Regular Session - February 8, 2000
587
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 8, 2000
11:10 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
588
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, February 7th, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
February 5th, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
589
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 3031.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar with
the exception of Resolution 3031 signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Resolution Calendar, with exception, is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
590
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk,
Number 3021, sponsored by Senator DeFrancisco.
May we please have the title read and move for
its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the title of Resolution
3021.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
3021, commemorating the 50th anniversary of
television station WSTM, Channel 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On the
resolution, all in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
591
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. May we now have the title read on
Resolution 3031, and I move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the title of Resolution
3031.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
3031, memorializing Governor George E. Pataki
to proclaim February 2000 as Black History
Month in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Last year I
believe this was opened up to the entire house
and everyone wanted to go on it. And I would
request that that be done today and that those
who do not want to be on this resolution to
notify the chair.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Let's put
everybody on the resolution, as we have in the
592
past.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Everyone
will be put on the resolution. If you do not
wish to be on, please notify the desk.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Move the immediate
adoption of the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Would you recognize Senator
Schneiderman. He would like to address a
resolution that was previously adopted on the
Resolution Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
593
Mr. President.
The resolution, Resolution 3032,
addresses an issue that I think every member
of this house should be concerned with, and
that is the fact that as of February 1st, the
government of Austria includes something
called the Freedom Party in its ruling
coalition.
The Freedom Party has risen to
power very quickly. It is the most prominent
and effective of the neo-Nazi parties in
Europe.
It is especially troubling to me
because I have many people who fled from
Austria and Germany to get away from the
Nazis. In my district, my predecessor, who
served with many of you for many years,
Senator Leichter, fled from Austria. His
mother was killed by the Nazis in Austria.
So the fact that we now have the
inclusion in the Austrian government of
apologists for the Nazis, and xenophobes, is
extremely troubling.
This resolution would express the
view of this house, of the Senate, that the
594
State of New York should immediately review
all dealings with Austria and encourage the
Governor and Comptroller to take a close look
at what's going on in Austria, with a view to
possible sanctions.
J"rg Haider, who is the leader of
the Freedom Party, has achieved a lot of
prominence for his statements against every
type of immigrant and his refusal to criticize
the Nazi regime of the Third Reich. He has
attacked his own country, suggesting that
Austria is an aberration and a deformity -
those are his words -- and that they should be
a part of a greater German state. He has
echoed Hitler's words on numerous occasions in
his campaign literature, speaking of the
difference between "real" Austrians and
"nonreal" Austrians, by which he means anyone
who is non-Aryan.
And I think this is something that
all members of this house must be attentive
to. We cannot allow, in the birthplace of
Hitler, the rewriting of history that Haider
seeks to take place. And I think that I'm
going to urge that we open this resolution up
595
to all members of the house. This is not a
partisan issue.
The Senate will be the first
element of the New York State government, by
this resolution, to take a stand saying it is
not acceptable to have Nazis in the government
of Austria and we are going to look very
closely at every dealing we have with that
country as long as they are in power.
I urge passing of the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I want to thank Senator
Schneiderman for enlightening us further on
the issue, those of us that may not be fully
aware of what's going on in the world at this
particular time, and particularly his
reference to the rewriting of history and the
anachronistic sense that certain officials of
Austria look at what happened in the 20th
century, the greatest travesty of the 20th
century, the Holocaust.
And I strongly urge that we all be
596
not only party to this resolution, but that it
speak for the entire house.
I just wanted, as a point of order,
to inquire, is this resolution open to the
entire Senate body?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I would
like it to be open, if there's no objection.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Could we return to the order of
reports of standing committees. I believe
there's a report of the Rules Committee at the
desk, and I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
I'm sorry. Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think we
have to vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We did
vote, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay,
thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
597
resolution was previously adopted. And
pursuant to the request of the sponsor, it's
open for cosponsorship.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 3131B, by Senator LaValle, an act
to amend the Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Move to accept the
report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we have
598
Calendar Number 231, which was just reported
from Rules, taken up at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 231.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
231, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3131B,
an act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation
to coverage for diagnosis, testing for, and
treatment of infertility.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Mr. President.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry. Senator Kuhl. I'm sorry.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
before Senator LaValle gives an explanation of
the bill, could we have the last section read,
please.
There are a couple of members who
have other meetings in other parts of the
Capitol who will need to be voted. And so
599
would you read the last section, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
SENATOR KUHL: Call the roll.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
600
Johnson will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Goodman will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hoffmann will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR KUHL: Withdraw the roll
call at this point, please, and recognize
Senator LaValle for an explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will withdraw the roll call.
Senator LaValle is recognized for
an explanation of the bill.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
this bill amends the Insurance Law by adding a
new section that would extend health-care
coverage to the diagnosis and treatment of
infertility.
One of the things that we have done
in this bill, in the amended version -- and
this is a very, very critical point -- is that
as the sponsor, chief sponsor of the bill,
601
along with the cosponsors, we have tried to
strike a balance between the need to add
coverage and not increase the cost and create
additional problems for people who might be
denied coverage.
And I'm sure, as we discuss this
issue, we will talk about some of the points
in trying to achieve the important balance in
this bill.
