moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Hardy.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 202.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 204.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:

Amendment No. 62.

Amend section 1, pages 1 and 2, by deleting lines 2 through 10 on page 1 and lines 1 through 21 on page 2, and inserting:

“40.770 1. [In] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5, in any sale , lease or rental of real property, the fact that the property is or has been:

(a) The site of a homicide, suicide or death by any other cause, except a death that results from a condition of the property [, or the] ;

(b) The site of any crime punishable as a felony [; or

(b)] other than a crime that involves the manufacturing of any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of methamphetamine; or

(c) Occupied by a person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus or suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome or any other disease that is not known to be transmitted through occupancy of the property,

is not material to the transaction.

2. In any sale , lease or rental of real property, the fact that a sex offender, as defined in NRS 179D.400, resides or is expected to reside in the community is not material to the transaction, and the seller , lessor or landlord or any agent of the seller , lessor or landlord does not have a duty to disclose such a fact to a buyer , lessee or tenant or any agent of a buyer [.] , lessee or tenant.

3. A seller , lessor or landlord or any agent of the seller , lessor or landlord is not liable to the buyer , lessee or tenant in any action at law or in equity because of the failure to disclose any fact described in subsection 1 or 2 that is not material to the transaction [.] or of which the seller, lessor or landlord or agent of the seller, lessor or landlord had no actual knowledge.

4. Except as otherwise provided in an agreement between a buyer , lessee or tenant and his agent, an agent of the buyer , lessee or tenant is not liable to the buyer , lessee or tenant in any action at law or in equity because of the failure to disclose any fact described in subsection 1 or 2 that is not material to the transaction [.] or of which the agent of the buyer, lessee or tenant had no actual knowledge.

5. For purposes of this section, the fact that the property is or has been the site of a crime that involves the manufacturing of any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains any quantity of methamphetamine is not material to the transaction if:

(a) All materials and substances involving methamphetamine have been removed from or remediated on the property by an entity certified or licensed to do so; or

(b) The property has been deemed safe for habitation by a governmental entity.”.

Amend the title of the bill by deleting the fourth line and inserting: “making disclosures to a purchaser, lessee or tenant of the property under certain circumstances;”.

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

“SUMMARY—Revises certain provisions governing disclosure of certain information to purchasers, lessees and tenants of real property.(BDR 3‑562)”.

Senator Amodei moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 207.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:

Amendment No. 163.

Amend section 1, page 2, between lines 21 and 22, by inserting:

“5. The provisions of this section must not be construed to limit the recovery of benefits paid for Medicaid.”.

Amend sec. 18, page 9, line 28, by deleting “in”.

Amend sec. 18, page 10, line 4, by deleting “writing” and inserting “writing,”.

Amend sec. 18, page 10, line 5, by deleting: “and prior to the appointment of the personal representative,”.

Amend sec. 21, page 10, by deleting lines 22 and 23 and inserting:

“2. Charged in a writing by the decedent as partial or complete satisfaction of a”.

Amend sec. 22, page 10, line 27, by deleting “the contemporaneous” and inserting “a”.

Senator Amodei moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 266.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:

Amendment No. 187.

Amend section 1, page 1, line 2, by deleting: “2, 3 and 4” and inserting: “2 and 3”.

Amend the bill as a whole by deleting sec. 3 and renumbering sections 4 through 10 as sections 3 through 9.

Amend the title of the bill, second through fourth lines, by deleting: “requiring certain licensees to report certain information to the State Gaming Control Board;”.

Senator Care moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Care.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 269.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:

Amendment No. 164.

Amend section 1, page 4, line 19, by deleting: “reduction of 25” and inserting: “change of 20”.

Amend section 1, page 4, line 22, by deleting “the modification” and inserting: “a review for modification”.

Amend sec. 2, page 5, line 9, by deleting: “reduction of 25” and inserting: “change of 20”.

Amend sec. 2, page 5, line 12, by deleting “the modification” and inserting: “a review for modification”.

Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

“AN ACT relating to domestic relations; providing that a change of 20 percent or more in the gross monthly income of a person who is ordered to pay alimony or who is subject to an order for support of a child shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring a review for modification of the payments of alimony or the order for support of a child; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”.

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

“SUMMARY—Provides that change of 20 percent or more in gross monthly income of person who is ordered to pay alimony or who is subject to order for support of child shall be deemed to constitute changed circumstances requiring review for modification of payments of alimony or order for support of child. (BDR 11‑1068)”.

Senator Amodei moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 276.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 283.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 297.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 315.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by the Committee on Judiciary:

Amendment No. 166.

