CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SENATE

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The Senate was called to order at 12: 13 p. m. , the President in the Chair.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come to order. Members and guest please rise and direct your attention to Reverend Bonita Grubbs who will lead us in prayer.

DEPUTY CHAPLAIN REVEREND BONITA GRUBBS:

Let us pray. Gracious and Reconciling God, It is the beginning of a new month. The page of yesterday is turned. The page of today is visible, yet unwritten. Final discussions about budget proposals, ttough negotiations, and decision making, but all focused on a better and more hope-filled tomorrow that's so full of trusting wonder and positive surprise. Help all those who are gathered here at this moment to make their good and helpful mark in this place of action and justice.

Give them grace, boldness and divine guidance, much like Sojourner Truth showed 174 years ago today when she left New York to begin her career as antislavery activist, as many others who stood in the place of sacrificial service, aand as they now stand and nobly to make a positive difference in protecting the future of Connecticut and its citizens especially those who are most vulnerable.

By and through Your mercy, Amen.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you Reverend. At this time I'd ask Senator Winfield to come up and lead us in the Pledge.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you very much. At this time, do we have points of personal privilege? There will be in a few minutes, so at this time Mr. Clerk, do you have anything on your desk?

CLERK:

In addition to today's calendar I've got Senate Agenda number 1 dated Thursday, June 1, 2017, it's already on senator's desk.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President good afternoon.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

I move that all items on Senate agenda number 1 dated Thursday, June 1, 2017 be acted upon as indicated, and that the agenda be incorporated by reference in a journal and transcripts.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered, sir.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. If -- we're just going to continue from our list yesterday. We're still waiting for some members to arrive, and if the -- if I can just mark some items go, we may have to skip around a little bit while some folks get to the chamber, but I'll mark some items go now. As a first item calendar page 6, calendar 176, S. B. No. 889, followed by calendar page 9, calendar 239, S. B. No. 959, followed by calendar page 21, calendar 390, S. B. No. 1005, followed by calendar page 46, calendar 156, S. B. No. 836, followed by calendar page 12, calendar 291, S. B. No. 644, followed by calendar page 20, calendar 383, S. B. No. 366.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 6, calendar 176, S. B. No. 889, AN ACT CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A FIRE MARSHAL AND POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CONNECTICUT AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Larson, good afternoon sir. Senator Larson, please. Thank you.

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Good afternoon Madam President. Finally the sun has shined, it's wonderful. So, thank you again Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion has been accepted for passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Thank you very much Madam President. As you may be aware the Connecticut Airport Authority has been in existence now for I believe like three or four years, and they have the cognizance over all of the state run airports, Bradley, Oxford, Groton, Granard, Windham, and I believe Dayville.

What this bill attempts to do is to provide some flexibility for the authority to allow the BAS Commissioner to delegate any CAA employed power she deems necessary to properly administer any fire prevention and safety statute under the control of the CAA.

In section 2, it allows guest commissioners to designate sworn police officers to serve on authority property. So, effectively what this does is it would allow the commissioner of DAS to allow only on airport CAA designated property, this would not migrate over lines, this is not meant to replace fire marshalls, this is not to replace state police, etc. , this would just allow them to manage and be a little bit more flexible on their properties with these types of issues.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill. Senator Witkos. Good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR WITKOS (8TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. I rise in support of the bill that's before the chamber. I think there was some confusion potentially in the Republican Caucus as to what the intent and the purpose of the bill was, so I reached out to the Connecticut Airport Authority executive director this morning and had a wonderful conversation, and I think it's -- Senator Larson, the gentleman that brought out the bill is right on. I think this is something that would allow the State of Connecticut to afford us the opportunity to get as much intelligence as the Federal Government has as it relates to general aviation in the state of Connecticut.

People, if they weren't aware, that there are certain things, whether it's the FBI, the CIA, or Homeland Security, is not allowed according to their Federal Guidelines to release information to a non-law enforcement personnel, and currently we don't have a law enforcement designated person that works at any of the general aviation airports.

So -- they meaning the Connecticut Airport Authority, would enter into these MOUs with Department of Emergency, if you will, to designate -- the individual that currently serves as the head of security. He is the former police chief for the city of Thomaston. Still maintains his POST accreditation, so he is a certified law enforcement personnel, just currently not using that in this capacity, but this will allow him to do that, and also his deputy in case the agency head is not available to obtain that information.

Secondly, as far as the fire marshalls go, currently our airports are staffed with an emergency response fire department personnel, and I'm speaking specifically here to Bradley, and in that profession many of the fire fighters will go on to receive a certification -- a fire marshalls certifications, because some of them serve in a part-time capacity in the home towns that they live in, and --

THE CHAIR:

Excuse me a minute Senator, I apologize. I ask the students that are here right now -- Hi to everybody, but please do not that, it's not that steady. So, please don't lean on that bar over there. Thank you very much. Sorry Senator.

SENATOR WITKOS (8TH):

Safety first Madam President, I agree. So what this would allow -- because there's so much construction going on and renovations at Bradley International Airport that when the Airport Authority puts in a request to the Department of Administrative Services to have an inspection come, these are small minor inspections that require a Fire Marshall sign off, that sometimes they put on the list, and it's a delayed response because of the number of the request that the Department of Administrative Services gets, that this would allow them to use their own personnel, who are certified Fire Marshalls, to make these minor sign offs, and you know this is, when we talk about efficiency in state government, this is it. I mean this should be the billboard for efficiency. So, I wholeheartedly support the bill. I thank Senator Larson for bringing it out. This is one more step that we can do to help our quasi-public agency to do the work that they need to do in a more timely efficient manner, and with that I support the bill. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill. Will you remark further on the bill. If not, Senator Larson.

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Thank you Madam President. Thank you Senator Witkos for that explanation as well. I do want reiterate too that these are MOUs that would be effectively under the auspices of the controlling bodies anyways, DAS Commissioner and the Commissioner of GEST, each of which would have the opportunity to reject, and these are not meant at all to step on any collective bargaining agreements or anything to that sort, so people should be assured of that, and with that Madam President if there's no objection, I'd ask that the bill be placed on the consent calendar, thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. If there's no objection, I will call for a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk -- whoop, hold on a minute. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. We're not going to vote on it quite yet, so we can just PT the bill temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

Okay.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

And if we can then PT the next bill and the next bill, and if we can move on to calendar page 46, calendar 156, S. B. No. 836.

THE CHAIR:

CLERK:

Page 46, calendar 156, substitute for S. B. No. 836, AN ACT CONCERNING CIVIL PENALTY REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EROTECTION.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kennedy, good afternoon sir.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. Madam President, this bill comes to the Environment Committee and before the chamber in response to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection over their concerns about dam safety. As many of us know, because of our industrial past, we have literally 100s of dams. Many of them are over 100 some over 150 years old, yet many of these -- the owners of these dams do not have adequate inspection reports.

So, what this bill simply says is to institute -- establish civil penalties for failure to develop emergency action plans for high-hazard dams and significant-hazard dams.

The definition of a high-hazard dam is one whose failure would result in probable loss of life, damage to major utilities and roadways or great economic lose. The definition of a significant hazard dam is one whose failure would result in the possible loss of life, damage to local utilities and roads are significant economic loss.

So, I do think it's in the public's interest to ensure that any owner of either a significant or a high-hazard dam develops an emergency action plan for these dams, and it passed unanimously out of the Environment Committee, and there is an amendment that I would like to call at this point.

The LCO has in position any amendment that is not in -- in lieu of, it's in addition to this bill, and it's LCO No. 8107. May be the clerk please call that amendment?

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8107, Senate A offered by Senators Miner, Kennedy, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kennedy.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

Thank you very much. As the clerk just said, this is a --

THE CHAIR:

Move for adoption sir.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

I move adoption of the amendment, pardon Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

And as the clerk just said, this is very similar to an amendment that was approved by this chamber just last week regarding updating our paint recycling program at DEP. It's co-authored by myself, Senator Miner, Representative Demicco, and Representative Harding representing the leadership of the environment committee, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? I'll try your minds. All those in favor please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Amendment passes. Senator Kennedy.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

Yes, if there is no objection I'd like to place this on the --

THE CHAIR:

At this time, we're going to PT it, I have a feeling. We're going to vote? Put it on the consent calendar.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

I would ask that this be placed without objection on the consent calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objections, so ordered sir. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Would the Senate stand at ease for a moment?

THE CHAIR:

Senate will stand at ease. The Senate will come back to order. Are there any points of personal privilege? Senator Kennedy.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

Thank you Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

I would like to introduce to you -- to the chamber a terrific organization called Circle of Care. Circle of Care is led by Liz and Jeff Salguero, and we're also joined today by an award-winning photographer Jenna Shepard. This is their second year that they've come to Hartford to share with us photographs of children -- childhood cancer patients from throughout the State of Connecticut.

It's a very hopeful, it's a very uplifting, it's a very inspiring photographic exhibition. It's going to be in the walkway between June 1st and June 30th. There are very provocative -- it's a very provocative exhibit featuring 43 intimate portraits of children that each of them tells their own unique story, and we know that there are 43 children diagnosed with cancer every day, and as many people in the chamber know, I am a pediatric cancer survivor, so this exhibit is of personal interest to me. It's not something to be fearful of. If you go to the exhibit it's really hopeful and inspiring and powerful, and I would just like to thank each of them for coming to the chamber and bringing their exhibit here, and I encourage all my colleagues to take a look in the hallway at these incredible photographs. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. We welcome you all to the chamber.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

And would everybody help join me in welcoming Jenna, Liz, and Jeff to Hartford today. [Applause].

THE CHAIR:

Thank you all for coming, and thank you for doing what you're doing, and I'm sure it's very uplifting for everybody. Thank you, and the Senate will stand at ease.

Senate will come back to order. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President if the clerk can now call calendar page 21, calendar 390, S. B. No. 1005.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 21, calendar 390, substitute for S. B. No. 1005, AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO STATUES IN THE PENAL CODE.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle, good afternoon sir.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes Madam President. The clerk has an amendment LCO 7256, may the clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize?

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7256, Senate A offered by Senators Doyle, Kissell, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. This is an amendment that --

THE CHAIR:

Are you adopting the amendment?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Sorry, thank you Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption, will you remark sir?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Thank you very much, yes. All right this is a strike-everything amendment. This deals with the -- the language in this legislation and this amendment is similar to a bill that the judiciary committee had on drones. Basically what this piece of legislation does is very similar to the bill that had a public hearing in Judiciary Committee in the sense that it creates two new crimes for people using drones that cause serious physical injury or physical injury, when it's colliding with planes, which is an incidence we had.

Section 1 also bans anyone from using drones that are weaponized. So, there's an absolute ban for weaponized drones in section 1. Section -- during -- and during the committee process and after the bill was JF'd issues arose with members of the legislature and others. The file copy of the legislation authorized the police to use weaponized drones. This amendment does not authorize the use of weaponized drones, what it does is it has the Commission of Emergency Services and Public Protection, the police officer stand as training counsel and chief states attorney submit a report back to the legislature with recommendations as to how, if, and why the police should and could use weaponized drones.

So to be clear, this is a report back, it does not authorize it. That was probably the most controversial part of the legislation. Our original bill was referred to the Public Safety Committee and unfortunately did not get out of the Public Safety Committee, but the language in this amendment did have a public hearing. It's a bipartisan amendment that co-chairman Kissell had supported, I believe he may speak on it even, and the house leadership also supports it.

So, I urge the chamber to approve this amendment. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kissell

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. I stand in support of the amendment and I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. We can't stop the march of technology, it's here to stay, and so we need to get ahead of the curve, while the other original bill that was not acted upon. It was not rejected in public safety, it just simply was never acted upon, allowed law enforcement to move forward with weaponizing drones while a study was going on, this one refines the process.

