House Session Transcript for 05/10/2005

The House of Representatives was called to order at 12: 06 o’clock p. m. , Deputy Speaker Altobello in the Chair.

CLERK:

Members to the Chamber. The House will convene immediately.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Would the House please come to order. Would the House please come to order. Will Members, staff, and guests please rise and direct your attention to the dais where Father Galasso will lead us in prayer.

REVEREND MICHAEL S. GALASSO:

Let us pray. Heavenly Father, bless Your servants here gathered in formal Session. There is much to handle these days. Help us to judge wisely the matters to be set before us. Amen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Father. Would Representative Piscopo please come forward to the dais and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Are there any announcements or introductions? Are there any announcements or introductions? Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Winkler of the 41^st District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. WINKLER: (41^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a point of personal privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed, Ma’am.

REP. WINKLER: (41^st)

Thank you. I just wanted to bring the attention to my colleagues that a Town of Groton flag is now proudly flying over the Capitol in recognition of its tercentennial. So I’m pleased to announce that and hope everyone will take notice. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Winkler. Are there any other announcements or points of personal privilege, introductions? Are there any announcements? Representative Donovan.

REP. DONOVAN: (84^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for a point of personal privilege. I’d like to, I rise to offer my condolences to the family of Roger Kibbe who are here today and also for the many people who worked with Roger.

Almost everybody in the building knows Roger. They’ve run into him at various times throughout their years here, along the hallways, in the offices, in the elevator, Roger always giving a friendly smile and helping people throughout the day to get the work done.

He worked long and hard at the Legislative Copy Center for more than 25 years and he was the Copy and Supply Center Supervisor.

Roger’s a talented artist and furniture maker. I don’t know if many knew that, but he also had a great love of the outdoors, nature and gardening, and people. I know I’ve talked to him about gardening.

Also, Roger had an avid interest in history, as a member of the Enfield Minuteman Reenactment Group.

Roger was the real deal. He’s part of this building, and whenever we needed anything, we knew we could count on Roger to bring it to us and make sure we had it in plenty of time.

Roger is survived by his two children, Brendan and Devon. Brendan, aged 20, is attending Eastern Connecticut State University and at 16, Devon is a high school sophomore.

He also leaves his father, Norman Kibbe and his mother-in-law Helen Smith and also he was married for, it would have been 30 years to his wife, Trish.

And I think they’re all here. I wonder if they could all please stand and be recognized by the General Assembly. Thank you.

So I just want to say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it was a pleasure working with Roger. We miss him. I’m sure you do too, and we will always remember him for all the hard work he gave to us here at the General Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Donovan. Representative Sawyer of the 55^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Roger had a very special place in this General Assembly with over, I’d say more years than almost anybody in this Chamber, but I have to be respectful to Representative Belden.

He had a wit about him. He had a desire to serve, which I think is something that we all respected.

But he was also a go to guy when you needed something that you couldn’t find that you couldn’t describe necessarily, but you knew what it was that you wanted, you could go down and ask Roger and he’d help you out and be able to find it.

And one of the things I learned very early on as a State Rep that Roger knew where things were.

But I would go back again and say that he was one of those fixtures in this General Assembly that held a very special place in many of our hearts and he has been missed very much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Representative Donovan of the 84^th District,you have the floor, Sir.

REP. DONOVAN: (84^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d also like to add for an announcement, there will be a golf tournament on Friday, February 30^th, at Black Ledge Country Club in Hebron and all proceeds will go to the Education Scholarship Funds that have been set up for the children of both Roger Kibbe and Marvin Lyon and those interested in golfing or volunteering should contact the Office of Legislative Management or the Office of Fiscal Analysis.

And Mr. Speaker, I’d ask that we have a moment of silence in memory of Roger.

(MOMENT OF SILENCE)

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The Chamber will stand at ease.

(CHAMBER AT EASE)

CLERK:

The State of Connecticut House of Representatives Calendar for Tuesday, May 10, 2005. On Page 29, Calendar Number 345, Substitute for House Bill Number 6770, AN ACT CONCERNING FOOD ALLERGIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sayers of the 60^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Representative Sayers, will you remark further?

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill requires the Department of Public Health to amend its regulations to require that tests taken by individuals seeking to become qualified food operators, include elements testing knowledge about food allergy. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question is on adoption. Would you remark further? Representative Cafero of the 142^nd District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a few questions to the proponent of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed, Sir.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to Representative Sayers. Representative, what is the current status or education, if any, that food operators get with regard to allergies? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge that there is possibly three slides that are part of the training for qualified food operators now related to food allergies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you to Representative Sayers, do you know what the remainder, or the current testing encompasses, what knowledge base or skill set that is being tested by food operators at this time? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, there are four national organizations that provide a test related to quasi food service operators that are related to those, that information that is necessary to work in the kitchen and provide necessary information to employees that would work under you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, through you, it is my understanding, Representative Sayers, that currently the type of material that’s covered in these courses and eventually tested, deals almost exclusively with food preparation, food handling, the way one serves food in a manner that is certainly healthy and cleanly. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, it is my understanding that currently no other matters that are outside of the direct control of the food operator or food handler are tested at this time. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative for your answers. Ladies and gentlemen of the Chamber, the Bill before us will dramatically change the testing process and potentially the liability for food operators.

Up until this point, they were educated and tested in the way that they are supposed to handle food in a cleanly and sanitary manner, in the way they are to present food, in the way they are to prepare food, etc.

This particular Bill before us now goes outside the scope of what the food handler is in control of. It’s based upon knowledge and education of food allergies. And as we all know, food allergies are a very unique thing, unique to all individuals.

And my concern is, is that once we make the knowledge and education of food allergies part of the test that could possibly subject food handlers, restaurants, etc. , to liability.

In the event someone has an allergic reaction to a food served at a restaurant or food establishment, they could certainly make the claim that the food handlers were responsible for education and knowledge of that allergy or allergic reaction and because this person suffered an allergic reaction from the food they consumed on this establishment, they are therefore subject to liability.

That is a very different thing than holding a food operator liable for the handling and preparation of the food. Those things are directly in the control of the food operator.

My concern is, by the inclusion of this element to the test, we subject our restaurants to liability about a subject matter that is extremely subjective and outside of their control.

It’s for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would oppose this Bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Cafero. Representative O’Rourke of the 32^ndDistrict, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. O’ROURKE: (32^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this very important and very reasonable piece of legislation and I want to thank Representative Sayers and her Committee for putting it together.

We had a similar Bill last week, Mr. Speaker, that affected people with food allergies, the Epipen Bill, and I got a chance to talk a little bit about food allergies, but I want to talk a little bit more about it so that people understand.

When I was a kid, I think I might have known one other person growing up who was allergic to peanuts. But nowadays, you go into any school in the State of Connecticut, in the United States of America, and there are special tables set aside for children who are allergic, acutely allergic to peanuts and other foods.

And it is a fact of life that science cannot explain, they do not understand why, but food allergies are on the rise among people in this country. More and more children are born every year with allergies to different types of food. The most common are peanuts and tree nuts.

My daughter, who’s three years old, is also allergic to dairy and eggs as well as peanuts. There are varying degrees of allergy to food.

But the most acute, the most severe, if a person is allergic to peanuts and they have an acute allergy, they eat a peanut or sometimes even touch one, they can go into what’s called anaphylactic shock, where their breathing waves actually close up and people cannot breathe and they choke and die if they’re not treated immediately.

Over 200 people die in this country every year from food allergy related anaphylactic shock of this sort. So what we’re talking about is a life and death issue.

This Bill takes an important step in educating restaurateurs. As Representative Sayers said, the current program for training food service operators does include just a few slides on food allergies.

One of the most common problems for people who go into a restaurant, either with a child or themselves being allergic, is a lack of awareness about food allergies by the people serving the food and working in the restaurant.

So what we’re saying with this Bill is, we want to educate people in the food service business. It will not increase their liability. It will not dramatically change their education system that’s now in place.

As Representative Sayers said, they already do receive some limited training about food allergy. But by requiring it to be tested for, we’re sending a message that we want people to pay attention and be aware of this so that when people come into their restaurant with a food allergy and ask a question about what’s in the food, they won’t be dangerously exposed to something that they’re acutely allergic to.

So this is likely to save people’s lives, protect their health, Mr. Speaker, and absolutely will not increase any liability for anyone involved in food service.

These tests are commonly changed when new problems and public health issues arise. In recent years, there’s been a growing concern about improperly cooked food and that’s been added to training and that’s been emphasized more and more.

So this is in line with that, Mr. Speaker. It will protect your constituents’ health and I strongly urge passage of this important and reasonable Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Chapin of the 67^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. CHAPIN: (67^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question through you to the Chair Lady of the Public Health Committee, please.

SPEAKER AMANN:

I’m sorry, Sir. You may proceed.

REP. CHAPIN: (67^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question, through you to the Chair Lady of the Public Health Committee, please.

SPEAKER AMANN:

You may proceed, Sir. Representative Sayers, please prepare yourself.

REP. CHAPIN: (67^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my understanding that existing Public Health regulations require anyone who owns, operates or manages a Class 3 or Class 4 food service establishment, to be a qualified food operator.

And my question is, are cafeterias in our public school systems, are they considered Class 3 or Class 4 food service establishments? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Sir. Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure of the classification, but I do know in those establishments it may not necessarily be the owner, but it is required that they do have someone that is the qualified food service operator.

REP. CHAPIN: (67^th)

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Chair Lady of the Public Health Committee for her answer.

I guess my point goes to Representative Cafero, that if this does, if we do see an increase in liability by passing this legislation, I’m afraid that given the answer I have received from the Chair Lady of the Public Health Committee, that we do possibly open ourselves up to further liability as municipalities as well. Therefore, I’ll be voting against this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative D’Amelio. You have the floor, Sir.

REP. D’AMELIO: (71^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Bill. Being in the food service business for the past 23 years, I commend what the intent of this Bill is.

But I just want to try to stress to the Chamber here that it’s almost impossible for a food operator to operate his restaurant in a way that if someone with a food allergy were to come in, would protect themselves.

Food allergies are like, for each individual are different. Every person that experiences an allergy through a food should know, through their research, and through their doctors, what they should and shouldn’t be able to eat.

To have a restaurant owner or operator liable, or to know what that individual could potentially have a reaction to, is almost impossible.

I am someone who went through this national course. We did touch on food allergy during the course of the course. We are prepared to handle allergic reactions if they do occur.

But for me as an operator and an owner of a restaurant to know each individual’s needs when they walk into my establishment is impossible.

It’s no different than if you have an invited guest into your home that has a food allergy. How are you supposed to know what they’re allergic to or not allergic to unless they specify what their allergy is, what they could or could not eat.

We’re prepared to handle those types of questions, but to have this be part of a test, I think it just won’t work, and I think in the future will open up restaurant owners to liability if this legislation were to pass. And for that reason, I urge my colleagues to please reject this Bill. Thank you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further? Representative Fahrbach.

REP. FAHRBACH: (61^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I supported this piece of legislation in the Public Health Committee, but then when it came through Appropriations, some information came to me, or actually, I actually read the fiscal analysis and the OLR analysis of the Bill.

And the concern that I have with this piece of legislation is, it’s requiring our State Department to adopt regulations to provide that the exams and the courses include testing on food allergies.

However, we do not have control of those courses and those testings. That is a national organization that provides the testing for us.

And the question would be, if we pass this piece of legislation and require that our food service people be tested for food allergies and the national test does not include questions on food allergies, are all those food services people now out of compliance with state law and are they actually legal able to serve?

So I am going to vote against this piece of legislation as I did in Appropriations. Thank you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Ferrari.

REP. FERRARI: (62^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a question to the proponent, if I might, please. A question to the proponent.

SPEAKER AMANN:

I’m sorry, Sir.

REP. FERRARI: (62^nd)

That’s okay.

SPEAKER AMANN:

You may proceed. Representative Sayers. Representative Ferrari, I’m sorry.

REP. FERRARI: (62^nd)

Representative Sayers, through the Speaker, Section 7, as I look further onto the Bill, Section 7 provides for $ 100 fine or imprisonment not more than three months or both.

Have we considered who’s going to serve the sentence if one is called for? Would it be the hostess or the manager on duty, or the owner, or the owners, if there’s more than one.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Sayers.

REP. SAYERS: (60^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the person who violates the provision. This relates to the food service operator and they are the person responsible for taking that exam that includes the information so it referred to that person.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Ferrari.

REP. FERRARI: (62^nd)

Thank you, Representative Sayers, and thank you. I guess, and I understand that this is a greater issue than it used to be, but at the same time, I’m concerned that we’ve not really thought it through far enough.

We want the results to be good, but we’re not sure what the results are going to be on our restaurants and food service operators.

I think, while I would love to be able to vote for the Bill, I think I’m going to have to vote against it this time. Thank you, Sir.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the Bill before us?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well of the House. Will Members please take your seats and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, please check the board and make sure that your vote has been properly cast.

If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6770.

Total Number Voting 126

Necessary for Passage 64

Those voting Yea 77

Those voting Nay 49

Those absent and not voting 25

SPEAKER AMANN:

The Bill passes. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please.

(GAVEL)

Ladies and gentlemen. We’ll be taking up a death Resolution. If you would just please take your seats.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Please close the doors. Thank you for your cooperation. Representative Donovan.

REP. DONOVAN: (84^th)

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to move to suspend the rules for immediate consideration of Joint Resolution Number 46.

SPEAKER AMANN:

The question before the Chamber is suspension of the rules. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none the rules are suspended for that purpose.

Staff and guests please come to the Well of the House. Again, we are about to do a death Resolution. I ask for your cooperation, and with that, would the Clerk please call and read Resolution Number 46.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution Number 46, RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SYMPATHY ON THE DEATH OF BOCE W. BARLOW, JR. , LCO Number 4491 introduced by Senator Williams, Representatives Amann and Kirkley-Bey et al.

Resolved by this Assembly:

WHEREAS, Boce W. Barlow, Jr. died on January 31, 2005 at the age of 89; and

WHEREAS, he served as the first African-American State Senator in Connecticut, from 1967 to 1970, representing the people of the 2^nd Senatorial District in the City of Hartford; and

WHEREAS, during his service in the General Assembly he exercised leadership during the turbulent late 1960s earning the respect of his colleagues by “sheer force of intellect and humanity”, and helping to write some of the state’s pioneering civil rights laws; and he chaired the Corrections Committee and served on the Committees on Claims, General Law, Human Rights and Opportunities, Incorporations, Judiciary and Governmental Functions and Public Personnel; and

WHEREAS, he was born in Americus, Georgia in 1915 and grew up in Hartford, graduating from Hartford Public High School in 1933; and

WHEREAS, he graduated cum laude, with a major in political science from Howard University in 1939 where he was president of the senior class; and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1949 with a doctorate in jurisprudence degree; and

WHEREAS, he served in the United States Army from 1943 to 1946 in the South Pacific Theater; and

WHEREAS, in 1949 when Hartford law firms were not hiring African-American attorneys, he began his own law firm and then also served as a hearing examiner for the State Civil Rights Commission from 1955 to 1957, and as prosecutor for the Hartford Municipal Court from 1957 to 1960; and

WHEREAS, in 1957, at the age of 42, he became the first African-American in the history of Connecticut appointed as a judge in the Municipal Courts where he is remembered for his decisions that extended the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights to the general public long before the Warren Court decided that these rights applied to the states; and

WHEREAS, in 1968, he was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago; and

WHEREAS, in 1981, as the result of a surgical error, he became an incomplete quadriplegic and unable to use the then-inaccessible courthouses and other government buildings, and he engaged in three years of intense physical rehabilitation before he could return to public involvement; and

WHEREAS, he was a dedicated member of numerous organizations including the NAACP of which he was a lifetime member, the Connecticut Bar Association, George W. Crawford Law Association, Inc. , Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. , Ashanti of Connecticut, Faith Congregational Church, Charter Oak Lodge of Elks No. 67, IBPOE of W. , Inc. , of which he was Past Exalted Ruler, Excelsior Lodge #3 F. & M. , the Board of Directors of the Connecticut State Prisons, the Board of Trustees of the Connecticut Junior Republic, the Board of Trustees of Faith Congregational Church, Hartford Associate Board and Hartford Region Associate Board of the Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, the Democratic State Central Committee of Connecticut, the Hartford Democratic Town Committee, the Hartford Democratic Club of which he was past president, and the Connecticut State Federation of Black Democratic Clubs; and

WHEREAS, during his eminent career, he remained active in politics and served as a mentor to younger people, remembered fondly by a member of his law firm as “a great mentor, and professionally, I would have to call my him my dad”, remembered by the former fire chief of Hartford for advising him always to be the best he could, and remembered by a former political opponent and friend as a person who was a strong advocate without creating enemies; and

WHEREAS, he is described by his daughter Cathy, as a man who “believed that you should be paying your civic rent, that for the luxury of being here, you should be contributing and you should be doing for others, not just for yourself”; and

WHEREAS, he received numerous civic awards during his life, including the Nathan Hale Award for distinction in trial advocacy from the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association in 1986; the George W. Crawford Award for leadership in the field of justice in 1988; the Nation Builder Award from the National Black Caucus of State Legislators in 1991; the Black Men’s Society of Hartford Excellence Award in 1992; the John E. Rogers History Makers Award in 1998; and the Law Day Award for his commitment to equal opportunity and inclusion of all from the Supreme Court of Connecticut in 2004; and

WHEREAS, in 1987 as a tribute to the respect and affection that the people of the City of Hartford felt for him, the City named a street, Boce Barlow Way in his honor, which road and overpass in the north end of Hartford connects a then-emerging North Meadows with Windsor and North Main Street, recognized as an appropriate recognition for a man who’s “way” was patient, determined and committed to bringing together the diverse people of the City of Hartford; and

WHEREAS, above all, he was a devoted and loving family man, described by his daughter, Cathy, as “Father” with a capital “F”; and

WHEREAS, he is survived by his wife, Catherine Swanson Barlow of Silver Spring, Maryland; his daughter Cathy A. Barlow of Philadelphia; his son, Bryon S. Barlow of Adelphi, Maryland; two granddaughters Danielle Barlow and Lauren Barlow of Adelphi, Maryland; his sister, Katherine B. Clark of Jamaica, New York; a niece Mildred Vanagher of New Castle, Delaware; two nephews Goode S. Clark and Kevin Clark of Jamaica, New York; a godson, Guy Barlow Jacobs of Windsor; two goddaughters, Gwendolyn Dale Simmons of Teaneck, New Jersey, and Susan Bailey of St. Albans, New York; and a host of beloved relatives and friends.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Connecticut General Assembly expresses its sincere and heartfelt condolences on the death of Boce W. Barlow, Jr. , friend and former colleague, whose death is a profound, excuse me, a profound loss to the General Assembly, his friends and family, the City of Hartford and the State of Connecticut; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerks of the Senate and the House of Representatives cause a copy of this Resolution to be sent to the family of Boce W. Barlow, Jr. as an expression of the high esteem and affection in which he was held.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say on behalf of Judge Barlow, I cannot begin to explain to you the wonderful man that he really was.

He not only was a gentleman, but he was a gentle man. I had the opportunity on many occasions to sit and ask the Judge his opinion with regard to the political arena and sometimes what to do, especially when I was new on City Council and new in this fine, at the State Capitol.

He has blazed trails that has provided opportunities for many people of color to be able not only to enter into the legislative world, but into the world of law.

He has a wonderful family that is very close and loving. I’d like to introduce his son, Richard Barlow that is sitting here in the Well with us today. Richard, would you please stand. Richard and I have been friends for many years and he’s definitely an honor to his father and a wonderful individual.

Judge Barlow, I don’t think he saw things the way we would want them to be. I think he saw things the way they should be and used everything that he could do within his power to make that happen.

I’m sure he introduced or opened many doors for people because he felt that it was the right thing to do, and I think many of us in this Chamber and in the Senate as well strive to do that.

Not just because we feel this or that, but because we know it’s right and we try to provide a level playing field for all individuals to give them the opportunity that we feel is due based on the basic contents of what this country is all about.

Judge Barlow was a man that I will admire forever. He was a gift to the City of Hartford. He was a civil rights leader in the City of Hartford, and I move adoption of the Resolution, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

The question before the Chamber is on adoption. Will you remark further, Madam?

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

I just want to say that I hope that when my day comes, and I guess all of us that are sitting in this room will have a day in this Chamber, when someone will talk about what we brought and what we left, that someone can say that I had the qualities, just half of the qualities of Judge Barlow.

