Senate Session Transcript for 05/23/2007

End of Senate Agenda #1

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, would like to mark a few items on our Calendar to begin with, to try to hit the ground running today. We will do a couple of Ready items that were PT'd from yesterday before breaking for our caucuses and more detailed Calendar markings.

Mr. President, the first item is on Calendar Page 2, Calendar 244, Senate Bill 74, would mark that item Go.

And then on Calendar Page 4, Calendar 493, House Bill 7160, would mark those two items to begin with, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calling Senate Calendar for Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Favorable Reports, Calendar Page 2, Calendar 244, File 236, Senate Bill 74, An Act Concerning Oversight of Pharmacy Benefit Management Plans, Favorable Report of the Committee on Insurance.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

The question is on passage. Will you remark, Sir?

SEN. CRISCO:

Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 7649. I request that it be called and I be given permission to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7649, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Crisco of the 17^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark, Sir?

SEN. CRISCO:

Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, the PBM concept is something really somewhat extraordinary. It's hard to believe that before their inception, that the insurance companies, the pharmaceuticals, other entities did not really coordinate or manage pharmaceutical benefits.

And with the emergence of the PBMs, we saw a whole new industry that was created, basically, through American ingenuity. And I just want to advise the Circle what we're referring to.

For example, the volume of business, while drugs are obviously very expensive, Meco Company does something like $ 42 billion a year in revenue. A group of CVS, CareMart and PharmaCare, does $ 43 billion a year. Express Scripts does $ 176 million.

So it's quite a [inaudible] extraordinary business that has developed over the past eight or ten years. And what the Insurance Company was very interested in, along with the Department of Insurances, some responsible accountability and transparency.

And basically, LCO 7649, which is the bill, does that. First, it sets up a registration system so the state will know whether there's 2 PBMs or 1,000 in business in the State of Connecticut.

It sets up a surety bond mechanism, which, you know, accounts for small businesses or large businesses, creating a lot of equity there. It creates a payment mechanism to make sure that they're eligible for prompt payment.

And since we are developing new legislation, and eventually other requirements, we exclude them from the PPM network. So, Mr. President, I say that this is a very worthwhile effort.

It's taken several years, and we look forward to be one of the, perhaps the first state in the union to provide accountability and transparency for, you know [inaudible] business. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment Schedule “A”? Will you remark further? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? So ordered. Senate “A” is adopted. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would move that the bill as amended be referred to the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, the bill is referred to the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 4, Calendar 493, File 470, Substitute for House Bill 7160, An Act Concerning Funerals, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Health and General Law.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill makes some changes in the laws regarding funerals, particularly in the area where a person has died in one state, or out of state and is returned to Connecticut for burial or cremation. I'm sorry, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on passage. Will you remark further, Senator? Will you remark? Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY:

If there are no objections, I would ask that this be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, the bill has been moved to the Consent Calendar. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. We have two additional bills to mark Go at this time. One is Calendar Page 6, Calendar 588, Calendar Page 7, Calendar 600.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk, please call Calendar--

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 6, Calendar 588, Files 288 and 698, Substitute for House Bill 6646, An Act Concerning Medicaid Billing Practices for Federally Qualified Health Centers, Favorable Report of the Committee on Human Services and Appropriations.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Harris from West Hartford, you have the floor, Sir.

SEN. HARRIS:

Thank you, Mr. President, good morning. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on passage. Will you remark, please.

SEN. HARRIS:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill allows the Department of Social Services to reimburse federally qualified health centers, under the Medicaid program, for multiple Medicaid behavioral health or dental services.

Under the current system, if a patient goes to an FQHC and presents with a particular dental problem, and that problem is addressed, the patient cannot go and have, that same day, another dental procedure.

It has to be billed separately on a separate day, therefore requiring the patient that's there at the FQHC to leave and come back. This makes sense. It's part of our overall healthcare reform, when we're trying to open up the FQHCs and build access.

And I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Kissel, and the Members of Human Services. This is another example of the way that we function and work together in a bipartisan fashion, and I urge adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further?

SEN. HARRIS:

If there's no objection, Mr. President, I ask that it be placed on Consent.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing none, the item is placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 7, Calendar 600, File 637 and 821, House Bill 6060, An Act Concerning Disruption of a Funeral, as amended by House Amendment Schedule “A”, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

The question is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark, Sir?

SEN. MCDONALD:

I will, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee had the opportunity this year to hear from a number of United States Veterans of the Armed Services, as well as a group called the Patriot Guard, relating to their activities, which are done on a volunteer basis, to help protect the solemnity of funerals for men and women who have given their lives in the service of their country.

Mr. President, it is a sad fact that sometimes, those who have given the greatest sacrifice to their country have their families be subjected to disruptions during their funerals.

At a time when our attention, our focus, and our prayer should be with those veterans and their families, some amongst us see it as an opportunity to protest.

And, frankly, Mr. President, most of those protesters come from out of state, from the Westborough Baptist Church, who utilize military funerals for advocating their political agenda.

And while we are fully cognizant of the rights of anybody to free speech, we are also cognizant to the rights of family members to lay to rest their loved ones in peace and solitude.

So, Mr. President, this bill would prohibit demonstrations at a funeral service or memorial service, up to 60 minutes before or after a funeral. And it would also require that any demonstrations be at least 300 feet from the boundary of the ceremony or cemetery.

Mr. President, a violation of this bill would be subject to a Class A misdemeanor charge, which is punishable by up to one year in prison or a fine of up to $ 2,000. And I urge adoption in accordance with the House, which, fortunately, passed this unanimously.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on passage in concurrence with the House of Representatives. Senator Kissel, you have the floor.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I stand in strong support of the bill. I'd like to thank Senator McDonald for bringing this bill forward this morning and working on the legislation, as well as Senator Fasano, who has been a champion regarding this issue, regarding this entire Legislative Session.

Unfortunately, I had an opportunity to have firsthand experience regarding the disruption of a military funeral in my hometown of Enfield, where I reside with my wife and my two little boys.

A young man, 19 years old, Philip Johnson, Marine, was killed in Iraq right around Labor Day. And I can tell you that I saw Philip growing up because Philip grew up four houses up the road from where we live.

A nice kid, always wanted to be a Marine, ever since he was a little boy. In fact, joined Young Marines up in Massachusetts and excelled there. I knew his parents. And one of the things that my family and I do is that we dress up at Halloween time and go door to door.

And I can tell you, we've knocked on the Johnson's door, and so we all know each other on that street. And when Labor Day arrived, and we knew that Philip was killed in Iraq, it hurt not only the people in the neighborhood, on our street, but the whole Town of Enfield.

And the whole Town of Enfield came out for Phil Johnson's funeral. When the casket arrived at Bradley International Airport, there was a huge, huge amount of police cruisers that transported that coffin and Philip's remains to the appropriate funeral parlor.

The reason I talk about this is that this was a major event because this was the second Marine that Enfield had lost over in the Middle East since the war began, and certainly the youngest.

And so the whole town was very sad, and there were arrangements made to bring folks to the funeral and the mass or the service, Lutheran church, that was held for Philip Johnson.

And I remember being in the shuttle bus with my wife, going to the church, and seeing, a short distance from the church, an individual dressed up in a clown costume. And for the life of me, I could not understand how anybody could dress up in a clown costume to protest the war at such a solemn occasion.

I hope to God that Philip's parents did not see that. I actually know them to be tough enough that if they did, they would probably just let it go.

But it struck me as completely inappropriate that when our young men and women are out there, fighting for our nation, no matter where that might be, that people use their funerals as an opportunity to protest in extraordinarily strange ways.

Senator McDonald is actually kind in talking about the public hearing, where we learned that there's certain groups out there that utilize these situations to protest.

There's one in particular, and, you know, they have a right, First Amendment Freedom of Speech, but they tend to look very down on the military.

And I believe that part of what we learned was that they feel that homosexuals, homosexual males and lesbian women, are sinful individuals and that these problems that have affected our nation with terrorists and that the loss of our men and women around the globe is somehow some kind of just retribution.

I can't fathom that. It's their right to say that. It's their right to protest. But I guess when you think that way, it's appropriate to dress up like a clown at a funeral for a soldier, or a Marine, or to hold up placards and banners at that occasion.

What this law does is it strikes a balance between constitutionally protected rights to free speech, which we all cherish, and, indeed, I believe walking into the Capitol this morning, I saw folks at the Supreme Court steps both in favor of same sex marriage and in opposition to same sex marriage.

And you know what, I got a little thrilled because that's what this country is all about, appropriate protest and articulating of one's views. But the funeral for a soldier, a Marine, sailor, pilot? No, no, no.

Let the parents grieve. Let the family members grieve. Let the friends grieve. Let the community grieve and pay homage to these great warriors that we owe so much to, our freedoms.

It is those folks that allow people to protest, and we at least owe them that dignity in their final moments. Mr. President, at this point, I'd like to yield to Senator Fasano if he would accept the yield.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Fasano, do you accept the yield, Sir?

SEN. FASANO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I do.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. FASANO:

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kissel, for the yield and the kind words. And, Senator McDonald, thank you for bringing out this bill.

And I'd also like to thank Senator Maynard, who is the Chairman of our Select Committee on Veterans Affairs, and I will say that Senator Maynard and I had a public hearing on this matter, with respect to military funerals.

And at this public hearing, we became more aware of the group that Senator Kissel talked about, and Senator McDonald talked about, and the signs that they held, that were only purpose were to be hurtful, not to send a message regarding the Iraq War, but to send a message regarding the belief in gay rights that they did not share.

And because they believe United States shared a belief in gay rights, they should be punished by soldiers being killed by what they consider the act of God in the Iraq War. How obscene a statement could you get? How obscene?

Now it has touched, as Senator Kissel said, the funeral in Connecticut. It also was threatened against another funeral in Connecticut. And then we had a soldier who lived in East Haven, and the soldier had moved out to the western part of the United States.

The parents were heading out there, and they contacted me while this bill was going through public hearing. And they indicated to me that they were going to be barraged by the same hateful signs that we were trying to stop here at the Legislature.

And the mother was crying on the phone, indicating that she didn't know how she was going to do this. The Patriot Guard was going to show up. Thank God, it rained, a very heavy rain, and the protest didn't take place.

But not only were they mourning their son, but they had to worry about these signs. I can't even imagine the torture this family went through. It's not even fathomable.

So I support this bill. There is a time for protest. We respect that. And that's what soldiers died for, to give us that right and our freedom, but there's a time, place, and manner for it.

And this bill put out by the Judiciary has now established how we're going to proceed civilly. So I know this Circle is going to do the right thing, and I thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Fasano. Senator Gomes.

SEN. GOMES:

Yes, thank you. It's very ironic that people who go to war to preserve your rights have such violations at a funeral, the same people who protected your rights out there.

This thing of don't say anything, don't tell that they have about gays in the military is ridiculous. I served in the military a long time ago, and some of the best soldier you will ever find, we knew were gay, and we didn't have a problem with them.

And some of them will tell you, when you get into combat, nobody asks what denomination you are, according to your religion, and nobody asks anything about whether or not you will be gay or heterosexual or anything.

And I think it's entirely disrespectful of people to come to somebody's funeral and demonstrate because of the war, or because of some antiquated idea that this is God's punishment, that this war is God punishment towards homosexuality.

When you have served in the military, there are different people, come from all different walks of life, different religions, different stages of life. And when you're in there, all you do is you rely on each other for whatever you have to do.

I would venture to say those people that are out there demonstrating never served in the military. And I would also venture to say that some of their people who are in the military, that they are supposed to be sort of demonstrating for or against, have no idea at all, back here in the states, that people are doing this sort of thing.

And for any reason that you would go to a funeral and disrupt a funeral because you have something to say about something that is entirely not associated with this person who is being honored that day, or his family is looking to give him a decent burial, it's just ludicrous that people would have the ideas that this has anything to do with politics, to bury a person on the day of his death. So I also rise to support this piece of literature.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Gomes. The question is on passage of the bill in concurrence with the House. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Rising in support of the bill. Wanted to commend Senator McDonald and the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill forward. As we know, restrictions on speech are often subject to very strict scrutiny.

But the courts have consistently upheld reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, even on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

And I think that, Mr. President, there is nothing more reasonable than the restrictions and limitations contained in this bill, regarding something that I think all of us have seen as a terrible scandal and an affront to true heroism when it happens. And I think this bill is a necessary response to that. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Looney. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise also in support of this very important legislation. First of all, in terms of the fact that it's the right thing to do, the sad part is that we have to do it because people are not understanding of the emotionalism behind funerals, especially in terms of those young men and women who have been killed in the line of duty.

I experienced a protest in East Lyme. He was a very fine young man, Army Captain Jason Hamill, from the 4^th Infantry, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. He grew up in Salem and attended East Lyme High School.

And he left behind family, of course. And it was, as I greeted the family, it was so interesting as to how much strength they gave the rest of us, in terms of making us feel comforted in their loss.

But I met them after we all passed the protesters, and it was the first time I had ever encountered that. And I must say the public safety community in East Lyme did a wonderful job making sure that the family was not impacted dramatically, although they knew what was going on.

But as I drove by this organization, I think from Kansas, who was there to protest for all the reasons Senator Kissel mentioned and several others, which was abhorrent in itself, and there they were, holding up their signs, chanting.

I was glad I had the windows closed in my car because I really didn't need to hear it. But what was remarkable was that on the other side of the street, at the entrance to the long driveway to the church, was a group of Waterford High School students who stood in silence with their signs, with comments about discrimination and, obviously, the fact that it was inappropriate and some others.

I don't remember every sign. But here was a group of high school students who took it upon themselves to come out and let people know that not everyone feels the way that these protesters did, who came from another state to do this.

And accompanied by the high school students, unbeknownst to them, was actually a huge group of local bikers, motorcycle club, who came to counteract those protesters, who were there trying to make a scene.

So you had such a juxtaposition of people and ideas that, in itself, it made all of us understand even more what the family was feeling and appreciate what Captain Hamill did for all of us in protecting probably his fellow soldiers and certainly paying the ultimate sacrifice.

So I just wanted to share with you my story about what I witnessed and the fact that, as disrespectful as the protesters were, from out of state, how respectful the students were, the motorcycle club, and all the other people who were there at the funeral, and there were thousands.

And again, it is just unfortunate that we have to pass legislation to remind people what's appropriate behavior. And I certainly urge adoption of this bill. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Senator Debicella.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I too rise in support of this bill, and it's with great sadness that we even need to pass a law like this in what should be common sense.

You know, up to learning about this, Mr. President, I was actually very proud of how we've grown as a society over the course of the last 30 years.

If you look back to the Vietnam War, where returning soldiers were regularly not only discarded but were regularly looked down upon by many people in society, we have come such a long way from that.

Because whether you agree with the war or disagree with the war now, everybody respects the heroism of the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the fact that a very small number of people choose to disgrace themselves by coming to soldiers' funerals to protest is a very, very sad thing. I am glad we are passing this legislation to take care of these very few people who have chosen to disgrace themselves by protesting at these funerals.

But we should know, Mr. President, the advance that most of us have made as a society to say whether we support or don't support the war, that we do support our men and women in uniform, who are putting their lives at risk for others. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Maynard.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I too want to join in support of this legislation. And just to make a few very brief remarks, I want to associate myself with everything that's been said. I think it's exactly the reason why this legislation came forward.

There were concerns expressed about limitation of First Amendment rights, and we understand, and no one, I think, in this room or in this building cares more deeply about defending our First Amendment rights.

This is a bill that's regrettable required to simply afford decency in the public ceremonies of burying our war dead, or any dead for that manner.

And I just want to thank, particularly, Senator Fasano for bringing this forward through the Veterans Committee, for Senator McDonald at the Judiciary, and for all of my colleagues who supported this.

I also want to thank the Attorney General for his strong support at the public hearing and just tell one brief anecdote about the public hearing.

The head of the Funeral Directors Association of Connecticut was one of the people who testified in favor of this. And that gentleman, after testifying at our public hearing, received two death threats from the very group responsible for the disruption of so many funerals around the country.

This is a group of people who represent a religious church. I won't even give them the dignity of mentioning their name for the public record because I think it's unworthy of this Circle.

But these are the kinds of people that travel the country to promote a narrow and bigoted agenda that has nothing to do with protesting the war. It has everything to do with their own narrow views.

And I just want to say, you know, it's amazing that we are confronted with people of such hatred and bigotry that they would go to these depths and then actually offer threats against people appearing at a public hearing in support of legislation.

I'm delighted that we have institutions that protect our democracy, that do it in a careful and deliberative manner, and so I thank my colleagues for their support of this measure today. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you for those remarks, Sir. Senator Slossberg.

SEN. SLOSSBERG:

Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon. I rise in support of this measure, and I'd like to just thank Senator McDonald, Senator Fasano, Senator Maynard for all their hard work on this.

You know, regardless of how anybody feels about the war in this country, and there is a raging debate about that, and rightly so. When a soldier goes to war, they go at behest of our country. And the family and the soldier, they carry with us our hopes and our prayers.

And the family basically gives us that soldier to go forth and stand for the things that our country is fighting for. When a soldier is then killed, it is the family and that soldier that make that ultimate sacrifice.

And again, it is the family giving something to us as a country. When that soldier comes back and has to be buried, and we have to go to a funeral, that's our chance, as a country, to give back to the family and to say, this is our opportunity to say to you, the family, this is your time.

We will protect you. We will make sure that you have the time and the space and the peace that you need to grieve in this most difficult of circumstances. This is the least that we can do for the families under these circumstances.

And I'm very proud that this Circle is supporting this. I've been very moved by the stories that we've heard and the support that we've heard. And again, regardless about how anyone feels about the war, we need to be supporting those people who go and stand on the front lines for us.

Because without them and their sacrifices, we all would not be able to be here to have the discussions that we have. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just want to briefly comment again. You know, Members of the Circle have spoken very eloquently about some of the issues that have been raised with respect to armed services individuals who have given their life for the country, as did I.

But I, for the record, I do want to make it very clear that while the bill comes to us because of some particular circumstances that were brought to our attention, that is not the only motivation for this bill, that the bill is not specifically targeted to individuals who might protest the war.

It's not specifically targeted to individuals who may have been killed because of their sexual orientation. This is content neutral. We are not making any judgment about any of the political speech, or any speech for that matter, that might be involved in demonstrating a funeral.

In fact, Mr. President, I could conjure up any number of other scenarios where anybody would reasonably believe that speech should be limited in a particular circumstance, under confined circumstances.

And that could involve the death of a prominent political figure. It could involve the death of a violent criminal that was abhorred by the population as a whole.

This bill is not intended, in any manner, to restrict unduly the free expression and free speech rights of any individual.

In fact, I just want to be very clear that it was the opinion of the Judiciary Committee, which I have the privilege of serving on an Chairing, that this was a reasonable and appropriate limitation on free speech, under confined circumstances, that it was narrowly tailored to achieve a particular goal without unduly burdening the free speech rights of anybody.

So having said that, Mr. President, I, and with the consent of the Circle, I would move that this item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, the item is placed on the Consent Calendar. If I would beg the indulgence of the Circle, I am pleased to have State Representative Cathy Abercrombie here in the Senate with us, who has brought to us someone I'd like to introduce to you and have you give our usual warm Senate welcome.

She is someone I go back to grade school with and has served as a teacher in the City of Meriden and then a principal and now has been the City of Meriden school superintendent for the last couple of years.