Amend section 1, page 1, by deleting lines 3 through 6 and inserting:

“202.2494 1. A cigarette vending machine [must not] may be placed in a public area [described in paragraph (a), (c), (e), (f), (g) or (h) of subsection 1 of NRS 202.2491, if minors are permitted access to that area.] only if persons who are under 21 years of age are prohibited from loitering in that area pursuant to NRS 202.030 or 463.350.”.

Amend the title of the bill to read as follows:

“AN ACT relating to tobacco; providing that cigarette vending machines may be placed in a public area only if persons who are under 21 years of age are prohibited from loitering in that area pursuant to certain statutes; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”.

Amend the summary of the bill to read as follows:

“SUMMARY—Provides that cigarette vending machines may be placed in public area only if persons who are under 21 years of age are prohibited from loitering in that area pursuant to certain statutes. (BDR 15‑435)”.

Senator Amodei moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 327.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 334.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 337.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 350.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 405.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 417.

Bill read second time.

The following amendment was proposed by Senator Raggio:

Amendment No. 210.

Amend section 1, page 1, line 13, after “balance” by inserting: “of the money that was received pursuant to the Act”.

Senator Raggio moved the adoption of the amendment.

Remarks by Senator Raggio.

Amendment adopted.

Bill ordered reprinted, engrossed and to third reading.

Senate Bill No. 475.

Bill read second time and ordered to third reading.

GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING

Senate Bill No. 69.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 69:

Yeas—20.

Nays—Neal.

Senate Bill No. 69 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 82.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Rawson and Neal.

Senator Neal requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.

Senator Rawson:

Thank you, Madam President. I do have a few remarks and a visual presentation. This bill deals with, essentially, our communicable disease statutes and makes some changes due to the potential of mass disaster or terrorist attack. We are concerned about these issues.

It accomplishes three things. First, it empowers health authorities to quarantine groups of people. They already have authority to quarantine individuals. If faced with large groups of infected people, they can currently quarantine with no protections. Second, this bill provides due-process protections and is the main purpose of the bill. Third, it creates a syndromic surveillance to quickly determine threat.

It was just a short time ago that all of us were shocked into realizing that things of this magnitude could affect us in this country. It is still a surprise to me to realize that there are thousands of people whose sole purpose is to kill Americans. We faced, within our own State as well as in the rest of the country, the significant problems that came with the anthrax scare and an attempt to injure large numbers of people. It pointed out, quickly, the weaknesses that we have all over the country. There are many other things besides anthrax, including plague, Q‑fever and tularemia. It turns out that anthrax is deadly and very effective, but other agents are contagious—transmitted between individuals. I will talk about smallpox shortly. There is a significant death rate with many of these agents, and they are easy to get hold of and easy to spread.

As we look at this bill, we need to realize that the veil of civilization is very thin. Anywhere you look in the world, there are small sets of rules and behaviors that keep us from deteriorating.

In addition to Afghanistan, there are at least 50 areas of the world that are undergoing the same kind of strife, disruption and jeopardy. We have people that have actually used weapons of mass destruction within the last decade. We know of significant numbers of people that have been affected by those weapons including the Kurdish population ten years ago when 5,000 innocent people were victims of nerve gas.

There are terrorist cells everywhere. I listened to an interview a few days ago where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) budget was discussed. The FBI testified that Al Queda still has the ability to do significant damage in this country, without notice.

How scared should we be, and what should we be doing about it? Our agencies are preparing. In our State, we have a new officer for Homeland Security. There are significant drills and practices being conducted. We have received a $10-million grant to improve our biological capability. If we had an anthrax letter in this building, today, we would be in the same trouble that we were in several years ago. We recognize that it could shut us down.

Our communities have certainly geared up with the hazardous materials suits and some training. Following the anthrax scare, we had a run on antibiotics. It was not an issue of whether you had to take Cypro. People were demanding this particular antibiotic. Pharmacies and doctors were running out of this antibiotic because of the fear that was generated. There are many legal questions which is why there is so much debate on this bill, and we are presenting it now. There are many questions about priority of treatment. Do we worry about those who are infected or those who are elderly or maybe we should worry about our younger generation? Do we care for only those who can afford it, or do we care for the Medicaid patients? Some of these questions have been answered, and some have not.

We ran into an absolute firestorm on the issue of vaccination. We have developed in this bill a religious exemption and a requirement that any treatment be by consent. The real issues are still there. If they offered a smallpox vaccination today, how many of you would actually have the vaccination? With any significant exposure to smallpox, we would probably suffer three million deaths in this country. It spreads quickly. The one good thing is that once you are exposed the vaccine is still good so it is treatable.