You have no idea the kind of mentoring he provided to all of us of color who are in the political arena and the things that he did to help us to be better people.

And I hope that I will be recognized as someone who provided just a little bit of difference of opinion, but in the manner that it was well respected and not always on that one, I don’t think, but that I brought something to the Chamber during those years that I had the good fortune to serve here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Madam. Will you remark further? Representative Beamon.

REP. BEAMON: (72^nd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise to give remarks to the family, brother Richard, but also to our legislative family here as well.

Justice Barlow, through difficult times, overcame many, many obstacles. Many obstacles. I can just imagine what it was to leave Hartford, Connecticut, going to Howard University and leaving Howard, going to the other H, Harvard University back in the 40s and then going into a segregated Armed Forces.

He paved the way for many of us to be, not only in this Chamber, but to in some way look at the State of Connecticut as a part, and become a stakeholder in his government.

Many minority students at that time came to this Capitol and saw few minority legislators. Spike Johnson and Boce Barlow. They were the beginning of something that will never change in this state again, and that is the diversity that we seek. Not only here in government, but also in society.

So Justice Barlow rose above all of the obstacles that would hamper a weak individual. And we can learn a lot from his example today.

Some young people say it’s the old school. Well, the old school was fairly good. Justice Barlow applied himself. Got elected. And through a medical mistake, a medical mistake, he still reached out, mentored, and overcame. That’s a great example for young people today.

The Resolution notes that the National Black Caucus of State Legislators in 1991 gave Justice Barlow a Nation Builders Award.

I was on the Executive Board at that time, and since that time, there has not been another Connecticut nominee, nor a Connecticut awardee of a Nation Builders Award out of the 600 members and 44 states and territories that we cover in our National Black Caucus of State Legislators.

He paved the way. And when you go over that bridge here in North Hartford, there’s a lot of symbolism there as well in terms of the bridges that we, as a black people in this state, have crossed.

It’s fine testament to his legacy that the City of Hartford would name a bridge, the Boce Barlow Way, because the Boce Barlow Way is the American way. Nation Builders Award. Boce Barlow. A great American, who just happened to be an African-American, but a great American.

Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, I rise in such an awesome, with such an awesome feeling today to have known a giant that will inspire more young people, more black Americans, more Hispanic Americans, more Chinese Americans, just more Americans, to be a part of this process.

What a legacy. What a life. And what more could we say but thank you. Thank you for giving of yourself that many people like myself and others, would have this opportunity to be here in this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the Resolution before us? Representative Donovan.

REP. DONOVAN: (84^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I offer my condolences to the Barlow Family. Justice Barlow was a remarkable man, a father, a Legislator, a Judge, a veteran.

And he gave so much to our state, so much to our community, and his legacy will remain with our state, nurture it, and help it advance in the years ahead. We are forever grateful for his many contributions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you. Thank you, Sir. And to you, Mr. Barlow, I think Representative Beamon took some of the words out of my mouth, but what an inspirational story.

I hope that not only in the Connecticut records that people can come for centuries from now to read what was just read into the record. But maybe somewhere else his story should be told.

It sounds like quite a story, one we’d like to maybe share not only with everybody else in the State of Connecticut, but maybe the whole nation and the world.

It’s a very inspirational story and certainly a man of courage. No doubt you could tell us a lot of great stories, I’m sure, about your Dad, but again, we’re sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing his memory with us today. Thank you.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, unless anybody else would like to remark, I’d ask you to please make sure that we are silent for a minute or so as we pay respect to Justice Barlow.

(MOMENT OF SILENCE)

The House please stand at ease for a moment, please.

(CHAMBER AT EASE)

I apologize. I got wrapped up when I was saying my Resolution. The Resolution is adopted. And again, please just stand at ease for a moment.

(CHAMBER AT EASE)

Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions? Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has reached the stage at which--

SPEAKER AMANN:

Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Farr, I’m sorry.

Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Farr is about to talk about an individual that we might have heard about from, just lost his life, so I would ask you please to listen closely to what Representative Farr is about to say, respect to him and also to the family. You may proceed, Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has reached the stage that we’ve all become a little bit numb to the deaths that are still occurring over there.

We pick up the paper and we read on Page B 16 that another two young Americans have lost their lives over there and it doesn’t directly affect us and we go about our business.

But yesterday, for the residents of West Hartford, the war in Iraq became very real and very important because one of our young sons lost his life.

We were all saddened to learn that U. S. Marine Lance Corporal Larry Philappon lost his life apparently over the weekend in the war in Iraq. Corporal Philappon graduated from Conard High School in West Hartford. His parents are still residing there. He was engaged to be married when he returned.

It’s a tragedy that will affect us all. I think as myself and the other, Representative Fleischmann and Representative McCluskey will hope that in a future date we’ll have some further recognition for the tragedy that the family has endured here.

But I thought that today would be appropriate to at least ask for a standing moment of silence. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Sir. Will you please rise for a moment of silence.

(MOMENT OF SILENCE)

May I just also, to the Members, you know that we had to make a decision last week. We did lose one of the Members, a very good friend of many of ours that served with Mr. Gelsi, Representative Gelsi that passed away.

And we had to make a quick decision because the funeral is tomorrow and the wake is on Thursday and I know that the announcement was that we were to probably come back Wednesday and Thursday.

The Speaker made the decision. I thought maybe it would make everybody happy of trying not to come in on Friday, but obviously by the reaction of some of the Members, I might have made an error. A lot of people were in work schedules and those sort of things.

So again, I didn’t mean to inconvenience anybody, but I think, you know, we had to make a quick decision and certainly with Representative Gelsi it was well intended for a man we all respect.

So if I messed up anybody’s calendars, we apologize, but just remember, we have less than 30 days and we have to understand that these things can happen quite frequently and just be prepared. This is that time of year.

Again, anybody on short notice, my apologies to, Bobby, to your side of the aisle and certainly to my side of the aisle.

And with that, we’ll proceed with business. Are there any other announcements or introductions? Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s something I’d like to add with regard to Judge Barlow. If you’re walking through the concourse and you look at the pictures that are on the wall there, there is a picture of Judge Barlow there that you can see and a little bit of writing on him if you wanted to see what he looked like.

The other thing I want to do is for a point of announcement. I’m going to be a bragging grandmother for a moment.

But if anyone has the opportunity to go to the Wadsworth Atheneum, they have a student’s display and my grandson, Connor Stewart Martin, has two pictures that he drew that are on the display and they’re quite good. And I hope if you have an opportunity, you’ll go by and see them. Thank you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Madam. Any other announcements or introductions? Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 266.

CLERK:

On Page 25, Calendar Number 266, House Bill Number 6205, AN ACT CONCERNING TAXING DISTRICTS TO PAY FOR SOUND BARRIERS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon to you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Good afternoon, Sir.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

SPEAKER AMANN:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Representative Donovan, excuse me, Representative Fontana, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Bill enables municipalities to establish special districts to pay for the installation of highway sound barriers.

This Bill does not require any municipality to do so. It simply permits communities that want to do so to comply with current requirements applicable to existing types of special districts regarding the creation and termination, modification and district boundaries, means of referenda and the manner in which they can impose property tax and issue bonds. I urge passage.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Representative Fontana. Will you remark further on this Bill?

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to conclude, Mr. Speaker. This is an issue that’s important, I think, to many communities that live on or near our interstate highways and major multi-lane highways.

Certainly, the amount of traffic has increased on our highways as well as the speed at which they travel. The combination of the two has increased the overall noise, vibration and pollution level that those streets and communities and neighborhoods abutting highways have to endure.

Mr. Speaker, this costs the state nothing. It simply permits towns, if they so choose, to create taxing districts for the purpose of collecting funds from residents in order to pay for the erection of sound barriers. I urge passage.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Thank you, Representative Fontana. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the Bill before us? Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I might, a couple of questions for the proponent of the Bill.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Fontana, please prepare yourself first. You may proceed, Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Oh, thank you very much. From the presentation of the Bill, I got the impression that the focus of this legislation is aimed at allowing construction, eventually, of barriers along state highways.

And I notice that the Bill does not limit the authorities to that, the taxing districts to just those along state highways.

So, just so I’m clear, and my understanding is, that the use of the word highway is actually much broader in terms of what it covers, that the word highway as opposed to, as modified by state highway.

Is it the intent of this legislation, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it is to embrace all highways which exist in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The intent is to embrace all multi-lane limited access public highways in the state. Through you.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a very important distinction because I struggled looking for a definition in our statutes, couldn’t find one for highways, but did find a court case that describes a highway as a public right of passage over another man’s land, so which covers just about anything we normally think of as a public road, or street, or anything like that, not just the elevated limited access highways.

Secondly, in terms of actually facilitating the accomplishment of what appears to be the objective here, is there a provision, or is it permissible under existing law for someone other than the State of Connecticut to construct a sound barrier in the public right of way that constitutes a limited access highway such as on I-84 which goes through the Town of Southbury, my district.

In other words, can someone, an entity, in this case a town, what is essentially a municipal government, this new taxing district will be a kind of municipal government, are they authorized to just go on to state land and start building sound barriers? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe Representative O’Neill has a question in two parts. The first being, can municipalities pay for the erection of sound barriers currently.

And my understanding is that they can pay for it. They just can’t create separate taxing districts to pay for it. They’d have to be paying for it through their general operating budgets or their general obligation bonds.

The second part of this question has to do with going on to state land to do it, and my understanding is that no authority has the ability to go on to state land, the public rights of way on these highways to construct sound barriers or do anything else.

The manner in which this would work is that a municipality would establish a special taxing district delineate its boundaries, conduct itself according to State Statutes, and then assess residents the prescribed amount, and then contract with the DOT for a DOT approved vendor for the construction of those sound barriers and receive permission from the DOT for access to state land. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER AMANN:

Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. That answer suggests that while this Bill itself doesn’t necessarily implicate a state fiscal impact, I would assume that if the DOT is going to have to review a plan.

They’re going to have to decide whether or not it comports with whatever plans they may have and authorize people to come onto the property to start building something right adjacent to a state highway. That at some point in the future, if we authorize construction of these, creation of these taxing districts and then they go out and collect the money and get to a point where they want to built one, DOT is, at some point, going to have to expend some monies to participate in this process.

They presumably are going to, every time I ever talk to DOT about anything, they have to do a study, and studies cost money and with DOT it seems like it cost a lot of money at times.

So I think that while there’s no direct cost in this particular piece of legislation, I think the fiscal note is perfectly accurate in that regard.

Eventually, if this process is successful in collecting money through this taxing district, that there may well be a state cost that’s going to start to accrue and I have no idea, but it’s certainly not going to be just a couple of dollars because DOT doesn’t do anything for very small amounts of money like that.

But getting to the point of whether this is going to succeed in its ultimate objective, through you, Mr. Speaker, does the proponent know approximately what the cost of, say a lineal mile of highway barrier is, on average, today in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, just to address the gentleman’s first point, I believe that all costs incurred by such a project would be recoverable through the taxing district.

And so I believe that even the cost incurred by the DOT to perform studies would be a legitimate expense to be borne by the residents who would, in essence, ask to have assessments go toward the erection of sound barriers.

But to answer his second point, and actually, I would just ask the gentleman if he would please repeat his question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d be happy to repeat the question. Does the proponent know the cost today, approximately, the cost of a lineal mile of sound barrier. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for repeating his question.

I do not know the answer to that. I do know that projects vary, depending upon whether you seek to erect sound barriers on both sides of multi-lane highways or simply on one side of the highway as well as what you do in an unbroken segment or in several separate segments.

I can tell him that an analysis was done by the DOT of a proposal a few years go to erect sound barriers on one side of I-91 in North Haven, my district, in a span of two broken segments over the course of about a mile, and I believe the cost was about $ 1 million. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative O’Neill.

REP. O’NEILL: (69^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I hope the folks who, assuming this piece of legislation passes and they create a tax district are aware, or at least prepared, to levy what sounds like they would have to be substantial taxes on those people who would be the beneficiaries.

Since I assume the reason why they’re doing this by way of a special tax district is the municipality is not inclined to want to tax everyone in the entire town for a benefit that’s only going to be really given to the smallest number of people who actually abut, or at least live pretty close as I do, to an interstate highway.

And that if you have 100 houses and it takes a million dollars, oh, I can’t do the arithmetic exactly in my head, but it’s going to be a lot of money that the special tax district is going to have to collect.

But if they’re willing to pay it, I suppose it’s up to them to decide that they should be allowed to spend their money in that particular manner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative O’Neill. Representative Wasserman of the 106^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the proponent of the Bill, a very quick question.

For those individuals who are living, for instance, in our area near Interstate 84, but sort of on the outlying districts, would there, would they be protected from the traffic on I-84?

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the Bill seeks to work with the existing framework for establishing special taxing district. To that end, Mr. Speaker, the municipality or municipalities involved, would essentially play the determinate role in the outlines or boundaries of any special district.

So as to whether somebody at a certain distance from an interstate highway or a multi-lane highway would be included, would be dependent upon the operation of the municipality. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Wasserman.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you. One more quick question. Would the taxing districts be a particular size?

Would they be a portion of the town as a larger unit, like would they be just a small section of the town, or how is that envisioned? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, as I said, the exact boundaries of the district would be determined by the town through its internal process.

But speaking from my own personal experience in my district, Mr. Speaker, there are a few particular cul-de-sacs or small streets that abut I-91 in particular, between Exits 12 and 13, if you’re interested, and as well as a couple of larger sub-arterial thoroughfares.

And I would expect that what the municipality would do is, perform a study as to the cost of sound barriers, as well as assess who could actually benefit most directly from the installation of those barriers, and then make an assessment as to where to draw those boundaries.

And then finally, work with the residents in those areas to determine whether in fact the residents by a preponderance, wanted to be in or out of any separate district. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Wasserman.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sawyer of the 55^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A quick question to Representative Fontana. In the case of the repair that is needed to one of these sound barriers if the taxing district is successful in raising the money and so and so forth.

After they have constructed it and the actual physical sound barrier is in the possession of the State DOT, who then is responsible for the repair and maintenance? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA: (87^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I would expect the municipal district to be responsible for the repair. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

I thank the gentleman for his answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will you remark further on this Bill? Will you remark further on this Bill? If not, staff and guests please come to the Well of the House. Members please take your seats. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? If all Members have voted. Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly tallied.

If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally. Representative Green of the 1^st District, for what purpose do you rise, Sir?

REP. GREEN: (1^st)

I wish to be recorded in the affirmative.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Without objection. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6205.

Total Number Voting 142

Necessary for Passage 72

Those voting Yea 138

Those voting Nay 4

Those absent and not voting 9

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 506.

The Bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 506.

Total Number Voting 140

Necessary for Passage 71

Those voting Yea 140

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 11

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The Bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 251.

CLERK:

On Page 25, Calendar Number 251, House Bill Number 6475, AN ACT CONCERNING THE POWERS OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Wallace of the 109^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. WALLACE: (109^th)

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Please proceed, Sir.

REP. WALLACE: (109^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon we had a discussion regarding special taxing districts and this body decided to allow the local taxpayers to ban together and establish a special taxing district to implement highway barriers.

The Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, would allow similar residents to get together locally and establish a special taxing district to implement tick control.

This Bill was brought before the Planning and Development Committee, Mr. Speaker, because there was an instance where a currently existing special taxing district, a fire district, was able to obtain a grant to implement tick control.

They found it very successful and in the hopes of obtaining future grants, would like that power.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Committee’s, the body’s acceptance of this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will you remark further on the Bill? Will you remark further on the Bill? Representative Urban of the 43^rd District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. URBAN: (43^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is a wonderful way to deal with Lyme Disease, and I was actually the idea behind the grant that allowed Mason’s Island Fire District to implement this tick control.

Mr. Speaker, it’s done with small boxes. Little mice run through the boxes and it ends up killing any tick larvae that might be on them. And it’s been, as I said, enormously successful in this fire district and limiting the amount of ticks with Lyme Disease.

And as we all know, health care costs are going so high that if there’s something that we can do to mitigate the impact of health care by limiting Lyme Disease, it’s a good idea.

In this particular instance, the fire district itself would like to continue paying for this so that the whole town does not have to include it in their budget.

And the town has come on board with this and are enormously happy that the district itself and we need to do this rapidly, because if we can allow this to happen, we can keep the ticks under control by continuing the program.

So I’d urge my colleagues to vote for this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Urban. It appears this Bill is ticking no one off. Will you remark further on the Bill? Will you remark further on the Bill?

If not, staff and guests please retire to the Well of the House. Members please take your seats. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Will Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast.

If all members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6475.

Total Number Voting 142

Necessary for Passage 72

Those voting Yea 122

Those voting Nay 20

Those absent and not voting 9

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The Bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 390.

CLERK:

On Page 7, Calendar Number 390, House Bill Number 6635, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ILLEGAL SALE OR POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO SELL OF COCAINE, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Lawlor of the 99^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Good afternoon, Representative.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Please proceed, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think Members of the House, in particular, those who have been Members for some time, understand that at least for the last ten years the issue of disparities in the criminal justice system has been a central focus of many of our discussions about criminal justice policy.

And in all of those discussions, I think it’s fair to point out, that people continually return to decisions made here at the State Capitol when they describe the causes of disparities within the criminal justice system.

And the purpose of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to address one of the causes of the disparities, which now befall our criminal justice system.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, the Bill changes the amount of cocaine that triggers the enhanced minimum mandatory penalties available under our statutes.

So, Mr. Speaker, if I might, just for a moment, let me attempt to explain the current law and the change which this Bill makes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Prior to that attempt, Representative Lawlor, we’ll try to gavel back to order.

(GAVEL)

Please proceed, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under our current law, there obviously are penalties provided for the illegal possession and sale and distribution of a variety of narcotics, other drugs and controlled substances.

And depending on the type of drug, and depending on the amount involved, there are different penalties. Connecticut is one of the few states that provides relatively severe penalties for virtually all drug crimes.

For example, our neighboring state New York, punishes possession of small amounts, personal use amounts of narcotics as a misdemeanor.

Just for example, in Connecticut, however, even a trace amount of the traditional narcotics, cocaine, heroin and the like, is subject to the penalties, felony penalties, which are rather severe.

For a first offense, up to seven years in prison for possession, and for sale or distribution or any other type of repackaging or manufacturing of narcotics, first offense, up to 15 years in prison.

However, Mr. Speaker, during the 1980s, this Legislature determined that we should have special enhanced penalties for people who possess an amount of drugs which would be more than one would typically possess if one were a dealer.

And so, for each of those drugs, a threshold amount was established, and this Bill relates to the threshold amount, which would carry with it a minimum mandatory sentence of three years for persons who possess cocaine.

So the question, Mr. Speaker, is what’s a lot of cocaine that would trigger this enhanced penalty? Under our current statute, a lot of cocaine is defined as more than one ounce of pure cocaine.

And in fact, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of cocaine. The street value of that amount of pure cocaine is anywhere from $ 2,000 to $ 3,000, perhaps more than $ 3,000.

However, in the late 1980s, Mr. Speaker, in light of a rash of crimes and violence which befell our state and other states, people began to pay special attention to a form of cocaine called crack, and our statute defines that as free base cocaine.

And the distinction between crack and powder cocaine is not chemical, it’s more in the way in which it’s packaged. Cocaine is simply, I mean crack cocaine is simply powder cocaine in hard form. It’s cooked up to form a rock and because of that, it can be ingested in a different way. It can be smoked.

And I think it’s fair to say that in the late 1980s, the people who make a living selling drugs discovered that crack cocaine could be marketed in a very different way than powder cocaine or other drugs for that matter.

It could be sold in very small amounts and if you purchased one of these small amounts called a rock, you could experience an extraordinary high, I guess you could call it, but for a very short amount of time.

And the marketing of crack cocaine took on a very different form than the marketing of other drugs. Street corners in many areas of our state became crowded by people who were selling small rocks of crack cocaine, often for $ 10, $ 15 a purchase.

And people became addicted to crack cocaine in the same way they become addicted to powder cocaine. It’s very easy to do and people became very dependent on this drug.

However, a lot of violence flowed from that. Not so much from people who were using crack, but more from people who were selling crack. In fact, more from organized drug gangs who would compete for street corners.

And, as you can imagine, since it’s an illegal business, they don’t have recourse through the courts, so they would use violence to claim their territory and resolve disputes between the rival gangs. And that’s the type of violence that came to our attention very quickly.

I can recall one incident in New Haven where a school bus was driving down a street in an urban neighborhood in New Haven and got caught in a crossfire between two competing gangs which apparently were principally involved in selling crack and a child on one of those school buses was killed.