And I might add, in meeting over a
ten-month period of time with many of the
stakeholders, trying to incorporate many of
the pieces of input that we received to
achieve this balance, we tried to be as
inclusionary in points of view -- to
incorporate those points of view in this
legislation.
I got into this issue because of a
very, very important program, and maybe one of
the leading programs dealing with infertility,
that has been established at Mather Memorial
Hospital in the village that I live in, in
Port Jefferson. There have been articles that
have been written about the program and the
two doctors that began the program in Port
602
Jefferson.
As you well know, as members we are
invited to various ceremonial functions, and I
have attended those functions and spoken, I
spoke to, couples who were very, very
emotional over the fact that they could not
have a child, that they had tried but to no
avail.
One in every five couples are
infertile, and this affects approximately
5.3 million Americans. What do we talk about
as a definition of infertility? Well, first,
we begin that it's a condition of the
reproductive system that deals with a couple
who have been unable to achieve conception
after one year of unprotected, well-timed
intercourse -- and that would be a six-month
period if the woman is over age 35 -- or a
woman unable to carry a pregnancy to a live
birth.
A most amazing thing is that
approximately 40 percent of infertility is due
to female factors, 40 percent due to male
factors, and the balance is due to either a
combination of the two or simply -- and we've
603
heard this before -- unknown factors.
Since 1970, approximately 72,000
babies have been born in the United States as
a result of assisted reproductive
technologies. And later on in the debate I'm
just going to use the term ART, assisted
reproductive technologies. Approximately
16,500 have been born in 1995 alone, just one
year.
There are conventional infertility
treatments, and those include -- and are
covered, by the way, under medical plans -
hormone therapy, where fertility is achieved
through medication; surgical procedures to
correct a physical blockage or a structural
problem in the reproductive organs; or
intrauterine insemination, which involves
inserting specially prepared sperm through the
cervix into the woman's uterus to increase the
likelihood of fertilization.
And probably the best known of the
assisted reproductive technologies, the ART,
is the in vitro fertilization -- that is, an
embryo transfer -- which is a procedure in
which eggs are removed from the ovaries,
604
fertilized by sperm outside the body and then
transferred back into the uterus of the woman.
As I have indicated, the input that
we received from the original bill dealt with
a great concern about the cost. And so in
order to achieve the balance that I talked
about, we looked at establishing some
parameters that were realistic parameters,
that individuals who are involved both on the
medical side and those couples who have either
had treatment, infertility treatments, or
those who are presently involved in treatments
indicated to us that the parameters that we
have included in this bill are realistic.
One is to establish a $60,000
lifetime limit on benefits. Prescription
drugs are not subject to the lifetime cap.
The bill requires that a person be insured for
12 months before accessing infertility
coverage. Certain procedures, such as
reversal of sterilization, reversal of
sex-change operations, cloning, or sperm or
egg retrieval from deceased individuals are
not covered under the bill.
The use of sperm or eggs from
605
deceased individuals are covered, however, if
the deceased person had provided some prior
authorization, whether that be in a will or
some other document indicating that this is a
wish that they have.
This bill includes and requires
that the Superintendent of Insurance order a
study of the utilization trends and
experiences and the rate-premium impact to
health insurance consumers. And, lastly, the
bill has a two-year sunset. This bill would
take effect July 1, 2000, and would sunset
July 1, 2002.
I would like to thank some people
before, I'm sure, answering some questions or
simply listening to various points of view on
the bill. I would like to thank my colleagues
Senator Morahan, Senator Lachman; my former
counsel, who had been with me 19 years, who
started working on this bill, Brian Murphy,
who is now with the Health Department; my
present counsel, who in 39 days in my office
was given this bill to work on, and that's
Mike Kinna. I would also like to thank the
Majority Leader's chief counsel, Ken Riddett,
606
Majority Leader's counsel Caron
O'Brien-Crummey, and also Abe Lackman, who is
the Secretary of our Finance Committee.
I would like to thank all of those
people, and my sponsors who are on this bill,
for working with me to help improve the bill
to place before this body a realistic bill, a
balanced bill, and one that will, I believe,
be cost-neutral.
Our own Empire Plan, state plan,
has just included infertility treatments at no
additional cost. And I'm sure we'll talk
about that some more. But I want to repeat
again, the sensitivity on the cost issue is
one that this body and the Legislature has
addressed in terms of providing additional
coverage, whatever it be, but not increasing
the premiums so that we add to the uncovered
pool of individuals.
We just made a major effort with
Family Plus to include and protect individuals
who prior to the coverage would have been
uninsured. So this Legislature has shown a
sensitivity to that issue. I, as sponsor,
have continued with that sensitivity in
607
providing what I believe is a bill that is
well balanced.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Could you read the last section,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR KUHL: Ask Senator
Stafford for his vote, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Certainly.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR KUHL: Will you withdraw
the roll call, please.
608
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The roll
call will be withdrawn.
SENATOR KUHL: Also, Mr.
President, I'd like to make an announcement.
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Children and Families Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Children
and Families Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, do you yield for a question from
Senator Breslin?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Mr. President.