There are many other legal questions. We cannot answer all of them. This bill deals with the quarantine of tens of thousands of individuals, not just a family here or there. It gives public health officials the authority to quarantine large groups. We already have the authority to quarantine individuals. When it comes to that kind of quarantine, what would the conditions be like? They need to be humane and the least restrictive. You need to have access to your cell phones. This should not be an incarceration but should be something for your protection. The bill addresses those questions. Many additional questions remain.

Therefore, as we look at all of the different issues and what must be done, we need to empower our public health officers with the ability to seek out the infections. This bill specifically requires syndromic reporting so that if we see people getting sick from a certain kind of food or in a certain area of the State, we can quickly respond. We have many places that simply cannot be protected by putting National Guard troops around them. We need to have additional surveillance.

Smallpox was eradicated in the seventies. Now, we find out that governments have active stockpiles of weapons-grade smallpox. That should be disturbing to all of us, especially, because it is not all accounted for. We may see quarantine signs again in this country for larger groups than we have ever faced.

I heartily present this bill and ask for your support. I recognize that people will be concerned about the idea of being able to detain a sizable number of people. We have built specific due-process protections, which is the beauty of this bill. You take a situation that we are likely to face in this State and in this country, and we have built in the protections ahead of time. People cannot be detained without due process or without being able to seek immediate relief through injunction.

I commend the work that has gone into this bill, and I think we have a good result. Thank you.

Senator Neal:

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this bill. When I viewed the slide presentation under the title of Homeland Security, it gave me pause as to whose homeland and whose security we are trying to protect. I tried to figure out what connection it had with the bill before us. The bill before us deals with all infectious diseases. It gives unbridled discretion to the health authority, whomever that may be, to quarantine individuals or groups based upon what the health authority reasonably believes that an individual or group is infected.

The Senator has indicated that there are certain due-process provisions in this measure of which the person or groups who are quarantined can take advantage, but, here again, it talks about being quarantined and being put into an area where a person might have reasonable access to a telephone or be placed in a reasonable location, if possible. There are some places in this State where a camp may be set up to send individuals to who would not have telephone communications and where individuals could not be reached.

Those of you whom I would describe as the free Americans who have not been subject to discrimination, who have not had your race subjected to syphilis testing, you might be prone to condone such a proposal when it is classified under the definition of terrorism.

Of course, we worry about anthrax, but that is not the real issue in terms of terrorism today. The issue we have before us is that when you get on a plane, you may be shot out of the sky. That is the real issue of terrorists.

We have had many issues such as smallpox and other diseases that have been visited upon various populations in this country, and through our present health authority, we have been able to correct those. When we had the scourge of tuberculoses, our present health authorities addressed those issues. They also eradicated them. We did not have, and never had in statute, that when we respond to a military situation, we give someone the authority to go out and select individuals based on the reasonable conclusion that they might have some type of disease.

Think with me for a moment, if we had such a law in the State of California when the AIDS epidemic began in the San Francisco area, every gay man and gay woman would have been subject to quarantine under this statute. Think about it, were they? No, they were not. Do we still have that scourge now? It is being dissipated to the point that we are trying to find a cure. This piece of legislation is more like what was done to the Japanese during the World War II when we took them from San Francisco, Los Angeles and many other places and place them in camps and quarantined them because of who they were even though they were not infected by the diseases mentioned in this bill. That authority was given at that particular time. If you are fearful of anything, make certain it is of the right thing. Make certain you are fearful of the authority that you have given to individuals who make these decisions. That is the fear you should fear.

I know the Senator has good intentions in trying to address these issues, but as they stand now, anthrax is not a disease that can be transmitted between individuals. It is something you are exposed to; then you are infected by it. You do not get it by sneezing on someone as you would tuberculosis. Smallpox is something we should be concerned about. Does it require, because of the terrorist scare, the type of measure we have before us today? It does not. We have ample authority to deal with those issues without putting them into statute. This says someone may decide whether to quarantine an individual or a group based on reasonable expectations.

I live in a community that is highly segregated. Most blacks live where I live. What if an individual in my community, in your community or in your white ghetto contracted smallpox? Does that mean that every individual in that area could be quarantined in that area? Yes, it does under this bill, and you give that authority to the health authority to make that decision. Will he make it properly for the white population? I do not know. It is within his discretion to choose because we are giving him the discretion to do that. Would he take someone from the residence at 304 Lance Street and send him off somewhere? Yes, he could because we give him the discretion to do that. When we talk about the terrorists, let us not use that as a means of disguising the taking away of the rights of individuals.