And I think then Governor Weicker called the Legislature back into Special Session and we passed a number of laws responding to that. People really became transfixed with this crisis that had occurred in our state, in large part owing to the marketing of crack cocaine.

And one of the side effects of that political response to that crisis was a decision that we made to change the threshold amount for free base cocaine, in other words crack cocaine, which would qualify one for a minimum mandatory sentence of at least three years in prison.

And for reasons which are not really clear today, this Legislature settled on, and I voted for, Mr. Speaker. I should be clear about that. We settled on a threshold amount for free base cocaine of one half of one gram.

So in other words, if you were caught with a lot of cocaine you were subjected to this minimum mandatory three years in prison. So if it were powder cocaine, we’re talking about more than one ounce.

If it were free base cocaine, in other words, solid cocaine, we’re talking about more than one-half of one gram. And although, like many Members of the House, I’m not very good with my grams and my ounces, but as it turns out there’s 56 one-half grams in one ounce.

So in other words, 1/56^th of the amount of powder cocaine would get you the same sentence as one ounce, 1/56^th the amount of powder cocaine would get you the same enhanced sentence if it’s free base.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s also fair to say that many other states in the federal government went down this same road. Although as far as I know, there is no state, and certainly not the federal government, which picked as low a threshold as the Connecticut Legislature picked, one-half of one gram.

But since that time, Mr. Speaker, people have become focused on another aspect of this problem. One of the unintended consequences of these laws passed in the late 1980s and early 1990s regarding penalties for drug possession and drug distribution.

And that side effect is the obvious impact it has had on racial disparities, not just in our prison system, but in our courthouses and in law enforcement on the streets of our towns and cities in Connecticut.

Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, this Legislature addressed another unintended consequence of policy decisions we made in the late ‘80s and early 1990s.

And we made it possible for judges to depart from minimum mandatory sentences for offenders who were charged with either possession or distribution of drugs within 1,500 feet of a school or a public housing project or a day care center.

And we did that after a good deal of discussion in the Legislature, not just that year, but in preceding years. We did that in partnership with then Governor Rowland and we did that in a bipartisan way.

And I think we did that because all of us acknowledged that we are all troubled by the racial disparities we see today in our prison system, and they continue. And I think it’s important to point out what that disparity is.

Today in Connecticut, 72% of the inmates in our State Prison system are either African-American or Latino, and 82% of the inmates in our juvenile prison system are either African-American or Latino. And that apparently is driven in large part by drug offenders who are arrested and subsequently incarcerated.

And I don’t think anyone is arguing that it is okay to either possess drugs or sell drugs or use drugs.

But I think many of us are pointing to the fact that this was one of the unintended consequences. That as it turns out, many offenders are doing significantly longer sentences for crimes which do not involve violence on a case-by-case basis.

And even if you compare drug offenders to child molesters, typically, a drug offender will be serving a longer sentence than a typical child molester will, not to mention drunk drivers and other crimes which clearly pose a direct threat to the citizens of our state.

And therefore, Mr. Speaker, interest arose in addressing the penalties for possession of cocaine one more time, and considering equalizing the amount of cocaine, whether it’s in powder form or in free base form that would subject one to the enhanced penalty for either possession or distribution of those drugs.

And the Bill today, Mr. Speaker, changes the threshold amount for free base to match the threshold amounts for powder cocaine.

So in other words, more than an ounce of crack or more than an ounce of powder cocaine would subject one to the sentences that I think we provided to focus in on those who are clearly dealers, as opposed to persons who are addicts who possess this for their own personal use.

Now, how much do you get with a half a gram of crack? Well, the estimates vary, as you can imagine. The street value of this substance varies. It depends on how much you buy at a particular moment or where you buy it, or who you are, who the customer is.

But in general, we’re talking about somewhere between $ 10 and $ 30 worth of crack, the mere possession of which would subject one to a three year minimum mandatory sentence as if they were presumptively a dealer because they had that much in their pocket.

Now, I’ve never smoked crack. I’ve never used cocaine. I don’t know many people who do, but the information about how this works is not difficult to obtain. And unfortunately, it is commonplace in many parts of our state today.

Although the emphasis has shifted to other drugs in recent years in terms of marketing and use, it still continues to be a problem, both cocaine in powder form and free base form.

But we’re talking today about whether or not we should change a penalty which requires persons to be sent to prison for at least three years because they have in their pocket about $ 30 or $ 40 worth of crack.

And I think when you consider that for a moment, it does not make a lot of sense, especially when, if we’re talking about powder cocaine, the threshold amount is about $ 2,000 or $ 3,000 worth of cocaine, and I think we would all agree that anyone who possessed that much cannot be possessing it for personal use and ought to be subjected to enhanced penalties.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. It is not as though we are actually lowering the maximum penalty for possessing more or less than a half a gram of crack cocaine.

The penalty for mere possession of cocaine is already a maximum seven years in prison, and on a case-by-case basis, our prosecutors and our judges can and often do, tailor a sentence to fit the actual conduct involved in an incident.

By changing the threshold amount for crack cocaine, all we are doing is eliminating the possibility that someone would go to trial, for example, claim they’re innocent, be convicted, and be sent to prison for a minimum of three years simply because they had an amount of crack in their pocket which would be consistent with personal use.

Drug abuse is a serious problem in our state, Mr. Speaker. We respond to it in a variety of ways. Our police and our prosecutors fight one front in this battle, and our treatment providers fight another front in this battle.

There’s no evidence that by sending people to prison for lengthy amounts of time for small amounts of crack that we are making any headway at all in solving that problem.

But there’s clear evidence that we are aggravating racial disparities in our criminal justice system by establishing public policies like the one we seek to change today.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve deliberated this for a long time. I believe this may be the first time we’ve actually debated it in the House for quite some time.

But I hope, and I believe, that today we will be able to make a significant step in addressing the perception and the reality of racial disparities in our criminal justice system today and I urge passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this Bill? Will you remark further on this Bill? Representative Farr of the 19^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is really about tools and perceptions. And let me give you a little background on why I say that.

First of all, in terms of perceptions and messages, the argument you’ll hear is that this Bill is important because we are potentially putting lots of people in jail for the possession of a very small amount of a drug. Let me assure you that’s really not the case in Connecticut.

Let me give you a little bit of statistics on this. Last year in Connecticut, 534 people were arrested and charged with this particular statute that’s before us today, 534 people. A significant number.

Of those 534 cases, 485 were either nolled or dismissed and 29 people were found guilty. In other words, less than one-half of 1% of the people charged with this crime were found guilty of it.

Well, why is that? Well, quite frankly, because this particular statute is a tool. The process in Connecticut of prosecuting individuals is that we have available a lot of tools to both the prosecutor and the defense.

If you’re charged with this crime, the prosecutor has the ability of substituting less severe offenses and they do that routinely. They’ll often say to a defendant, we think we can persuade a jury that you’re guilty of this charge but we’re going to substitute something less severe.

In addition to that, when someone suggests that maybe if you were in possession of a small amount of cocaine you would be facing a severe jail term, the defense counsel has plenty of tools available.

We have diversionary programs. You can ask for, you can go in a community service program. You can go through that multiple times.

There are programs that are available to the defense counsel and to the prosecutor to make sure that these types of statutes are very selectively applied.

And obviously, if only 29 people are going to jail in Connecticut as a result of this statute, its impact on our prison system is minute.

The fact of the matter is today, in our prisons, with almost 20,000 prisoners, we have 169 people who have been convicted of this offense, which is less than 8/10 of 1%.

So why is this Bill important then? Well, it’s important in part because it sends messages. The reason the Bill was passed in the first place was, it was important for us as a society to say we wanted to send a message that we were going to be tough on crack.

The concern I have with the underlying Bill is that we send the reverse message. That reverse message is, gee, we were too tough and so now we’re going to be easy.

We’re going to raise the amount of crack that you can possess, 56 times the amount that you could before. This is a dramatic shift in our public policy.

We’ve had advocates who handed out flyers showing what other neighboring states are doing in terms of penalty for possession of large amounts of crack. And Representative Lawlor is right.

No state has a penalty that starts with a smaller quantity, an enhanced penalty that starts with such a small quantity of possession of crack.

But I’d also suggest to you if you pass the underlying Bill, no state would have, allow you to possess as much without an enhanced penalty.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, and will the Clerk please call LCO Number 5863, and I be allowed to summarize, 5863.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 5863.

Representative Farr, it appears the Clerk is not in possession of LCO Number 5863. It will be found. Will the Clerk please--

CLERK:

LCO Number 5863, House “A”, offered by Representative Farr.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what this Bill, what this Amendment does is, it reaches a reasonable compromise. It says we’re trying to send two messages.

One message is that we’re still going to be tough on drugs, but on the other hand we’re not going to do that disparity that many people perceive is causing the disparity in the prison population.

And so what this Amendment does, it keeps the Bill, the thrust of the Bill the same by saying that we’re going to eliminate the disparity between crack and cocaine.

But the way we’re going to do it with this Amendment is you’re going to lower the amount of cocaine in half from the current Bill that you need to have the enhanced penalties, but you’re going to raise the amount of crack that you need to possess by some 26 or 28 times as much, so that in either event, if you possess one-half of an ounce of crack or cocaine, you’ll be subject to the enhanced penalty. I move the adoption of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question before the Chamber is adoption of LCO Number 5863 which shall be designated House “A”. Will you remark on the Amendment?

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

I think this is an important message, an important amendment, because as I say, it does send the message that we’re not here today to lighten up penalties for possession and sale of drugs, that we’re going to continue in our effort to control the devastation that drugs is causing, has caused in our society.

With the passage of this Amendment, there will be no disparity in Connecticut between cocaine and crack.

As Representative Lawlor pointed out, if you’re in possession of either cocaine or crack in Connecticut, you can get up to seven years in jail. If you sell either one of them, you can get up to 15 years.

Under this Bill, if the amount in question is more than a half of an ounce, then you will be subject to the enhanced penalties and those enhanced penalties are five years in jail with a maximum of up to 20 years in jail.

I think this is a reasonable approach. I think this is an important amendment because I think it’s important for the public to understand that what we’re not going to do is send a message out there that we’re going to simply go easy on crack and lighten up the penalty, because clearly there’s no indication that there’s any less of a need to enforce our drug laws as it comes to the devastating effect that crack is having in our communities.

So I would urge passage of the Amendment. Mr. Speaker, could I ask also that when the vote is taken, it be taken by Roll.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The question is on Roll Call on the Amendment. All in favor of Roll Call please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Has been met. When the vote is taken, it shall be taken by Roll Call.

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Lawlor of the 99^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, let me begin by saying this, that the good part of this Amendment is that it would clearly address, albeit in a different way, the concern about a disparity between crack and powder cocaine and as I think everyone is aware, the nature of that concern is that many people believe that crack cocaine, that persons arrested for possession for crack cocaine tend to be African-American or Latino.

I’m not sure that that’s necessarily true, but that’s a perception, and that persons who get arrested for powder cocaine tend to be white. And so, either way, with this Amendment, that disparity is being addressed.

On the other hand, however, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the interest of striking a compromise, we may be having more of the unintended consequences that we found grew out of the policy decisions we made in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

And with that in mind, I just wondered if the proponent of the Amendment knows what the fiscal impact of this change in the state law would be. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The, as I, first of all, as I indicated earlier, it’s my belief that the fiscal impact of almost doing anything to this Bill would be very minimal because there are so few people actually convicted every year. There’s only 39 people convicted at the present time.

The fiscal note says the Amendment reduces the amount of drugs that would subject an individual to criminal penalties and could, thereby, result in a significant state cost associated with incarceration.

But the fact of the matter is that the Fiscal Analysis has no indication as to numbers. And certainly, if we’re at 39 now, and we’re simply cutting the amount of cocaine or heroin that you possess, to have the enhanced penalties in half, it’s not likely that we’re talking about any massive expansion of our penalties.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I point that out only because I think it’s important that we always keep in mind that when we tinker with the penalties provided for various crimes and in particular, crimes which tend to, well, there’s certainly a lot.

I don’t know what the exact number is, but there’s certainly more than 1,000 or 2,000 people currently serving time in our state’s prison system for possession in one way or another of cocaine.

And when we tinker with the penalties, obviously, that has the effect of increasing the length of time people face, not necessarily always because they are convicted of that exact crime.

As Representative Farr points out, and I’m sure it’s true, there’s relatively few people actually being sentenced under this actual statute.

However, if you ask any prosecutor in the state, I’m sure they will acknowledge that it’s the fact that initially someone was charged with a crime, which carries a minimum mandatory which has a major impact on the plea bargaining that goes on in that case.

In other words, if the person refuses to plead guilty, then the prosecutors know that if they’re convicted after a trial, they’re going to face at least a certain amount of time. So in this case, either three or five years to serve, depending on whether it’s possession or distribution.

So these changes do tend to have an impact on our prison population. We do know the statistics are quite clear, who goes to prison for drug law violations.

Although approximately half the people in any given year who are arrested for drug law violations in this state are white, only one out of ten people are actually sent to prison for drug law violations are white.

So nine out of ten people actually being sent to prison for drug law violations are either African-American or Latino. At least that’s been our experience here in the last ten or so years. And I think policy decisions like this tend to aggravate that problem.

So we have two problems here, Mr. Speaker. We have problem number one is the apparent disparity, whether we’re looking at crack or powder cocaine.

And problem number two is the public policy that we establish by continually lowering the threshold or raising the penalty for enhanced, raising the penalty for existing drug law violations which has the effect of sending more and more drug offenders into our prison system.

And I think in recent years we have come to learn the painful truth, that number one, this is extremely expensive policy decision to send more and more people to prison. And number two, that we don’t actually seem to get any results from sending non-violent drug offenders to prison.

In fact, I think we’ve learned that the results are, tend to be more significant and more heartening, I suppose you’d say, more successful if we find other ways to punish drug offenders.

Now, I think it’s also to point out, important to point out, that Representative Farr and many others who share his concern about this particular Bill have helped us transform our criminal justice policy to focus more on rehabilitation and treatment for offenders who are appropriate for that, so this is not in any way meant to criticize anybody.

It’s simply to point out, and perhaps even to predict, that a policy change like this would, in the future, have unintended consequences and among those would be aggravation of the current racial disparities problem. And number two, costing us a lot of money without any benefit to show for it.

So I respect Representative Farr’s goals in offering the Amendment. I just think that this might have unintended consequences, probably would have unintended consequences. And for that reason, I urge rejection of this Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Lawlor. Will you remark further on House “A”? Will you remark further on House “A”? Representative Kirkley-Bey of the 5^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to make a couple of statements and then I think I’ll ask a couple of questions to Representative Farr.

But I had the good fortune this year to work on the Appropriations Subcommittee with regard to Corrections and Commissioner Lantz herself indicated that 80% of the people that are in prison are there because of drug related crimes.

So I find the number that was given by Representative Farr, represented a small amount of individuals because the greatest number of people that we know that are incarcerated are incarcerated because of drug and drug related crimes.

My question to Representative Farr, through you, Mr. Speaker, is, how do you feel this particular amount is more beneficial. Is your concern primarily looking as though we’re not being easy on crime or do you really believe that it will help with the racial disparity? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As to what the impact on racial disparity, quite frankly, because the numbers are so small, I don’t see it having an impact whether or not the Bill is, the Amendment is passed or the Bill is passed.

I think that the underlying issue there is more one of perception. In other words, while there are only 39 people who got convicted last year under this statute, the perception is that, and I think that’s a reflection of the fact in the federal system there is a disparity between crack and cocaine and in the federal system they don’t have the plea bargaining system we have in Connecticut and they have a sentencing guideline that requires automatic sentences with a difference between whether it’s crack or cocaine.

We don’t make that distinction in any of our other statutes, any of our other drug laws. This is the only one that has that disparity in it. If we pass the Bill with the Amendment, there’s no longer any disparity.

As far as it’s impact on the prison population, as I pointed out, we’re talking 39, I’m sorry, we’re talking 29 people found guilty last year of this offense.

Very small number of people, because this is the enhanced penalty and my assumption is the vast majority of people that are in jail on drug charges are not found guilty of this particular offense.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to Representative Farr. Would this not allow the amount that you’re proposing, would this not allow a greater flexibility in plea bargaining down when defendants are before the judge or before a jury with regard to their crimes, the dealing of a particular drug, crack or powder?

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated earlier, one of the values of the underlying Bill is that it is in fact a tool that the prosecutors use in terms of getting, using plea bargaining.

What happens is, they found 534 cases last year where they thought that there was adequate amount of drugs in possession of someone to find them guilty of the underlying charge.

But in the vast majority of those cases, they either substituted charges, or maybe in a few the person was found not guilty altogether.

But I’m assuming in the vast majority of the cases, prosecutors substituted less serious statutes.

What this would do is, by bringing up the penalty, I’m sorry, by bringing up the, increasing the amount of cocaine that you could possess and crack cocaine that you could possess, under this Amendment, 28-fold, that would mean that someone who possessed 28 times, would have to possess 28 times as much cocaine as they could today in order to be subject to the enhanced penalties.

So clearly, in those cases, the prosecutor wouldn’t be able to charge them with this statute, would have to charge them with a simple possession or a sale.

For those individuals who have cocaine or heroin, it would bring down, cut in half, the amount that they could possess, from one ounce to one-half an ounce, so it would give us a little bit more, a greater tool for prosecution of cocaine cases, a greater tool for prosecution in heroin cases, but that difference would be small relative to the impact it would make, going to make on crack cases.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe what I’m hearing, Representative Farr say, that is, if I have a half an ounce of crack, and I don’t know if I’m using the right term because I don’t know that much about this issue, other than I think it’s unfair and there’s not parity and there’s things that are happening to kids of color throughout the cities and some other things I’ll get into.

So if I have what is currently in the statute, not the Bill, that would be considered, with the amendment that you’re proposing, as just having something without the intent to sell because the amount would be less than 14, whatever. Okay.

Now, you’re indicating in your conversation and I have an amendment I’m seeking of my own, that the minimum for this current possession is five years with a maximum of 20. Is that not correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker, to Representative Farr.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

That’s correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Kirkley-Bey, you have the floor.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not also correct, Representative Farr, that if you are within 1,500 feet of a school, a day care or a church, you get an additional five, three years, non-negotiable put on the sentence once you’ve been sentenced? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Kirkley-Bey, is this a question regarding House “A”.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it’s important to understand the structure of our drug laws is a little bit complex. It’s important for people to understand them.

Right now, if you possess a drug, you can get up to, if you possess cocaine or crack, you can get up to seven years. If you’re found guilty of sale, you can get up to 15 years.

The Bill that we’re debating now is, in fact, another Bill which requires that if you’re found guilty of a large quantity of the, of either one of those, of possessing a large quantity of either one of those drugs, that you will get a minimum of five years, up to 20 years.

And you’re absolutely correct. There are other statutes that have other enhancers. You can get a minimum of two years if you sell drugs within 1,500 feet of a school, a public housing or a day care, and you can get three years, a minimum of three years if you sell it, if you use someone under 18 to sell drugs for you.

So there are other enhancers as well. The prosecutor is not required to charge you with any of those enhancers, and in fact, as I pointed out earlier, the way we deal with our criminal justice system in Connecticut is that we have a plea bargain system.

The prosecutor will often charge you with every charge he can potentially find you guilty of, and if he can get you to plead guilty to something, he will oftentimes drop those other charges.

So there’s nothing in our statute, which would require somebody who’s possessed drugs within 1,500 feet of a school to be charged with that. That’s within the discretion of the prosecutor, and as I indicated, he can nolle that charge in exchange for a plea of guilty of a sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Kirkley-Bey.

REP. KIRKLEY-BEY: (5^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank Representative Farr for his answers to those questions.

It is my understanding that the minimum mandatory three years for being within 1,500 feet is exercised quite often and more often than not. And while I understand what he’s trying to do, I believe that the underlying Bill brings it more in equity with what I think is fair.

And so I would ask my colleagues to please vote against the Amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Kirkley-Bey. Would you remark further on House “A”? Would you remark further on House “A”? Representative Dargan of the 115^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. DARGAN: (115^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed.

REP. DARGAN: (115^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, underneath current law, it’s one ounce of powder, half an ounce on crack cocaine. Am I correct in that, through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Under the current law, the penalty of, the violation of this particular statute, 21-278 requires you will be, the sale or possession of one ounce of powder cocaine or one gram of crack, and the difference between a gram and a crack is that there are, I’m sorry, a one-half of a gram of crack.