We want to see what the recommendations of the experts in the field are, and we talk about weaponization we shouldn't think of necessarily lethal weaponization, it could be taser, it could be any number of abilities of a drone to detonate next to a bomb, so that no human life is put into danger, so there's many different ways, but unfortunately we live in a world where those who wish to do harm to us will use whatever is handy, and we need to think prospectively such that our law enforcement personnel have the highest technology available at their disposal should a worst case scenario develop in our great state. So, for that reason Madam President I stand in strong support for this amendment and wish to align myself with the remarks of my friend and colleague Senator Doyle. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Remark -- Senator Gomes, good afternoon sir.

SENATOR GOMES (23RD):

Thank you Madam President. I rise for a question to the proponents of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR GOMES (23RD):

I was one of the people down in Public Safety that opposed this bill and the weaponizing of the drone. There was a member of the committee down there that stated that weaponizing of the drone was -- he said they could train these things to just injure a person rather than kill them, and I was the one that said that's impossible when you put a gun in the hands of law enforcement, they're trained to hit you middle mass.

What I'm concerned about -- I heard that Senator Kissell said that it doesn't necessarily mean that weaponizing means that you would have a gun on a drone, is that true?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Yes, Madam President. Yes it's true -- I mean I'll be honest, at this point the slate is clean. So, we're waiting for recommendations back. The question is whether there's a gun on it, you know, we'll wait for the recommendations. To be honest I don't think it's much of a gun on it necessarily, we think of it -- others have thought about it in a terrorist situation when you're trying to disable something, but it's possible it could have a gun, but to be honest at this point, you know, it's -- we're going to get a recommendation back so it's really studied. So, it's possible, yes. Is it probable that the recommendations are going to be used in varied situations, no. I think it would be a very remote limited uses, and I'm envisioning a terrorist situation where it might be appropriate, but this is not -- at least the intention of myself, it's not be used on every street corner, very rare a terrorist situation.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gomes.

SENATOR GOMES (23RD):

Well seeing how there's a possibility that it's weapon -- I mean, this drone will be weaponized, then I can't vote for it. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Remark. Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, good afternoon Madam President. So, I was -- at Senator Gomes, I was one of the issues that had an issue with the bill that was presented allowing police to potentially use weaponized drones. I think that the majority of the underlying bill that we were talking about in the Judiciary Committee is important and has a lot of value, but that part is troubling to me.

I recognize that this amendment doesn't weaponize drones, but the intention is to figure out how do we -- how or when or whatever do we get a place where we have some form of weaponization, otherwise we wouldn't be looking or studying the issue, and to me that is still problematic.

So, while I intend -- I assume that this bill will be amended at some point, intend to vote on the product that will probably contain a study, I am a no on this amendment to register that.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

Thank you Madam President. I rise in support of the bill. I never thought I'd do that, and I had discussion with members CRCOG, as an example we have 38 cities and towns in the region. We will not have 38 weaponized drones, we will have a city that's responsible for coordinating, form the 38 towns, and I would think something like that would be done throughout the state.

So, you're not looking at 169 police departments with weaponized drones and so on, you're looking at the protection. All you have to do is read the newspapers for the last 3 weeks, kinds of attacks that have gone on, innocent people being killed on a regular basis, and at many times no way to be able to get to the person who's shooting.

So, as someone said earlier, times have changed, that we need to change with the times, and I think if this done right, regulated right, limited through the regions, it'd be a good move for Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, Senate will stand at ease.

All of those in favor of the amendment please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed?

SENATORS:

Nay.

THE CHAIR:

The ayes have it. Will you speak further on the bill? Speak further on the bill? Senator Duff -- Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Madam President, I'd like to PT the bill, pass temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

The bill will be PT'd. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you, that is the purview of the majority leader, and I move to PT the bill please.

THE CHAIR:

Okay, the Senate will stand at ease.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Mr. President, great to see you up there today. Mr. President, if the clerk can now please call calendar page 9, calendar 239, S. B. No. 959 please.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 9, calendar 239, substitute for S. B. No. 959, AN ACT CONCERNING AN INVENTORY OF THE STATE'S BIOSCIENCE EDUCATION PIPELINE, and there are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Hartley.

SENATOR HARTLEY (15TH):

Good afternoon Mr. President, and it is a delight to see you there sir. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Hartley.

SENATOR HARTLEY (15TH):

Thank you, sir. This bill is part of a series of bills and initiatives that the Commerce Committee has been working on over the last several years. There was a group put together known as the CHDC, which is connected health data collaborative of top industry folks to talk about growing a new and emerging segment of Connecticut's economy.

The end results -- not the end results, the initiation of that work has come down to helping to support and leverage the investments that this state has made in the bioscience sector. This is one of those initiatives. The state of Connecticut is poised to be a national leader in bioscience, and has made thus far very significant investments in the arena of bioscience. To name a few, over the course of time the stem cell initiative, which is now known as regenerative medicine fund, we have a bioscience fund, we have also worked to attract and bring in a nationally known entity, Jackson lab being one of them. We now have Mount Sinai along the coast and the state of Connecticut, and the bioscience industry workforce is burgeoning and growing. However, in order -- as the science moves so rapidly, it is incumbent upon this state, which has always been known for its skilled workforce that is one of our strongest assets, this bill will speak to creating an inventory in the bioscience area so that we are positioned to have the talent that will be necessary for the exponential growth of this industry.

We're talking about determining whether or not we have programs that will support and put into the workforce geneticist, informatics, quantitative engineers, software engineers, and so the underlying bill, Mr. President, creates a working group, which will roll up their sleeves, identify our inventory of educational programs, positioning us to graduate the talent that we need. Thank you Mr. President, and with that I would like to yield to my co-chair Senator Frantz.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz, will you accept the yield?

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you Mr. President, I do indeed accept the yield and thank Senator Hartley for her hard work on this bill and for describing very articulately and thoroughly to this circle here today. I would reiterate everything that she said about this particular industry. It's a very general term for the industry, but bioscience is the wave of the future here in Connecticut as much as we can have of those here in the state.

So, we need to put whatever horse cart we have behind that particular industry going forward. This is a great way to continue to support the industry going forward. We've made some significant investments already, and there have been a lot of individual contributions towards the effort, but now it's time to get this more formalized and that's exactly what this bill does.

Mr. President, the clerk has an amendment LCO No. 7943, which I'd like him to call.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7943, Senate A offered by Senators Frantz and Hartley.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you Mr. President. I move for adoption of the amendment and move to waive the reading. I'd like to --

THE CHAIR:

So ordered.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you very much. What this does, because there was a very small fiscal note, fiscal notes, as we know, are the death toll this year, in this session, what this amendment does is after line 24 it inserts a verbiage that says that no member of this particular panel will receive mileage reimbursement. It's that simple, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. Thank you Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, will you remark? I guess we'll vote by a voice vote. All those in favor.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed?

SENATORS:

Nay.

THE CHAIR:

And the Ayes have that, the amendment is adopted. Senator Hartley.

SENATOR HARTLEY (15TH):

Thank you Mr. President. Having adopted the amendment, I would ask if there is no objection to add this to the consent calendar sir.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, so ordered.

SENATOR HARTLEY (15TH):

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, if the Senate could stand in recess for a half-hour or so.

THE CHAIR:

All right Senator Duff. The Senate will stand in recess.

On the motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 12: 58 p. m. recessed.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:

There will be an immediate Democratic Caucus and 15 minutes until the Senate session. There will be an immediate Democratic Caucus, 15 minutes until the session begins.

The Senate reconvened at 2: 57 p. m. , Senator Winfield in the Chair.

CLERK:

The Senate will reconvene immediately. The Senate will reconvene immediately.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come back to order. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, if the clerk would please call calendar page 20, calendar 383, S. B. No. 366.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 20, calendar 383, substitute for S. B. No. 366, AN ACT REQUIRING A PARTY TO REIMBURSEMENT THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITY FOR THE WAGES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS SUBPOENAED TO TESTIFY IN A LEGAL PROCEEDING. Senate A has actually already failed.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff. The Senate will stand at ease. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Kisse.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you very much Mr. President, great to see you up there this afternoon. I would move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Thank you Madam President. Madam President I believe we have the right bill on. Before we -- is the bill properly before us?

THE CHAIR:

I think so.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you. I will yield to Senator Kissel.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissell, will you accept the yield?

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

I will accept the yield Madam President. Great to see you this afternoon.

THE CHAIR:

Great to be seen.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

All right, I'm just going to say again, I move adoption of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption and passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you. The Clerk should have in his position LCO No. 7941, please call that.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7941, Senate amendment schedule B offered by Senators Fasano, Kissel, Looney, and Doyle.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive the reading, and ask to leave to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

We had debated this bill at length a few days ago, and one of the issues that arose was that would this pertain to indigent individuals, and so what this amendment does is it says there are two criteria that could be utilized for the court to determine if an individual indigent and therefore not have to reimburse, and that would be A) if the court determines his/herself that the individual is indigent, or if the individual is a representative for a not-for-profit legal services agency, and so I think that would clarify the issue regarding individuals that would not have the wherewithal to reimburse a municipality, and I would ask for the chambers support for this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark on Senate B? Will you remark on Senate B? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate B has been adopted. Will you talk further on the bill? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you Madam President, and with that change, I think this is a good bill, it's a much better bill. I appreciate the bipartisan support for the amendment, and if there's no questions or further comments, I would ask to move this to the consent calendar after my friend and colleague Senator Doyle speaks.

THE CHAIR:

[Laughter] Senator Doyle, will you accept the yield sir?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes Madam President. The clerk has an amendment, LCO 8102. Will the clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize?

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8102, Senate C offered by Senators Duff and Winfield.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes Madam President. This amendment is similar to the one we just had, but it just further defines what the party that's indigent would not have to contend with the obligations of this underlying bill, and it defines annual gross income of indigent to $ 70,000 for an individual or a $ 120,000 per family, and I urge the chamber to approve this amendment. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

A couple of questions through you to the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

I cannot imagine an individual making $ 70,000 dollars a year as being indigent. Where did that number come from?

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Through you Madam President. The thought -- the motivation behind the amendment was to broaden it a little more to go to the middle-class. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Through you Madam President. Do we know what the financial criteria is for utilization of a public defendant?

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Through you Madam President, I do not know specifically, no.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Through you Madam President, this amendment was not discussed with the co-chair of the committee of origin. I -- there was no discussion amongst the parties as to whether the underlying bill would apply to middle-class individuals. The only discussion that I've had across party lines is that it would apply to indigent people, and so for those reasons I would oppose the amendment and ask that it be taken by roll.

THE CHAIR:

Will you speak further on the amendment? Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President I rise in support of the amendment. In hearing the debate last week on this legislation, I felt that this was a bill -- an amendment that should be made to this bill so that we are actually ensuring that folks who are middle income taxpayers here in the State of Connecticut don't have to pay for a police officer in court, especially if it was something of a civil nature, and it was one where maybe it was for an accident or something not of their making. So, in my opinion this is exactly what we should be doing in here. We should be -- as we talk a lot of times we worry about middle-income taxpayers throughout the State of Connecticut, and the previous amendment that we adopted was a great amendment and made this bill better, but what I think would make it a little bit better is by making sure that we include our middle-income taxpayers in the State of Connecticut on this bill, so that they are protected as well.

I think a lot of times people feel like they're squeezed out, or they won't have access to our judicial system, and I know that those in the judicial system and certainly those of us around the circle take very seriously the ability for ordinary people to have access to our courts and our system of justice and that they should not be excluded because of the fact they may feel that they can't afford to pay someone to come into court to testify.