You indicated that over 5 million
people in the United States suffer from
609
infertility. And in the bill it uses a limit
of $60,000 per situation, excluding
prescription drugs. Have you provided or had
an analysis of what the increased cost would
be to incorporate this plan within existing
policies?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, as I
had indicated, we have some models. First, I
talked about the Empire Plan. It is new, but
at this point there was no additional cost for
providing the infertility treatment.
The next best model that we can
look at is the State of Massachusetts, in
which the increase was about $1.70 per month
in a plan that is far broader, far more
expansive than ours. And so when we look at
the Massachusetts plan, based on -- by the
way, the insurance companies did the study.
So we assume that that would be the most
liberal interpretation of cost mandated to a
policy, that we believe that this will be
neutral.
Now, that's one of the reasons,
however -- I'll be very candid with you. We
have studies all over the place. We looked at
610
Illinois; we got different numbers from
different people. You can make different
arguments about Massachusetts. But one of the
answers is that's why we sunset the bill,
that's why we include the study. So that we
could be assured of what the numbers are based
on the New York experience, which so many
times is different from any other state and
any other experience.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
again, Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield
to a question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor continues to yield.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Can you tell
us, if you know, approximately how many people
in the State of New York, as opposed to the
5 million nationally, would be subject to the
infertility process?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I do not know
that number.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And again
through you, Mr. President.
611
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes, I
do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Would there be
any effect on the sunsetting of this bill, if
in fact it was passed -- the sunsetting of
this bill on any kind of collective bargaining
agreements by providing a value under a
contract and then taking it away at the sunset
period?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
think you know that I've had 24 years of
experience in this chamber. When I look at
provisions that sunset, whether it's the heart
bill for volunteer firemen and paid fire
personnel -- and we could go through hundreds
of bills -- the experience is that there is a
continuation of that coverage.
The question may come not so much
whether infertility treatments will lapse out
of policies, but whether we need to, in two
years, in July 2002, need to fine-tune the
612
legislation. Both ways. Because there are
some people that feel that we should be more
inclusive, more expansive in the provisions in
this bill.
Well, we may get to the year 2002
and find out exactly what I'm saying, is that
this is neutral. We may want to consider when
we get to 2002 to maybe fine-tune it the other
way, to include things that maybe we felt we
couldn't afford to do at this juncture.
But whether it would lapse and not
be restored, I seriously doubt that that would
happen.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Now, I commend
Senator LaValle for his zeal in preparation of
this bill and his discussion of the recently
enacted Health Care Reform Act, wherein we
provided for hopefully an additional million
people of the some 3 million people in this
state who have no health insurance. And I
emphasize no health insurance.
613
And now we have an additional
mandate, an additional mandate which many in
the medical community believe will add 3 to
5 percent on to premiums. And I impress upon
this body that 1 percent, the addition of
1 percent on a premium puts an additional
60,000 people on the unenrolled insurance
rolls. That means that they have no health
coverage. And if you take the out number of
5 percent, that means in the neighborhood of
$300,000 additional people.
So we take two steps forward with
HCRA and one step back with this mandate. And
I urge us to consider -- and my heart goes out
to those people who have fertility problems.
But we must remember, it's a finite dollar.
And that finite dollar is not covering the
people of the state of New York with health
insurance, something they should expect as a
matter of right.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we read the last section and call the roll
614
for the purposes of Senator Trunzo casting his
vote at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Trunzo will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we withdraw the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The roll
call will be withdrawn.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, do you yield for a question?
615
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: My
question relates to the -- and I'm trying to
find the proper subsection. It's the end of
Section 13A, the exemption for organizations
connected to religious institutions, at the
very, very bottom of Section 13A, which states
"if the group or entity on whose behalf the
policy is issued is operated, supervised, or
controlled by or in connection with a
religious organization or denominational group
or entity, then nothing in this paragraph
shall require the policy to cover any
diagnosis or treatment."
And my first question is, what does
that refer to, "group or entity"? What would
that include? Does that include employers or
providers of a plan?
SENATOR LAVALLE: The first part,
Senator, deals with employers, and the second
part deals with insurers and HMOs.
One of the things that we have used
here, which I think is very, very important,
616
is a benchmark definition by IRS that defines
a 501C3, defines a 501C3. This was put in
because of -- and let me just say that
conscience clauses -- and that's what this is
all about, what Senator Schneiderman has read
to us -- is something that the states of
California, Illinois, Montana, and Texas, that
have similar laws as this, all have conscience
clauses. Along with the federal government,
under the Omnibus Spending Bill, included a
conscience clause.
And so -- and we have recognized to
some degree conscience clauses in the
Executive Law and the Human Rights Law, to
allow religious -- those individuals,
employers -- and in this case insurers or
HMOs -- who have religious beliefs, religious
tenets, to opt out. So it is specifically
narrowly defined to cover those 501C3s and
HMOs.
And there's only one HMO, Fidelis
Care of New York, that does business here in
New York, which is the New York State Catholic
health plan. So when we talk about the
broader provision, we're talking about that
617
plan specifically.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just a few
more questions.
So the term "group" refers to
employers and "entity" refers to HMOs? Is
that what I understood?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Pardon me?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: In this
phrasing, you've said the first and then the
second. The word "group," "if the group or
entity on whose behalf the policy is issued,"
"group" in that case refers to employers?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
"entity" refers to HMOs?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
I appreciate the sponsor's
statement about conscience clauses. The
618
reason I'm asking this is I've never seen a
conscience clause drafted this broadly.