So the difference in quantity is approximately 56 times as much. So if you have one-half a gram of crack, that’s 1/56^th as much as one ounce of cocaine.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Dargan.

REP. DARGAN: (115^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, another question to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed.

REP. DARGAN: (11^th)

I know what the current Bill states, and I know that Representative Farr would like to cut that in half.

So I would, I rise in support of the Amendment to simplify underneath the statute, actually what the Bill will say and I think that it will also help the court system out to make powder and crack cocaine valued at that same offense, Mr. Speaker, and I support the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Dargan. Would you remark further on House “A”? Would you remark further on House “A”? Representative Walker of the 93^rd District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions to the proponent of the Bill, through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative, we’re on House “A”.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Yes, on House “A”. I’m sorry, the proponent of the Amendment. I’m sorry, I apologize, of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed, Madam.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Okay. I’m curious. On the proposed Amendment, your objective is to balance out and equalize the amount of drugs possessed either with cocaine or with crack, is that correct, Sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

My other question is, through you, Sir, through you, Mr. Speaker, what do you think this is going to do to the racial disparity in the correctional system now?

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, I think I tried to make the point. It may have some, either the underlying Bill or the Amendment may have some very small impact.

But because so few people are actually convicted under this Bill in the first place, I don’t think that this Bill in itself will, either way will have much of an impact.

I believe, though, that this sends an important message and that message is that we don’t want the racial disparity and we don’t want to treat cocaine, crack, treat them that differently.

I mean, you can make an argument that cocaine may be, that crack may be more dangerous, but it’s simply processed cocaine.

And the argument on racial disparity has always been that you’re more likely to use cocaine in the suburbs and crack in the inner-cities and, therefore, there are more people prosecuted for crack possession or sale in the city, and more people prosecuted for cocaine possession or sale in the suburbs.

And when you have that difference in sentencing, that that may result in a disparity in sentencing. And clearly in the federal courts it does, because the federal court requires a distinction when it comes time to sentencing.

This federal guidelines distinguish between crack and cocaine. Connecticut doesn’t have guidelines, doesn’t make any distinction on the sentencing and the only place in our statutes that we make that distinction between cocaine and crack is in this particular Bill.

So passage of this Bill to the small extent that it actually may have an impact, passage with the Amendment, will have the same, I believe, same impact and disparity as passage of the Bill without the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Walker.

REP. WALKER: (93^rd)

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess part of the question that I have in this Bill, in this Amendment, is what is the objective of this besides trying to equalize out the requirements of the possession amount, but also to address, this all sort of stems back to the problem that we have with prison overcrowding and addressing the crimes for crimes and addressing addiction for addiction.

And when I looked at the website for the Department of Corrections when I listened to the esteemed gentleman over there that proposed the Amendment, I looked at the numbers that we have for 2004, December 2004, and according to the DOC website it said that we have 2,530 people that are being detained, that are in Corrections now for possession and sales of drugs.

So when I listen to him and he talks about the 29 people that are actually convicted, I wonder where a lot of the population comes from.

And then when I look at the numbers that are also on there for the number, for the minority, for the racial disparities of who has been convicted, it said that 87% of the population that was convicted for cocaine possession are African-Americans.

The whole objective that I think we were trying to do with prison reform and changes is to address certain crimes the way they should be, but also to address addiction in the way that it should be also.

I don’t think that raising the amount or lowering the amount is the most important thing, but actually looking at how are we addressing it and what are we doing.

Commissioner from DOC said to us when we were talking about the balances of how we’re spending our money, she requested that we start to look at more of addressing the behaviors, to try and help to reduce the population in prison.

And this, I’m afraid, this Amendment does not address that. This Amendment just continues it out for further length.

I think we need to look at it a little bit more carefully about how are we addressing addiction and how we are addressing crack versus cocaine. So I will not support this Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Walker. Representative Diamantis of the 79^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. DIAMANTIS: (79^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just, I think to simplify the matter a little bit, and I certainly understand the intent of the Amendment, and I’d like to associate myself with some of the remarks made by Representative Lawlor in that the good part of the proposed Amendment is that it increases the amount of weight with respect to crack cocaine.

The reason for that, that makes it good, is one of the other statutes that is utilized by law enforcement officials and prosecutors, is the issue of possession with intent.

Currently, you need a smaller amount of crack cocaine for an additional charge of possession with intent.

And what the statistics are not talked about today is the number of convictions of possession of a narcotic, whether it be cocaine or crack cocaine, with intent to sell, not that an actual sale has occurred, but in fact, possession of enough of a narcotic is held by the individual, necessitating a different offense, possession with intent.

Now that enhances those penalties as well, because judges in our courtrooms today look at an individual before them differently, if they in fact are a user, versus if in fact they are a dealer.

The programs that are out there that we have passed in this Legislature are not necessarily, and for the most part, not available to an individual defendant who a court had determined is a dealer.

And by virtue, by definition of being a dealer, you do not necessarily have to have sold to a single person. All you need to do is be in possession of a quantity defined as enough to be considered a dealer.

What we’re having a discussion about today is, the fact that the amount of cocaine that we have utilized as a threshold for determining whether someone is a user, thereby giving them the ability for a treatment program, as represented by Representative Farr, or some other type of rehabilitation program, is an ounce of cocaine.

We consider a dealer a person who possesses 1/56^th of an ounce of crack cocaine. That is the issue of the disparity. One fifty-sixth of an ounce of cocaine, you are considered a dealer.

Now, you may not be convicted of dealing, but I’ll bet you dollars to donuts you’re convicted of possession with intent, all day long by a prosecutor. Now, that is enough to be looked at differently, that certain programs will not be made available to you.

So the concern is not, my concern with the Amendment is not that he’s raising, that we’re raising the threshold of crack cocaine, which I think is good, but the fact is, now we’re creating a new threshold for who is considered a dealer by possession of crack. It is no longer going to be an ounce, it will be less than that.

So now we’re going to say, if you’re in possession of a half of an ounce of crack cocaine, you are now considered a dealer, because that is going to be the new threshold.

We’ve fixed one and we’ve botched the other, because we’re more concerned about being tough on crime rather than rehabilitating drug users.

And another point that was made earlier was that in fact, the high of a crack cocaine user is very brief. They get more because they need more. The user needs more crack cocaine.

So the next question is, if they need more crack cocaine, why don’t they just buy coke? The answer is, coke is more expensive. So they buy crack cocaine because it’s cheaper.

They have to buy more of it because the high is short-term and that’s why most of the folks who do criminal defense work have clients that are predominantly black and Latino because they are usually the folks who have less money and can’t afford coke, so they buy the cheaper drug, crack, which is why we’re having the discussion about raising the threshold.

Are they really dealers, or are they really users who would like to make themselves available at some point, if we catch them soon enough, to avail themselves of a drug program.

But you will not, if you possess more than 1/56^th, this much, of crack cocaine. No program. Jail instead, or some sort of other jailable offense in lieu of taking a minimum mandatory sentence.

That’s why the Amendment is half good and half bad. The bad part is that now coke users, users, not dealers, are going to be someone using less than half of the current statutory amounts.

And now we’re going to have more possessions with intent. That’s why the statistics, whenever we talk about statistics of drug users, are always skewed because of the fact that many people are convicted of possession with intent, not possession and sale of another narcotic, but possession with intent because that gets the best of both worlds.

If you can’t catch them on a sale, and you don’t want to hit them on a minimum mandatory, hit them with possession with intent puts everybody on notice of what’s going to happen and next time you get bagged, we really know you’re a user or a dealer rather than a user.

But clearly, if you are brought into court with a fraction of an amount of crack cocaine today, they use that against you as getting a program because they’re going to consider you a dealer and not a user. And that’s really what we’re trying to define today, who is a user and who is a dealer.

Users are very clear that we need treatment for. Dealers, we’ve been very clear that we want them to go to jail.

And that’s all we’re doing today is defining that, and clearly, the amount of cocaine by definition, I’m sorry, crack cocaine by definition, is not someone who is a dealer because they possess more than 1/56^th of a gram of an ounce of cocaine, crack cocaine.

So that’s the issue. It’s a, to finding a user versus a dealer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative McMahon of the 15^th District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. MCMAHON: (15^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the previous speaker for the various scenarios because that’s what it’s about.

Basically, this Bill is just about giving the discretion to the judge for looking at all the various scenarios or the various circumstances or the conditions or whatever, and making the decision.

I think we know that we have some of the finest judges in the country in Connecticut. They certainly have the ability to do this. This just gives them the ability to give a smart sentence.

This is not being soft on crime. It’s being Smart on Crime. In various other states who have adopted this Smart on Crime, they have saved millions of dollars. I didn’t know that at the beginning.

That’s not the reason for the Bill, but it just so happens that California when they passed a similar Smart on Crime Bill, in 19, I mean 2003, they saved $ 175 million.

Texas, the first year in 03 that they were Smart on Crime, they saved $ 41 million. But the most important thing, as a teacher for 35 years, the most important thing is, we are looking at this as a public safety issue as well as, a public health issue as well as a public safety issue.

We can actually save lives. We can actually get people into treatment and to get them off their addiction, rather than incarceration where they go and they learn more how to be criminals.

So once again, it is not getting soft on crime, it is simply giving the discretion to the judges. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the issue is fairly simple. Let me just clarify. Somebody earlier said, well, we have all those people in jail and this Bill seems to affect only 29 people, why is that? Or 29 people a year?

Well, what I’m suggesting to you is our other statutes. We have a statute on possession of narcotics and a statute on the sale of narcotics. Those are the ones that people are using, are being prosecuted on.

This statute is being used only for, as Representative Diamantis said, it is only being used for what are perceived to be dealers.

And it’s important that what we’re trying to do, and there’s no disagreement, I think, in this body, that we want to change people’s behavior. We want to find ways to get people off drugs. We want to make sure they’re not repeat offenders.

But the solution to the prison overcrowding is not just lower the penalties for drugs in Connecticut, and the underlying Bill lowers the penalty for possession and sale of cocaine by increasing the amount that you need to have 56 times. Fifty-six times.

That’s like saying, you know, if you think of the difference between the possession of a can of beer and the possession of 56 cans of beer, you’re not going to be using, you have 56 times as much of crack, you’re not a user, you’re a dealer.

And this Amendment simply says, we’ll let them 28 times as much. They’re still at 28 times likely to be a dealer. But we’re also bringing down the amount of cocaine so that we end that disparity between cocaine and crack.

It sends a strong message. We’re interested in getting rid of the disparity in Connecticut between cocaine and crack, but we’re not going to simply try to solve prison overcrowding by lightening sentencing for drug sale and drug possession.

I think it’s a reasonable Amendment. I would urge passage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will you remark further on House “A”? Will you remark further on House “A”? If not, Representative Ward of the 86^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. WARD: (86^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to concur with the remarks of the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee.

The principal argument for the Bill that I heard up until today’s debate was because the statistics indicate in what neighborhood or what race users of one drug versus the other are more likely to be than if the weights are different, then the penalties are different so they should be treated the same.

Representative Farr accepted those statements. We’re not getting into an argument whether they’re accurate or inaccurate, simply accepted them, and said but then, what should our policy be?

Should we adopt the one ounce rule, which is what the Bill before us without the Amendment does, puts everything at once ounce.

And he found in terms of analyzing it, and I concur with that analysis, that when you go to one ounce of crack cocaine, it is at a level that is far greater than someone who is simply a user would be likely to have, that it would be reasonable to presume that that person was probably one who sells the drug, not just uses the drug.

And so, he forged, and I hesitate to use the word compromise if somebody offers it. The other side hasn’t agreed.

I don’t know if that’s a compromise in that sense, but it is a compromise in the sense of bringing the law to meet the needs of those that say it should be the same amount, but decide what is an amount that makes sense in terms of whether the person with possession of that amount is likely to have been selling it.

And I think his argument is compelling that lowering the amount that you can legally hold of powder cocaine and raising the amount so that they match, of crack cocaine makes sense.

I did hear some folks argue that the person would just be a user. Keep in mind that under the Bill, the mandatory minimum sentence under the language currently in our statute doesn’t apply if the person that was arrested can establish that they were drug dependent.

If they can establish that they were drug dependent, the mandatory minimum sentence doesn’t apply.

So I don’t think the argument that this person is just a user really flies, because if you are drug dependent, and that can be established, you’re not subject to the mandatory minimum sentence at least as the law is written at this time, it may be plea bargain in some way, but as it is written.

So I would urge members to support the Amendment so that we do not allow an individual to carry a relatively large amount of crack cocaine and escape being charged as a dealer when they probably are at that amount, but instead bring the two penalties together, somewhat raising the amount that one could have in their possession of crack cocaine and at the same time lowering the amount of powder cocaine so that they will be treated, literally ounce for ounce, except it will be half ounce for half ounce.

I urge the Members to support the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Ward. Will you remark further on House “A”? Will you remark further on House “A”? Will you remark further on House “A”?

If not, would staff and guests please retire to the Well of the House. Members please take their seats. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting House Amendment Schedule “A” by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Will Members please check the board to make sure their vote is properly cast.

If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Would the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 144

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those voting Yea 66

Those voting Nay 78

Those absent and not voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Will you remark further on the Bill as amended. Whoops. Excuse me. House “A” fails. Would you remark further on the Bill? Representative Witkos of the 17^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we know, cocaine is a very highly addictive drug and no matter what form that it’s found in. However, when it’s smoked, it’s a higher, it’s more addictive than it is if somebody ingested rather than snorting which is the normal process for a powdered cocaine.

A survey done by the Drug Abuse for Resistance, a national survey, found that persons aged 12 or older have tried crack cocaine at least once in their lifetime, 6,222,000, and powdered cocaine was 1,003,000.

Today we’re talking a Bill which talks about 29 people specifically and I’m curious, and I have a question to the proponent of the Bill, if I may.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Please proceed, Sir.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, our current statutes, Section 21a-279 penalty for a legal possession and alternative sentences. Does that section of our statutes apply to sentencing guidelines for this possession that we’re talking about today? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, we don’t have sentencing guidelines in Connecticut, so I guess, I don’t really understand the question, so through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I’m referring to the statute 21a-279 titled Penalty for Illegal Possession. Alternative Sentences.

I’m specifically referring to Subsection e, which says that somebody sentenced under the guidelines of possession of any type of, or quantity of a narcotic substance can be remanded for an indeterminate amount of time to the Commissioner of Corrections, and the Commissioner of Corrections may, at any time, or at an indeterminate term, release that convicted person to a person of suitable authority.

And specifically, through you, Mr. Speaker, Subsection f states that, to the extent that it is possible, medical treatment rather than criminal sanctions shall be afforded individuals who breathe, inhale, sniff or drink the volatile substances defined in Subsection 49 of Section 21a-240.

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to get to my question is, what we’re talking about today for sentencing guidelines and the disparity, and I don’t think it’s about race, Mr. Speaker, I think it’s about drugs. We’re moving from the Say No to Drugs message to a Say Maybe, Say Okay message.

I think that’s the wrong message and I’m wondering, after reading those statutes, if we do have sentencing guidelines which allow the judges of our state to perform such actions. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Witkos. Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to read the whole list again, but I don’t think the restricted drugs or substances include narcotics, because I don’t see cocaine on this list and in that section. So, through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted. The first sentence, Subsection a, any person who possesses or has under his control, any quantity of any narcotic substance and then it goes on and on and on under Section 21a-279.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Which I believe the narcotic substance I’m referring to speaks directly to the cocaine or the crack. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Witkos. Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the subsection f in 21a-279 refers to subdivision 49 which I don’t think actually includes narcotics.

Narcotics obviously are included under the category of narcotics which is in subsection e there, and I believe this is an alternative sentence which is available to a sentencing judge when imposing a sentence for certain sections of the statute.

I don’t think it’s imposed very frequently, but I think it is an option. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Lawlor. Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

If I heard that correctly, that we do have on the books, though it’s not used that often, just as in the case we only have 29 people currently in this year that are affected by this Bill, that it is possible to sentence somebody for medical treatment rather than criminal sanction. Is that correct? Do I understand that correctly? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that’s possible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, through you, under subsection e, to Representative Lawlor, that somebody can be sentenced to an indeterminate term to the Commissioner of Corrections and then the Commissioner may release that person under an indeterminate term to a suitable authority. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Lawlor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, yes, that’s possible.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answers. Ladies and gentlemen of the Chamber, we do not need this piece of legislation.

We are saying okay to drugs. We have sentencing guidelines, which we’ve just heard from the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Somebody can be sentenced to an indeterminate term to the Commission of Corrections. That term may be one day.

Or, they can say, we can impose a medical treatment, rather than a criminal sanction. This legislation is terrible. I urge the Chamber to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Feltman of the 6^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the Bill. I think that we have to keep in mind that drug addiction is not only a crime, but it is also a disease and that the people who are addicted to the drugs, at some point in their lives may seek recovery, may seek treatment, may seek to be detoxed from their addiction.

We can talk all we want about being tough on crime and tough on addicts and indeed, tough on those who sell. And I agree with all those sentiments.

But, at the same time, we’ve got to provide the resources necessary for those people who just want to turn away from drugs and the miserable life that it leads to.

We don’t presently have the beds for detox. We don’t presently have the professionals either in, on the streets or in the prisons for the people who wanted to turn away from that life.

And when someone does want to turn away from that life, you can’t put them on a waiting list. You can’t put them in a queue and expect that they’ll still have the same state of mind a week from now, or a month from now, or several months from now when a bed opens up. You have to grab the opportunity when it occurs and we’re not doing it as a state.

So I think it would be false for us to think we’re doing something if we just maintain high penalties for drugs without providing opportunities for treatment, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Gonzalez of the 3^rd District, you have the floor, Madam.
REP. GONZALEZ: (3^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Connecticut became one of the 13^th states to have separate sentencing between crack and powder cocaine in 1986. Crack was considered a more dangerous drug and mass media attention of all the social consequences and impact of crack facilitated the passing of different sentencing laws between the crack and powder cocaine.

Today, we know that the crack and powder cocaine share the same active ingredients in addictive properties. The only difference between crack and cocaine is the manner in which it is ingested into the body.

I believe there should not exist a disparity in the sentencing of individuals caught with either substance. A major difference between the two drugs is cost. One ounce of powder cocaine costs between $ 1,415 and $ 2,830 in Connecticut, while one ounce of crack costs between $ 750 and $ 1,300.

Crack is often the drug that current law unfair targets low income individual. Currently, minimum of five-year sentence are imposed for the possession of . 5 grams of crack cocaine and 28 grams of powder cocaine. This is more than 56 times the amount of crack for the same penalty.

This legislation raises the amount of crack cocaine that triggers the mandatory five-year sentence to that of cocaine by increasing the minimum amount of crack cocaine from one-half gram to one ounce, the gram minimum for powder cocaine.

While I believe in treatment over incarceration, this legislation will help to raise the perception of inequality that currently exists in Connecticut sentencing law.

Also, it will assist in our efforts to decrease prison overcrowding because the incarceration of non-violent addicts is the non-answer to resolving the drug problem.

Drug addicts who need treatment do not have the $ 750 to purchase an ounce of crack cocaine or the $ 1,415 to buy one ounce of powder cocaine, so this legislation targets those individuals with intent to sell or distribute. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative McCrory of the 7^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. MCCRORY: (7^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this Bill. And before I make a couple of comments, I would like to say that I feel drug dealing, drug using is bad. It’s terrible.

I watched how it destroyed families, destroyed neighborhoods, destroyed communities, destroyed cities.

This drug, powder cocaine, crack cocaine, became an epidemic in the 80s. Those were my formative years, my teenage years, and I watched one by one, as my peers, my friends, fell victim to the bait.

This drug was made available to myself and to my friends very readily. We could have bought this and sold this just as fast as we could have bought and sold bicycles.

I watched my peers go down, sentenced for five, ten, 15, 20 years in jail, leaving sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, grandparents, weeping, not knowing what to do.

They knew it was wrong, but for them, they didn’t see an option. We’ve been told, say no to drugs, and most of us do.

For some of us, that wasn’t the solution. We tell them to go to school, get a good education. But we look at their schools. And many of them are failing our young people.

So when they go, they drop out. And once they drop out, their options for success in life become smaller and smaller.

So they go back to the bait. The bait that is available too easily in communities across this country. Our jails are filled with young men and women.

We need a solution. People say we’re being soft on crime. I don’t think so. If we walk out this building and walk a mile up the street, you will see people going to jail every single day, because we’re tough on crime.