So, this I think is a very reasonable amendment to a bill that I understand the aim of the bill, so I do think that this is a very reasonable amendment and would certainly urge the circle to support the amendment, and I'm glad that we'll be having a roll call vote on it. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, will remark further. Senator Formica.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH):

Thank you Madam President, good afternoon. I rise for a comment and perhaps a question for the proponent of the bill please.

THE CHAIR:

For the proponent of the amendment.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH):

On the amendment, excuse me yes.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH):

Thank you. With regard to line 25 through 29, which says a party issuing a subpoena shall be determined an indigent by the court under this section if such a party has individual gross income of less than $ 70,000 dollars, and then it goes on to go up to $ 100,000 dollars, but my looking up of the definition of indigent is poor, destitute, penniless, insolvent, poverty stricken, vagrant, beggar, and while I agree with the intent in the good senator's indication that the middle-class should be protected, I think it's not matched in the wording of the amendment, and I'm wondering if there could be an opportunity to provide for both. The true meaning of indigent and then maybe the true meaning of the middle-class if that's going to be the intent of the amendment. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes, through you Madam President. I don't dispute the definition provided by the senator, but even in the State of Connecticut the definition of indigent really could depend on the county you're in, and whereas in Hartford County $ 70,000 is significant, in Fairfield County or some of the richer towns down there, believe it or not $ 70,000 might not be considered wealthy, it might even be middle-class or lower because of the cost of living in the other parts of the state.

So, I don't dispute your characterization of the word indigent, this is defined to kind of capture the middle class throughout the state, but even in some -- in Fairfield County the median salaries and incomes are much greater than Hartford County or Windham County or whatever, so I would submit to you it really is a lower middle-class rating in certain parts of the state.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Formica.

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH):

Thank you Madam President, and thank you so much for that answer. However, it says $ 7,000 or $ 70,000? I think it says $ 70,000, so I'm not sure it fits the definition, and if we're doing this because an indigent may be in Fairfield County that makes $ 70,000 or less -- thank you very much Madam President, and I still have some problems with this particular definition, and while I understand and appreciate the intent, I'm not sure what I'm going to be doing here.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the amendment. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. After carefully considering the remarks of the majority leader, I am changing my opinion and would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It's not intended to support the indigent, which is the amendment that we offered, the bipartisan amendment, but the somewhat partisan amendment does address middle-class individuals. I would suggest in my district that might even be upper middle class individuals, but again I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Remark further. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President, and I want to thank Senator Kissel for his comments and Senator Formia for his comments. I think the word indigent is defined solely in the amendment for the underlying bill not generally speaking how we define indigent throughout the State of Connecticut. I think we're just trying to get to the fact of how middle-class taxpayers should be treated with the underlying bill in these instances. I appreciate the good comments. I only wish that every time I got up to speak more people would say I agree with everything he says, but I'll take it for this bill and this amendment right now, and I think we can probably have a voice vote rather than a roll call, and I'm not sure if it was myself or Senator Kissel who said --

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel. Senator Kissel, will you withdraw the roll call vote?

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

I will say this before I withdraw the roll call vote, does the -- the amendment says indigent is $ 70,000 for an individual and $ 120,000 for a couple. I disagree with that. I think it's middle class or upper middle class, but in the interest of comedy and bipartisanship, I will withdraw the request for roll call. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Miner, good afternoon sir.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. Madam President, I listened to the debate last week and I actually was drawn to the comments that were made by, I think it was Senator Winfield where he was concerned that there are some people that would have great difficulty in paying that wage. Sometimes people are forced into a situation of subpoenaing people to get an opinion, to justify an appeal or something else, a disagreement between property owners, and that's the only way you can get to the crux of the problem, and he made, I think, the comments and people listened, and now I'm being forced to vote on a bill that redefines indigent.

I can only imagine the court is going to look at this language and say who wrote this, what was the justification for writing this? Why are we going to redefine indigent? The point that was made was well made, why can't we stick with that point? I so much want to go back to ask for a roll call vote, it's not funny. It is unbelievable. We can have disagreements, we can have different opinion, but this should not be one of those moments. This should be a moment where we took the gentleman, his comments, his concerns for his constituents and mine.

I can take you to North Cannon and those people are indigent in some cases, but they don't make $ 70,000 dollars Madam President, they just don't, and in this case this is just an opportunity to make what could be I think a legitimate concern raised very murky, and I don't how the court would make that determination. I guess the court would have to decide that, then I don't know what that means as you go down the line defining indigents in some other case.

So, I really am troubled Madam President, and I'm not asking for a roll call vote, but I am really frustrated.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Senator Winfield, good afternoon sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Good afternoon Madam President. I appreciate all of the conversation that's going on, and I did make comments to get us on a topic of indigent, whether we agree or not that this bill is getting to what I was suggesting the other night, whether we agree or not that the bill is redefining indigents -- one of the reasons I signed onto the amendment was because my concern was about not just those are indigent but access to justice.

So, $ 70,000 dollars sounds like enough money to live, but I would suggest to people that if you had $ 70,000 dollars, you had a family of four, and you had to fund a lawsuit, you might find yourself in a difficult place, so I was thinking about those people who might find themselves in a situation like this, and who they might need to come to testify for that might be a police officer, it might be a garbage person. If you think of Connecticut and the average salary of a police officer, we're talking somewhere around $ 185 dollars a day, if you're talking about a garbage person we're talking somewhere around $ 150 dollars a day, I actually looked those numbers up, and so I think it just becomes difficult for people who make money that seems outside, admittedly, the range of indigents, but if you're talking about access to justice I think what we were trying to do with this bill, my concern really was about whether or not people would be able to actually get into court and have a suit.

So, if we define it under his amendment in a way that people find offensive, I recognize that, but the underlying theory for me is that everyone has access to the courts, and I just wanted to put that on record.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Yeah, I'm sorry [laughter]. The bipartisanship is just breaking down here. Here's the issue, if it just said this is not going to apply to individuals earning this and the pitch was, you know, middle-class have a tough time paying attorney fees, I can understand that.

I would suggest to the majority leader we can PT this bill and rewrite this amendment, but as it is, I cannot bring myself to support an amendment that says you are indigent if you're an individual making $ 70,000 dollars a year or a couple, I believe it says $ 120,000 dollars, and where will that leave us for the next week. With amendments taking benefits away from individuals that are earning $ 70,000 dollars because they are now legally defined as indigent? I don't want to get in a battle of amendments like that, so I have to say I'm going to ask for a roll call because I think my colleague in their colloquy have made a lot of sense, and this is a definitional amendment.

If you want to say we want to carve out the middle-class, I'll accept that, we'll PT it, we'll redraft the amendment and see where that goes, but I can't bring myself to vote for something that's preposterous in my opinion. These people aren't indigent. We can put it on paper but that doesn't make it so. If you're making a $ 120,000 dollars in my district, you're doing pretty good, just ask my neighbors. They'd like to make more, but they'd never call themselves indigent. So, I'm sorry Madam President from going back and forth, but this is one of those instances where the debate has really changed my opinion, and for those reasons I would ask for a roll call on this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

I think a roll call has already been asked for by Senator Duff.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

And I appreciated that moment of bipartisanship for sure. I would certainly be happy to PT this bill and redraw the amendment. This came from LCO, it is my words, they are not my words, and so if that's how they felt they should write it, then that's how they wrote it, but I would certainly say I don't want to PT this without conferring with the Senate Republican President Pro Tempore, but I would be happy to redraft that amendment. Madam President, we will PT the bill.

THE CHAIR:

The bill is PT'd.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

And we'll come back for a bipartisan amendment.

THE CHAIR:

That's a great idea.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I want to make a referral please.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

On calendar page 12, calendar 291, S. B. No. 644, I'd like to refer that to the Finance Committee, and I'd like to ask for immediate transmittal.

THE CHAIR:

I see no problem sir.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, if we could stand at ease for a moment.

THE CHAIR:

We'll stand at ease for a moment. Senator Duff, you know we just -- we'd like to talk to you about Senate C, even though you PT'd that bill, it has to have some kind of action. When the bill is called again we can either then delete or whatever but -- okay, just for further information.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Okay, thank you Madam President. Thank you Madam President we have a few bills that we're ready for votes, but we were waiting for members to come to the chamber, so if the clerk could now call calendar page 6, calendar 176, S. B. No. 889 for a vote please.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 6, calendar 176, S. B. No. 889, THE ACT CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A FIRE MARSHALL AND POLICE OFFICERS AT THE CONNECTICUT AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

THE CHAIR:

As I understand there is at this point no discussion, just go to a vote? At this time Mr. Clerk, will call for a roll call vote on this bill, and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

THE CHAIR:

Will members please look at the board and make sure that you have voted. Member please look at the board and make sure that you have voted. Senator Gomes, Senator Logan in the chamber sir. All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will please call a tally.

CLERK:

S. B. No. 889:

Total Number Voting 36

Necessary for Adoption 19

Those Voting Yea 26

Those Voting Nay 10

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

Bill passed [gavel]. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President we also had brought a bill out earlier and ready for a vote now, it's calendar page 21, calendar 390, S. B. No. 1005.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

Page 21, calendar 390, substitute for S. B. No. 1005, AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO STATUES IN THE PENAL CODE SENATE A HAS BEEN ADOPTED.

THE CHAIR:

I see no discussion. Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote, and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

THE CHAIR:

Senators, please look at the board and make sure you have voted. Please all senators in the chamber please look at the board and see if you've voted. All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk will you call a tally

CLERK:

S. B. No. 1005:

Total Number Voting 36

Those Voting Yea 30

Those Voting Nay 6

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

The bill passes. (Gavel) Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Could the Senate stand at ease for a moment.

THE CHAIR:

Senate will stand at ease. The Senate will come back to order. You're going to have to give us a minute. The Senate will stand at ease for a minute. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I believe we have a couple of items on our consent calendar, if the clerk could call those items followed by a vote please.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

Page 9, calendar 239, S. B. No. 959 and case 46, calendar 156, S. B. No. 836.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you Mr. Clerk. Please call a roll call vote on the first consent calendar. The machine is open.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate on consent calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call in the Senate.

THE CHAIR:

All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you please call a tally.

CLERK:

On consent calendar No. 1:

Total Number Voting 36

Those Voting Yea 36

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

The consent calendar has been adopted. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I'm going to move for a recess but also mention that there will be a Democratic Caucus in 15 minutes, so if all democratic senators can come to the caucus room in 15 minutes, and then we will be recessing as well for a bit of time, and we'll let everybody know when to come back.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand in recess.

On the motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 4: 00 p. m. recessed.

CLERK:

There will be an immediate Senate republican caucus, an immediate Senate republican caucus, an immediate Senate republican caucus.

There will be an immediate Senate democratic caucus. There will be an immediate Senate democratic caucus.

There will be an immediate Senate republican caucus. There will be an immediate Senate republican caucus, an immediate Senate republican caucus.

The Senate will convene in 15 minutes. The Senate will convene in 15 minutes. The Senate will convene in 15 minutes.

The Senate reconvened at 9: 05 p. m. , the President in the Chair

The Senate will reconvene immediately. The Senate will reconvene immediately.

THE CHAIR:

Good evening. Senate will come back to order.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Good evening Madam President. Madam President, we have two items to mark go at the moment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Thank you Madam President. On calendar page 31, calendar 464, S. B. No. 105, followed by calendar page 45, calendar 109, S. B. No. 895. If the clerk could please call those two items.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 31, calendar 464, S. B. No. 1051, AN ACT CONCERNING CTNEXT PLANNING GRANTS-IN-AID AND INNOVATION PLACE DESIGNATION APPLICATIONS, INVEST CT FUND TAX CREDIT TRANSFERABILITY AND STATE INVESTMENTS WITH VENTURE CAPITAL FIRMS.