She bid on an auction for Representative Abercrombie to give her a tour of the Capitol, to benefit our local Boys and Girls Club, so would the Senate please rise and welcome Mary Noonan Cortright, the superintendent of schools in the City of Meriden, Connecticut.

[APPLAUSE]

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have a couple of other items to mark before breaking for caucuses and the preparation for the rest of the day's business.

First, on Calendar Page 9, Calendar 617, House Bill 7155, be marked Go.

And on Calendar Page 14, Calendar 250, Senate Bill 1044 also should be marked Go, and we will take up those two items before having our recess.

One other item, Mr. President, just on the foot of the Calendar, would like to remove an item from the foot and to mark it Passed, retaining its place on the Calendar.

And that is the very last item on the foot of the Calendar, on Calendar Page 35, Calendar 591, House Bill 7089. Would move to remove that item from the foot and to mark it Passed, retaining its place on the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, the item is removed from the foot and is Passed, retaining its place.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 9, Calendar 617, File 555 and 851, Substitute for House Bill 7155, An Act Concerning Professional Assistance Programs for Health Care Professionals, as amended by House Amendment Schedule “A”, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Health, Judiciary, Government Administration and Elections, and Legislative Management.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

THE CHAIR:

The question is on passage in concurrence with the House. Will you remark, Senator?

SEN. HANDLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. This allows an expansion of a program to make a single-assistance program for health professionals and expands the group of folks who might be eligible to participate in these programs.

And the amendment clarifies the relationship between folks who are now in assistance programs and the new program that is contemplated by this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY:

If there's no objection, I would ask that it be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, so ordered.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 14, Matters Returned from Committee, Calendar 250, File 237, Substitute for Senate Bill 1044, An Act Concerning Discrimination, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary, Government Administration and Elections, Higher Education, and Education. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark, Sir?

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee this year had an opportunity to once again have an extensive public hearing relating to the substantial ways in which individuals who are transgendered have experienced discrimination under our existing law.

And, Mr. President, this bill is intended to protect, in all of the various areas of discrimination laws, under state law, individuals based on gender identity and gender expression.

Mr. President, in 2000, the CHRO issued a declaratory ruling prohibiting discrimination against transgendered individuals based on sex. But it is not a widely known decision of the CHRO, and it has certainly not been codified in our statutes.

Mr. President, this bill would explicitly prohibit discrimination against individuals, based on gender identity or expression in employment, in public accommodations, in the sale or rental of housing, in the granting of credit, and other laws over which the CHRO has jurisdiction.

Mr. President, I should not that we have included in this bill, in Section 37, an exemption for religious corporations, entities, or associations regarding the employment of people to perform work for them in the discharge of their ecclesiastical rules or customs, as outlined in Section 37 of the bill.

I should also note that we had extensive testimony and heard some really heartbreaking stories about people who have struggled in their life with their gender identity or expression.

And just to be clear, Mr. President, individuals who fall into this category are oftentimes diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and it is a well-known and well-documented condition that individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria are in treatment, and they are individuals who are just trying to live their lives in a very difficult circumstance.

And we are hoping to eliminate some of the discriminatory aspects of our laws that impact those individuals. Mr. President, I also believe that the Clerk has in his possession LCO 7697. I ask that it be called and that I be granted leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk, please call the amendment.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7697, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator McDonald of the 27^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on adoption. Will you remark, Sir?

SEN. MCDONALD:

I will, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to clarify, I think, what we had intended to achieve when we passed our civil union law in 2005.

But, as all ambitious legislation comes to pass, we had an area that probably needs some further attention, and this amendment is intended to address that.

Specifically, Mr. President, this amendment would clarify that wherever, with four specific exceptions, wherever in our statutes we talk about marital status, we would also include civil union status for the protections of our laws.

And I want to be clear that the four exceptions that are outlined are contained in Section 46a-60, 46a-64, 46a-64c, and 46a-66.

Those sections, Mr. President, particularly involve issues of nondiscrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing and credit practices, where religious corporations are involved.

When the statutes involving nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation were first implemented, we actually created an entirely separate section of our statutes to clarify that those matters would not impinge on religious organizations.

And so, Mr. President, this amendment would make it clear that the nondiscrimination aspects of sexual orientation would also apply to civil union status, except in the situations where religious organizations are involved and are discharging core elements of their ecclesiastical rules or customs.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McDonald. The question is on adoption of Senate Amendment “A”. Senator Kissel, do you care to remark?

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Yes, I do. Through you, Mr. President, just a few questions to the proponent, just to create a legislative history.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. It's my understanding in reviewing the amendment before us that in looking at the underlying statutes affected, I can see where the glitch occurred when we passed the bill regarding civil union because the search, to my recollection, was that we searched through, our great staff, searched through our statutes and found wherever the word marriage came up, there was also, civil union would apply.

But a word search of the word marriage would not pull up marital status, and, typically, our statutes are framed such that when we are prohibiting discrimination, you wouldn't use the word marriage. You would use the word marital status.

And so while I think all of us understood, in debating the bill regarding civil union, that it would apply to situations regarding one's marital status, indeed, I can see how that slipped through the cracks.

Through you, Mr. President, my first question is is it correct to state that that is part of what this amendment does, but in no way does it change the situation regarding same-sex marriage.

That's another bill, perhaps for another day, another issue, but that the amendment doesn't touch upon those. That's substantive debate that we actually had earlier in the Judiciary Committee, through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator McDonald, do you care to respond?

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, that is correct. The civil union statute, you may recall, specifically said that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman.

And because of that language, it would be pretty clear, absent this amendment, that marital status, and protections relating to marital status, would not [inaudible] to the benefit of a couple in a civil union.

So I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Kissel. This amendment is trying to clean up a shortcoming perhaps in the civil union bill, but it in no way is intended to address the much larger issue that we addressed this year in the Judiciary Committee relating to marriage equality. That will be an issue for another day.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel, you have the floor, Sir.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you, Mr. President. And one last point, I believe the amendment also touches on the fact that marital status would not affect an individual's right to adopt through the Probate Court, so that couples that are same sex, that are in a civil union, could adopt children.

But it's my understanding that we passed a separate and distinct law allowing that several years ago. And so this merely mirrors that change.

And, again, just for the record, just to assuage any concerns that any folks might have in reviewing the amendment, this doesn't change any of those substantive rights at all either. Is that a correct statement of what the amendment does or does not do, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, to the extent I fully understood the question, I believe I concur with Senator Kissel. We already allow an individual to adopt children in this state without regard to sexual orientation.

And so under the circumstances that Senator Kissel outlined, a couple who might be joined in a civil union would have the same right to adopt a child without regard to their civil union status.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel, you have the floor, Sir.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I just think, for folks who are observing proceedings that, and, again, as I had indicated on the debate regarding a previous bill, as I walked into the Chamber this morning, there were people protesting the same-sex marriage issue on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Across the street, there was a large group in favor and a large group opposed. Peaceful protest, that's what this country is all about, but, clearly, that issue is still on the radar in this building and outside of this building, so I thought that was important to get on the record.

I clearly support the amendment, and, assuming the amendment is adopted, I look forward to supporting the underlying bill as well. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Would you care to remark further? If not, I'll try your minds. All in favor of Senate Amendment “A”, please indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Amendment is adopted. Would you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. If I may, through you, I have a few questions to Senator McDonald.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Senator McDonald, first of all, I would like to say I completely understand and appreciate the intent of this bill and, in most circumstances, would support it fully. But I do have one concern, and that's where my questions will lie.

Through you, Mr. President, if a school teacher in the second grade decides, for whatever reason, whether they are confused, whether they have an intention on changing genders, or they would just like to express themselves in a different manner, can someone, say, Mr. Jones, come into class and choose to dress like a woman? And would that be protected under this bill?

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Well, through you, Mr. President, I guess I would at first take issue with some of the choice of words by Senator Cappiello. I don't believe that this is a confusion issue at all. As I indicated in my initial comments, this is an issue that goes to the heart of how an individual understands their life to be.

It's not a matter of confusion at all. It's a core element of their being. But having taken issue with the confusion component of Senator Cappiello's question, let me say that the issue of a school teacher in an elementary setting, or in any setting, is one that we considered.

And I would answer the question in this way. A teacher, or any individual who is in this circumstance, doesn't do anything precipitously or in a cavalier manner. In fact, it is a gut-wrenching process.

And oftentimes, these individuals have to deal with an incredibly complicated set of circumstances, factual, professional, personal, and emotional. And oftentimes, Mr. President, this issue is a life or death issue for transgendered individuals.

In fact, some individuals have only come to this conclusion that they must go through gender reassignment surgery in order to avoid suicide.

So I think it's important to understand that this is a much deeper issue than a choice. It is a much more profound issue than a choice.

And I think, as I said in the Education Committee, the issue of a teacher who is going through this circumstance would have clearly not only taken into consideration his or her personal life and his or her family life but his or her professional life as well.

This is not something that you do when you leave on a Friday and come back on a Monday. In fact, gender reassignment surgery often takes weeks and weeks, if not months, for recovery.

So in the circumstance of a teacher, one would expect that such an individual would be out of the classroom environment for weeks and weeks, if not months.

Having said that, I also said in the Education Committee that it is a medical condition, as I've stated. And I compared it to any other medical condition that a teacher might find him or herself involved with.

And I said, what would we do for a child when the teacher was suffering from cancer and had to have chemotherapy treatments and came back to school without any hair? Would that prove disturbing to a child? Yes, it might.

But we would use that as an opportunity to educate children, not to engender discriminatory notions about individuals who are suffering from cancer.

We would also do the same if a teacher happened to be involved in a car accident and had an arm amputated and was fitted with a prosthesis, perhaps a mechanical one with a mechanical hand. Would a child find that circumstance disturbing? Perhaps. But it was a medical condition that needed to be addressed.

And we would use that as a moment to educate a child. And the fact is that we have students in this state who suffer from gender dysphoria as well. And I am very cognizant of the fact that they suffer discrimination.

I suspect we wouldn't tell those students that they shouldn't be in classrooms because of their core identity. So the answer to Senator Cappiello's question is, in short form, notwithstanding my lengthy answer, is that a teacher would fall within the protections of this bill and its language.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello, you have the floor.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Another question, through you, to Senator McDonald, if I may.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

And let me back up a little bit. First, I would like to say that on Committee, when I voted against this bill, I expressed then, as I express today, my complete empathy for someone who is going through this because, obviously, this is a very, very difficult decision to make.

And someone who is going through this must be suffering a great deal because of a change that they would like to make. So I do empathize on that issue. But let me back up and get to the specifics of this bill, if I may, through you, Mr. President.

We're adding a definition with regards to gender identity or expression. So, through you, Mr. President, would that include an individual who would not choose to go through a gender change but maybe wishes to dress like the opposite sex?

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald, do you care to respond?

SEN. MCDONALD:

I will, Mr. President. And the short answer to Senator Cappiello's question is if that individual self-identifies as having an identity other than the one with which that individual was born, it would fall within the definition of gender identity or expression.

And I should also hasten to add, Mr. President, that under the guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association, an individual identified with gender dysphoria actually is required to live as the self-identified gender, I believe, for up to a year before they will be permitted to have the gender reassignment surgery.

So in effect, because of their mental health condition, they would be required to dress in a somewhat different fashion than their conforming gender identity might otherwise require.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, and through you, Mr. President, to Senator McDonald, are there not a number of people in this world who choose not to, and have no desire to, go through a sex change, but they choose to dress like the opposite sex.

And an example I will give is many years ago, some of you may remember, there was an individual who was in a position of authority in New Haven who chose, at night, we found out through unfortunate news accounts that it was a person who, I believe, was on the board of education or was superintendent in New Haven, who just chose to dress as a woman because they enjoyed to. And, again, that's a person's choice, but I would like to know if that would be included in this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Through you, Mr. President, I'm not certain there's a new question there. I think, if Senator Cappiello is suggesting that this is an issue that is one that is addressing cross-dressing, I don't think that's within the scope of this at all.

This goes to a deeply held belief of how an individual identifies themselves as a human being. And, you know, I also have to say, Mr. President, that no one, in rational thought, no one would ever suggest that someone would dress in a manner that is not one traditionally associated with their assigned gender because it was fun or because it was easy.

These individuals suffer incredible, incredible ridicule, scorn, mockery, disdain, and discrimination. And under this bill, we would not engraft that ridicule, scorn, mockery, and discrimination into our statutes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. First, I would like to state that I never use the words fun or easy with regards to these individuals. I have never said that someone would just choose, because they felt like it one day, to dress like a woman because it was fun or easy.

I have already acknowledged that, particularly with someone who is going through an identity change. They're going through some very, very difficult times, not just them but their families. But there is also a population that chooses not to go through a sex change that does cross dress.

And under this definition, gender identity or expression means a person's gender-related identity appearance or behavior, whether or not that gender-related identity appearance or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

So those individuals would be included in this bill. And again, if this bill were relating to situations, just about any other situation, I would be able to support it because adults are adults. We understand what's going on. We understand that some people have these difficult times.

And I have no problem protecting these people who are suffering in those circumstances. But I do have a difficult time asking people to try and explain to their seven-year-old son or daughter what is happening with their teacher because they're going through gender identity crisis or a sex change, or they choose, because of what other reason or ailment, they dress like the opposite sex.

Having to explain that to my son or daughter, or telling others they would have to explain that, in my opinion, it is more difficult to explain than someone who is in a car accident. It's very difficult.

I'm not even talking about high school students because high school students know a lot more than any of us did when we were that age. But we're talking about first, second, third, fourth graders, and that's a difficult thing to explain to them.

So for those reasons, Mr. President, I understand the reasoning behind this bill. I understand the suffering that some people are going through.

But because we are not addressing the issue of elementary school students in these rare occasions, unfortunately, I cannot support this bill at this time. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Cappiello. Will you remark further on the bill as amended by Senate “A”? Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you so very much, Mr. President. I'd like to commend Senator McDonald for bringing this bill forward. Over the last several years, we've had transgender folks come before our public hearings, on the Judiciary Committee, on any number of matters.

And I have to say that I admire their courage for coming into the public forum and asserting their rights or asking for expansion of the law to further protect their rights in the way that we set out, that a democratic society sets out.

And the hearings have exemplified, really clearly, the painful nature of the situation that many of these folks are going through.

God bless the individual that may have been struggling with their gender identity, and they've finally figured it out, and they've made a transition. And there are some folks that have made the transition and are very comfortable with that.

But they articulated the difficulties that they had when they were struggling with not feeling right about themselves, and some folks, that I would call women now, were happily married men at some other point in their lives, but they knew that something wasn't quite right, and so they made that transition.

Some folks were in the middle of that transition when they came and spoke to us. But at the root of so many of these stories were the public, no, I wouldn't say the entire public, without a doubt, but a small segment of the public's inability to be sensitive to these issue and, certainly, a very small, very small group of individuals that were mean-spirited and intolerant.

And I'm a live-and-let-live kind of person, and I think the State of Connecticut is a live-and-let-live state. Sort of been our nature for hundreds of years. Maybe that's why the rest of the nation looks at New England and calls us liberal. I don't call being tolerant liberal.

I call being tolerant being tolerant, being sensitive and understanding that we are all different. We can categorize each other, but we are all fundamentally different, all God's creatures, whether you believe in God or not, and that's your right too.

I find it abhorrent that we would set up a construct where individuals would be discriminated against because they had gender dysphoria, I think, is the correct terminology. They were unsure of themselves.

And we had clear public testimony that an individual, a good worker at his company, went through this and, bam, was fired. That's wrong. I don't care how you cut it. That's wrong.

There was nothing, that individual could not point to anything that he, and that's a tough one, now she, did on the job to merit being fired.

So he knew what it was all about. He went, unfortunately, one of the big lessons here is, and I hope anybody watching at home that might be, or reading the record, one of the lessons that was clear during the public hearings was do not settle quickly with your employer if you feel you've been the victim of this because you do have rights.

And unfortunately, a lot of these folks, they're so intimated, and they're so nervous about having to go through this transgender change, that they just sign on the dotted line because they need to pay the monthly bills. That was a horrible thing.

I mean, not only did the businesses fire these individuals, but then they quickly sent out their attorneys to get them to sign an agreement, to sign away whatever rights they may have had. That was abhorrent to me too.

I believe, in the State of Connecticut, the vast majority of corporations are sensitive to these issues, and they reach out to their employees, and that there's a deep well of respect and tolerance in our state.

But unfortunately, this is an area where we need to put this law on the books so that people that are struggling with this, and I agree with Senator McDonald, one would not go through with this lightly, but so that people who are struggling with this really have their rights protected.

And with your indulgence, I'll just leave you with this one thing. The other evening, I was watching one of my favorite programs, Law and Order. And the particular episode that I saw had to exactly with a transgender individual.

And it was a woman, a man who felt that they should be a woman, and had gone through the hormone treatment and everything else but hadn't gone through the final surgical proceeding and was lashed out at an individual for attacking them and was then put on trial herself, even though hadn't gone through the surgeon.

But in every other sense of the word, if you looked at the program, you would say this individual was a woman. And the whole issue had to do with, in New York, where, upon conviction, would that individual be housed?

And it had a very sad and horrible ending, where the woman, in every sense of the term, was sent to the men's prison and was beaten upon horribly.

And I haven't even gotten to this issue in this year's Legislature, when that program aired, but it makes you think, in so many areas of our society, society is moving so rapidly, in so many ways, the institutions that we've created have to catch up.

But I think that we have it within ourselves, and I actually believe our young people have the greatest capacity to accommodate change. I always have this conversation with my children, especially my son, Nathaniel, because his whole notion is change is good.

I can see, as I'm getting older, like when things change, I'm driving down the street, and something has been torn down and built up, the hardest thing to deal with is change is constant. We can never hold onto anything.

If something has been good, appreciate it because you can wake up tomorrow, and, boom, it's changed. But young people, they love change. Change is good because they're constantly changing. They're growing. Every new day brings something new.

So their view of it is different. So maybe when it comes to things like transgender and individual's rights and things like that, we need to think more like our children, and for some of us in this Circle, our children's children.

So there may be these issues. I think the law has been drafted in a way, narrowly tailored to acknowledge the rights of religious institutions, as we do with so many of our other discrimination statutes.

But in this instance, the testimony that we've heard at the public hearing for the last few years has made it very clear to me that this is a group of individuals in our state that deserves every amount of respect and dignity and rights as each and every one of us in this Circle. And that's why I strongly support this bill before us. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Kissel. Senator Caligiuri.

SEN. CALIGIURI:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Let me begin by saying that I've heard it said by some that this bill is nothing more than a codification of the decision of the CHRO.

And I would say in that regard that I think this body would be mistaken if it underestimated, or overlooked, the fact that it is making law. This is not simply a ministerial act. This is not simply the codification, in clear statutory form, of existing law.

We are making law today, and I think we need to understand that. As to the merits of the underlying bill, I would say this.

I agree wholeheartedly with everythign Senator McDonald said as he characterized the profound change that people are going through when they're experiencing the situation that we're trying to deal with.

But it is precisely because the change is so profound and goes right to the identity of who someone is that I think that Section 9 of the bill, as it relates to boards of education, goes too far.

I am not persuaded by the argument that this could be compared to someone who's had an accident or who's lost his or her hair because they're going through cancer because those are aesthetics. Those are physical characteristics.