Many people in my neighborhood and my communities are the victims of crime. We don’t want this to continue. But we do want opportunities. We want opportunities for our young folks. We want them to succeed. We want them to excel. But some policies need to change.

If you look at our budget, we spend about the same amount of money on Corrections as we do on health and hospitals. Some policies need a change.

Songs are made for decades. Marvin Gaye made a song, What’s Goin’ On. Now our children sing different songs like I’m Locked Up and They Won’t Let Me Out.

They don’t know where to turn to. They come to leaders. We are the leaders of the state. They come to me. The grandparents. What do we say to them? What do we say to a child that has no hope, no dream, no future? What are we supposed to tell them when we go back?

They call me at night. Mr. McCrory, my son is in trouble, what can I do? Can you find him a job? I don’t want him to go to jail.

What do we tell them? I tell them to hold on. I tell them to hold on, just hold on when there’s nothing left in you except the will to say hold on, because change has got to come.

We as the leaders of this state have to make some changes in our policies, our sentencing policy, our policies how we allocate our dollars and our resources, where we need to put more money, not just in incarceration, but in prevention, because we’re losing this war on drugs.

I just want to end with a little story I read. There was a group of explorers that was traveling through the forests of Brazil and they stumbled upon a river, and they stood on the banks of the river and white tents were set up with red crosses on them.

And as they looked into the river, they saw men and women and children drowning, but the current was just too strong.

And they were a group of relief people trying with all their might to recover people from the river, trying to save lives, trying to give hope to people who were drowning in the river, but the current was too strong.

And the leader of the relief people met with the explorers, and he pleaded with them to stop and help us save the people in the river.

The explorers said no, and they continued up the banks of the river until they reached the mouth. And once they reached the mouth of the river, that’s where they set up shop and started to prevent people from falling into the river.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this Bill, support this Bill so we could make a change in our state.

Support this Bill so we cannot continue to see our young people incarcerated at rates higher than any other state. The disparity is higher than any other state.

[Inaudible] again, higher than any other state, a wealthy state. We have the resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative McCrory. Representative Powers of the 151^st District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this Bill, not just as a State Representative, but as a Mom.

I have voted against this Bill and ones like it repeatedly in the Judiciary Committee. I agree with Representative McCrory. He made some very good points.

I do not agree with his conclusion. I do not believe this Bill helps. By allowing more of this garbage floating around, is not the answer. There are other answers. This is not it.

I cannot vote yes for something that puts more of this garbage in our kids’ hands and floating around in our schools and on our streets. It’s just wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Urban of the 43^rd District, you have the floor, Madam.

REP. URBAN: (43^rd)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have kind of a unique perspective on this. My son is presently in Washington, D. C. working on what’s called City Year Americor with inner-city kids working with them on educational issues from his youngest, four, to his oldest, 14.

And he, in the first two months that he was there, said to me, Mom, you don’t even get it. You don’t understand what these children are going through. You don’t understand the lack of hope.

You don’t understand that down on the corner there are people asking them to sell drugs, to do drugs, that they talk to them every day about their brother who’s in jail, their mother who’s in jail, their father, every sibling, cousins and how they miss them and how they wish there was some way out.

And when we look at this Bill, at some point we have to step back as a society and say, maybe we need to attack the demand side of this equation.

We’re always looking at the supply side, looking down in South America and Mexico or wherever, fighting the production of drugs.

Well, what about the demand side? What about the child who has no way out? What about the kid who needs rehabilitation, who needs a way to find their way in this world, to be able to be educated and pursue what we all in this Chamber have been able to pursue.

The money that we’re looking at saving here is substantial, and that money can be devoted to some of these kids that my son is working with on a daily basis who have no hope, who look at their brothers and look at their sisters and they ask Lex, my son’s name, if they can go home with him, and it breaks his heart every day he is with them.

So I say to this Chamber, again, he says to me, Mom, you don’t get it. We really need to look at this from a different perspective.

We need to give these kids hope. We need to give them the opportunity to have a better life, to be rehabilitated, to be in programs that allow them to go forward so that families can be whole.

So I urge my colleagues to carefully consider what we’re trying to do here today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Hewett of the 39^th District, you have the floor, Sir.

REP. HEWETT: (39^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I live in a community in New London where crack cocaine is like going to a grocery store. I mean, it’s really, really bad. The kids are doing it.

They go down to New York City. They buy for $ 15, bring it back to New London and sell it for $ 25. It is really out of hand and we have shootings now at least once a month and it’s because of the turf of the crack cocaine.

I think this Bill will go a long way in getting rid of the disparities in the criminal justice system. It’s been said that the prosecutors have chosen to correct these problems, but it’s apparent that they’re not using them.

The problem is they’re not using them. Also, I would like to say if you are caught with cocaine, they all should go to jail except if you prove that they have a problem, they should have some kind of treatment.

Whether it’s an ounce of cocaine or an ounce of crack, I think in today’s society, we’re blind if we think there are no disparities. The law as it stands when someone is found with possession of a weapon, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a 22 or 357, it’s still possession of a dangerous weapon.

So it should be the same for crack cocaine or powder cocaine, and I urge passage of the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Thank you, Representative Hewett. Will you remark further on this Bill? Will you remark further on this Bill?

If not, staff and guests please retire to the Well of the House. The Members please take their seats. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is taking a Roll Call vote. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Will all Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast.

If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Representative Dillon, for what purpose do you rise?

REP. DILLON: (92^nd)

Mr. Speaker, in the affirmative.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Without objection, in the affirmative. Would the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6635.

Total Number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 93

Those voting Nay 52

Those absent and not voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

The Bill is passed. The House will stand at ease.

(CHAMBER AT EASE)

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The House will come back in order. Would the Clerk please call Calendar Number 240.

CLERK:

On Page 4, Calendar Number 240, Substitute for House Bill Number 6915, AN ACT CONCERNING PORTABILITY UNDER PLANS ISSUED THROUGH THE HEALTH REINSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Favorable Report of the Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative O’Connor, you have the floor.

REP. O’CONNOR: (35^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Will you comment further?

REP. O’CONNOR: (35^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO Number 6002. I ask that he call it and ask leave to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 6002.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6002, House “A” offered by Representative O’Connor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

House Amendment “A”. Representative O’Connor, do you wish to remark further?

REP. O’CONNOR: (35^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Amendment which becomes the Bill, attempts to increase the accessibility of the health insurance coverage for the residents of Connecticut.

Currently, an individual who has purchased a short-term or a non-renewable policy and develops a pre-existing condition while insured, finds it extremely difficult to renew their policy or denied insurance coverage altogether.

What this Amendment does, is allow an individual that has purchased a short-term or a non-renewable policy that has been determined to be a qualifying or comprehensive plan by the Department of Insurance, to be able to purchase health insurance through the Health Reinsurance Association.

The Amendment allows for an individual with a short-term or non-renewable policy to receive a credit as having maintained comprehensive coverage and would be eligible to receive it through them, and it would be consistent with the laws that govern the portability of individual and group health insurance plans.

This is an important Amendment and Bill that gives people the peace of mind that they’ll be able to obtain insurance during a difficult time, and also maintains the non-insurable and short-term market as a viable source of insurance. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question before the Chamber is on adoption. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, a question to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:

Representative O’Connor, prepare yourself. Representative Powers, please continue.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, is there a fiscal note for this Amendment please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative O’Connor.

REP. O’CONNOR: (35^th)

Yes, there is. There’s no fiscal impact. Just to further clarify that, HRA, or the Health Reinsurance Association, is a health insurance risk pool whose members consist of insurers, HMOs and self-insurers, and they would be the people that would be paying the additional assessment of covering these individuals.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. So that the individuals who would be buying these policies or being covered by these policies would not be paying anything extra, or would that, the cost of these changes be spread to all the members of that pool? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. O’CONNOR: (35^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker. Currently, if someone has an individual group health insurance plan and they’re a high risk, they are put into the Health Reinsurance Pool and the coverage, while it’s kind of unknown to them or to the employer, the added cost of providing health insurance to that individual is picked up by the health insurers, and it’s part of the small group of reforms that were passed in the early 1990s.

And what this is going to do is allow people with non-renewable or short-term policies to get that same benefit if they are a high risk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on the Amendment that is before us? Will you remark further? If not, let me try your minds.

All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. The Amendment has been adopted.

Will you speak further on the Bill as amended? Will you speak further on the Bill as amendment, as amended, excuse me.

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. The machine will be opened and we will take a Roll.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Has everyone voted? Please check the machine to see that your votes are properly cast. Will you please check the machine to see that your vote has been properly cast.

Will you please check the machine to make sure your vote has been properly cast. The Clerk will prepare the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Bill as amended passed. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 446.

CLERK:

On Page 9, Calendar Number 446, Substitute for House Bill Number 6580, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AVAILABILITY OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER RECORDS TO THE VICTIM ADVOCATE, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 453.

CLERK:

On Page 10, Calendar Number 453, Substitute for House Bill Number 6803, AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO CERTAIN WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 458.

CLERK:

On Page 10, Calendar Number 458, Substitute for House Bill Number 5371, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION AND THE “A BETTER CHANCE” PROGRAM AND THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Education Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 459.

CLERK:

On Page 10, Calendar Number 459, House Bill Number 6429, AN ACT EXTENDING THE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE HOUSING, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 462.

CLERK:

On Page 11, Calendar Number 462, Substitute for House Bill Number 6626, AN ACT PROVIDING IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR FAMILIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move that this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 463.

CLERK:

On Page 11, Calendar Number 463, House Bill Number 6661, AN ACT CONCERNING CREDIT IN THE STATE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SERVICE, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Public Safety Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 469.

CLERK:

On Page 12, Calendar Number 469, Substitute for House Bill Number 6841, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REAL ESTATE CONVEYANCE TAX, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Planning and Development Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 466.

CLERK:

On Page 11, Calendar Number 466, Substitute for House Bill Number 6717, AN ACT CONCERNING ORGAN AND TISSUE DONORS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Transportation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 470.

CLERK:

On Page 12, Calendar Number 470, Substitute for House Bill Number 6842, AN ACT CONCERNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Planning and Development Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 477.

CLERK:

On Page 13, Calendar Number 477, House Bill Number 5673, AN ACT CONCERNING PERFORMANCE-INFORMED BUDGETING OF STATE AGENCIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Planning and Development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 479.

CLERK:

On Page 13, Calendar Number 479, House Bill Number 5994, AN ACT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION IN CARDIOPULMONARY RESUSCITATION AND DEFIBRILLATION FOR POLICE OFFICERS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Planning and Development Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 481.

CLERK:

On Page 14, Calendar Number 481, Substitute for House Bill Number 6871, AN ACT CONCERNING THE QUALITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN CHILD PROTECTION PROCEEDINGS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 482.

CLERK:

On Page 14, Calendar Number 482, House Bill Number 6940, AN ACT INCREASING THE AUTHORITY OF THE TREASURER WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF UNAPPROPRIATED GENERAL FUND SURPLUS IN EXCESS OF THAT TRANSFERRED TO THE BUDGET RESERVE FUND, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 483.

CLERK:

On Page 14, Calendar Number 483, Substitute for House Bill Number 6949, AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL READINESS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 485.

CLERK:

On Page 14, Calendar Number 485, Substitute for House Bill Number 6978, AN ACT CONCERNING CHILDREN OF FAMILIES WITH SERVICE NEEDS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Human Services.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 493.

CLERK:

On Page 16, Calendar Number 493, Substitute for House Bill Number 5473, AN ACT CONCERNING A REFUND OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE FUELS TAX TO PROVIDERS OF ELDERLY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES AND TO WASTE HAULERS EMPLOYED BY CRRA, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Transportation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 494.

CLERK:

On Page 16, Calendar Number 494, Substitute for House Bill Number 6907, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVISION AND MODERNIZATION OF MILK REGULATION STATUTES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 495.

CLERK:

On Page 16, Calendar Number 495, Substitute for House Bill Number 6929, AN ACT ALLOWING A MEMBER OF THE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM WHO WORKS PART-TIME OR MORE TO PURCHASE UP TO ONE YEAR OF FULL-TIME CREDIT FOR SUCH PART-TIME SERVICE, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 496.

CLERK:

On Page 16, Calendar Number 496, Substitute for House Bill Number 6931, AN ACT PROVIDING AN INCREASE IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM SUBSIDY FOR RETIRED MEMBERS OF THE CONNECTICUT TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 497.

CLERK:

On Page 17, Calendar Number 497, Substitute for House Bill Number 6962, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF PROPERTY TAXES ON MOTOR VEHICLES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Legislative Management Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 499.

CLERK:

On Page 17, Calendar Number 499, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 46, AN ACT CONCERNING AN INTERAGENCY PRESCRIPTION DRUG BULK PURCHASING PLAN, Favorable Report of the Committee on Human Services.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 502.

CLERK:

On Page 18, Calendar Number 502, Senate Bill Number 846, AN ACT CONCERNING IMPACT STATEMENTS FOR REDUCTIONS IN STATE SERVICES AND ADVANCED LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL FOR SIGNIFICANT PROGRAMMATIC IMPACT, Favorable Report of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 503.

CLERK:

On Page 18, Calendar Number--

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

No, I mean Number 504. I take that back.

CLERK:

Page 18, Calendar Number 504, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 898, AN ACT CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP ON THE CHILD FATALITY REVIEW PANEL, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 509.

CLERK:

On Page 19, Calendar Number 509, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 1189, AN ACT CONCERNING THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL AND THE INDEMNIFICATION AND REPRESENTATION OF STATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 512.

CLERK:

On Page 19, Calendar Number 512, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 1265, AN ACT CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO REPORT LISTED TRANSACTIONS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 514.

CLERK:

On Page 20, Calendar Number 514, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 1294, AN ACT CONCERNING THE MINIMUM WATER FLOW REGULATIONS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Planning and Development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 515.

CLERK:

On Page 20, Calendar Number 515, Senate Bill Number 1297, AN ACT CONCERNING MANAGED CARE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 516.

CLERK:

On Page 20, Calendar Number 516, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 1312, AN ACT CONCERNING FOOD ALLERGIES AND THE PREVENTION OF LIFE-THREATENING INCIDENTS IN SCHOOL, Favorable Report of the Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 122.

CLERK:

On Page 20, Calendar Number 122, Substitute for House Bill Number 6570, AN ACT CONCERNING PLANS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 167.

CLERK:

On Page 21, Calendar Number 167, Substitute for House Bill Number 6892, AN ACT INSURING THE SAFETY OF ELEVATORS, ESCALATORS AND LIFTS IN CONNECTICUT BY ADOPTING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE NATIONAL MODEL ELEVATOR SAFETY ACT, Favorable Report of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 180.

CLERK:

On Page 22, Calendar Number 180, Substitute for House Bill Number 6827, AN ACT CONCERNING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF APPRENTICE PERMIT AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING LAWS, Favorable Report of the Committee on General Law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 185.

CLERK:

On Page 23, Calendar Number 185, Substitute for House Bill Number 6662, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE RELATING TO POPULATIONS IN STATE ELDERLY AND DISABLED HOUSING PROJECTS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 228.

CLERK:

On Page 24, Calendar Number 228, Substitute for House Bill Number 6619, AN ACT CONCERNING DISCOUNT HEALTH PLANS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 249.

CLERK:

At the bottom of 24, Calendar Number 249, Substitute for House Bill Number 5932, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR MUNICIPAL ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Planning and Development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 288.

CLERK:

On Page 26, Calendar Number 288, Substitute for House Bill Number 6773, AN ACT CONCERNING CLEAN AIR STRATEGIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Transportation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 341.

CLERK:

On Page 28, Calendar Number 341, Substitute for House Bill Number 6663, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Safety.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Planning and Development Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 344.

CLERK:

On Page 29, Calendar Number 344, Substitute for House Bill Number 6715, AN ACT CONCERNING STRIKE CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR HEALTH CARE INSTITUTIONS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Human Services.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 359.

CLERK:

On Page 29, Calendar Number 359, Substitute for House Bill Number 6921, AN ACT CONCERNING PESTICIDES AT PRESCHOOLS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND DAY CARE FACILITIES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Human Services.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 407.

CLERK:

On Page 30, Calendar Number 407, House Bill Number 5382, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A BLUE RIBBON COMMISSION ON THE PROBATE COURT SYSTEM, Favorable Report of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 416.

CLERK:

On Page 30, Calendar Number 416, Substitute for House Bill Number 6816, AN ACT CONCERNING DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR ANY DRUG AND SUSPENDING THE DRIVER’S LICENSE OF A PERSON CONVICTED OF PROVIDING ALCOHOL TO A MINOR, Favorable Report of the Committee on General Law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Transportation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 423.

CLERK:

On Page 31, Calendar Number 423, Substitute for House Bill Number 6976, AN ACT CONCERNING CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 424.

CLERK:

On Page 31, Calendar Number 424, Substitute for House Bill Number 6982, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FUTURE OF THE CONNECTICUT JUVENILE TRAINING SCHOOL, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Government Administrations and Elections Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 430.

CLERK:

On Page 31, Calendar Number 430, Senate Bill Number 801, AN ACT CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF WAIVER APPLICATIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 445.

CLERK:

On Page 32, Calendar Number 445, Substitute for House Bill Number 5750, AN ACT CONCERNING TRESPASS, LITTERING AND VANDALISM ON PUBLIC LAND, Favorable Report of the Committee on Environment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Planning and Development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 449.

CLERK:

On Page 32, Calendar Number 449, Substitute for House Bill Number 6705, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO PRETRIAL DIVERSION AND ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Legislative Management.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 476.

CLERK:

On Page 34, Calendar Number 476, House Joint Resolution Number 31, RESOLUTION PROPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING FUNDING OF THE CONNECTICUT TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Mantilla.

REP. MANTILLA: (4^th)

Madam Speaker, I move this item be referred to the Government Administration and Elections Committee. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. This concludes the referrals for today’s Session. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 412.

CLERK:

On Page 30, Calendar Number 412, Substitute for House Bill Number 6746, AN ACT CONCERNING EVIDENCE TAMPERING, PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENTS BY POLICE OFFICERS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Safety.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Lawlor, you have the floor.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Sir.

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question before the House is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Will you comment further?

REP. LAWLOR: (99^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will. First of all, by way of explanation, under our current law, there are a variety of categories, which disqualify potential and certified police officers from actually being certified as police officers, and those you can see listed in the actual Bill as the current law.

If it is determined that a certificate, well, first of all, I should say, Madam Speaker, that police officers, in addition to being hired by a local police department or by the State Police, also need to maintain their certification and this is in essence, a license to be a police officer.

So whether or not you are actually employed in a particular department is different from whether or not you’re actually certified to be a police officer. If you move from one department to another, you still need to maintain your certification.

And just because you are hired doesn’t mean you are certified. It’s an Academy. It’s a training process that prospective police officers need to complete in order to become certified and to maintain their certification. Over time there’s additional training that needs to take place to maintain that certification.

However, Madam Speaker, from time to time there are circumstances which warrant the revocation of that certification, and the current law provides a number of categories.

For example, if it turns out that the original certificate was obtained through misrepresentation or fraud or there was some falsification on the part of the applicant with regard to the requirements for obtaining a certificate, and that type of thing, then a certificate can be revoked.

But one category that does not appear in the current law, which this Bill would actually add, is a situation, which I think every Member of the Chamber would agree ought to warrant revocation of a certificate to be a police officer.

So this Bill would add three separate new categories. Conduct, which would either constitute fabricating of physical evidence. Perjury for a false statement.

Now, in the Bill, Madam Speaker, reference is made to three criminal statutes, which currently define that conduct.

For example, perjury has a definition. False statement second degree has a definition, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence has a definition. So reference is made to the criminal statute for purposes of obtaining a definition.

What this Bill, if it passes and is signed into law by the Governor would provide, is that for a current police officer, a certified police officer who engages in that conduct, who is fired by his or her local police department or by the State Police or other law enforcement agency in Connecticut, that person could have their certification revoked by POST, the Police Officer Standards and Training Board, which is our statewide agency, which certifies current and prospective police officers.

It wouldn’t require that revocation. It would simply provide for it if this definition is met.

In addition, Madam Speaker, this Bill would add for the first time, an additional due process protection for police officers who are subject to revocation of their certification, and the Bill provides that if such a revocation is going to take place, that officer would be entitled to what they call a de novo hearing, or trial, before the Police Officers Standard and Training Commission and that there would be an evidentiary standard for the first time and that would be clear and convincing evidence.

So what that translates into, Madam Speaker, is that this Bill adds a new category to the circumstances under which your certificate as a police officer could be revoked and provides a hearing, a new hearing.