THE CHAIR:

Good evening Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Good evening Madam President, it is evening isn't it.

THE CHAIR:

Yes, it is sir.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

I wish you good evening.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Madam President, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage, will you remark sir?

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Yes Madam President, this bill does three things, it makes clear what I thought, and many others thought, was clear originally in the bill that we passed last year on innovation and entrepreneur that any CTNEXT planning grants and aid that are awarded, in the first round, would allow for -- there would also be additional rounds that CTNEXT could award going forward -- that the initial round would not be the only round that would be eligible to be granted going forward.

Secondly, the bill allows for the invest CT fund tax credits to be transferred to other entities. Currently, you can only transfer a tax credit under this provision to an affiliated organization, but this would also for the transferability to other entities.

It is a very successful program in Connecticut that is supporting startups and growing organizations, creating jobs in Connecticut, and this would enhance the fund to a greater degree, and lastly Madam President what the bill does is it requires that only investments and venture funds by the State Treasure that the managing fund that would be invested in must-have a presence in Connecticut, an office, and at least one employee and any funds, venture funds that the managing fund were to invest that those funds should also have a presence in Connecticut with at least one office and one employee, and I urge passage of the bill Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Will you remark further? Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you Madam President. I appreciate that very much. I rise for the purpose of a questions to the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you Madam President. Through you Senator Fonfara, the last part of the bill that you referred to was the amount of money that is invested in Venture capital funds or Venture investments themselves in the state of Connecticut there's a requirement in the bill saying that there must be at least one full-time employee or a presence of that particular Venture firm in the State of Connecticut, is that correct?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Through you Madam President, with one correction it requires that the Venture fund that is being invested shall have a presence in the state of Connecticut with at least one location and one employee -- one full-time employee.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Yes, thank you. Through you Madam President, thank you for that answer. So, the treasurer will, I think on a regular basis, take a certain amount of money that she -- investable money that she has ever year and allocate that towards the Venture class of investments, and that may be X number of dollars, is the entire X amount subject to the requirements of this proposed bill here where, you know, they have to have the presence in Connecticut.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Through you Madam President. Yes except that the fund that we're talking about here, and this is a relatively new venture if you will on the part of the treasurer to support Connecticut jobs to create -- get more Venture funds into Connecticut is a -- my understanding a $ 150 million dollar fund of which $ 20 million must be invested in Connecticut companies, the other $ 130 million does not, it could, but does not require to be invested in Connecticut companies, but any of the $ 150 million dollars that are invested either in the managing fund or them subsequently to a Venture fund, a fund to fund this, if you will, this is your world, I know you're very familiar with it. Those entities that receive funds, whether the funds are being invested in Connecticut or not, must have a presence in the state of one office at least and one full-time employee, through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you Madam President, and just to be crystal clear, the $ 130 million dollars that would not be subject to the requirements of this particular bill could be invested in other areas where there is no Connecticut presence, and we wouldn't miss out on the next Google for example.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Through you Madam President, you're absolutely correct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ (36TH):

Thank you, through you Madam President, that satisfies me, and thank you very much for introducing this bill. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark on the bill? Remark further on the bill? Senator Fonfara.

SENATOR FONFARA (1ST):

Madam President, if there isn't objection and there will be a consent calendar created, I asked that this be placed on it.

THE CHAIR:

Hear no objection, it will be ordered on the consent calendar. The Senate will stand at ease for a moment. Mr. Clerk, will call for the next bill please.

CLERK:

On page 45, calendar 109, substitute for S. B. No. 895, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY STANDARDS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio, good evening sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Well, good evening to you too Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Committee's joint favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage, will you remark sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you, I will Madam President. This bill, which originated in the Children's Committee, was precipitated by a series of unfortunate tragedies and incidents involving the death of children, and the responsibility of the Department of Children and Family. There was one particular notorious case in New London where a baby died, and the DCF caseworker had been to the home innumerous times, never saw the child, and it was not until it was too late that we realized that the child was near starvation, and that was one of only a number of tragedies, which has provoked a desire to have greater oversight in terms of tragedies and the Department of Children and Families.

The bill itself does a number of things. It provides heightened case supervision during an investigatory period for children who are involved in cases of suspected child abuse or neglect from birth to age 3. It does address the DCF personal vitiations to such home and such children during that time. It also demands more documentation of case activities relevant to such children's safety and well-being, and it also, regarding case supervision, requires tools specific to the unique needs and risk status of children in that age range, that is birth to 3 years.

The bill also requires an increased frequency in which DCF must perform certain investigative functions related to child abuse and neglect proceedings. In such proceedings, the court must schedule a preliminary hearing in order to 1) to the child's parent or caregiver to appear in court to determine if the child should be temporarily placed outside the homes during the proceedings or two an ex parte order placing the child's care and custody temporarily with a relative, agency or other person.

In advance of the hearing, the child's parent or guardian may request DCF to investigate placing the child or youth with a relative or a licensed foster parent or a temporary custodian. The bill requires DCF to investigate any such relative before the preliminary hearing rather than requiring it to do so only when practical.

Among other things, the bill also requires the department to include information that must be submitted to the court at any hearing regarding potential barriers to licensing the relative as a foster parent or granting him or her temporary custody of the child, and specifies that the report is preliminary.

Madam President, the clerk is possession of LCO 8290, will the clerk please call the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8290 Senate A offered by Senators Suzio and Moore.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio. Ladies and gentleman of the Senate, can we keep our voices down a little bit so we can hear Senator Suzio. Senator Suzio, please proceed.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark?

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you, yes Madam President. The amendment before us makes certain changes to the original bill, which addresses cost considerations to remove any kind of fiscal note from the legislation, and among other things, it changes the requirement for heightened supervision to appropriate, and it also changes reports to requirements to provide information to the court. As a result of this, the fiscal burden of the legislation is negligible. Other than that, the legislation remains as it was originally drafted by the committee.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark on Senate A? Will you remark on Senate A? Senator Moore. Good evening ma'am.

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Good evening Madam President. Madam President, I rise to support this bill. This is an important --

THE CHAIR:

The amendment correct?

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

On the amendment, yes. The amendment clears out any fiscal issues that we had concerns on the bill. I wholly support the amendment. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you ma'am. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? The amendment passes. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. If there's no objection I would move that this bill be placed on the consent calendar.

THE CHAIR:

I see no objections sir, so moved.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

At this time, Mr. Clerk will you call the next bill please.

CLERK:

On page 48, calendar 290, S. B. No. 602, AN ACT CONCERNING THE TASKFORCE TO STUDY THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL SHELTERS. There is an amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff, I apologize sir but the bill has been called.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Senate will stand at ease.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. The Senate will stand at ease. Senate will come back to order. Senator Logan. Good evening sir.

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

Good evening Madam President. I move acceptance of the committee joint favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

Thank you Madam President. This bill adds additional parameters to the task force studying the humane treatment of animals and requires them to consider rules and regulations regarding animal abuse and penalties for failure to properly confine animals. This is a special act.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will You remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Miner. Good evening, sir.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Good evening Madam President. Madam President, I have a few questions on the bill as proposed.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. So, under the original or under the bill as it's drafted, what is the intended purpose of this task force are they, what are they going to be studying?

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Logan.

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

So, I think the taskforce itself is going to be looking at the rules and regulations regarding abused animals, and just to ensure that they're being properly confined in the animal shelters.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, my understanding was originally that the taskforce was established to look at municipal dog pounds and make sure that we were caring for animals while they were in the custody of municipal dog pounds correctly. Is there something that's intended to be changed in the bill from what was originally anticipated when the bill passed a number of years ago.

I think there was some language in this bill that extends the time period under which the taskforce can continue to study this issue, through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Logan.

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

Please stand at ease.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease sir. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Logan.

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

I'm not aware of a time period for the study to be completed.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, the clerk has an amendment. The amendment is LCO 6742, I would ask that he call it please.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 6742, Senate A offered by Senator Miner.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, the original intention of this language when it was drafted a number of years ago was to really look at municipal and regional shelters to determine whether or not they were caring for the animals that were in their custody. From the time the bill left the Environment Committee went to Planning and Development, there was some language that was added that speaks to the issue of confinement of animals, and we've had a long-running history of conversations about the confinement of animals and in this case confinement of animals could be construed as farm animals.

The Department of Agriculture has been concerned about how that conversation would occur, whether for instance chickens would be appropriate to be confined or beef cows or anything else, and so for that reason, Madam President, what this amendment seeks to do is to strike the langue -- the new language that deals with the confinement of animals, and I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Could the Senate stand at ease for a moment.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I move that was PT this item.

THE CHAIR:

It will be PT'd.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I move that the clerk could please call the next bill please.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 12, calendar 294, S. B. No. 904, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING FACILITIES GUIDELINES FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW OF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gerrantana, when you get a chance [laughter]. Good evening ma'am.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

[Laughter] thank you, good evening Madam President. Madam President, could the Senate stand at ease for just a minute? I have to get my paperwork.

THE CHAIR:

Absolutely.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Gerrantana.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark ma'am.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, the bill before us requires a healthcare institution planning construction to get the project plan approved through the Department of Public Health. There was much discussion in our committee with the Connecticut Hospital Association, Nursing Home Association on the term renovation, so they did meet with the Department of Public Health, and Madam President I have an amendment that will address their concerns. If the clerk would please call LCO No. 7627.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7627, Senate A offered by Senators Gerratana, Somers, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

I move adoption Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark ma'am.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Yes, Madam President the finding in the statutes are the same. The changes come in line 91 to 101 in the amendment. This is the agreed upon language with the concerned parties, the project would be for construction or building alterations, the term renovation was taken out, and subsequent language has been signed off by all parties. So, I urge the chamber to please adopt this amendment, thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will remark further on the amendment. Will remark further on the amendment, and if not I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

All opposed? I guess not. I guess it's been adopted. Senator Gerrantana, any further on the bill?

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Well, if there's no objections, Madam President, I would ask that this be placed on consent.

THE CHAIR:

See no objections. So ordered ma'am. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 3, calendar 127, substitute for S. B. No. 893, AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO CERTAIN STATUTES REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Moore.

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Good evening Madam President. I hope it's not because I'm a little shorter today.

THE CHAIR:

(Laughter) We talk about vertically challenged people.

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Madam President, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark ma'am?

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Yes, thank you. So, this is to require or permit the Department of Children and Families to disclose certain records to certain individuals and entities with the consent of the persons who are the subject of such records. It would permit such departments to charge a fee for the disclosure of certain records, exceeding 100 pages in length, eliminate such department subsidy review board and replace such board with provision of hearing in accordance with the chapter 54 of the general statues. Madam President, it further requires such commissioner to adopt regulations setting forth standards for the licensing of child care facilities and child placing agencies.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Moore, I apologize, did you ask for passage and acceptance?

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Yes I did Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

We're having trouble getting your attention tonight madam.

THE CHAIR:

Hello.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Start jumping up and down, thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

It's hard for me to look to the right, sir go ahead [laughter].

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Well, let's say it's only 9: 30 Madam President [laughter]. I rise in support of the bill. I want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with Senator Moore and Representative Diana Urban on the Children's Committee where this bill originated.

This bill did receive the unanimous vote of the Children's Committee, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it, and I want to thank Senator Moore for all the work she did on it, and the collaboration that we had together. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Moore.