This is a great country. It is not great because we had great people, it is great because we have a great document called the Constitution of the United States of America. I am glad that somewhere in our past, some judge saw fit to incorporate the 13th and the 14th Amendment into the Constitution. I stand, today, in an attempt to defend that document. As innocuous as this may seem, this measure is not needed as it is stated.

Follow with me, just for a moment. When we had the anthrax scare our Governor called upon the health authority to look at the problem. We did not have, within the State government, the authority to deal with it because, through our efforts to save money, we had transferred those authorities to the University of Nevada, Reno. The University looked at the information and found they did not have the individuals on staff to deal with it. The information had to go to Georgia to the Center for Disease Control. This agency came up with an opinion as to what it was we were dealing with. We were not quarantined to accomplish this.

I say to you, let us not be frightened. Let us look at what the real issue is. Someone asked me why I drive most of the time and why I keep on driving. I happen to know there are many shoulder missiles missing. We do not know whether they are in this country or not. One of the most frightening things, now, is that some plane is going to be shot down. Is this bill going to solve that? No, it is not.

I stood on this floor some years ago debating the issue of nuclear waste. I said that nuclear waste was not the greatest threat when we look at threat assessments in this State. I brought up smallpox and anthrax at that time because I was watching what was happening and some of my contacts indicated that was going to be the case. I will tell, you now, this bill, if passed, is going to do us much damage. There is someone in Washington, D.C., who knows the effect of this legislation. We see it happening all across the country. This will not be the only thing coming. It will not be in this Legislature but, probably, in Congress dealing with issues trying to take advantage of terrorists. They will try to mold this country into something other than the one the people are used to. This is now a country protected by a constitution. I prefer the Constitution rather than living in a dictatorship. Think about it. I would hate to come back at a future time and have someone say Senator Neal stood on this floor and he told you so. It is all right to help with Homeland Security, but we have to think about what brought us here, how we came to live in a free society.

It was not because of President Bush going to war with Iraq. It was because of the Constitution we believed in, and the people saw fit to defend it. Yet, we see the chipping away of it. Some in government are convinced that it is better to give up certain rights than to question what is actually happening. I choose to question what is happening. If I stand alone on this issue as the only vote in this House, so be it. I will be that vote because I believe in our Constitutional process. I believe this bill is being labeled as a cure for some of our ills in the future in terms of health threats. It is a bill that will take away rights of individuals and will make us susceptible to a single authority. That is what it is all about. It is about getting us to accept a single authority. It would be the forerunner of a dictatorship in this country. It gives the health authority the power to determine who is quarantined and who is not, who can receive telephone calls after they are quarantined and who will not. That goes against a country that is supposed to be based upon majority rule.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 82:

Yeas—16.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Neal, Schneider, Titus—5.

Senate Bill No. 82 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 91.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 91:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 91 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 105.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Neal and Amodei.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 105:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 105 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 110.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 110:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 110 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 112.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senator Tiffany.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 112:

Yeas—20.

Nays—Neal.

Senate Bill No. 112 having received a two-thirds majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 141.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Neal and Townsend.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 141:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 141 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 148.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 148:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 148 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 170.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Neal and Hardy.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 170:

Yeas—15.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Mathews, Neal, Titus, Wiener—6.

Senate Bill No. 170 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 195.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senator Hardy.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 195:

Yeas—15.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Mathews, Neal, Titus, Wiener—6.

Senate Bill No. 195 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND NOTICES

Senator Amodei moved that Senate Bill No. 199 be taken from the General File and placed on the General File for the next legislative day.

Remarks by Senator Amodei.

Motion carried.

GENERAL FILE AND THIRD READING

Senate Bill No. 221.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Titus and Washington.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 221:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 221 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 249.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 249:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 249 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 253.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 253:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 253 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed, as amended.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 254.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Neal, Schneider, Coffin, Cegavske, Washington and Titus.

Senators Townsend, Rawson and Rhoads moved the previous question.

Motion carried.

The question being on the passage of Senate Bill No. 254.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 254:

Yeas—13.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Schneider, Titus, Wiener—8.

Senate Bill No. 254 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 287.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senator Wiener.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 287:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 287 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 328.

Bill read third time.

Remarks by Senators Neal and Hardy.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 328:

Yeas—21.

Nays—None.

Senate Bill No. 328 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Bill No. 353.

Bill read third time.