In other words, the evidence would all be brought in anew, and the board in order to revoke the certification would have to find by clear and convincing evidence, that an officer actually had violated these rules.

Now, finally, I should point out, Madam Speaker, the Bill does not require conviction of a crime involving those three types of conduct. Instead, whether or not there’s a conviction. If there is a conviction already, they would automatically by force of law lose their certification.

This would govern the situation where for whatever reason, perhaps through a plea bargain in a criminal case, perhaps through use of accelerated rehabilitation, a police officer avoided an actual conviction, but where the evidence is still very clear, overwhelming, clear and convincing that they had engaged in the conduct, then they would be subject to a revocation of their certification.

And I think we can all understand, Madam Speaker, the reason for this. Although the overwhelming majority of police officers in our state do their job diligently and honestly, from time to time there are police officers who actually do manufacture and destroy evidence, or who actually do lie in their police reports, or lie when they’re testifying in court.

And I think we’d all agree that when that happens, they have forfeited their right to be a police officer, and I think on balance, this is an appropriate addition to our current statutes. I move, I urge passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Lawlor.

(GAVEL)

Please bring your voices down. It was very hard for me to hear the ending of Representative Lawlor’s presentation.

Will you remark further on the Bill? Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, rise in support of the Bill. When the Bill was before us in the Committee, there were concerns expressed by some of the law enforcement community about the due process issues and making sure that they were adequately protected.

I think the Bill as finally drafted addresses all of those issues. I think this is a reasonable Bill, protects the community and also protects the rights of law enforcement community if they’re in a situation where they have to defend their conduct. So I urge passage of the Bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Would you remark? Will you remark? Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us? Representative Ward.

REP. WARD: (86^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to support the Bill. I do think it makes absolute sense to indicate that if by clear and convincing evidence, frankly I probably could have been even a lower standard of preponderance of the evidence, but it’s acceptable to have the higher standard that if a law officer has committed either perjury or a false statement, the reality is, they’re not much good in future law enforcement.

If they’ve done that once, and they’re testifying in a trial and the first thing a defense lawyer will ask, well, do you have a conviction of making false statements, so they really won’t be able to be effectively a witness in any case, which means they can’t really perform their function.

More significantly, the public support of law enforcement, and for the action of the police are undermined by someone who would fabricate evidence or make a false statement or a false report regarding their work.

The great number of law enforcement officers I believe conduct themselves in a proper and fair manner and in a just manner in accordance with law, but we certainly shouldn’t allow someone to stay certified as a law enforcement officer if they’re in fact fabricating evidence or committing perjury or other false statement.

And it is certainly reasonable, just as we would in a lot of other professions, as something that is so critical to the nature of the work you do, you’ve been found to have violated, you would lose your right to do that work.

I applaud the Judiciary Committee for bringing this Bill forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Ward. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests to the Well. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. Will Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast.

The machine is now going to be locked at this moment. Will you please check the board to see that your vote has been properly cast.

The machine will be locked and the Clerk will prepare the tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6746.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 508.

CLERK:

On Page 19, Calendar Number 508, Senate Bill Number 1135, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND FINGERPRINTS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Dargan, you have the floor.

REP. DARGAN: (115^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you remark further, Representative Dargan.

REP. DARGAN: (115^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This Bill will require that fingerprints, demographic and photographic images that are captured electronically, shall be transmitted to the Department of Public Safety or the State Police Bureau of Identification in order to maintain the most current and authentic records of criminal history information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Just a minute, Representative Dargan.

(GAVEL)

Let’s keep your voices down and give the respect to our colleague who is trying to bring out this Bill. Thank you so very much. Representative Dargan, have you concluded your remarks?

REP. DARGAN

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is apparent that there is an adequate mechanism to control the type of electronic equipment used to capture and transmit the aforementioned electronic images, and I move for its adoption. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question before us is on adoption of the Bill. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the Bill that’s before us? Representative Stone.

REP. STONE: (134^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This represents a giant step forward for law enforcement and should help dramatically in capturing people who are fleeing from justice.

This is a Department Bill and very strongly recommended and I urge its passage. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Stone. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us? Will you remark further?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. The machine will be opened and you may cast your vote.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? If all Members have voted, please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast and the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally.

Please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast. The machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 460.

CLERK:

On Page 10, Calendar Number 460, House Bill Number 6542, AN ACT PROVIDING THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SERVICES WITH AUTHORITY TO SEEK A MEDICAID WAIVER FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, Favorable Report of the Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Villano, you have the floor.

REP. VILLANO: (91^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move adoption of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Will you remark further, Sir?

REP. VILLANO: (91^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Bill requires the Commissioner of Social Services to apply for a Medicaid waiver under Section 11-15 of the Social Security Act to authorize coverage to adults and households with incomes up to 185% of the federal poverty level that are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid services.

For over 30 years, federal law has mandated that states with Medicaid programs offer family planning services to persons of child-bearing age within the state’s eligibility requirements.

Meaning that here in Connecticut, it is already available to women with incomes up to 100% of the federal poverty level who have children receiving Medicaid services.

The Bill will now allow women with higher incomes to have access to Medicaid funded cares which typically can include annual exams and screening tests, laboratory tests, and counseling and referral services.

More importantly, Madam Speaker, the program can save money for the State of Connecticut, because under this program, the federal payment is 90% of the cost and the state payment is only 10% of the cost. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Representative Gibbons.

REP. GIBBONS: (150^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill as prescribed by the Chairman, or the Co-Chairman of the Human Services Committee, it passed unanimously out of Human Services.

It has bipartisan support both in the House and from the Senate, and I urge passage of the Bill. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Gibbons. Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When we looked at the other 21 states that had applied for the Medicaid waiver and received 90% reimbursement, if you look at that kind of support from the federal government, it sure does make looking at a $ 3 million expenditure mighty fine if you’re going to get $ 2. 7 million back, Madam Speaker.

But, in the long run, I think it has much broader implications. If you were looking at young women who need family planning services, it gives them quite an advantage, I believe--

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Just a minute, Representative Sawyer.

(GAVEL)

Take your conversations outside. It would be very good of you to do that and give the Representative the respect she deserves as she speaks on the floor. Thank you.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oftentimes what we have found is young women stay in poverty when they have children at a young age, and it’s very difficult for them to work their way out of poverty.

When we look at offering family planning, however, at a very low cost, or no cost, it has a tremendous effect, not only on preventing pregnancies, not only on educating young women on disease problems, also aiding men. It’s not necessarily just women.

But it has a long-range effect, a long-range effect if you look many years down the road. If you look at the instance of North Carolina, they gave us some statistics.

Over a three year period, they were able to save $ 56 million, and the numbers that they looked at were from the unwanted pregnancies, from the childbirth that happened, that for what ended up having to provide many, many, many more services outside of that $ 56 million that was not even counted in that statistic.

I would say that this has been one of those pieces of legislation that most commonly can be cited as common sense, that we look at trying to help our young people, but also people who are in the greatest need, and it is not only bipartisan but is also tremendous support from the federal government, which I think at this time the state certainly can use.

However, this is only requiring DSS to apply for the waiver, so presently there is no fiscal impact on our next year’s budget.

They just need a body to be able to follow the waiver process along until it be coming back to this in a year or so. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast. Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast.

The machine will be locked and the Clerk will prepare the tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill Number 6542.

Total Number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 1

Those absent and not voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Bill passed. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 431.

CLERK:

On Page 8, Calendar Number 431, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 967, AN ACT CONCERNING THE COMMISSION ON AGING, Favorable Report of the Committee on Human Services.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman, you have the floor.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Committee’s Joint Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Will you remark further?

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this Bill does is to move the Commission on Aging from the Executive to the Legislative Branch, which is similar to other commissions of similar nature.

It also adds the Human Services Committee as the Committee of Cognizance overseeing the Commission. I move adoption of the underlying Bill.

The Senate has adopted an amendment. I ask the Clerk to call LCO Number 5697 and ask for leave to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 5697, which will be designated as Senate Amendment “A”.

CLERK:

LCO Number 5697, Senate “A”, offered by Senators Williams, Looney, et al.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this Amendment does, one of two technical amendments in the file copy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman, could you hold one second, Sir.

Is there any objections to the Amendment, to summarization of the Amendment? If not, will you please proceed, Sir.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the original file copy, the Bill only designates one Chairperson of the Committee of Cognizance and one Ranking Member.

This Amendment expands it to both Chairpersons and both Ranking Members from both the House and the Senate, and I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on adoption of the Amendment. Will you remark? Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Chair. Not on the Amendment, on the Bill itself, so I will pass at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you. Will you remark further on the Amendment that’s before us? Representative Feltman, did you care to say anything further?

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

I do not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

All right, then. Will you remark further on the Amendment that’s before us? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. The Bill is, the Amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Representative Cafero, Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 6082. I ask for the Clerk to call it and offer leave to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 6082 which will be designated House Amendment “A”.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6082, House “A”, offered by Representatives Godfrey and Christ.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Would you care to summarize? Is there any objection to summarization? If not, please proceed, Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a screening amendment. What it merely does is strike the word designees from the description in the previous Amendment.

It just means that the Chair and the Ranking Members have to go to the Commission meetings themselves if they wish to participate and they can’t send designees.

Other than that, it’s the same as the Senate Amendment. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark further on House Amendment “A”? Will you remark? Representative Belden.

REP. BELDEN: (113^th)

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a question to the proponent, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman, prepare yourself. Please proceed, Representative Belden.

REP. BELDEN: (113^th)

Madam Speaker, I assume that House “A” will supersede Senate “A”. Through you, Madam Speaker, is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

I think what I heard the gentleman ask was whether or not House “A” will subsume Senate Amendment “A”, and if that is the question, the answer would be yes.

REP. BELDEN: (113^th)

I thank the gentleman for his response.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Belden. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? On the Amendment? Will you remark further on the Amendment?

If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

All those opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. The Amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chair, a question through you, to Representative Feltman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman, prepare yourself. Please proceed, Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, having served on the Appropriations Committee this year and also on the Labor Committee, it came to my attention that there is a Bill still alive and well out there that creates a Department of Aging.

My question is, through you, Madam Speaker, how will the Department of Aging co-exist with the Commission on Aging. Commission on Aging, my understanding being a Legislative Committee as by this Bill, and the Department of Aging, for which we put a $ 1 million budget toward, being an administrative agency. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, well, there are a number of answers to that simple question. The answer would be, one answer would be that the Commissioner on Aging would be a watchdog with regard to a new Department on Aging and it would remain in the Legislature, and have a function of overseeing the activities of the Department on Aging.

The other answer would be that, if such a [inaudible] were to exist, the other answer would be that the Department of Aging as created by the budget, by the proposed budget in year ‘07 and there would still need to be another Session of the Legislature before then. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman could clarify. Did I understand you to say, through you, Madam Speaker, that the Commission on Aging will be a watchdog group for the Department of Aging? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, it would be both a watchdog and an advisory group to the Department on Aging, yes, Madam Speaker. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker, is there a formal manner in which the Commission on Aging would be an Advisory Committee, Commission to the Department of Aging? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)
Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. In Lines 55 through 56, meet as needed with state officials to discuss the issues affecting the elderly, and there’s another line, preparing an annual report to the Governor who would presumably be overseeing the Department on Aging. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Feltman. Representative Feltman, are you aware of any other administrative agency similar to what will soon be the Department of Aging that has a Legislative partner, if you will, similar to what is, will be the Commission on Aging. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker. It’s not just the Legislative partner, I might point out, through you, Madam Speaker.

There are appointments by the Governor, five by the Governor, two by the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House and other leaders of both parties. So it’s a combination of the Executive and the Legislature, through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Through you, Madam Speaker. If that’s the case, what will the Department of Aging do? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, what they would do would be precisely what the unit of the Department, the Division of Elderly Services within the Department of Social Services does now. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Through you, Madam Speaker, that Division that you just referenced that they do now, will that be abolished, or will that remain in existence? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, it will be abolished.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

And through you, Madam Speaker, if I may go back to the question that I asked two questions ago.

Is there another example of where we have an Administrative Department and also a Legislative Commission that has the same issues of cognizance? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, I’m not sure where the Commission on Aging, excuse me, the Commission on Children is housed. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Through you, Madam Speaker, is there a Department of Children and a Commission on Children? Is that what you’re inferring? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, there is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, because it is relative to this subject matter and certainly the work of this Commission.

Do we know the size or amount of employees or the budget, for that matter, of this soon to be created Department of Aging? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, the Department of Aging is not the subject of this Bill. The Department of Aging is the subject of, is included, as I understand, in the budget for 2007, it’s been proposed.

At this point, I do not believe there is a Bill to implement that portion of the budget. It would then be voted on, as I understand it, as part of the implementation of the budget, is not within the text of this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Cafero.

REP. CAFERO: (142^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Representative for his answers.

Ladies and gentlemen, most of us campaigned last November about being more efficient in government, some of us making government smaller, and certainly trying to use the, our best efforts to make efficient our resources.

The Bill you have before you takes the Commission on Aging and moves it from an Administrative Agency to a Legislative Agency. And some might argue, and I might agree, that that is purely a logical move.

However, I think you must know out there, that there is another Bill that really is very much related to this Bill, that creates a whole new Administrative Department called the Department of Aging.

And for those of you who don’t have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee, you must know that we have assigned the sum of $ 1 million toward this newly created Department of Aging.

And when those of us on the Appropriations Committee asked, for what will this $ 1 million be used for, unfortunately, no one could answer the question.

People asked questions such as, will it be used for staff? Will any of the functions of the Department of Aging overlap or duplicate the functions of the Commission on Aging and unfortunately, we were not provided any answers.

So I bring this point to the Chamber’s attention, because as we vote on this Bill up or down, you have to know that sooner than you think, it will be followed by a Bill, which creates the Department of Aging as an administrative agency, that has with it a $ 1 million price tag, and unfortunately, no other specifics.

Not how many people. Not what the million dollars is going to be used for, not even what they’re going to do in the Department of Aging.

So with that, Madam Chair, I look forward to the rest, Madam Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the debate, but I thought it was important to just remind my fellow colleagues of what we do here sometimes.

And sometimes, if you’re sitting at home, it doesn’t seem to make all that much sense. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Cafero. Representative Villano.

REP. VILLANO: (91^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the Bill and perhaps to clarify a couple of points that were just raised.

First of all, the Commission on Aging is desperately needed, because it is the only state agency that advocates for the elderly in Connecticut.

The Department on Aging is now reduced, has been reduced to an administrative function. That’s all it does. It monitors and dispenses Older American’s Act money to the different agencies throughout the state.

It does not advocate for the elderly. The Commission on Aging has been, and will, under its new arrangement. And getting out from under the Department on Aging where it was subsumed to other agencies, it will have even greater freedom to advocate, and it will also be able, perhaps, to get some staff.

The Commission on Aging has done wonders with a one-person staff. The Executive Director, who, despite years and years of asking, through the Department, through the Department on Aging, sorry, the Department of Social Services’ budget for staff position has been denied.

It’s staffed as one person and its budget is about $ 100,000, and we have comparable commissions in the state that have three and four and five times as much staff and budgets.

And the Commission on Aging, its role in the future, when everybody in this room, especially the younger people, are going to turn 65 and need those services, the Commission on Aging’s work will be more important than it is today because we’ll have larger numbers.

So we’re not duplicating the work of the Commission on Aging. We’re not changing what a new Department on Aging might do, and it’s still problematical.

But even if it exists, the Commission on Aging is needed to advocate for the elderly, what you’re doing now, because it works with all of the existing agencies.

The AARP, the Coalition on Agency, the [inaudible] agency is on aging, the omnbudsmen and many more, and it’s created a working group called CEAN, Connecticut Elder Action Network. It’s bringing together those with a natural interest in advocating and working for the elderly to get things done in their behalf.

So this Bill is overdue, frankly. I’m embarrassed to say we did not succeed in prior years in getting it the independence it needs to have the staff and the support it needs to advocate, but this is the year to do it.

And as I said a moment ago, whatever happens to the Bill on creating a new Department on Aging has nothing to do with this.

The Commission on Aging should continue to do what it has been doing, advocating for the elderly. Thank you, Madam.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Villano. Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A question, through you, to the proponent of the Bill as amended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman, please prepare yourself. Please proceed, Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The last time I saw this Bill was in Legislative Management, and we had somewhat of a similar conversation.

If you could remind me, the Department Bill had like a $ 1 million or $ 1. 3 million price tag, through you, Madam Speaker. I thought this one was kind of a wash because they were bringing the money from DSS with them. Through you, Madam Speaker, is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Feltman.

REP. FELTMAN: (6^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, thank you, Representative Powers for pointing it, for making the point I was about to make, which is, there’s absolutely no cost associated with this Bill.

According to the fiscal note, it says these changes are not expected to result in any fiscal impact. There will be no fiscal impact on the state from this move.

So if we have exactly one staff person in the Commission on Aging who would have under this Bill, one staff person in the Commission on Aging.

The efforts of the Commission on Aging would be as before, largely by volunteers who serve on this Commission. And as Representative Villano noted, those volunteers do a great deal of work.

I want to emphasize again, that I was pleased that Representative Cafero did not rise in opposition to this Bill.

The Department proposal, entirely separate and apart from this Bill, people who oppose or support that Bill may be different from those who support or oppose this one. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

I thank the gentleman for his clarification. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you. Representative Thompson.

REP. THOMPSON: (13^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the legislation. I perhaps am the only one in the House at this time who was present when the original Department of Aging was created.

I think that goes back over 30 years, and I was sitting upstairs, I was not a Legislator at the time, but I was active in the Society of Gerontology, and I can remember sitting next to Walter Adams who was President of the Connecticut Senior Citizens Council who strongly supported the Department of Aging, as did the Council.

He was to my right and to my left, he should have been to my left, but to my left was a person representing the interest of the Society of Gerontology who was against the Department of Aging and had actually been a member, I think, of the Commission on Services to Elderly Persons at the time.

Well, in any event, the Department of Aging was created that evening, and the, I think the Majority Leader was Carl Agello who was sitting down where Steve Montano would normally sit.

And the Bill became an amendment to another Bill and the Department of Aging if I recall this correctly, I think I’m right, was created out of an amendment to another piece of legislation.

But nevertheless, it was created and for a number of years it served a very useful purpose. But if you remember in our existence here on the Hull Report, they had recommended the Department of Aging no longer continue and it was phased out.

But the Department of Social Services picked up some of the responsibilities of the Department of Aging and I believe the Commission at that time was created, but it had more staff than it has now. Representative Feltman said there is just one staff person.

But when listening to Representative Cafero, I was reminded when we went to Rhode Island one time to learn more about Healthy Families, which is now a very important part of our prevention of abuse and neglect of children.

And while there, we learned about a Child Advocate in Rhode Island and we came back here with the idea that not only was Healthy Families a good program, but we might look at the Child Advocate and the arguments at that time were, you know, you’re out of your mind. Children and Families had enough problems without somebody overseeing them and pointing out the errors.

But as we found out, the Child Advocate, we brought it out the following year and it passed and was created, and I think has served a very useful role in our state government, an independent role.

Another example is the Children’s Trust Fund, which had been housed in the Department of Children and Families, and later was become independent and it’s probably one of the most active organizations we have in building programs and creating great policies, services to not only to the Department, but also to us.

So, as I would visualize it, the Commission on Aging would serve a role very similar to that as the Commission on Children, and it would be active in advising us on programs and services that we might provide to protect and enhance the lives of our elderly citizens.

So I think from that prospective, in fact, I would like to see that it beefed up somewhat and have some legislative analysis assistance on board, but that’s down the road, I guess, at this point.

But I believe there are a number of advocates out there, and there is a whole nucleus of elderly organizations who could play a role, a direct role through the Commission in advising us on programs that will enhance the lives and future of our senior citizens.

So I recognize there is some question about, you know, well, what we do at the Department of Aging, but I think that’s another issue and not directly related to the Commission.

I see the Commission just as is the Permanent Commission on Women and other commissions that now advise us directly.

This would be something that, it would be an arm of the Legislature and I really think that’s where it belongs and would do a good job for what we need in this state in advising us on issues affecting the elderly.

So I would strongly support it. It does have a history and I think there’s plenty of examples and plenty of evidence that this type of independent commission working under the Legislative Branch would serve a very, very useful purpose. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Thompson. Representative Adinolfi, you have the floor.

REP. ADINOLFI: (103^rd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation. Of all the Bills that went through the Aging Committee in the public hearings down there, this particular legislation received an awful lot of favorable response and recommendations.

