Regular Session - February 10, 2003
413
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 10, 2003
3:17 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
414
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: With us this
afternoon to give the invocation is the
Reverend Peter G. Young, from Blessed
Sacrament Church in Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: For 44 years.
THE PRESIDENT: For 44 years.
REVEREND YOUNG: As we prepare
for President's Week and we think of warmer
weather, we're caught today in the world of
reality, with another snowstorm and cold
chills, with all of the sneezes that go with
it.
We know that the poor and the needy
elderly need to be protected by laws that
provide for their life to be healthy and
fulfilling. May we remember our New York
State citizens as responsible Senate
415
leadership, that our need is to protect them
and their wellness.
We pray for all of the Senators and
their families that God will give them the
strength to carry on in their important
legislative responsibilities on behalf of our
New York State citizens.
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Saturday, February 8, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Friday,
February 7, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker,
from the Committee on Codes, reports the
416
following bills:
Senate Print 662, by Senator
Volker, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law
and Rules;
664, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
665, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
685, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
763, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Penal Law;
775, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
845, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
851, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
877, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
950, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
995, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
1021, by Senator Skelos, an act to
417
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
And Senate Print 1441, by Senator
Volker, an act to amend the Penal Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: All bills
reported direct to third reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
34, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 688, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing the City of Fulton.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
418
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
36, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 327,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to access to sealed records.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
40, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 518, an
act to amend the Civil Rights Law, in relation
to confidentiality.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
67, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 112, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
419
relation to reporting of accidents.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
72, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 776,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the enforcement.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial reading of
420
the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
34, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 688, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing the City of Fulton.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Wright, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill before us this afternoon
was introduced at the request of the City of
Fulton, subject to a home-rule message that
they have adopted and has been filed with us.
It provides for the imposition of an
additional sales and compensating use tax
beginning the period of March 1, 2003, and
ending November 30, 2005.
The city currently utilizes a
3 percent sales tax. This would increase it
to the 4 percent extension. This is at the
request of the city, to address their
421
financial needs, having suffered some major
losses in their tax rolls and facing
continuing increases in municipal costs.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I understood that Senator Wright
explained to us that there was a home-rule
message that accompanied the bill. The
explanation is satisfactory.
I suggest we read the last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
36, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 327,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to access to sealed records.
422
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. This
bill would basically allow for the unsealing
of records under extraordinary circumstances,
a determination that would have to be made at
the discretion of a court, to be able to
review those records with respect to
disciplinary proceedings in certain
professions, including attorneys, doctors,
dentists, pharmacists, school district
employees, nurses and the like.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, would you yield for a question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. As
long as it's the same question as last year.
(Laughter.)
423
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm trying to
recall that question.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: The interests
of justice is cited as really the theory of
law that permits us at times to seal the
records, generally feeling that there is some
either lack of competence on the part of the
defendant when this case is -- the convicted,
or perhaps mental disease or disability, lack
of age of majority or something that gives
this individual in a sense a second
opportunity or would not be befallen too much
by the strength of the conviction that's
before the court.
What I would like to know, Madam
President, is if Senator DeFrancisco would
explain to us the difference between the
interests of justice and the extraordinary
circumstances -- specifically, what those
extraordinary circumstances are -- that would
compel us to want to know what the information
was that we'd previously sealed.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, if
you look at the purposes for the sealing and
424
the purposes for unsealing, I think it might
shed light on that issue.
First of all, a criminal standard
of proof is a substantially greater standard
than a standard that would be with respect to
relevant proof in a disciplinary action for a
professional.
For example, there may not be
sufficient proof in a conviction in a child
abuse case, and therefore the case is either
dismissed or the records are sealed, depending
upon the court's determination. But it may be
very relevant in a case of a schoolteacher,
whether or not that proof reaches a
criminality level, whether it's sufficient
enough to provide proof of disciplinary action
or suspension in the professional arena.
So I think that's basically the
difference. A court would have to determine
that the materials that would be unsealed
would be extraordinarily important or of
extraordinary circumstance that should be
known by the disciplinary authority for
purposes of licensing. And I think that's the
distinction.