Is it my understanding that
"group" -- because it doesn't say anything
about this in here -- that "group" would
exclude for-profit companies that offer this,
"group" as an employer? Most of these are
offered by for-profit corporations. Would
they be excluded or not?
SENATOR LAVALLE: It's exactly
what I said to you, Senator. It would have to
be a not-for-profit corporation. The language
that we put in used the benchmark IRS language
for 501C3 corporations.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So any
for-profit company would not be eligible for
an opt-out under this conscience clause?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That is -
that's my understanding.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay -
SENATOR LAVALLE: I just want
to -- there is a -- we're dealing with a
conscience clause, and the answer is exactly
the way I gave you, yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
619
If the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And again,
because I've reviewed many conscience clauses
and I've never seen one drafted this way, a
"group," meaning an employer, that is operated
in connection -- operated in connection with a
religious organization, could that apply to
any -- an entity whose primary function was
not religious study? It's not a church but
something that -- an organization that works
out of a church or rents space from a church?
SENATOR LAVALLE: The precise
language, the IRS language says "operated,
supervised or controlled by or in connection
with." That is the language that is necessary
to meet the IRS 501C3 test benchmark.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
620
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I have to say I've reviewed a lot
of conscience clauses; I've never seen one in
this type of a provision that is as broadly
drafted.
I don't like -- as we broaden out
from religious institutions to insurance
companies, I don't understand the concept of
an insurance company having a conscience, I
must say. I've never really encountered that
in my personal dealings.
And I think that we are going down
a road with this particular language in this
bill that I think anyone who's concerned about
this, particularly certain people in the
pro-choice community, that we should not pass
a bill with this broad a clause. I don't
think it's necessary to include language this
broad to achieve the effect of having actual
religious organizations exempt from provisions
they find offensive.
There's language in other bills
that says "institutions whose primary purpose
is religious instruction," or limit it in
621
other ways. I think this is far too broad.
And I think that -- I do favor the
inclusion of fertility treatments as a general
concept. I don't like this language in this
bill. And for that reason and several others
which some of my colleagues will address, I'm
urging a no vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: The United
States Supreme Court just last year, in the
decision Bragdon versus Abbott, said
infertility is a disease. Many people can't
accept that terminology. But infertility is a
disease. It is a major disease.
And in that U.S. Supreme Court
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said
infertility is a disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Why?
Because reproduction is a major life activity.
Now, I also want to commend some
people in the galleries who fought for this
decision, who are fighting today to get an
infertility bill through both houses of this
Legislature. And I'm referring, of course, to
622
RESOLVE, the American Infertility Association,
and the largest mass orthodox Jewish
organization in America, Agudath Israel of
America.
And now I have to go to a Danish
proverb. There is a Danish proverb that
states "There is no perfection this side of
heaven." We as legislators know that. We
vote on bills, legislation and measures that
are imperfect. I would be lying to you if I
were to say this was a perfect bill. I have
certain problems with certain aspects of this
bill, as I have with 99.99 percent of votes on
other bills as well.
However, until we have legislation
dealing with infertility coverage, you will
have the wealthiest people in America, who can
afford drugs, having elimination of
infertility. And I'm not talking about IVF.
Only 2 to 5 percent would refer to that. This
bill is tailor-made for working-class and
middle-class people who receive no coverage
whatsoever.
Under those circumstances, under a
fairness issue in the broadest sense, I am
623
going to vote for this bill. But I also
realize this is a one-house bill. There is
another house in this Legislature. And this
will not be legislated until both houses
agree. And I'm hopeful that in the future
there will be an accommodation between the
Senate and the Assembly -- which will still be
imperfect, but will resolve some more of the
issues that many people have on this bill.
I am voting for this bill. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
have to start by saying that my heart goes out
to the couples that are having infertility
problems. I was particularly fortunate in
having four children in less than seven years,
and I thank God for that.
But I'm not going to support this
bill, at least not in the present form, even
though I do feel very much for these couples.
But I also feel very much for the 3 million
people in our state who don't have health
insurance. And I really feel we have to
624
address that issue first.
I'll tell you some of my concerns,
and then I'll say why I'm not supporting the
bill. I'm concerned that it's only for people
who have group health insurance and that for
people that have individual health insurance,
they will not be covered. I'm concerned by
the parameters. Why are there specific age
limitations and other limitations? Another
limitation would be why it does not include
the people who would most need this.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
I'm having a -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Shall I
talk louder? Oh, I'm not pointed at myself.
There.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: So sorry.
I'm telling you some of my concerns
with the bill right now.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And one is
that it covers only groups and not individual
625
insurance.
Also, I'm concerned by certain
limitations, limitations on age, limitations
on Medicaid recipients. I think it is those
people, the poor people, who most need
assistance. I know of many instances,
certainly in my county, where people that have
the means have been able to acquire the
necessary services. So to limit it only to
middle-income people and not to the poor
people who certainly could not avail
themselves of this service were they not
assisted.
But most specifically, I am voting
against this primarily because of the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
ACOG. They have withdrawn their support of
this B version, and they have done it for very
specific and very important reasons.
There are mentioned in the bill -
not in the bill, but by supporters that there
are guidelines that have been developed by
ACOG. But ACOG knows nothing of these
guidelines. They say they are nonexistent.
And therefore, they are very concerned that
626
there are nonexistent guidelines.
The other thing that is of very
serious concern to all doctors in this field
is the coverage is contingent, and I'll quote,
on a reasonable expectation that treatment
will result in a healthy baby, unquote.
Boy, that's a tough one. How can
we assure that a baby is going to be born
healthy? With the very best care available,
there are many children that are born severely
disabled. And gynecologists and obstetricians
would be at great risk of liability lawsuits
if a baby is born with health problems. And
there is no one that can assure that there
won't be health problems.
So I think until there is
considerably more attention and study and
discussion about this bill, there is really no
way that I could be voting favorably. I'll be
voting in the no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I have a number of concerns and
627
have had with this legislation over the years.
I have a concern that particularly focuses on
in vitro fertilization, that in the past the
bishops of this state have had problems with
that, for reasons that relate to the
destruction of embryos that aren't used or
aren't implanted. And I understand their
concerns.
The Assembly bill as a measure I
think is far, far preferable to this bill.
For example, the age restriction. This bill
says women between 25 and 44. Well, that
makes a judgment that may relate to the
average American today, and a lot of women are
having children primarily between those ages
of 25 and 44. But it doesn't apply to all,
nor should it. And we shouldn't inflict some
kind of judgment.
There are many, many men and women
who marry much younger. In fact, it's a
tradition in some parts of our state for men
and women to marry much younger. And I don't
see why -- what the difference between a
married 20-year-old woman and a married
25-year-old woman is. Why exclude the younger
628
woman?
First of all, leave aside the woman
for a minute. The case of urgency, in the
case of a big age difference between a man and
his wife. You know, the man could be much
older and be very desirous of starting a
family with his 20-year-old wife as quickly as
possible, because he may want to ensure some
possibility of him being around -- and I speak
as a 54-year-old man with young children. You
know, you want to be around to see them grow
up.
And so I don't think we ought to
make any judgment about married couples who
desire to have a family. If they're 18 years
old and married and we're providing this for
older couples, why not a young couple that's
experiencing real infertility problems? I
don't see why that judgment is being made by
this Majority here.
Go with Shelly Silver's bill. He
understands the problem better, he understands
the need better. And let's not put this
artificial age limitation in there.
And I even suggest that, as Senator
629
Oppenheimer suggested, a concern with this
definition concerning healthy children. Of
course we wish upon all couples in New York
State healthy children, that gift from God.
But we also know that sometimes children are
born who aren't completely healthy. And many
believe that that's a different kind of gift
to those parents, a different kind of
responsibility for those parents, that
children like that perhaps hopefully are given
to parents who can provide for them.
Certainly their life has value.
And so -- but to in effect build
into a bill a prediction of that, only God can
predict that. And we really can't question
His ways. So I can share the concern of the
professional doctors that they don't want to
be liable for somehow guaranteeing something
that no one can guarantee.
So this bill is seriously flawed in
that respect. The fact that it doesn't cover
people who have individual insurance policies
excludes a whole range of people who really
could benefit and need this infertility
treatment. And I know others -- and I -- you
630
know, this was -- if you talk about Medicaid,
there's a public fiscal question involved.
But some would question, then, why the poorest
families, who may rely on Medicaid, do they
not have as much right -- do not couples in
that situation have as much right as anyone
else to have a family, to have treatment so
they can have a family? I think the answer is
yes.
So the bill is in many respects
flawed. It's watered down from the Assembly
version. In one respect, I'm glad this house
is doing something to get this process
rolling. But it's certainly going to have to
result in negotiations with the Speaker,
perhaps in conference committees or through
the conference committee vehicle. And I want
my vote here to let everyone know clearly
where I stand on this issue. I think it
should be negotiated with the Speaker.
I like a lot of the features of the
Speaker's bill far more than I like the
features in this bill. I think that a serious
attempt to satisfy some of the moral and
religious concerns that have been expressed in
631
quarters of this state need to be addressed in
a way not with a narrow exemption, but in a
realistic, substantive way. And I look
forward to that.
But I'm not ready to change my
position and go for this bill with all of its
serious, serious flaws. I don't want to go
back to my district in Brooklyn and have to
face young married couples there -- and in
some communities, couples marry at 18, 17
years old -- and say "You've got to wait six
or seven years before you start your family."
That's just not fair.
I intend to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno, to close the debate.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
And I have been listening very
intently on the speaker in the office and then
here. And, Mr. President, my colleagues, the
issue before us can be considered
controversial, and that's why it's on the
floor.
And there are always reasons for
632
people who would not like to have something
happen legislatively that they can espouse.
Senator Connor, very learned, very articulate,
has an excuse on why he shouldn't vote for
this bill: Younger people ought to be
included. Your excuse can be just as good.
The bottom line is this is what is
on the floor. This has been deliberated over
for months and months and months. We have
invited the Assembly, we have invited others
that are part of this process to join so that
we can see a bill become law.
We advocate, we think this is the
right thing to do. It's not an easy thing to
do, we recognize that. And we also recognize
there are differences of opinion. We have
differences of opinion on many things that we
discuss, and there is validity. And when I
say "excuse," I don't mean that in a
disparaging way. There are reasons that
people have for not wanting to support a
particular issue, a particular bill.
But the fact of the matter is that
we feel that this is the time to advance this
issue, to have it become law, and to allow
633
people who need this special help and who
truly cannot afford it to have help available
to them so that they can start their own
families, develop their own families, and
enjoy a quality of life that they would relate
to here in this state.
So I intend to fully support this.
And I encourage my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry. Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Just briefly,
Mr. President, I just want to reiterate on
634
some of the points that were brought up on the
conscience clause.
Again, this bill -- under this
bill, only those organizations which meet the
IRS standard would be allowed the option of
choosing not to provide coverage for the
diagnosis of infertility.
On the issue of Medicaid, I would
say this body better look back, because this
body, during the budget in 1995, took out
infertility treatment. We did that, this
Legislature.
ACOG, of course, would like the
most expansive provision. That's why they
supported the original bill. But I think
there are many things that they are fine with
with this bill.
Senator Oppenheimer brought up the
expectation, reasonable expectation of a
healthy child. That provision was put in
there to protect people, because insurance
companies, based on a record of a success rate
of maybe 25 percent, would say it's not
reasonable. And we -- the intention of this
bill is to leave that decision between -- for
635
the course of treatment between the patient
and the medical experts, and not with the
insurance companies, based on some sort of
provision.
This bill is a real bill that has
been negotiated with all the stakeholders.
The Assembly bill is back in a point in time
10 months ago, 10 months ago, when it seems
that there was no input on these so many
issues.
So I think this house has met with,
as Senator Bruno said, deliberated with. We
did not have, to the best of my knowledge, a
partnership in framing out these issues.
So again, the cost issue, we look
at Idaho that has the fewest mandates and the
highest premiums, and Minnesota and
Pennsylvania, with the highest number of
mandates and lowest premiums. So we have to
look at New York and what the cost effect is.
That's why that study is so important.
I vote in the affirmative, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle will be recorded in the affirmative.
636
Senator Marcellino. Senator
Onorato, I had him first, then we'll go to
you.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: My colleague
Senator LaValle was very generous before in
issuing kudos and congratulations and
assigning it to those who assisted in the
performance of this bill. And let me add to
that list and add Senator LaValle's name at
the front of it.
Our colleague has taken on a very
difficult issue. He's taken it on with all
his energy, and that's boundless. He's taken
it on with care. And he's tried to address
everybody's concerns and everybody's wishes.
This, as I said before, is a very
difficult bill and a very difficult issue for
many people. But I think Senator LaValle
deserves all the credit for bringing the issue
out and working very hard to bring all sides
637
together and try to reach an accommodation for
this particular piece of legislation. For
that, I congratulate him.
I also vote aye on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
I am in agreement conceptually with
the idea of assisting infertile couples. But
many, many valid reasons were presented here
today as to why they shouldn't be voting for
it.
Another glaring omission in this
bill -- I don't know if anyone has picked it
up as yet -- it does not limit the procedure
to married couples. Now, this could lead to
further encouragement to single-women
pregnancies where they can ill afford to raise
a family -- perhaps multiple births. I think
there should be further amendments and
visitations of this to make sure that we are
talking about married couples.
638
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 231 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Duane, Gentile,
Gonzalez, Hevesi, Kuhl, Maltese, McGee,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Rosado, Sampson, Schneiderman, Seabrook,
Seward, Smith, Stachowski, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 37. Nays, 21.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Higher Education Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Higher
Education Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: And can we at
639
this time take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
117, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2422, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to the elimination of the mandate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Can we
have some order in the chamber.
If you're going to a committee
meeting, could you please make your departure.
Staff, take your seats. Take your
conversations outside.
The Secretary will continue to
640
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
128, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 925B, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the use of the designations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
149, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 5404,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to the definition of a long
bow.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
641
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
165, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 111A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to criminal actions terminated in
favor of the accused.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
642
182, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4650A, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the calculation of average daily attendance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
190, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4072, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
permitting town boards.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
643
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
197, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 1524 -
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
199, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2197, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to requiring consent for visual
observation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
644
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
197, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 1524, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to reimbursement.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to some questions, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you yield to some questions from
Senator Duane?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much. Through you, Mr. President.
Under this bill, since an inmate at
a local correctional facility can use their
own insurance, I'm wondering if that also
645
means that they can use whatever health-care
provider they want that is covered under their
plan.
SENATOR HANNON: I think that
would depend on what the rules -- I think that
would depend on the rules for that
municipality and the insurance plan.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if I may follow up on that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor could tell me just as sort of an
array of what the different rules are that the
different municipalities have for
incarcerating people using their own
health-care providers when they're covered by
a health insurance plan.
SENATOR HANNON: Senator, I would
not have that information, and -- so I'm not
in a position to be able to respond to you at
all on that.
646
I believe that each municipality
sets forth their own provisions for health
care of their incarcerated individuals, and
this bill only kicks in after all that is
done. So that in the event there is
third-party insurance which does cover that,
the municipality is entitled to reimbursement.
We seek not to set rules nor to
impose any conditions, but simply to tap into
an existing revenue stream that might be used
to offset the care of health for those
prisoners.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If that is the
case, that then, as it seems to be, that an
inmate could use their own health-care
provider, has outreach been done to various -
SENATOR HANNON: I didn't say
647
that. I didn't say that, Senator. Please. I
said the rules of the municipality would
govern that. And we seek not to deal with
that, and nothing in the legislation deals
with that.
And that's what I said. So you
can't say it appears that.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering
then if the sponsor would think that this is
an important element and one that we should
actually talk to HMOs about before we pass
this legislation, in that it may have an
impact on them.
SENATOR HANNON: No. Because,
once again, it seeks not to enter into that
relationship before there's service or before
there's a determination by the municipality as
to how the health care shall be provided, but
648
seeks only, after all of the events have taken
place, to allow for the claim for
reimbursement.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If an inmate is
dissatisfied with the health care they've been
provided under their insurance, would they
then have redress -- or maybe they would have
the same redress which is inadequate for most
New Yorkers. But would they be entitled to
the same inadequate redress that New Yorkers
are now provided with in terms of
dissatisfaction with the service of their HMO?
SENATOR HANNON: There would be
so many different ways to answer that, because
it would depend on their status as to why
they're in the prison and what their
relationship is to their HMO.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
649
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the context
of -- I think we would all agree that in order
for an inmate to be covered by insurance, they
would have to have been paying their premiums.
And therefore, as a paying customer of an HMO,
they are entitled to satisfactory service; is
that correct?
SENATOR HANNON: Well, in
general. I just -- there's a whole body -
there's a whole Insurance Law, a set of
regulations, Patient's Bill of Rights that
you're referencing. And whatever that -- is
set forth there, yes.
But just the word "satisfaction,"
I -- by that I mean reference to that body of
law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does the
650
sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, the
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I agree we could
quote the entire insurance regulation. But I
think what our goal is that those who are
insured get satisfaction from the coverage and
the benefits that they get from their
insurance company. So I may have simplified
what it is, but I think we all agree that's
what the goal is.
But because the inmate is paying
their premium, should not they be the ones
reimbursed by the -- for treatment?
SENATOR HANNON: Not if the cost
of the treatment was paid for by the
municipality.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Mr. President.
SENATOR HANNON: That's the whole
point of the bill. If the municipality has
borne the expense of providing the medical
care -- which, by the way, they have the
responsibility, if there's somebody in their
651
custody against their will, so they have the
responsibility of paying for the medical care,
then they should get reimbursement for that.
Now, if they didn't pay, then you
would have an argument. But that's not the
case. The whole premise of the bill is that
people who are wealthy enough to have health
insurance, become incarcerated, they became
ill, the municipality paid for the health
insurance, and therefore -- and there's an
existing policy out there, and we then say the
municipality can get reimbursement. Simple as
that.
I don't see the real implications
you're trying to add on.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HANNON: One last
question, Mr. President.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, if
the sponsor doesn't have time to continue to
debate it, we can put it off for another day.
652
I have more than one question.
SENATOR HANNON: I'd like to move
the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
Senator Duane, the sponsor, Senator Hannon,
has the floor. And he's entitled to yield his
time as he wishes.
Do you have a question?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President. I'm trying to be as courteous as
possible. If he's rushed, we can take it up
another day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
Senator, the sponsor has yielded for the
purpose of a question. Do you have a
question?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, I'd like to convey to the sponsor
that I have more than one question.
SENATOR HANNON: I've said, Mr.
President, I'll yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
653
Actually, our side has more than
one question. Some of the other members have
questions as well. Is the sponsor only
willing to take one question from me or one
question from everyone?
SENATOR HANNON: Well, that's not
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: That's not a
question, then.
SENATOR DUANE: I didn't hear
that, Mr. President, I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, under the rules, the sponsor -- Senator
Hannon has the floor. You've asked him if
he'll yield for a question. He's indicated
yes. And so you have the privilege of asking
a question at this time under the rules.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Mr. President, I think I'll wait and ask
my question after my colleagues have had a
chance to ask their questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
654
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions from me, perhaps?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you yield to Senator Montgomery for
a question?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Hannon, the bill indicates
that the local county or city jail facility,
corrections facility, would be able to be
reimbursed from a third party. Does this
mean, then, that Medicaid coverage is
exempted? Or would they then also be able to
receive reimbursement through Medicaid?
SENATOR HANNON: As the bill
says, it's the third-party medical insurance
coverage, which would not -- since that
doesn't refer to Social Services Law, would
only be private insurance.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
Mr. President. If Senator Hannon would
continue to yield, I have another.
655
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HANNON: That I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Hannon, the Commissioner of Corrections
informed us at the hearing before the Finance
Committee that the Department of Corrections
received reimbursement from telephone calls
made by prisoners to their families.
Essentially, it's a kickback from the
telephone company of $21 million, which is
used primarily to cover health-care costs of
inmates.
My question to you is, is there a
similar revenue that local facilities receive
that they also use for the same purpose?
SENATOR HANNON: Senator, I have
no idea. I simply had not heard about
anything like that before, till you said it.
And I would have no idea as to what the
arrangements between jails are with telephone
companies.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
656
Just one last question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Hannon, the -- I had a visit to Bedford Hills
last week. And I was informed by the
superintendent there that there are some
almost 200 state-ready inmates in Riker's
Island in the city.
Would your legislation -- how would
your legislation treat those inmates who are
in local facilities waiting to -- for, you
know, placement in the state facility, in the
state system?
SENATOR HANNON: I believe -- it
would simply be -- it's -- the technical
answer is what's in the bill in lines 8 and 9.
Medical services to any person incarcerated in
a local correctional facility is defined in
Section 2 of the Correction Law.
I believe that while their status
may be state-ready, they would still fulfill
657
that definition and therefore come under the
provisions of this proposed statute.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you.
Mr. President, briefly, on the
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. I note
that Senator Hannon uses the example of Tupac
Shakur. So I'm surprised that it's not the
"Tupac Shakur Bill," as we tend to label our
bills by someone.
But nonetheless, I want to just
make a -- I want to say that this bill, I
think, is very far-reaching in terms of
looking to receive some reimbursement based on
the incarceration of people. And there are
some questions that we need to answer, I
think, before we try to do this legislation.
And especially in light of the fact
that we have almost 300,000 people who would
be governed by this particular legislation, we
need to really know what the impact would be,
both in terms of local as well as our state
658
correctional system, and to really figure out
if this is necessary.
I don't believe it is. I believe
that we do have a stream of revenue that is
specifically established to cover these
issues. And I don't believe that we should be
looking to further tax the insurance system so
that we have one more reason why we create a
larger pool of uninsured people in our state.
So, Mr. President, I'll be voting
no on this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I would have
thought that particularly in light of the
terrible situation that happened in the Nassau
County jail, where an inmate was basically
murdered by correctional officers, that we
would take more care in terms of how it is
that we treat incarcerated people who are -
who need health care. I think Nassau County
659
shows up a lot of the problems that we have in
jails, and rather than to give them more
control over the health care and really the
life-and-death situation of incarcerated
people, we would take more care.
Tragically, this bill is exactly
the same as last year. Legitimate concerns
that were raised last year were not addressed
in the bill. I'm not sure why it is that
we're so careless with our legislation which
we bring before this body. And I come from a
place where debate and actual public hearings
on legislation leads to better legislation.
Apparently that's not how things are done
here.
And in fact, I'm led to believe
that there must be a lot of things in this
bill that are indefensible, in that debate is
being cut off, basically, on some of the great
shortfalls in this legislation.
I can only imagine a world where
incarcerated people carry their insurance
cards around with them at all times. Are they
also to be given telephone cards so they can
call their insurance carriers to make sure
660
that they'll be covered by their HMOs when
they're in prison?
I think there's a lot of things
that have not been addressed in this bill. I
think it's a real tragedy, regarding the
arrogance of this body, that people are
unwilling to discuss shortfalls in
legislation. Because isn't what we're
supposed to be doing is making legislation
that in fact will benefit the people of the
state of New York? And shouldn't we all make
sure that we commit ourselves to listening to
information on all these bills before we
actually vote on them?
I'll be voting no on this bill,
because this bill needs to be fixed. It's not
in good shape. And it's a tragedy that the
sponsor of the legislation doesn't want to
listen to what's wrong with the bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: One of the
difficulties in dealing with legislation is
trying to set the boundaries. And I think
661
I've pretty well sufficiently outlined what
this bill is intended to do: the limited
purposes and how well it achieves those
limited purposes.
When I explained all of that two
years ago and when I explained it last year to
Senator Duane on this floor, I thought I was
sufficiently convincing because I received no
communication, written or oral, in the
intervening time as to what were the real
problems with the bill.
And I've just outlined what I
believe to be the merits of this in terms of
assisting the municipality. And I would point
out that there have been some real problems at
the Nassau County jail, and there's no excuse
for those. And there's a whole procedure
that's going on to deal with it. But this
legislation was introduced far prior to those
coming to light or even occurring.
And I would point out that by
putting this into effect in the system, a
revenue stream, that the incentives will be
for the prison system to get better health
care. Because there won't be the limits of a
662
budget appropriation, there will be the
ability to tap existing health insurance. So
we would see a better system. And if there
are 300,000 eligible for this, as Senator
Montgomery says, well, won't that assist those
individuals for which concern has been raised?
So I would think that there's
several different points of merit to this, and
it ought to be repassed again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President.
663
Before we adjourn, we would like to
announce that there will be a Majority
Conference, a short Majority Conference in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332,
immediately after conclusion of session.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be a meeting of the Majority Conference
immediately after session in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: And can we return
to the order of standing committees. And I
believe there's a report up there of a couple
of committees. Could we ask that they be
read, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland,
from the Committee on Children and Families,
reports:
Senate Print 674A, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the Family Court Act;
2722, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act;
664
2724, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act;
3987, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act and the Criminal
Procedure Law;
4439A, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
And 4857, by Senator Saland, an act
to amend the Family Court Act and the
Executive Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, all bills directly to Third
Reading.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Is there any
housekeeping at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The desk
is clean, Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: All right. There
being no further business to come before the
Senate, I move we adjourn until February 14,
Valentine's Day, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days to be legislative days.
665
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, February 14th, at 3:00 p.m.
Intervening days will be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)