Those are not issues that go to the very core of who someone is. But this bill goes to exactly that situation. And I think that there are times when children cannot understand the profound thing that they're looking at if they're presented with this situation in their schools.

And I think that as much as is a matter of public policy, it makes sense for us to protect individuals going through this experience, in most circumstances.

I think that when it relates to boards of education, boards of education ought to have the opportunity to decide that as a matter of policy, it does not make sense to hire someone who is going through this change for a teaching position, for example, because we do not believe our children have the capacity to understand the profound nature of the change that they would be envisioning in front of them.

That's the part of the bill that, I think, goes too far. And that's the reason why I think it goes too far. I will say, that Senator McDonald noted earlier, you've got kids who are themselves going through this experience.

But I would say that that's not the reason why we ought to pass this bill, because the reality is, under the Connecticut Constitution, every child has the right to a free public education.

This law is not needed in order to make sure that kids who are going through this can continue to have the right to a free public education because they already have the constitutional right under our Constitution to do just that.

So I say that as laudable as this goal is, and as reasonable as the bill may be in most respects, as it relates to forcing boards of education to look the other way with individuals who are in this category, as it relates to people who may be teachers, I think the bill goes too far, and it's bad for Connecticut as a matter of public policy.

And for that reason, I will be voting against the bill and would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Caligiuri. Would you care to remark further on the bill as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule “A”? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the vote. The machine will be open.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

The question before the Chamber is passage of Senate Bill 1044, as amended by Senate Schedule “A”. Have all the Members have voted? If so, the machine will be closed. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on passage of Senate Bill 1044, as amended.

Total number voting, 34; necessary for passage, 18. Those voting "yea", 30; those voting "nay", 4. Absent or not voting, 2.

THE CHAIR:

The bill as amended passes. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have one other item to mark as Go before we take our break, and that is on Calendar Page 19, Calendar 442, Senate Bill 1074.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Looney. Mr. Clerk, would you please call the bill.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 19, Calendar 442, File 549, Substitute for Senate Bill 1074, An Act Concerning the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority, Favorable Report of the Committees on Higher Education, Finance, Revenue and Bonding, and Judiciary. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Hartley.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon. It's a pleasure to see you on the dais, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Ma'am.

SEN. HARTLEY:

I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Yes, indeed, thank you, Mr. President. This bill makes several changes to the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority, commonly known as CHESLA. It requires the state to withhold the income tax refund of any taxpayer who has defaulted on a CHESLA loan.

Secondly, it permits the authority, with the approval of the treasurer, to enter into interest rate swap agreements, which typically are variable rate instruments.

It also allows CHESLA to develop and use master promissory notes, which will effectively streamline processing and hopefully have some economies of time.

And it allows for more than one of the three members of the CHESLA Board of Directors representing higher education institutions to be from a public higher education institution.

Additionally, Mr. President, it allows for a new named project in phase three of the University of Connecticut's 2001 infrastructure program. And it respectively reduces the cost so there is no net change in the amount of the program.

The reason for this is to allow for growth in the sciences, which is so desperately needed. And with that, Mr. President, that is the summary of the bill, but I should mention that the Clerk has LCO 7703, and I'd ask that the Clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize. Thank you, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Madam. Mr. Clerk, please call LCO 7703.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7703, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Hartley of the 15^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Hartley, you have the floor.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you. I move adoption, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Question is on adoption. Will you remark, Madam?

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you. Mr. President, this is a strike-all amendment. And essentially, because it had several technical changes on it, it encompasses all the described provisions previously, and I move adoption, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further on Senate “A”? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

All those opposed? The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended by Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further? Senator Hartley.

SEN. HARTLEY:

If there is no objection, Mr. President, I would ask that it be added to, or perhaps start, a Consent Calendar, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, it will be added to the Consent Calendar. Thank you, Madam.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would call for a vote on the first Consent Calendar at this time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Looney. Mr. Clerk, would you please call for a vote on the Consent Calendar.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on the Consent Calendar. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

Mr. President, those items placed on the first Consent Calendar begin on Calendar Page 4, Calendar 493, Substitute for House Bill 7160.

Calendar Page 6, Calendar 588, Substitute for House Bill 6646.

Calendar Page 7, Calendar 600, House Bill 6060.

Calendar Page 9, Calendar 617 Substitute for House Bill 7155.

And Calendar Page 19, Calendar 442, Substitute for Senate Bill 1074.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The machine will be open.

THE CLERK:

The Senate is now voting by roll call on the Consent Calendar. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

All Members have voted? The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, announce the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on adoption of Consent Calendar No. 1.

Total number voting, 35; necessary for adoption, 18. Those voting "yea", 35; those voting "nay", 0. Those absent or not voting, 1.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Consent Calendar passes. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would ask for suspension of our rules at this time for immediate transmittal to the House of Representatives of items that we have acted upon today, requiring additional action by the House.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, suspension is so ordered. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, that concludes the items we have marked at this time, and I would yield the floor for any Members who might have announcements or points of personal privilege and will then be calling for a recess for caucuses.

THE CHAIR:

Are there points of personal privilege, any Members with points of personal privilege? Seeing none, the Senate stands in recess.

On motion of Senator Looney of the 11^th, the Senate at 1: 05 p. m. recessed.

The Senate reconvened at 5: 39 p. m. , the President in the Chair.

THE CHAIR:

Senator will come to order. Mr. Majority Leader, do you wish to proceed, Sir?

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. If we might proceed to the marking of the Calendar. Mr. President, on Calendar Page 1, under Favorable Reports, first double-starred item, Calendar 104 should be marked Passed, retaining its place on the Calendar.

Calendar Page 2, Calendar 112, also PR.

Calendar 129, PR.

Calendar 131, PR.

Calendar 134, PR.

Calendar 199, PR.

Also Calendar 273, PR.

On Calendar Page 3, Calendar 288, PR.

Calendar 296, marked Go.

Calendar 327, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 379, PR.

Calendar 452, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 465, Senate Bill 902, Mr. President, I would move to place this item on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 470, PR.

Calendar 483, PR.

Calendar 486, PR.

Calendar 488, PR.

Calendar 496, marked Go.

Calendar 505, PR.

Calendar 516, PR.

Calendar 519, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 522, PR.

Calendar 530, PR.

Calendar 532, marked Go.

Calendar 535, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 6, Calendar 545, PR.

Calendar 563, PR.

Calendar 564, PR.

Calendar 565, PR.

Calendar 573, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 7, Calendar 589, PR.

Calendar 594, marked Go.

Calendar 598, Go.

Calendar 599, Go.

Calendar Page 8, Calendar 603, marked Go.

Calendar 610, PR.

Calendar 611, PR.

Calendar 612, PR.

Calendar 613, House Bill 5799, Mr. President, would move to place this item on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Moving to Calendar Page 9, Calendar 615, House Bill 6080, Mr. President, would move to place this item on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 616, marked Go.

Calendar 618, Passed Temporarily.

Moving past the single-starred item, Mr. President, to Calendar Page 11, under Matters Returned from Committee, Calendar 60, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 107, Senate Bill 146, Mr. President, would move to place this item on the foot of the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 114, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 121 is marked Go.

Calendar 123, PR.

Calendar 127, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar Page 12, Calendar 135, PR.

Calendar 139, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 160, Senate Bill 1207, Mr. President, would move to place this item on the foot of the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 162, Senate Bill 1306, also move to place on the foot of the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 173, PR.

Calendar 179 should be marked Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 180, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 182 on Calendar Page 13, PR.

Calendar 192, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 194, PR.

Calendar 195, PR.

Calendar 197, marked Go.

Calendar 200, PR.

Calendar 247, Passed Temporarily.

Moving to Calendar Page 14, Calendar 252, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 263, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 265, PR.

Calendar 286, PR.

Calendar 302, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 15, Calendar 304, Senate Bill 1128, Mr. President, would move to place this item on the foot of the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 308, PR.

Calendar 311, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 320, PR.

Calendar 325, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 16, Calendar 329, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 341, PR.

Calendar 346, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 348, marked Go.

Calendar 355, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 17, Calendar 359, PR.

Calendar 392, PR.

Calendar 394, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 395, PR.

Calendar 397, under Matters Returned from Committee, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 18, Calendar 400, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 403, PR.

Calendar 404, Senate Bill 1432, Mr. President, would move to refer this item to the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 405, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 406, PR.

Calendar 408, Passed Temporarily.

Moving to Calendar Page 19, Calendar 409, Passed Temporarily.

The next item is single-starred. Moving to next double-starred item, Calendar Page 19, Calendar 437, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 20, Calendar 449, PR.

Calendar 451, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 457, marked Go.

Calendar 471, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 484, PR.

Calendar 487, House Bill 7138, Mr. President, would move to refer this item to the Environment Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar Page 21, Calendar 498, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 500, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 501, PR.

Calendar 506, marked Go.

Calendar 514, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 22, Calendar 517, PR.

Calendar 518, marked Go.

Calendar 524, Senate Bill 1431, Mr. President, would move to refer this item to the Committee on Labor and Public Employees.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Calendar 525, marked Go.

Calendar 536, PR.

Calendar 541, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 23, Calendar 547, PR.

Calendar 556, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 562, Passed Temporarily.

Calendar 568, PR.

Calendar 579, PR.

Calendar 593, House Bill 7263, Mr. President, would move to refer this item to the Committee on Public Health.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Moving to Calendar Page 24, Calendar 597, PR.

Calendar 602, PR.

Calendar 614, Passed Temporarily.

Under Favorable Reports and Resolutions, Calendar Page 24, Calendar 270, PR.

Moving to Calendar Page 25, Calendar 574, PR.

Calendar 585 is marked Go.

Calendar 604, PR.

Calendar 605, PR.

And on the foot of the Calendar, Mr. President, there are a couple of items that would move to remove from the foot and to then mark Passed, retaining their place on the Calendar.

First of those is Calendar Page 30, Calendar 305, Senate Bill 1197, Mr. President, would move to remove that item from the foot of the Calendar and to mark it Passed, retaining its place on the Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. And another item on the foot of the Calendar, Calendar Page 32, Calendar 495, House Bill 5792, Mr. President, would move to remove that item from the foot of the Calendar and to refer it to the Committee on Public Safety and Security.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. There will be one more change in marking. Yes, Mr. President, on Calendar Page 25, Calendar 585, Senate Resolution 58, previously marked Go, instead, I would like to move to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. That concludes our markings at this time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Looney. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calling from Senate Calendar for Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Calendar Page 2, Favorable Reports.

Calendar Page 3, Calendar 296, File 355, Substitute for Senate Bill 1418, An Act Concerning the Financing of Projects by Private Entities, Favorable Report of the Committee on Commerce and Exports. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator LeBeau.

SEN. LEBEAU:

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon, Sir. How are you?

SEN. LEBEAU:

Good. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. LEBEAU:

Thank you, Mr. President. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO 7877. I ask that he call it and I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7877, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator LeBeau of the 3^rd District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator LeBeau.

SEN. LEBEAU:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. LEBEAU:

Mr. President, this amendment is a strike-everything, and I want to thank, initially, thank Senator Debicella for his help on this bill. And this amendment has been advocated by both DECD and CI.

The first, very briefly, what the amendment does is a technical change, and it moves the Office of Business Advocate, which we created last year, from OPM to DECD for administrative purposes only.

Another major portion of the amendment streamlines the process, which the small business incubator program, which was established last year and requires DECD to contract with CCAT on disbursing funds to assist small business incubators.

Another portion of the amendment removes the requirement that DECD does regulations, which would have delayed [inaudible] of the incubators. Right now, we have a problem. We need to get that out.

They will eventually do regulations, and they will move by adopting guidelines in the meantime. Section 4 amends the notification process for agencies adopting regulations to ensure that a copy is provided to the Office of the Business Advocate.

The next section is a result of the audit recommendations from the auditor to CI, and the language allows CI to report confidential information pertaining to its portfolio companies, which are private companies for the most part, not public companies, in a manner that will not place such companies at a competitive disadvantage. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator LeBeau. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? If not, Senator Debicella.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I too rise to support Senate Amendment “A” and simply want to thank Chairman LeBeau for his efforts on this.

As you can tell, in this bill, there are a lot of changes that are, in some respects, going to streamline and make the running of our economic development more efficient and, on the other hand, take some of the programs we have and improve the effectiveness of them out in the business community.

So I think this is a very strong bill. I want to thank Senator LeBeau for his leadership on this and urge passage.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Debicella. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

“Nays”? The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” is approved. Will you remark? Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to move that the bill as amended be referred to the Appropriations Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. For purposes of an introduction.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. With us in the Chamber this evening is a high school senior from New Milford High School, Chris Prindez and his dad, Al.

Chris is here tonight to receive a scholarship from Friendship Dairy, and he will be attending Fordham University in the fall. I wish to introduce Chris and ask you to join me in congratulating him on his achievement. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Welcome, Chris. Congratulations.

[APPLAUSE]

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, a point of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we're very fortunate to have visiting us today the new Commissioner of Insurance Department, Commissioner Sullivan, and I would like that the Circle recognize him and give him our traditional round of welcome.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon, Commissioner, welcome. Are there any other announcements or points of personal privilege at this time? If not, Mr. Clerk, please return to the Call of the Calendar.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 4, Calendar 496, File 427, Substitute for House Bill 7040, An Act Concerning Resubdivisions and Clarifying Considerations of Inland Wetlands Decisions by Planning and Zoning Commissions, Favorable Report of the Committee on Planning and Development. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Thank you again, Mr. President. Mr. President, the first thing I want to point out to Members of the body is that the actual title of this bill could be misleading. The bill actually has little, if anything, to do with resubdivisions.

And the main purpose of the bill is to clarify that planning and zoning applications and inland wetland applications can be filed simultaneously. There is much basis to argue that current law permits this.

However, some towns have adopted the practice of requiring applicants to wait until the entire inland wetlands process is concluded, before even permitting the filing of planning and zoning applications.

This bill should clarify that applicants are entitled to file simultaneously. It does retain the requirement that the Planning and Zoning Commission should consider any recommendations of the Inland Wetlands Commission.

And if the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to impose conditions that are inconsistent with the inland wetlands recommendations, the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission merely would be required to state publicly the basis for their reasons for imposing conditions inconsistent with the inland wetlands applications.

The bill is important because the practice that some of these towns have adopted would result in delays in the process of a year or more. And consequently, Mr. President, I would urge support and passage of this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Coleman. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bill. The bill really clears up the intent of the original language that was passed some time ago, and I think Senator Coleman has more than adequately described the effect of this bill, and I urge its passage. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Fasano. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Mr. President, if there are no further remarks, I would move this item to our Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McKinney, objection? Okay. Remarks for the bill? If not, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The machine will be open.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Senators have voted? Have all Senators voted? If all Senators have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will call the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on passage of House Bill 7040.

Total number voting, 35; necessary for passage, 18. Those voting "yea", 30; those voting "nay", 5. Absent or not voting, 1.

THE CHAIR:

The bill passes. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 5, Calendar 532, File 687, Senate Bill 1186, An Act Concerning State Employees Serving in Operation Jump Start or Certain Other Operations, Favorable Report of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Labor, and Appropriations. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Maynard.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. The bill would simply allow state employees to continue to accrue vacation and recess time while serving in defense of the country, either abroad or along the Mexican border in Operation Jump Start.

Also, Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 7803. I move adoption and ask leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7803, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Maynard of the 18^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Maynard.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move adoption. This amendment merely clarifies the language in the bill to define recess time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark on Senate Amendment “A”? Senator Prague.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. It allows state employees who are serving their country to accumulate their vacation time without the restraint of limits that we currently have.

Just for legislative history, the Governor had a similar proposal before the Labor Committee. This is a very good, fair way to treat our state employees who have taken time to go into the military to defend us. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Prague. Will you remark? Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO:

Yes, Mr. President, through you to the proponent of the amendment, if I may.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Maynard.

SEN. FASANO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, through you, is the accrued time accrued sick time or accrued vacation time, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Maynard.

SENATOR MAYNARD:

Yes, Mr. President, through you, it is accrued vacation time.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Fasano.

SEN. FASANO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I thank Senator Maynard for his answer, and I support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further?

SEN. MAYNARD:

Mr. President, if there is no objection, I ask that this be placed on the Consent--

THE CHAIR:

We have to, excuse me, Sir, we have to do the amendment first.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Oh, pardon me.

THE CHAIR:

Let me try your minds. All those in favor of Senate Amendment “A”, please signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” has it. On the bill, Senator Maynard.

SEN. MAYNARD:

Yes, Mr. President, if there's no objection, I ask that the bill be added to the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. MAYNARD?

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 7, Calendar 494, Files 278 and 819, Substitute for House Bill 5234, An Act Concerning the Banning of Pesticides on School Grounds and the Enforcement Authority of the Department of Environmental Protection, as amended by House Amendment Schedule “A”, Favorable Report of the Committees on Environment and Education. Clerk is in possession of two amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President, if we might stand at ease for just a moment.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

[SENATE AT EASE]

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President, if that item might be Passed Temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar 598, File 607, House Bill 7388, An Act Prohibiting the Use of Unsubstantiated Allegations of Educational Neglect as a Factor in Adoptions, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary and Human Services.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this bill would simply prohibit the Department of Children and Families and adoption agencies under contract with the Department from refusing to place a child in a prospective adoptive home solely on the basis of unsubstantiated educational neglect reports involving a prospective parent.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McDonald. Will you remark? Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. The Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 7364. I would appreciate it if he could call it at this time.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7364, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Finch of the 22^nd District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. What this bill does--

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch, would you move adoption?

SEN. FINCH:

I would move adoption of this amendment, Mr. President, thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir.

SEN. FINCH:

What this amendment does, Mr. President, is it will, after the effective date, allow those adoptees who have been adopted after the effective date of the bill to apply when they become of majority age for their original birth certificate.

As you have heard before in debate, it's my opinion that all people adopted have the same rights to their medical information, to their cultural information, to their family history as anyone else.

Unfortunately, because of those rights being taken away in 1977, retroactively, by the State of Connecticut, and by several states, adoptees are no longer able to reunite with their birthparents and that their identity is kept under lock and key in Probate Courts around Connecticut.

It does almost sound too amazing to be true, but that is the case. Adoptees are not able to find out their medical history. They are not able to find out their original birthparents.

They're not able to find out their original culture, their original language, or anything about their identity because they are unable to access that slip of paper that tells them who they were born as and who their biological parents are.

So I understand this is a difficult issue for many, especially those who may not be that familiar with adoption, but we have compromised significantly on this, and we have hoped that we could work this issue, unfortunately last year, the bill was vetoed.

It had passed both House and Senate. In conversations I have had with members of the Governor's staff, they may not be particularly familiar or comfortable with this exact version.

But I assure the Members of the Circle that if we're able to get this out of the Senate, I'd be willing to continue working on this bill with members of the Governor's administration so that we could try to come up with a way to begin this, what I see as an evolutionary process, to reconnect adult adoptees with their own identity. So, Mr. President, I would move this amendment, and I would ask that the vote be taken by roll call.

THE CHAIR:

The vote will be taken by roll call, so ordered. Will you remark? Will you remark on Senate Amendment “A”, Senate Amendment “A”? Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Although I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I have to rise in opposition. This bill was before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, where it failed, I think by a two-to-one margin.

It failed not because people did not want to give the chance for adoptees to reunite with their parents, their mother. It failed because there were concerns about privacy issues with regards to mothers who choose to put their children up for adoption.