425
And I know it's opposed by the
trial lawyers, and I am one of them. But the
fact of the matter, I think the difference is
in standard and the importance of making sure
we have professions that can discipline for
behavior, though not criminal, are protected.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator DeFrancisco would
continue to yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
if the interests of justice is short of the
comparison with the extraordinary
circumstances, am I not correct in asserting
that the circumstances have to be at that
point prejudicial?
Because, since there may not have
been a conviction, you might have a case
where -- let's say it's a child abuse case,
it's settled in favor of the defendant, so
they sealed the records of that particular
426
case.
Are we suggesting that in an
extraordinary circumstance, even though there
was not a formal conviction, that there still
is information that would be helpful, let's
say, if someone were becoming a doctor or one
of the other professions, a teacher or
something like that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There are
many criminal cases that are sealed for lack
of evidence, or may be sealed because they
don't want a child to testify or the
information to get out in the public. But the
fact of the matter is that may be relevant to
whether someone should continue practicing a
specific profession.
And what I'm saying is it's two
different standards, two different purposes.
It's much more serious to have someone
convicted of a criminal charge. That's why
there's a much greater burden of proof.
However, there's a much lower standard whether
someone has the qualifications or the moral
standards to practice a profession.
And for those reasons, I think
427
they're entirely consistent. The reason for
the extraordinary circumstances, we don't
think every sealed criminal case should be
made available to every particular
disciplinary authority. But this at least
gives an opportunity in a serious case, in a
very important case where there wasn't enough
criminal evidence to bear on the person's
qualifications to continue in that profession.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I believe that Senator
DeFrancisco's bill, as he perceives it, would
be one that would address this issue in what
he's calling an extraordinary circumstance.
What I'm afraid of is what's
extraordinary in concept may become in
practice something that happens all the time,
whereby there's almost a witch-hunt for people
who maybe have been involved in different
types of cases in their lives, the cases were
sealed, they weren't convicted of anything,
and yet just the accusation impinges upon
their opportunity perhaps to even receive a
428
job later.
So if Senator DeFrancisco would
yield for another question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: And somewhat
of a bifurcated question.
I'm interested in an example of
what an extraordinary circumstance would be.
Moreover, what I'm interested in is where
Senator DeFrancisco can assure us that we can
hold the threshold of that standard throughout
the longevity of this law.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, first
of all, I keep getting back to a child
situation. There's many cases where cases are
dropped, sealed or otherwise, when there's
sealed allegations brought by a child, for
lack of proof or the child not being willing
to come forward or the parents not willing for
the child to go forward.
Under those circumstances, if it's
a profession or a group that happens to have
close relationships with kids or deals with
429
kids all the time, I think that that would
qualify as an extraordinary circumstance that
the disciplinary committee or the licensing
authority might be in a position to want to
know that, to review any other circumstances
that might have arisen in that background
check.
There is no way anybody can assure
in every case that a standard is going to be
applied exactly the way everyone wants it in
every case. That's what judicial discretion
is all about. And the purpose for
extraordinary circumstances is to show how
high a level that we are holding the judiciary
to in making that unsealing of the records.
In addition, the person involved
has a right to notice that there is an attempt
to unseal those records, and that person has
the opportunity to be heard before the
ultimate determination is made of unsealing.
But that's much more preferable, in
my mind, to making it a blanket rule that you
can never get inside of those records just
because they were sealed. And that's what the
Court of Appeals has ruled, based upon the law
430
as it now reads.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield to a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
Is there anything in this proposed
legislation that would limit the regulatory
body or agency in its use of these materials
once they're unsealed? Is there anything that
would prevent the agency from releasing them
to the press or the public or otherwise
disseminating this sensitive information?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There
should be. Let me see.
Well, I think it's -- by saying
that it can be released on this standard of
extraordinary circumstances to these
431
regulatory bodies, I would assume that also
means, and I would read it to mean, that
that's to whom it should be released, and it's
not permitted to be released elsewhere.
In fact, the extraordinary
circumstances apply to the purpose for the
release to these licensing agencies.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I do
believe, though, that -- as I think you're
indicating -- there is no language in this
legislation which would in any way limit the
dissemination of this information by the
agency showing the extraordinary circumstances
and obtaining it.
Is it possible that that would be
something that, as you say, should be added or
could be added in a subsequent version of this
432
legislation?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, it
certainly could be added.
But when we were talking about the
vehicle being a court order authorizing the
release to these various agencies, I would
think it's pretty apparent from the language
as it exists that you're releasing it to only
those agencies.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President.
But I don't think there's any
limitation in this law or elsewhere that I'm
aware of on those agencies then subsequently
releasing it.
I mean, there's nothing that says
that these agencies, after demonstrating
extraordinary circumstances, have to keep it
secret, or that they have to provide any other
types of protection of the information; is
that correct?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: There's no
specific words.
But if you're talking about a court
order releasing it to specifically these
433
agencies, I would suspect that it's implied in
that.
It could be clearer, could be made
clearer by an A version of the bill, by making
it specific, putting specific language in
there that says that upon release to these
agencies they shall not release it to anyone
else.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Again, I
think I know the answer, but I want to make
sure this is clear. Is there anything in this
legislation that would require these agencies
to close their hearings relating to this
sensitive matter to the public or the press?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: They would
be bound by whatever their existing
regulations are for each of the agencies.
434
And I'm not so sure that there's
any of these agencies that have public
hearings, at least at this point. I know the
chief judge of the Court of Appeals is calling
for open hearings with respect to disciplinary
actions against judges and attorneys, which I
don't particularly subscribe to. But I don't
believe any of these are open to the public
during the investigatory stages.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If there
is information, an allegation or an accusation
made in a criminal proceeding, defendants have
the right to cross-examination, they have a
whole series of rights available in criminal
proceedings which protect them from false
accusations or evidence that perhaps may be
435
failing in some respect.
Is there any requirement in this
legislation or elsewhere that the hearings
conducted by the agencies that may obtain this
information, or partial information, from a
court proceeding provide such due process
protections as cross-examination, the right to
confront a witness, or other things that are
provided to a defendant in a criminal
proceeding?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, there's
not a separate proceeding as far as this court
order. It's a court review based upon the
information that's presented in the sealed
records, upon notice to the person against
whom it's going to be used.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, I'm referring to the
hearing conducted by the regulatory agency,
though.
If a regulatory agency obtains
records of a proceeding in which someone was
accused of committing a crime and the
prosecutor subsequently determined that the
accusation was false, the case was dropped,
436
that defendant in the criminal proceeding has
the right to cross-examination, to call
witnesses.
Is there anything here that
requires the administrative agency obtaining
that partial information, that accusation, to
provide the same procedural protections to the
defendant that it provided under our Criminal
Procedure Law?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, because
this is not a criminal procedure.
I don't think any of the regulatory
agencies that discipline or determine
licensing of professionals require a full
trial with opportunity to be heard against
every allegation. They have an opportunity to
present their side of the case as to why there
are not extraordinary circumstances in this
information being released.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
And through you, Madam President,
one final question, if the sponsor will yield.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
sponsor yields.
437
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Is there
any provision in this statute or anywhere else
to provide funding or any assistance for
someone who is being notified that their
records are being sought so that they may
protect themselves, as in the criminal
proceeding presumably you have a right to
counsel if you're indigent? Is there anything
comparable to provide funding for such
protections for someone subject to such a
proceeding?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, there
is no such thing.
Once again, this is not a criminal
proceeding. There's no legal requirement or
constitutional requirement for counsel to be
appointed.
It's like any other disciplinary
proceeding. If you're the target of a
disciplinary proceeding, you're on your own.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank the
sponsor.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
438
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
that this is a well-intentioned piece of
legislation that is failing in certain
critical respects. And I think that -- I
appreciate the sponsor's candor. When I asked
if there was a provision limiting the use of
this information or providing for it to be
sealed, I believe his first comment was there
should be.
Well, I think there should be. And
I think it's something -- that's something
that is easily remedied. I would bring your
attention to a report issued in September 2002
by the NCSL, their state legislative report,
discussing the problem of public dissemination
of records that are obtained in these sorts of
proceedings, and noting that there are
for-profit companies that make it their
business to go around and obtain this
information and provide it to private firms.
Once this information is released
publicly, once this information is released to
a regulatory body, there is no restriction on
its use. And I don't think this is something
439
that we should assume or presume. I think
that as it's currently drafted, this is a
fatal flaw for this particular piece of
legislation.
Second of all, the point about due
process protections I think is also critical.
Under this bill, if someone is accused,
wrongfully accused of a crime, the prosecutor
decides that the accusation is false, drops
the case, this would enable a regulatory body
to obtain that information, have that
accusation out there, have it released in the
press.
But the defendant, the acquitted
person would not have the ability to
cross-examine the witness, because the
procedural protections provided in a criminal
proceeding are not present, as the sponsor has
acknowledged, in these administrative matters.
And, finally, I think that the fact
that someone is given notice of the fact that
there is an effort to unseal their records is
nice, but if we don't provide funding for
counsel for someone to fight against this,
it's really an empty right in many, many
440
cases.
I think that this opens up a lot of
dangerous possibilities. I think the law as
drafted, providing that in the interests of
justice there can be a determination made not
to seal records, is working well, is fine. I
think that unless there are far greater
procedural protections provided to the target
of such a proceeding, unless there is a
provision to require the hearings to be sealed
and restricted dissemination of this
information, unless there is funding for an
accused person to defend themselves, I think
this bill has to be rejected.
I think that some of these things
can be addressed. I do agree there are some
circumstances in which some information should
be easier to obtain. But I have to vote no on
this, and encourage my colleagues to vote no,
unless these critical issues are resolved.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
441
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 36 are
Senators Andrews, Brown, Connor, Dilán, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Lachman,
Montgomery, Parker, Paterson, Sabini,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 44. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
67, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 112, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to reporting of accidents.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
442
This bill provides police officers
with the same level of protection as
firefighters now enjoy regarding their
personal driving records and abstracts.
Currently, the Vehicle and Traffic
Law mandates that the Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles omits accidents from the personal
driving abstract of a firefighter who is
involved in an accident while responding to an
emergency in an emergency vehicle.
There's an inherent risk in
responding to police emergencies, just as
fire, and the same protection ought to be
given to police officers.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
will yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: I thought that
explained everything.
Okay, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
443
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Senator,
is there any provision in this law that would
restrict the use of any information not in the
abstract created by the Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles or someone regulated by the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles?
SENATOR VELELLA: Not that I can
see, Senator.
This speaks to the Department of
Motor Vehicles releasing an abstract and only
talks about that abstract. What other
materials might be released, I don't know.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I thank
the Senator for his enthusiasm, but I wasn't
finished with my question yet.
My question is that in this
legislation -- in the law as it's currently
drafted, violations of the Penal Law or any
findings of gross negligence already would
be -- the Commissioner cannot omit from a
record those findings. Does this legislation
address that issue?
SENATOR VELELLA: It does not.
It leaves the law intact as it is.
444
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So it only
relates to acts of ordinary negligence?
SENATOR VELELLA: So that if a
police officer were grossly negligent in
responding to an emergency call and drove down
the sidewalk, irregardless of the fact that
there were 40 people there, and crashed into
them, that would in my mind be gross
negligence. He would still be responsible,
and his record would so reflect.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'd like to thank the sponsor for
that thorough venting of the issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
445
Senator Robach, that completes the
controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR ROBACH: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk, Madam President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 72.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, you will be so recorded.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Robach, there is no housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR ROBACH: Madam President,
there being no other business before the
Senate, I move that we stand adjourned till
Tuesday, February 11th, at 11:30 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, February 11th, at 11:30 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)