SENATOR MOORE (22ND):

Thank you Madam President. If there's no objection, I ask that it be placed on a consent calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 6, calendar 186, substitute for S. B. No. 317, AN ACT CONCERNING A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PERSONNEL TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTHCARE SERVICES. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

The senate will stand at ease at this time. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you Madam President. I had to get my paperwork in order.

THE CHAIR:

Not a problem ma'am.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark ma'am?

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. Madam President, the clerk has an amendment. If he will please call LCO No. 8234, and I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8234, Senate A, offered by Senators Gerratana, Kennedy, Sommers, Leone and et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you Madam President, I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark ma'am?

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. This is a strike-all amendment to the underlying bill, and this amendment actually establishes a work group through the Department of Public Health in consultation with the Department of Social Services and Insurance Department, and this is to look at a way to implement a mobile integrated health program using our paramedic system.

We have working with the Department of Public Health that came out with a report last year and said that certain things would have to be done in order to implement this program. We had originally asked for a pilot program, the department said no, I think we should go right ahead and implement, but in order to do that we need to get all stakeholders at the stable, so to speak, and so this amendment reflects that work.

They will be reporting back to us January 1, 2019, but I know I have the word of the department as well as others that this is something that they very much would like to do. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Kennedy.

SENATOR KENNEDY (12TH):

Thank you Madam President. I rise in support of this important legislation. I want to thank my friends and colleagues, Senator Leone and Senator Gerrantana for working together to make Connecticut look into expanding community para-medicine.

Paramedics are some of the most highly-skilled and competent practitioners of healthcare in our state, and in my view they're under-utilized. There are over 30 states now that have some sort of community paramedicine, that is to say allow paramedics to function beyond their simple, load somebody into an ambulance and transport them to the emergency room.

Right now in Connecticut you are only paid -- an ambulance service is only paid, reimbursed, if that person is brought to an emergency room. So, if they're stabilized, if they're brought anywhere else other than an emergency room, that ambulance company is not reimbursed.

So, it seems to me that if our state could do a much better job with filling the gaps in healthcare that paramedics can perform. Again, they're highly skilled, highly trained individuals and at the same time we can save a lot of money in our Medicaid system because many, many people who call 9-1-1 are not having a true emergency. They're called frequent fliers in the communities that I represent. They call 9-1-1 all the time, they don't need to go to an emergency room, but they're transported to emergency room where they sit and guess what they need to take another ambulance service back home. It's extremely wasteful, and I'm really glad to know that the Department of Public Health is going to be working with us to try to develop a community paramedicine program here in the state of Connecticut. I urge my colleagues to support this important initiative. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN (24TH):

Thank you Madam President. I stand in support of the amendment. I'd like to thank those that have worked on this idea. In the city of Danbury we have a team of emergency response professionals from the hospital, an ambulance service, which is a city service, the fire department and social services that work together as a strategic team to identify the frequent fliers in our community and work with them on a regular basis, beyond just the ambulance ride, take them beyond that initial visit to the emergency room, and frankly in some cases hold their hand to make sure that it's not a repeat and do what they can to provide services available and see to it that they get the care they need.

So, I hope that the working group will consider the program that's in place in Danbury and look at that, perhaps even as a model to be used elsewhere in the state. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor of the amendment please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed. The amendment carries. Will you remark further on the bill? Remark further on the bill? Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR GERRANTANA (6TH):

Thank you Madam President. If there's no objection, I would like to place this item on our consent calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objections. So ordered ma'am. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 15 --

THE CHAIR:

Sorry, Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Will the chamber stand at ease for a moment?

THE CHAIR:

Senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Would the clerk now please call calendar page 45, calendar 125, S. B. No. 579.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 45, calendar 125, substitute for S. B. No. 579, AN ACT CONCERNING PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS APPLYING FOR REVERSE MORTGAGES.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield, good evening sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes good evening Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes Madam President, if you'd give me half a second just so I'm in the right place.

THE CHAIR:

Absolutely.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

This is a bill that comes to us through the Banking Committee. What the bill does is it seeks to put in place some protections for those who might be seeking to take out a reverse mortgage. So, it puts in place counseling requirements that must be met before any Connecticut bank or Connecticut credit union can accept a final reverse mortgage/reverse annuity. Those counseling requirements include a certification that must indicate that the person received -- the HUD-approved agency is keeping the certificate -- sorry madam.

Also, the bill originally was talking about having to do -- I'm sorry, there's two bills, there's was an aging bill. I'm sorry give me one second.

THE CHAIR:

No problem. Senate can stand at ease. The senate will come back to order. Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. So, I found my place. So, the certification that I was talking about must be done in person or via telephone, and it must indicate that the person doing the counseling is HUD approved. It's a good bill that protects all of us but particularly our seniors who, as we know, have had some issues with reverse mortgages, and I urge passage.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Martin. Good evening sir.

SENATOR MARTIN (31ST):

Good evening Madam President. I rise to chat just a little bit about my objection to the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR MARTIN (31ST):

Thank you. Madam President, I agree that, you know, this bill was brought before the committee in regard to trying to help or to take care of an issue that consumers had been victimized by some lenders, but I don't know if what we've done here actually takes care of the bill or takes care of that problem.

You know, the bill does require that counseling take place to the applicant for the reverse mortgage, and we're primarily talking about the elder population. They think to try to take care of the counseling by addressing it through a HUD form, which basically says that the counseling has taken place and there's a sign off on that form, but what we've learned through testimony and written testimony is that there are not enough counselors throughout the State of Connecticut to address this concern, and particularly in the northeast part of the state.

So, the requirement that was sort of adopted through this was either the application would need to be in person or the counseling could take place over the phone and that would be fine. So, the application either is in person or the counseling is in person or it's either one of the two, but I guess the real concern that I have is that, you know, we have the credit unions and the banks that would -- are here in the state, but I guess, how do you enforce this? You know, where are the teeth in this so that we can truly enforce this? So, through you Madam President I'd like to know and have an answer to that.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Madam President, at the end of the bill, lines 39 through 41, section C, it says, and I'll read because it's so brief, "a violation of the provisions of this section shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce pursuant to the other subsections of the bill," which is why it went through Judiciary.

THE CHAIR:

I'm going to ask the senators to keep their voices down. There is a debate or a discussion going on. Would you repeat that again Senator Winfield so Senator Martin can hear it?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes Madam President, and through you Madam President, if you look at lines 39 through 41, and as I suggested before I'll just read it because it's so brief --

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Thank you Madam President. "A violation of the provisions of this section shall be deemed an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce pursuant to subsection A" earlier in this bill, which is the reason that this bill had been earlier referred to the Judiciary Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Martin.

SENATOR MARTIN (31ST):

So, the -- I know one of the discussions that we had on the committee was how do you enforce this through -- for the companies, the banks, and mortgage lenders that are outside the state. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. I believe the method is the same. If a bank or mortgage company want to do business in the state, the laws of the state apply to them as well.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Martin.

SENATOR MARTIN (31ST):

So, I guess I'm not familiar with the Federal statutes, but how do you proceed in enforcing this or checking the auditing that these issues have been addressed?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Through you Madam President. I recognize the question being asked. I have answered the question to the best of my ability. The bill has a section of the bill -- the very last section of the bill that talks about what the violation would be under law, anyone doing business in the State of Connecticut is subject to that law. If you actually at the first line, there was debate in the committee about whether this only applied to Connecticut banks or not. The language of no entity including but not limited to -- incorporates not only Connecticut banks but any bank doing -- bank or mortgage company doing business in the State of Connecticut. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Martin.

SENATOR MARTIN (31ST):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, I'm still not satisfied with the bill as a whole, and I will not be supporting this. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the bill? Yeah, I know, but Senator Suzio wants to speak before you Senator Witkos, so I'm just going to let Senator Suzio do that. Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Good evening Madam President --

THE CHAIR:

Really, he thinks it's a good evening, okay. Good evening, sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you for recognizing me. Through you Madam President I have a question or two for the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President. The bill as it has been drafted appears to, and this might be a little bit related to the questions asked by Senator Martin, forgive me if it's a little bit redundant, but the bill appears to be related to a focused on Connecticut-based banks and Connecticut credit unions and does not cover other sources of reverse mortgage lending. Is that an accurate observation? Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President, and through you, again in line 1 of the bill, the bill starts off talking about no entity including but not limited to, that language -- but not limited to, is any Connecticut bank or credit union. That language is written in such a way that it includes all of those entities, which are in Connecticut but also it includes any entity seeking to do what is laid out in the bill itself. So, it's not just restricted to a Connecticut bank. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President. The wording itself kind of caught my attention because it seems to single out or site Connecticut banks and Connecticut credit unions although it's not limited to them, and usually when you have a phrase such as that, you're putting the emphasis on those particular institutions and as someone who is involved in -- I'm an expert in bank regulations for example, the national regulations, and I know that when it comes to issues regarding the abuse of consumers for reverse mortgages the entities that are most often involved are non-bank mortgage lenders. Not the Connecticut banks or Connecticut credit unions, so -- through you Madam President, I wondered why this wording seems to emphasize and focus on the very institutions who have not had a history of being involved in this abuse and just only vaguely or obliquely referring to the lenders who have been involved in such kind of abuse. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, Madam President. Thank you. Through you Madam President. A couple of things, one there was debate about what this language applied to in the committee, having seen this kind of language in other bills, I was of the opinion that it was broader than just Connecticut. We actually checked with the attorneys who agreed with that assessment. Two, the reason that the language is written in that way I think is because we're the state of Connecticut and we're talking -- because we are the state of Connecticut about our banks explicitly, but using language that is capture-all language, which captures those entities outside of Connecticut banks, Connecticut credit unions, and even banks of credit unions.

So, any entity which the provisions of this bill might apply to, whether they be a bank, a credit union, or a bank or credit union outside of the state, it does not matter. It's any entity doing this type of business. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you and again through you Madam President, there are Federal laws, which deal with the dissemination of information when it comes to reverse mortgages, and again it appears to me that this law indeed is overlapping if not redundant with those laws. Would the proponent care to comment about the redundancy of the law? Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Through you Madam President and the response to the questions would be -- I guess the only way that I could respond is that what we are doing here is allowed, and that would be my response.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio, did you hear the response sir?

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

No, if you wouldn't mind --

THE CHAIR:

Again, I'm going to ask the chamber to kind of lower their voices since the debate is going on and Senator Suzio is having trouble hearing Senator Winfield. Senator Winfield.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you. What I was saying -- what I responded was that what we're doing doesn't contravene Federal law and is allowable and that would be the only comment that I have in response to the question. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President. I don't have any further questions of the proponent, although I do have some reservation about the language in the law itself because it does imply in my opinion at least some culpability on the part of Connecticut-based banks and Connecticut credit unions by the very language and the fact that they're singled out and sited whereas everyone else -- the typical sources of the abuse, which the bill tries to address, are kind of left in a vague background that basically, including but not limited to -- and to me it imparts a certain culpability or guilt by implication in the wording, and I find that regrettable and one of the things that causes me to have some concern about voting for this particular bill. So, I will listen more to the debate before I decide on how I'm going to vote on it, but I have some very serious reservations about this, and I feel that it does cast aspersions on the institutions in Connecticut that have not been involved in these abuses and are local banks. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER (26TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, this conversation has a great deal of interest for me and many people in my district. I had one case recently where we had a widow whose husband was a veteran in our town and had a reverse mortgage on their home, and there was quite a bit of equity still in the home, but she found herself in a situation where she could not continue the payments and was in a position that could have lost a home that had quite a bit of equity, and she would have lost that.

So, my question would be would this bill do anything to help an individual in this case or is it -- in other words it doesn't deal with the actual type of mortgages or the parameters or the requirements of the mortgage, but it's just a counseling aspect of that mortgage, it couldn't necessarily help her keep her home.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. If I understand the situation correctly, this bill, which does put in placed counseling requirements, would not help that individual, although, for the reasons that I'm standing here and defending the bill, I think it would help a lot of people, but I don't think it would help in that particular situation given that it has already occurred.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER (26TH):

Thank you for that clarification. So, I guess I'm understanding that the discussion is really about counseling services and applying for these reverse mortgages in person rather than on-line or by phone or some other method. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield. Would you like the Senator to repeat?

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher, would you please repeat?

SENATOR BOUCHER (26TH):

Yes, I just want to make sure that one component of this bill is about in-person counseling and is the other aspect about in-person application as well.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Yes, Madam President. I just want to make sure I get to the right place, one second -- so this bill is about -- I guess my answer would be that this is about in-person counseling, although there is a provision that allows for the usage of the telephone. It is -- this bill is not directly about an in-person application, no. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER (26TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. I appreciate the answers to this. It doesn't seem to actually address the areas of concern that I have. There are a lot of issues around reverse mortgages, the advertisement of reverse mortgages, and particularly directed at those that are older and older population, those that can no longer afford to stay in their home because of high property taxes oftentimes revert to reverse mortgages, except that there have been a lot of problems around this area, and I guess I would be slightly more interested in learning about how we could actually look in more depth at the kinds of actual details of how a reverse mortgage is structured versus actually discussing this in a counseling or actually applying for a reverse mortgage. So, I appreciate the answers to my questions, and I'll continue to listen to the debate before really making a decision on how to vote on this. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Senator Leone.

SENATOR LEONE (27TH):

Thank you Madam President. I just want to rise and make a few comments in support of the bill proposed in front of us.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR LEONE (27TH):

Thank you Madam President. I just want to say that as I'm listening to the debate, and I'm hearing that this bill is about providing counseling to folks who may choose to require or investigate whether a reverse mortgage is for them or not versus do -- are there any kind of controls for a person who finds themselves in a reverse mortgage and it doesn't go according to plan.

If this bill was able to attack both of those issues, that would be great, but I'm hearing this is all about the counseling going forward, and even if that's all that is, I think that is a very strong and worthy step.

When I was on the Banks Committee this issue came up many times, and it always became a complicated issue. So, the solutions to fix some of the scenarios as presented by the good Senator next to me that maybe this bill doesn't address specifically, it's a result of it being more complicated than we sometimes understand, and we can't always legislate every corrective measures, but to that end, if we're able to provide people counseling before they get into these kind of deals, if they think they are a good customer for these kind of solutions that may be given to them as an option or sometimes being sold to them, and they don't fully understand the repercussions of what it may mean down the road, then I think that's -- if we don't do something to provide them all the information so that they go in eyes wide open, buyer beware and have the due diligence to have an informed decision before signing on the dotted line and putting either themselves or family members at risk if they were to pass away, then I think that's a detriment to us to not do something to alleviate that.

So, if this bill provides counseling to give people information before they step a toe into the water, so to speak, I think that's a worthy cause, and if we could do it -- go even further that's even better, but I would support and I would urge my colleagues just for that reason, any time our customers, or residents, our constituents have more information than less, especially when they're signing documents that affects their financial future, I think that's a worthy cause. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN (24TH):

Thank you Madam President. I stand for comments on the amendment before us --

THE CHAIR:

The bill, sir.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN (24TH):

The bill, thank you. The bill in Judiciary I was supportive of, but I do recall discussion during the Judiciary Committee meeting of similar concerns that Senator Martin have and Senator Suzio have and that is that Connecticut seems to be short on the number of agencies that are certified by the Federal agency that requires this and Federal banks also. In fact, I thought I heard that there were four agencies in Connecticut that are qualified for this counseling service. In fact, just looking it up on the HUD website I see there's only three in Connecticut.

So, I would encourage the Banking Commissioner and other advocates for this counseling service to see to it that more qualified agencies are up and running as quickly as possible in light of this bill likely to pass. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir, remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS (8TH):

Thank you Madam President. You know I've heard -- I don't serve on banks, I don't serve on Judiciary, and I was trying to boil down this bill to a simple understanding after listening to some of the discussion on the bill, and I just have -- I'm going to run through my laymen term and simplified and answer one simple question to the chamber of the Banks Committee --

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR WITKOS (8TH):

Thank you Madam President. If somebody is interested in taking a reverse mortgage, this just sees that you have to seek a consultant that is HUD certified to make sure that you know the good points and the bad points and the dangers potentially of doing this and what risks there may be, and since we don't have that many of them in the State of Connecticut, there's a phone list somewhere that they can, you know, dial a person and seek that consultation at no charge to them, and they qualify now they can proceed with the reverse mortgage. Is that correct? Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Winfield.

SENATOR WINFIELD (10TH):

Thank you Madam President. Through you Madam President, I would just add to that that the information would be provided to them so that the individual doesn't actually necessarily have to go out and seek that information, and yes the phone provision allows for us to at least currently deal with the issue brought up by Senator McLachlan about the number of individuals within the state that are able to be on that list.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS(8TH):

Thank you Madam President. Thank the Chairman for his information.

THE CHAIR:

Remark further? Remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk will you call for a roll call vote, and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

THE CHAIR:

All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you please call a tally.

CLERK:

S. B. No. 579

Total Number Voting 36

Necessary for adoption 19

Those Voting Yea 24

Those Voting Nay 12

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

The bill has passed. The Senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff, good evening again sir.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Would the clerk please call calendar page 17, calendar 357, S. B. No. 981.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 17, calendar 357, substitute for S. B. No. 981, AN ACT CONCERNING STRATEGIC LITIGATION AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND A SPECIAL MOTION TO DISMISS. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Good evening Madam President. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. This piece of legislation was approved I believe unanimously by the Judiciary Committee, and what it does is deal with civil actions where it creates a special motion to dismiss a claim or counter suit or cross claim, basically for certain particular cases that deal with the matter of public concern such as free speech, the right to petition a government or association, and the real intent of the legislation is to assist people that are sued on their free speech rights to have a means to quickly get rid of frivolous lawsuits.

So, it's a mechanism that can save money for defendants that are wrongly targeted for simply exercising their rights really on the 1st Amendment and other matters of public concern. It's a good piece of legislation, and I urge the chamber to approve this bill. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. I stand in strong support of this legislation as well. At the public hearing it was brought to our attention first of all that this is a compilation of some of the best laws out there from throughout the United States. We are not the first state to move in this direction, but these targeted lawsuits take very different forms.

Out in California there was testimony that certain folks, developers, if you went to a planning and zoning meeting and spoke against the development, that developer would slap a lawsuit on you and therefore chilling the public debate on developments in California, which led them to pass legislation like this.

In Connecticut we heard from television stations, journalist, newspapers and other folks all together that if someone's mentioned in an article or a news story, next thing you know the station or the newspapers get hit with a lawsuit, and what we're saying is we refused to settle because we refuse to be intimidated, but it's costing us $ 100s of thousands of dollars.

So, what this legislation does is it creates a special mechanism to try to get these law suits taken out and dismissed as early as possible. We worked very closely with the Connecticut trial lawyers association to make sure that it was not overly broad, such that it would encompass some of the areas that they were concerned about, such as bodily injury, but it is narrowly tailored for these suits, these slap suits, which have, as Senator Doyle pointed out, a chilling effect on first amendment rights.

So, this is a really good mechanism to help free flow of ideas so that folks aren't intimidated, whether it's someone with a lot of money that wants to develop property, someone with a lot of money that wants to shut down newspaper or broadcasters or anything like that, or just people that just -- if you mention their name they file a lawsuit and just hope for the best. So, I would urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Doyle.

THE CHAIR:

Yes, thank you Madam President. The clerk has an amendment, LCO No. 7089, will the clerk please call it and I be allowed to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7089, Senate A offered by Senators Doyle, Kissel, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Thank you Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. This amendment is a clean-up amendment. It pushes out the effective date of the civil actions and it also has some other clean up language, some of it from the Judicial Department to make sure the time frames are correct and a little more manageable to make it effective. It's a cleanup amendment, and I urge the chamber to approve this amendment. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL (7TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. I also urge adoption of the amendment. It is a clean-up amendment, and we have to make sure that the Judicial Branch has enough time to set policy as to how judges will deal with this special expedited mechanism. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Remark further on Senate A. Will you remark further? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate A is adopted. Will you remark on further on the bill and the amendment? Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE (9TH):

Madam President, if there's no objection, I'll move it to the consent calendar.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection. So ordered sir. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Madam President would the clerk call the previously PT bill calendar page 48, calendar 290, S. B. No. 602.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

On page 48, calendar 290, S. B. No. 602, AN ACT CONCERNING THE TASKFORCE TO STUDY THE HUMANE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL SHELTERS. There are amendments. Senate A has been designated.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Miner. Good evening, sir.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Good evening Madam President. So, I'm not exactly sure how to do this. So, I called the amendment --

THE CHAIR:

Originally Senate A --

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

And then it was PT'd, so do I have to recall --

THE CHAIR:

It was PT'd, so you have to recall that. Mr. Clerk will you call Senate A.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President.

CLERK:

LCO No. 6742, Senate A offered by Senator Miner.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Miner.

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. The intention of this --

THE CHAIR:

You move that adoption, right again?

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Yes, thank you Madam President. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR MINER (30TH):

Thank you Madam President. So, the intention of this amendment, if I could refresh the chambers memory is to confine the language within the bill to the original intent of the bill, which was to focus on municipal shelters and regional shelters. So, the effect of this amendment would not change anything in the underlying original intent of the bill. Any sheltering requirements, and temperature requirements, under the bill would still be in place. This would deal with sheltering requiring outside a municipal shelter or a regional shelter, such as how you can find your dog at home or you can find your cat at home, or how someone might confine a chicken. So, I would ask for the chambers support in the amendment. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on Senate A? Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

Yes, I rise to support the amendment. A good catch on part of Senator Miner, it goes beyond what the bill was supposed to do. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further? If not -- Senator Logan.

SENATOR LOGAN (17TH):

I rise in favor of the amendment as well.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you Senator. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor of Senate A, please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate A is adopted. Remark further on the bill? Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

Yes, I rise to speak on behalf of the bill and before I do I believe the clerk has another amendment LCO 8052.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8052, Senate B offered by Senators Looney, Duff, and Doyle et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

Yes, very simply --

THE CHAIR:

Move on the adoption sir.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

I move adoption of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

The motion is on adoption. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

The amendment states that no taskforce member shall receive mileage reimbursement or transportation allowance for participating in the taskforce.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on Senate B? Will you remark further on Senate B? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor of Senate B, will you please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate B is adopted. Will you remark on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO (4TH):

I ask that it be placed on the consent calendar as amended.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered sir, I see no objection. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Can we stand at ease for a moment?

THE CHAIR:

Senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President please have the clerk call calendar page 5, calendar 147, S. B. No. 586, we will start on the bill as we await the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

Page 5, calendar 147, substitute for S. B. No. 586, AN ACT EXPANDING MANDATED HEALTH BENEFITS FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN, AND ADOLESCENTS. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Senator Larson. Good morning sir.

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

And a fine morning it is. Madam President, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark sir?

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

An act expanding mandated health benefits for women, children and adolescent. The summary is, this bill requires certain health insurance policies to cover specified women's healthcare services, including contraceptions, immunizations for children, adolescents, and adult and preventative services for children and youth age 21 and younger. The services must be covered in full with no cost sharing, such as co-insurance, co-payments or deductibles. The cost-sharing prohibition does not apply to high-deductible health plans designated to be compatible with federally qualified health saving accounts. Currently, health insurance policies accept grandfathered ones. Most cover these services with no cost sharing pursuing to section 2713 of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Grandfathered policies are those that were in existence before March 23, 2010 that have not made significant changes to their coverage.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the bill. Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Good morning Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Good morning.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Madam President, I rise in support of the bill before us. I want to thank Senator Larson and Senator Kelley for their work on this important measure that will ensure that women in the state of Connecticut have a continuity of care for the essential health benefits that they have enjoyed under the Affordable Care Act.

This will ensure that no matter what decision are made either at the congressional level or at the administrative level in Washington that women in Connecticut will continue to enjoy the benefits that Senator Larson just described.

Madam President, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO No. 8258, I ask that the clerk please call the amendment. I move adoption and if I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8258, Senate A offered by Senators Flexer, Larson, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, the amendment before us just changes language that was underlying bill concerning step therapy. It takes out the associated note with the original bill and it also, the language that's in front of us with this amendment makes sure that the language that we're putting in our statutes is consistent with the language that's currently giving these benefits in the Affordable Care Act.

THE CHAIR:

Senate will stand at ease for a moment. Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Thank you Madam President, so as I was saying this language that's in this amendment is consistent with the language that is already in the Affordable Care Act that grants these benefits to women in the state of Connecticut, and it just ensures that there's no discrepancy in terms of the kinds of flexibility there is with prescription coverage in particular, and I hope that the chamber will support this amendment. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Remark further on Senate A? Will you remark further? Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH):

Good morning Madam President. Just a question of the proponent of the amendment, was the amendment in fact previously before us as a bill that was referred to Appropriation? It sounded familiar when I was in the other room and heard you describing it?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

No, this is just a clarification of the underlying bill. The underlying bill talked about step therapy. This was not a proposal that was in another bill to my knowledge. I've never seen anything like this before until we were working on this language. This language is before us to one get rid of the fiscal note that was in the underlying bill, so this eliminates any potential cost to the state or to municipalities, in fact it might even reduce the cost for municipalities and it also ensures that the language that will be in our statutes is consistent with the language that's already in the Affordable Care Act concerning these type coverage, particularly around contraceptive coverage.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY (16TH):

Thank you Madam President. Thank you for the answer.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on Senate A? Will you remark further on Senate A? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate A is adopted. Remark further on the bill? Remark further on the bill? Senator Duff.

THE CHAIR:

The senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff, I guess we're not standing at ease.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. I yield to Senator Flexer.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer, will you accept the yield ma'am?

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Yes, I do Madam President. I thank the good senator for the yield. Madam President, I'm excited that this measure is before us today, and I'm hopeful that it's about to garner a broad bipartisan support as it did in the Insurance Committee, and again I want to thank Senator Larson and Senator Kelley and Representative Scanlon for their hard work on this bill, and I think this is a really important moment for us here in the state of Connecticut to make sure that, again, as I said before I introduced the amendment that women in Connecticut will know that they will continue to enjoy the protections that are available under the Affordable Care Act ensure that women and adolescents -- or women will have coverage for counseling services as it relates to domestic violence.

In the Insurance Committee I know there was detailed testimony about how important this kind of counseling is for women. Many women they're -- when they experience domestic violence at home, and they're not quite sure what it is, oftentimes there first interaction or recognition that they have that helps them determine that they are in fact experiencing abuse at home is when they're asked at the well woman visits. When they go to see their doctor and the doctor says is there any violence in your home? Is there any cause where you think you might be being abused?

This ensures that if a woman comes forward and says to her physician, yeah, you know what I think maybe there is something happening, this ensures that that doctor will be able to refer the woman to those counseling services and that those will be covered in the state of Connecticut regardless of what happens.

It also ensures that women in Connecticut will continue to have access to tobacco cessation programs with the help of their physicians and ensuring that women can quit the use of smoking and other tobacco products. Again, it just covers the overall well woman vitis that are so critical in identifying any issues that may be coming up, ensuring that every woman will have an opportunity to be seen by her physician. It also ensures that breast cancer will be covered and ensuring that we have protections for women who particularly have a family history, and making sure they have the ability to have their risk assessed. Folic acid supplements when women are pregnant or any women that are likely to become pregnant, and I think that's really important to provide that kind of stability for women in Connecticut and for us to stand up and say, you know, regardless of what's going to happen in Washington that here in Connecticut we're going to ensure that this access continues to be available.

I just think that this is a really important bill that we have before us. It's a bill that has garnered a great deal of support and there have been so many good people who have worked on this measure, and I'm hopeful that we'll have a good vote here tonight and a good vote down in the House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you ma'am. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Suzio, were you looking to speak?

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Yes, I was madam. Thank you for noticing. I appreciate it. (Laughing). A question for the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

I understand that one of the factors that was driving the cost of healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act was coverage related to pregnancy for people who didn't need that kind of coverage, older people, older couples, and I just read stories about that. I haven't read up on the law itself and what it did say specifically about that, but I would ask the proponent of the bill, does the proposed insurance coverage require the insurance to be provided to couples who are beyond childbearing age or have no need of such services? Does the insurer have to offer that as a group plan or can people who fall into the category be carved out from the coverage?

Through you madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Larson.

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Thank you Madam President. I would like to yield that question to Senator Flexer.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer will you accept that yield?

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

I do accept the yield madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you ma'am.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

It's nice to see you.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President, the bill that is before us actually doesn't deal with pregnancy coverage as the Senator just described. It deals with issues around pregnancy. It deals with screening for gestational diabetes. It deals with contraception, which of course, women use for a wide variety of reasons, not just to prevent pregnancy, but for other reasons as well. And it deals with, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, coverage for osteoporosis, which is for older women, women 60 and over. So, pregnancy coverage is not in here as much as there are a variety of screenings. There's screenings for a number of different issues for pregnant women, but not pregnancy coverage specifically.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Yes, and thank you again, through you Madam President.

The bill does specifically provide for contraceptive coverage, and again, my question, is it going to be mandatory to provide such coverage to groups of people who may include couples or folks for whom the coverage would be superfluous. They are beyond childbearing age. Again, I've read stories about this being a factor in the cost of healthcare insurance under the affordable care act and this bill is designed to basically replace that coverage should actions in Washington result in a change in that under the Affordable Care Act. So, I would like to have a better understanding about -- I understand there's good things in the bill. There's things that have nothing to do with a person's age, but there is specifically contraceptive coverage included in it and, yet, we know that there are many couples and folks who don't need it and is the cost of that coverage being born in effect by groups of people who have no need of that kind of service.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Madam President, through you. I would respond by saying that the bill that is before us provides for a coverage for a wide variety of services that not everyone is going to use. Again, I'll point back to the osteoporosis screening, which is specifically for women age 60 and over. So, anybody who is below 60 would be potentially paying for that coverage, but not being able to avail themselves of it. I would say this is part of a community benefit. A benefit that, you know, everyone is paying in for the piece of this that they may need to use at one point or another. Obviously, the breast cancer risk assessment aren't traditionally used by younger women. Those are recommended, depending on your family history, at age 35 or 40 perhaps. So, a 20-year-old wouldn't be availing themselves of that kind of coverage. So, I would say that all of the services here are spread out and serve a wide variety of --the coverages here serve a wide variety of people and, so, I wouldn't just single out one particular piece of this coverage.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATORY SUZIO (13TH):

And through you Madam President. Is the good Senator aware of stories that have been reported in the news again about couples who complain that they were basically paying for the cost of contraceptive services of which were of no value to them. I read stories of that nature and I'm just wondering whether this bill makes any correction to that or if it continues that kind of arrangement.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. I would argue to you that contraceptive coverage for women is of value to everyone. When women can make decisions about their own health and their own body, then we have the best healthcare outcomes. We have lower rates of infant mortality and issues with infants when they're born. We have women who are empowered to make their own decisions and to make sure they are planning their families in a way that best fits their lifestyles, so this benefit is for everyone. For everyone in our society.

Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

I have no doubt and no quarrel with the idea that contraceptive services can be of value to childbearing aged couples, but my question is, are we dealing with a population that goes beyond that? Couples and women who have gone beyond the ability to have children and who have really no need for contraceptive services, but obviously the cost of that is being incorporated in the insurance coverage we're talking about here. So, I'm just questioning when there is absolutely no need for contraceptive services by a couple in effect are they being forced to carry insurance coverage that has that feature, which is of no benefit to them.

Through them Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. Now, I'm not an expert on insurance policy, but in the time that I've been working on this piece of legislation, what I have learned is that the way insurance works, is that different coverages are assessed and the rates are determined by knowing who might use a certain type of coverage, how many people are going to use the contraceptive coverage, how many people are going to use the osteoporosis coverage, how many people are going to be using the well-woman visits, the breast cancer screenings, so the rates are determined to cover a wide variety of benefits. Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Thank you Madam President. I guess my point just is that at any given age there's any potential range of health circumstances for which a person could need a healthcare coverage, but contraception itself refers to people who are potentially capable of bearing children and when someone has gone beyond that stage, it is, from what I understand, of no use to them. Nonetheless, it will be included in the healthcare insurance, which they would be compelled to bear, and I'm talking, by the way, about people who have objections of conscious or anything like that. I am just talking about people who have no use for it because they are beyond the childbearing age, yet it is still being offered as a service which, therefore, is of no value to them, but it is included -- the cost of that is included in the insurance coverage. And that's what I'm just concerned about. I would -- and I know that, again, that's been reported to be a problem with the Affordable Care Act, and I was wondering if in this legislation whether if people who are beyond childbearing age, whether they will have the ability to opt out and not have contraceptive coverage if it is of no use to them.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. Again, this is about a community benefit and rates for insurance are set by insurance companies analyzing the people that they have covered and understanding which sets of services are most likely to be used, assessing that cost, and setting their rates. Insurance policies are not set up to divide the population based on age and who might be able to use this and who might be able to use that. We're not going to have insurance policies, for example, that choose to limit some of the coverages that are in here that I've described a couple of times. Also, we're probably not going to have a debate about limiting insurance policies so that you don't have to pay for somebody else -- someone else's Viagra, if you don't want to either.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Ummm Senator Suzio.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

I'm not gonna touch that with a 10-foot pole.

THE CHAIR:

We don't expect you to sir.

SENATOR SUZIO (13TH):

Through you Madam President. I guess the point just is made that a couple who are well into their 60s or 70s or beyond are unlikely to have need for contraceptive services, yet they will be compelled to in effect have insurance coverage which includes that benefit, and obviously the cost of that insurance coverage has gotta include the cost of that kind of a benefit and it's been reported to be a problem with respect of the cost under the Affordable Care Act and I was wondering whether the proposed legislation would have some inherent flexibility which would allow couples an option to not include that coverage if it's of no use or potential use to them whatsoever given their stage of life, and therefore, they wouldn't have to bear the cost of that insurance coverage. From what I can understand and hear from the proponent of the bill, there has been no provision for that. And I have no further questions for proponent of the bill. It's just one of the concerns I would have. I think there's great features to the bill which I fully support and I think on balance it's good, but I do have just some concerns about having healthcare insurance that has certain features to it that may be of no use to people who are compelled to subscribe to it.

Thank you very much Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Osten

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. I rise for a few questions for the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:

Please prepare yourself Senator Larson.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I would request that the proponent yield to Senator Flexer, if you wouldn't mind sir.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Larson, how do you feel about that, sir?

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Consider it done Senator. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexor would you accept his yield?

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. Yes, I do.

THE CHAIR:

Then proceed Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

(Laughing) Thank you very much Madam President and I'll try not to giggle through the whole thing. Senator Flexer, if you know, are you aware if all women that are 20 are able to have children?