If you look at the history of when records were sealed in this state, it began in about 1975. And the reason for that was because in 1973, there was a historic decision, Roe v. Wade that, basically, legalized abortion throughout the country.

So to give the incentive for mothers to choose not to have an abortion, to put their children up for adoption instead, there was a law that passed that gave those mothers a right to privacy.

Under current law, if a mother who puts her child up for adoption wants to allow her child to be able to find them, they can do that right now by saying, if my son or daughter wishes to find me, they may, and I am willing to allow them to know who I am when the time is right.

This would force mothers to be found out years later, whether they gave the child up for adoption because they were raped, maybe because of incest. Maybe they don't want their child to ever know why they gave their child up for adoption.

What this bill will also do is say, in this state, these are the rules for adoption, and if I am a mother who is about to give my child up for adoption, I might then choose to go to New York or New Jersey or Massachusetts or some other state, where the law doesn't apply, therefore, having less children less available for adoption for people in this state that want to adopt.

So we're really taking away a woman's right to privacy, and we're encouraging women to either have an abortion instead or to go across state lines to give their baby up for adoption elsewhere.

I don't think that's the public policy we want in this state. I don't think it encourages the outcome of what we're looking for in this state, with regards to adoptive children. And I don't think we should be supporting this amendment here today.

Again, I appreciate the intent, and I understand it. And I think it's a heart-wrenching issue to deal with, and we're looking at this issue, I understand, from the perspective of the child.

But let's also look at this issue from the perspective of the mother, who is giving the child up for adoption, and the reasons why she may want her name to be kept private in perpetuity. So I ask the Members of this Chamber to please reject this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Cappiello. Senator Caligiuri.

SEN. CALIGIURI:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, if I may, a question for Senator Finch.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Yes, Mr. President.

SEN. CALIGIURI:

Through you, Mr. President, I know Senator has studied this issue very closely, and my question is do you have any data in other states, who have adopted similar laws, about the impact that the adoption of this kind of a law, no pun intended, would have on adoptions going forward?

As you know, or as the Senator knows, the argument of those who would oppose this is that it would have a chilling effect on mothers who had a very difficult and emotional time in their lives, have to make a tough decision about whether to go with the pregnancy or terminate it.

And the concern is that this would have a chilling effect on that and may make mothers more likely to want to end their pregnancy. And I'm wondering whether, based on your studies, you have any data in other states about the impact it's had on that.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Mr. President, through you, that's an excellent question. When Senator Meyer and I held, I think, seven hearings around the State of Connecticut, the first point I'd like to make in response to your question is that the women who came to us were birthmothers who desperately wanted to reconnect with their offspring but could not because the search has to be initiated by the person who owns the birth certificate.

And sometimes, people say, I think because of misinformation, that we're making the birth certificate public. Your birth certificate is your birth certificate. No one has a right to it. It doesn't become public.

If Senator Caligiuri, for example, wanted to take his birth certificate and advertise it in the Waterbury Republican American, he could do that, but it's his private information.

So in answer to your question about the numbers, what we were able to glean, and, unfortunately, there's not a lot of information, and much of it is anecdotal.

We do have a couple of studies from Attorney Fred Greenman in New York City, who is a colleague of Senator Meyer, who was a birthparent and feels passionately about reconnecting parents. He pointed us to a study that was done in Oregon.

And after Oregon had opened their birth records up, the abortion rate actually declined, and the adoption rate actually went up. Now it's not conclusive information because, as you know, the abortion rate around the country has gone down.

We don't know that it was related, but we do know that it did not exacerbate what we would all agree are positive trends.

So if I thought for one moment, through you, Mr. President, to Senator Caligiuri, that this would ever discourage people from adopting, I mean, God strike me dead, that's nothing I would ever want to do. I'm a product of the system.

I was adopted. I believe in adoption. I encourage people to adopt. I think it's so sad that 6,500 or so children are stuck in this foster care system without given the permanency of a loving home.

I think adoption is one of the greatest things the State of Connecticut can help facilitate. I don't believe, by reuniting 18 years after a person's life, with the birthparent, if they so choose, because remember, through you, Mr. President, to the Senator, this is optional.

This is only if the people seek out each other. And I appreciate the question because I do believe that this is part of our evolution in a way, to try to sort of seek meaning through this process in our life and find out how to sort of repair the past and give people positive lives going forward through adoption and, eventually, as we become adults, through unification of our birthparents so that, you know, I have to say parenthetically, Mr. President, in answer to that question, that the other people who came to us in our hearings were adoptees who wanted to be reunited.

And we didn't get testimony from people, and I'm sure there are cases of it, but we didn't get testimony from people where unifications went badly. Usually, people seem to have had a gut feeling about it so that if they really wanted to unify, it seems as though there's an innate human tendency there, where people know when it's a good idea and when it's a bad idea.

I did a search on my own, and it didn't go successfully. But this bill certainly, Mr. President, through you to Senator Caligiuri, this bill wouldn't affect me personally.

I was adopted in Connecticut but born in New York. So until New York laws change, it really wouldn't impact me, but it would impact tens of thousands of people adopted, who are seeking to get this information.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Caligiuri.

SEN. CALIGIURI:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, thank you to Senator Finch for that answer. I would just say that at this point, I'm not prepared to support this amendment.

I've talked with Senator Finch. This is a very personal issue for me, as it is for him, because my mother was an orphan and was adopted. And I've helped her for the last several years to try to find out about her biological parents.

And we've been unsuccessful in doing that, and I know the pain that that's caused her. And I know how deeply she'd love to know more than she's been able to find out at this point.

But I think the countervailing public interest is our public interest, as a matter of policy, in ensuring that we're not going to do anything which inadvertently makes it harder to encourage persons to pursue adoption and to consider that a viable alternative at a time of great emotional stress in their lives.

And based on the data that we have before us today, I'm not convinced that we can make a case based on that data that that would not be the consequence.

And I would just say to Senator Finch that although I cannot support the amendment today, if it doesn't pass, I would encourage him to do whatever he can to continue to build the information that we have about that data because, speaking at least for myself, if we can get to the point where the data is clear that this has not had that unintended consequence, I'll be the first to sign on and support the amendment.

But in the absence of that very clear data, I am unable to do so at this time. I thank Senator, through you, for his good work on this, but, unfortunately, I cannot support it at this time for that reason. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator Kissel, on Amendment “A”.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I rise in support of the amendment. Appreciate the hard work and diligence put into this measure year in and year out by Senator Finch.

When we had this debate in the Judiciary Committee, I also supported a similar amendment. And I recall during that debate that I had just recently brought my children to see Meet the Robinsons, which is a family movie, just came out recently in theaters. I think it's now on DVD.

But what that particular Disney film was all about was a young boy, placed by his mom on the front steps of a family home, in the rain, and just basically growing up as a child and just never knowing who his mom or dad was.

And it was always in the back of his mind, wanting to know that. I understand there might be some negative ramifications regarding an individual's determination to offer up their child for adoption.

It's my understanding that a child could still be brought to a hospital or another place and left there by the mother or the parent, completely confidentially, and then leave. That might be a very hard step to take, but it's an option if the birthmother wanted to do that.

But I just can't imagine how hard it would be growing up, knowing that that possibility is completely foreclosed. I guess I saw the problems with having the change take place retroactively, because people may have made huge life decisions based upon what they knew the law to be.

But I'm extraordinarily sympathetic to where Senator Finch is coming from, and I think that, on balance, I think going forward, we can make the change and still not have any negative ramifications. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Kissel. Senator McKinney, good afternoon, Sir.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Good afternoon, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment and was also in opposition to the bill last year, which the Governor did veto. This bill is a better version because it's not retroactive, as last year's bill was.

And as I said last year during the debate, this is obviously a deeply personal issue to Senator Finch and many others. I heard my colleague, Senator Kissel, mention the movie Meet the Robinsons, and I also saw that with my kids.

And perhaps he had forgotten the ending. The ending of the story is that this young boy, who was left on the steps of an orphanage, who was living in a home, spent the whole movie wondering about if he could ever go back in time and see his original birthmother.

He finally got to that point where he was there, and he said, no, I don't want to meet her, because the family I have is my family. Ultimately, only one person has the choice, and that is the woman.

Senator Finch, I think, is not correct in saying that this bill is optional. The Department shall provide access to the birth certificate. That's what this law says. So if someone who's been adopted, when they turn 18, wants to get their birth certificate, they have to provide it to them.

And therefore, that person will know the names of the birthmother, and perhaps birthmother and father. Now it is their choice as to whether they want to go find them and locate them, and it certainly may be the choice of the mother to whether she wants to meet with them, although you don't know, in a bizarre situation, if they're standing on your front doorstep, what choice you have left.

But ultimately, we have two people here, the child who's been adopted and the woman who has given up that child for adoption. And only one of them can have their wishes in this difficult decision, and I think that has to be the woman.

We have to allow the woman, who is giving the child up for adoption, the choice to determine whether she wants to say, under no circumstances do I want this child to see the birth certificate and know my identity.

And I'm not sure this issue is much different than when we support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. I don't believe that passage of this will lead to additional abortions. I don't believe that passage of this will necessarily thwart and stop adoptions.

But I do believe passage of this will put many women in a very difficult and uncomfortable position, even more so than they already are when they make that extraordinary decision.

So ultimately, my opposition to this has always come down to the fact that we need to give the woman the choice. It is hers and hers alone to make. This bill takes that choice away from her. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McKinney. Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Thank you, Mr. President. There are some new Members of the Circle since the last time we had this dialog, and I thought I just might inform those new Members that in the fall of 2005, as Senator Finch said, we held a series of seven public hearings around the State of Connecticut on the general subject of trying to make adoption more attractive in Connecticut, facilitate our laws so it led to more adoption, because, after all, adoption does build new families and good families.

And the idea of a child having a permanent placement as early as possible in his or her life is an extremely attractive and good thing to do. And we held these hearings in the context of a different day than the day of many of our parents and grandparents.

There was a time, at least when I was growing up, when adoption was viewed as a stigma by many people. That has changed with time, in my opinion. Adoption is no longer viewed as a stigma. Indeed, adoption has become a very positive thing.

It's something we encourage. It's something we talk about. It's something that across the United States, states like ours have tried to facilitate adoption, make it easier, encourage it. We do it within our state. We do it without our state. We do it across the world, actually.

And so adoption today has got a very different public climate than it once had. The amendment we made to this bill to try to remove any further doubt, as some of you referred to, was we made it entirely prospective.

The effective date of this law is not until October 1, 2008. And the adopted child will not have the right to get his or her natural birth certificate for 21 years after that.

Many of us are not going to be here when this bill goes into effect. It's going to be over 22 years before this bill comes into effect. One of the things that our public hearings showed, we had sort of three groups of people coming to talk to us.

One was the adopted child, and many of those who came before us were, at that point, adults in their lives. They'd been adopted. I remember one of them pointing at me and saying, you know who you are, but I don't know who I am.

And that really impressed me about what I came to view as the primacy right of a child to know his or her birth and particularly know not only his birth and birthparents but also his medical history.

The medical history is so important as we grow up, to know something about the genetics of our medical history, and this bill will go in that direction as well.

The second group of people we heard from were adopting parents, or adoptive parents. And we wanted to see what their attitude was in terms of the children they have adopted, finding out who their natural mother or natural father was.

And we found a very positive reaction from adoptive parents. And the final group we heard from were natural parents, particularly natural mothers. And while this was only seven hearings, okay, and it was only in the State of Connecticut, what we heard, again, from those natural mothers was their desire to be linked up with the children to whom they had given birth. And we found a very positive reaction.

We did bring in, as Senator Finch said, an expert to talk to us nationally about the states that have put this kind of a law into effect, to find out what the effect was on abortion.

And while the trend toward abortion was going down, we were finding, in the states that did approve this kind of bill, that the abortion rate was going down in those states as well.

We put into the bill, as you may have noticed, a form of choice, where a natural mother can indicate, at the time of birth or the time of adoption, whether or not she chooses to have her adopted child find out, whether or not the adopted child would like to contact her, or whether the natural mother would prefer not to have that happen.

And that's just a preference, as we wrote the bill. It's not a mandate. It's a very healthy preference to show.

I just say, in conclusion, that from the study of the Children's Committee of this issue, and we did study it hard, we believe that it's really in the public interest, in the State of Connecticut, to allow an adopted child the right to know something about his or her birth and that that has got a primacy and a priority and a basic civil right to avoid a form of discrimination.

And after all is said and done, it's that right, it's that birth right, call it a birth right, that wins out and carries the day. So I urge all of you to dig deep into your souls and hearts and support this amendment. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Meyer. Senator Cappiello, for the second time.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. If I may, I have a few questions, through you, to Senator Meyer or Senator Finch, whoever would like to take the questions. Who would be more appropriate? Senator Meyer? Thank you.

Senator Meyer, we're talking about the birthmother being able to give her preference when she puts this baby up for adoption. And she may state, as a preference, that she does not want to be contacted, is that correct, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, that is correct. The birthmother can indicate a preference not to be contacted.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. And through you to Senator Meyer, would that then prohibit her name and information from being released to her child 21 years later, or would that child still be able to obtain her name and personal information?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, that child could overrule, if that child so chose, the preference of the mother some years before, 21 years before, and still go and seek to get his or her natural birth certificate.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. And so I just want to clarify that this is not then a choice. It cannot be overridden. This is something being forced upon the birthmother. She can state her preference, but she has no real say in this, through you, Mr. President, is that not correct?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

You know, all of us here are children, and when our parents, even the natural parent, have said something like that, in a preference, if I put myself, and your question really is asking me to put myself in the situation of having a natural mother, my natural mother, indicate that she does not want to see her natural child, who's now been adopted.

I, and I think I know you well enough, Senator Cappiello, that we would give great weight to that preference.

What we didn't find in our hearings, and in the examination of the experience of other states, was a lot of natural mothers who were indicating that preference not to ever know who their, never to meet their child, who was later adopted.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. But please understand that because we are taking away their right, there are some women who are going to completely lose that right if they give their baby up for adoption in this state.

If this bill said there would be a preference stated, and there would be contact made by the Department of Public Health, or whatever is the appropriate department, to that birthmother to then check with her 21 years later, I would be very supportive of this.

But it doesn't say this. It says that her choice, 21 years later, can and probably would be overridden. And I bring up again the issue of rape or incest.

And, actually, while I'm on that, I will touch upon this with another question, through you, Mr. President. Does this bill do anything with regards to a child finding out who their father is?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, what the bill indicates is that the child, at the age of 21, will be entitled to get his or her birth certificate. And we know from experience that some birth certificates indicate, many birth certificates indicate the names of both natural parents.

Some indicate only the mother. So at the very least, the adopted child, at age 21, will be able to get the knowledge of the mother and the father, if the father's name is on the certificate.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. And through you to Senator Meyer, using the examples that I cited, with regards to a rape or incest, do you believe that the father's name would be on that birth certificate?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Unlikely.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Senator Meyer. Through you, Mr. President, do you think, Senator Meyer, and this is, of course, your opinion, that there would then be pressure on the mother, once she's found, to tell their child how they were conceived and who their father is, once they are found by the child?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, I think that would come about in terms of the relationship that developed between the child and his or her natural mother. And it might lead to that, and it might not. But I think, again, the primacy of the right of the adopted child here is so important.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cappiello.

SEN. CAPPIELLO:

Thank you, Mr. President. It's my opinion, Senator Meyer, that it would clearly come up as a question if a child is driven to find out who their birthmother is, they would naturally also ask the question who their father is, and there would be that pressure on the mother to discuss this.

And if it was an issue of rape or incest, that would be a very sensitive topic. What mother wants to tell their child they were created because of a rape or incest? And again, I come back to the privacy issue of the mother because the mother is making a choice.

Put my baby up for adoption in Connecticut, or put my baby up for adoption in a state that doesn't have this law, or terminate the pregnancy. And I think two of those choices are very bad choices for the people of Connecticut.

I don't think we want to encourage anyone to have an abortion, and I don't think we want to encourage pushing mothers over state lines to give their baby up for adoption in another state without this law.

And I just think we're moving in the wrong direction. The child wouldn't have any rights if they are terminated. We're talking about a child's privacy rights, as you've stated. If the pregnancy is terminated, there are no rights anymore at all.

And I don't think we want to encourage that. So, again, Mr. President, I stand in opposition to this. I do, please believe me when I say, I appreciate the desire by Senator Finch to propose this bill and get this bill passed.

I just don't think it's the right direction in which the state should be moving. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Cappiello. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Very briefly, for the second and last time, I rise just to clarify what I think is not a completely accurate statement by Senator Meyer, in that this bill wouldn't take effect until 22 years.

In fact, when this bill takes effect is in 2008. And there will unfortunately be a woman who will be forced to make that choice in 2008, and she will know, perhaps against her will and wishes, that when she gives up a child for adoption, that child will get that birth certificate if they want, against her wishes.

So, yes, with respect to what this does for those who are adopted, it doesn't take effect for 22 years. But for the woman, it does take effect sooner than that. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McKinney. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark? If not, there was a roll call requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. I'll open the machine.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Senators voted? Have all Senators voted? If all Senators have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will call the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule “A”.

Total number voting, 33; necessary for adoption, 17. Those voting "yea", 26; those voting "nay", 7. Absent or not voting, 3.

THE CHAIR:

The amendment passes. Will you remark on the bill as amended by Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark on the bill as amended by Senate Amendment “A”? Okay. If not, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Senators voted? If all Senators have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will call the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on passage of House Bill 7388 as amended.

Total number voting, 34; necessary for passage, 18. Those voting "yea", 27; those voting "nay", 7. Absent or not voting, 2.

THE CHAIR:

The bill passes. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar 599, File 632, Substitute for House Bill 5069, An Act Concerning the Collection of Municipal Water and Sanitation Charges Through the Use of Tax Warrants, Favorable Report of the Committee on Planning and Development, Judiciary, and Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Thank you, Sir. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Mr. President, this bill would authorize tax collectors to use alias tax warrants to collect unpaid municipal water or sanitation charges, in the same manner as for collecting unpaid taxes.

And for purposes of this bill, sanitation charges would include, but not be limited to, assessments for connections, collection and disposal of garbage, trash, rubbish, waste, and ashes.

And when such rates and charges are not paid, they become a lien on the premises served. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the collection of delinquent charges in the same manner as the collection of delinquent taxes.

There was much testimony in the Judiciary Committee in support of this bill. And, in fact, the Judiciary Committee and the Finance committee unanimously approved this bill. I urge passage of the bill, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Coleman. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

If there are no further remarks and no objection, I would ask that the item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 8, Calendar 603, File 260, House Bill 7239, An Act Preventing the Theft of Copper, Favorable Report of the Committees on Judiciary, Planning and Development, and Transportation. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

SEN. LOONEY:

Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President, thank you. If that item might be Passed Temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 9, Calendar 616, File 674, House Bill 7194, An Act Concerning the Expansion of the Animal Population Control Program, Favorable Report of the Committees on Environment and Finance, Revenue and Bonding. Clerk is in possession of an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Yield to Senator Finch to announce the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill, I would move the bill, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval, please proceed, Sir.

SEN. FINCH:

Thank you. Mr. President, this bill expands the Department of Agriculture's sterilization and vaccination program for feral cats. Mr. President, as we know, the feral cat population in Connecticut is quite large.

It's cited as a problem for wildlife. It's cited as a problem for quality of life, in terms of the passage of diseases.

We believe that the Department of Agriculture is on the right path here, and to expand this would be a good thing, Mr. President, and I would move its approval.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Mr. President, if there is no objection, I would move that this item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 11, Matters Returned from Committee, Calendar 121, File 59, Substitute for Senate Bill 1100, An Act Concerning Offers to Purchase Subdivision Lots, Favorable Report of the Committee on Insurance and Planning and Development. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Sir?

SEN. CRISCO:

Yes, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 7893. I request that it be called and I be given permission to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7893, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Crisco of the 17^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you. Mr. President, this amendment does several things. It increases the fine for any violation in regards to the statute. It also states that one cannot market any subdivision prior to conditional approval of the subdivision.

And it also provides that nothing shall be construed in the marketing of this, in any concept that is not acceptable to the buyer. And this becomes part of the bill, which I will elaborate on when the amendment is adopted.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Crisco. Will you remark? Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, just a quick question. I don't have the amendment in front of me, but, through you, Mr. President, what is the effective date, should this amendment pass and the bill become law, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

I would think, Mr. President, I would say I would have to refer to the file to check on the effective date. I would gladly seek any help, but if I would just check a couple minutes--

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Mr. President, perhaps I could rephrase my question, and I'm in support of the amendment and the underlying bill. I'm just trying to make sure, through you, Mr. President, that the effective date of this bill will be such that it won't interfere with any activity that may be ongoing.

I wouldn't want to punish someone that may be in the active process of marketing property, which with passage of this bill, they would no longer be allowed to do, through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to Senator McKinney, he is correct. There is not a grandfather provision in the bill, and I assume that it would take effect either in July or anything in the bill would only pertain to acts that are to occur in the future.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Crisco.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

“Nay” for the no's. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” is adopted. Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Yes, Mr. President, just to elaborate on the question, the effective date is July 1, 2007.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir.

SEN. CRISCO:

Now in regards to the bill, as amended, it looks to amend and clarify the process of purchasing subdivided lots. Currently, the statute states that anyone who offers to sell, or does sell, any lot that is subdivided before receiving final approval is subject to a fine.

This bill clarifies that offers are executed in a contract to purchase. It's not a sale or an offer of a sale, unless final approval has been made.

And basically also, based on the amendment, Mr. President, the amendment does state that you cannot proceed with any acceptance of an offer prior to the conditional approval of the subdivision.

As those who are involved in real estate will know, the basic approval is the conditional approval, and then when there's some pro forma requirements that occur that are final approval, but the conditional approval is basically the major approval.

And the final approval comes after maps are submitted, etc. , what have you. So we have protected the buyer regards to no transaction before conditional approval.

And if there should be any change whatsoever in the contract, or any change in the offering, then the individuals should receive their deposit back, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Crisco. Will you remark? Senator Duff.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment and the underlying bill. I'd like to thank Senator Crisco and others, the advocates who have worked on this legislation for the last year.

I think that we've made a bill that was introduced during last year's legislation something that's much better today and that will protect our consumers while still allowing developers to move ahead on some of the projects that they deem necessary and that will actually get past the approval process of our local communities.

But I do think, at this point, that there are strong protections for consumers and that they are aware of their rights and the fact that you cannot market these properties until there is conditional approval, which most people would say that is almost as good as having final approval.

So, again, I want to thank Senator Crisco for his hard work and diligence on this issue, and I do support the legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Duff. Senator Crisco.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, a mutual admiration society, let me also express my appreciation to Senator Duff and also Senator Handley for their diligent observance of the issues in making sure that the consumer is protected in every possible situation. And if there's no other discussion on the issue, I request it be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 13, Calendar 197, File 187, Substitute for Senate Bill 1315, An Act Concerning the Faculty at Public Institutions of Higher Education and Revisions to Various Higher Education Statutes, Favorable Report of the Committee on Higher Education, Government Administration and Elections, and Banks. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Hartley.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Good evening, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Good evening, Ma'am.

SEN. HARTLEY:

I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Ma'am?

SEN. HARTLEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO 7823. I would ask that the Clerk please call and I be granted leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk

THE CLERK:

LCO 7823, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Hartley of the 15^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Hartley.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. HARTLEY:

This is a strike-all amendment, and it expands the types of state contracts that individuals covered under our state ethics code can enter into without violating the code.

The bill allows, specifically, our institutions of higher education and faculty bargaining units to enter into consulting agreements, or to engage in research projects with private entities.

And it specifies that these agreements and projects do not violate the state ethics code provision against state public officials and state employees accepting certain outside employment or disclosing confidential information.

It requires each of the units to establish, through their board of trustees, policies and agreements on the projects and establish committees that will then ultimately monitor the compliance of such policies.

The essence of the amendment before us is in fact to allow our institutions of higher education to engage in the commercialization and liaison in working with public businesses that we have actually asked our institutions of higher education to do.

We have asked them that they go out, work with business, work with our established business clusters, and engage in commercialization.

With the advent of the much-needed, of course, state ethics code, we herein needed to define how that would happen for these particular, and I might say unique, employment situations.

The bill also speaks to some technical changes with regard to the oversight legislation, which we enacted last year for the UConn 2000 program, and essentially makes a technical change with regards to that.

And our effective date is upon passage, as we might imagine, so that we can empower our universities to continue to work and collaborate with Connecticut's business, ultimately supporting the Connecticut economy. I thank you, Mr. President, and move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Hartley. Senator Debicella.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the amendment, which will now become the bill. First off, I'd like to thank Senator Hartley for her leadership on this. She's done a fantastic job in crafting a bill that strikes balance.

And that is to make sure that our professors can engage in the types of research that have a practical effect on the economy and collaborate with those outside of academia, while at the same time maintaining the overall ethical framework and the amount of supervision necessary to actually ensure that our university professors continue to operate with the highest level of ethical standards.

These types of interactions between professors, businessmen, private research institutions are actually critical for Connecticut to get on the cutting edge and to fully utilize the resources that are in our university system. So I urge passage of this amendment and, again, thank Senator Hartley for her efforts.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

All those opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. The amendment passes. Will you remark on the bill? Senator Hartley.

SEN. HARTLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. If there is no objection, I would ask that this be added to the Consent Calendar, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 16, Calendar 348, File 438, Substitute for Senate Bill 116, An Act Concerning Oversight of Assisted Living Residences by the Department of Public Health, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule “A”, Favorable Report of the Committee on Aging, Public Health, Public Safety and Security, Appropriations, and Judiciary. Clerk is in possession of an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle, good evening.

SEN. DOYLE:

Good evening, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill, as amended.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Sir?

SEN. DOYLE:

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. As the Members will remember, a few weeks ago, the Chamber adopted Senate “A”, LCO 7209, which is a strike-everything amendment, that basically sets the stage for some regulation for the assisted living industry, and the technical name is the managed residential communities.

And the history of the bill comes from a now constituent of mine in Cromwell, who had a situation with a facility in Rocky Hill, which is also a town in my district.

And there's some really disturbing problems out of that situation. Therefore, I met with the constituent and moved forward in this session. The Aging Committee got together with Senator Prague, Senator Caligiuri. We worked together to come together with a bill.

We have before you, in Senate “A”, is the strike-everything amendment, which lays out a number of standards for the industry. For instance, it sets certain responsibilities for each facility.

I also establishes a biannual review for the Department of Public Health to go in each facility and just check it out and make sure it's clear and report any violations if there are any.

It also, probably most importantly, it establishes a written bill of rights for each resident of the facility, so when a person moves into a facility, they're aware of what the rights and responsibilities are at each facility.

Mr. President, there also is, we have an amendment, LCO 7804. May the Clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7804, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "B”. It is offered by Senator Doyle of the 9^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SEN. DOYLE:

Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. DOYLE:

Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is the result of further discussions with interested parties and Legislators.

And the bulk, this makes Senate “A” a better bill, and, among other cleanup things, the main, important, significant part of this amendment is it creates an administrative hearing procedure for any facility.

The background is if the facility receives a biannual review by the Department of Public Health, and a violation is notified, this bill offers and provides an opportunity to the facility to request an administrative hearing at the facility.

At that point, if the facility still doesn't happen to have a right on the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act, to go to Superior Court to appeal it. It's important to pretty much everybody, all parties involved, to have this right, of course, under due process of the Constitution.

So it's a very important amendment, and I urge the Chamber to adopt Senate “B”. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Doyle. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “B”? Will you remark? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye. ”

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate “B” is adopted. Senator Debicella, on the bill.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

On the bill, a question through you, Mr. President, to the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Mr. President, the question is with the passage of this, what will be the differences now between the regulations that are on nursing homes versus on assisted living?

I just haven't heard the details on that, and forgive me for asking this question on the floor, but I just want to understand what the difference in the regulation of the two are going to be now, through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SEN. DOYLE:

Yes, through you, Mr. President, the bottom line is currently, under current statutes, nursing homes are regulation. Under current law, assisted living facilities or managed residential communities have no regulations.

So this basically sets a threshold of regulation. However, after many months of work, this is, the level of regulation here is not as high as a nursing home industry, through you, Mr. President, because the level of care of these facilities is not as high, as a general rule.

So it's a good start. We're setting a benchmark here to protect our consumers and the residents of these facilities. However, it's not as high a level as a nursing home.

And I think, at this point, that makes sense because the level of care provided by these facilities is not as high. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Debicella.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Thank you, and I thank the Senator for his response. And only because there's not that many people in the Chamber, and there was some discussion about this in caucus, I just would ask that we don't place this on Consent and we do this by roll call. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to support this bill. I can't tell you how important this issue is to the growing elderly community in the State of Connecticut.

There are more and more assisted living facilities going up all the time. And without this bill, there is no way to assure that the residents who move into these managed residential care communities have any kind of bill of rights, any kind of entrance knowledge about what they're getting themselves into.

This bill provides that. There are lots of good facilities in this state. The managed residential care communities do a great job, offering a living situation to those seniors who don't want to live in their big homes anymore.

They may need some assistance with services, and these are great settings for older people. But there are some facilities in this state, which is why this bill is before us, that have forgotten what their mission is and have really committed some outrageous situations for the seniors living there.

I'm going to give you an example. I know this man who lives in an assisted living facility, who needed 24-hour care, and that was in addition to the $ 6,000 a month his son was paying for him.

Well, the son said, I don't want to move my father into a nursing home, and if you're willing to keep him here, where he's happy, I'm willing to pay for the 24-hour care.

So they told the son, well, it will cost you another $ 6,000 a month, and the son said, well, okay, I'll foot that bill.

Inadvertently, the facility sent the son the bill, and the actual charge for the person who was going to stay with this gentleman for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week was $ 3,200 a month, not $ 6,000 a month. But the facility charged $ 6,000 a month, paid the $ 3,200, pocketed the other $ 2,800.

In our bill, the way it is written, the person would know the cost of services before they signed the contract.

There was another case where this woman's father died, and because he had so called left the facility before the contract was up, and in the contract, it said if you leave early, you have to pay an additional two months' rent.

When she called me and told me that her father had died and that the facility was charging her an extra two months' rent, which was $ 10,000, my initial reaction was, you know, almost to laugh because that was so ridiculous.

And she said, you know, this is really true. They want another $ 10,000 from me because my dad left the facility before the contract was up. Well, I called the Health Department, and the Health Department intervened.

And this man's daughter did not have to pay the $ 10,000. But things like that that are happening in some of our facilities have to be stopped.

And the residential managed care communities have to know that this State Legislature now is proposing a piece of legislation that meets the needs of their elderly residents and also gives the facilities what they have asked for.

This is a great piece of legislation. We have worked very hard on it, and I want to thank the Chairs of the Aging Committee and our Ranking Member, Senator Caligiuri, for the work and support that they have given to this issue.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Prague. Senator Caligiuri.

SEN. CALIGIURI:

Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks both of Senator Prague and of Senator Doyle. I think this is a good bill.

This is really designed to make sure that we put minimum safeguards in place to guard against the sort of horror stories that Senator Prague described. I've heard it said that this bill is attempting to make assisted living facilities nursing homes.

That is not what this bill is intending to do. Consciously and deliberately, the leadership of the Committee, both on the majority and the minority side, worked very deliberately to ensure that that would not be the result of this bill, and I do not believe that it is.

I also just want to commend Senator Doyle, in particular. He worked very, very hard with all of the interested parties to come up with the bill that was as sensitive to everyone's concerns as humanly possible.

I believe he achieved that in this bill. For that reason, I'll be supporting it, and I would urge everyone in the Circle to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Caligiuri. Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I concur with the comments of Senator Caligiuri and Senator Prague on the underlying bill. Senator Prague might recall that we had a couple of discussions about this in the Appropriations Committee.

I did have some concern that we were exempting state congregate housing, but she has assured me that perhaps they don't need this.

Mr. President, I did not vote for this in the Appropriations Committee because it was my understanding that the money within this bill was not in the budget, which passed through the Appropriations Committee.

And so I'm reading the fiscal note, and the fiscal note is a little vague. It does talk that the Department of Public Health will incur costs associated with additional staffing, that those costs in the first full year of implementation would be $ 135,700 and that under the bill, the timing of the costs would be uncertain but that it would appear that the costs would start being incurred in late Fiscal Year '08.

So, Mr. President, and I don't see the Chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee here, but I do have a concern that this money is not in the budget, so I guess I would, and I don't know if the Chairwoman of the Public Health Committee is here to assuage my concerns that the Department of Public Health can transfer monies from one account to another to cover this.

I'm not trying to defeat the bill, but I'm, I guess, through you, Mr. President, to any Member of the majority party who would care to answer, is there money in the budget, which passed through the Appropriations Committee, set aside for this additional staffing?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle or Prague. Senator Doyle.

SEN. DOYLE:

Through you, Mr. President, I believe, currently, there is no money in the budget.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Mr. President, I might yield to another colleague so I can go check our rules. I also think that we have, Rule 30, I think if I recall, requires a statement as to where the money is going to come from if it's has an impact in the budget, and it's not in the budget.

I'll have to re-look at that rule, Mr. President, and I might make a point of order. Again, I'm not trying to defeat this bill. It's a very good bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to Senator McKinney, when the bill was before us in Appropriations, it did not have the amendment that was put on today.

The bill that we had before us was the underlying bill. I think it was LCO 7902, which required additional personnel in the Public Health Department. Senator Doyle presented an amendment today, within which the Public Health Department will do these hearings whenever necessary within their staff.

So I respect the fact that you, you know, watch how we spend our money and how we put our budget together, but this bill, as amended, it's my understanding, will not require any additional expenditure.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that answer. As I look at Senate Schedule “A”, which is LCO 7209, and Senate Schedule “B”, which is LCO 7804, which I believe, Mr. President, are the two amendments which we adopted, Senate Amendment LCO 7804 says that the amendment makes changes that do not alter the underlying fiscal impact.

On 7209, which is the other amendment, the fiscal note to 7209 says the amendment makes various changes which do not alter the underlying fiscal impact statement.

So we've passed two amendments. The fiscal notes to those two amendments say that those two amendments do not alter the underlying fiscal note. Therefore, I return to the underlying fiscal note.

And if I can get an explanation, that will be fine. We can vote yes, and it's a good bill. But I just don't believe that we should be passing legislation that's going to cost the Department of Public Health money if that money is not in the budget.

And as I, again, I mean, if we want to, I'm willing to, maybe we should PT it and get answers. And I know we're technically not allowed to read, but the fiscal note says, the Department of Public Health will incur costs associated with additional staffing required to implement regulation of assisted living residences.

In the first full year of implementation, the cost would be $ 135,700. It further states that the first full year of implementation may not happen until '09 but that this would begin in '08. '08 is within our budget year. '09, I think, is within our budget year.

And therefore, there are going to be costs incurred on behalf of the Department of Public Health. So I'm not sure what we should do. Perhaps I would yield to Senator Prague if she could enlighten us.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague, do you accept the yield?

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I do. It's my understanding, Senator McKinney, that the Health Department has said that they can do this within their available staff.

And it was that nominal amount of money that was in the underlying bill, in 7902, where we needed, for the hearings, two hearing officers or something, two positions. They have now said that they can do this within their available staff.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Senator Prague. If I could take back the floor, having yielded to you, if that's the case, then we should PT this bill.

We should have an amended fiscal note drafted to correctly reflect the fact that the Department of Public Health can assume these costs within available appropriations. And I will gladly vote for it.

But we have had these debates in the past about whether we agree or disagree with fiscal notes, but we have never wavered from what the fiscal note says. And I do believe the fiscal note does supercede, if I could yield to the Majority Leader.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Would ask that the bill be Passed Temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 20, Calendar 457, Calendar 575, Substitute for Senate Bill 1151, An Act Concerning Alias Tax Forms and Executions Against Debts Due to Judgment Debtors Served Upon Financial Institutions, Favorable Report of the Committees on Banks, Judiciary, and Planning and Development.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval, will you please remark, Sir.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, we have a strike-all amendment I'd like to call, LCO 7788, and may I ask to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7788, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Duff of the 25^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm pleased to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate. This is one of those ones that when it left the Banks Committee, was one of those rare works in progress, and we all had high hope that it would finally come to a successful conclusion with the Members of the Committee and the advocates who were proponents of this piece of legislation

What this basically does is it updates about a 30-year-old framework of laws on how to govern tax [inaudible] that are served or responded to by banks. In my opinion, this updates the law and certainly helps out our large cities and also helps out banks with much clearer rules and regulations than was there before.

At the moment, we have those who are in favor of the legislation, not only the Committee but those from the large cities, our Tax Collectors Association, our state marshals, those who show the papers.

So I do believe this is one that should go through without much of a problem, and I ask the Circle for their support. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Duff. Will you remark? Senator DeLuca.

SEN. DELUCA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the amendment. I think this is one of those occasions, as Senator Duff said, when all parties come together to make sure that a problem is corrected to everybody's satisfaction.

Originally, and I agree with him, I don't like that phrase, a work in progress, but this was one of those that really was a work in progress and progressed to the point of completion that brought us here today.

So I'm happy to support this, and I thank Senator Duff and others who worked on this to make this happen. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator DeLuca. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” is adopted. Senator Duff.

SEN. DUFF:

Thank you, Mr. President. Now the amendment becomes the bill, and if there's no further objection, may we place this on the Consent Calendar, please.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 21, Calendar 506 File 625, Substitute for Senate Bill 1451, An Act Establishing the Connecticut Homecare Option Program for the Elderly, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding and Human Services.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Daily.

SEN. DAILY:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and seek passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Ma'am?

SEN. DAILY:

Yes, if you give me leave to summarize, I will. It is a bill that establishes a Connecticut Homecare Trust Fund, and that is a fund which people can pay in order to save money for homecare when they're elderly.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Daily. Will you remark further?

SEN. DAILY:

Yes, Sir. I would ask the Clerk to be kind enough to call LCO 7902.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7902, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Daily of the 33^rd District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Daily.

SEN. DAILY:

Thank you very much. This makes minor technical changes--

THE CHAIR:

Would you please move adoption, Ma'am.

SEN. DAILY:

Oh, thank you. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. DAILY:

Some technical changes to the underlying bill, changes the effective date to coincide with the calendar year, substitutes some words, integral with instrumental, which is a common term for the services, and it removes the treasurer and substitutes the comptroller for the investment of funds.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Daily. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Senator Daily.

SEN. DAILY:

Thank you very much. I have moved the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. Ayes have it. Senator Daily.

SEN. DAILY:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. That then completes the bill, and if there's no objection, I would move it to the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague.

SEN. DAILY:

Oh, yes, I would yield to Senator Prague.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague, do you accept the yield?

SEN. PRAGUE:

Through you, Mr. President, thank you, Senator Daily. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO 6947. Would he please call and I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 6947, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "B". It is offered by Senator Prague of the 19^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Please stand at ease.

[SENATE AT EASE]

THE CHAIR:

Okay. The scoreboard is ready. Senator Prague, please proceed.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment eliminates the 250-person cap on the personal care assistance waiver in our homecare program. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Ma'am.

SEN. PRAGUE:

That's the amendment, Mr. President. It just removes the 250-person cap that we currently have on our homecare program for personal care attendants, who can be family members, and I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Prague. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “B”? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “B”? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, indicate by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “B” is adopted. We'll go to the bill now. Would anybody like to remark further? Senator Daily.

SEN. DAILY:

Thank you, Mr. President. If there's no objection, I would move this to the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing none, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 22, Calendar 518, File 626, Substitute for Senate Bill 1456, An Act Concerning the Compensation of Persons Wrongfully Convicted and Incarcerated, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary and Finance, Revenue and Bonding. Clerk is in possession of an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Sir?

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I believe the Clerk is in possession of LCO 7723. I ask that it be called and I be granted leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7723, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator McDonald of the 27^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill--

THE CHAIR:

Could you please move adoption, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD:

I'm sorry. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill, as its title suggests, is intended to address the issue of the compensation of persons wrongfully convicted and incarcerated.

Section 2 of the bill dealt specifically with the wrongful conviction and incarceration of James Calvin Tillman, and we have already taken care of that item in another bill, and I move to strike this section, Section 2.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. Senate Amendment “A” is adopted. Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the remaining section of the bill will allow the Advisory Commission on Wrongful Convictions that already exists in our statutes to investigate and consider possible ways in which individuals, such as Mr. Tillman, might be compensated or otherwise recompensed for a wrongful conviction.

We need to have, in this state, a process by which we handle the rights of innocent people, who were sent wrongfully to jail. And many states across the country have similar processes. They range over a wide array of options on how to deal with this.

And we think it's important that Connecticut finally put into place a more rigorous process to deal with situations such as this.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McDonald. Would you remark further on the bill as amended by Senate “A”? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Mr. President, if there's no objection, might this item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar 525, File 670, Substitute for Senate Bill 1439, An Act Concerning Conservators and Appeals of Conservatorships and Guardianships, Favorable Report of the Committees on Judiciary and Public Health. Clerk is in possession of an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval, will you remark further, Sir?

SEN. MCDONALD:

I will, Mr. President. Mr. President, this is a, I suspect most of what we do is very important, but this is a very important bill, from the perspective of the Judiciary Committee.

And it addresses the issue of how conservators are appointed in this state to deal with the issues, to deal with the issues of people who need the appointment of a conservator at a time in their lives when they need the assistance of somebody when they are incapable of making decisions on their own behalf.

But we have all too often heard in this state of very dramatic circumstances where that process has gone terribly, terribly wrong. And to address that situation, Mr. President, a stellar group of individuals came together over several months to address some of the deficiencies in our statutes.

And it was ably led by Judge Robert Killian, who is the Probate Judge for the District of Hartford. But among the members of that committee were individuals whose lives had brought them extraordinary expertise in the area of the legal rights of the elderly in probate matters, in social service matters, in the medical field.

And over the course of months and months, they have come together and put together a very comprehensive set of reforms that I believe everybody has had an opportunity to review. I won't go through them here.

Mr. President, there is a technical amendment that the Clerk has in his possession, LCO 7724. I ask that it be called and I be granted leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7724, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator McDonald of the 27^th District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as one might expect, when a 50-plus page bill is drafted, there are some technical amendments necessary to clean it up, and that is what is included in this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. The amendment “A” is adopted. Senator Prague.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, there has been a tremendous amount of work put into this bill. I particularly want to thank Senator McDonald. Over the years, there have been many elderly people who have been conserved by appointed conservators, by judges of the Probate Court.

And many of those conservators didn't bother to take a look at all the alternative homecare settings or services but just put these elderly people in nursing homes. We've heard some horror stories of how elderly people have lost their homes because those homes were sold by these conservators.

So there was no place for them to even go home to once they were stuck in a nursing home. This bill that has come out of the Judiciary Committee, I think, is just a wonderful bill that will protect elderly people and certainly make the Probate Court system much more aware of what the conservators must do before they, as the last resort, put anybody into a nursing home. So, through you, Mr. President, thank you, Senator McDonald.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Prague. Senator Handley.

SEN. HANDLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to add my congratulations to Senator Prague's. In the course of my ten years here, I've run into a couple of problems, local problems, and I've heard of many others, really very sad and difficult stories of people who have been involuntarily put into the conservator's system have had to endure.

And looking over this bill, it is a really fine bill, which provides a great deal of protection for the folks who are, in general, involuntarily put into the system and a good deal of accountability for the Probate Judge and the conservators who have been appointed.

So I'm indeed very happy to see this bill, and I congratulate Senator McDonald and all the others who took part in making this happen.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Handley. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I also rise in support of this legislation and would like to commend Senator McDonald for bringing it forward, Senator Prague for alerting the Judiciary Committee to this issue, as well as Senator Handley as well.

I do recall from the public hearing that there were individuals that actually suffered great indignities by being given a conservator that absolutely ran roughshod over their lives.

And the testimony that we received was heart wrenching. There certainly were some frail elderly individuals. I remember on case in particular, where it was brought to our attention that the individual kept falling out of bed in her own home.

And because she had difficulty arising from that situation, we all know the television commercial, I've fallen, and I can't get up, and sometimes we might chuckle at that, but that's a real problem for many individuals that are infirm, and they need to get those alert systems.

Well, this individual, when she fell, had no other recourse but to call the local police. And apparently, after about the 10^th or 11^th time this happened, over the course of many months, the police alerted some other folks in town, and it was determined that this individual may need a conservator.

One thing led to another, and it just seems like one mistake happened after another. When the conservator was appointed, it's my understanding from the public hearing, we were given ample testimony that her finances were in order. Her house was all paid up. She just had these physical infirmities.

And yet, the conservator basically took her out of her home, utilized her assets, you know, all these horrible, horrible things.

In meeting with my Probate Judge in northcentral Connecticut, it was made very apparent to me that in the vast majority of cases in the State of Connecticut, not only are conservators very, very good and thorough and sensitive and caring, but these problems don't arise.

But unfortunately, there are enough of these isolated instances where an individual's quality of life, as well as personal finances, are so dramatically hurt by this running roughshod and this insensitivity, that this legislation is absolutely necessary.

One last point, I remember, jeepers, it must be about 12 years ago now, that we established the Select Committee on Aging. And we've always been striving to try to address issues regarding continuum of care for our elderly in the State of Connecticut.

And this is just one more piece of that puzzle. Wherever we're going, and we're touching upon issues regarding our seniors, we're always striving to try to allow our elderly, in particular, although this bill would apply to anybody who's in a situation that may need a conservator, but we're always striving to allow the individuals the most freedom possible, while still making sure that they're in a healthy environment.

So this does that. It enhances those protections. It moves forward. It addresses all the concerns that we heard at the public hearing. I have to tell you, it really was a heart-wrenching public hearing.

And what we told primarily women that suffered this, but what we told each one of those individuals was that their suffering at least had the beneficial effect of allowing us to learn, as a Legislature, and make remedies so this wouldn't happen in the future.

It's small recompense for the indignities that they suffered, but at least they should all know that what they went through has allowed the State of Connecticut to put a new law on the books that will make it difficult, if not impossible, for these indignities to occur in the future. And I strongly and wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Kissel. Will you remark? Will you remark on the bill as amended by Senate “A”? Will you remark? Senator McDonald.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, if there's no objection, might this item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Mr. President, that completes those items previously marked Go.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. We have a few items to mark as Go that were marked as Passed Temporarily earlier. First of those, Mr. President, is on Calendar Page 7, Calendar 594, House Bill 5234, should now be marked go.

And also, Mr. President, on Calendar Page 17, Calendar 394, Senate Bill 145, should be marked Go.

And also, Mr. President, a matter earlier marked Passed Temporarily, on Calendar Page 11, Calendar 127, Senate Bill 938.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Turning to Calendar Page 7, Calendar 594, File 278 and 819, Substitute for House Bill 5234, An Act Concerning the Banning of Pesticides on School Grounds and the Enforcement Authority of the Department of Environmental Protection, as amended by House Amendment Schedule “A”, Favorable Report of the Committee on Environment and Education. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Sir?

SEN. FINCH:

Yes, Mr. President. Before I speak about the bill, I'd like the Clerk to call Amendment LCO 7812.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7812, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Finch of the 22^nd District.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Mr. President, this simply removes--

THE CHAIR:

Move adoption, Sir, please.

SEN. FINCH:

I would move the adoption because this simply removes the fiscal note from the bill, from the file copy.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” is adopted. Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. The underlying bill is very similar to what we passed last year. The reasons we passed it last year are the same reasons why we're updating it this year.

Young children playing upon school grounds, being exposed to chemicals may have an impact on them as they are growing rapidly and playing in close proximity with the ground.

So it was felt by the majority of the Environment Committee that we should more clearly list the prohibition because last year, as you may recall, we passed this, regarding elementary schools, but the definition of elementary school can vary from town to town.

So Senator Meyer and I met with the advocates, who are many, and agreed that while pushing this bill out one more year in order for the industry to accommodate to this, we would also define the elementary school as through eighth grade.

And I would say, Mr. President, that the supporters of this bill are many, the watershed partnership, the Sierra Club, ConnPIRG, Audubon Connecticut, and ECC of Milford.

And we were able to work with the industry, the environmental industry's council, CCM, and the Connecticut Parks and Recreation, I believe, to craft something that represents the best interests of the children going forward, and I would urge its approval.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Finch. Will you remark further on the bill as amended by Senate “A”? Will you remark? Senator Finch.

SEN. FINCH:

Mr. President, if there are no objections, I would move for this item to be placed on the Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 11, Calendar 127, File 69, Substitute for Senate Bill 938, An Act Concerning a Study of Limiting the Purchase of Hand Guns to One Per Month, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Safety and Judiciary.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Mr. President, I'd ask that the Clerk call the other bill that we had marked Passed Temporarily first and then marked Go, Calendar Page 17, Calendar 394.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Calendar Page 17, Calendar 394, File 485, Substitute for Senate Bill 145, An Act Establishing a Task Force to Study the Recommendations of the Office of State Ethics Concerning Municipal Ethics, Favorable Report of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections and Legislative Management. Clerk is in possession of amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SEN. SLOSSBERG:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, will you remark further, Ma'am?

SEN. SLOSSBERG:

Thank you, Mr. President. This bill very simply seeks to create a taskforce to study how we could possibly handle, in our state, issues of municipal ethics with regard to our Office of State Ethics.

As the Chair of GAE, we've heard so many stories from people dealing with municipal ethics issues in their towns.

We have 169 different, unique municipalities, and there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer, and so we are looking to create a taskforce to take a look at this issue.

At this time, Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 7898, and I ask that it be called, and I seek leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7898, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Slossberg of the 14^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SEN. SLOSSBERG:

I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Ma'am.

SEN. SLOSSBERG:

This amendment very simply restores the policy and the law to the place it has been, or at least we believed it had been, for times previous, with regard to all of those people who have to file statements of financial interest, that we disclose the sources of those incomes, so that, basically, the Office of State Ethics can do the job that they are supposed to be doing and look at conflicts of interest with regard to the filings therein.

So it's important that we get this done. It's very difficult for the office to continue with their job. And I'm delighted that all the Members of the Circle join me in this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Slossberg. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark? Senator Meyer.

SEN. MEYER:

I just want to thank Senator Slossberg for moving so quickly on a matter of public interest. You know, it was revealed to us just in the last few days that we had signed a financial form that did not indicate who we work for, other than the General Assembly of Connecticut.

And the speed with which the Senate Chair of GAE moved really was in the public interest. And I thank you, Senator, for doing that, and I'm very happy to join you in supporting this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Meyer. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Senator Harp.

SEN. HARP:

Thank you, Mr. President. I too want to thank the Chairman for looking into this matter. I tried to do my filing online after about three days of working with the department.

I was finally able to do it online. And then I did it, and I sent it in, and I realized that I hadn't put the place that I work. And I thought, oh, I need to send them a letter to let them know where I work because, of course, they would want that.

And then I found out that, in fact, it wasn't required, for some technical reason. I'm glad that that got fixed. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Harp. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, to follow up on what Senator Harp said, the nice thing about serving in this Circle is that none of us have anything to hide.

And, Mr. President, this bill makes it clear that, certainly, all of us are very happy to let the world know where we work, how we derive our income, and this particular technical oversight, I really think on the part of the Ethics Commission, was not anything that any of us had really anything to do with. So today, we get to be part of the solution when, in fact, I don't think we were ever part of the problem.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Roraback. Will you remark? Senator DeLuca.

SEN. DELUCA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I just join with others in saying how important this is, and I hope this sends a message to the new Ethics Commission that when they want to make changes like this, that they should ask somebody first.

Maybe they would not have done this and would have prevented us from having to do this. It's a simple matter, but it was simply, a phone call probably could have straightened it out long before, and we wouldn't have been in this situation.

So I thank the Chair for acting so quickly and correcting something that needed to be done. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator DeLuca. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment “A”? Will you remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying “aye”.

SENATE ASSEMBLY:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

All opposed, “nay”. The ayes have it. Senate Amendment “A” is adopted. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would move that the bill as amended be referred to the Committee on Planning and Development.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Acting on approval of the bill, Ma'am, will you remark further?

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I have a strike-everything amendment, and I'd like to ask if the Clerk would please call LCO 7891 and that I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO 7891, which will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "A". It is offered by Senator Stillman of the 20^th District, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Ma'am.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Sir. This amendment before you is, quite frankly, a really quite simple amendment. It calls for folks who own firearms to know where they are. And if they are lost or stolen, to report that in a 72-hour period.

The amendment sets forth the procedures, and also it does have a provision that it does not apply to antique firearms. Also, it calls for penalties of a Class D and a Class C, depending on the reporting requirement that is not met.

It also has language in it that states that when a state permit is issued, the commissioner shall make information available that a permit holder for a firearm shall also explain this new law and that it is the permit holder's responsibility to report the loss or theft of the firearm and what the penalties are that are associated with the failure to comply with the law are.

It also lays out some other language in terms of firearm trafficking and per someone's knowing and intentionally, directly or indirectly, causing the firearms to fall into someone's hands that's inappropriate.

The bill also does not include a rifle or a shotgun, as well, as I stated, the antique firearm. This is a very important piece of legislation. I, in my district, represent a city that, unfortunately, has been dealing with crimes around firearms.

And I know this is a controversial idea, but I feel that the legislation that has been introduced is sensible and that someone who owns a firearm should know where it is at all times.

And if they don't, they better. This will give them the reason to keep track of it, to know where it is, and make sure it doesn't fall into hands that can use it inappropriately. And with that, Mr. President, I would like to yield to Senator McDonald.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald, do you accept the yield?

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. I do.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SEN. MCDONALD:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as Senator Stillman suggested, the amendment that comes before us is, in many ways, simple, but its origins are tragic.

And that is the origin emanates from the devastating consequences in the State of Connecticut that result form the trafficking in lost or stolen firearms in our state and, in particular, in our urban communities.

Mr. President, this amendment is a piece of legislation a long time in coming and, I would argue, a long time overdue.

And at its core, Mr. President, it stands for the proposition that one who owns a firearm has an obligation, an affirmative obligation, to know at all times where that firearm is.

And if it is lost, or if it is stolen, this amendment would create an affirmative obligation on that individual to report that loss or that theft to a local police department, or in the circumstances of a town without a police department, to the state police troop having jurisdiction over that town.

Upon receipt of that information, that local law enforcement agency would be charged with the responsibility to make sure that that information is conveyed to the Commissioner of Public Safety, who will keep track of all of this information.

And it is important information. We need to know when firearms are finding their way into the criminal stream. Under this provision, Mr. President, an individual who fails to make that notification within 72 hours would be charged with an infraction.

I personally wish it was more, but for a first-time offense, under this amendment, it would be an infraction. It would essentially be a first bite at the apple, really nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

And that is intended to address the circumstance where someone innocently may not have known, or did not discover, the loss or theft of that firearm.

But there would be no such mercy for a second violation. Under this provision, Mr. President, somebody who is guilty of a second offense would be charged with a Class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $ 5,000 fine.

And if the circumstances of that, either the first or the second situation, could be proven that the individual intentionally, willfully and intentionally, failed to report the loss or the theft of that firearm, that individual could be charged with a Class C felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $ 10,000 fine.

I do want to be clear, Mr. President, that this amendment seeks to amend language already in our statutes, with respect to assault weapons. And it broadens the scope of this provision to include firearms, which could include revolvers, handguns, long guns, shotguns, automatic weapons.

Perhaps the more important, or longer-term, impact of this amendment is included in Section 3, which would create a new crime of firearms trafficking and would address the situation where an individual knowingly or intentionally, directly or indirectly, caused a firearm to come into the hands of a person who that individual knew could not lawfully possess a firearm under our other state or federal law.

Essentially, Mr. President, this is intended to address the situation where straw purchasers facilitate the transmission of a firearm into the hands of an individual who cannot lawfully possess that firearm.

Too often, it's with a nod and a wink. And then they come to the police department and say someone must have stolen it.

Under this provision, Mr. President, if someone knowingly and intentionally, either directly or indirectly, participated in that scheme, they will be charged, and I hope found guilty, of a Class C felony.

Mr. President, I just want to thank Senator Stillman for her work on this issue. I also want to particularly thank Representative Tong, who has worked so hard on this issue, and so many people who have understood the deadly impact that lost or stolen firearms have on our streets in the State of Connecticut.

And I hope, Mr. President, if this amendment is adopted and this bill passed, that it is rapidly taken up in the House and that, ultimately, the Governor will sign it, and the streets of Connecticut will be made more safe. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark? Senator Nickerson.

SEN. NICKERSON:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this general concept has been around this building and around this Chamber for some time, some years, and I think it's very important to understand the moderate, the moderate form in which it appears before us today.

If I may, let me lay out four things that it does not do, and that will, I think, draw a picture frame around how modest this proposal is.

First, it does not include the provisions in a bill now not before us but on which this is modeled, that would be Senate Bill 903, which had provisions regarding safe storage. Those are not in this bill.

Secondly, as Senator McDonald has pointed out, the concept itself is not new. Reporting of a stolen assault weapon has been in law for some time.

Thirdly, again, it does not provide Draconian penalties, in fact, very modest, I would argue, overly lenient penalty, an overly lenient penalty of a mere infraction and a $ 90 fine for the first violation, but that's okay. No one can say this is a Draconian penalty.

And finally, it does not punish someone who did not know, or should not have known, that their weapon was stolen. So of all the versions of this law that I have seen, this is the most modest, and that's fine. If that assists in its passage, all to the good.

But certainly, it is circumscribed in such a way that lawful gun owners, lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I've heard over and over again in this debate, not this debate but other debates on guns, the NRA and others say, quote, they're taking away our guns.

This takes away nothing. Not a line in this bill takes anything away from anybody. Its purpose, as has been outlined, is to deal with the very real issue that many guns recovered at a crime site are found to have been bought out of someone's trunk.

Its path of provenance, ownership, if you will, is concealed by someone who says, oh, I guess it was stolen. Well, that may go the first time. That may not go the second time. And that is crucial because the second time, and on down the line, this guy is a dealer.

And there's no one in this Circle, gun owner or not, who supports illicit gun dealers out of the trunk of a car. No one supports that, not gun owners, hunters, target shooters.

No one in this Circle, who has or knows anyone who has a legitimate purpose for a gun, would want to see it purchased out of the trunk of a car.

So my point here is this is a narrow bill, very narrowly confined to a very narrow set of facts. Without Draconian penalties, it is no threat to anyone, but it is a protection for the citizens of Connecticut, who often live particularly in cities, but everywhere, with the reality that illicit guns pop out of car trunks and kill people, and kill people.

So let's not hear that people kill people, guns don't. Let's not hear that this is taking away all our guns. Let's not hear that legitimate gun owners have something to fear.

Let's not hear that this will do no good, because if it saves one illicit gun sale, and it prevents one crime where one person is wounded or killed, it's worth it. The human life, the damage that that can do is worth it. So I urge adoption, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Nickerson. Will you remark? Senator Guglielmo.

SEN. GUGLIELMO:

Thank you, Mr. President. And I heard discussion about the penalties not being too severe and that it's better than the bill that we had before. But, you know, the premise is wrong. The entire premise of the bill is wrong.

Why would we turn victims of a crime into criminals? If you got your car stolen, and you didn't report it, and the car was used in a crime, would anybody in this Circle vote for a bill like that, that would make the person who got his car stolen and who didn't report it because he didn't know it was gone in 72 hours, a criminal? I don't think so.

But we've got a special place in our hearts and minds for gun owners. It's not a politically correct thing to be in today's society, apparently. In the area that I come from, we have lots of gun owners, and they object to being made criminals because they are victims. So the premise is wrong.

If you really want to do something to stop this type of behavior, we had something that worked, but we stopped funding it, called the Statewide Firearms Trafficking Taskforce. That worked. They were getting 500, 600 illicit guns off the street.

But we stopped funding it. I don't know, maybe we stopped funding it because it worked. I have no idea. This is sometimes a very strange place. Last year, we lowered the penalty on crack cocaine, and tonight, we're going to put a penalty on victims of crime, just incredible. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. First of all, I'd like to commend Senator Guglielmo for those very wise remarks, and I'd like to be associated with them. The folks in his neck of the woods tend, in many respects, to mirror the folks in my neck of the woods.

But I also think that when we're dealing with criminal penalties, we need to be very precise in the language that we're going to put on the books, to the extent possible, so that folks know what's appropriate and what's inappropriate behavior, because it's my belief that the vast majority of individuals in our state want to comport with the law.

And so a question through you, Mr. President, or a few questions, regarding the amendment, to the proponent, Senator Stillman, if I may.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. KISSEL:

My first question, through you, Mr. President, regards the language in Line 13, where we say an individual should report the theft or loss of a firearm, and it says, or should have discovered.

And I'm going to pose an example, and I'm going to ask the proponent violation or not a violation? We have a senior citizen. She lives alone. She's not disabled or anything, but she's fearful of her own health and safety, and so she has a pistol.

She keeps it in her house, maybe loaded, completely lawful. It's in an end table in a drawer next to her bed because she wants the comfort of knowing if a burglar breaks in in the middle of the night, she has something to protect herself.

And she checks it about once a week, when she's dusting. Is it in the drawer? There it is. And no one else comes to her house. She doesn't have small children running around. And she checks it on a Sunday, and she gets a knock on the door the following Saturday.

Policeman goes to the door and says, we've detected that a handgun that you have, with the identification number, has been used in a crime. Can you go and check and see if you've got this handgun?

And this woman, wanting to work with the police, runs back to her bedroom, opens her drawer to the table there, and it's gone. Now I don't know how someone got into her house, burglar, someone slipped through a window. We don't know, and she doesn't know.

But she goes back and tells the police officer, I checked it a week ago, and it was there, but you know what? It's not there now. Okay. Under that scenario, is she in violation of the law or not? Because it's been way more than 72 hours since that gun was stolen, I guess. I don't know.

Nobody knows when the gun was stolen. But she hasn't checked on it in a week. And so when the law that we're contemplating here says, or should have discovered, she, as a lawful gun owner, what is her legal responsibility?

Should she be checking that drawer every 72 hours, every 24 hours? What is a lawful gun owner's responsibility when it comes to knowing where your firearms are? Because I heard the proponent earlier state, you need to know where your gun is at all times.

Well, I don't know where any of my stuff is at all times. I'm here. Most of my stuff is back at home. I haven't been there all day. I don't know where that stuff is. A tornado could have come and taken it all away. I don't know, you know.

So question, what does it mean, in the scenario that I just sketched out, or should have discovered, and is the woman in the example in violation of the law or not, and who makes that determination, the officer or someone else, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to Senator Kissel, you have laid out a scenario that is one that we have heard before, so I will do my best to answer your question.

First of all, the language on Lines 12 through 13, that are not underlined, is existing law under assault weapons law. So it is existing law, where what this bill is doing is applying it to other firearms, handguns.

The other issue is the fact that if someone checks it that frequently, I would expect that person to share that with the police department.

Seventy two hours, I believe, is about 5 days, and if it's someone who checks it every week, certainly, that is someone who is considered someone who is responsible by the police department.

And I understand this is law, and it says 72 hours, and it's 5 days, and where is the 5^th day, etc. But as I stated in my comments before about someone knowing where their possessions are, certainly, Senator, if we had a tornado, I think you'd know what was going on at home, even if you were here.

And I also think that the fact that you're here all day certainly falls within a 72-hour rule. So if you checked it two days ago, you're still within the law.

But with that, you know, at this point, and I believe the way it's written, that just the fact that someone should be checking it more frequently than they do would be a big help.

The point is people don't always check. They don't check as frequently as they should. We also know that if someone is on vacation, and they come home and find the gun missing, it's when they discover it missing.

So that certainly would be within the timeframe. I don't know if Senator McDonald has any more he would like to add, in terms of answering this question, since I am not an attorney, and he is.

So if I may yield to him, through you, Mr. President, if Senator Kissel is comfortable with that, to answer the question, I would like to do so.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McDonald, do you accept the yield?

SEN. MCDONALD:

I do, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate Senator Stillman's answer. The only thing I think I can, the only elements I can add to that very lengthy, law-school type hypothetical is that the standards under which this crime would be prosecuted are well known in the law.

These have not been made up out of [inaudible] cloth. The standards of knowing or should have known or discovered or should have discovered have been in our statutes for an extraordinary lengthy period of time.

In fact, Mr. President, under Section 53a-8 of our statutes, we talk specifically about the nexus between knowledge and intention and criminal responsibility.

And to answer Senator Kissel's other question, there are essentially three protections that the woman in your hypothetical might have, Senator Kissel. The first is that there would have to be probable cause for an arresting officer to make such an arrest, and that standard is well known in the law.

Secondly, a prosecutor would have to agree to prosecute it in his or her prosecutorial discretion. And thirdly, if something actually did go to court, there would actually have to be a mens rea for criminal conduct or criminally negligent actions on the part of the defendant.

And the state would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, all of which are well-established standards in our law. And, Mr. President, I should say that under Senator Kissel's scenario, it would be a fact-bound determination.

And any number of hypotheticals could be posed, but that's what we do all the time in our statutes when we talk about knew or should have known, discovered or should have discovered.

And I think, Mr. President, that that is perhaps one of the reasons why the first instance of an offense under this would be an infraction, so that widow, I think she was in your hypothetical, would not be unduly subjected to any type of penalty. She would have to pay a $ 90 fine.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McDonald. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, and that answers my first question. And it answer it in such a way that it makes it very easy for me to vote against this amendment.

And by the way, if the proponents haven't asked for a roll call, I would ask for a roll call, because there are so many gray areas.

And I appreciate the fact that Senator McDonald indicates that these are well-settled areas of the law, but they're well settled in that they're gray areas, that there has to be determinations made all along the way.

So in the scenario that I painted, regarding the widow who checks on her gun once a week, I don't know, and I don't think anybody in this Circle knows, what that officer is going to do when he knocks the door.

Because who knows if that's reasonable or unreasonable. And what I heard was something very interesting behind the language.

And, see, the language is what's going to apply when someone is facing criminal penalties, whether it starts off as an infraction or, God forbid, you happen to be falling into this a second time, and now you're looking at some serious jail time.

But I hear this notion that, you know, lawful gun owners should check on their guns more often. Well, I didn't even get to the hypothetical where someone has a beautiful summer home up in the Berkshires, or the Connecticut part of the Berkshires, you know.

And they have hunting rifles there, and they're all chained up and everything else. But you know what? The family hasn't been up there in a couple of months.

They don't, you know, maybe they even have an alarm system, but who knows how it goes off? In other words, you are imposing, by this legislation, a duty on lawful gun owners to sort of know where those guns are 24/7.

And I'm saying people don't know where anything is 24/7. It's hard to know where your children are 24/7. And trust me, I go way out of my way to know that, way out of my way.

And nothing scares a parent like turning around and seeing their child running around to the back of the house when you didn't know for that one minute or two where the heck they went.

And so I understand that guns are a dangerous instrumentality when they're in the wrong hands. But I agree with Senator Guglielmo that we are really putting the burden on the law-abiding gun owners.

And we really did have a mechanism that was working. Now if you really want to take a bite out of this crime, let's get that money back into that Statewide Illegal Firearms Taskforce that was doing the job.

And unfortunately, in my 15 years in the Senate, every year or two, we come up with some new gun law, and it's supposed to solve all these issues. And trust me, it is heart wrenching to listen to the victims of crime. I'm not minimizing that at all.

But I think that we have tried-and-true methodologies. Let law enforcement do the job they're going to do, and give them the proper funding. I, again, think that this has problems.

One last question through you, Mr. President, to the proponent, and, again, this is by way of trying to set a record here in the Chamber because, you know, the first couple of people dragged in on this and facing a prosecutor, their attorneys, especially if they're looking at incarceration time, are probably going to look to the record here to try to clarify some of these terms.

And, again, this may be someplace in the law very clear, but I would refer Senator Stillman to Section 3, Lines 152 and 153, and it's a new section, so I really don't know if it mirrors other areas of our law.

But what I really just don't understand is where it says, a person knowingly and intentionally, and those are well-settled terms, knowingly and intentionally, but then it says, directly or indirectly.

And I understand how someone can knowingly and intentionally, directly assist in trafficking in weapons. But what I don't understand is knowingly and intentionally, indirectly causing firearms to be proliferated, indirectly.

Does that mean using straw individuals? Because to me, the interposition of a straw individual would be direct. It's just using other individuals. But I'm just wondering, and by the way, I have the least amount of concerns with Section 3, and this is strictly not a criticism.

I'm really trying to figure out what knowingly and intentionally, indirectly means or if that was thrown in there, sort of a general catch-all so that if someone looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then you're going to throw the book at them because they probably are engaged in this, and this would sort of catch that crazy fact pattern that might not fall into what somebody might call direct, through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to Senator Kissel, I guess I'm going to have to call on my knowledge of English, as opposed to law, to answer your question.

As you stated, you know what directly means. I think we all do, and it's indirectly. I would venture to say that it is someone who transfers or gives their gun to someone, or sells it possibly, and then that person, in turn, sells it to someone else.

And I believe that that is the meaning behind this language, the fact that you might sell it or hand it over to someone directly. What happens to it after that is the question.

And that is why you have to know who it is that you're selling or lending your gun to, through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Stillman. Senator Kissel.

SEN. KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And that sort of gets to where I think the language is going. In a perfect world, knowingly and intentionally addresses what Senator McDonald indicated, the mens rea, that it was requisite in the crime.

But when it's the requisite mens rea involved in indirect, the way I look at that is the utilization of straw individuals or straw corporations or LLCs or other bodies.

I actually think that Section 3, in many of its goals, makes an awful lot of sense. But for the reasons that I indicated regarding the previous section, the tenor that it sets, the fact that we have tried and truly proven methodologies that we've already passed on and funded, that were working, and for whatever reason, we don't follow up with the things that work, and we continue to pass new laws, I'd rather have us focus on allowing law enforcement the resources to use the laws that are on the books.

And for that reason, Mr. President, with the utmost respect to the proponents and the supporters, who are wide and varied in this Circle, I'll be humbly voting no on this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Kissel. Senator Gomes.

SEN. GOMES:

Thank you. I rise to support this legislation. And I rise to support this legislation coming out of a city like Bridgeport, which has much need of any legislation that will control guns in any sense.

First of all, I would like to address the hypothetical that Senator Kissel put up, the sweet, old widow who had the gun and doesn't know where it's at. And she doesn't have any idea.

She doesn't have any young children running around the house and nobody living in that house but her, and the gun disappears. That means somebody that wasn't authorized to be in that house is in there. That's a burglar.

When a burglar comes into your house, you will know he's been there because he's searching for something to sell, and he will disrupt your whole house.

And if that gun was gone out of that drawer, that drawer is laying on the floor somewhere, and a whole bunch of other stuff has been rifled through.

I rise for a more important reason. We had an incident in Bridgeport where we were trying to pass an ordinance on gun control.

We were set to vote on it when I was on a council, prior to coming up here, and one council member tabled the issue in order to bring a gun dealer in there to testify about how useless this ordinance would be.

We arranged for him to come in and testify. He testified that the ordinance was cumbersome. It would cause a lot of problems for legitimate gun dealers because of the paperwork, and they listened to him, and they defeated the ordinance.

About six months later, this same legitimate gun dealer is picked up by the FBI, and he was charged with some horrific violations. Over 100 guns, and I understand why now he said the paperwork was cumbersome, because he had sold over 100 guns with no trace of paperwork whatsoever.

During the investigation, they found out that a person who is convicted of murder and was heading a big-time narcotic operation in Bridgeport, million-dollar operation, was bringing to his store eight and nine people at a time to buy guns, a straw operator.

Now we talk about indirectly, that word indirectly, I'll give you indirectly. This guy was Big Frankie Estrada. And he was the head of this organization that caused quite a few murders in the city.

And he indirectly brought these guys in there to buy the guns from this dealer. Now out of those 100 guns that were missing, that he sold, at least 4 of them were traced back to murders.

Do we need any legislation that has people accounting for their guns? Let me tell you something. If you have a gun, and you have children in your house, you should know where your gun is at all times.

And if you have children in your house, you should know where your gun is because it should be locked down.

These people that talk about they don't know where their gun is, the other hypothetical Senator Kissel gave about up in the Berkshires, you shouldn't have guns up in the Berkshire that you own and not accountable to you or where they are.

People that are not necessarily involved in some of the things that have happened to some of the major cities and Bridgeport can poo poo the idea that people should not be made to account for where their weapons are.

You don't lose weapons in a house that easily. And if they are gone, and someone has burglarized and taken your weapons, you will know that they have been in your house because the first thing a burglar comes in there for, he's looking for something to sell, your TV, your electronic equipment, whatever he can find.

And the gun, that's just a little frosting on the cake for him. He found that when he was rifling for everything else. These are serious, serious measures that need to be taken to halt the proliferation of guns.

We suffer by it. I know a lot of kids that have suffered by it. Guns put in the hands of children, sold in our neighborhoods, they may not affect other people's neighborhoods, but I know how much they affect ours.

I think this bill, as Senator Nickerson has said, is a very modest bill. I would like it to be much more strength than this. But I'll tell you something.

I appreciate Senator McDonald raising this bill, and I think it's a good bill, and I think everybody should get behind it and vote for it. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Gomes. Will you remark? Senator Debicella.

SEN. DEBICELLA:

Thank you, Mr. President. I do rise in opposition to this bill. I believe it is very well intended. But at the end of the day, the criminalization of the loss of a firearm, I believe, is turning lawful citizens into criminals. And let me explain why I believe that.

First off, most of this bill, I actually have no problem with. I actually believe it's okay to say that you should report a lost firearm. I'm actually even okay with saying that if you don't, you shall pay a fine.

My problem, Mr. President, comes in Line 21 to 26, where we say, after the second offense, it will be a Class D felony not to report a lost firearm.

And, Mr. President, just to give you an idea of what a Class D felony is, Class D felonies are things like paying or receiving kick-backs, perjury, assault in the second degree, promoting prostitution, burglary in the third degree, identity theft, forgery, and we're going to add to the list of that losing a gun and not reporting it?

Quite honestly, Mr. President, I don't believe that losing a gun and not reporting it rises to the level of a Class D felony, even on the second offense. And I want to say I do understand Senator Gomes' argument.

We do need to get tough on guns committed with crimes, especially in our urban areas, where it's reaching an epidemic proportions. However, the vast majority of people who own guns are law-abiding citizens.

And if they do lose a firearm, they do not deserve to be called felons. They do not deserve to be put in the same category as people who are burglars, identity theft, promoting prostitution.

I don't believe this is the right level of penalty for this bill. Therefore, Mr. President, I'll be voting no, and I encourage rejection of the bill. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Debicella. Will you remark? Senator McKinney.

SEN. MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment and respect the arguments of those in opposition.

This is a bill that we have discussed for the past three years, I believe, and I think great effort has been made to work with law-abiding gun owners to make a reasonable bill that does not put an undue burden on them.

One of the better changes in this year's version is that the language has been changed, which used to read knew or should have known, to model current law, which is discovered or should have discovered.

Some of my colleagues have talked about that term, well, what do you mean should have discovered. There would be no point having a law were that language not in there because the person would simply say, well, I didn't discover it.

You could never prove that I didn't discover it. Therefore, the law would be virtually ineffective. The should have discovered, should have known, reasonable person standard is well settled within our jurisprudence.

I do take issue because I know a lot of very good, law-abiding gun owners, hunters, people who believe it's important for their personal protection and that of their family to own a gun. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Quite frankly, it's a constitutional right to do that. But with that right comes responsibilities. And I take issue with those that are saying we are criminalizing victims or criminalizing people who have simply lost a gun, because we are not doing that.

What we're saying is if you have been victim of a crime, someone has come in and taken things from your house, and one of them is a gun, you have a duty to report that to the police. That's what we're saying.

That's not criminalizing the victim. It's giving them the responsibility to report the crime that's been committed. Now most gun owners that I know, I know some hunters who bought hunting rifles that range in the thousands of dollars.

And my guess is that if someone came in and stole your $ 3,000 or $ 4,000 hunting rifle from your house and stole your jewelry, your wife's jewelry and things, you would call the police, and you would also call your insurance agent.

And that very expensive gun would be itemized, like your jewelry and silverware and other things. And you would report that, and you would get compensated for that theft.

So most law-abiding gun owners already deal with situations where if their gun were stolen in their house, they would be making a phone call to report that, probably to their insurance carrier, and they would probably be making a call to the police, saying, my house has been robbed.

So they're already making these calls. We're just saying when you call the police to say, my house has been robbed, to also say, and by the way, I am a gun owner. It was X kind of gun, and maybe you have the serial number and your permit number and all that.