Roll call on Senate Bill No. 353:

Yeas—17.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Neal, Titus—4.

Senate Bill No. 353 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Bill ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 6.

Resolution read third time.

Remarks by Senators Washington, Titus, Raggio, Care and Coffin.

Senator Titus requested that the following remarks be entered in the Journal.

Senator Washington:

I rise in support of this resolution, this morning, because Miguel Estrada, who is a nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, embodies the spirit of the American Dream.

He is an immigrant from Honduras who came to this country at the age of 17. He is an inspiration to all those who wish to come to this country and even to those who are native born. Miguel Estrada did not use his handicaps as a disadvantage but used them to his advantage. He took the opportunity to learn English, to apply himself and to achieve great heights. He graduated in 1963 with a Bachelors Degree, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from Columbia College. In 1968, he received his J. D. degree, magna cum laude, while the editor at Harvard School of Law. From 1968 to 1969, Miguel Estrada served as a clerk to the United States Court of Appeals. He also served as clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the United States Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada’s qualifications are undeniable. He has great desire and great drive. I have only mentioned a few of his accomplishments. There are many who have praised his worthiness.

Randolph Moss, from the Assistant Attorney General’s Office, under President Clinton, wrote, “I write to express my strong support for the nomination of Miguel Estrada for the United States Supreme Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia. Although I am a Democrat and Miguel and I do not see eye to eye on every issue, I hold Miguel to the highest regard, and I urge this committee to give him a favorable condition for his nomination.” This is just one individual who supports Miguel’s nomination. It is funny, Madam President, that when we have great men who come before us, who have risen to the heights of Miguel Estrada, sometimes we hold them back because of their political philosophy or ideology. In one of the articles I read, there were several allegations leveled against Miguel Estrada. Some came from his own people, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Any time you stray away from the reservation, you become tagged, set aside and sometimes maligned as, for example, was Justice Clarence Thomas, former Representative from Oklahoma, J. C. Watts, or even myself who have refused to accept liberal ideology.

Another allegation leveled against Miguel Estrada is that he has not been forthcoming with his memorandums; because of his profession, those memorandums are not subject to disclosure. This man is an inspiration to young people and proves that you can rise to the heights of your dreams. The United States Senate should take action on this nomination and vote for or against it. This resolution asks for that vote. Someone said it is a waste of time, but I believe it is important. The men and women we ask to serve in our judicial system should have the utmost integrity. They should have the skills, the ability and should be given the opportunity to serve not based on their political philosophy but based on their credentials. Madam President, I rise, once again, in support of this resolution asking that the United States Senate vote “yea” or “nay” for Miguel Estrada.

Senator Titus:

I rise in opposition to this resolution for reasons that have little to do with the nominee himself. I am not opposed to the resolution because Manuel Estrada declines to answer general questions about his ideological beliefs or because he refuses to turn over to the Senate briefs he wrote in the past. Nor does my opposition stem from the fact that Estrada has had several cases overturned by the United States Supreme Court on first amendment grounds; that he’s spent much of his career representing Aetna in cases defending HMOs, nor that he was Kenneth Starr’s assistant solicitor general.

Some in this body may think Estrada would be a fine judge while others may hesitate to confirm him as a member of what has been called the second most important court in the country without first receiving additional information. But all that is really beside the point. We are not here to vote on Estrada’s confirmation. We are here to vote on Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 that I oppose for reasons that go far beyond any particular individual.

First, I find it disingenuous, if not downright hypocritical, for the proponents of this resolution to suggest that Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats are being obstructionists and are deliberately delaying President Bush’s judicial appointments for “political” reasons. The truth is, when Democrats controlled the Senate, they set a record-breaking pace in confirming nominees. The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 80 judicial nominees within the first 15 months of President Bush’s administration, more than were confirmed by the Republican Senate during the first 15 months of President Reagan’s, President Bush Sr.’s, or President Clinton’s administration. On the other hand, more than a dozen Clinton nominees had to wait over 500 days to be confirmed—nine waited over 700 days, four waited over 900 days, two waited over 1,000 days, and one, Richard Paez, waited 1,520 days. Not once during that time did we send a resolution urging the Senate to take action.

Second, I am offended by the proponents’ shameless use of the ethnic card and their ridiculous insinuation that Democrats are in some way anti-Hispanic. In fact, when Democrats led the Senate Judiciary Committee, they approved six Hispanic nominees. The Republican record on Hispanic nominees under Clinton, however, was dismal. Those who never even received a hearing include Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno, Christine Arguello, Richard Morado, Anabelle Rodriguez and Sam Paez.