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexor.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. To my knowledge, there are some women who may be 20 years of age that they have other health conditions that would limit their ability to get pregnant.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. And again, through you, So then you would be able to say that age does not necessarily -- is not necessarily the defining part of the need for contraception through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. Yes, I would agree with that.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. And through you can a man or a woman experience osteoporosis at the age of 20, 25 or 30. Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. It is my undestanding that Yes, you can experience osteoporosis at any age due to a wide variety of health conditions.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much Madam President. And Madam President through you the fact that someone is of a certain age does not deny you the ability to -- thank you Madam President -- deny you the ability to have insurance coverage for a variety of incidents.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Umm Senator Flexer.

SENATOR FLEXER (29TH):

Through you Madam President. That is correct.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you.

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH):

Thank you very much and I have had all my questions answered.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you so very very much. Would you remark further on the bill. Senatory Kelly, why do you rise sir?

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

Thank you very much, Madam President and good morning.

THE CHAIR:

Good Morning sir.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

I'd like to start by thanking my fellow co-chair, Senator Larson, for working on this bill in committee and getting it through committee. I'd also like to thank my former co-chair of aging, Senator Flexer for her help and also Senator Gerrantana for the good work that she put in in working on some of the wordsmithing of an amendment that I'm going to run in just a moment.

Before I get to that, though, I would like to just talk a little bit about this bill 586 is really born out of what's happening currently in Washington. How there is a movement right now to fix what I think all of us can agree on, is the promise of what the Affordable Care Act intended. We were seeking to make affordable, accessible and improved quality in the delivery of our healthcare services. That's the intent and those are go intents, but we haven't seen that actually happen and materialize the way that I think we all wanted to happen. What this is going to do is to embed in current state law those promises with regard to the women's health issues that were made in the Affordable Care Act. But as this progresses and as we see changes coming out of Washington, one of the things that we're seeing is a desire by Washington to put more responsibility and more decisions on the states. And with regard to that, I would like to thank the Lieutenant Governor for her leadership that she has taken to put together a bipartisan group to start to look at this issue because it's an important issue to the people of Connecticut. Something that we need to do and to put politics aside and focus on people. And so I think the Lieutenant Governor for her leadership in that regard.

Here in Connecticut in the city of Hartford, we have the best and the brightest when it comes to insurance. We have the brain power, the capability, the talent, to make and to create an insurance solution to help our citizens. This is something that before the Affordable Care Act, our insurance industry here in our state was already undertaking and doing for our families here. This is something that I believe we can back to because we have the talent. And something that needs to be done, and so we have the capabilities. Now what we need to do is to use those resources to put them to good use for not only the people of Connecticut, but I think we can even make a national model. We can do here in Connecticut those things that could be the model for other states throughout the country because we have the best and brightest here. So, I look forward to working with the Lieutenant Governor in that regard because I think it is an all important job to do.

As we focus back access to quality healthcare is so important and we saw last year -- or two years ago now -- that New York was a leader in providing insurance coverage to women who did not have insurance when they became pregnant and offered a special enrollment period for them. We have an opportunity to do the same thing here in Connecticut.

Madam President, the Clerk has an amendment. LCO No. 8326. Will the Clerk please call the Amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

LCO No. 8326. Senate B offered by Senators Kelly, et al.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

Thank you Madam President. I move adoption and seek leave.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark Sir?

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

Yes, thank you. According to the centers for disease control and prevention, women who receive no prenatal care are three to four times more likely to die of pregnancy related complications than women who do. Also according to the March of Dimes, premature birth and low weight babies cost on, on average, 10 times more in healthcare costs. The average medical cost for a premature baby is over $ 55,000 while the average medical cost for a healthy baby is under $ 5,000. This legislation aims to help expectant mothers access affordable, vital, prenatal care. Without this, pregnant women and their babies could face costly future complications and even put them at risk. What the amendment will do is it will enable individuals who are pregnant and have no insurance coverage to have a special enrollment period in which they could buy an individual policy. I think this is good public policy. It's good because it increases accessible health coverage, insurance coverage for individuals and it improves health outcome. For those reasons, I would ask that the circle adopt the amendment and make this something that's affordable and accessible to individuals in need.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Senator Larson.

SENATOR LARSON (3RD):

Thank you Madam President. I rise in support of the amendment. I, too, wanted to thank you as well for your leadership of the Affordable Care Act and Senator Kelly somewhat new to the insurance committee, I've really enjoyed the partnership that we've shared, particularly Senator Kelly's attempts to cut through the morass and the gossip and the continual ranker that we hear and looking for really affordable baseline solutions here in Connecticut. He has been leader -- a proven leader for us in the insurance commission and I would ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further. If not -- Oh, Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Good Morning.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Good morning to you. I just have a couple of questions for the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Am I correct that the insurance companies have already filed their rates for 2018? Am I correct in that?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

Yes, Madam President.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Through you Madam President, does that filing reflect the changes which are suggested under this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

At this time, no, because the rates have been filed already.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Through you Madam President. Would it be your understanding that the insurance companies will be able to submit rate increases in addition to what has already been granted in response to this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

I would think that the rates have already been filed. I would imagine that if this were to become law, they could address it with the Insurance department and seek revisions to the rate filings that they've already got on file.

Through you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY (6TH):

Thank you very much and thank you for those answers.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY (21ST):

I would ask for a voice vote.

THE CHAIR:

You were going to get that, sir. (Laughing)

SENATORE KELLY (21ST):

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. I will try your minds. All those in favor, please say Aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? The Ayes have it. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? Oh. Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO (34TH):

Just really fast.

THE CHAIR:

Good Morning.

SENATOR FASANO (34TH):

Good morning. How are you?

THE CHAIR:

Great.

SENATOR FASANO (34TH):

I just wanted to echo some of the words by Senator Kelly. We are at a particular stage both federally and state wide with respect to potential changes to insurance and I think Senator Kelly is correct. We have the resources right here in Connecticut to create a model that could be a model for the country and Lieutenant Governor you have spoken about being the leader toward that model and I think that that's the appropriate thing we should be doing and I just want to take this opportunity to recognize your leadership in a bipartisan effort to try to achieve that and improve the quality of health insurance in our state of Connecticut and I think that's what we need to do.

Thank you Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Looney, good morning sir.

SENATOR LOONEY (11TH):

Good morning Madam President, and thank you. Speaking in support of the bill as amended, wanted to seconds of the comments made by both Senator Fasano and Senator Kelly in their remarks and to begin by noting the significant work that, you, Madam President, have done as in the creation of our state exchange, which was one of the most successful early startup exchanges in the country and have become a leader in managing this new world that we have had under the Affordable Care Act, which has brought insurance to so many people who had been uninsured before and it has had a great impact in Connecticut that over 109,000 Connecticut residents have been enrolled under the ACA and, of course, this comes at a time when in Washington, the majority party in the House of Representatives and the federal Congress has moved to slash healthcare coverage for millions of Americans, but in contrast to that, we have a strongly bipartisan bill here that moves in the direction of recognizing the needs of the broader community for insurance.

And Senate Bill 586 seeks to ensure that women's healthcare will be protected under any circumstances with or without protections from the federal government and expands the mandated benefits for women, children, adolescents, expands mandated benefits in so many ways for prenatal care and requires the commission of Social Services to amend the Medicaid plan to provide expanded contraception benefits, and that, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, nearly 800,000 Connecticut women have not been charged a co-pay or deductible for this coverage resulting in an average yearly savings of hundreds of dollars per person. And that Senate Bill 586 will ensure that regardless of what happens now and of course the future of national policy in this area is still very much unclear, that we are going strongly on record here in Connecticut that this is an essential benefit that needs to be broadly provided so that I think it is vitally important for us to acknowledge how strongly both parties in this General Assembly feel about this issue and have come together in a consensus way here in providing that making sure that healthcare insurance covers the essential benefits that women need in order to have their health protected in terms of needed screenings for sexually transmitted diseases and breast cancer, well women visits, breastfeeding supplied, coverage for gestational diabetes for women may occur during pregnancy, osteoporosis screening. All of these are essential aspects of healthcare that we have to recognize that they are broadly provided and the whole essence of insurance is to in effect provide coverage broadly that many people pay into. Those who may not even, at some point, use a particular service, because at some point they will be using a particular service that others don't use, but are also paying into. That's the nature of insurance. That's the nature of shared community enterprise that insurance is supposed to be all about rather segmenting out a particular kind of risk and saying well, I won't ever use this, therefore I won't pay for it. There is a broad-based need for a broad-based consensus that, for the sake of the public health, everyone has to cover things that they themselves might not directly participate in, but others will. So that's the nature of the shared enterprise and I'm so pleased that we have bipartisan support on this this evening. And thank you Madam President and thanks, especially to you for your leadership in this policy area over the last several years.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk, I'd ask for a roll call vote. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

THE CHAIR:

Have all members voted? All members voted? The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you call the tally.

CLERK:

S. B. No. 586

Total Number Voting 36

Those Voting Yea 36

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

The bill passes. (Gavel) Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. I ask for suspension to immediately transmit to the House of Representatives please.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered sir.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. If the clerk can now call the items on the consent calendar followed by a vote.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

CLERK:

Page 1 calendar 67, S. B. No. 754 page 3, calendar 127, S. B. No. 893 page 6, calendar 186, S. B. No. 317, also on page 6, calendar 177, S. B. No. 890, on page 9. Calendar 250, S. B. No. 903, page 12. Calendar 294, S. B. No. 904, on page 17. Calendar 357, S. B. No. 981, also on page 17. Calendar 347, H. B. No. 5452. On page 31, calendar 464, S. B. No. 1051. On page 45, calendar 109, S. B. No. 895, and on page 48, calendar 290, S. B. No. 602.

THE CHAIR:

At this time Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote on consent calendar 2. The machine is open.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate on consent calendar No. 2. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

CHAIR:

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? The machine will be called. Mr. Clerk will call the tally please.

CLERK:

On consent calendar No. 2:

Total Number Voting 36

Those Voting Yea 36

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 0

THE CHAIR:

Consent calendar passed. Senator Duff. Do you have any good news for us sir?

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Yes, I need to do one more referral to a committee. If the senate can stand at ease, I'm just looking for the page number.

THE CHAIR:

The senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President, before we get to the referral, we have a birthday from one of our staff members, Juliemar Ortiz, her birthday -- I don't know if it was today or yesterday or somewhere. So, we want to wish Juliemar a very happy birthday and thank you for spending your moment with us. [Applause].

THE CHAIR:

Congratulations Julie.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

On calendar page 46, calendar 182, S. B. No. 775, I'd like to refer that item to Finance Committee.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered sir.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. I'd like to ask for suspension for immediate transmittal please.

THE CHAIR:

Seeing on objection, so ordered sir.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President that concludes our business for this day, and I would now yield for any points of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Any points of personal privilege? None, good. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. Madam President it's our intention to convene again today at 2 o'clock, and we'll be going in at 2 o'clock to take up bills immediately, so we ask everyone be on time, so that we can go in at 2 o'clock.

THE CHAIR:

You did mean p. m. , right?

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Yes, p. m. , yes.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you very much. Seeing no objection. Senator Witkos, are you standing for announcement sir?

SENATOR WITKOS(8TH):

Thank you Madam President, I am, just to announce that the senate republicans will have a caucus later on this afternoon at 1: 30 p. m.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you very much. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF (25TH):

Thank you Madam President. I move that we adjourn subject to the call of the chair.

THE CHAIR:

The motion is to adjourn. So ordered sir.

On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 12: 50 a. m. adjourned subject to the call of the chair.

TOP