I don't think that's a lot to ask. Moreover, overwhelmingly, the gun owners I know are very comfortable with this.

The reality in the world, as I have read and learned about, and it's not happening in my district, thankfully, but it is in other places in Connecticut, is that too often, our police officers are showing up to homes where a gun has been registered to, a gun that has been used in a crime, a gun that has led to the death of somebody oftentimes.

And the person who owns that gun says, I don't know what happened to it. I lost it. But we know that that's not really what had happened.

The reason for the very modest infraction on the first offense is because something could happen to an honest, legitimate gun owner, and maybe they did lose it. Maybe they did forget. It could happen. So there's an infraction.

What's the likelihood that your average hunter is going to have their house robbed twice and have their gun stolen twice? It's not really something that's going to happen.

But what we do know is people who are straw buyers and people who are selling guns illegally do sell more than one. And that's why the second offense is a more serious offense.

I was also surprised to hear some concern over Section 3 because Section 3 is very explicit, that to be convicted of a crime of firearms trafficking, you have to knowingly and intentionally traffic in firearms.

I would dare say there isn't a single law-abiding, good, decent gun owner in the State of Connecticut who's engaged in trafficking firearms. There are criminals who do that.

And this severely punishes them if they are caught. So I would think most law-abiding gun owners would actually look at Section 3 and say, that's the right way to go. You could probably get rid of the rest of the bill, but Section 3 is the right thing.

So I think this is a modest step. I am very cognizant of, and truly respect and support the Second Amendment right to bear arms. But I do believe there are responsibilities that come with that right.

I do believe most people are comfortable with this responsibility, and I hope this is the year that we can pass it in the House and the Senate, the Governor can sign it, and we can move onto more important things in years to come. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator McKinney. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the amendment. This is a very, very important amendment, Mr. President. It is of particular significance to urban areas but certainly not exclusively so.

In the public hearing testimony on this concept, the Police Chief in the City of New Haven, Chief Ortiz, testified that a very high percentage of the handguns, which are recovered on the streets of New Haven, were originally legally purchased in Connecticut but then somehow wound up in the hands of criminals on city streets.

And Senator McKinney is absolutely right. What happens in such a frustrating way for law enforcement, and I'm aware, after speaking to a couple of prosecutors in Connecticut of several cases that are actively going on right now, of guns that were recovered in these circumstances trace back to the owner, who then just shrugs and says, oh, must have lost it.

Maybe it was stolen. Don't know what happened to it, knowing that that was probably not a truthful response but not able to go beyond that.

This is an effort to get at the very serious crime of the havoc being wreaked in our state by those who set themselves up for these straw sales, that people who will sell guns out of the trunk of their car, as Senator Nickerson said, to people who could not purchase one legally.

It is a crucial matter of public safety that we pass this amendment this year. And to talk about the concerns that some have expressed about prosecution of people whose loss of the firearm was inadvertent or perhaps neglectful or unaware, are asking for a level of vigilance which is unreasonable.

That is certainly not the case because that likens the ownership of a gun to other forms of property. A gun is not a piece of jewelry. It is not a stamp collection. It's not a coin collection.

It's not something that can sit in a drawer and not be attended to for a long period of time, reasonably, and be missing and not be missed in a way that could be understood.

Gun owners should not be casual about the ownership of a deadly weapon. Responsible gun owners should be vigilant about the location and security of their guns.

So Senator McKinney rightfully said that, certainly, owners of expensive weapons very often will, just as a practical matter, as they do with other property, do keep close track of their location.

And again, the penalties are not in any way Draconian. The first offense is only an infraction. What that does, Mr. President, is put people on notice that they should be more careful in the future about this important issue of public safety.

And also that first offense, which is only an infraction, does not cause a person to lose his or her right to hold or obtain any firearm permit under the general statutes. So it is a very, very modest proposal.

The first offense is in the nature of a cautionary note, the creation of only an infraction. And clearly, after that level, there would be evidence, I think, of a certain willfulness of someone who then is liable once again for the same kind of failure to report.

And again, as we said earlier, the standard is a clear standard in the law that has applied now for more than a dozen years to the issue of assault weapons, within 72 hours of when the person discovered or should have discovered, and, clearly, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the person discovered or should have discovered the loss or theft within that time period.

So there is nothing in this amendment that the law-abiding, conscientious gun owner should in any way fear or feel that he or she is being put upon or harassed by the law. It is a reasonable measure, long overdue.

And the last part of the bill, dealing with the issue of trafficking in weapons, is also something that the situation in our state cries out for, that a person is guilty of trafficking under the circumstances laid out here, provides for a Class B felony for those who sell, deliver, or transfer more than five firearms, a Class C felony for those who are involved in trafficking five or fewer.

Again, this is a response to what is a significant public safety need in our state. I urge passage of the amendment, commend all of those who have worked so hard on it, particularly Senator McDonald, Senator Stillman here tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Looney. Senator Nickerson for the second time.

SEN. NICKERSON:

Speaking for the second time, Mr. President, if I may, through you, I'd like to propose a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment and seek, if I can, to sharpen the response to the hypothetical that my good and esteemed colleague, Senator Kissel posed, because I think it's worth pursuing.

Same lady who he suggests lives alone in her house keeps a gun on the bedside table. Goes away for a week's vacation, comes back, unpacks, looks over at the table. There's nothing there.

Would that be the sort of change in circumstance which we'd hold the individual responsible for, investigating further whether the gun is lost or stolen, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Through you, Mr. President, yes, it would.

SEN. NICKERSON:

A month later, the individual packs their bags, goes away for a week's vacation, comes back, unpacks, finds the bedroom in disarray. The window is broken, and the gun had been stored in the cabinet, and the cabinet door is off its hinges.

Would that be the sort of circumstance that would be a change attributing to the gun owner the need to investigate whether the gun is there or not, through you?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Through you, Mr. President, to Senator Nickerson, yes, it would.

SEN. NICKERSON:

And now this one. The same individual keeps the gun in a drawer in the bedroom. Goes away on a week's vacation, packs, leaves, comes back. Everything in the room is exactly as she left it. Unpacks and goes to bed.

Much later, she discovers, upon opening the drawer, that the gun is not there. Does her return to the room, without any change in something that's visible to her, without her having to open the drawer, does that trigger her knowledge that she should investigate whether the gun has been lost or stolen, through you, Mr. President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, it would be when she discovered it.

SEN. NICKERSON:

Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Stillman. So crucial to understand this. The point in time at which the statute imposes a duty is when the individual discovers it or is aware of some change in circumstance which leads him or her to investigate whether there's a lost or stolen.

So the event of losing or stealing the weapon could have occurred a week or a month before. What triggers it is when the individual is aware of some change in circumstances. So, no, no, it does not make the loss of the weapon a crime.

It does not make the fact that a weapon is stolen a crime for the owner. It's the discovery, or the knowledge of some fact leading to an investigation as to whether there's a loss or a theft, that is the concern of this statute.

And finally, in no way, shape, or form does it obligate the owner to know where all of their, where his or her gun or guns are 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Nobody knows whether any of their possessions are in the same position as they were 24 hours later. I don't even know if the car is in the LOB where I parked it this morning. It could have been stolen. No one would suggest that that's the intent of this.

And so, with all due respect, to suggest that that's where this is headed is to caricature it and then poke at the caricature. I think we should read it in the reasonable language with the intent that the dialog that we have just had and recognize that it's a very useful bill whose time is come.

It is not Draconian, and somebody's life will be saved. Some limb, some person will not go to an emergency room, due to a gun weapon.

And somewhere out on the streets of Connecticut tonight is some person who will not incur an injury or a fateful encounter with a stolen gun. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Nickerson. Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first say how grateful I am to the sponsors of this amendment for having deleted from what's before us the aspect of Senate Bill 903, which I found most troublesome when it was before the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, the original lost and stolen firearms bill contained a provision which would have made it criminal to store your gun in a manner to create a substantial and unjustifiable risk that it would be stolen.

Mr. President, that language gave me great concern because I could envision a situation where someone who did the right thing and kept their guns under lock and key might, on a summer day, leave the window open of their house and query whether someone going through that window, whether leaving your window open would have exposed you to a charge of creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk and criminalizing living in a way where you trust that your house is not going to be broken into.

So the omission of that provision from this bill makes it much easier for me to see my way clear to support it. Mr. President, I don't know how else we as a society confront, what I believe to be, the very real phenomenon of people selling guns into the Black Market, those guns being used to commit crimes.

And then when the police come back to the individuals who, in fact, sold those guns, those individuals claim that the guns were lost or stolen.

How are we supposed to deal with that phenomenon, other than through the mechanism which is created in this bill.

Time and time again, we've heard testimony from the police chiefs, whether it be the Chief of New Haven or Bridgeport, that this phenomenon is not an unusual phenomenon. It's something that happens with increasing and alarming regularity.

And I hold that up against what I think is the very unlikely scenario of any lawful gun owner, having their gun stolen and not knowing it was stolen and then being prosecuted in a meaningful way.

I don't see this bill as being designed to trap the unwary. Rather, I see it as being designed to get at a very serious criminal element, which is now escaping accountability by virtue of claiming that a weapon is lost or stolen.

Finally, Mr. President, as Senator Nickerson has said, I think that the language discovered or should have discovered is much more sensible language than the language knew or should have known, which has been in prior versions of this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Roraback. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator LeBeau.

SEN. LEBEAU:

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to rise very briefly and support this bill also. I want to thank the authors of the amendment for bringing it to us tonight.

As has been said, this bill has been worked over some years. It is the best version of this bill that we've seen. And I appreciate Senator Roraback's comments on the bill because I think it is, we're always trying to do a balancing act, and I think the balance in this bill is correct.

But one thought I just want to offer, and that's just how important this is. We're not dealing with automobiles. We're dealing with instruments that were made to kill, that can be used for, certainly, firing practice.

But guns have bullets that travel 600 miles an hour and hit with an impact that tears holes in bodies, and too often, we know that these guns are on the streets because they're being sold illicitly.

We had a gun trafficker in East Hartford last year charged with trafficking of over 350 guns, most of which were, quote, stolen, unquote. This is a major problem. This is why the guns are on the street.

If this bill will help get those guns off the street, and I believe it will. I don't think it will happen tomorrow, but I think over time, this bill will have a tremendous impact on the trafficking of guns in Connecticut.

And it's going to save lives. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill, when it's in existence, when it becomes law and has been part of the law for some years, is going to save lives. And I don't think there's anymore more important we can do this year.

So this is an important bill. I'm very pleased to be able to stand up and support it tonight. It's going to save lives in my community.

It's going to save lives in virtually every community in the state, particularly in the urban areas, where we have such problems with crime and guns used in thefts and guns used in, almost always, those guns have not been purchased legally.

They've been purchased on the street. And where do they come from? They come from straw buyers, in so many instances.

And if we can reduce that number, if we can shut down that business, if we can move in that direction, again, we're going to save lives, and there's nothing more important than that, what we can do in this session. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator LeBeau. Will you remark? Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment. And I do so for a number of reasons, but there are a couple of things that are quite alarming to me about what is occurring on the streets in my district, some of the streets in my district.

And that is the proliferation of guns and drugs. And the two may be connected, but for the purposes of this evening, I'd like to focus my remarks on the proliferation of guns.

In my district, which includes Hartford and Bloomfield and Windsor, the Hartford portion of my district, it's not much unlike Bridgeport and New Haven. Innocent men, women, and children are being caught in crossfires.

Drive-by shootings are occurring. Robberies are taking place, and robbers are armed with firearms. The question continually occurs, where are all of these guns coming from?

I would suggest that some of you around this Circle have no sense of urgency about this, and don't need to have a sense of urgency about this. I'm in a different position. I think some others in this Circle are in a different position.

We have a sense of urgency. This is urgent to us like you don't know what because there is chaos and mayhem that's occurring in our streets.

People have talked this evening, and during prior debates, on this particular subject about the infringement on the rights of gun owners. Many of the people in my district are fairly terrorized because of all of the gunplay that's taking place.

And on the national level, from the federal level, in response to terrorism, there was a suspension of a number of civil liberties that will make, I don't agree that this is infringement on anybody's rights.

But if we assume that it is, what has occurred from the federal level, in terms of a suspension of civil liberties, causes this particular thing to pale in comparison.

Many people have commented that much of what's taken place with respect to guns is occurring in the urban areas. Well, at the present moment, that may be, for the most part, true.

But this activity is increasing. And I'll let you know that Bloomfield and Windsor are considered suburbs. And these incidents have spread and spilled over into Bloomfield and Windsor.

I think we need to get a handle on where these guns are coming from. And the bill that's before us, the amendment that's before us, I think, is one significant step in the direction of getting such a handle.

I would go so far as to suggest that the taskforce, that Senator Guglielmo makes reference to, has probably advised that many of these guns, who are being owned and possessed by people who are not eligible to own and possess them, convicted felons, minors, are probably being acquired by them through the use of straw purchasers.

And that being the case, why wouldn't we adopt this amendment? I believe, as others have said, that, yes, we do have the right to bear arms. It's a right that is constitutionally, or provided by our Constitutions, both federal and state.

But with that right comes some responsibility. And if nothing else, I think that this particular measure will cause people who do own and possess guns to become more responsible about that ownership and that possession.

And additionally, and perhaps more importantly, I think the application of the provisions in this measure will flush out those people who are acting as straw buyers and help law enforcement agencies those people who are in multiple situations, where guns are being traced back to them, even thought they're claiming that they lost or had those guns stolen.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this legislation that's before us, and I implore the Members of this Senate to also support this particular measure. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Coleman. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of other remarks I would like to make before we vote on the amendment. First of all, I want to thank everybody for participating in this debate, on both sides of the issue.

I think we had a great opportunity to discuss a very important piece of legislation, to protect the people of this state. I do want to thank Senator Looney for leadership on this and Senator McDonald for his assistance in crafting this amendment, along with Members of the House.

There are a couple of things also that I wanted to mention. In terms of Section 3, with the trafficking taskforce, I think this bill is a great companion to the fact that we do have a trafficking taskforce, and I do believe there is money in the budget, that came out of the Appropriations Committee, to fund that taskforce the way it should be so that it can be more effective than it is.

And that's a program that gun owners, no matter what side of the issue that you're on, in relationship to this bill, of reporting lost and stolen firearms, that's something that everybody is in agreement on, in terms of its value to the issue of getting guns off the street.

I want to thank Senator Coleman for his remarks because he is, in many ways, but, certainly, pointing out the fact that this isn't just an urban issue any more. Sadly, it's an issue in many communities that are considered suburban or even rural.

And I do think, and I'm certainly hopeful, that this legislation, and I believe it will pass this evening and go down to the House and be successful there, certainly that's my hope, will go a long way towards helping get guns off the street.

And we have to get started addressing this issue. And this is a sensible start. Yes, I was as supportive of previous legislation that came before us, and I voted for it.

But, as I said, this is a good start to making a dent in crimes that are just destroying families and killing our friends, neighbors, children, etc. And with that, I just hope that you can support this amendment. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Stillman. Will you remark further on this amendment, Senate Amendment “A”? If not, Mr. Clerk, please call for a roll call vote. The machine will be open.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Senators voted? If all Senators have voted, the machine will be closed. The Clerk will call the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on adoption of Senate Amendment Schedule “A”.

Total number voting, 35; necessary for adoption, 18. Those voting "yea", 24; those voting "nay", 11. Absent or not voting, 1.

THE CHAIR:

Senate “A” is adopted. On the bill, would anyone like to remark on the bill? No? If not, Mr. Clerk, call the roll.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Members voted? If all Members have voted, the machine will be closed. The Clerk will call the tally.

THE CLERK:

Motion is on passage of Senate Bill 938 as amended.

Total number voting, 35; necessary for passage, 18. Those voting "yea", 24; those voting "nay", 11. Absent or not voting, 1.

THE CHAIR:

The bill as amended is passed. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Mr. President, that completes those items previously marked Go.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. If we might now have a vote on the second Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

THE CLERK:

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate on the Consent Calendar. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

Mr. President, those items placed on the second Consent Calendar begin on Calendar Page 3, Calendar 465, Substitute for Senate Bill 902.

Calendar Page 5, Calendar 532, Senate Bill 1186.

Calendar Page 7, Calendar 594, Substitute for House Bill 5234.

Calendar 599, Substitute for House Bill 5069.

Calendar Page 8, Calendar 613, Substitute for House Bill 5799.

Calendar Page 9, Calendar 615, House Bill 6080.

Calendar 616, House Bill 7194.

Calendar Page 11, Calendar 121, Substitute for Senate Bill 1100.

Calendar Page 13, Calendar 197, Substitute for Senate Bill 1315.

Calendar Page 20, Calendar 457, Substitute for Senate Bill 1151.

Calendar Page 21, Calendar 506, Substitute for Senate Bill 1451.

Calendar Page 22, Calendar 518, Substitute for Senate Bill 1456.

Calendar 525, Substitute for Senate Bill 1439.

And Calendar Page 25, Calendar 585, Senate Resolution 58. Mr. President, that completes those items previously placed on the second Consent Calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Please call the roll. The machine will be open.

THE CLERK:

The Senate is now voting by roll call on the second Consent Calendar. Will all Senators return to the Chamber.

The Senate is now voting by roll call on the second Consent Calendar. Will all Senators please return to the Chamber.

THE CHAIR:

Have all Members voted? If all Members have voted, the machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

The motion is on adoption of Consent Calendar No. 2.

Total number voting, 35; necessary for adoption, 18. Those voting "yea", 35; those voting "nay", 0. Absent or not voting, 1.

THE CHAIR:

Consent Calendar is adopted. Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, would move that all items referred today from our Calendar to various Committees be transmitted immediately.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, and also, Mr. President, would ask for a suspension so that all items acted upon today, requiring additional action by the House of Representatives, be transmitted immediately.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SEN. LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would yield the floor to any Members who had, for purposes of announcement of Committee meetings or other points.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Prague.

SEN. PRAGUE:

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Labor Committee will hold a meeting tomorrow morning at 9: 00. I don't know what room, Toni, but it's at 9: 00. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you, Senator Prague. Senator Harp.

SEN. HARP:

Thank you, Mr. President. The Appropriations Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9: 30 in Room 2C.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Ma'am. Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. For purposes of a Journal notation.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. Would the Journal please reflect that Senator Freedman was not here today due to medical circumstances in her family.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. It will be noted. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. For the purpose of an announcement.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Ma'am.

SEN. STILLMAN:

Thank you, Sir. The Public Safety and Security Committee will meet outside the hall of the House tomorrow at 10: 30 to take up bills that have been referred. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Ma'am. Are there any other announcements or personal privilege? Senator Coleman.

SEN. COLEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. For purposes of an announcement.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. COLEMAN:

The Planning and Development Committee will meet tomorrow at 10: 00 a. m. in Room 2B.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Sir. Any other announcements or points of personal privilege? Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President, Mr. President, I believe the Clerk is in possession of Senate Agendas No. 2, 3, and 4.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Mr. President, Clerk is in possession of Senate Agendas No. 2, 3, and 4, for Wednesday, May 23, 2007, copies of which have been distributed.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, I move all items on Senate Agendas No. 2, 3, and 4, dated Wednesday, May 23, 2007, to be acted upon as indicated and that the Agendas be incorporated by reference into the Senate Journal and the Senate Transcript.

THE CHAIR:

Hearing and seeing no objection, so ordered, Sir.

SENATE AGENDA #2