Third, while I appreciate the proponents’ elaboration of Estrada’s resume, let me share with you the credentials of some of the Hispanic judges who were nominated by President Clinton and never even received a confirmation hearing, much less a vote.

Jorge Rangel is a Harvard law graduate with a “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association (ABA) as is Enrique Moreno, another Harvard law graduate with a unanimous rating of “well qualified” by the ABA. Christine Arguello was the first Latina to graduate from Harvard in 1980 where she served as editor of the Harvard Civil Rights Law Review. Anabelle Rodrguez was the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, just to mention a few, not too shabby.

Fourth, we have so much to do during this legislative session that is of critical nature for Nevada—medical malpractice, construction defects, budget cuts and tax increases—that I must ask why in the world we are wasting time on a resolution which is a federal matter and which is going to have no impact whatsoever on events in the United States Senate related to the Estrada confirmation.

Finally, this is a time in our history when we must all work together, and yet, this resolution represents politics at its worst. Why are the proponents bringing the partisan battle of Washington into the halls of the Nevada Legislature? The Nation is at war and the State is facing an economic crisis. Instead of fanning the fires of partisanship with resolutions like this, we should be looking for common ground.

Senator Raggio:

Thank you, Madam President. We discussed this in committee, and it came out on a partisan vote. I fully expect that is what will happen, today, because that is what has driven this train every day it has been discussed in our Nation’s Capitol. This has been a partisan situation with the Democrats being opposed to it.

I am surprised that I heard the previous speaker talk about “playing the ethnic card” when that is all I have heard this morning on several measures on which we have voted. Unfortunately, that is not the situation here. This is a situation where someone, extremely qualified, is being denied a vote on the floor of the Senate. That is what this resolution urges, not due to previously mentioned reasons but because of philosophy. That is the truth in this situation. It is a matter of philosophy, not Democrat or Republican but a matter of whether this nominee is a liberal or not.

We heard some testimony from various liberal supporters as to whether or not we should consider this. I find it interesting that this is the type of resolution they are suggesting should not be heard because it is a federal issue. I have sat here for 30 years and seen resolutions directed to Congress on every matter from alimony to zebras from some of the previous speakers. This has a little more importance than some of the others I have been asked to vote on. I have no reluctance to take a stand on this because I think it is especially important.

We should be concerned about who serves on the United States Court of Appeals and on the Supreme Court. Here is a situation where they are denying the largest growing minority in the country an opportunity to have, for the first time, one of their most distinguished individuals serve on the United States Court of Appeals. Senator Washington has outlined his credentials. I challenge anyone to suggest there is anyone else with greater credentials than his.

Miguel Estrada went through Harvard with an outstanding record. He went through Harvard Law School and graduated magna cum laude and served as editor of the Harvard Law Review. I do not know of many others who serve on the federal bench who have these kinds of credentials. He is being faulted by those who challenge this because he does not want to have his memos released that were written when he served as an Assistant Solicitor General. Every previous Assistant Solicitor General has come out in favor of his nomination, including Democrats who have served in that position. Archibald Cox, among others, testified before the committee.

Ronald Klain, former counselor to Vice President Al Gore, stated, “Miguel is a person of outstanding character, tremendous intellect and with a deep commitment to the faithful application of precedent.”

I thought that was what we judged. That is the standard Congress and the Senate ought to judge all judicial nominees by.

“Miguel,” and I quote, “will rule justly toward all without showing favor to any group or individual.”

This is the concern, that he will not show favor to liberal causes. A President of the United States ought to have the opportunity and the right to nominate judges. I have a little longer memory than the distinguished Minority Leader. I can go back to when Senator Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, before the era she talked about, and they could not get a Republican presidential nominee nominated to the Court. They sat on all the nominations. Our own Federal Judge Larry Hicks waited a year and did not get the appointment that he had earned. They waited until the Democrats took over control of the Senate, and they withdrew him and put in another nominee. Fortunately, later, he was recognized when we had a new President, President George W. Bush, and he was re-nominated. He serves today, and he is a very qualified judge.

We need to stop this politics in appointing judges. Let us stop this. I say this to the Republicans as well. Let us judge them by their credentials, not by their philosophy, not by whether they are Republican or a Democrat but by whether they can be fair and can rule justly.

Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General to President Clinton said, “During the time Mr. Estrada and I worked together, he was the model of professionalism and competence. In no way, did I ever discern the recommendations Mr. Estrada made or the views he propounded were colored in anyway by his personal views.”