Senior citizens are the fastest growing population, I think, or part of our population in the state, I’m one of them, and as we go forward, I think that the Commission on Aging right now has been out of sight, out of mind.

I think the needs that we need as Legislators to talk to them, to speak to them, to get information, to act in behalf of our constituents by bringing this Commission closer to us and within our area of watching out for and looking for, it makes much better sense than leaving it in the Executive Branch as it is now.

And I think we have to separate this from the Department of Aging. That’s another issue and I think we’ll face that when it comes, but we should vote on this particular legislation based on its own merits and not with anything else that might be forthcoming.

Therefore, I recommend that my colleagues support this Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Adinolfi. Representative Villano, did you care to speak again?

REP. VILLANO: (91^st)

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Very briefly, a second time. I just wanted to, for the benefit of the Chamber, to explain what the Commission on Aging does in pursuing its role, mission of advocating on behalf of elderly persons in Connecticut.

It provides leadership to all of the elderly action agencies in Connecticut. It marshals the resources to get a better budget appropriation for elderly programs.

It works to raise public awareness and interact with elderly communities through education and outreach. It helps in giving older adults a voice in state government.

And finally, it brings together and participates with diverse groups with a common mission of promoting elderly the affairs. Madam Speaker, again, I urge approval of the Bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Villano. Representative Floren.

REP. FLOREN: (149^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, rise in support of this Bill. For the five years that I have had the privilege of serving in this Legislature, I have served on the Select Committee on Aging, and have watched up close and personal, the wonderful work of this Commission on Aging and its inspiring and inspired Executive Director.

I think it deserves the recognition. It deserves the additional prestige, being a part of the Legislative Branch, and I cannot think of a better or finer way to celebrate Older Americans Month than to pass this Bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you very much, Representative Floren. Representative Feltman, did you care to speak again? Thank you.

Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. Members take your seats and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Members please check the machine to make sure your vote has been properly cast.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Have all of the Members voted? Have all of the Members voted and is your vote properly recorded?

If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The Bill as amended is passed. Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 313.

CLERK:

On Page 17, Calendar Number 3, not on Page 17. On Page 27, Calendar Number 313, Substitute for House Bill Number 6783, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PRESERVATION AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The distinguished Chairman of the Environment Committee, Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The question is on acceptance and passage. Will you explain the Bill, please, Sir.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recent events surrounding plans to construct a golf course on protected farmland and situations on other farms in such a program point up the need for the Department of Agriculture to get into the local permitting process at an early stage.

We’ve also got language here to require a person requesting a regulation change or a change in zoning district boundary on land for which development rights are held by this state, or for which there was a conservation easement, to notify the Commissioner of Agriculture or the holder of the conservation restriction, no less than 60 days before the petition is filed.

I move passage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO Number 6114. I ask that it be called and I be allowed to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 6114, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule “A”. Will the Clerk please call.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6114, House “A”, offered by Representatives Roy and Chapin.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, do you seek the leave of the Chamber to summarize?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this strikes Section 1 of the Bill and puts in a new Section 1, which defines conservation restriction and preservation restriction.

It also adds a second, a new second section and in that, we talk about the uses that are allowed but not limited to.

It should be state and local land use as agency, which includes, but is not limited to municipal planning, municipal zoning, combined municipal planning and zoning, municipal zoning board of appeals, wetlands, water courses agency, historic district commission, any state agency that issues permits for construction or improvement of real property. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark? Will you remark on House Amendment Schedule “A”? Representative Powers of the 151^st District.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, good afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Good afternoon.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

A question, through you, to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please frame your question, Madam.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Sir. Is there a fiscal note to this Amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

I’m sorry, I missed the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Powers, could you repeat the question, please.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Sir. Is there a fiscal note to this Amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

No, there is no fiscal note.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The House will stand at ease.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Correction, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, do you wish to correct your statement?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Striking Section 1 of the underlying Bill eliminates the associated minimal workload increase to the Department of Agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then I assume, through you, that that means there is no fiscal impact. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, is that correct?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

That is true. There is no fiscal impact. In fact, with the original Bill there was no fiscal impact because it was done within the budget. Essentially they’re doing is what they’re already doing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Powers, you still have the floor.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, then, if they’re already doing this, why are we doing the Bill? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I had two Bills sitting on my desk and I mixed the two.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Well, take a deep breath and give it another shot. Could you answer the lady’s question, Representative Roy.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, then does this Bill do something? Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, do you care to respond?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes. It preserves farmland from encroachment. The plan has designated farmland, protected farmland, land that has conservation easements, it protects them from encroachment and unnecessary development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Powers.

REP. POWERS: (151^st)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to know it does something and it doesn’t cost any money. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “A”? The gentlemen from the 17^th District, Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please frame your question, Sir.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Thank you. Under the definition of preservation restriction, Lines 15 through 20 in the Bill, I understand the intent of preserving agricultural land or land, but does this allow, this is the Amendment.

Would this allow a municipal historic district commission from disallowing improvements to a residential home or structure? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, do you care to respond?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

I’m sorry, could you repeat the end of that question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Witkos, could you please repeat the question for Representative Roy.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Sure, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just concerned on Lines 25 through 28 where a municipal historic district commission would allow for improvements or construction of real property, would that fall under the preservation restriction in the section previous to that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

Does this add any power to a historic district commission than what’s already currently allowed for in the current law? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

It does not, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Witkos.

REP. WITKOS: (17^th)

I thank the gentleman for his answer. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “A”? The honorable Ranking Member of the Environment Committee, Representative Chapin of the 67^th District.

REP. CHAPIN: (67^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of the Amendment. As Representative Roy indicated, the Department of Agriculture identified a problem in the process we have with the PDR program, and with individuals who may already have conservation easements going to their towns and applying for permits and not letting the Department of Agriculture know that.

This Bill takes care of that problem. I would agree that it has minimal, if any fiscal impact, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. The gentle woman from Newton, Representative Wasserman.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the proponent of the Bill, the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please proceed, Madam.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I see that the Conservation Commissioners are not mentioned in your language, and I have a concern about that, because in some towns, and you do mention wetlands agencies, but in some towns in this state, the wetlands agency is part of a Conservation Commission, or partner to.

And also, you have reference to land modifications, easements, changes, and I believe in most towns, as a matter of fact by statute, permits have to go through a series of agencies, including Conservation Commission.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, would you please address that issue for me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, they are not dealt with directly. But in Line 22, we note that for purpose of this section, state or local land use agency includes, but is not limited to, and therefore Conservation Commissions would be included.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Wasserman.

REP. WASSERMAN: (106^th)

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Madam. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “A”? Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “A”?

If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. The Amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the Bill as amended?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker has an amendment, LCO Number 6089. I ask that it be called and I be allowed to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 6089, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule “B”. Will the Clerk please call.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6089, House “B”, offered by Representative Roy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy, do you wish leave of the Chamber to summarize?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Without objection, please proceed, Sir.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What the Attorney General has asked us to do is give him in writing, the permission to bring an action to enforce the public interest in such restrictions should there be a problem. I urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The question is on adoption of House Amendment Schedule “B”. Will you remark on House Amendment Schedule “B”? Will you remark?

If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it. House Amendment Schedule “B” is adopted. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended?

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

I urge passage of the Bill as amended. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Representative Miner of the 66^th District, Sir.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I might, a few questions to the proponent of the Bill, through you, Sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please proceed, Sir.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In Sections 1a and b, as I read this, there seems to be some discussion about how zoning regulations and changes might occur with regard to a piece of property, whether state owned or privately owned. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, they do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, as I understand the Bill as amended, what we’re trying to be sure is that the state is notified if a local land use agency were to I guess, contemplate such changes, whether they be on their own or whether someone would bring them an application. Is that the way you read it? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, that’s what it says. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his answers.

I think that’s very important in light of everything that has occurred with regard to not only the PDF program, but a number of other programs the state has engaged in, and municipalities have engaged in.

We’ve gone through a lot of effort of trying to secure rights and property in an effort to try and save into the future. It has some value and we recognize that it has some value.

In keeping with that thought, I’d like to offer an amendment, if I might. It’s LCO Number 6007. If it be called and I be allowed to summarize, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 6007, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule “C”. Will the Clerk please call.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6007, House “C”, offered by Representative Miner.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Do you seek leave of the Chamber to summarize, Sir?

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Please, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Is there objection? Hearing none, please proceed, Sir.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 6007 is an amendment which would require any agency, whether it’s state or municipal, in the passing of a regulation or an ordinance or land use law, to pay for the value of that restriction or alteration, or not to enforce it to the property owner, whether it be a private landowner, the state, in this case I think it could be a farmer.

From time to time we hear about situations where farmers are endeavoring to continue their livelihood, want to build a building, local land use agency says you can’t do that, cites a regulation, and the farmer is left in some cases, without a silo or barn. I move adoption, if I may please, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The question is on adoption of House Amendment Schedule “C”. Will you remark, Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Yes, please, Mr. Speaker.

So what this Amendment tries to do, I think, is furthering what the underlying Bill tries to do and that is, recognizing that people enter into agreements for property.

The state acquires a certain value in a piece of property. People acquire a certain piece of property for a value. And quite often, life provides changes that you might not be aware of.

And so in a case where a farmer might acquire a piece of property and a wetlands agency a year or two after that might enact some kind of a regulation, this provides an opportunity of the land holder, to appeal to the entity that offered that regulation or adopted that regulation and get them to pay the value of that, or choose not to enforce it.

I think if the underlying Bill has merit, and I think it does, then I believe this Amendment only makes that Bill stronger in recognizing that we are a state built on a number of values, one of which is local property ownership and a value based on that property, and I would urge Members to support the Amendment please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “C”? Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the proponent of the Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please frame your question, Sir.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you to the gentleman, is there a fiscal note to this Amendment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Miner, is there a fiscal note?

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Yes there is, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Would the proponent please tell us what that is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It says in the explanation column, the Amendment requires the state and any municipality that restricts land use by a private owner to provide within available appropriations, that owner with just compensation if the restriction reduces the fair market value of the property.

This could result in a significant cost to the state and municipalities related to the litigation of claims and potential statements.

If I could also, in Section, I believe it is Section i, I believe, Line 84, it does say that in lieu of the payment also that someone could choose not to enforce that regulation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. Representative Roy, you still have the floor.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in view of this state mandate on our municipalities and these potential significant costs, I’m going to urge that we reject this Amendment.

I also feel that there is serious concerns of erosion of our environmental laws under this. One of the supporters of this Bill has been the State Grange, and the President of the Grange will soon be our Agricultural Department Commissioner.

And I would think that he would be able to weigh in on this and if there is anything that he feels should be added to this Bill or subtracted from this Bill, that he will make his wishes known. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “C”? Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule “C”?

If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Opposed, Nay.

REPRESENTATIVES:

No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

The Nays have it. The Amendment is defeated. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? The gentleman from the 14^thDistrict, Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions to the proponent of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Please proceed, Sir.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

Yes. I was wondering, how long does the Department of Agriculture have to respond to a request for a permit?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

I’m not sure, but I believe that within a month they have to respond to any requests.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

Through the Speaker--

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

--approximately a month to respond? Through the Speaker, can a town issue a permit prior to receiving that approval?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe they cannot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

Through the Speaker, if I can talk about a real problem that someone may have with a 30-day delay in issuing a permit.

If my farm has lost its well or its septic system, under this Bill, for the next 30 days I cannot drink my water or go to the bathroom while waiting for the Department of Agriculture to respond to the town and say, go ahead and issue a permit to do those things. Am I correct in that interpretation, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Roy.

REP. ROY: (119^th)

That’s possibly that you’re correct, but I would think that the Department of Agriculture and the State Department of Health, if there were a serious health issue, would move in on an emergency basis and set that as a high priority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Representative Aman.

REP. AMAN: (14^th)

Through you, Mr. Speaker, hopefully that somehow that can be crafted into the legislative intent that the issuance of these permits should be done very quickly, because my experience with getting permits from the state has been that 30 days is a very quick turn around time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:

Thank you, Sir. Will you remark further on the House, on the Bill as amended? Will you remark further on the Bill as amended?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Members please check the board to see if your vote has been properly cast. Will Members please check the board to see if your vote has been properly cast.

If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Those absent and not voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Bill as amended passed. The House will stand at ease for a moment.

(CHAMBER AT EASE)

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The House will come back to order. The Clerk will please call Calendar Number 503.

CLERK:

On Page 18, Calendar Number 503, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 847, AN ACT CONCERNING REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ON PREVAILING WAGE PROJECTS, Favorable Report of the Committee on Planning and Development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan, you have the floor.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Will you remark further? Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we have before us is a Bill that specifies the state prevailing wage law applies to people and people doing the work of mechanics, laborers and workers on prevailing wage projects, and not only the mechanics, laborers and workers.

The Bill also changes the word employee to person in the same statute, to attempt to cover any person working at a prevailing wage site including subcontracted workers.

This Bill will take away the advantage of contractors who misclassified their employees as independent contractors to avoid paying worker compensation insurance as well as federal and state payroll taxes.

We hope that the Bill will eliminate the misclassification of independent contractors but allow some contractors to avoid paying prevailing wage to all workers.

And finally, we hope that this Bill will assure that social security gets paid, the state gets all the tax it is owed and the unemployment and workers compensation is paid in full on behalf of the worker. I ask my colleagues to support me in this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us? Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a quick question, through you, to the proponent of the Bill, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan, prepare yourself. Please proceed, Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, Representative Ryan, I’ve been here for 17 years. I think in the beginning of my tenure here we raised the threshold on this.

Can you tell us, do you know when, can you clarify when we last set the threshold limits when a prevailing wage job would kick in? Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

I am, if you just give me a moment, through you, Madam Speaker, I will see if I have that information.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Please take your time. Representative Piscopo, he needs a little bit of time.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Madam Speaker, the answer is 1991.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Piscopo, did you hear that?

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Madam Speaker, was it 1991?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Yes, that’s what he said, Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we are in 2005, so I think it would just be a prudent adjustment, maybe to the prevailing wage and I hope the proponent would be willing to accept this because it’s been some, if I do the math right, 14 years since we’ve even looked at the thresholds.

I’ve been trying to do this for many years and unsuccessfully, so maybe this is the year. We see all kinds of costs going up. Costs of construction have risen precipitously and maybe this year we could increase the threshold limits.

Presently, it’s $ 400,000 for a renovation project and oh, for new construction, it’s $ 400,000. And you cannot build anything these days really of any significance for $ 400,000.

So I’m just hoping that we can raise the threshold limits and to that end, Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO Number 6073. Will the Clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 6073, which shall be designated House Amendment “A” and the Representative will be allowed to summarize.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6073, House “A”, offered by Representative Piscopo et al.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

I ask permission of the Chamber for the Representative to summarize.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this simply raises the renovation projects from $ 100,000 to $ 500,000 and new construction from $ 400,000 to $ 1,500,000. It seems a prudent step in this day and age and I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Madam Speaker, the question is on adoption. May I just remark?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you for correcting me. The question is on adoption. Will you remark further?

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, like I say, I think this is just a prudent move. It’s been 14 years.

You cannot look at a renovation project for $ 100,000. In my district we’re renovating every school in my district and every one of those is well over $ 100,000.

I think the original thresholds were set so that we could include some of our smaller construction companies in our districts, in our local, in our hometowns to help work on this local project, and that is a very good reason why there is thresholds.

If it’s a little job and comes under the threshold, we should allow our local contractors, but maybe our smaller contractors to be able to work on those.

So it just seems like a prudent thing. It’s been 14 years. It’s a common sense reform to this unfunded state mandate and I hope that the Legislature sees fit to a, and I feel so strongly about this Madam Speaker, when the vote be called it be a Roll Call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Representative has requested a Roll Call vote. All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

In the opinion of the Chair, the 20% has been met. The vote will be taken by Roll.

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think what’s important to remember here is the fact that the legislation we have that’s before us today is needed to insure that Connecticut is consistent with the federal prevailing wage laws and make sure that everyone is performing work on state funded projects are receiving the prevailing wage and are listed on a certified payroll.

Keep in mind that the payroll that, the way this is determined is at the federal level by taking the wages that have been paid in a region and looking at a point above 50% and then paying everybody comparably.

And keeping in mind that we’re trying to pay workers fairly on these projects and whether it’s a large project or a small project is probably insignificant, is not important.

And keeping in mind also that Connecticut has the second highest threshold. We were probably ahead of our time when we raised it in 1991. The next highest state is Maryland with $ 500,000 and then the states under us go from $ 250,000 down to none.

So there are some states that don’t even have a threshold if it’s a state or municipal contract that a prevailing wage is required.

We want to ensure that the people who are working on state, in city projects, are getting paid fairly, that we aren’t saving money on the back of the workers.

We’re not asking for the highest wage as some people try to put forth with this when they’re talking about prevailing wage.

We are talking about the wage that is prevalent in that particular area for the type of work that is being given. So for that reason, Madam Speaker, I’d ask my colleagues to reject this Amendment. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark? Will you remark on House Amendment “A”? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I might, just a question to the proponent of the Amendment, please, through you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Piscopo, prepare yourself. Representative Miner, please continue.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, is he prepared?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

He’s prepared.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, if I could, through you, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

I say Duckie, go right ahead.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you. There, as I understand it, there are two categories of prevailing wage. There’s a federal category Davis-Bacon and then there’s the state prevailing wage. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don’t know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

I’m sorry about that, Madam Speaker. The answer I believe is yes and I just as a clarification, this Amendment would affect every project that state dollars would be put into and as I understand it, it would have no effect on any federal project? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Are you directing your question to Representative Piscopo again?

REP. MINER: (66^th)

I didn’t do so well with that last time, how about if I try to the proponent of the Bill. I think he might understand maybe.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan, prepare yourself. Representative Miner, please proceed. Representative Ryan. Representative Miner, would you please pose your question?

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. As I understand it, the Amendment affects state projects, money that the state puts in towards a project, and if there are no federal dollars, then this would not have, if there are federal dollars, this would not pertain. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Well, the state is bound to use the federal prevailing wage in any project getting federal assistance such as federal highway dollars and housing and urban development assistance, so the federal prevailing wage applies to all projects in the state and we only use one set of prevailing wage rates.

The state and the federal are the same in our state. We don’t distinguish between the two. The Department of Labor for the State of Connecticut uses the rates that have been set by the federal government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I could just one more, I guess, to the distinguished Chairman.

In adopting this Amendment, then, we would not be distinguishing any differently in a prevailing wage project. I think the Chairman said that the wage would be the same.

What this would do would be to direct for state projects with state dollars, no federal money, give us better discretion over our funds, and the same prevailing wage would still apply. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

I believe the answer is yes to the, you’re asking if this is going to have any affect, this particular Amendment, this particular Bill applies to state municipal projects.

Whether the state, whether those projects use federal money or state money, they would be required to pay the prevailing wage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the gentleman’s answer goes a long way to providing a reason as to why we should support this.

I think it does protect people’s wages. It does offer them the same opportunity to work, and what it does is try to stretch the state dollars a little bit farther for our municipal projects and our state projects.

So I would urge the Body to support this Amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Miner. Representative Belden.

REP. BELDEN: (113^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this Amendment. You know, we think this prevailing wage is sacrosanct and it’s the ultimate and what we need to do in order to protect workers.

I think we also need to consider competition. We need to consider our municipalities and when they go out for projects and what they have to pay. Those municipal entities are also taxpayers.

And as indicated, we have not raised the threshold in many, many years. You know, Connecticut’s always first. We’re first on spending. We’re first on everything.

Why can’t we be first on allowing a competitive process to work a little better for small projects, either at the state or municipal level.

You know, we think this prevailing wage is so good, you know, if you do a project in my town it costs more than if you do the same project in Derby because they have a different prevailing wage rate if I look across the River.

So this is not the answer to everything and so I think for major projects it’s fine, but I think it’s time that we increase the threshold where the requirement for minimum wage kicks in, and so I would fully support this Amendment. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on the Amendment before us? Representative DelGobbo.

REP. DELGOBBO: (70^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise in support of the Amendment. It just strikes me as not withstanding the proponent of the Amendment’s inability to answer one of the questions posed to him, I think he absolutely has this issue right on.

I cannot imagine how we, when we’re talking to our municipalities and they’re struggling to make ends meet and they’re always asking for more dollars, when we wouldn’t offer them an opportunity to make those dollars stretch a little bit farther.

I’ve seen numbers on, you know, 10%, 20%, 30% more expensive some of these projects cost with the terms of the underlying law. And all this is doing is saying, you know, it has been 14 or 15 years. Let’s adjust it.