I could go on and on. The League of United Latin American Citizens, Rick Dovalina, national president, the nation’s oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization, expressed strong support for the confirmation of Miguel Estrada. It is time we took a position on this.

Yes, we do have many other things to do. Hopefully, that is an indication that we will do them without partisan or sectional concerns. We should do that, but in this situation, we are derelict. We should have taken a position on some of these other items, like whether or not in the Iraq conflict we should have waited for the United Nations to dictate foreign policy. There was a lot of that going on from the other side.

This is an important issue. Let it be voted on partisan lines, but we should take a stand and urge the United States Senate to let a floor vote occur on whether or not this man is qualified to serve in this high position.

Senator Care:

Thank you, Madam President. For twenty-one months, I was the State Chairman of the Democratic Party. During that time, I developed a friendship with my Republic counterpart, Bob Seale. I think Bob Seale and I went on television seven or eight times together and faced off. Every time we concluded those programs, we would go out in the parking lot and joke and would frequently have the same stories and the same problems. We would talk in terms of direction. For him, it would be extreme right. For me, it would be extreme left. The names would be a little different, but we had, generally, the same problems.

Bob understood as well as I do that sometimes you do have to get partisan. That is part of the two-party system in this country. Before I came here on January 29, I resigned as State Party Chairman because I realized there is a lot that we are going to have to do this session. I did not want to be a partisan voice if I could at all avoid doing that. Unfortunately, that seems to have happened today.

We are halfway through the session and now we have this. The way you handle these Appellate Court nominations, in my judgment as an attorney, is to write a letter to Orrin Hatch, which I did on January 22 supporting the nomination of Jay Bybee. He is the, now, former law professor at Boyd School of Law. He took the bench on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on April 1. There were 14 Democrats in the Senate who voted against him, but most Democrats voted with him. I wrote the letter for two reasons. Number one, Nevada falls within the Ninth Circuit. Someday, I might have to appear in front of Judge Bybee. Number two, I had worked with the man on legal matters, and I had students that I hired as law clerks who had a high regard for him. I do not know anything about the man’s politics and do not care. I know the man so I wrote the letter. I could ask how many proponents of this measure have written similar letters on behalf of Miguel Estrada. I am not going to ask that question. If we are going to talk about Miguel Estrada and the Hispanics, maybe we ought to talk about Miguel Chavez, the gentleman who was the appellant in the case called Chavez v. Sievers. It is 118 Nevada Advance Opinion No. 28. It came out last year by the Nevada Supreme Court. Senator Neal has introduced a bill because the Supreme Court said, on a four to three vote, that it is okay to discriminate on a basis of race in employment so long as you have fewer than fifteen employees. Senator Neal’s bill would, I believe, correct that. So let us think about Senate Bill No. 22, Miguel Chavez and not just Miguel Estrada, today, if we are going to talk about legislation.

Before this goes too much further, let me conclude with a story which carries a message. We have teachers, lobbyists and parents watching us. We know that we have severe financial problems. One of the other major issues that we have in this session is Homeland Security versus the preservation of individual rights. That is not an easy subject to legislate on, but we have to do it. These are not partisan issues in my judgment. I want to leave the body with a little story. There is a message in it, look for it if you can.

It is a story about how at the height of the Vietnam War a certain general was visiting the troops at Walter Reed Hospital. He came into an orthopedic ward and saw a young man in a body cast with IV tubes in both arms, and the general was hesitant but just had to know. He said, “Young man, what happened to you?” This young soldier got the strength to answer, and he said, “Well, sir, one night I was up there on the DMV, and I heard a North Vietnamese regular soldier stand up and yell, “LBJ is an S.O.B.,” and he fired off a clip from his AK-47. I stood up and yelled, “Ho Cho Minh is an S.O.B.,” and I fired off an M-16. Then while we were standing there in the mud shaking hands, a tank ran over us.” Thank you, President Hunt.

Senator Coffin:

Thank you, Madam President. That was a wonderful story from the Senator from Clark County, and one we should all remember.

There was a statement made, and I immediately caught it, but I do not know if the Senator from Washoe County, the Republican Majority Leader, misspoke and meant to say what he said or was careless in his speech when he indicated that speakers on previous measures had pulled the “race card.” It was not a proper statement, and I want to hear from the Majority Leader what he really meant when he said, “previous speakers had pulled the race card.”

Senator Raggio:

Thank you, Madam President. I was referring to the testimony on several of the bills, today, indicating they thought school choice and the quarantine situation were something that involved race, as with the previous bill. That is what I understood was said, yes.

Senator Coffin:

The Majority Leader is missing the point. Anything having to do with race or sex can be legitimately entered into during the discourse on any important subject. I have been lucky as a member of a minority race, as the Majority Leader, in the sense that I am fair skinned and have not been discriminated against as other people have. On the other hand, my mother was, and the Majority Leader’s mother probably was, discriminated against. However, if you felt passionately about something that might have affected your parents because of their race, ethnicity or their sex, you would feel, perhaps, that having brought that perspective to the debate is a legitimate point. To have been accused of using a “race card” is a racist statement in itself, and I object to it.

Senator Washington:

Thank you, Madam President. Today, I have listened to my colleague from the south. This body has integrity and tries to do the right thing without discrimination of race, gender or social economics.

We are people of diversity from different lifestyles, backgrounds and cultures, but the intent of this body is to pass laws and develop legislation that is going to be good for the whole State. When accusations are leveled against one or another, we lose the essence of what we are all about. I do not think the Majority Leader was going after any one person but referring to the statements that were made concerning legislation. I disapprove of the fact that anyone would stand here and say that one of us is racist. This body acts prudently, judiciously and with integrity. Unfortunately, there are times in which the legislation we deliberate on falls down party lines, racial lines or even gender lines, but I do not believe that anyone here would promulgate, speak, point or accuse anybody of being racist in this body. I would like to think that we are above that. I would like to think that those issues dealt with during the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King’s era have imbedded themselves inside of us. We should at least rise to the level, the heights and the spirit of our country’s written Constitution.

I understand, the past sins and failures of this great country, but we are here to live and work together. It is important that before we speak this rhetoric, we think about the things we say, to whom they may hurt or offend. Madam President, I sincerely believe that each and every one of us—man, woman, Republican or Democrat—is here to do the best job we can for the citizens of this great State.

Senators Townsend, Rawson and Hardy moved the previous question.

Motion carried.

The question being on the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 6.

Roll call on Senate Joint Resolution No. 6:

Yeas—13.

Nays—Care, Carlton, Coffin, Mathews, Neal, Schneider, Titus, Wiener—8.

Senate Joint Resolution No. 6 having received a constitutional majority, Madam President declared it passed.

Resolution ordered transmitted to the Assembly.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Signing of Bills and Resolutions

There being no objections, the President and Secretary signed Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 13.

GUESTS EXTENDED PRIVILEGE OF SENATE FLOOR

On request of Senator Care, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Tyler Hanson, Jessica Wood and Reagan Nickels.

On request of Senator McGinness, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Mark W. McDonald, Paul A. Richied and George H. Alm.

On request of Senator Rawson, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Candace Charlene Kant.

On request of Senator Raggio, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Nevada State Medical Association Alliance members: John Williamson, Eva Rosenauck, Jim Breeden, Sharon Cecchi, Katy Mann, Lucille Patty, Nancy Klose, Midge Breeden, Martha Voyevidki, Ruth Halvorsen, Carol Coppola, Kainey Lieberstein, Mary Ann Zuagheri, Robin Fuller, Anna McGays, Patricia Hicks, Linda Davis, Nancy James, Larry James, Christine Lazzarini, Judy McLib, Shayne Del Cohen, Linda Smith and Rene Roves.

On request of Senator Rhoads, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to students from the Jackpot High School.

On request of Senator Washington, the privilege of the floor of the Senate Chamber for this day was extended to Edward Lynn, Steven Lee and the following students and faculty from the Washoe County Gifted and Talented Center: David Miller, Chris Johnson, Jake Ward, Amelia Wilson, Cody Hamilton, Peter Klipfel, Nathan Crumrine, Justin Sykes, Tom Schumacker, Linda Wrubel, Morgan Triplett, Brianna Bakker, Nikola Petrovic, Michael Brookshire, Josh Lundin, Brandon Rieken, Christian Manning, Ann Louie, Jason Lin, Kylie Stevens, David Love, Tré Johnson, Corry Coss, Lexus Fisher, Patrick Daniels, Suzette Smith, Zach Danhardt, Carlos Garcia, Matt Stewart Francis, Greg Witezak, Lechelle Smith, Paul Nevis, Jay Cortez, Andrew Millette, Taylor Yancy; teachers: Rolann Aronson, Karen Bowman, Conda Arteaga and Robert Mitchell.

Senator Raggio moved that the Senate adjourn until Friday, April 4, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Motion carried.

Senate adjourned at 2 p.m.

Approved: Lorraine T. Hunt

President of the Senate

Attest: Claire J. Clift

Secretary of the Senate