Madam Speaker, what this Amendment says is, municipalities, we’re going to offer you an ability to stretch your dollar farther to save dollars on the projects you do.

We’re saying to the local businesses that might be in that community, you’ve got an opportunity to participate in these local projects. You don’t have to look at some project being done by companies or entities outside the community.

This will give a greater opportunity for your local businesses to have some of this work in your municipality. It absolutely makes sense and would urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on the Amendment that is before us? Will you remark further? Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to point out that, while we hear anecdotally that the price of projects, the cost of projects are raised by up to 30%, the actual, our own Program Review and Legislation, Program Review Committee did a report, and they showed that the actual cost increase was 7%.

And that’s because we’re paying people fair wages. We’re making sure that their benefits are paid, workers’ comp, unemployment.

We’re not letting unscrupulous contractors get the best of the municipality or the state and I think the size of the project, people should be getting paid what they deserve for the work that they are doing and I think, like I said, we are the second highest already in the level of the contracts.

These are still sizeable construction projects and I think the prevailing wage is the right thing to for the right reasons and I ask my colleagues to again, reject this Amendment. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on the Amendment before us? Representative DelGobbo.

REP. DELGOBBO: (70^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the second time. I just had to stand and it just struck me in the Chair’s remarks, that, you know, it almost seems as though it’s, if you’re not a union contract shop that you’re an unscrupulous contractor. And you know, that bothers me.

I know there was no personal impugning of any business intended, but that seems to be the logic here, that if you happen to be some private contractor that doesn’t have union employees that somehow you’re unscrupulous and you’re going to not pay your employees a fair wage and do everything you can to provide jobs and the best working conditions for them.

So I wanted to express my objection to that characterization of what this Bill represents. The underlying law, the Bill that’s before us, accepted at the beginning, 14 or 15 years ago, that there should be some threshold.

All this does is seek to adjust the threshold to the current conditions out in the marketplace. So, Madam Speaker, once again, I urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative DelGobbo. Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the plea for small towns one more time, I would say that small projects have a huge impact on budgets, and 7% can be an awful lot of money to a small town when you look at these projects.

It means more jobs, or it could mean savings, depending on which way you look at it on the town side. But if you look at the taxpayer, a 7% savings could be huge. I disagree with that number.

I think it’s larger than that, but I’ll stick with the 7% as the Chairman brought it out from Program Review.

When you look at projects and their sizes, it can be something as minor as fixing a town garage. It can be something as major as building a whole new school. I understand there’s a huge difference there.

So some of these projects should be able to get out from under some of the huge prevailing wage pressures and allow some of our small local contractors who are not union shops to be able to be a productive member and participate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Sawyer. Representative Ryan, Piscopo. Excuse me.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve recovered from my friend’s questioning and I actually thought he was going to ask me about the fiscal note on this Bill and I just wanted to make sure that the Chamber is, we’re aware of that.

Actually, it literally says savings, potential savings in both years, both municipal and state impacts.

But realistically, and the reason I kind of got involved in this, is the town I represent, Harwinton, was told that they, mandate that they had to build a state garage because of washing off their trucks, you know, to capture the sand and some of the hazardous materials that fall off the trucks while they cleanse them, so they had to build this big garage in town, a town garage.

Of course it fell on the prevailing wage, but under those old thresholds, the bid, the building would have come in a little under a million dollars.

But because of prevailing wage, it came in $ 1. 3 million and that’s kind of what motivated me to start looking into this issue, into this mandate.

Like I said, it’s been since 1991. It’s now 2005. It’s timely, and please, please accept this Amendment in the terms it was offered.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you Representative Piscopo. Representative Ryan, did you care to remark again?

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

No thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you. We have had, asked for a Roll Call vote on this Amendment, so will staff and guests please come to the Well. Will Members please take your seats and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast. Will Members please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast.

Please check the machine to make sure your vote has been properly cast. The machine will be locked momentarily and the Clerk will take the tally.

The machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill Number 847 as amended by House “A”.

Total Number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage, rewind.

On House “A”.

Total Number Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those voting Yea 53

Those voting Nay 93

Those absent and not voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Amendment fails. Will you remark further on the Bill? Will you remark further on the Bill? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think a number of people pointed out some very important points to prevailing wage in the state projects that we’re doing here in the state.

It’s my understanding that this year’s bond package may allocate somewhere around $ 750 million just for new school construction.

We’ll have maybe, some STEPE money that will go to municipalities to be spent on capital projects as well, and I think some people have commented that maybe that jump over from 1991 to 2005 as the last Amendment might just have been a little bit too much.

And so I offer another amendment, if I might. It’s LCO Number 6111, and if it be called and I be allowed to summarize, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Clerk will call LCO Number 6111, which will be designated as House Schedule “B”.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6111, House “B”, offered by Representative Miner.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Is there any objection to the summarization of the Amendment? If not, proceed, Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Amendment 6111 changes the threshold for new construction from $ 400,000 to $ 1 million and changes the threshold for renovation from $ 100,000 to $ 250,000, and I ask for adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark further? Representative Miner.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said earlier, there have been allocated annually, STEPE grants, each of the small municipalities. There are small cities money. There are a number of grant pools that go to each of our municipalities.

There are some that get very little, some that are required to pay for a number of capital projects on their own, whether they be sidewalks, bike trails, salt sheds, wells at schools. All these in some cases are mandated, some cases it’s the will of the public.

And I think this is a step in the right direction. It’s a recognition of 14 years without an Amendment, without a change in the threshold and like Representative Piscopo, I think it’s such an important issue I would ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by Roll Call. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

A Roll Call vote has been asked for. All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The 20% has been met. The Roll Call will be taken by Roll.

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess I just want to talk about the fact that this is pretty much the same amendment, just lesser amounts.

And for all the reasons I stated before, I’d ask my colleagues to vote against this Amendment, keeping in mind that even on small projects, we’re trying to put everybody on the same plane.

But with using the prevailing wage, we’re insured that everybody’s paying what is the wage that is paid in the area.

And I just want to remind people that the prevailing wage is determined by the federal government, and it’s the wage paid to the majority. More than 50% of the labor is the mechanics of the area in question, not necessarily the union wage.

It would only be that case if the prevailing wage shows that the union wage is the rate for more than half the employees of a particular classification. Then, in that particular case, the union rate might become the prevailing wage, but it is probably the exception more than the rule.

And somebody made that association earlier and I just want to make sure that it is the wage that is tallied by the federal government by a survey that is done of the contractors working in a particular trade in a particular region.

And again, when people say they’re saving money, they’re saving it on the backs of these workers. And even on our larger projects, we saw some abuses that did take place as companies that should be paying the prevailing wage did not.

They hired laborers, came in, paid them less than the prevailing wage and actually probably kept the money in their pocket in some regards as we saw probably at UConn.

But what’s important here, it puts all contractors on the same level playing field. They’re all are paying the same wage.

They can put bids in, in mind of what everybody is paying so that they’re all equal and actually have a chance of getting any contract, whether it’s under a million dollars or under $ 250,000 for a particular state or municipal project.

So I would ask my colleagues to reject this Amendment as well. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Ryan. Representative Harrington. Hetherington.

REP. HETHERINGTON: (125^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to urge the approval of this Amendment. It, I think is very significant 14 years have gone by since these numbers have been addressed, and as this Amendment has lowered the threshold, it indeed closer reflects simply the progress of inflation over 14 years.

More broadly, the rhetoric on this Bill is unfortunate. It seems to presume that there is widespread noncompliance with the present law and that some contractors are misclassifying workers as independent contractors when they are in fact are employees.

I would urge the Chamber to reflect that those misclassifications are in themselves punishable, so that let’s not do this in order to correct the abuses.

Let’s do this with a view that there are many, many individuals who are working on these projects that are, in fact, independent contractors.

Finally, what we are talking about here is what we are forcing our own communities to pay, our towns and our schools. We have already raised the minimum wage this Session.

This simply makes projects for our municipalities and our school systems more expensive. That is a tax we are imposing on our own communities.

Let’s remember that the next time we hear about property tax increases and about the burden that falls on those on fixed income, on older people, that we are, in fact, imposing a burden on our communities. We are taxing our communities.

We are making the things that they must do more expensive and indeed discouraging those things that we want them to do, such as enhance educational facilities.

So with those things in mind, Madam Speaker, I would respectfully urge my colleagues in the Chamber to support this Amendment as a reasonable approach to this matter. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Farr.

REP. FARR: (19^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just one comment about who is really hurt by the prevailing wage legislation. If you want to talk to one group of people who really hate prevailing wage legislation, it’s the small businessmen.

And why do the small businessmen hate prevailing wage? It’s not because of the wages they have to pay. It’s because of the bureaucracy they have to comply with.

I mean, you’re talking about some small contractor goes in and he finds out he now has to classify every one of his employees and make sure that the employees paid according to the schedule and do the weekly reports.

Now if you’re a small businessman and you’ve got two or three employees, it’s just not practical to do. This is a huge impediment. The prevailing wage is a huge impediment to small business entering into government contractors, into government contracts.

You know, there was a study a number of years ago about why some of the South American countries weren’t successful and they did a study about what it took to open a business in some South American countries and it would take them months to get all the licensing and the permit and reach all the bureaucracy, and then they went up to Florida and they opened up the same type of business, you know, in the same day, you know, they needed a tax permit and a couple of other things.

But clearly, that business could never be a small business contractor who deals with the state because first it has to get all the regulations on prevailing wage, classify any employees they have and make sure they meet all the bureaucratic stuff that’s involved in it.

The marketplace will sort out the costs. You want to create opportunity for small businesses. You don’t do that through prevailing wage.

And what you do is, you simply drive up the cost but most of the cost drivers are not, because of the wage that the individual is being paid, but because of the bureaucracy that prohibits other competitors from engaging in the marketplace. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Bielawa.

REP. BIELAWA: (2^nd)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this Amendment. It’s one thing if the state wants to impose these lower limits when there’s state and federal monies involved.

But a lot of these projects where there’s no state or federal money involved in the municipalities and they’re small projects, I think it’s unfair to the small towns to impose these lower limits.

I think we should cut them a break and raise the limits on this so they could get more money, get more things done for the amount of money that they have to raise through their hard earned taxes, so I rise in support of this Amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on House Amendment “B”? Representative Belden.

REP. BELDEN: (113^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I spoke in favor of the last amendment. I spoke in favor of this one at this time.

You know, the distinguished Chairman of the Labor Committee has a difficult job over there in that Committee. It’s hard to do the balance that has to occur in order to keep business viable in our state, and yet take care and protect the workers of our state.

He did indicate that he wanted to try and get everybody on the same playing field, I think was the words he used, same playing field. You know, even Russia and China are beginning to recognize that competition is good, and they’re opening up their system to the capitalist process.

And we heard in this Session, especially contracting, bidding, competitiveness, openness, whatever, and yet, when it comes to the small businessman in a municipality with a small contract, we’re saying, you have to go through all of this because we don’t want you to be competitive. We want parity. We want everybody to be the same.

If everybody is paying the same wage, where’s the competition? It just disappeared. So let’s try to be reasonable here. This Amendment is for those that are fiscally conservative, a better amendment. It’s less of an increase.

So here’s an opportunity for all of us to go back to our communities and say we recognize that you do some things with your small businessmen that probably live in your town and pay taxes in your town and we want you to stay in business.

So, I think we have an opportunity now to do that this afternoon, Madam Speaker, and I would urge my colleagues to support this Amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Miner, did you care to speak again?

REP. MINER: (66^th)

Please, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

You have the floor, Sir.

REP. MINER: (66^th)

For the second time. Certainly there have been a lot of great comments with the underlying Bill and these two amendments.

I think it’s caused us all to really think about this issue and the more I sit here, I think about some of the other requirements that we put on municipalities and have put on them probably since 1991.

We, in some cases do send them money, as Representative Bielawa said. In many cases they pay for things on their own.

And I think about programs such as the local bridge program that provides very little in state aid. Sometimes there’s a loan attached to it, but certainly it connects you to this issue.

In conjunction with those state projects, and in conjunction with any project like that, whether it’s the DEP regulations or on wetlands regulations, we have consultants on top of consultants that drive the price of these projects up as well.

I don’t think changing the thresholds in either of these two categories is as much about trying to reduce the wage on anyone’s back as it is about really trying to open up the field to a lot more people and also recognizing that just the cost of doing business, whether it’s the cost of products, or whether it’s the cost of the number of consultants that we now require municipalities to use when doing a project, any project, is reflected in these higher rates.

And again, I would urge the body’s support. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Miner. Will you remark? Will you remark further on House Amendment “B”? Will you remark further on House Amendment “B”?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. Members take your seats and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by Roll Call on House Amendment Schedule “B”. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast. Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast.

The machine will be locked and the Clerk will prepare the tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Total Number Voting 143

Necessary for Adoption 72

Those voting Yea 58

Those voting Nay 85

Those absent and not voting 8

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

House Amendment “B” fails. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the Bill that is before us? Representative Piscopo.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess for the second time on the Bill. I understand political will probably isn’t in this Chamber to do even a mild reform on this unfunded state mandate and I’m aware, I can read the board.

But let me try something even a little more gentler than what’s been proposed here on this Bill and maybe we could accept this.

To that end, Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO Number 6100. Will the Clerk please call and I be allowed to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will the Clerk please call LCO Number 6100, which will be designated House Amendment “C”.

CLERK:

LCO Number 6100, House “C”, offered by Representative Piscopo.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Piscopo. The Representative has asked the Chamber to summarize. Is there any objection? Hearing none, Representative Piscopo, do you care to elaborate.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this simply does is exempt school construction from the prevailing wage provisions. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The question is on adoption. Will you remark further?

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, earlier this Session we had a Bill on two vo-tech schools. I believe they were located in Meriden.

I’m not sure about that, but they needed more money and it was a school construction Bill and it kind of sat on our schedule of bonding for a couple of years--

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Just a moment.

(GAVEL)

Please, please. Thank you. Proceed, Sir.

REP. PISCOPO: (76^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Earlier this Session we had a Bill on renovation of two vo-tech schools. I believe they were in Meriden. We, they needed more money because they had sat on our bond agenda for a couple of years without any action.

For the simple reason that constructions costs have gone up so much, they needed more money and they had to come before this Legislature to ask for more, and if we were to relieve the prevailing wage, it would alleviate that kind of burden that we see on the cost increases on school construction.

Madam Speaker, I would, this is property tax relief. I hear a lot of people talking about property tax relief, but any reforms in prevailing wage is direct property tax relief the minute we build a project.

And I will comment on the fiscal note real quick.

While the last one was potential savings, this one says significant savings, both state and municipalities.

So I hope that the Chamber could see fit in the passing of this. I feel pretty strongly about this. Please, may I have another Roll Call on this issue.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

The Representative has requested a Roll Call Vote. All those in favor please indicate by saying Aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

In the opinion of the Chair, the 20% has been met. The Roll Call Vote will be done. Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Obviously, we all are well aware of the fact that any school project, any vo-tech project, is going to involve state money. We do give help. We want to be sure that these are going to be projects that are done well.

We think when people are paid at the proper rate with the benefits that they require, workers’ comp, unemployment, that the work, the scope of the work would probably be better than folks who might just kind of try to somehow undercut the bidding process, and probably make some unsafe decisions.

And basically, when the Davis-Bacon Act, which was referred to earlier was brought into play many years ago, this is exactly the reason it was.

Local politicians were trying to pit the local workers against the taxpayers and that’s why the Davis-Bacon was brought to bear on the federal level and even on the state level, to ensure that the workers did not pay the price for saving taxpayers money at the workers’ cost.

So again, I’m going to ask, this is what this is leading to, and I’m going to again ask my colleagues to reject this Amendment. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will you remark further on House Amendment “C”? Representative Sawyer.

REP. SAWYER: (55^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Particularly if you’re from a small town, this is probably the most important of the amendments that have come out, and you should be looking very carefully at this because of the savings that you could receive if this Amendment actually passes.

I would disagree with the good Chairman of the Labor Committee, because I believe that there are many non-union shops that can do the job. They can do it well, and they can do it for less money.

I have seen what the Davis-Bacon Act, with the prevailing wage here in the state, problems with every single one of the school constructions projects in my town.

So I have a little hard time with the thought process that the best is going to come if you’re going to pay prevailing wage.

From a little historical perspective from my study of the Davis-Bacon Act, was that it was actually a very biased piece of legislation when it was first passed and is one of the reasons I’ve been opposed to it from the very beginning.

Back in the ‘20s and ‘30s when there were no jobs in the south, a lot of African-Americans, blacks, were coming up north to get jobs and the prevailing wage piece was put in to try and undercut a lot of those particular people who are trying to get the positions and I thought it was a very difficult piece of history to read and to relive.

If you go back in some of the old editions of the Journal Inquirer you can read the pieces by Chris Powell in which he describes this historical fact, if you want to do a quick Googel search on it.

So I don’t think that that is necessarily a positive piece of our history that we want to relive. So I would thank the gentleman for bringing out this Amendment because I think it certainly serves the small towns, particularly, but also the large cities, to be able to look at the school construction, which can be such a major project for them as municipalities, and I hope that this would be able to pass. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative. Representative Stripp.

REP. STRIPP: (135^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I have a question, through you, to the esteemed Chairman of the Labor Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan, prepare yourself. Please proceed, Representative Stripp.

REP. STRIPP: (135^th)

Through you, Madam Speaker, how is the prevailing wage actually calculated?

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Excuse me, Representative Stripp, will you please proceed. I apologize.

REP. STRIPP: (135^th)

Madam Speaker, my question to the esteemed Chairman of the Labor Committee is, how is the actual labor rate determined by the federal government, prevailing wage. Through you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Representative Ryan.

REP. RYAN: (139^th)

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Being esteemed, I want to make sure I do a good job on responding to this question.

The federal Davis-Bacon Act and the little Davis-Bacon Act that we have in the state level, require the United States Department of Labor to continuously gather wage information in order to calculate the prevailing wage for every area in the country.

As I mentioned earlier, they conduct voluntary surveys of the contractors, construction trade unions, and others in the field to gather this information and following regulatory regulations definitions the Department of Labor at the federal level, the U. S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division then determines the prevailing wage as the wage paid to the majority, that is more than half, more than 50% of the laborers and mechanicals in the area in question.

If the same wage is not paid to a majority of those working in the same classification, then the prevailing wage is the weighted average of the wages paid in the classification.

If the survey shows that the union wage rate is the rate for more than half the workers, then that is what is used as a prevailing wage.

The wage rates are calculated by county or metropolitan statistical area. The counties are divided between rural and urban counties and a rural and urban county may not be put in the same metropolitan statistical area.

For example, in Connecticut, Litchfield and Windham are rural counties where as Fairfield, New Haven, Hartford, Tolland, Middlesex and New London are all urban counties. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. STRIPP: (135^th)

I want to thank the gentleman, through you, Madam Speaker, for the answer.

Madam Speaker, it seems to me that if we were going to cut to the chase on this, then in essence what they’re trying to do with some weighting and some other adjustments statistically, is find the average wage for a particular category in a particular location.

If that’s true, then there must be some that are below that average and some above and I think further, we can perhaps accurately determine that those that are below probably, and the great majority are below because of their skill level or the speed with which they perform their job, and those that are above, are getting paid more because they’re more skilled. Why else would an employer pay a higher amount for the same kind of work?

So if this is the case, what we’re doing here is try to under pay the skilled worker, bring them down, and those that aren’t performing and aren’t up to speed, we’re trying to bring them up.

It seems like that’s grossly unfair and not trying to bring the best out of workers to become proficient in their craft and be able to demand a higher rate of pay in the job they’re doing.

So, Madam Speaker, for that reason alone, I think this entire Bill starts to work against the American dream of trying to progress, trying to become better at what you’re doing and trying to make more money at it.

So in addition to the money that it’s costing our towns and the money it’s costing the state, we have another issue. It’s trying to hold back the workers who are trying to provide a better living for their families. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Thank you, Representative Stripp. Will you remark further on House Amendment “C”? Will you remark further on House Amendment “C”?

If not, staff and guests please come to the Well. Members take your seats. The machine will be locked.

Open. I’m sorry.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by Roll Call vote. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting House Amendment Schedule “C” by Roll Call. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:

Will all Members check the board to see that your vote has been properly cast. Will all Members check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast.

Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote has been properly cast. Will the Members please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast.

The machine will be locked and the Clerk will prepare the tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK: