House Session Transcript for 06/02/2009

THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2009

The House of Representatives was called to order at 10: 52 o'clock p. m. , Speaker Christopher G. Donovan in the Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Together we pray. Holy One of blessing, as we gather today to attend to the legislative matters of our State may You bless us and keep us as we advance the cause of democracy. May Your face shine upon us with grace as we strive to make laws that are both just and compassionate. And may You lift Your countenance upon us as we serve as Your partners in pursuit of peace and the preservation of freedom and dignity for all. Amen. Have a good summer.

Thank you. Will Representative Ezequiel Santiago of the 130th please come to the dais and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Mr. Speaker, we have a report from the Office of Policy of Management on carbon dioxide emissions, pursuant to section 16A-32A of the Connecticut General Statutes.

Only two days left. I don't know how many hours that is. Someone has a count. Mr. Speaker, I move for a suspension of our rules for immediate consideration of House Calendar number 708. Thank you.

The motion is for immediate suspension of our rules -- suspension of rules for immediate consideration of Calendar 708. Any objections? Any objections?

Hearing none, the rules are suspended for immediate consideration of House Calendar 708. Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 708.

The State of Connecticut House of Representatives Calendar for Tuesday, June 2, 2009. On page one, calendar 708 House joint Resolution number 123. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF KEVIN P. JOHNSTON OF POMFRET TO BE AN AUDITOR OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS, favorable report of the Committee on Executive and Legislative Nominations. Representative Janowski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark, madam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and good morning to you. Mr. Johnston is from Pomfret. He holds a Bachelor's degree in political science and business administration from Saint Michael's College in Vermont. And he is currently serving as State Auditor where he has been serving since 1992.

Prior to that time he was Assistant Vice President of Fleet Bank from 1991 to 1992. And he has over 16 years of public service serving in both the House of Representatives and the State Senate. He served as Chair of the Insurance Committee as well as the Program Review and Investigations Committee. He also served as Vice Chair of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding. And he served as Assistant Majority Leader in the House and Deputy Majority Leader in the Senate.

He is also involved in the community having served on the Putnam Board of Selectman from 1973 to 1979. And he is currently on the Board of Trustees of the Woodstock Academy where he has been serving since 2003. Kevin Johnston has been serving as auditor for over 15 years. He works very cooperatively and in a nonpartisan manner with fellow State Auditor, Bob Jaekle. And together they have tackled many controversial issues effectively. Kevin Johnston has done an excellent job and I urge a favorable vote on the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ALBERTS (50th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Kevin Johnston for the nomination that is before us to be our State Auditor for an additional couple of years. I've known Kevin for several years in his capacity in support of the Woodstock Academy he's done an excellent job in all of his various endeavors. He's always strived to do the very best. He's articulate, hard-working. I can't think of a finer person for this position. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I also support the nomination of Kevin Johnston for the appointment. And would point out that his opposite number is known as Robert Jaekle -- not Jaekle. It's an easy mistake to make. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Remark further on the resolution? Remark further on the resolution? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the resolution please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted. Will the Clerk please call Calendar 667.

On page 21, Calendar 667 substitute for Senate Bill number 80, AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION PAYMENTS favorable report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

Question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you remark, sir?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is some employees such as non-profits and municipalities are given options of paying unemployment taxes or reimbursing the unemployment compensation fund with payments in lieu of taxes to cover the amount of benefits paid to its non-profits -- non-profits or municipalities former employees. Currently the law requires that employees with at least 250 employees pay -- make the payments electronically with this bill which is lowering the number to 100. The Senate did make a small technical change with LCO 6750. Would the Clerk please call and I guess he could read it. Really, read it. Thank you.

LCO number 6750, Senate Amendment Schedule A. In line 4 after 4, insert an open bracket. In line 4 after each -- insert each.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the changes are technical and I think the reading of it demonstrates that. I move for adoption.

The question is adoption of Senate A. Remark on the amendment. Would you remark on the amendment? Representative Noujaim.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Representative Ryan has mentioned this is just a technical amendment -- technical change in it. I do not have a problem with it. The only thing I would just like to ask, Mr. Speaker, through you, is just changing the word each from lower cursive to higher -- no, no, forget that, Mr. Speaker. That's fine. I support the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Representative Noujaim is quicker than I am because I'm sort of -- I just don't understand the effect of the amendment on the underlying bill. And I apologize if I didn't hear you say that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I may ask Representative Ryan to explain the effect of the amendment on the underlying bill. I realize it says insert an open bracket and insert after each. And I know it seems innocuous but it might have significant change. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the effect of the amendment is it eliminates the wording commencing with the first calendar quarter of 2009.

And through you, Mr. Speaker, though I understand -- okay, I understand now what it means. What is the effect though of -- of doing -- does that delay the implementation of this method or --

I'm sorry, sir. Thank you. I believe that it would just -- I think we're already through the first calendar quarter of 2009. I think that just takes that into consideration and realizes by the time this bill is implemented we'd be into the second quarter and that's when the bill would take effect.

Excellent read of our calendar. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, I had the same question that Representative Cafero had because -- but looking as a screener, the effect of this and then balancing it off with the OLR analysis. So, I would thank the gentleman for his answer. I apologize.

Remark further on the amendment? Remark further on Senate A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk has LCO 8857. Would he please call the amendment and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Objection to summarization?

Through you, Mr. -- ah, yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Previously we passed a bill in this chamber dealing with credit checks. This is basically a correction to that bill because the Governor is concerned that she would not be able to look at credit checks for government appointees. So basically we're adding on line 29 the words, is a position of public trust, to that previous bill so that she would continue to be able to use credit checks to assess her appointments. I move for adoption, sir.

The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark? Representative Noujaim.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question or two to the proponent of the amendment, Representative Ryan.

Representative Ryan, through the Speaker, would you be kind enough to explain to the chamber the people or the positions that will be required to have a credit check through this amendment. I understand this will be people of public -- public work people who work for the State of Connecticut -- work for the State of Connecticut. Would you be kind enough to detail to us some of the positions and responsibilities they do have? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it would be anybody the Governor would appoint. I think commissioners, deputy commissioners, various chairs of various commissions and boards; I think is the Governor's current policy. And this would allow her to continue that policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, Mr. Speaker, just for legislative intent and to make sure that everyone understands this. These will be positions that are appointed by the Governor to serve at the pleasure of the sitting government. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to extend gratitude to Representative Ryan. I do intend to support this amendment.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, and this is just a question and certainly not a point of order but if the good gentleman could explain how this amendment relates to the underlying bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we have -- the underlying bill deals with electronic payments and this bill deals with making -- using credit checks to make determinations in how these things work. Basically -- basically I believe in my understanding is it refers to the same sections of the statutes in both these -- in these areas. And I believe that's how it is related. That's my understanding.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answer and on this day before the end of session I appreciate the fact that the good Chairman is very open with regard to his interpretation of germaneness. So we'll proceed. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And very briefly earlier there was a little colloquy between the Ranking Member of the chair -- of the Labor Committee but in the summary of the amendment the Chair of the Labor Committee had, I think, focused on the phrase, position of public trust. And I was just wondering if there was any definition in our statutes of that that goes beyond those persons appointed by the Governor because I don't see that phrase in the amendment.

But I do see this phrase, “position of public trust”. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to find out if perhaps there is in our statutes somewhere a definition of position of public trust that is involved in this.

I'm sorry. I do not have a definitive reference but it was my understanding that the individuals that asked us to take care of this situation were comfortable that this wording would remedy the situation that was concerning the Governor's Office and her appointments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's just that -- and I'm glad that that's the position of the Governor's Office or -- which I assume is the source of this language because to me the phrase “position of public trust” could be more sweeping but the notion is that it is really meant to be limited only to those individuals who are appointed by the Governor to various positions and not other people who might be appointed to other positions.

So hopefully if there's any question in terms of the interpretation of that this deals with that by way of a legislative colloquy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Picking up on that statement in a “position of public trust”, the statement has been made that it's from the Governor's Office, but would that also include anyone working in say the Judiciary Department or the Legislative section of the State Government? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. There's a lot of activity over here. Could you just repeat your question please?

Yes. I understand the purpose of public trust for the Governor's Office but as the bill is written I am wondering if that would also cover people working for other parts of the State Government and say the Judiciary Department or the Legislative Branch. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. While I've already given the intent of the bill, I'm certain that that is -- that that's a possibility that those individuals might also be -- might also be pertinent to those individuals as well.

Continuing on that, would anybody working for a municipality or a quasi state agency who, I would say is in a position of public trust also be allowed to have a credit check run on them by the potential employer? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, again I've given the intent that the reason that that particular point is in here that would be open to interpretation to be decided at a later point, I believe.

REP. AMAN (14th):
I thank the proponent. I think this is going to be something that I would not be surprised to see challenged or misinterpreted because again I'm looking at someone in a human resources department wanting to hire somebody, says I kind of remember something about not being allowed to run a credit check, looks at this bill and says, oh, that person does -- is responsible for the public, does have a public trust, so therefore I'm allowed to do it. And then the challenge will be going, oh, you didn't loop us into the debate.

It only covers people within the Governor's Office. I wish that this had been corrected and made a little clearer prior to becoming a formal amendment. I thank the Speaker and will be looking forward to the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate a chance to ask just one question. In the issue of the position of public trust, through you to Representative -- the good Chairman of Labor.

If you look at the legislative issue of the position of public trust we have so many people that work for us that are in a broad expanse. Whether it is someone that might do some IT, someone who might act as a chief of staff, but we also have the issue of when we have -- we hire clergy to do our prayer before us, is that something that could also -- I'm trying to find the most -- the hiring that would be in the legislature that would be nowhere else. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I had trouble hearing the good gentle lady but I believe --

Chamber please come to order. Members are having trouble hearing the debate. Representative Ryan.

But I don't believe the -- she gave an example of the minister. I don't know if that would be an example of somebody we have to have -- issues of this bill. I don't think we need to do a credit check to have somebody come in and offer a prayer. So I think in that example that wouldn't apply.

I thank the gentleman because as we look for legislative intent I think those things need to be ruled out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker I -- I'd like to just ask a couple of questions through you, if I might.

As the amendment is drafted could one interpret this to include a credit check on elected officials? Through you.

REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman could just show me in the -- I mean, it would seem to me as an employer, a community could actually through its town manager or chief elected official require a credit check of someone that might have been elected as a treasurer who might be in a position of public trust. Through you.

Just one question with regard to verification of home address or previous addresses, can a credit report ask for strictly former addresses of the employee? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what Representative Miller's referring to.

If the gentleman seeking employment's name was Murphy and there were a number of Murphy's listed at a certain city, could that employer call the credit bureau to verify an address only? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is -- that's probably in the original bill. This particular amendment was only dealing with adding that particular aspect. I'm not exactly sure how a credit check is done. Hopefully it's done carefully so that they have the right person.

Thank you. I just was concerned that people with common names sometimes -- I know I had gotten mixed up with an individual in this assembly. A very sweet lady. And I've been accused of saying things in Committee and I wasn't the guy. But I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Remark further on the amendment? Remark further on House A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the roll call board to make sure your votes were properly cast. If all the members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk announce the tally.

On page 20, Calendar 650, substitute for Senate Bill number 972, AN ACT CONCERNING CONNECTICUT INNOVATIONS INCORPORATED.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

Question on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you proceed, sir?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill before us on Connecticut Innovations product is going to clear up audit points made by the auditor of public accounts. This bill will require CI to report gross revenue only for companies that make the information public in their normal course of business.

For other companies, CI must report each company's gross revenue separately while concealing its name and identity, which it exempts from the Freedom of Information Act. The bill also will require reporting to the committees of cognizance. And I move for adoption of the bill.

REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. And in the reporting component which will require reporting to Finance, Revenue, and Bonding in the Commerce Committee of this information. The Clerk is in possession of amendment LCO number 7614. I ask that he call and be allowed to summarize. Thank you.

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in the new era of bipartisanship in the chamber, we are that of the Ranking Members of both the Finance, Revenue, and Bonding and Commerce Committee to the ability to be able to obtain this information in confidentiality between the ranking members, leadership of the committee, and membership of both committees. I move its passage.

The question before the chamber is adoption of Senate A. Remark further on the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may, a question or two to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I understand then the purpose of the amendment that's before us then it's to broaden the access to the information that is being reported so it's not only submitted to the chairpersons of the two committees but also the ranking members. Is that not correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ALBERTS (50th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In lines 5 through 7, the Senate in its infinite wisdom saw to adding or looking to add that this data that would be disclosed to the chairs and the ranking members may also be disclosed to members of said committees with the proviso that they are to keep such data confidential. Do we know what the -- what they were looking to do here? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose there is obviously to expand the reporting to ranking members and to committee members but also to again, protect the confidentiality of certainly identity -- identity and trade secrets and to keep them within the committee. They are not -- that information is not to be disclosed either through outside of ranking members, leadership, and the committee itself. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In lines 19 through 26 of the bill which will be amended, do I understand correctly then gross revenue is reported one of two ways. If it's a public company it's information that will be publicly accessible and everyone will have access to that. But if it's not a public company will make reference to it under some type of scheme where the company would be perhaps identified as company A, company B? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the same proviso, the same degree of confidentiality would then be what we're looking to do here in the Senate Amendment A that we would provide to the members of the committee. Is that not correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about the confidential data is there anything other than revenue that we are looking to collect that would be considered confidential? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. We could probably assume then that trade -- trade secrets or trade patents or policy would be subject under the provisions of this amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So will the ranking members and chairs have that access to trade secrets before us that we're going to be deemed to try to provide -- make confidential? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That information is included in the confidentiality between ranking members and committee members and it -- and it will be disseminated accordingly if the amendment is passed. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So when we look at lines 42 and 43 in the proposed amendment, when we discuss the detailed data -- so the detailed data does not only refer to revenue. It refers to other information that presently is being collected by Connecticut Innovations. Is that not correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in today's world is any of this information presently shared with the chairs or ranking members by Connecticut Innovations? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, not to this point but would this amendment pass with the bill, we will have -- that sharing will take place.

REP. ALBERTS (50th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will listen to the debate. I was very comfortable with this amendment as it referred to the ranking members and the chairs. I'm concerned about spreading the confidentiality to the membership as a whole. Was there anything in the auditor's report that we're looking to correct in terms of making sure that committee membership have access to this information? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the auditor's points were that -- that this reporting of stature on their annual report amongst other things would have to include the gross revenues of each portfolio company. But also the auditor's report was very specific that confidentiality of those -- of financial information was to be protected.

But for the committee's to be able to do their work, through you, Mr. Speaker, and to analyze the important data in making decision and policy for CI, which is -- which the Commerce Committee has cognizance over, it was -- it was deemed that this information while confidentiality would be maintained, was important data in the collection of this information for the committee, its ranking members, and leadership to be able to make valid policy through their general assembly. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, looking again at the amendment and the bill that would be amended by this, the same caveats would protect that other data, would it not, if -- if we had a situation where we had a company which did not have public revenue information.

It was a privately held company. We would continue to refer to that company as perhaps company A, company B. So Connecticut Innovations would protect the integrity, not only as it relates to the revenue figures but also those other categories of confidential information that, you know, we categorize as trade secrets. Is that not correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I think we will have to look to see how it's implemented over the next year or two but I think we satisfy a couple things with this amendment and then once we pass the amendment, the amended bill, which I would also urge that we accept.

I think we accomplish addressing the auditor's issue but we also address getting some more business information that hopefully we can use to further the growth of businesses in the State of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do certainly support the intent of this legislation and I just -- in listening to the discussion I just had a couple of brief questions, if I may, to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the necessity in us keeping this information confidential. And I just wanted to make sure it be clear that when the information is disseminated to the chairs and ranking members of the committees of cognizance, this information at the discretion of the chairs and ranking members would be shared to the committee.

And my question is how would that information be shared? Does the committees -- does the committees have the ability to hold a sort of executive session or a private meeting? Because typically our committee meetings are open to the public but this statute would enable us, I'm assuming, for the committees to meet in private, without staff, to go over these reports. The reports might be disseminated by CI. They would be present at the meeting; would collect that data backup. Am I correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. If the committees -- the ranking members and leadership of the committees were to receive that information, we can disseminate that information a couple of different ways. For legislative intent I believe that as far as the Commerce Committee would be concerned, that information number one could be shared in our screening process in Commerce, where both the ranking members and leadership take part in.

But also -- also more importantly we can do this under a separate Republican or Democratic caucus situation outside of the public venue with CTN. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And one final question, through you, the bill doesn't expressly exempt this report from the Freedom of Information Act but I would assume that because in the bill we're designating it as being confidential information that automatically would pull it into being exempt from any type of FOI request? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the good Representative's answers to my questions.

Remark further on the amendment. Remark further on Senate A. If not, let me try your minds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And good morning. I have a question for the proponent of the amendment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I've been reviewing the amendment and note the confidential nature of the data that would be kept by the leadership of the committee. And I wanted to ask for the legislative record whether this data that would be kept confidential is trade secrets?

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there could in the configuration of the data -- there could be trade information of individual companies which would fall under the confidentiality locator within the amendment.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I thank the Chairman for his answer. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask that question because I wanted to make sure we weren't broadening the already existing exemption for trade secrets that exists in our Freedom of Information Act. And based on the Chairman's answer, I believe that is the case. This is not an expansion and therefore I can support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Representative. Remark further on Senate A? Remark further on Senate A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of Senate A please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Remark further on the bill as amended? Remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the roll call board to make sure your votes were properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
THE CLERK:

On page 26, Calendar 694, substitute for Senate Bill number 650, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CREATION OF A TRUST FOR THE CARE OF AN ANIMAL favorable report of the Committee on Judiciary.

REP. LAWLOR (99th):
Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

Question is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you proceed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has been kicking around the legislature for the past few years. I think fortunately we've worked out all of the technical issues related to the bill. I don't think there was ever a serious policy concern but in essence, what the bill does is allows pet owners to create a trust -- an enforceable trust to set aside resources for the care of a pet in the event of the death of the -- the owner of the pet or in the event the pet is otherwise on its own, so to speak.

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate an amendment was adopted which is strike-all amendment and rewrites the essence of the bill in the file copy to conform with what I think everyone's expectations was -- or were for the bill itself. So the Clerk has LCO number 8382 previously designated as Senate A. I'd ask that the Clerk call and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Representative Lawlor, you may proceed.

REP. LAWLOR (99th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment makes some significant changes to the file copy. I think the most significant change is who -- what court has jurisdiction for dealing with trusts created pursuant to this act. Under the file copy it was exclusively in the probate court. However there were concerns raised about that so the amendment changes that jurisdiction to the superior court with one important caveat and that is that in the event there is already a matter pending in the probate court related to the person who created the trust, the owner typically, then the probate court would then have jurisdiction to deal with the trust.

In all other respects these trusts would be governed in the same ways that other types of trusts are governed and enforced in our State's court system. I think at the end of the day this is a very simple addition to our State's statutes and we'll certainly benefit not only the pet owners who are concerned for the care of their pets after their death but also dealing with situations which come up from time to time, some of the shelters that care for animals where the owners have deceased have had some problems dealing with money that has otherwise been set aside for the pets. Sometimes it's been misused by the people who are in custody of that money but there's no mechanism such as this to enforce the provisions of the -- as stated by the person who created the -- the account for the benefit of the pet.

Bottom line, Mr. Speaker, this makes these trusts enforceable. We think it's going to work. Quite a few other states have adopted a similar procedure. And finally I want to say how important it was to hear from some member of the legislature, both the Senate and the House who have long fought for this including Representative Morin, Representative Hetherington, and Senator Boucher. They've been really battling for this for quite some time and with the passage of this amendment in the Senate and hopefully today in the House, Connecticut will join the number of states which provide this peace of mind to pet owners in our State. I urge adoption.

SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question is on adoption of Senate A. Will you remark? Representative Hetherington.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank very much Representative Lawlor and Senator McDonald for the work they did on this and for bringing this forward. This trust has been scrutinized by many eyes including the Attorney General and the Bar Association to make sure -- the Connecticut Bar Association -- to make sure that we get this right. And Representative Lawlor and Senator McDonald are most thorough in their -- in their scrutiny of this as well.

So I'm -- I'm delighted that this has come forward. It, as Representative Lawlor explained will enable people who want to care for their pets after they have passed away or even during their life if they become disabled to create this trust. Those of you who remember the unfortunate situation in New York, it got a lot of adverse publicity with Mrs. Helmsley. That will not happen here because the courts are given appropriate authority over the amount of the corpus of the trust. So 39 states -- I believe it's 39 states at last count have a pet trust.

There is a pet trust generic form in the uniform trust -- model trust forum. And so I think Connecticut will be in very good company going along with this. I thank Representative Russ Morin also who worked very hard on this. And together we are very pleased to see this now before the House. I urge -- I urge its adoption it's been very -- subject to very extensive thought. And I urge its adoption at this time. And I can assure you we're not barking up the wrong tree. So, thank you.

REP. MORIN (28th):
Before I begin I certainly would like to thank -- follow along with Representative Hetherington and thank Representative Lawlor and Senator McDonald for their willingness to work through this process. I have to say not being an attorney, looking at the language initially I thought this was something that would have been very simple to take care of and get done. I have a full appreciation for what they do on the Judicial Committee because I've seen many different times the language change and ultimately with those changes what we have is a piece of legislation that will allow us to go with over 30 other states to help people that really care about their pets. And this bill came to me from some constituents in Wethersfield.

I decided to go forth with it when I had folks that represent people that have pets that wanted to make sure that they could be protected later on and then it kind of caught on with other pet owners and pet lovers that thought it was a terrific idea.

So, along with Representative Hetherington and Senator Boucher, I appreciate their hard work. I think if nothing else this is going to allow people that really do care about their animals and their care for them. Shall they -- the pets survive them, they'll feel good about this. And it's -- it's a nice piece of legislation. I know maybe it's not the most important to some people but to folks that really care about their pets and what happens to them it's a very important piece of legislation. I urge adoption. And thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment but I do have a question or two for the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could I have a brief explanation as to the definition of a trust protector? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. LAWLOR (99th):
Under the terms of the bill -- I see that term actually comes up several times in here. That would be the person who's in charge of actually caring for the animal. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that would be different than a trustee? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, through you, so it -- would a trust protector play the role of conservator perhaps? What we would generally think of as a conservator in a normal probate matter? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, analogous. Yes. Not exactly the same, obviously, but similar capacity.

I rise very briefly in support of the amendment before us. As Representative Morin said, you know, this may not be the most profound bill but it is so important to so many families in the State of Connecticut. I think of my own family. If my wife were given the option between me and the dog, I'm not sure how I'd do. But this means a lot to a lot of people and I congratulate all those who were involved and thank them. And I will be supporting the amendment today. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also the Ranking Member, Representative O'Neill for their work on behalf of this. A constituent of mine in Hampton had brought this issue to my attention. I'm pleased that we're going to address this today. I urge adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Representative. Remark further on the amendment? Remark further on Senate A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of Senate A please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Remark further on the bill as amended?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just wanted to say that this is a bill whose time seems to have finally come. It has been a lot of work by a lot of people over a number of years and does seem to be something that's carefully balanced and a reasonably well drawn piece of legislation. And I urge adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Representative. Will you care to remark further on the bill as adopted? Care to remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? 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. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

On page 28, Calendar 707, Senate Bill number 1081, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES favorable report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

The motion before us in on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you remark further, sir?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of four amendments. May the Clerk please call LCO number 8395 designated Senate A and I please be allowed to summarize.

LCO number 8395, Senate A offered by Senator DeFronzo and Representative Guerrera.

DEPUTY SPEAKER KIRKLEY-BEY:
The Representative has asked leave to summarize. Is there any objection? Is there any objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment is a strike-all amendment. It represents the sessions work on both sides of the aisle in regards to change in impact in the Department of Motor Vehicles. Many of these -- many of the bills affect the sections of approximately 67 sections of this bill but I will just highlight a few of them.

Section 13 allows an organ donor designee to be listed as a nondriver identification card as it currently is with the driver's license. Section 16 extends the time period for driver's to have -- for a free admissions test from 30 to 60 days if they should fail the test. Section 32 clarifies the exemptions under the graduated driver's license law with the regards to hours during which a 16 or 17 year old are allowed to drive for drivers who are assigned to the Safe Driving Rides Program.

Section 43 establishes a weight tolerance exemption. And Section 51 permits the Commissioner of DMV to allow that driving schools implement the driving test for teenagers at the end of the course in reference to the beginning of the course. So there'll be two tests. Madam Speaker, there was a problem that we did not know when we did the Teenage Driving Bill that the test was eliminated at the end and therefore we -- we put the test back into place. Madam Speaker, I move for adoption of the amendment.

The question before us is on adoption of House Amendment A. Will you remark further? Representative Scribner? Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of LCO number 8326 designated Senate Amendment Schedule B. And may the Clerk please call the amendment and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative has asked leave to summarize. Is there any objection to summarization of Senate Amendment B? Hearing none, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment just adds language required in the DMV to ensure that law enforcement officers have access to driving records that indicate when an operator's restricted to operating a motor vehicle when an ignition interlock devise is in place. And I move adoption of the amendment.

The question before us is on adoption of Senate Amendment B. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment B? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it. Senate Amendment B is adopted. Representative Guerrera, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of LCO number 8593 designated Senate Amendment Schedule C. And may the Clerk please call the amendment and I be allowed to summarize.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment just revised section 61 of Senate A to have to apply to motor homes rather than recreational vehicles. And I move adoption of the amendment.

The question before us is on adoption of Senate Amendment C. Will you remark? Will you remark further on Senate Amendment C? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it. Senate Amendment C is adopted. Representative Guerrera, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of LCO number 8851 designated Senate Amendment Schedule D. May the Clerk please call the amendment and I be allowed to summarize.

REP. GUERRERA (29th):
Thank you. Madam Speaker, what this does is it temporally -- this amendment will temporally notify the requirements for issuing the renewal of a commercial driver's -- driver's instructing permit. Currently the DMV being the only renewing commercial permit once within a two year period. This amendment will allow DMV until June 30, 2009 to reissue, renew permits more than once up to six months each time. And I move adoption of the amendment.

The adoption before us is on adoption of Senate Amendment D. Will you remark? Will you remark on Senate Amendment D? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it. Senate Amendment D is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Will you remark on the bill as amended?

I rise in support of Senate Bill 1081 as amended. And through you, Madam Speaker, a question to the proponent of the bill.

Representative Guerrera, prepare yourself for questioning. Representative Scribner, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, to the Chairman of the Transportation Committee, since you summarized the five of the 67 sections of the bill, does that mean I get to summarize the other 62?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't think that's necessary. I just want to rise in strong support of the bill that's before us. And in as much as this very comprehensive bill, virtually all of the items that are in here were originally individual proposals brought forward by many legislators in the building and had public hearings and have been fully vetted through the screening process.

We've come to good agreement amongst the leaders of the Transportation Committee and certainly with the support and guidance of the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles and their very capable staff. I believe that all of the items that are in here will further enhance the laws of the Department of Motor Vehicle and strongly support the bill as amended in the Senate. And I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

I particularly want to give thanks to the Chairman -- the House Chairman of the Transportation Committee for working so carefully and closely with me to craft this very lengthy, detailed, and complicated bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Senate Bill 1081 as amended by Senate Amendment Schedules A, B, C, and D in concurrence with the Senate

Are there any announcements or points of personal privilege? Are there any announcements or points of personal privilege?

REP. BARRY (12th):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's my pleasure to introduce to the chamber the fifth grade class from St. James School in Manchester. They're here today up in two parts of the balcony up there. They're all waving and among those students is someone who's famous around here who's graced the halls here for many years.

His name is Hunter Stone, the son of former Representative Chris Stone. And hey, Hunter, can you please wave? Hey. Give them a wave Hunter. There he is. And also with them are their teachers Mrs. DiBenedetto, Mrs. Wotina, and then Eileen Dusignori, and Christine Dusignori. And I'd ask the chamber to give them our usual warm welcome. Thank you.

I'd just like to say welcome to the hall of the House youngsters and I hope you enjoy your day with us. And I hope we perform well. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 668.

On page 22, Calendar 668, substitute for Senate Bill number 152, AN ACT PROHIBITING OPEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTAINERS IN MOTOR VEHICLES favorable report by the Committee on Finance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

The motion before us is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you remark further, sir?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As required under federal law this bill restricts access to open alcoholic containers in the passenger area of motor vehicles. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment from the Senate LCO 7119, which becomes the bill. I ask that the amendment be called and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO 7119 Senate A offered by Senator DeFronzo, Representative Guerrera, Representative Scribner, Representative Reynolds, et al.

The Representative has asked leave to summarize. Is there any objection? Is there any objection? Hearing none, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to offer this compromised amendment. And before I summarize I want to thank Chairman Guerrera and Chairman Dargan, Ranking Member Scribner, Leader Klarides, Representative Frey, and on behalf of the Black and Latino Caucus I want to thank Representatives Green, Clemons, and Hewett for helping to negotiate this compromised amendment that's before us.

As required under federal law this amendment prohibits open alcoholic beverage containers in the passenger area of motor vehicles in certain circumstances. It's time for once and for all that we sever the connection between alcohol consumption and driving. The lack of an open container law has been a major void in Connecticut's arsenal of drunk driving laws for many years. Connecticut is the only northeastern state and one of only seven states around the country without such a law. Madam Speaker, I move adoption.

The question before us is on adoption of Senate Amendment A. Will you remark? Will you remark?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you for your patience. I rise in support of this amendment. As the proponent pointed out it's really been a collaborative effort and I think that it's a subject matter that's very familiar to many of us as we have debated the issue and implemented a variety of measures in recent years to address what has been a very significant issue for the State. And I think through the leadership of Tom Reynolds and many of the others that were involved in this effort we've really been able to come together and bring forward this measure which will strongly enhance others that are already in place.

So, I urge all of my colleagues to give careful consideration to this piece of legislation. I think that we have demonstrated that we have fully vetted a lot of the facts, a lot of the known and proven known measures in addressing this issue that really deserve your support. And so I again thank all those that were involved and urge support of the entire chamber. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In your introduction there was a reference made that this amendment is being brought out in order to comply with federal law. Is it my understanding that Connecticut is somehow disadvantaged without having this law? And if they are can you just explain how so. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, that is an excellent question. For as long as Connecticut has been out of compliance with federal law, a certain percentage of our federal highway dollars are diverted to a purpose not of our choosing. And so to the tune of about $ 30 million has been diverted to other purposes within the transportation department. We do not lose federal dollars but we lose control over what -- several million dollars per year is spent on. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And by passing this amendment would we then come into compliance with federal law so as to receive -- be free to spend the $ 30 million as we see fit? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will not know until the U. S. Department of Transportation reviews our law whether or not it is compliant. My personal opinion is that it will be deemed out of compliance and so the diversion of funds would continue. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I may, does the good Representative know why this bill would not bring us into compliance? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For a state open container law to be in compliance it must meet about a half dozen major criteria. This amendment, although an excellent compromise and a major step forward for Connecticut, violates about half of those criteria. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Specifically I guess are there -- are there a couple of major criterias that this amendment does not come into compliance with? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. There are four in particular that I will mention. The federal guidelines require that the open container ban and subsequent infractions be applicable to not only the operator but all passengers. The compromised amendment before us is only applicable to the operator and not the passengers. So the ban would apply to all individuals in the vehicle, but only the operator is subject to the infraction. So that is a narrowing of the amendment that doesn't meet federal criteria.

Secondly, our amendment narrows the roads upon which this law would apply. It limits it to State highways, State right-of-ways, and local roads but excludes a number of other areas. We have a tailgating exception in this bill and we also exempt all parking on local roads. So those exemptions violate the federal criteria. Lastly the federal law requires primary enforcement. Our compromised amendment only provides for secondary enforcement. In other words, you must be pulled over for some other purpose before you can be subject to the enforcement of the open container law. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess I'll reserve some of my questions when -- assuming the amendment is adopted. And just as a general concern I guess is I'm not sure -- I appreciate the public policy that we're trying to implement. My understanding is in committees one of the reasons why we were seeking to adopt this legislation was for us to be able to come into compliance with the federal law. And so, knowing now that that is not the goal that's being achieved here today I'll be interested to hear the public policy discussions in what we are achieving with the underlying bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you to Representative Reynolds, there are a few exceptions to the -- to the proposed ban that start on line 32. One of which is an exception for any passenger in the living quarters of a recreational vehicle. How is that defined, through you, Madam Speaker?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Existing statute defines that as anywhere in the vehicle other than the seat in which the operator of the vehicle is located. Through you.

And through you, Madam Speaker, so because that area of an RV is excluded or is exempted from the provisions of this amendment, if there is alcohol anywhere in the RV with the exception of the driver's seat, the provisions of this exemption would apply? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is correct. The federal guidelines do allow for a number of exemptions, one of which is recreational vehicles. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Would it -- would a full-size minivan also come under the definitions of an RV? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, in subsection 3 of that same section it reads, there's an exemption for any passenger in a privately owned motor vehicle operated by a person in the course of such person's usual employment. Through you, Madam Speaker. If -- for legislative intent would the proponent please care to explain what that exemption is created for.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Federal law does allow for exemptions for drivers for hire and so our bill also includes several exemptions to accommodate drivers for hire. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just for clarification is this exemption designed to apply to someone who owns their own motor vehicle and is in the process or has a business if you will, of transporting other passengers for hire? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment before us allows a number of different circumstances under which a driver for hire exemption would be provided for. It could be a livery service. It could be a taxi. It could be a professional chauffeur in a private vehicle or it could be some other arrangement of hiring a driver. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, the exemption would apply to more than just someone who uses their own vehicle for these purposes. It would also apply to the types of services that you spoke about, livery service, taxi service, a chauffeur, where -- where the person operating the motor vehicle is not necessarily the owner but it may be owned by a private company. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just going on to lines 43 and 44, there is also an exemption created for an occupant of a motor vehicle parked on a highway, under the control of a political subdivision of the State. Through you, Madam Speaker, does this only include town or city roads as opposed to State roads? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker, this exemption would only apply if the vehicle is parked as opposed to being operated? And the reason why I ask that is because under our DWI laws there has been a broad interpretation of -- of operating. Through you, Madam Speaker, for legislative intent how would this exemption apply with regard to the interpretation of operating under the DWI laws? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment before us would not affect in any way existing DUI laws. We need to remember that an open container enforcement does not require any passenger or driver to be intoxicated. So the DUI laws are not applicable. The questioner is correct that the open container application is much narrower than that which DUI enforcement would provide for. The open container law could only be enforced on State highways, State right-of-ways, such as the shoulder, and local roads while the vehicle is in operation. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If a vehicle is parked on a city or town street and the keys are in the ignition, for purposes -- and this is what I was trying to get at -- for purposes of DWI, I believe there have been court cases that have determined that just having the keys in the ignition and the person in the driver's seat would make that person subject to DWI laws because they would be operating their motor vehicle. My question for purposes of legislative intent is if a vehicle is parked on a city street, the keys are in the ignition, would the exemption provided in this subsection apply? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. REYNOLDS (42nd):
In the scenario described, this amendment would not apply. Through you, Madam Speaker.

So, just for further clarification, under the example I just gave if a car is parked on a city street, the keys are in the ignition, that person would be subject to the provisions of this open container law. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Any vehicles parked, whether the keys are in or out and whether the vehicle is on or off, as long as it is parked it is not subject to the open container law.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that clarification. And Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Reynolds for his answers.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, I have a few questions to the proponent.

REP. KLARIDES (114th):
Thank you. In lines 50 through 54 of the bill contemplates the ways in which someone can be stopped under this proposal. Through you, Madam Speaker, could the proponent just explain how if someone -- if a police officer saw someone with an open container in a car what would -- what tools would he or she have available to them to stop that car? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Existing DUI law already prohibits operators of motor vehicles from consuming or possessing an alcoholic beverage whether or not they're intoxicated. So, if an officer were to view the operator of the vehicle holding such a beverage container, they could stop them under current law that is unrelated to this amendment. However, if an officer viewed an open container held by another individual other that the operator, that could not be the initial and primary reason for which the vehicle was stopped. Secondary enforcement only is provided for in this amendment. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that a lot of us; Representative Reynolds, myself, and a lot of people in this chamber put a lot of time into making this bill as good as it can be while understanding the concerns of many people in this building. I guess my only real question about it would be if the point is to stop some -- to stop people from drinking in a motor vehicle, how do we actually do that if we can't actually stop the car if we see -- if a police officer sees somebody drinking in the car and there's nothing else going on that allows the police officer to stop the car? Through you.

REP. REYNOLDS (42nd):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is a legitimate concern and that is one reason our amendment is not likely to be satisfactory to the federal government. However I think the amendment is a major step forward in that it is still the enactment of an open container ban regardless of the degree to which it can be enforced or the limitations on that enforcement. It is an open container ban and does provide one additional tool to officers to reduce drunk driving. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the gentleman for his answers. As I mentioned previously there's been a lot of work and a lot of effort put into this -- into this amendment which is becoming the bill, hopefully. There have been many concerns in this building for many years on this topic; all valid, all legitimate. And this year we really decided that we wanted everybody together, anybody that had any concerns about this. Because we wanted to do the right thing for the people in the State of Connecticut but not have unintended consequences which is what some of the other iterations of this concept took into account.

Although I do wish that that part of the bill we just discusses was stronger, as we all know in this building we do things incrementally sometimes. And the fact that the State of Connecticut does not have an open container bill is really something that has troubled many people in this chamber and in this building for many years. It's about the safety of the people of this State, the safety of the people on the road, and the safety of the people that don't have the open container in the car. I think is a great job by many people. I would like to thank Representative Reynolds for the work he did, the Ranking Members, and everybody else involved on this bill.

As I said, nothing's perfect but we work on it year after year. This is something that we can put in our statutes to say we want to protect the people on the roads of the State of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, through you, a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Madam. Through you, Madam Speaker, several years ago we passed a bill that allowed people who are in restaurants to take their wine with them if they had not consumed a whole bottle. Is it correct to understand that that law still will prevail but those individuals will now have to take that bottle and put it in their glove box or in their trunk and assure that it's sealed well so that they don't have a mess on their hands? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, yes. This amendment does not affect that existing statute.

Thank you, sir. And through you, Madam Speaker, I just want to look at this compliance piece a little bit more in-depth. Am I correct in understanding that at the present time because Connecticut is not in compliance with the federal law we have approximately $ 30 million that comes into this State that is specifically designated versus being -- coming into the general funds or -- and that this piece of legislation will not do anything to put us in compliance with the federal law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot speak for the U. S. Department of Transportation and I can't predict what their determination will be. However, my own conclusion is that we violate quite clearly several principles of the federal standard and therefore it is my own judgment that the amendment before us if it becomes law will be determined to be out of compliance with federal law. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his candid answer. In my mind when we do legislation, and I recognize as Representative Klarides spoke, that we often do things in incremental steps. But I would think that one of the major components that we would be looking toward would be garnering as many federal dollars as absolutely possible. And so just on that same vent is -- is the one problem that you would see, sir, with this bill the fact that there is not -- I'm not sure what the term is -- but that a police officer cannot stop a vehicle when they see there is an open -- oh, probable cause. Thank you, Representative.

That a police officer cannot stop a vehicle if they see someone having an open container; someone would have to have a broken tail light or be driving irregularly or go through a stop sign or do some other moving vehicle infraction and then they could be cited. Am I correct, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is correct. The federal standard requires primary enforcement. The amendment before us does not and therefore that is probably the most explicit example of noncompliance. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just one final question just for legislative intent. Could the good gentleman just give kind of a brief synopsis of why it was felt that probable cause should not be included in this legislation? In my mind, it's almost one of those things that I call a nanny, nanny boo boo that someone could drive -- actually drive by with an open container but their car is in perfect condition and the driver is doing a perfect job and so the police officer would just have to watch that kind of with their hands tied and that's concerning to me.

So I would just like to know, through you, Madam Speaker, a little bit of the conversation about why that was not included. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are several different reasons why one may support such a carve-out. The most consistent justification offered was to avoid the possibility of racial profiling in the enforcement of an open container law in Connecticut. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the good gentleman for his answers. When I first moved to Connecticut I was amazed that it was not against the law to have an open container in a moving vehicle and so I think this is a step in the right direction. But in my mind we as a legislative body should always be looking at bringing our State into compliance with the federal regulations so that we are able to garner as many dollars as possible. And this idea of probable cause -- I can't imagine anything that would serve as more indicative of a possible problem in a motor vehicle than someone having an open container of alcohol.

So I'm hoping that this legislation will be the start to moving towards something that would become in compliance and would also look at probable cause. And give our police enforcement authorities the ability to really do the job that we need them to do to protect the citizens of the State of Connecticut. And I thank everyone for their service and the job and the hours that they put in on this bill. But I hope that when we come to this issue in the future we'll be a little bit tougher. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill as amended. You know over the past few years we've tried to have legislation of this sort passed and it's always fallen short. I can think a few short months ago, this past March, the Transportation Committee voted, you know, to move this bill on. And we knew that hopefully it could get through Judiciary and Public Safety. But we also knew that possibly there was going to be amendments coming forth. And there was arguments, both sides of the coin on this, and understandably so. But when we talk about safety, we're talking about safety of everybody, not only the driver of the vehicle but the passengers and the people that are coming the other way or the pedestrians off the side of the road.

Too many times we've seen in the past, in law enforcement where a driver might be drinking and as he was pulled over or she was pulled over they would hand that open container to a passenger. And hand it to a passenger in the back seat or the front seat on the side. And those are the things we were trying to overcome. The bill has been -- I'll use the term watered down, to a certain degree because there was conditions that people had concerns with. But we have to get something on the books.

I applaud all the chair people of all the committees that looked at this and the ranking members because we all came together for a common goal on this. It's safety. Safety of the drivers, the passengers, and the other people like I said. The bill's not perfect but from what we had, which was nothing -- which was truly nothing. We've taken a giant step forward and again, I urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Madam.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I were going out with a bunch of friends and opted to be the designated driver and had nothing to drink. And on the trip home one of the passengers had an open bottle of beer in their coat pocket and we were pulled over for whatever reasons. Is it my understanding of this bill is I would be the one that the -- would be -- even though I had nothing to drink, I did not personally have an open container -- that this would be against -- an infraction against me?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Then why would anyone want to serve as a designated driver?

Through you, Madam Speaker, the advocates of that provision in the amendment felt strongly that that was a way to narrow the bill in such a way to respond to a number of concerns that were raised last session. The arguments they made is that the driver is the one who is responsible for the behaviors and activities in the automobile. And they thought it appropriate to limit the infraction to the operator only. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I guess that gives me great concern because we have encouraged when people go out in groups and there's going to be drinking that they have a designated driver and that person would take responsibility not to have anything to drink and be the safe driver to make sure that everybody gets home safely. And now we find out in addition to being the one who does not drink, they also have to be the policeman and make sure that any of their passengers in that vehicle do not have any alcohol on them.

And -- so I -- this is one of the reasons why I have the problem. And then I find out from listening to what the proponent has said that in addition to that, because of this one part of the bill we'll not be eligible for federal funds. Even though it is not a good idea to have open containers in the car, for this particular reason I will be voting against this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I might, a few questions through you, to the proponent of the amendment please.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, on lines 39 -- I guess it's 38 through 42 there is a process by which a passenger can establish a relationship -- monetary relationship with a driver -- an operator. Through you, in here it seems to indicate that a receipt has to be issued. Is that a receipt from a company or just a personal name. Through you, please.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the amendment does not specify one way or another. That along with several other provisions in the bill represent the exemption for drivers for hire. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so I guess going along with Representative Sayers question, in this case if an individual was the designated driver and was leaving a restaurant establishment or was leaving maybe a sports event where they knew there had been the consumption of alcohol. Through you, if -- if the driver issued a receipt to a passenger would that driver then be covered under this law as its drafted? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The federal law allows for an exemption for driver's for hire. This amendment provides several examples and scenarios under which that may occur and one of them is the one outlined by the questioner that would simply require a formal documentation of a transaction for the hiring of that driver. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so in the case of the designated driver scenario if Representative Sayers was the designated driver and three of us were to be accompanying her somewhere, would each of us have to have made some compensation to the driver and gotten a receipt for it or would it only take one person who was an occupant? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment only requires a receipt for payment made to the operator. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On line 38 it says a passenger. So is it a passenger meaning only one passenger and in the case of Representative Sayers scenario again, designated driver, the person who received the receipt, if they were the first one out of the car are the other two then subject to the same penalty? I guess would the driver be subject to the penalty if the one who got the receipt left the car and then the other two were still in it? Through you, please.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the driver was hired to be the driver and there was documentation of that financial transaction, the open container as presented could not be enforced with that vehicle and its passengers. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What I'm trying to be sure of here is that more often than not it's not an occasion where there's a driver and a passenger. And what I'm not sure I understood from the gentleman was whether or not the issuance of one receipt to one party in the automobile was sufficient. I think I understood him to say that it was if they all were still in the car.

But if the person who got the receipt, made the compensation, took the receipt, got dropped off at his or her house, and the other two were still in there and the vehicle went on about its merry way, would that issuance of the first receipt, driver showing that he got compensation be sufficient to cover the other two as the trip continued? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, under Connecticut law, if an individual receives compensation for hire, is there an obligation under Connecticut law currently that that individual be registered somehow with the State of Connecticut? Through you.

They must be a licensed driver but not licensed or registered as a professional driver.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, an individual such as Representative Sayers could receive compensation and not have to worry about whether or not she had jeopardized her operator's license by receiving such compensation. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And with regard to the compensation received assuming Representative Sayers and I went out often, at what point does it become something more than kind of a relationship of once in awhile. Is there a commercial license that kicks in after two or three trips to a ballgame? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So as the gentleman knows that under current law the acceptance of compensation and the provision of a receipt for that under this would not at some point obligate an individual to acquire a different license. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's correct. This amendment would not in any way affect existing statutes with regard to the licensing of drivers. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, in the latter part which has been spoken about previously, under section E, the purpose for which a vehicle can be stopped. My concern is that despite how we try to make life perfect it is far from perfect, not only in this State but in this country. And I know there's been a lot of effort put into protecting people's personal rights. Issues such as profiling, issues -- whether it's for age or race, issues such as improper search and seizure.

It's my understanding under current law, Madam Speaker, that if -- if an individual had an illegal substance in their pocket and a motor vehicle was pulled over. The individual with that substance would be the one charged with a penalty and not the driver. Through you, Madam Speaker, would this piece of legislation handle that situation the same way? Would the individual that had the open container be the subject of arrest? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment affects in no way existing laws relative to controlled substances or illegal drugs. The amendment does make very clear that only the driver shall be subject to an infraction if a police officer chooses to enforce it. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in the case of a broken taillight and then the officer pulls the vehicle over, does this legislation require the officer to cite an individual for an open container if the officer finds that there are open containers in the vehicle? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for answer -- answers. Madam Speaker, I understand people's concern about alcohol and driving. It's an issue that has affected the lives of many, not only in this State but in this country. But that's not what this bill deals with. This bill deals with passengers in a motor vehicle and the law trying to affect an individual in that vehicle with respect to the consumption of alcohol.

I won't speak for others in this chamber, so I'll just speak for myself. On Sunday evenings I play ice hockey with a number of friends of mine and it is not unusual for us at the end of a hockey game to have a beer and maybe take that open container home with us. Not the driver, but the three passengers in that vehicle. And I can tell you not once have I ever felt the urge to reach over and grab the steering wheel, hit the brake, do something that would force an accident. And the driver's always, always very conscious of what he is doing.

But what this bill's going to set about, Madam Speaker, is -- I'm afraid a trap. Five miles over the speed limit on a Sunday night, a turn signal that's out, a marker light that's out. Any number of reasons, somebody is going to get pulled over and somebody's going to get an infraction. And in some cases it's not even going to be the person that caused the problem in the beginning because as Representative Sayers says even if the person driving the vehicle is doing the right thing, you'd almost have to search everybody that got in the car. So if you had a bunch of young people out driving on a Saturday night and at 21 years old someone was driving too fast -- no excuse -- speeding, maybe cruised through a stop sign, should've stopped all the way.

But a police officer's going to pull them over and who's going to get the ticket? It's going to be -- the ticket is going to go to the driver. I've never been in favor of an open container law. I'm not going to lie about it. I've fought against it for the last two years and I'm not going to change today. But the bottom line is this isn't going to get us a federal exemption. But what this is going to do is going to cause a fair amount of assumption that we've done something good.

And I'm not so sure that even though it's a half step it's good. Because I think it actually sets up a crossfire which I'm the federal government doesn't want to set up and that's what's in this, Madam Speaker. So while I appreciate people's interest in trying to do the right thing to keep people who've consumed alcohol off the road, this does not deal with drivers. This deals with passengers. And I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the second time. Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, just a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the discussions -- I'm not sure -- I don't believe this question's been asked. But in lines 25 through 27, as part of the exemption of passenger area we have a carve-out of an area not normally occupied by the operator of or passengers of such a motor vehicle. And I think of the situation where, like in my case, I'm typically the only person that's driving in my vehicle and I might not have anybody occupying the back seat. Is that what this language is intended to include? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The good Representative highlights an exception that is entirely compliant with federal law. And that is to provide for places in the vehicle in which open containers could be stored during the duration. The specific provision you just cited is intended to accommodate pick-up trucks and SUVs that do not have trunks. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So that if I'm say a married couple who has a car that has the hatchback. Don't have children. Don't use the backseats, certainly the hatchback would be under the definition -- on lines 25, the area behind the last upright seat.

So in lines 26 through 27 while it may not be the couple's personal intent ever to normally occupy their backseat that would not necessarily create an exemption for them as individuals. The exemption is specifically meaning to only apply to, as the good Representative mentioned, the back behind trucks. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If it is a section of a car that has seats it would meet the definition of a passenger area and the open container law would apply. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And one last question. In lines 42 through 44, I understand that we do have this exemption for occupants who may be parked on a highway which would include essentially any road. And I'm trying to understand how that plays into lines 50 through 54, in which our exemption for pulling over a motor vehicle as a secondary offence, would apply only when that motor vehicle is moving. But if there are occupants in a vehicle that is parked in a highway this exemption would not apply, thus giving the officer the ability to -- to question the individuals. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Law enforcement has the discretion to issue an infraction for an open container violation only if the vehicle is operating on a State highway, is parked on the shoulder of a State highway, or is moving and in operation on a local road. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So then if an individual is pulled over on 95 and they're occupying the car. It's not moving. They are drinking in their vehicle. Would they be found in violation under this amendment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In that scenario law enforcement would have the discretion to initiate an infraction for violation of the open container law. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that's I guess just what I'm confused on. If I could get clarification, because as I read it in lines 7 through 13, the definition of highway includes our streets, our roads, and any -- anything under the public control. So I would -- as my reading of this highway would include, you know, I-95 or include our town streets and roads. And so that under exemption -- or number 5, the section shall not apply to any occupant of a motor vehicle parked on a highway. The way I read that then if the car -- vehicle is parked on 95 they would be exempt from this bill as amended -- or from this amendment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. REYNOLDS (42nd):
Through you, Madam Speaker, no. The open container ban would apply to vehicles moving on a State highway, vehicles parked on the shoulder of a State highway, and vehicles moving on a local road. But it would not apply to vehicles parked on a local road. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so I guess where I'm incorrect in my interpretation is the requirement in lines 43 through 44 where the highway, while we broadly define that exemption number 5 would only come into play if such highway is under the control of the political -- of a political subdivision of the State. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe what's causing confusion is that the existing definition of highway elsewhere in State statute includes every road in the State of Connecticut whether it be local or State. However, this particular amendment would not apply to vehicles in all of those possible scenarios in the existing definition of highway. The bill -- the amendment makes a reference to the definition of highway and then excludes from that definition the applicability of this amendment to vehicles parked on local roads. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I could, where does that exclusion occur? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure I understand the question. If he means where in the bill it is lines 42 through 44 is where the exclusion of vehicles parked on a local road. That is where that provision is located. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I guess this is where my confusion comes in because in lines 43 through 44 we don't necessarily expressly exclude local roads. What we're stating here is that any vehicle parked on a highway and the occupant is inside that vehicle that would trigger the exemption as I read this. And when I refer back to the definition of highway under the statute or excuse me, under the amendment, it does include section 14-1 which includes all of our roadways and then we merely include places under the control of the State of subdivision open to public use for parking. So I don't see where we are actually excluding or including only local roads in lines 43 through 44. And if I could maybe get a further explanation, I would appreciate it. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In line 43 of the amendment it says under the control of a political subdivision of the State. The plain language translation of that is local road or non-State road and therefore that is the explicit exemption of vehicles parked on local roads. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So essentially the definition of a political subdivision mean municipality. Does that term in the way it's used or do we intend for it to apply to any other areas or is it just municipalities? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is verbiage used throughout our State statutes to make reference to cities, towns, bureaus, and other similar municipal entities. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I know there are many roads obviously that are State roads that run through our towns where the State certainly maintains the jurisdiction of plowing and repairing, filling in potholes and what have you. Would those roads be excluded under item 5? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Because -- through you, Madam Speaker, because it is not a highway under the control of a political subdivision of the State. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I misunderstood the answer then. So, just so we're on the same page. So if a municipality -- well, essentially any State roads that are going through a town or a city would not fall under this definition because the State is obviously maintaining it, plowing it still and it's generally known as a State road. Because they're located within the boundaries of those towns doesn't confer control on it and so that this exemption would only apply to local roads. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the good Representative for his answers. I appreciate his good grasp of this subject given the way this bill is written and I have some misgivings with this amendment. I think generally of course we're probably all in this chamber supportive of reducing drunk driving or irresponsible driving. But what I'm troubled about this amendment is how we've gone about doing it. And I think in trying to create carve-outs and address everybody's concerns, the exceptions are sort of swallowing up the rule here and while our underlying public policy is still good, I think this amendment as written is completely detached and lost focus of this policy.

Because, my understanding is how this bill is going to work is an individual who's in a vehicle with passengers, that's been pointed out, could be subject to an infraction because of something that an individual may have concealed on their person in a vehicle. And when they in fact had no knowledge that alcohol was present, they may be hit with an infraction.

I'm not sure what public policy we're fulfilling by carving out that type of legislation. And I appreciate the exemption that we discussed; exemption number 5, where I think essentially if individuals customarily are used to sitting in their vehicles on their local roads, maybe with their neighbor, having a beer with them after cutting the lawn or just hanging out.

Certainly we don't want to subject them to any type of infractions. But as this definition reads if individuals are sitting on a road that happens to be State owned and controlled, they're going to be subject to this bill. But if they're sitting on a local road they're okay. And I have to say that we have roads such as I-95 and I-91 that clearly are designated State roads. I think everybody would know that and understand it.

But in my town, I know of many roads customarily that we understand to be local but they certainly are not. They have the nice country setting and the winding roads and surprisingly I found out that those are State roads as well. So, my neighbor who might live on say Pawtucket Road in North Branford, could not sit in their vehicle and drink a beer. They would be subject to an infraction. But I myself that lives on Sea Hill Road in North Branford, I could sit in my vehicle and drink a beer and I'm free from being subject to an infraction just because of the way that we've created this carve-out. And I'm also a bit sympathetic to our local police officers.

I know I wasn't in this chamber when we passed the cell phone ban but I had many officers come to me and they still come to me and say you know, I appreciate what you did but it's really an unenforceable bill the way it's written and it creates problems. And as I read this bill I think it's going to create those same problems for law enforcement not just in determining whether or not they can enforce under this provision but I'm concerned that individuals may try to seek defenses even when a police officer has lawfully pulled over a vehicle for one thing.

And arguably I think the passengers and the drivers may say no, you primarily pulled me over under this bill therefore you didn't have the justification. So I think that we're potentially making law enforcement's job much more difficult. What they're going to need to know in order to enforce this is where the vehicle is parked, what roadways it's being driven on, had money exchanged hands between the passengers, and I guess who owns what vehicle and is somebody in the car who owns the vehicle. And if some of those things apply and don't apply and the planets align then the driver may or may not be subject to an infraction. And so again, I think the overall goal of banning open containers is a -- is a good goal. But I don't think we're achieving it under this amendment.

I think all we're doing is we're frustrating law enforcement and we're certainly going to frustrate all of our constituents back home. I can imagine an individual, one of our constituents is going to get pulled over and that individual because maybe their passenger put the bottle of wine behind the seat is going to get subject to an infraction. And we're going to have a constituent that will say, oh no, I didn't -- I got pulled over but I was okay because I was driving my friend's car and he was smart enough to know to give me five bucks to drive me.

I'm sure that a constituent is going to come back to one of us and say what are you doing with this. And I'm concerned that the result is going to be an attempt for us to try to craft legislation to fix the problem. Because I think everybody here would probably agree, the way this is written right now isn't fair and equitable to our constituents. It's not providing them with fair and appropriate to what's a regulated activity, what may be a criminal activity and what is not.

One of my -- the fundamental principles that I've always understood in criminal law is the whole notion of intent, of being fair to the public, have we provided sufficient notice to the public prior to a law going into effect. And I think it's certainly going to be very difficult for us to ever achieve this goal of giving our constituents appropriate notice of when and when they will not be in violation of this open container bill as written. I understand the concerns that individuals have with this particular bill. And I'm not sure we'd ever be able to address those concerns.

So I think it may be better that we have a debate on whether or not to bring this type of legislation out at all because certainly we're not achieving the public policy goal of being able to direct our federal funds in an -- in a manner that we so choose. So I think I'm not sure we'll ever be able to achieve that goal based on many concerns that people have in this chamber. So I think we are reduced at looking at the public policy of open containers and what that does achieve. And I just don't think this bill achieves anywhere near close to being one of addressing drunk driving or discouraging drunk driving.

I just think we're hoisting a whole bunch of technical requirements on our constituent base, on our police departments, and telling them, you know, you guys figure out how to deal with it, all to satisfy all of our concerns in this chamber. And I just cannot support an amendment that's drafted as such while I do appreciate all of the competing concerns. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I plan to support this bill. I appreciate all the work that's gone into crafting it. I appreciate the fact that delicate balances were involved here to satisfy the concerns of everyone who had an interest in it. And I think that probably what we have is a good result although not altogether the best possible result. But we shouldn't let the good become -- pardon me, we shouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. I would like to direct though a question or two to the proponent if I may, to Representative Reynolds.

Thank you. The question was brought up earlier of the designated driver. Now my -- my understanding is that an operator, a driver could have a carload of stone cold drunks in the car and as long as they didn't have an open container the operator would not be at risk. Is that -- is that right through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Now this is somewhat an unusual piece of legislation in that the prohibition is on the passenger but the penalty is on the driver. And I understand that's because the driver's considered in control of the vehicle and passengers in the vehicle. And I think that's a reasonable conclusion. But I would ask this of Representative Reynolds, do you expect that lack of knowledge that there was no reasonable way the operator could have been aware of the open container in the car. Would that be a defense to the infraction? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. That's a good point and that's why we made reference earlier to the fact that enforcement of this law would be discretionary. Open container laws as they work in other states are not frequently enforced. They're primarily enforced solely in the instance in which there is significant partying and alcohol consumption in the car. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker, would you agree that this - these provisions may have more force than would first appear in this regard and in this way if a police officer were to observe an open bottle of liquor being passed around freely from one passenger to another. That might be probable cause to stop the vehicle to see because it might suggest that in fact the operator as one of the inhabitants of the car was enjoying that as well. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, existing statute already prohibits the driver from consuming or being in possession of an alcoholic beverage. If the officer simply observed the open container being passed among passengers because this amendment provides for secondary enforcement only, that situation as you've described it would not be adequate for the enforcement of this amendment and the issuance of an infraction. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker, I know that the good Representative has been asked this before and I'm not quite sure where we finally came out on it. Is it certain that this law if it becomes law would not be sufficient to satisfy the federal requirements with respect to providing us federal dollars, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is impossible for me to predict what the conclusion of the U. S. Department of Transportation will be relative to compliance. That would occur following the signing of the law by the Governor. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, do we anticipate that an application would be made to qualify this law as sufficient under the federal requirements? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No application is required. There is already an existing procedure by which states must submit a whole series of -- they must demonstrate compliance with a whole series of federal laws in order to receive their federal highway dollars. And the establishment of an open container law is one of many of items on the checklist reviewed by the U. S. DOT on an annual basis. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. So, this matter will be automatically reviewed again once a year. Is that right? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And I thank the Representative for his answers. I believe as I said earlier this not the best possible bill but I think it probably is the best we are going to see. I can -- I can see the careful crafting, the careful balancing of views that went into this. I tend to be very suspicious when there's an open container possibly being passed around in the vehicle. And I don't think it's unreasonable and I suggest to you it's not unreasonable to hold the operator responsible for what goes on in the vehicle. I think that that is not unique to this law.

The driver is generally considered in control of the occupants of the vehicle to the extent they relate to the welfare of the vehicle. And I -- I believe this is consistent with that. So I don't have any difficulty holding the driver responsible.

I think it's just common sense too if you were driving and that someone was consuming alcohol in the car that you would want to put a stop to that. You can just imagine the scene with, you know, the whole inside of the car smelling of alcohol while someone has an open container. And I would rather err on the side of being over-restrictive on that than take the chance that -- and I think it's a reasonable chance that in fact the driver may become involved in that himself.

The driver's the person who has control of the vehicle. He or she has the opportunity to stop the car and say sorry, you get rid of that container or we don't go anywhere. And I think that's a reasonable expectation. I therefore, again repeating the -- the old advice that let's not have the perfect become the enemy of the good. I would urge that this amendment be adopted. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

You know, the public hearing with before the Transportation Committee had some interesting information presented to them. Starting with Representative Reynolds, himself. It was stated that Connecticut is now one of only 15 states in which greater than one third of traffic fatalities are alcohol related, placing the State among the so-called fatal 15. In 2007, 37 percent of traffic fatalities were alcohol related in Connecticut. Only six states had a higher percentage. Again in 2007, somebody else mentioned that there were 101 people how dies in alcohol related crashes in Connecticut.

For every victim of physical injury or death, they leave multiple family members behind them. A study found a 5. 1 percent decrease in fatal crash rates among all drivers attributable to open container laws. A second study found that an open container law has a significant deterrent among -- effect against drinking and driving. The point of this is an attempt to further curb drunk driving. Period. We bring to the chamber our own individual life experiences.

My first exposure to someone who died as a result of drunk driving, I was in high school and I was an altar boy in my freshman. And a high school senior was killed in a car accident. And it haunts me to this day reminiscing about the memorial service they did for him over the PA announcement in the school. And the songs that they played and I can still remember that. And I was an altar boy at his funeral. And there were hundreds and hundreds of people who couldn't even fit in the chamber -- this reminds me of a church sometimes -- into the church. And the emotion of seeing my fellow high school students wrapped up in the loss of their good friend.

About 12 years ago on my street we had -- we lost two passengers in a vehicle. They were both home from college. One was the son of our police chief. The driver was drunk. The lawn was littered with beer bottles -- beer cans. And it seems like every so often -- too often enough -- too often, we have a very tragic fatality in my town, more often than not when it involves drunk driving and a death, it's a young person. So what we're doing here with this bill is trying to change behavior.

You know when you get in your car you now have to wear a seatbelt. And it took some of us who drove before that law was in effect a while to make that change. In fact I remember as a kid, you know there were no seatbelts in the back seat and now there are three. And I look at my nieces, they jump in the car, they put their seatbelts right on. Now the driver can't use a cell phone with their hand while you're driving a car. Why? Because evidence shows that there will be less accidents. Likewise we're proposing this amendment which we're hoping will be the bill to curb drunk driving and deaths.

Now when I drive I've had passengers in my car who like to crack open a beer before they get to a beach or to a concert and I just say not in my car. You know, there's plenty of time when you get to your destination or before you leave but while you're in their vehicle that's just, I feel, not the appropriate place to have an open container. Period.

I don't think this amendment goes far enough but I recognize the fact that this is all about consensus and compromise. This is the best that we can do. And I'm happy to see this move forward this year, finally. I want to thank Representative Reynolds, and former Senator Nicholson I know championed this for many years. And I would urge passage of this -- or adoption of this amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So nice to see you up there on the dais. I can actually get in and out of my chair now.

Without her going the whole way forward. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I remember -- this bill now has been going on for like two or three years and I remember last year that we discussed this bill for at least three to four hours and we found out that this bill would restrict tailgating at a football game. And I've never seen a General Assembly shut down so quick to call a recess to try to get this out of this bill. And guess what, we got it out. It is out of here and there's some strong compromise that had to go on.

First of all I want to say that I don't support drinking and driving myself. Just because we had questions about this bill doesn't mean that we support drinking and driving in a car. People would automatically think that. Through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the amendment, just one question that I need to clear up and does this bill give an officer the authority if say for instance that an officer stops you because there's a number of reasons why an officer can stop you on the highway. If he wants to stop you -- if he wants to pull you over, he will pull you over. It could be for a missing screw on your license plate, breath -- what you call it -- the little air freshener hanging from your sun visors. A lot of people don't know that's against the law.

So there's a reason why -- no seatbelts. If a police officer pulls you over and for that reason and looks into your backseat and sees a case of Budweiser cans that may be you're taking them to the -- to get the deposit back from them and maybe buy another case of beer. You never can tell. Does he have the right to now find out whether those cans are cold, hot, because if they're hot he's probably not drinking it because there could be a little bit of alcohol left in that -- that can and would that be subject to the provisions of this bill? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, no, the definition from the federal government for an open alcoholic beverage container would not apply to a box of empties or to be returned to the store. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said before, I am in strong support of this bill that took a lot of compromise. There's things that we put in the bill that we like. Does it go far enough? Maybe not, but it is a start. And I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.

I rise today to beg the indulgence of the House and also of the Representative who's proposing this amendment but I -- I have one question that I'm not clear about.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question has to do with the fifth subsection of subsection C which is on lines 42 through 44, having to do with any occupant of a motor vehicle parked on the highway. And the question is regarding how the law enforcement community can manage to observe or discern with any certification that there are open containers in a vehicle but for approaching that vehicle when it's parked on a highway and therefore suffering this exception to be brought into play and perhaps this question was already asked and if that's the case then I beg your indulgence on the response. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the vehicle is parked on a local regardless of the number of open containers or the activity of that car, this amendment would not apply. Through you.

So in that case how is a -- how is a police person supposed to find out that there are open containers but for noticing it when the vehicle is parked? Is it just that they might have the occasion to notice an open container up above the window as it goes by? How would they otherwise do their job with regard to this bill? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As mentioned earlier the amendment requires -- provides for secondary enforcement only. So the officer would need to pull over the vehicle on the highway or the local road as a result of probable cause for some other potential offense and then and only then could they possibly view a situation that they would deem violates the open container law. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in that case the evidence would only -- the evidence would only be circumstantial because there would be no way to tell for sure whether that container was open when the car was moving even though it's opened when the car is parked. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As in all situations in which an officer pulls over a vehicle he simply has to determine whether there is probable cause of a certain activity taking place while the vehicle was in operation. Through you.

I thank the Representative for his answers and appreciate the indulgence, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the second time. If I could just a couple of questions on that road issue, through you, please?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I was reading this the first time I didn't pick up the differentiation between local and State and through you, would these State roads be divided highways such as interstate highways?

Interstate highways are included in the statutory definition of highway and would be subject to this amendment. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and would secondary State roads also be in that same definition? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what I think I just heard the gentleman say is that many of the main streets in communities all throughout the State of Connecticut would not be subject to the exclusion under section subset 5. That in fact, Route 68, Route 63, Route 5 in Wallingford, many of the streets that many of residents consider to be our town roads are in fact exempt from this exemption. Meaning that you would be subject, I believe as I understood the gentleman -- the driver of the vehicle would be subject to arrest in those cases.

So, through you, if the occasion was that a vehicle was parked along the side of one of those State roads and there was no one in the operator's seat, no one behind the wheel, yet two people sitting there having a beer. Through you, under this legislation who would receive the infraction?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I can't determine who the officer would conclude is the operator but whomever the officer determined to be the operator of the vehicle, he may or may not decide to issue an infraction in that case. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, to the issue of the secondary stop I just wanted to I guess in my mind be clear here. It's my understanding that there would have to be a primary cause. Someone -- a police officer or a trooper would have to witness the operator either with something else, a broken taillight, marker light out, as Representative Hewett said, a bolt hanging from the license plate. So through you, those would be primary reasons perhaps under our current law to pull a vehicle over as the law currently exists. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. And in testimony we received reports from law enforcement that in states with open container laws it is almost always secondary enforcement in which an open container law is enforced. It is often not primary enforcement. They have typically pulled them over for speeding or some other potential offense before the open containers are recognized. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in the case that the vehicle was pulled over and the officer witnessed an open container in the back seat. Through you, is that probable cause to issue an infraction to the driver?

Through you, Madam Speaker, if open containers are present while the motor vehicle is on a State road or moving on a local road the officer could indeed decide to issue an infraction to the operator. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, on line 15, I know that the good Representative answered the question to Representative Hewett relative to returning empty beer bottles. On a Saturday night if I'm driving back too with a number of my friends to a local package store with a six-pack of beer, as I read line 15 if any of those contain any amount of alcohol beverage, through you, am I not subject to this law if I was pulled over for a lawful reason and found to have containers with any amount of alcohol beverage as it says in this amendment?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As mentioned earlier I can't predict the judgment a police officer would make in a certain situation but a -- a box or bag of returnables in my view would not meet the definition of open alcoholic beverage container. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I could just I guess back to the probable cause understanding again that the vehicle was stopped for a lawful reason, understanding that there were open containers containing alcohol --

Just a moment, Representative Miner. There's a debate going on between these two gentlemen. The noise level was starting to rise. Please respect the chamber. Representative Miner, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So if I could again, through you. Understanding that the vehicle was pulled over for a lawful purpose, broken taillight, the officer witnessed open containers in the back of the vehicle, driver hadn't been drinking, again under the amendment as it's drafted it would be my understanding that the driver then would be subject to an infraction.

Under those circumstances, would any of those be probable cause? Again, the open container in the automobile, may be one or more occupants other than the driver, for any other type of a search within that motor vehicle? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the observance of an open container I do not believe would be adequate cause for a search but the amendment does not address that specifically. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, if I might, this legislation wouldn't preclude a further search of the vehicle? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, every now and again when I do go into a local liquor store I notice that there are very small containers of alcohol. And every now and again you find a soda can on the side of the road. I don't think littering is anything that we condone. Certainly not anything that I condone.

But through you, if a vehicle were pulled over with a broken taillight and an officer found younger individuals, maybe younger adults in an automobile and witnessed three soda cans in the automobile, would there be probable cause for that individual to check to see if those soda cans had any content of alcohol in them. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the presence of -- observing soda cans present would not, in my opinion, meet the definition of open alcoholic beverage container.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so in the instance that I cite, if there was alcohol in my soda can am I subject of would the driver would be subject to an infraction under this amendment? If there was -- if one of my passengers had alcohol added to soda can do they come under this for the infraction or do they not? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. An infraction for an open container could only be issued if the officer determined that an open alcoholic beverage container was present using the definition provided in the amendment. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, through you, if there was no alcohol container in the car yet this soda can contained 25 percent alcohol plus whatever the balance was in soda, the driver would not be subject to the same infraction that the driver would be subject to if there was a can of beer in the car open? Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment makes reference to an existing definition of alcoholic beverage that's already in statute and that would guide the officer's decision with regard to that judgment. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, what I'm -- what I'm trying to find out here is what the -- what the on the street -- Madam Speaker, what I'm trying to find out is what the on the street definition or the -- the real life reality of what this amendment will do to our constituents. And what I'm concerned about is that under some determinations I suspect given certain individuals at certain times of the day someone might determine that an open container is merely going back for recycling.

But in another hour of the day with two or three people coming back from a hockey game, somebody might decide, wait a minute, they might have been drinking. There's a trace of alcohol in there. And on line 15, if I might -- 14 and 15 of this amendment it talks can or other receptacle. So as I read this, I don't understand how a police officer could make any other determination that this soda can with alcohol in it is subject to a infraction just as an open container of beer would be. So am I misreading that, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, existing statute is quite clear about what meets the definition of an alcoholic beverage and the amendment is clear. We use the federal language for defining an open alcoholic beverage container and it would be at the discretion of the officer to determine that those two definitions were met and that therefore could decide whether or not to -- to determine whether or not an open container violation occurred. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I don't have the federal definition. If I might, through you, under section 3 is that the federal definition of open beverage container? Through you, please.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, that's very helpful. And just one last thing, I want to be clear on the continuing search because I know that it's not an uncommon thing, in fact, I think many people have been concerned in the past about one thing leading to another. There is no circumstances, I understand the gentleman, through which a primary stop and a secondary infraction being issued upon which a police officer could build a case that a search of occupants in the care relative to this amendment could lead to a subsequent arrest. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the mere presence of open containers would not in my mind justify any additional search but the amendment doesn't address that and I'm not an appropriate authority to comment on that. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his answer. And based on what I think I heard, there certainly would be a question as to whether or not an arrest could happen. I think the question of whether there could be a conviction on an arrest or an improper search at that point is another matter. But I did think I heard the gentleman say that it is possible and I thank him for that answer.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Representative Reynolds, I'm really wanting to support this amendment but I'm quite troubled with the debate that's led us to the conversation about the designated driver. So could I direct your attention to lines 45 to 49. Would it be an accurate interpretation of the language to say that a designated driver who is sober and not drinking but driving with the passenger area having several intoxicated individuals, would be the person who would be stopped and given an infraction for violation of this law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it is not illegal and this amendment would not make it illegal to be as a designated driver and it would be legal before and after this amendment to drive intoxicated persons home. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, would the same be true for that designated driver if one of the individuals in the passenger area had an open bottle of liquor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if that vehicle was moving on a State highway or local road or parked on a State highway and the officer determined that there was an open alcoholic beverage container , it is possible the operator could be subject to the infraction. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, could I probe a bit more to get the understanding of why and what the thinking was for holding designated driver's responsible for the activities of what occurs in the passenger area? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Two points; one the major concern with last year's bill was that the infraction was subject to all individuals in the car. In order to accommodate that concern the amendment was narrowed to make solely the driver subject to the infraction because the driver is responsible for the activities that go on in that car.

Law enforcement has testified that the real reason for an open container law is to discourage alcohol parties in moving automobiles and that this is an important addition to our arsenal of drunk driving laws to discourage that type of partying in the car. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, so if I'm understanding the intent of this legislation, a political decision was made that we are not going to fine or other way arrest the people in the passenger area, which are likely the people drinking, and we're going to hold the sober driver responsible. Is that a fair characterization, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, whether or not the operator is sober or intoxicated is irrelevant to the imposition possibly of the open container infraction. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, can we agree however, that the impact of this public policy is to discourage sober individuals from driving intoxicated individuals home? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a good question. The experience in the 43 states that have such a law has been quite the opposite. It has proven to be a significant deterrent to drinking in automobiles and it has encouraged in a significant way drivers taking responsibility for what goes on in their motor vehicles. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support the amendment and commend Representative Reynolds for his hard work on this bill. It was said that this is not the best bill but it's the best bill that we're going to get and I agree with that because there are some concerns I have with the bill. But overall it's worthy of support. As it is in Connecticut now a person can have one hand on the wheel and driving down the road and the other hand on an open container of whiskey and that makes no sense.

Motor vehicles should not be rolling bars in the State of Connecticut. The further we distance alcohol beverages from the driver the safer our roads will be. This is a common sense bill. We've been talking about it for a number of years. When you add the fact that we're losing millions of dollars of federal highway money because we have not adopted such a law in the past it only makes it more sensible for us to pass this -- this bill. That's all I have to say.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Through you, some questions to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Through you, it was mentioned that this bill still wouldn't meet federal standards and that the price we pay for that is not to lose a dime of federal money but that the feds direct that money instead of us choosing where to spend it.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, federal law requires states to have an open container law and if it is not federally compliant we do not lose money, we simply lose control over approximately $ 3 to $ 4 million per year in what those federal highway dollars get spent on. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the proponent know where that money ends up getting spent?

Yes, ma'am. Just one minute. Madam Speaker, the penalty for noncompliance is that the funds would be diverted to drunk driving mitigation or hazard elimination. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Through you, to the proponent of the bill, does the State spend any of our own non-federal money on drunk driving or prevention or hazardous -- hazard remediation?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it's my understanding there's both State and federal money spent on those purposes. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Because then it would seem to me that in terms of federal money, if we manage to get this money unencumbered we'll just be spending State money in the same area. That's our -- our commitment there is apparently larger than the amount of money the feds direct when we don't comply with the bill.

And another question, if the police pull someone over suspecting something; a broken taillight turns out not to be broken, a potential seatbelt violation where it turns out the person was wearing the seatbelt. Since the original suspected offense is not an offense is it still possible for the stone cold sober driver to be arrested under this bill if somebody else in the car, maybe even somebody sober is sipping on a beer?

Through you, Madam Speaker, two points. One, the sobriety or lack of sobriety of drivers and passengers is irrelevant to whether or not this law were to be enforced. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, because I think that actually the sobriety should be the most relevant thing here. I think that this bill -- this amendment and I'm clear I'm speaking on the amendment. There will be plenty of chances to spend at least this much time speaking on the bill later. But that this seems to me to actually criminalize alcohol and it's consumption. Through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, is there a problem with the breathalyzers that the State of Connecticut presently uses to determine whether somebody is too intoxicated to drive or not?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I see no reference to breathalyzers in this amendment before us. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question about breathalyzers wasn't so much if it was in the bill but if the bill was in part a response to breathalyzers no longer being believed to work. That we have to go through such a stretch to criminalize some kinds of driving behavior, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the bill has nothing to do with driving behaviors, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure that I interpret the bill as all the same way as not having to do with driving behaviors. In terms of federal law, which we now know we would spend -- we spend more money than the feds direct to the areas that this direct this money. The State's commitment is greater than just the amount of money that is impacted by this bill.

In terms of federal law some of us think we've had a rough quite a few year for federal laws and hope that we're entering a better time, possibly even where the feds won't be quite so harsh in punishing the states for not making their dreams come true. With the breathalyzer we can tell if someone is drunk or is not drunk, has had any alcohol at all or not. And when that person's driving that's the person we're concerned about. One trouble, maybe my biggest problem with this bill is it criminalizes predicted future behaviors.

Somebody has predicted that if I'm driving and I'm on my way to Boston where the good baseball team is, or on my way to New York where there are other teams and I have three friends in my car. I fail to see how they're splitting a six-pack at good New Britain package store prices. And by the way, I use the package store on top of the hill on Broad Street when I'm buying for my guests. I fail to see how them having a couple beers at good New Britain package store prices, threatens my sobriety then or in the future. And I -- we have -- this will be our first time to have a bill about drunken driving where you don't even have to be drunk or attempting to be drinking. It's just wrong.

What behaviors will we predict next? Will we outlaw some certain expressions of anger as being so severe that we now have to worry about assault laws even though there was no assault that took place. Shall we call it assault just because? You know some people who yell that loudly and that meanly later assault somebody. Following the precedent of this bill we would. Somebody made a movie about the government and their confidence at predicting behaviors. Stop the murderer before they murder. That was a popular cry in that movie. It sounds to me remarkably like this bill. We don't object to people driving sober. And yet we have a bill here whose stated purpose is to punish sober drivers. Period. Nobody else will be punished by this.

The only way to be guilty in this bill is to be driving sober. I personally am of the opinion that we're in favor of people driving sober and that it's a bad thing to discourage people from enjoying the benefits of driving sober. I think that's really wrong. For that reason I would urge all my colleagues who dare to vote against this amendment and I will look forward to speaking once or twice against the bill. Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I can, Madam Speaker, through you a question to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There appears to be a series of exceptions to the open container law and one of those would be in a passenger motor vehicle if one of the passengers is the owner or lease of the vehicle and it appears that he's hired the driver of the vehicle. So, in a real world scenario if there were four of us going to a baseball game at Fenway Park and it was my vehicle and I hired my next door neighbor to drive that car for whatever price we agreed upon and I had a receipt in that vehicle with me would myself and the other two passengers be allowed to have a can of beer on our way to Fenway Park in that moving vehicle?

Through you, Madam Speaker, the federal law allows for exemptions for driver's for hire. And if the scenario described met the criteria for driver's for hire, then this amendment would not be applicable. Through you.

And I thank the gentleman for his answer and it leads me to the question what would be that criteria because I don't -- I'm not sure I have that specific language if the scenario I applied was there and I gave that person a fee of $ 75, let's say for that two hour drive. Does that qualify or does this person have to be a legally licensed chauffeur or some other special type of license. If he could kind of explain a little further of what that criteria may be that might be helpful for me to understand.

Through you, Madam Speaker, as mentioned earlier and as allowed by federal law there are various exemptions for driver's for hire that includes buses, taxi cabs, limousines, livery vehicles, privately owned motor vehicle driven by a person in the course of his or her usual employment who's transporting the passengers at his or her employer's direction or a driver for hire for which there is a documentation of the financial transaction. Through you.

As I listen to that description -- I guess if it was in a private passenger motor vehicle I guess the determination would have to be the definition of “in the usual course of employment”. And maybe if my next door neighbor in the usual course of enjoying games at Fenway Park maybe on a half dozen occasion a year, used this employment to drive his good friends or his next door neighbors, I'm guessing that that exemption would apply? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the officer determined that the scenario met the definition of driver for hire this amendment would not apply.

I thank the Representative for his answer and a similar line of questioning please, if in fact I as the owner of that passenger motor vehicle decided I wanted to -- to drive the same three friends and neighbors to an event to Fenway Park which would probably be the subject of choice but it certainly could be three people driving to the Bushnell to see the Nutcracker, which I may pass up on, but as the driver of that vehicle, through you, Madam Speaker, if I was hired by my next door neighbor in the usual course of trying to get some extra money so I don't have to pay for my ticket to Fenway Park, maybe multiple times a year, I as the owner of that passenger vehicle get some outside employment and for a certain price, maybe my ticket and a bag of peanuts at the ballgame. Because I'm the designated driver I'll pass up the beer at that ballgame. Would this be allowed through this exceptions in this bill? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, again the bill makes and the federal law provides for an exemption for driver's for hire. The one specifically referred to by the good Representative would simply require a receipt for payment made to the operator. Through you.

I thank the gentleman who brought out the amendment very much for the answer. I -- I'll continue to listen to some of the discussion. I have great reservations about creating sort of a separate class of a violation for a person that may indeed be perfectly sober and for a situation where I think that person may indeed be contributing to making our highways and our roads safer, for that person to actually put what I think might be the right thing and what we have talked about in this nation and other nations for many, many years; have a designated driver.

By in certain cases agreeing to be that designate driver, someone else's actions in that vehicle of consuming some amount of alcoholic beverage could put that person who in my mind is doing a good deed and doing the right thing, could put that person in jeopardy. And I'm not certain that that's an area that we ought to move forward with but I thank the gentleman for his answers very much. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we're concluding the speakers. I request that when the vote be taken it be taken by roll. Through you.

The 20 percent has not been met. When the vote is taken it'll be taken by voice.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sad to observe that it is true. No good deed goes unpunished. First let me associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Britain, Representative Tercyak except for one. We can take MetroNorth to Yankee Stadium. We don't have to drive. Thank you. Thank you all a lot. I've been here for 21 years.

I've seen good bills and bad bills; good drafts and bad drafts. This is a bad draft. There's a germ of a good idea in here some place but the language, not the idea -- the language, doesn't meet the expectations of the intent, certainly not to the -- not what I'm hearing is the intention of some of the proponents. This could be fixed, rather readily too.

I'm disturbed when I hear we're punishing the good Samaritan. We're punishing the designated driver. I'm particularly upset -- there's certainly no exception for family. What's the 17 year old daughter that comes to pick up daddy at the bar and drive him home and he opens a can of beer and they get stopped. And she gets the ticket. She's supposed to tell her father what to do? So much for the sanctity of the family, Madam Speaker. I'm rather disturbed by that. A spouse, no exception. Grandson, grandparent, whatever. It's -- again there's a germ of a good idea here but a very bad draft trying to express it.

This may be a good, you know, press release, but it is not a good public act. I think we should -- it would be -- it would be my personal preference to draw this up correctly. I understand the limitations of time that -- that won't permit that. But just this idea -- just this idea of deputizing every sober driver -- driver to do the police's work, to do society's work disturbs me. The fact that family members who are trying to help each other out get punished for it very much disturbs me. And sadly though I do like the underlying idea, there's no way -- no way I could support the language in this particular amendment unless it gets radically rewritten. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Representative Reynolds, you know how very strongly I feel about this and I have always been a supporter of the open container bill. But if I'm hearing correctly what this does it actually eliminates the designated driver. Through you, Madam Speaker. Is that true, Representative Reynolds?

Through you, Madam Speaker, then if somebody is the designated driver and they're driving to a football game or a baseball game and the friends are in the back having a couple of beers and for some unknown reason, whatever it might be -- a light that doesn't work, somebody doesn't have their seatbelt on. And they're stopped, and the friends are in back drinking but the driver who has been designated hasn't had a drop. This driver gets arrested. Is that not true?

Through you, Madam Speaker, not necessarily. A violation is merely an infraction. Through you.

But the driver through no fault of his own, who is designated to protect his friends actually and to keep them safe is now going to get a ticket. I'm sorry Representative Reynolds, I guess I have to associate myself with the remarks of Representative Godfrey. I know the bill is well-intentioned. I know how hard people have worked on it. I think this is our third year looking at it but I have to say this does not do it. And like, God bless him and remember him, Representative Belden always said, you can't make a bad bill better.

Yes, you may. Please proceed. Representative Reynolds. Representative Reynolds. Representative Reynolds, Representative Tallarita has a question to ask of you. Please proceed, Representative Tallarita.

Representative Reynolds, under this amendment if I'm driving my vehicle and I'm picking up some friends and they get in my vehicle and say we're driving and someone in the back seat pulls out a flask and starts drinking and I'm not really aware of what's going on because I'm paying attention to my driving. And I get pulled over for some reason. The cop must have seen what was going on in the back seat and -- or saw a taillight out or something. I am -- under this amendment I would be responsible for that and I could receive an infraction. Is that correct?

REP. TALLARITA (58th):
Do I have any recourse through the courts to try to plead that down. Would that not be -- also go as points possibly against my insurance? And can I take this into the courts' hands or is that just an infraction that I must pay and endure?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it's an infraction so there'd be no points off the license. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if -- is there a -- you had said that if we were to do a hire -- a driver for hire, is there a certain dollar amount that you must pay a driver for hire in order to have that apply so that if you're taking someone to a baseball game or to an event is there an actual dollar amount you must pay the driver so that they are considered a paid chauffeur or driver? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. Is there a dollar amount that you must pay someone that will be driving you in order for them to be considered a paid driver or chauffeur under this amendment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As mentioned earlier the federal law allows for drivers for hire as an exemption and this amendment includes an exemption for limousines, chauffeurs, taxis, professional drivers, and other drivers for which there is documentation of the financial transaction. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, what would be considered documentation? Could you write out a receipt in order to have the person be considered a driver for hire? Is that -- would that be allowed under this amendment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. REYNOLDS (42nd):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, the amendment makes reference to a receipt for payment made to the operator, through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. One more question to the proponent of the amendment. Under this amendment would you be -- would a -- if you were to give the driver a check made out to them would that be considered a receipt? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just trying to frame my next question. Under this amendment if you were to get into -- I know sometimes I've gotten into a cab and there's been too many of us so somebody has to sit in the front seat. If you were to hire someone to drive you to, say an event, and there were more of you than could fit in the backseat of the vehicle, would the person in the -- that was sitting opposite the -- in the -- opposite the driver in the front seat, would that person be allowed to be -- have an open container in the car if you had -- if you had documentation proving that the driver was being paid to drive you to the event? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if the scenario met the definition of a driver for hire, then any passenger that is anyone other than the operator could possess an open container. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That concludes my questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Representative Reynolds, prepare yourself for questioning. Please frame your question, Representative Geragosian.

Through you, Madam Speaker, following up on Representative Tallarita's questions regarding insurance and points on one's license for an infraction. I believe that speeding up to a certain speed is an infraction yet it contributes to points on a -- on a license. Why wouldn't this? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We were advised by OLR that this infraction would not be points off the license. Through you. Representative Geragosian.

Is there somewhere in statute, through you, that you know that lists the types of infractions that are subject to the imposition of points on a license? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And just one more question. It might have been asked before. The triggering amount for the alcoholic beverage in a container is any amount. Does that mean what it says, any trace or is there a minimum standard for that? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's the definition provided by the federal government. Through you.

But, through you, does that mean any -- a drop? Does it mean a half ounce? Does that mean an ounce? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The federal definition makes reference to any amount of alcoholic beverage and it would be left to the discretion of the officer to make a judgment as to whether or not that meets the definition of open alcoholic beverage container. Through you.

And through you, Madam Speaker, in the field how would that officer make that determination? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, using his good judgment and professional training. Through you.

Will you remark? Will you remark further on the amendment that is before us? Representative Merrill, for what reason do you rise?

Motion to PT the bill. Is there any objections? Is there any objections? Hearing none, the bill is PT'd. The House will stand at ease.

We'll continue with the call of the Calendar. Mr. Clerk, would you kindly call Calendar number 591?

On page 17, Calendar 591, substitute for Senate Bill number 499, AN ACT CONCERNING A PET LEMON LAW AND THE RELEASE OF RABIES VACCINATION RECORDS TO ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS favorable report of the Committee on Judiciary.

The distinguished Vice Chairman of the Environment Committee, Representative Hurlburt.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us was amended by the Senate. As many of us heard from our constituents, the Senate Amendment struck the word 'commercial' and included the word 'kennel'. This overstepped the intention of the bill and the Clerk has on his desk LCO -- amendment LCO 6389. I ask that he call and urge my colleagues to reject Senate A.

The Clerk is in possession of LCO number 6389, previously designated Senate Amendment Schedule A. Will the Clerk kindly call the amendment.

The gentleman has moved to reject Senate Amendment Schedule A, so the motion is to reject Senate A. And as soon as we have the board catch up we'll be all set. Questions on rejection of Senate Amendment Schedule A? Will you remark on the motion to reject? Representative Camillo on the motion to reject Senate A? No. Anyone on the motion to reject Senate A? Representative Hovey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just would like to inquire of the proponent for rejection as to the specificity around purpose of rejection. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HURLBURT (53rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that's a wonderful question. On line 5 of Senate A, the Senate in all of their wisdom inserted 'or kennel'. This language would open up the provisions of the bill to what we would consider backyard breeders. It was not intended to be that way. The purpose of the bill was to be directed at pet shops. And so strike it or rejecting Senate A would allow this bill to be -- to its intended purpose of pet shops only and not backyard breeders.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, another question to the proponent of the rejection. In discussing pet shops, kennels, and the differences in those, sir, if one were to have an animal adoption facility what umbrella does that facility come under? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would believe that would fall under a kennel which was one of the unintended consequences of this action in the Senate. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, then I guess I understand that there are concerns by the small breeders who have -- who may breed one litter a year or maybe two litters a year from their kind of personal stock, so to speak. They're not big kennels. I understand that they have concerns. But sir, I have a concern because I have an individual who imports stray animals from different countries, from other parts of the United States and I -- in my community need to have a vehicle where that individual is going to have some constraints put on the way they practice their business. And -- and also some constraints and protections for those animals that they're moving from many and varied areas.

And so my concern, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that by not adopting this as it is, that that individual is not going to be caught up in what I was hoping to be some supervision. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have shortly before us a House Amendment A which -- which I think this question would be better addressed to. Hence we'll be rejecting Senate A so that we could take up a House A that fixes some of the problems that -- that the current bill has before us.

REP. HOVEY (112th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for that clarification and I will wait to see. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A point of order, if I may? Through you, I would like to request Representative Hurlburt to give us a description of the difference between Senate A and the underlying bill if he has not done that yet. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

What the -- the gentleman is asking us to reject Senate A and has already intimated that they'll be a House A that will also obviate the underlying bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's just a matter of knowing what is the difference between -- if I am in order to ask the difference between the underlying bill and Senate A? What does Senate A takes out of the underlying bill? If I may, Mr. Speaker.

You certainly may. Just recall that there'll be a House A that will strike both of those things.

Will you remark further on the rejection of Senate Amendment Schedule A? Let me try your minds. All those in favor of rejection -- rejecting Senate Amendment Schedule A signify by saying aye.

I stand corrected. Good afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO number 8728. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

Clerk is in possession of LCO number 8728 which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A. Will the Clerk please call.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill does three things. It helps promote healthy animals. It discourages improper, unethical breeding. And it will assure that -- for a pet owner that they will know exactly where their pets, their best friends come from. That in a fact has not come from a pet puppy mill from out of state. I move adoption.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark on House Amendment Schedule A? Representative Camillo.

This bill here, as I said, basically will assure people that the pets that they have purchased from a pet store owner is in fact coming from a reputable breeder from out of state. They will have to have -- could be accompanied by a certificate of origin that will have to be on the premise about ten feet away from the animal. At the time of purchase a copy of the origin -- certificate of origin will be presented to the -- the legal pet owner. And also a copy will have to be filed with the Department of Agriculture so there is a trace back to the origins of where the pet came from. Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment but I have a couple of questions for the proponent that I'd like to ask if we could so indulge

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Camillo, is it true that an animal need not be returned in order to collect the reimbursement for veterinarian bills?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And another question to the proponent, if a person would like to sell a puppy to a pet shop that person must be licensed, correct?

Thank you. One of the -- one of the things that I want to distinguish here is that if I have a litter and I try to sell a puppy from my litter to a friend, family member through the newspaper I don't need to be licensed. But I also cannot sell to a pet shop. Is that also correct?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I rise in strong support of the amendment before us and I ask that my colleagues join me in the bipartisan support we have for this amendment and adopting it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, a question to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, sir. For legislative intent, through you, sir, I'm inquiring to find out how the term pet shop licensee fits into the scheme of someone who rescues or provides animals for adoption. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't speak to that. This just basically is to make sure that if somebody is selling a dog or a cat from a breeder that it has to be licensed and they have to have a trace back to the -- its origins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So through you, Mr. Speaker, if an individual is importing dogs from another country, setting up a van on a corner and selling those dogs for upwards of $ 400 that individual is not under the supervision of this legislation at all? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is actually for -- this only speaks to if they're going to sell to a pet shop licensee. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question to -- through you to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, just for the record I just want to make sure that this does not affect -- I know you mentioned the pet store breeders but this -- I have a lot of hobby breeders within my district. Are they exempt from this law? Through you, Madam -- Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yes. As long as they're not selling to pet shop licensees. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And also as far as if a hobby breeder were to sell a dog and it was found to have a defect, would they be held responsible or liable for that pet? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no, that pertains to someone whose -- sells to a pet shop licensee.

REP. SAYERS (60th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, a question to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, sir. If I were to purchase a puppy from out of the country from a breeder, would this amendment have any impact on that?

So I wouldn't have to find out if that particular breeder sells to pet shops or not.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no, this requires that they have a certificate of origin be filed with the Department of Agriculture. So I don't know if that's going to really reach over into a foreign country.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. And I did purchase a puppy that did come from out of the country. And I did have to have a certificate of health. It had to be micro-chipped and some of that was because of the country where the puppy was acquired from. These were requirements before it could leave the country but I didn't have to report any of this to the Department of Agriculture. So I just want to be clear that this would not change that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am totally in support of this but I had one question for the proponent.

Thank you. Through you, does the inoculation schedule also have to be posted and is there a defined schedule for any such dogs?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, yes, prior to the sale of a pet through a licensed veterinarian there would have to be every 15 days or so an examination and it would have to be -- a record would have to be kept of that.

And it would have to be kept. Thank you so much. And thank you for your hard work on this.

Remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. 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 of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to see your vote has been properly cast. The machine will be locked and the Clerk will prepare the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Because I wanted to say hi, Representative Kirkley -- Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I would like to vote in the affirmative please.

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I rise for the same reason that Representative Walker rise.

Are there any introductions or announcements? Are there any introductions or announcements?

Madam Speaker, with me in the back of the chamber is a West Hartford native named Mike Storm, a graduate of Conard High School who's doing an internship here at the capital this summer with Capital Strategies. And soon he'll be off to work for Senator Dodd doing an internship in Washington. He's a junior at G. W. University, heading into his senior year and I'd like the chamber to give him a warm welcome. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. We thank you for joining us and wish you must success in your future. Thank you, Representative Bye.

Ladies and gentlemen of the chamber we're all very lucky here to have such a wonderful staff working for us. And I would just like to say on behalf of Representative Flexer and Graziani, and Schofield, I would like to wish our legislative assistant Matthew Misunas who does an awesome job for us a very happy birthday. Happy birthday Matt.

REP. SCHOFIELD (16th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, for a point of personal privilege, please.

I just want to make note since we did pass a recycling bill here in this chamber. I just want to make sure that everyone realizes that the blue buckets that we have here, although everyone thinks they only are for white paper believe it or not we can put colored paper and magazines in those blue buckets as well. So please feel free to recycle all of your paper. And we do have cans -- a receptacle for cans in the back here, too. So please remember, cans and juice bottles go up in this box back here so we can all be good recyclers. Thanks.

Today we're very fortunate to have a very special young student with us today from the city of Waterbury, a student named Hannah Butler, no relation. And she's standing in the well of the House. She just stood up and she is joined by her mother, Bernice Cogens. Could you also stand up? Hannah is a fourth grader and has just mastered algebra. Yes. I did say algebra. She is nine years old and has made headlines in reading proficiency.

I'm sure there's some high school students who would like to consult with her for her expert knowledge but also she was recently the subject of an article in the Republican American that actually spoke of her proficiency of reading at the age of three as well. So for all those who are talking about their early reading programs, it goes to show if you're proficient at the age of three you can master algebra by the age of nine. Can we give her a round of applause one more time?

On page 26, Calendar 696, substitute for Senate Bill number 920, AN ACT CLARIFYING PENSION OBLIGATIONS OF CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS favorable report of the Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The motion before us is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark further?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Basically we have a bill here that's going to take care of a problem that we had that was brought to the Labor Committee where a contractor had maintained their obligations to their subcontractors making the appropriate payments and having received the certified payrolls from the subcontractors assuring them that the proper wages had been paid and that the subcontractor had paid the appropriate funds into the general -- what is it called -- into the general wage fund which takes care of benefits such as retirement, disability, healthcare, and other benefits.

It was discovered after the subcontractor -- the contractor had made its final payment to the subcontractor and had received these certified payrolls that the actual payments had not been made to the pension obligations. So the Department of Labor during its investigations came back to the contractor since the subcontractor was no longer available and asked the contractor to pay into the pension funds the monies that were supposed to be there.

Obviously we didn't think this was very fair. It didn't seem right that the contractor should pay twice. So this is why this bill is in front of us today. We do have an amendment to make some clarifications in the bill that was passed in the Senate. And the Clerk has LCO 8497. May he call and I be allowed to summarize?

The Representative has asked leave to summarize. Is there any objection? Seeing none, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This -- basically this bill -- we've had a long series of meetings and there's some clarifications that were required which is I believe done in this amendment. Basically it says that the -- after the contractor has received the certified payrolls the contractor can rely on the certification only if the subcontractor has made some kind of payment bond on the project or has had some -- kind of received some kind of verification that the respective funds have been allocated to the pension and benefit fund administrator of whatever relevant funds for the benefits that the workers of the subcontractor should be receiving. In this way the contractor can be assured that the payments are being made so that when they finally sign off with that subcontractor they know that the workers have been properly taken care of.

If for some reason it's found out that they weren't properly taken care of the bill will permit any contractor to go to court to receive up to the actual damages -- well actually this Senate Amendment doesn't allow for that. We have another amendment that's going to take care of it. But we're hoping that we will get to a point where the contractor can sue the subcontractor for any damages up to the amount of the damages that may be involved in the nonpayment of these proper obligations. I move for adoption, Madam.

Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to pose some questions to the proponent of the amendment, Representative Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To Representative Ryan, in line 158 of the amendment under consideration it says the general contractor may in good faith rely on the certification of the subcontractor. I'd like to ask you or paint a synopsis to you and tell me if this is appropriate or not, through you, Madam Speaker.

It may not be totally an exact thing to a -- to a payroll per say but we have especially in our situation in the city of Waterbury where the Department of Transportation engaged contractors and subcontractors to check the work and verify that the quality of the work was done appropriately to blueprints and to specifications. But it turned out that the subcontractor had not done the job right and so far as catch basins not going anywhere, cracking pipes. And the job was done very, very poorly. So here in this case I tried to correlate it to the same thing where a contractor is relying on a subcontractor and the construction project it was all messed up and it was done incorrectly.

And by relying on the subcontractor, that contractor ended up -- ended up not doing the job correctly and therefore the State of Connecticut and the citizens of the State of Connecticut suffered the consequences. So is this applicable, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that's -- I believe the good Representative from Waterbury's talking about a performance contract -- performance issues. This bill does not deal with that. It deals with payment issues.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer very much. But payments is also a performance. Somebody is being tasked to do a job whether it is payment in a contract or doing a construction job, it's a performance factor. So if that subcontractor does not perform well in making the payments, where would the liability be? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For now I'm okay but allow me to continue. On the same paragraph, line 162, a payment bond on the Public Works project. So we have a contractor who requires the subcontractor to put a bond to guarantee that the performance -- I go back and say the word performance -- is going to be done correctly. Let us say in here that the subcontractor had gone out of business; had declared bankruptcy, and the bond does not guarantee anything. So what would happen in a case like this to the contractor and after the contractor to the -- where the buck stops, the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I think that line points out what I'm speaking about. This is a payment bond as opposed to a performance bond which is the examples that the Representative was giving us beforehand. So in this case, if the subcontractor -- the contractor's making payments to the subcontractor having received certified payrolls. That should -- if he's a good subcontractor he's making the proper payments and that's being verified by the certified payrolls.

So hopefully the scenario that is occurring, that the subcontractor goes bankrupt is occurring after he's made all those appropriate payments and taken care of the payments that deal with his employees. That's the purpose of the bill, to make sure that that happens. That if he does get into trouble at least these payments are made. The person's keeping appropriate records and taking care of his -- the obligations that he has to his employees. And hopefully by having all these balances and checks it might even prevent the person from going bankrupt unless he's -- somebody has taken off with the funds or something of that nature.

But at least in this particular example he has to have a payment bond. It would have to cover his payment obligations to his employees or he would have to have verification that the payments had been made to the appropriate obligees, the pension fund, the healthcare funds, whatever was relevant, so that -- to ensure that the -- those obligations were met for the employees as I mentioned.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, we know in business that if a contractor is pondering to declare bankruptcy, that subcontractor is not going to go and pay all of his or her bills before they declare bankruptcy. So even though -- even though there is a bond in here and the bond is in place, the bond obviously is not going to cover all of the expenses that are going to be incurred. And if that subcontractor is out of business, I still say, and I would ask to -- I would like to ask to, through you, the good Representative again, if none of those payments are made what would happen and the subcontractor is out of business? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, there's a payment bond in place. The payment bond would have to be equivalent to the amount that would be obligated and should take care of all of the obligations that the individual is required to make.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer. And through you, what would the payment bond -- if I am going to go to put a payment bond, let's say on $ 100,000, what would the amount of the bond be? How much would somebody have to pay on the dollar to assure that a bond is secured? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't know if I'm supposed to stop and give a break for the barber shop quartet that's about to perform or if I should answer the question. I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to do at this point.

Could you just wait a second so we can let the picture and I can get out of the way?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy. Am I supposed to sing this answer or can I just respond?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe that the individual -- you're giving an example of $ 100,000. I believe it is, though I'm not sure, I think you can go to different bondsmen and get different rates but I think you're obligated to make a certain amount of a payment. I believe it's somewhat like an insurance policy and then the bond holder can go after the individual if for some reason he defaults on the bond.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, let's take care of the situation first, Madam Speaker, will you please.

The House will stand at ease at a moment while our bowtie guys get their picture taken. You all look very handsome and rather dapper.

REP. NOUJAIM (74th):
no, I was going to have the Lebanese caucus get together for a -- for a picture too, Madam Speaker. But we'll continue. I have no idea where we were but I'll go ahead and somehow continue through the process.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So for legislative intent, Madam Speaker, are we saying in here if a bond is taken regardless of the percentage of the bond, does this mean the State of Connecticut would be -- would be made whole if the subcontractor defaults on doing what he or she is supposed to do? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now that the Hetherington wannabes have left, it's going to be a little easier to answer the question. I believe the State of Connecticut has a contract with the contractor and if this is a -- basically a relationship between the contractor and the subcontractors, the State of Connecticut's paying the contractor and the it's going to be pretty much -- the State will have its obligation fulfilled unless for some reason the contractor himself has a problem. But this particular bill is dealing with the contractor and the subcontractor. The State of Connecticut doesn't really play a role in this particular scenario.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer. And I would like to continue by asking on line 168 and 169 we are asking now a second tier contractor to do the same type of performance. So we have now the State of Connecticut and then we have the contractor. We have the subcontractor and we have the second tier contractor. My question here are we assured that we are putting the appropriate controls in place that second tier subcontractor does not go bankrupt or does not do the job right that we still can recuperate all of the -- all the needs and the desires of the State of Connecticut and the wants of the State of Connecticut in a project? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, well this bill actually put in place more safeguards than are currently in place. That's the purpose of the bill. Again, it's dealing with payment issues and not dealing with performance issues.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker, what is the time lag for legal action from the contractor against the subcontractor in a case like this? How long would it take or how long would the contractor be allowed to go essentially after the subcontractor to recover all the damages? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
I think I understand the question. Through you, Madam Speaker, I believe each scenario would probably be different. I think at some point in time when the general contractor has deemed that the subcontractor has fulfilled its requirements under their contract, he can make the final payment. And at that point in time if he has had a bond, if has gotten some kind of verification that the appropriate payments have been made, the final certified payroll had been submitted to the contractor and he feels that everything's been fulfilled that would the end of that relationship between those two individuals. I am not sure of exactly what that length of period would be for all those things to occur.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. From a statuary situation, I am looking at my notes from the public hearing that we had on this bill back in, I believe, in February of this year or March of this year. It seems to me that someone testified that this bill will shorten the amount of time from three years to 30 days, which means the contractor would have had three years to be able to bring an act -- a lawsuit against the subcontractor and this bill it renders it to be as little as 30 days. And then after 30 days, then subcontractor is free and clear. I would like to ask that question for clarification and legislative intent. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, I do see that there are some areas where there are time periods mentioned but that is in existing language and we didn't make any changes as far as I can tell to any of those time periods.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will come back to this in a few minutes because it seems to me that my notes say that this bill will change it from three years to 30 days. While the Representative is answering other questions I would like to come back and ask this question again because I wrote it down in my notes. I just want to make sure that I receive the appropriate answer. The second question that I would like to ask if I may, Madam Speaker, is line 178 to line 184, it says that any contractor who is not receiving the appropriate services from the subcontractor will have the ability to bring in a -- an action in superior court.

And it says in here -- in the bill on line 183 and 184, may bring a civil action in the superior court to recover the actual damages sustained by a reason of making such payment together with cost and reasonable attorney's fees. By the word cost, does this mean we also agree that cost is the time, the effort, the energy, the losses that the contractor will be undertaking as part of this bill and damages financially? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, this particular section of the bill is a section that's going to be changed by a coming House Amendment which I had mentioned earlier. So some of that's going to be changed. To kind of clarify it a little bit and to -- and to kind of rectify some of the concerns we had at this particular language that hopefully -- I had hoped we were going to do that before we began a major discussion of the bill but just keep in that in mind.

But if there's particular questions dealing with costs, I'm going to consider that to be financial costs unless a judge looking at this might make some other assessment but I think that for our purposes here because this deals with payment and attorney's fees, that these are financial matters that are dealing with in the way of costs here.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, my colleague, Representative Ryan, a little earlier spoke about healthcare and 401K and pensions fund. How do we -- how are we assured if the subcontractor defaults, how are assured that all of those benefits that are due to the employees are going to be paid if the subcontractor has defaulted or for that matter, the second tier subcontractor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, that was the reason for the placing of a bond to make sure those -- there was a place where that money could be -- come from. Or the second scenario is the fact that they -- the contractor of the first tier subcontractor would receive some kind of verification from the pension and benefit fund administrator that those payments -- appropriate payments had been made.

So it's -- it's kind of a belt and suspenders type of approach. Either a bond or making sure that there's some kind of receipt indicating that payments had been made. So one of two possible ways that you could be sure the payments had been made to the employees would be taken care of.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker, if this bill is enacted into law would this bill have a negative impact on the pension fund or an individual or a worker to be able to go after the contractor or subcontractor if that contractor or subcontractor defaults on the pension obligations? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I think this is the purpose of this bill is to ensure that that does not happen. I mean, that's the whole purpose of the bill. If this bill is enacted there shouldn't be any default because those obligations would be made and at the very least this contractor would make -- would be the final one for the obligations who could go after the subcontractor and collector to get the money back from them.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So am I to perceive that the bond that Representative Ryan has been speaking about is like the safety blanket for the contractor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And one final question I have is I just -- I spoke about the bill shortening from three years to 30 days the current statute -- statutory limits on filing claims against a construction bond. I would like to go back to that point because I'm seeing it in my notes all over that -- that it will shorten it from three years to 30 days and I'm very, very concerned about that. I would like a clear explanation, through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, I'm sorry but I really can't explain why something was in his notes. I see nothing in the bill that indicates anything of that nature. I mean, nothing in the bill that indicates anything of that nature.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate Representative Ryan's answer. Is there a possibility for the good Representative to show me in the bill where it says that the statutory requirements are three years and not 30 days? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes but I don't believe this bill has that in it. I don't know if this is the bill he took the notes on or if was another bill. I am only seeing that there is -- the only time period I am seeing mentioned in the bill is -- I've lost it -- is on line 86, the agent in power to let contract -- shall contact the Labor Commission at least ten but not more than 20 days prior to the date of such contracts to be advertised for bid. And again, as I mentioned that's current language where we have not made any changes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For now I am okay. I will try to look through it and then when the time comes to discuss the bill I will be able to go back and ask the questions again. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Representative Ryan.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The general concept of this bill was discussed at length in the Labor Committee. And I agree with the overall intention of it. I do have, however, some questions on how it is actually going to work and a few other things for legislative intent. I'd like to ask some question of the proponent of the bill, Madam Speaker.

Representative Ryan, prepare yourself. Representative Aman, please frame your question.

Yes, this particular sections that we're talking about in guaranteeing payment for fringe benefits only is concerned with Public Works Departments of the State of municipalities, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, this particular bill is dealing with public construction projects, yes.

Okay. And also, just to give the parameters of it, for new construction this bill only covers contracts that are in excess of $ 400,000 and for remodeling for contracts of at least $ 100,000, through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
through you, Madam Speaker, I believe that is the area that would -- it would definitely cover the projects in that -- in that range. I'm not sure if it only covers the projects in that range or if it would cover contracts that are at a lesser amount as well. I'd have to just check to clarify that for sure. But in either they'd be covered.

I will gladly give the proponent while we're asking the other questions to have someone verify it. The whole bill and the sections that we're talking about is really on a general contractor relying in good faith is that they're trying to do what is right. And for the people in the chamber the problem that this bill is trying to address is a State of Connecticut project, the State writes a check the general contractor. The general contractor writes a check to the subcontractor. The subcontractor and -- is supposed to write a check to the employees.

The problem comes down to the problem when a subcontractor is running low on money, pays the employees but does not make the payments -- proper payments to the pension or benefit funds that the employee is entitled to. So one of the things the bill talks about very clearly is that if the subcontractor -- or the general contractor puts out a payment bond or requires the sub to have a payment bond there's no real problems if the sub does not make the payments. Along it goes, the bonding company makes the payments and there may be a bit of a time delay but all of the money is there.

The bill, however does talk that the contractor can have an affirmative defense and action brought by the Labor Commissioner. And I would like the proponent of the bill to explain what the affirmative defense is and what the advantage to the contractor that type of defense would be. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I would redirect that to Representative Lawlor, if they would prefer.

Representative Lawlor. Just a moment, sir. Representative Ryan, Representative Aman has said if you prefer he would redirect the question to Representative Lawlor. What is your preference, sir?

Through you, Madam Speaker, Representative Lawlor is about as able to answer the question about as well as I am from what I'm hearing, though you may have a little more -- he seems to think -- he knows what the issue is in dealing with affirmative cases in criminal law. This actually is dealing with an issue where somebody's making an affirmative case to -- because the explanation of the question took a while to get there, I think he's talking about cases in which case the person hasn't made the payments.

So I think therefore it is the obligation of the subcontractor to show that the payments had been made and it would be up to the -- so that the contractor doesn't have to make the payments. And I think we need maybe a little bit more of a clarification on the question to what he's actually asking about in this particular case.

Definitely. In lines 169 and also in lines 159, one -- they both refer to the fact that the general contractor may in good faith rely on certification by the subcontractor as an affirmative defense in action brought by the Labor Commissioner. And my question was, what is an affirmative defense that they would be able to give to the Labor Commissioner, and what would be the advantage of that over any other type of defense that they may offer? Through you, Madam Speaker.

I believe Representative Lawlor's going to make an attempt to answer that probably a little more proficiently than I am.

Madam Speaker, I'm not familiar with the bill. I'm not one of the sponsors. My review of it consists of my consideration of it for today's debate so anything I say should not be considered if anyone's reviewing this down the road as part of the legislative intent. I'm answering a technical question about the definition of an affirmative defense. That concept is a criminal law concept. In the criminal law it means that if you're charged with a crime there are certain enumerated affirmative defenses, self defense being one of them.

So you -- if you raise an affirmative defense you're essentially saying yes, I did what I'm accused of having done, however I have a defense. And my defense is, for example, self defense. So generally speaking an affirmative defense refers to a defense that someone might raise to explain conduct which would otherwise be unlawful. I think in the civil law these are typically referred to as special defenses and so I don't know whether the concept of affirmative defense appears elsewhere in the civil law.

It may very well be something that is referred to outside the criminal law. I just don't know the answer to that question but that's what it means in the criminal law and I think the term would normally be a special defense in a civil suit. And I think that's about as helpful as I can be, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

I thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his answer. My reading of it would be about the same but I'm a non-attorney and I was just wondering again for the general contractor what the advantages and disadvantages of it would be. One of the things that would this affirmative defense is if they received a verification from the benefit fund Administrator of the funds that the amount of payment had been received. I'm a little confused if the payments had been received why there should be even a complaint to the Labor Commissioner.

But presuming that for some reason something happened and it went, for the general contractor who is making the payments and getting verification from the pension and benefit fund administrator my question to the proponent for legislative intent is how often would a contractor have to contact and receive information from the pension and benefit fund administrator that funds had been received? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I'm going to guess that there is times and you know required dates and deadlines when these payments are supposed to be received. And when the receipt is sent from the administrator to the subcontractor a copy of that receipt can also be sent to the contractor to ensure them that the payment has been made. As I said there's -- you know it's one of two things you can do, either have the payment bond or do it in this manner. So I think it would be easy enough just to send a copy of the receipt that the subcontractor has received to the contractor to assure him that the payment has been made.

Looking at that, if -- on an ongoing basis if the general contractor say on a quarterly basis got a letter from the pension administrator that all payments have been received, would that be sufficient to show that the general contractor was acting in good faith and relying on these payments? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, that could be if that's as often as the payments are made. That would suffice. Yes.

On that same idea if their payments are being made from the general to the subcontractor on a monthly basis and after a particular month the payment has been made to the subcontractor. The following week after the payment has been made, the general contacts the administrator and the administrator says, nope, I haven't received any money this month like I'm supposed to, is that a defense on the general contractor or would the general contractor be libel for that month's payment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, that was kind of a long question. I think the point would be that if it was demonstrated at that point in time that the payments weren't made, they didn't -- the subcontractor can't prove that he made the payments that would work against him and I think at that point in time the contractor could take some kind of action to ensure that the money is acquired and paid to this administrator.

I think there's the timing problem in there because I believe what I just heard would almost require the contractor to receive proof of payment on the fringe benefits prior to issuing the check because if not they would be liable if the subcontractor did not make the payments. And I don't think that is really what we were intending to do with this particular bill in protecting people. But I'll go on to another question on that.

If the Labor -- if an employee has not received his fringe benefits credit the way they were supposed to receive and the subcontractor that was supposed to make the payments has gone out of business, the general contractor has operated in bad -- or in good faith, as ruled by the Labor Department, who or where does the money come from to fund the fringe benefit account or does the employee in this case lose out on that type of money? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the -- ultimately I think the contractor has to make the payment. That's why he might prefer the method of having a bond payment -- a payment bond issued on the job so that he would be assured that the money wouldn't finally come out of his own pocket rather than just always verifying that payment is being made. I mean we give them the two options. It depends upon the contractor, his relationship with his subcontractors.

It might also depend upon how long the subcontractors have been in business and what kind of assets it has that contractors comfortable with the fact that the subcontractor would be able to back up any of these payments. And -- but essentially probably the best option would be the payment bond to be assured that the money would never come out of the contractors pocket but would come under a bond -- out of a bond company's pockets.

As I discussed within the Labor Committee, the problem with the payment bonds is not on very large projects where there's a lot of money involved. But this particular bill goes down for Public Works projects in the $ 100,000 range of total work. That gets divided up among several subcontractors. The chances of anybody getting a payment bond -- or not a -- for guaranteeing fringe benefits at that level of funding is virtually nonexistent.

The insurance companies aren't going to want to issue it. The subcontractors aren't going to want to go for the application and pay for it. And the general contractor probably is going to look at it and say it's not worth the effort and take the risk of having to fund the fringe benefits and just build it into his bid which of course is paid by the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut because all the same general contractors are going to probably follow the same format and just include it into their bid as one of their fixed costs. Whether they bury it in overhead or one of the other expenses, it is just going to be served.

While I think this bill goes partway to addressing what is a real problem, could become a major problem as the economy starts to -- or continues to deteriorate and subcontractors and general contractors all become -- find themselves in greater and greater financial difficulty. Even companies that have been around for years and have been operating well when they start losing money, start doing things that they really regret later on.

The number of IRS audits right now for unpaid social security taxes and unpaid withholding taxes which are definitely punished much harder for a company than what we're talking in this bill, unfortunately is still -- is going on and probably increasing as companies get into financial difficulties. So I will be supporting the bill but I do not think it completely addresses the problems and to be honest I'm not sure if we can absolutely cover the problems that we're facing in an economy where jobs are being lost and companies are losing money. I thank the Speaker, and I thank very much the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the amendment that is before us? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO 8763. May he call and I be allowed to summarize?

REP. RYAN (139th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment simply limits the amount of contract and suer's subcontracted to the damages that are actually sustained through the Labor Department lower tier -- I'm sorry, through the Labor Department requiring the general contractor to pay for the subcontractor who failed to pay. This amendment also takes section 4 which seemed to be causing a lot of confusion and basically eliminates that issue. So I move for adoption, ma'am.

The question before us is on adoption of House Amendment A. Will you remark? Representative Noujaim, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and good afternoon to you once again. Madam Speaker, I agree with Representative Ryan that this amendment -- thank you, Madam Speaker.

Okay. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I agree with Representative Ryan that this amendment does simplify the bill. It does take away some of the controversial issues that I was speaking about before. The only thing that I would like, again -- once again, to take exception is to the fact that unfortunately for me I did not know about this amendment until I came through. And I wish that the Chairman or the Chairman upstairs from the Senate has let the Ranking Member know that this amendment is coming it would have saved some time and probably agonies earlier in the afternoon. So I do support the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark? Will you remark further on House Amendment A? Will you remark? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Candelora, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of LCO number 9175 and I ask that it be called and I be allowed to summarize.

Representative Candelora, we didn't have -- we didn't have the amendment for a while. So will the Clerk please call LCO 9175 designated House Amendment B.

The Representative has asked leave to summarize. Would you please remark first, sir?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this amendment seeks to adjust the tip credit -- what's known as a tip credit in Connecticut in response to the minimum wage increase that we had done last session. And I move adoption.

The question before us is on adoption of House Amendment B. Will you remark? Will you remark further on House Amendment B? Representative Ryan.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I'd like -- I just would like to remark on the amendment.

You'll have to summarize. Please do. Is there any objection? Hearing none, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, what this provision does is it seeks to adjust the tip credit that was put out of skew as a result of us increasing the minimum wage. What happened was when we increased the minimum wage to $ 8. 25 the credit that employers receive to their waitress staff and to their bartenders did not increase in the same proportion to that $ 8. 25 increase.

So this amendment would be effective July 1, 2010 and what it would do it would raise the credit that an employer would be allowed to take. Currently for a wait staff that credit is $ 2. 48 and for a bartender -- excuse me -- yes -- and for the bartender it is 88 cents. It would increase those numbers ultimately additional 25 cents in order to make up for that adjustment to the minimum wage.

Madam Speaker, I think that this issue is critical for us to address in this legislative session because when we increased the minimum wage I believe it was the intention for us to take this -- up this issue and to hold our restaurants harmless. Because many of the bartenders and waitresses on average are already receiving $ 20 to $ 30 an hour in their pay when they're -- when you include the tips.

And because we failed to make that adjustment, employers are now bearing the cost of 17 cents per employee for waitressing and 22 cents per employee for bartending. And I think that it's a cost. It doesn't sound like a lot of money but it certainly adds up in this economy when we've seen restaurants particularly take a hard hit because of the decrease in disposable income. This amendment will go a long way in helping our restaurant and food businesses stay viable and get through these troubling times. And Madam Speaker, when the vote is taken I ask that it be taken by roll.

In the opinion of the Chair the 20 -- in the opinion of het Chair the 20 percent has been met. When the roll is taken it will be taken roll call. When the vote is taken it will be taken by roll call. Will you remark further? Representative Ryan.

Through you, Madam Speaker, while I appreciate and agree with most of the issues that Representative Candelora spoke about dealing with this bill, I don't think -- we don't consider this a friendly amendment because of the underlying bill and the subject it takes up basically being on pension obligations. And I think some of the issues -- I guess some people have some disagreements over what was agreed to as far as the minimum wage went last year and the implantation of the tip credit. And until that kind of gets taken care of or everybody's on the same play I think this amendment would not be something we'd want to vote for at this time. So I'd ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment before us. Ladies and gentlemen of the chamber we are -- purport to be very concerned about business in this economy and one of our small businesses of course is that of the restaurant owner and the restaurants and dining facilities throughout our State. I want to remind you what we have done this year with regard to those very facilities.

Out of this chamber at least we've passed paid sick days which most particularly negatively effects the restaurant industry. Just -- excuse me -- yesterday we passed a bill with regard to listing the caloric intake of every meal that's put forth by restaurants that have over 15 franchises within the State. This is a bill that we have historically done. We've kept the tip credit in pace with the rise in the minimum wage. It is something that is expected every time the minimum wage raises. It is in keeping with that and I would urge adoption. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the amendment that's before us. Ladies and gentlemen, just to make you aware of the fact that this bill -- this amendment really passed the Senate unanimously during this session. We are not taking any money away from anyone. What a tip credit is is this minimum wage is set to go up to $ 8. 25 next year and a waitress or wait staffs wage is supposed to -- is supposed to go from $ 5. 52 an hour to $ 5. 69. We're not taking anything away from wait staffs or bartenders all we're asking is that they use their tip as a credit toward building up between the wage and the minimum wage. So it's a win-win for everyone.

As it's mentioned over and over again in this session, we are in tough economic times. This will go a long way in helping restaurant owners throughout the State to help retain employees. It's much needed relief. Many of us in this chamber have expressed an interest in last session to help the restaurant owners and here's the opportunity for all of us to do so. So I encourage everyone to vote in favor of this amendment. It's not hurting anyone at all. It's just helping an industry that's out there that's struggling today. And I encourage everyone to vote in favor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I just have a question to the proponent of the amendment, through you.

Representative Candelora, prepare yourself. Representative Harkins, please frame your question.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Representative Candelora, one of the concerns I hear from restaurant owners is that the rising costs that they are experiencing not only with operating their restaurants but the utility costs, insurance and taxes but oddly enough also the increased costs in food. And it was pretty dramatic over the last year and I think a lot of it was related to maybe the price of gas and fuels for transporting the fuel -- the food to distributors.

But one of these that kept hitting home was the restaurant owners were concerned about how they were going to handle the costs. Whether they could pass it on with an increase in their menu onto the consumer or would that mean a dramatic loss in business particularly in a declining economy when less people may be going out to certain restaurants depending upon the location of the restaurant and the clientele it serves. But the one thing universal is that all the restaurants are actually experiencing increased costs but pretty much in that item of food. So if a restaurant was looking for any type of relief or some way to give their employees and added benefit, this amendment that you're proposing, would it actually help the restaurant owner? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it certainly would help the restaurant owner because what we would be doing today is allowing the credit, this accounting adjustment to be made so that that money could be retained by the employer and used to make up costs -- rising costs such as the increase in food costs, increase in electric costs. And also give them some cushion because they certainly have seen anywhere of declines from 50 percent to 20 percent in business. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Representative Candelora. As far as the restaurants this is going to affect, through you, Madam Speaker, would this affect fast food restaurants, family-owned restaurants, restaurant bars? What kind of restaurant establishments would this amendment impact if it was actually adopted today? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It would affect any business, any food service business that is actually using the tip credit. I am familiar with some businesses that choose to pay their employees minimum wage and may pool their tips for distribution. And if they exercise control over those tips they may not be entitled to take the tip credit. But it certainly would include any businesses that have wait staff or bar staff that are performing those typical functions whether it be in a chain restaurant, whether it be in a family-run business, or any type of food service in small business industry. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Representative Candelora. Through you, Madam Speaker, can you once again explain how this tip credit would work? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe the intent of the tip credit and why it went into law is because it's recognizing the gratuities that bartenders and waitresses and waiters receive in their employment. So rather than requiring than employer to pay a minimum wage plus they're receiving a lot of tips which in some estimations are -- bring them to over $ 30 an hour in pay, the legislature allowed for this credit to be put into place so that an employer in the restaurant business would be allowed to pay less than a minimum wage, recognizing that these individuals are receiving a good portion of their benefit salaries through these tips that the employer is not allowed to exercise any control over. So any tip that's left at a table the waitress or the bartender could use that for themselves directly. The employer is not entitled to those funds.

And so, as a result in order to help the industry because it is, Madam Speaker, one of the most competitive industries. I've always heard a statistic that for every ten restaurants that opens only one remains beyond five years. It is such a competitive industry that this was a way to afford this restaurant industry to be able to stay profitable and competitive. And so we institute this credit which represents the differential between what the employer is required to pay and the credit represents the estimated tips that an individual gets above and beyond that amount which certainly greatly exceeds the $ 8. 25 minimum wage. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Candelora for his full and lengthy explanation and I also give him credit for his advocacy for small business, particularly that of the restaurant business. It sounds like a good idea. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to pose a couple questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to Representative Candelora, do you -- and I'm not sure if he knows the answer to this question but in years past when the minimum wage has been increased has there also been a corresponding change in the tip credit? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. While I had not been in the legislature long enough to personally witness it, in reading the current legislation and in having discussions anecdotally, it is my understanding that we have always increased the tax -- or excuse me, the tip credit in correlation to the increase in minimum wage. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I do appreciate the Representative's answer. Madam Speaker, just picking up on what Representative Harkins had said earlier, this is a small way that we can help out small businesses in our State in the form of restaurants, mom and pop delis, et cetera. I believe with all that we've -- with all the legislation that we've passed in this session, this attempt to give -- give some relief to these types of businesses -- people work very hard in our State. It think it's warranted and I would hope that the members of this chamber would support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The House will come back to order. To determine whether an amendment is germane Mason's Section 402 subsection 2 provide that it be relevant, appropriate, and in natural and logical sequence of subject matter of the original proposal. The underlying bill amends statutes to concerning lawsuits to collect unpaid employee benefits and wages owed by defunct contractors and subcontractors.

The amendment concerns the amount of minimum wage to be paid to waiters and bartenders. The two subjects are not sufficiently related nor do they amend the same statutes. Consequently, madam, your point is well taken and LCO 9175 is not germane to the underlying bill.

Is there a second? The motion has been made and seconded. Members can speak once and only once and must confine themselves to the ruling of the Chair. Will you remark?

I will. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the chamber, I am requesting by my motion obviously that we appeal the ruling of the Chair. The Chair has ruled that our amendment is non-germane. The underlying bill that's before us concerns Title 31 which is the labor statutes of the State of Connecticut. The amendment that's before us also concerns Title 31 the labor statutes of the State of Connecticut.

I believe based upon that fact and one other fact that this amendment is wholly germane. Nary five hours ago a labor bill was brought out by Representative Ryan entitled, an act concerning electronic compensation payments. One of the amendments we subsequently brought up regarded a credit report check on the part of the administration with regard to various employees or commissioners of the administrator.

You must confine your amendment -- your remarks to this amendment and this appeal.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the appeal is with regard to germaneness and I am citing precedence with regard to that fact.

There was no point of order with regard to the bill that you're referring to. Please limit your comments to the amendment that's before us -- to the appeal at hand, sir.

Excuse me, Madam Speaker, then I will make a point of order because I -- or point of inquiry. I believe that Representative Merrill made a point of order that this amendment was not germane to the underlying bill.

I believe you made a ruling that she -- her point was properly taken and that the amendment was not germane.

I believe I made a motion to challenge the ruling of the Chair with regard to your ruling on germaneness.

And through you, Madam Speaker, I believe that you indicated that everyone had one opportunity to speak, to argue the case as to whether or not your ruling on germaneness should be appealed.

The -- what you need to speak to is to the amendment that I ruled was not germane and you were going to something that happened previously.

Through you, Madam Speaker, with all due respect, what I'm trying to do is say that the first -- the amendment that's before us concerns Title 31 our Connecticut State Statutes labor statutes. The underlying bill does as well. Citing precedent, I'm referring to a bill that was brought out nary five hours ago, a labor bill, the underlying bill of which concerned electronic payments; the amendment which concerned credit report checks.

I asked the proponent of the bill the germaneness and he basically gave me the exact same answer that we are citing as reason this amendment is germane to this underlying bill. That is that they both deal with labor statutes. So to rule this not germane when five hours ago we ruled a similar situation germane or at least indicated that it would be --

But there was no -- Representative Cafero, there was no ruling on that one. You did not call a point of order so there was no ruling on whether that was germane or not. Therefore there is technically nothing to refer to; the germaneness of that previous amendment.

With regard to my argument as to whether or not this particular amendment is germane to the underlying bill, I may -- it's my understanding according to Mason's cite precedent and anything so long as I stick to the issue of germaneness in making that point, Madam Speaker, I'm indicating that this chamber has accepted as germane two bills that concern Title 31 of the labor statutes of the State of Connecticut with no further connection. And that is why I believe this amendment is germane to the underlying bill. And I would urge the chamber to overturn the ruling of the Chair. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise too to encourage this chamber to overturn the ruling. Not only does the underlying amendment that has been ruled not germane, it addresses the issue of wages and credits. And the underlying bill which is section 31-53 of the General Statutes also addresses wage rates. Granted, one is in the construction industry and one is in the waitering and waitressing industry but both provisions are dealing with wages. And I think that that certainly is enough of a nexus for us to be discussing this amendment on the underlying bill. And I would encourage everybody to overrule the Chair. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also rise to respectfully overrule the -- override the ruling of the Chair. Madam Speaker, you do bring up a good point in your exchange with Representative Cafero that earlier on we probably should have called a point of order on Representative Ryan's amendment to the bill that was mentioned earlier. But we didn't do so. And it was done in jest at that time never anticipating the fact that an amendment that is clearly germane to this bill would be ruled to be not germane. Madam Speaker, I would ask that when the vote be called -- when the vote be taken it be done by roll call.

The question before us is on a roll call vote. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye.

In the opinion of the Chair the 20 percent has been met. When the vote is taken it will be taken by roll. Are you finished Representative Hamzy, so I can move on to Representative Piscopo? Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, in -- to overrule the ruling of the Chair. The underlying bill deals with Title 31-60 -- I mean, the amendment deals with title 31-60. The underlying bill deals with the same Title 31-53, 31-54, 31-59, 31-66, 31-69. So the underlying bill actually goes all through that same Title and this amendment just mentions another section of that Title. I think it's very much germane, with all due respect, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker, I also rise to appeal the ruling of the Chair. And in reading Mason's -- you know Mason's in respect to 402 has five sections, ladies and gentlemen and it was brought up about Mason's 402-2. In this case, Mason's 402-2 talks about a natural, logical sequence of the subject matter but when you look at Mason's 40402-4 it says; an entirely new proposal may be substituted by amendment as long as it's germane to the main purpose of the original proposal. And as you look at the connections between the two I believe that there is germaneness so I will be voting to appeal the Chair. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would also rise to support the appeal and I would point out that the underlying is replete with references to paying of wages on an hourly basis and the consequences for failure to pay a proper amount of hourly wages. And I would also point to lines 80 through -- actually through 109 which deal with the Commissioner -- the Labor Commissioner determining the prevailing wage on an hourly basis for certain purposes.

So I would respectfully submit that if the -- if the underlying bill deals with failure to pay an -- the prevailing wage on an hourly basis and the consequences and also goes on to determine about the circumstances wherein the Labor Commissioner determines the prevailing wage on an hourly basis that the matter is filled with references to the hourly wage and determining the hourly wage. And therefore an amendment which deals with how the hourly wage is calculated in a certain industry is indeed germane. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise briefly in support of the appeal and respectfully urge that we overturn the decision of the Chair. I don't wish to repeat what others have said about the nexus that does clearly exist, in my opinion, but only wish to say that it seems -- it seems a little bit odd that a nexus would exist at 11: 00 in the morning on an amendment brought out by distinguished --

Out of order. Please confine yourself to the amendment that is before us -- is in question.

Madam Speaker, I wish simply to urge overturning of the decision. Thank you, Madam.

REP. AMAN (14th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to say that the amendment is definitely germane. In lines 9 of the bill that we're talking about it says: wages paid on an hourly basis to any person performing the work of any mechanic labor et cetera. I believe the amendment deals with the wages paid to a bartender and wait staff. They both deal with an hourly wage, that explain two different types of individuals are doing working. I believe that is about as close as any amendments that we have had going through this chamber as far as having a complete connection. Wages paid are wages paid and I believe that it should be discussed and voted on by this chamber. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly rise to request that we reject the ruling of the Chair. In all due respect, Madam Speaker, I think the flaw in the ruling is that we're just looking back upon precedent when -- when the decision on the floor was challenged. And I think that we've got a deeper obligation to look back not just on challenged rulings but on practice as usual. And I think it clearly in all fairness in this chamber both this session and in past sessions, Madam Speaker, has been on an issue like this when the nexus of the underlying bill is one area that we have allowed the debate and the amendment to go forward. And in all fairness I think that that would be a more proper ruling on this also. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was alluded to earlier that Mason's 402 has a number of different sections and one that I do not believe was previously mentioned is subsection 3 that is to be germane the amendment is required to only relate to the same subject. It may entirely change the effect or be in conflict with the spirit of the original motion or measure and still be germane to the subject.

Now of course, that leaves us to wonder what does subject mean. Is it just the section of the statute? Is it the very, very specific thing that was being discussed within the amendment -- within the bill or earlier amendment? And a precedent that we have that elucidates that is number 89. The bill eliminated the special alcohol education and treatment fund and transferred the money to the General Fund. The amendment raised the minimum drinking age from 19 to 21.

A member raised a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill. The two had different subjects and applied to different unrelated statutory sections. The Speaker ruled the point not well taken. He stated that citations to various statutory sections are not as important as the texts of the bill in the amendment. He ruled that both related to the subject of alcohol. In this case we are dealing with labor law. The matter is what the subject is that we are handling in front of us today with this bill and with this amendment. They are the same subject. They may not be the same section of the statutes. They may not be the same words that we're dealing with. We're not talking about just changing one word from a 'may' to a 'shall'.

We're dealing with a subject and that is a much broader thing than what I think we have been having the discussion about previously with respect to germaneness. And I would urge that the chamber overturn the ruling of the Chair on that basis. That was Speaker Stalburg, June 3, 1983 who ruled that the subject was alcohol. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I briefly just looked in our State statutes and what I found out of the tens of thousands of pages, these two references in our statutes are within a page of each other. Just one more reason why I personally believe under compensation and wages, it's important that this is germane. And it's relevant according to our statutes because they're in the same section and they're within a page of each other. And when there's 10,000 pages of our statutes, in my view, it's germane and I hope the rest of this body thinks about the integrity of our organization and supports this position. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. MERRILL (54th):
Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just briefly to support the ruling of the Chair. It's an interesting discussion we've had and I do concur with Representative O'Neill that actually section 402 subsection 3, which states very clearly that the amendment is required only to relate to the same subject is exactly correct that just merely being a part of a larger statute is not really the question. In this case the underlying bill, the subject amends statutes concerning lawsuits to collect unpaid employee benefits owed by defunct contractors and subcontractors. And that is the main subject of the bill.

The amendment concerns amount of minimum wage paid to waiters and bartenders. And I would argue those are not the same subjects. And also in subsection 2 of section 402 it says that the subject must be relevant, appropriate, and in a natural and logical sequence and I think that's also relevant here that the amount of minimum wage paid to waiters and bartenders does not flow logically from a discussion of unpaid wages for defunct contractors and subcontractors. So I would urge the members to uphold the ruling of the Chair.

A green light means that you support the ruling of the Chair. A red light means that you -- that you do not.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to urge the chamber to vote against the ruling of the Chair and in doing so would like to cite what Representative Merrill has said and what Representative O'Neill has said that for an amendment to be germane it only needs to relate to the subject matter of the underlying bill. And Representative Merrill has stated that the subject matter of the underlying bill and of the amendment is compensation to employees.

And there are so many varied layers and styles and subsets of that topic that the bill and the underlying amendment could clearly represent different parts of that same topic but in essence the topic, compensation to employees is what we're talking about. And I would urge my colleagues to look at it that way when it's time to vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark? Will you remark further on the ruling of the Chair? If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened. Green is to uphold the ruling. Red is for overruling.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. members to the chamber. The House is voting on the appeal of ruling of the Chair by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a few questions to the proponent of the bill as amended.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Representative Ryan, as I understand it now the underlying bill has been amended by Senate Amendment A and House Amendment A. If I'm not mistaken, it's my understanding that as the bill now stands before us for action it would allow a general contractor or a subcontractor to in good faith rely on the certification of a lower tier subcontractor as an affirmative defense to an action that's brought by the Labor Commissioner to collect unpaid benefits on behalf of an employee of this lower tier subcontractor.

The general contractor must require the subcontractor to provide payment of a bond on the Public Works project or sufficient verification from the pension and benefit fund administrator of the relevant fund that the amount of the contributions paid are payable on behalf of the person to any employee welfare fund has been paid. Is that where we stand with regard to the bill as amended now? Was I accurate in that description? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker, now that the bill has been amended if the general contractor requires the subcontractor to provide that payment bond on the Public Works project or the other sufficient verification, and the subcontractor refuses to do so or is remise in doing so, what happens then? Or through you, Madam Speaker, what is the action available on behalf of the general contractor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, my understanding that the contractor would sign a contract with the subcontractor, these would be the provisions of the contract and if the subcontractor did not comply within the contract I guess would be considered null and void and the contractor could on and work with another subcontractor.

And through you, Madam Speaker, would the general contractor be able to use as an affirmative defense against the Labor Commission's action the fact that the subcontractor breached the contract by not providing either payment bond or the sufficient verification? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I am not an attorney but I believe that would be the way I would read it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, Madam Speaker, with regard to the second requirement which is sufficient verification from the pension and benefit fund administrator of the relevant fund that the amount of the contributions paid or payable on behalf of each such person to any employee welfare fund has been paid, that sounds to like something that couldn't be verified until after the fact. In other words, how would a general contractor be able to assert that as an affirmative defense and point to the contract itself when in fact that kind of verification would seem to be something that would happen once challenged by the Labor Commission? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. RYAN (139th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, I think as we talked about earlier I think on larger contracts a payment bond would be required. And I think it was Representative Aman that mentioned for smaller contracts it might not be feasible to get a payment bond. And in those occasions it would probably be where the second method would be used, the verification from the pension fund. And I believe as the individuals -- as the subcontractor made the payments and he gets some kind of a receipt, he would have that available to him.

So I mean obviously the payment would have to be made first and if the payment was not made and the verification was not done I believe the contractor as we look down further in the bill would be able to under I think line 178, failure to pay wages or benefits he could bring the individual to court to recover the costs that were not paid.

Will you remark? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Oh, we didn't do the amendment yet. If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representative is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber please.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If all members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce that tally.

And the bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. Will the Clerk -- I'm sorry, it's not in concurrence. The bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 612.

On page 18, Calendar 612, Senate Bill number 846, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISABLED VETERAN'S PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION favorable report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report on the bill. Will you remark?

REP. GRAZIANI (57th):
Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. First of all I want to thank -- thank the Governor, or certainly our Veteran's Affair Committee, Commissioner Schwartz, and other veterans organizations for bringing this bill to our attention. What this bill does, Madam Speaker, members of the chamber, is that no longer does it require a disabled veteran which there's roughly 22,000 within our State, to file on an annual basis with the town assessor. And this problem came to light, quite frankly, when the federal VA system changed their computer system.

Therefore none of our disabled veterans were able to receive that letter. What that in fact meant that some of them had to reestablish once again or taken off their $ 1,000 exemption based on their disability. So it created a lot of undue hardship for our disabled veterans. This makes it permanent. By that I mean the only time the disabled veteran will have to file with the town tax assessor if there's any change in their disability. So with that, Madam Speaker, I urge passage of the bill. Thank you.

My good friend, Representative John Harkins of the 120, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I would like to thank the Governor in her leadership for coming forward with this idea of allowing our disabled veterans to only have to come once in order to apply for a benefit. I'd like to thank Representative Graziani for his support in this bill as well. And I think his explanation sums it. This will once again do something that's really long overdue in helping our disable veterans and I urge support of the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. 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 take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If so the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Why thank you, Madam Speaker, so lovely you are on the dais today. Madam Speaker, I move for the immediate transmittal to the Senate of all items acted upon in the House and needing further action in the Senate. Thank you.

The question is on suspension of the rules for the immediate transmittal of all acted on bills in the House needing further action in the Senate to the Senate. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

On page 32, Calendar 147 substitute for House Bill number 6470, AN ACT CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL RETAIL HEATING OIL AND PROPANE CONTRACTS favorable report of the Committee on Energy and Technology.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark? Representative Shapiro.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this bill is intended to reorganize the home heating oil and propane industry to one that has contracts instead of oral agreements that consumers know nothing about. It represents several years of work in the making by the Attorney General, the Department of Consumer Protection, and the industry to better protect consumers. This is a wonderful bill that will remove hidden fees from the process and really streamline it. And Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of LCO 9206. I ask that that amendment be called and I be permitted to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call House Amendment LCO 9206 designated as House Amendment Schedule A.

LCO number 9206 House A offered by Representative Shapiro, D'Amelio, and Senator Colapietro.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Shapiro, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I said this bill -- this amendment is a strike-all amendment that becomes the bill. It is intended to clean up the contracting process in the propane and home heating oil industry. It places a number of requirements on new contracts. They must be in writing. They must set forth all of the relevant terms and conditions including fees, charges, and other penalties.

It restricts the number of fees that are in place to only tank rental fees and tank removal fees. It requires that liquid damages not exceed any actual damages. It requires that there be a purchase option for the tank in any propane agreement for a reasonable amount set forth in the contract. It places a three year maximum on any of these regular fluctuating price contracts.

In addition if you have a valid contract, if you're one of those people fortunate enough to have that that contract will remain in place, nothing will change for you until renewal comes up at which time the fees can be readjusted. For existing customers without written contracts it permits that the industry who is currently serving you will send you a notice of your agreement with all of the relevant fees, existing fees that you have. They are not allowed to raise them and you will have the obligation to return to them a notice that says you are supporting the agreement, you want to enter into one, or you do not wish to continue with them. And any renewals of this would have to be done by certified mail.

In addition it places certain restrictions on guaranteed and fixed price contracts that are very important. And finally as an addition a former amendment has become part of this, Representative D'Amelio's amendment, which we are supporting with respect to the commercial trash hauling industry and auto renewals. And for auto renewal provisions longer than one year it would require all the commercial trash haulers to send notices within 90 days of the expiration of the agreement to their customers. The customers would have the option of opting out. We think this is a good bill and I urge adoption of the amendment, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. The question is on adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark on House A? Representative Bacchiochi of the 52.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the good Chairman said this not the case of a solution looking for a problem. In this instance, for several years, the Committee has listened to consumers discuss the numerous contracts that they were having with their propane and oil contracts. And this bill does adequately address those concerns. One concern that I have struggled with as I've served on that Committee is to try to balance the needs of the consumer with the needs of our businesses.

In many cases, Madam Speaker, we weren't always in agreement and we weren't able to find that solution. I'm happy to say that I believe with this bill we can all agree that a solution has been found that adequately addresses those concerns without vastly strapping our businesses; the oil -- the small deliveries and the propane delivery companies. This is a big bill and while I'm not planning to ask the Chairman many questions on it I would tell the members of the chamber that there are a lot of items in here.

We talk about capped price contracts, fixed price contracts, futures contracts, guaranteed price contracts, physical supply contracts, surety bonds. There are many, many things in this bill. I have complete faith in the Chairman and the co-Chair and the members of the Committee on what this document represents.

Madam Speaker, that is -- I do have two or three quick questions, through you, Madam Speaker to the Chairman of General Law.

Thank you. In line 9 I just want to make sure where it says an agent of the purchaser, this is the person that could sign the delivery ticket. Is that defined somewhere in State statute that it wouldn't be a child, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, there may be -- actually there is probably -- there are probably several definitions of an authorized for someone throughout statute and in this bill we are looking at the commonly used term of someone who is an authorized agent and able to sign for the -- for the purchaser a delivery ticket as she asked. Through you, Miss -- Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And also starting in line 60 there is a lot of new language there that outlines how phone orders would be acceptable. Do we do this currently with -- do we do something similar under current statute, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, this is new language because it's reflecting what happens in the industry. We're trying to get everyone into written contracts but we recognize that the industry does still do some oral contracts over the phone where it will be automated. In order to address that situation to make it as similar to the written contract provision as we could we talked about how that would occur on the phone and that a written notice of terms would have to follow and the phone call would have to be recorded so that people could understand it.

And in addition there would be a three day right to rescind just in case there wasn't a meeting of minds through the telephone recording. So through you, Madam Speaker, this is new language but it's in here to address existing situation.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, also referring to lines 161 through 168 we seem to be -- we seem to be making a revision regarding the 100 gallons or more and when an additional charge can be levied to the consumer. Could the Chairman please explain how this changes from the current statute, through you, Madam Speaker?

Thank you. And it's an excellent question. Through you, Madam Speaker, to my esteemed co-Chair, this is intended to be a technical amendment because it had previously said in excess of 100 which would not have caught contracts that were at 100 gallons which is a very commonly denominated number in the fuel industry. So the in excess of 100 has just been changed to include the 100 or greater so that we reflect what's typically delivered which is increments of 100 or 150 gallons. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the Chair for the promotion. I understand I'm the co-Chair now, so I'll take that as an honor. Madam Speaker, that's the end of my questions. I thank the Chairman and the members of the Committee for their hard work on the bill.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? Will you care to remark further?

REP. D'AMELIO (71st):
-- always a pleasure when you're on the dais. I rise in full support of the legislation. I'd like to thank our Chairman, Representative Shapiro and co-Chairman, Representative Taborsak for their help with my piece in this bill. This is extremely consumer -friendly bill. It goes a long way in ensuring our consumers who use propane and oil to heat their homes, that they're going to be well protected and I urge adoption. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in full support of this amendment and the underlying bill and I am especially pleased to see one section of it regarding tank rental contracts. I was concerned about the issue in the community regarding tank rental contracts in that -- and still existing presently without this bill in place, propane companies are engaging customers in tank rental contracts that can be agreed to for a large term of years.

After the agreement is in place then the propane companies are at liberty to change the price of their propane and the customer is somewhat locked into a situation that they can't get out of without large payments of money. So I was pleased to see that this amendment includes the restriction on tank rental contracts to only 36 months. And I'm glad to support this bill and glad to see that section in it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment A?

Yes, good afternoon. Madam Speaker, through you, I would like to pose a question to the Chairman if I may.

To Representative Shapiro, I'd like to direct your attention to lines 21 through 28 and allow me please to give you a synopsis and I ask you a question. Right now I do have an agreement with my -- with my oil delivery person or my oil heat company. Also I do have a contract with a propane gas person who delivers propane for my fireplace. And basically the explanation that I am seeing here between lines 21 and 28 are basically what we do now. I do have a contract. They tell me what the price -- price per gallon is. They tell me what the delivery. They tell me all of the things that are here in this new language. So what is so new about this? If I may, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, I did not hear if the good Representative said that he had a written contract or if his contract was verbal and that would be important in my answer.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No. It is written, what I receive from the oil dealer per say -- let us for the moment stay with the local -- the oil dealer. I receive from them a proposal. And the proposal tells me how many gallons I would want to purchase. They tell me the per gallon price and they tell me all of the other charges that may be implied. And what I will do is once I am in agreement, I will sign the contract once I negotiate with them on the price per gallon if possible -- if applicable. And I sign it and I mark it up, sign it and send it back to them. So it seems to me that this here lines 21 to 28 is basically describing what we do now. So perhaps we are already doing this with my -- at least with my oil delivery contractor. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, the Representative asked a good question and the answer is that your contract is exactly the kind of contract that the industry would like to inspire and the department and the Attorney General. And under lines 98 through 102 if you currently have a valid written contract, as you do, this bill would not change your terms and conditions at all. This is exactly what we're looking for. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Shapiro, then I am to conclude here that not all companies are already applying these concepts, written contracts, in writing ahead of time to their customers. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SHAPIRO (144th):
Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, the answer is you are correct. Unfortunately you are in the precious few who are having it occur in the correct manner and there are a large number of consumers out there who do not have it as well as you. They don't have written contracts. They have hidden fees and such. And you are in a good situation and you know we would like to foster that for others. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I conclude then that throughout the years I have picked a good company. Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you, Representative Shapiro.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Through you, Madam Speaker, on lines 67, where it says item two, employs an interactive voice response system. Is that system -- a mandatory thing that he must have or can the dealer use a written contract? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SHAPIRO (144th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. He can certainly -- he can certainly use a written contract. This is in the alternative in the event that he doesn't go to a written contract and has a system that does this and they do phone call contracts then an interactive system would be required to record it. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker, there's three instances of fines. When there's a fine for some inappropriate transaction does that get reported to the Consumer Council or the Attorney General? Why would there be a second and a third offense? Why would that be allowed to happen? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you and through you, Madam Speaker, these are fines levied by the Department of Consumer Protection who has jurisdiction over this issue. There is strong coordination between the Department and the Attorney General's Office so that there can be forwarding of these kinds of complaints and fines. And at some point I would expect that the Attorney General's Office would take action on the matter but some matters if they are not rising to an extreme level may be dealt with in these fines that we set forth. If it gets more serious then I imagine that they would escalate the law enforcement. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you and through you, another question, Madam Speaker. On line 220 a surety bond is that something that has to be filed with the Consumer Council or the Attorney General? Where's that surety bond? Who has that and how do you verify it? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SHAPIRO (144th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you'll give me a moment to read the language.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you to the good Representative, the surety bond has to come from a company that is a licensed insurance company. That would be governed by the insurance department and they would regulate that. To my knowledge -- although I'm not certain this information does not have to be communicated to the Department of Consumer Protection since the vetting will be done on the insurance department's side. Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker, so that --the surety bond, a copy of that would be sent to the -- would it be sent to anybody to verify that the man does have a surety bond in place? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. Because this deals with the licensure of these home heating oil companies and propane companies. The licenses are governed by the Department of Consumer Protection and in order to receive that license and to have it renewed they would have to -- the company would have to show evidence of these bonds to DCP. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank Representative Shapiro for his answers and thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just have a quick question for the proponent of the bill.

Yes. In the area of the bill, lines 182 through 188, they talk about the oil dealers, the propane dealers having to register themselves and their affiliated companies with the Department of Consumer Protection. And they also talk about the interlocking boards of directors. Now many of these small businesses are part of several different businesses. They also very often serve as volunteers on other boards of directors and so you're result -- you have a very large number of organizations that each of these officers may be a part of. And since they're in the same industry very often they are serving on various common boards which would have them interlocking.

For the purpose of legislative intent would the Representative explain what they want this disclosure to actually -- the purpose of this disclosure and what Consumer Protection will be looking for a company or an owner to comply with this section of the bill. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SHAPIRO (144th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the good Representative for his question. I believe the answer is that the types of companies that are interlocking and that are deemed affiliated are much narrower than what you could have expected because it's modified by the particular section of statute we're dealing with here which is section 16A 23M which is entitled home heating oil and gas sales. So the types of companies with which they are affiliated would be similar home heating oil and gas companies. And those would be the interlocking boards that they're also looking at.

The purpose of that, Madam Speaker, is because if there's a problem with one company that is commonly owned with others and they could possibly have an issue with delivering home heating oil or propane to their customers in winter they might have a problem at all four companies. And if that's the case, they're going to have to procure substitute oil for all of those consumers and it helps them to know in advance if one company is having a problem their affiliated companies may also and to address the problem sooner. So that's why it's limited to those within this industry and that's the problem they're trying to address. Through you, Madam Speaker.

I thank the proponent for his answer. This question of interlocking boards and registrations has come up several times in the General Law Committee. I am very pleased that the Chairman did take it into consideration. The comments that were made at the public hearing and in discussions and did write a bill that accomplishes the purposes of having the interlocking directorships and businesses to be registered together but doesn't place, I believe, an untold burden on the business community as they try to obey the rules or on consumer protection, when they're trying to interpret the rules and to register companies. So I think that this particular section has been well drafted and should serve its purpose well. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Is that working? Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a couple of quick questions for the proponent of the bill and thank you for putting for this good consumer protection bill. I plan to support it I just --

-- need a little clarification. Through you, Madam Speaker, these are all questions about section 8. Does this pertain to contracts between a hauler and both residential customers as well as business customers?

Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker, I believe this applies to both commercial and residential customers of home heating and propane.

REP. SHAPIRO (144th):
Oh, I'm sorry. I take that back. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank for your yield. I was looking at the wrong section. In section 8 we are solely dealing with commercial contracts. So these are agreements between trash hauling businesses and small and large businesses within the State of Connecticut not residential customers.

REP. SCHOFIELD (16th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've got to get that habit down. Sorry. Again, in that section, is the term refuse in reference to both solid waste and recycling, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, this is traditional trash haulers who are moving solid waste. I suppose it's possible that some may engage in a dual business but typically these contracts are just dealing with solid waste. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Will you care to remark further on House A? Will you care to remark further on House A? Will you care to remark further on House A? Will you care to remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe this is a good bill as amended and it ought to pass.

Okay. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to 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.

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.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Representative Miller. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted please check the board to determine whether your vote has been properly cast. If all members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce that tally.

On page 45 -- take that back -- page 35, Calendar 251 substitute for House bill number 6529, AN ACT CONCERNING THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS favorable report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is on the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this bill establishes a licensing system for third party administrators otherwise known as TPAs. TPAs perform the tasks traditionally performed by insurance companies but on behalf of self-insured plans yet unlike 25 other states, Madam Speaker, TPAs in Connecticut operate without any licensing requirements or statutory oversight.

In essence, Madam Speaker, we have no way of knowing who is selling those services as a TPA in Connecticut nor whether they are qualified of financially stable. And we do estimate that there are at least 100 or more third party administrators operating in Connecticut currently. Madam Speaker, this bill requires TPAs to submit an application to the Insurance Commissioner which includes various documents. It requires licensees to maintain surety bonds, submit annual or financial reports and pay application and annual fees. It requires a TPA to enter a written agreement with a company before performing duties on the company's behalf and holds certain amounts in a fiduciary capacity.

It prohibits a TPA from entering into an agreement that would make the TPAs commissions, fees, or charges contingent on savings in the adjustment, settlement, or payment of losses. It authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to suspend or revoke a TPAs license or issue a cease and desist order if a TPA does not have a license after notice and hearing. It creates for standards for companies and requires companies to fulfill obligations with respect to the written agreement. A TPA must maintain books and records of transactions made on a company's behalf and then make them available to the company for inspection for at least five years after creation.

Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO 8682. I ask that he call it and I receive permission to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO number 8682 designated as House Amendment Schedule A.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection? Seeing none, please proceed, Representative Fontana.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The underlying bill is a proposal which first came to us from the Insurance Department. Madam Speaker, this amendment strikes the underlying language and replaces it with various provisions that have revised language developed and agreed to by the Insurance Department and representatives of the insurance industry. I move for its adoption.

The question is on adoption. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in favor of the amendment that's before us. As the good Chairman of the insurance company mentioned this has the full support of our Commissioner. It's much needed legislation. More and more insurance companies are using these TPAs to conduct business so we need to have them regulated and as it was stated the amendment before us has the full support of everyone involved. This evolved through a long process of negotiations. So I urge everyone to adopt the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on the amendment before us? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Fontana.

REP. FONTANA (87th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO 8868. I ask that he call it and I receive permission to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO number 8868 designated as House Amendment Schedule B.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? Seeing none, Representative Fontana.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this amendment provides transparency in medical claims data from municipalities with more than 50 employees. It has been developed and agreed to by the Controller and members of the insurance industry. Essentially, Madam Speaker, it affords municipalities with more than 50 employees the opportunity on request to gain access to their medical claims data in electronic form once a year. I move for its adoption.

The question before the chamber is on adoption. Will you remark further on the amendment, House Amendment Schedule B?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I -- if I might just a question through you to the proponent.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understood the gentleman to say that this is for municipalities with 50 employees or more. Is there a reason why that threshold was established? Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes there is. The industry expressed reservations about allowing groups smaller than 50 employees access to claims data on their insureds for fear that that information would essentially allow those employers the ability to identify particular people with particular claims and particular illnesses which could work against them in terms of their employment. And so, this was the threshold identified by the industry under which they could not support the amendment but over which they could support it. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and so with regard to claims -- as I understand it HIPAA restricts certain amounts of information anyway. I guess I'm not clear on what the magic is about 50. I think -- I understand why many small employers might more easily identify individuals but I don't think it's any mystery to anyone when someone has a significant claim who that individual is. And what would this information be used for? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, first let me say there is no magic. Again, this is a threshold established by the industry in its negotiations with the Controller and agreed to by the Controller. The gentleman is correct. HIPAA does provide various restrictions and he will note in lines 52 through 59 of the amendment we specify what information insurers may and may not provide. And finally, Madam Speaker, in lines 70 through 73 we specify the purposes for which municipalities would seek this information; obtaining competitive quotes for group health insurance or promoting wellness programs and initiatives. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, the establishment of this threshold is a -- is a fast limit and so even if there was an agreement between the provider and the employer, that information would not be available below 50. Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, no, as I understand it insurers and their insureds or policy holders may negotiate something separate below that amount but this is the requirement. They are not required to go below 50 employees but if an insurer and a policy holder can agree to some other threshold they're certainly free to pursue it. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may a couple questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Looking at lines 12 through 13 that seem to define an employer, it's mentioned in towns, cities, bureaus, school districts. In the opinion of the proponent would this include regional planning authorities such as regional councils of government? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, in line 5 it talks about an employer or governmental entity. A regional planning agency is a governmental entity of a kind however it is not specifically enumerated here in the bill and so I cannot provide the gentleman absolute assurance but I believe that a regional planning agency could well be covered under the term governmental entity in line 5. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And looking at lines 52 through 59 which I believe Representative Miner asked a question on this earlier. What type of penalty might there be or are there any sanctions that would be provided if information which was to be protected was disclosed either intentionally or inadvertently; information that would be identifiable as to individual. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I cannot answer the gentleman's question. Clearly we identify in those lines two particular federal regulations as well as the HIPAA law but I do not have access right at this moment to the penalties under those federal provisions. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the intent would be that the verbiage will -- delineates what the statutes are -- the governing statutes and violation of this would presumably lead to some type of penalty as stipulated in the statutes. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule B? Will you care to remark further on House B? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by Amendment Schedules A and B? Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by amendments A and B? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all the members have voted please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally please. And will the Clerk please announce the tally.

On page 22, Calendar 671, substitute for Senate Bill number 455, AN ACT CONCERNING THE NURSING HOME BILL OF RIGHTS favorable report of the Committee on Public Health.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

The question is on the Committee's joint favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, what we have before us is the nursing home bill of rights. This is a bill that protects our valuable asset in our seniors who are in -- unfortunately in convalescent homes or chronic hospitals. And with that, Madam Speaker, I'd like to call LCO 7007. And I be allowed to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 7007 previously designated Senate Amendment Schedule A.
THE CLERK:

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this does is strikes on line 164 of the bill it adds in there a fine of $ 2,500 and with that Madam Speaker, I ask for approval of the amendment.

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

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Serra.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again I ask that LCO 7683 be called and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this is enumerates the rights of our seniors who are confined to nursing homes and chronic patient hospitals. And with that, Madam Speaker, I can enumerate but I would just like to say that this goes a long way to protecting our valuable assets which all of us, our mothers, fathers, and grandparents who unfortunately in nursing home and chronic ill hospitals. And with that, Madam Speaker, I move for adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Representative Serra. The question is on adoption. Will you remark further on Senate B? Will you remark further on Senate B?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the amendment, through you, if I may, a few questions to the proponent.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, who makes the determination that a facility has negligently deprived a patient of any right or benefit and so forth? Is that by court or by an agency? Who makes that determination? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Thank you. Line 6 through 15 talk about a determination that the nursing home has been negligent and the amendment says that the rights or benefits can't be abrogated by contract. What I was wondering is who makes the initial determination that there has been negligence in the providing of services? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the family or the person in charge or the loved one who happens to be in the convalescent home could make a complaint and it would be the Department of Public Health or the people who inspect the facilities and handle that type of situation.

Thank you. So the Department of Public Health would make the initial determination that there was -- there was negligence that deprived the patient of a right. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you. The lines 13 through 15 it says the rights or benefits may not be reduced, rescinded, or abrogated by contract. I assume that means they can't be waived in advance. I mean you could still -- this wouldn't preclude a settlement of some claim for damages on behalf of the -- of the patient. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Now the punitive damages that are referred to in lines 17 and 18, through you, Madam Speaker, are those damages awarded by a court? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Then in the following lines, through you, Madam Speaker, 18 through 20 that speaks of a separate action at law, I assume to recover damages. Is that right? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And they refer to the various kinds of remedies that may be sought ; injunctive and declaratory relief and I assume that an action for ordinary damages would also be available. Correct? Through you, Miss.

Thank you. Don't patients currently have a right to sue for abuse or injury that they receive in a nursing home? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the microphone just shut down. Through you, Madam Speaker, can he repeat that question again; Representative Hetherington, please.

Alright. There we go. Through you, Madam Speaker, my question is -- deals with what rights this adds to recovery that don't already exist. I assume a patient who is injured already has the right to go to court and sue for personal injury. And does this add something to that? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it says by law patients can pursue a private cause of action against a facility only upon a finding that the patient has been negligently deprived of any rights or benefits conferred in the patient's bill of rights. And two, suffering an injury as a result of deprivation, the court may then assess damages to compensate the person for such injuries.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, so there would first have to be a determination by the Department of Social Services? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And -- okay. No, I won't pursue that. Alright. Thank you. I thank the proponent. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker, I have a number of nursing homes in my district and I have on occasion gotten involved with complaints and I'll give you an example of some of them. An assisted living operation in my town -- I know that's not a chronic disease type of operation but just to give you an example of what a complaint could be.

A gentleman from New York called me his friend of 80 years old who's living in the assisted living facility. I get a complaint from this gentleman that they weren't doing their job. They weren't taking her out enough during the week; shopping and shows and visiting different historical spots. And he was complaining about the fact that they were negligent. They weren't doing their job.

Now, I'm sure that that is not a legitimate complaint because I don't think you can expect in a nursing home or an assisted living home to take somebody out every single day to some location. So that's one of the complaints I got. Again, that's not a chronic type of a nursing home. Another one, the patient -- the person living in the convalescent home injured herself. And the children blamed the convalescent home; claimed that they should have been more careful and that somebody should have been watching her closely. And again, you just can't watch these people 24 hours a day but sometimes they attempt to get up at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning in a room that is not really lit that well and they fall and hurt themselves. And then they again blame the convalescent home owner.

And lastly, some time ago we had a -- I forgot the union, but a convalescent home was having a problem with the workers and the workers they were a unionized group, did things to the patients that were not proper. Would the owner of that convalescent home be responsible for an incident such as that where a -- out of -- it wasn't their -- their fault but some disgruntled workers because they're negotiating for an increase of wages decided to do something to get that home owner a problem -- that home -- convalescent home owner a problem.

So would he be held liable in a case like that if there was an incident where a patient was injured or somehow rights were being trampled on by a union worker rather than the owner of the convalescent home? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I think as the good Representative knows that once a patient is taken in and there's a contract signed, the facility is responsible to an overall degree. At that point there would be an internal investigation by the nursing home and I'm assuming that for somehow or some reason the Department of Health -- Public Health would be notified if recourse wasn't done. And it follows a progressive step. So I'm not saying that the nursing home would be responsible but there would be an investigation by the various State departments.

And of course if it happened to be a patient, either the patient would complain or the next thing the patient would be complaining to the loved one who came into visit him and some action would be taken on the part of the nursing home. The nursing home overall is responsible because that's -- they're the owners of that facility. As to how it goes from there, it would be an investigation and some type of action definitely would be taken or a remedy of some sort.

REP. MILLER (122nd):
Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, the incidents I'm talking about were well publicized on television and radio throughout the area. So, those things can happen and certainly we want to protect the patients of any of these homes from being injured or having their right violated. And I would just say it's a shame that -- we have, I think 15 convalescent homes of varying degrees.

I don't know whether they're chronic or what types but there's 15 nursing homes that are financially strapped and some of them may go under. They go under bankruptcies. So, it's a problem. And I think this bill will go a long way to protect the patients and that's what we're here for but I just thought I'd bring that out. I thank you, Madam Speaker and I thank the good Representative for having him listen to me. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on Senate Amendment Schedule B? Will you care to remark further on Senate B? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by Senate Amendments A and B? Will you care to 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.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If so, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally please. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Senate Bill number 455 amended by Senate A and B in concurrence with the Senate.

On page 21, Calendar 660, substitute for Senate Bill 1009, AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO TITLE 29 TO INCORPORATE THE STATE FIRE PREVENTION CODE favorable report of the Committee on Judiciary.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

The question is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The bill makes changes in various statutes to incorporate provisions of the State fire prevention code many of which are technical in nature. The bill also requires the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety to revise existing regulations to incorporate the State fire prevention code.

The question is on passage of the bill. Will you remark further on passage of the bill?

-- just a few questions through you for my friend the Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Thank you, Madam. In lines 125 through 131 there is the creation of a new process by which local fire marshals in the event of an emergency order to vacate a premise must also forward that order to the State Fire Marshall's Office. Could the gentleman speak to whether or not that will impede the ability of local fire marshals to do emergency orders to vacate premise in an emergency way or is that something that will be handled quickly and in sort of a same day format? Through you, Madam.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Through you, that's a very good question from my Ranking Member. That is in consultation with the local fire marshal and so they could get a direct answer from the State Fire Marshall as quick as possible. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
Madam Speaker, thank you and I thank the Chairman for his answer. Just one follow-up to that.

Thank you, Madam. Just one brief follow-up. In order to meet that standard and get back to local fire marshals quite so quickly, my understanding is that the State Fire Marshall's Office currently has in place the resources to do that and that there would be no additional costs required. Is that accurate? Through you, Madam,

Madam Speaker, thank you. And I thank the gentleman again for his answer. Moving on; lines 163 through 165 do define a manufacturing establishment. As we know, local fire marshals do now inspect manufacturing establishments where they didn't in the past. My question very simply is in this -- I this definition which links manufacturing establishments to NAIC code is this going to increase the number of establishments that need to be evaluated? Is it going to decrease them? Or is it simply going to codify the definition? Through you, Madam.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, yes, it would just codify or define what manufacturing is. Through you.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much and again I thank the gentleman for his answer. Moving on, just a couple more questions if I could. Lines 327 through 333 are actually bracketed and removed. The original language in current statute states that local municipalities may enact ordinances -- ordinances in rules and regulations for the installation of, in this particular case, gas equipment and piping. This language is removed throughout this bill as proposed which would lead me to believe that municipalities no longer have the ability to implement municipal ordinances or local regulations that are different than the State fire code. Is my assessment accurate? Is the State fire code now the absolute and local municipalities may not implement their own different regulations? Through you, Madam.

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct. What we are trying to look to do, to my good friend Representative Perillo is to come up with a uniform code that they could follow. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you. One quick question in the next section of the bill, another section that is currently in statute but that has been bracketed. Lines 334 onward gave the State Fire Marshall the ability to grant variations and exemptions in cases where getting to code was imprudent, impossible, very, very difficult. That's been bracketed and removed.

I'm concerned that perhaps that may limit some of the flexibility of the State Fire Marshall' Office. Is there something in the new code in regulation that would allow the State Fire Marshall to continue to have that level of flexibility and continue to offer variations and exemptions? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, yes, that's correct that there would be provision governing waivers from the fire prevention code. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. Just one final question if I may through you, in line 772 to 775 we now have a definition of what a potentially explosive chemical is and something that a constituent asked of me is whether or not that pertains to household chemicals and goods. And specifically this individual was referring to things like household fertilizers.

We all hear about fertilizers being used as explosives and chemical agents and I'm just wondering whether or not local fire marshals and the State Fire Marshall now have any sort of jurisdiction over household chemicals such as fertilizers. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. That answer would be no dealing with explosive chemicals. On the comical side, more volatile issue might be dealing with the State budget but that might be for another day. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I thank you very much and I thank the Chairman for his answers as well. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on the bill? Will you care to remark further on the bill? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll.

On page 35, Calendar 242, House Bill number 6387, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SMALL TOWN ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM favorable report of the Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is on the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is actually a bill that was originally proposed by the Governor. It's something that came through the Planning and Development Committee with bipartisan support. What the bill does is it simply allows towns that are otherwise eligible to receive grants through the STEAP Program, the Small Town Economic Assistance Program to jointly apply for grants under that program for joint purchases among multiple towns.

It's a good move towards regionalism. It's one of those incentives that we'd like to see our towns and cities develop because it -- it enables towns to come together to make these kinds of joint purchases. And I think it's a good bill and I think given the support that it's had in our Committee and elsewhere, I'd urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark of the bill before us? Will you care to remark?

Good evening. This particular bill that allows municipalities to join together in applying for STEAP funding, through you, Madam Speaker, is this completely voluntary on the part of the municipalities? Through you.

REP. AMAN (14th):
If a group of municipalities go together for funding is the STEAP funding that is available going to be reduced to any of the other municipalities if a group of municipalities come forward? In other words are they going to get preference if there is not sufficient STEAP money to fund all possible projects? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, under the language of the bill, no, that's not necessarily the case. I know the Ranking Member is aware of the fact that the Governor had proposed other grant funds for LOSUB and TAR that would have been granted as a result of a towns ability to become part of a regional initiative. And that would have -- that was a zero-sum kind of approach where those towns that did regionalize got more money from a pot that was otherwise static which meant that other towns that did not regionalize were essentially punished. In this bill that would not apply. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Could the proponent of the bill -- we're talking the term STEAP funding, could he explain what type of projects and how -- what towns currently are applying for and using the money just for examples for the chamber. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Through you, Madam Speaker, the towns that are participating in STEAP are typically small towns of under as I -- I don't know the exact population but I believe it's under 25,000 who would otherwise not be eligible for some of the other grants that are available for larger towns for capital improvement purposes. The kinds of projects that STEAP is used for are, as I said, capital improvement type programs; playgrounds, building improvements and what have you that would be undertaken by the town itself. But it's specifically designed for smaller towns in particular so that they have an equal chance to access capital money for these types of projects in their communities. Through you, Madam Speaker.

I thank the proponent. In lines 21 it talks about no municipality or group of municipalities receive more than $ 500,000 in any one year. If a municipality has applied for STAEP funding for themselves and also part of a group of municipalities applying, how does that $ 500,000 limit occur? Is it that a town could receive its own $ 500,000 for a project and then the joint project be on top of that or would they have to reduce their share of the $ 500,000 separately? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, my understanding of the intent of this is that no individual town could actually receive more than $ 500,000 in aggregate. So that you could apply individually for STEAP grants for your town in particular but then you can also -- but as long as it does not exceed the $ 500,000 that if you then also could apply for a separate grant with another town or towns. And the aggregate amount that any -- that that town received could not be more than the $ 500,000. That's my understanding. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Let me just try to come up with a simple example. Town A has got a project at $ 500,000. Town B has a completely separate project of $ 500,000. And town A and B combine for a project of $ 200,000, would -- how would those projects be looked at as far as total amount of funding? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, under that particular scenario the individual towns would not be able to receive grants under both. That's my understanding that the aggregate for each individual town cannot exceed $ 500,000. So if they each got their individual grants under that hypothetical they would not be eligible then for the joint grant of the $ 200,000 under those circumstances. Again, the point of this is just to enable towns to be able to apply jointly as opposed to just only individually the way they currently are allowed to. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Just a one more on that funding because it talks about in any one fiscal year. Under this STEAP Program with a group of municipalities, if it's a long-term project that takes several years say to complete and costs over the $ 500,000 would they be able to apply in several different fiscal years and actually receive in the total more than $ 500,000 for the project over a several fiscal year period. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, I believe that yes, they can actually spread the -- the amount of the project out over multiple years -- fiscal years such that no individual year can -- in no individual year can they receive more than the $ 500,000. So you could have a multi-year project that might be a $ 2 million project. You'd have to spread that out over four years. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. AMAN (14th):
I thank the proponent for his answers. I agree that allowing municipalities to join together with this type of funding especially for small municipalities is a good idea. The more things that we can encourage towns on a voluntary basis to participate in to work together I think is a benefit for the State as a whole. It definitely saves money. I'd probably have another series of questions regarding the funding and how much money is available, et cetera, but I think until we have a budget in place the good Chairman would have a very difficult time answering those questions, even the -- the total amount of STEAP money.

I noticed in the report that there was a sizable balance in the STEAP account but I'm wondering, and I don't know and I'm not going to ask the Chairman if that has been swept and is gone because it seems like over the past few months if there's been money available we've gone after it in the various accounts. So, with that, I will encourage my fellow members to vote for this as we continue our path towards smart growth and encouraging municipalities to operate in a more efficient manner. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on the bill before us?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good evening. If I may can I ask a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it was mentioned in the introduction but I just wanted to be clear is that what we are doing here is enabling the municipalities to pull together for the purposes of STEAP grants. And my question is by doing so we're not creating the policy that groups of municipalities would get preference over an individual application necessarily. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And would a cog be able to facilitate the application process similar to what we had with the regional incentive grants or is this something that is exclusively administered through the municipalities on their own? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, we're not changing the eligibility requirements of any -- of the STEAP Program itself except for the fact that there can be joint applicants. So to the extent that cogs or regional planning organizations have played a role in facilitating applications in the past, they can continue to do so now. But the application would not be from the regional planning organization. It would have to be from the individual town or towns that -- that latter part being allowed under this bill. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I don't have any other questions for the Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee. Just a little comment, I guess I'm a little concerned with -- with this bill. I liked the regional incentive grants. I thought they were a good proposal policy that we were moving toward. And I think that the STEAP Program really serves a different purpose. It's for our municipalities to be able to receive money for their projects and I just feel that for the sake of regionalizing, we're sort of turning this fund potentially into a sort of regional incentive fund as opposed to a small town economic assistance program which it originally was.

I would have loved to have seen the regional incentive programs continue. And I would just be concerned that these groups of municipalities will necessarily get preference over an individual municipality given that the discretion and the criteria is not necessarily outlined in statute but it is solely with the -- under the jurisdictions of the Office of Policy and Management. So I do have some reservations on this amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The motion is to pass this item temporarily. Is there objection? Is there objection?

The motion is to pass this -- the motion is to pass this temporarily. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

On page 43, Calendar 529, substitute for House Bill number 6709, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION favorable report by the Committee on Government Administration and Elections.

I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill contains an assortment of relatively technical changes that has been sought by the Department of Corrections. I point out that this nearly identical bill was before the House last year and was not reached in the -- before the adjournment of the session in 2008. The bill contains a number of provisions. The first section involves freedom of information requests submitted by inmates for the personnel records of the corrections staff that supervise them, provides in effect an exemption from the freedom of information law for those types of requests. I would just point out, Madam Speaker, in a moment I'm going to order -- offer an amendment to rewrite that portion of the bill and will reserve my comments until then.

The next sections of the bill establish an enhanced penalty for inmates who possess cell phones inside prison facilities. A number of years ago the legislature enacted a special penalty for people who smuggle cell phones into the facilities, whether they're visitors or staff. But this would have a special penalty for an inmate who possesses a cell phone in a prison facility. I think it should be pointed out that a number of prisons around the country and to some extent in the Connecticut Department of Corrections, this has been a growing problem. There was an incident in the State of Texas where some extraordinarily bad things happened, some murders that were ordered from inside a prison using cell phone technology that had been smuggled into the cell. And I think it was a gang leader who was using it to communicate his orders to the outside and those orders were in fact carried out.

There's been some attempts around the country to install jamming devices which would block the cell phone signals inside the prison facilities. Under current federal law that's prohibited by the FCC. There's an attempt being made in Congress to change that law but in the meantime our Department of Corrections has asked for an enhanced penalty for inmates who are caught possessing cell phones inside the prisons. There's a number of sections dealing with some relatively minor changes in the system by which the Commissioner of Correction maintains savings accounts for inmates.

Inmates are able to earn money in a variety of ways. Inmates quite often perform work within the facilities. They're paid a very low wage. I think it's just $ 2 or $ 3 per day for maintenance type jobs, helping in the kitchen, that type of thing. Under the current law a separate savings account must be maintained for each inmate. The proposal is to change that to a system where one savings -- one bank account can be opened and kept by the Commissioner of Corrections, but a separate accounting mechanism for each inmate would go along with that one savings account.

The Commissioner believes this would make it quite a bit easier to do. There's a similar provision being written into the law that allows for inmates to work in a private sector job in the context of the prison facility. Under existing law if inmates are going to work in that type of a job, actually competing in the private sector against other employers, they must pay the prevailing rate for that occupation on the outside.

So a savings account is mandatory for those inmates but the Commissioner has proposed shifting to this more aggregated system where there'd be individual accounting but only one sort of global savings account for that. It raises slightly the amount of money which can be accumulated in the account before -- account which is to be held for the inmate's release so that there be some savings available to an inmate as he or she is being released from prison, presumably to make a deposit for an example on an apartment, that type of thing. That amount is being raised to $ 1,100 based on a discussion that took place here in the legislature last year.

I just want to make sure I covered all the major features of the bill. I think I did, Madam Speaker. Those last changes about the savings accounts, the compensation system, are relatively technical just simply updating and making more efficient the current procedure. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has LCO number 9241. I'd ask that the Clerk call and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment attempts to accomplish the same goal that I think was the goal of section one of the bill but to do so in a more sensible way. Under the existing freedom of information law there's a variety of exceptions to the FOI law. For example police reports during pending cases are not susceptible to the FOI law. There's an exception for that.

This would add a 25 exception to the current and would apply only to requests filed by inmates, no other person just inmates who are seeking to obtain the medical or personnel files of employees of the Department of Correction or the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. Apparently the problem, Madam Speaker, is that some inmates and some detainees in DIMAS which operates Whiting Forensic which is the hospital for the criminally insane here in the Connecticut. Some of the inmates have taken to requesting the personnel files of the corrections officers and other staff that are supervising them and are using that information to in effect harass them during the course of the day.

This would give the Commissioner of Corrections the ability to refuse to release this information, make it absolutely clear that the law permits such a refusal. It does not however prohibit the release of the information to other individuals. So for example if there were an actual lawsuit appending an attorney representing an inmate would have access to this information. A family member, a friend, a journalist, an academic, any other citizen would be able to get this information under the existing law but in the case where a specific inmate was simply routinely requesting the personnel files on all the staff that was in his or her area in order to harass them, the Commissioner would have an absolute right to refuse to release that information. I think this is sensible. It does respond to a very specific and very real problem and I urge adoption.

The question is on adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark? Will you remark on House A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to the amendment and to the section of the underlying bill that addresses the FOI concerns of the Department of Corrections. And I rise with some regret because I understand that people are concerned about this particular issue. There are corrections officers who I've spoken with and their leadership, the Commissioner of Corrections and members of this body who have come to me to discuss the matter.

However, as the Chairman of the GA and E Committee, we have cognizance over freedom of information issues and I think it's a very important part of our open government laws that we need to protect and we need to protect carefully. And I think it -- we should take a moment to review the law as it stands today. There are five pages of exemptions to freedom of information in the Connecticut General Statutes. In General Statutes 1-210 which we'd be adding to today and those include exemption number two, personnel or medical files and similar files of the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of privacy.

And then exemption number 18 is a number of matters regarding the Department of Correction and in particular security issues. So these are addressed. There's legislative intent to make sure that we don't create security risks and expose corrections officers or any other State officials through freedom of information to danger or to security issues within the facility.

Madam Speaker, I'd also note that once there is a hearing because of a denial of the release of records and an appeal by a person -- an inmate who wants them, that the corrections officer or other person can intervene and become a party to the case and help to make that case. I'd also not that according to the Freedom of Information Commission there has been an increase in inmate complaints against for freedom of information from 2004 to 2008 from 17 to 86. But a full 70 percent are resolved without a hearing at all.

The DOC has informed me that while they have lost at the Commission level they have not lost a case in Superior Court and these issues have not been resolved at the appellate level. So, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that this request while heartfelt from the community involved is premature. It's not necessary and it ads exemptions. And in fact this amendment also shows that once you open the door to exemptions to freedom of information the line begins to form at that door.

The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services has joined the line and I submit that this line will lengthen next year when we convene in February and there'll be more agencies that want to be included in this new subdivision 25 of subsection B of section 1-210. So, with concern about open and transparent government and our freedom of information law I respectfully suggest that we vote down the amendment and unfortunately I think the bill contains a lot of good things, and this is the last part of my remarks. I didn't vote against it in Committee because of all the other important things that Representative Lawlor, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee discussed.

So at that time I voted for the bill hoping that we could discuss this further. But we've been unable to resolve it. I understand others do want it and I will be opposing the amendment and because of this provision and my concern about freedom of information I'll oppose the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? Will you care to remark on Schedule A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question relates to what the present freedom of information act says that there is upon the protection of files such as are described in new 25. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I think a common sense interpretation of what's already in the law would lead one to conclude that the types of things I described in bringing out the amendment were also in effect protected. In other words, arguably exempt from the -- from disclosure. However, apparently, the administrative interpretation that's taken place and the court decisions related to those administrative determinations have not quite been consistent with what you or I might consider common sense. So in order to be explicit it was suggested that this would at least resolve that debate about whether or not the current flexible exemptions, let's say it that way, would apply in these situations.

You know, unfortunately I think this is another case where a little bit of common sense on the front lines would have avoided the necessity of the legislature to take up this issue but apparently that's not been the case and I think the only way we can truly close this particular, well loophole is not the right word. The only way we can really address this in sort of a surgical fashion is to be explicit in what the problem is and what the -- what the solution is. And certainly if this were to be adopted as an addition to the FOI law I don't think there could be any reasonable disagreement about whether or not these documents are in fact exempt from disclosure. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. A general question, are personnel -- are medical files generally subject to an FOI request if those files belong to a State employee in what is considered a non-sensitive area? Through you, Madam Speaker.

If that's the case I'm trying to understand why there would be availability to these files of correctional officers or employees of the Department of Correction and so forth in the absence of specific restrictive language. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe the question was are they currently exempt. No, they're not exempt. In other words, they're public information and so there are some circumstances under which an individual record might be exempt. But the question was generally are they exempt and the answer is no, they're not.

Thank you. I misunderstood. I now understand. I thank the proponent. And thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on the amendment? Will you care to remark further on the amendment?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would just like to rise in support of this amendment. As some of you may know I chaired a taskforce last fall in regard to correctional staff health and safety and it really provided me with a much broader understanding of the job of a correctional officer and the issues that they face when trying to do their job. I think Representative Lawlor said it very well when he stated that this amendment responds to a very specific problem. And I think it would also be important to note that at least ten other states have amended their FOI statutes in order to limit inmate access to records. And I just felt it was important to stand up and give my support to this amendment. It is a very important issue to correctional officers who are working hard to their job in the safest manner possible. And I urge people to support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you care to remark further on the amendment before us? Will you care to remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to 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.

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.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If so the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally and will the Clerk please announce the tally.

On page 3, Calendar 136, House Bill number 6394, AN ACT CONCERNING THE MILITARY FAMILY RELIEF FUND a favorable report by the Committee on Planning and Development.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark? Representative Graziani.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the chamber the Military Relief Fund is now going to be once upon passage expanded. And I'd like to thank the efforts of our Governor, the Military Department, Commissioner Schwartz again, and of course the members of the Veterans Affairs Committee to sheparding this thing -- this bill through. Madam Speaker, what this bill does is now include members that are no longer on active duty. That's a key thing. No longer on active duty because we need to help those who gave so much. For example, when one is deployed loss of income right off the bat.

The warrior not only has to think about that while he or she is serving his country but what about the family's need. So now when they come back and they're discharged the monetary aspect doesn't go away; the shortfall, the medical needs, the posttraumatic stress disorder. You name it. Those are an awful lot of stresses to deal with. What this fund will do now is make it eligible for their spouses and immediate family members to access that. And what that means it could pay for daycare. It could pay for automobile repairs. You name it. It's something that can be done.

And I might add, it only takes from the time someone puts in application for assistance, it's normally turned around within a week which is remarkable because we certainly do not want to leave anybody hanging out there. And I might add this military fund brings in a line with the Department of Defense Yellow Ribbon Reintegration program authorized by the Department of Defense. Because we realize people do have time -- hard time adjusting. So what's -- what this body can do -- what this body can do is pass this bill and let's help those who's given us so much and continue to give. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you so much, Representative Graziani. Will you care to remark further on the bill before us?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I too rise in support of the bill. It's a good bill as stated Representative Graziani. I won't repeat all the comments that he went through describing the bill but it does help those families in need. And most importantly it also helps those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. Something you don't hear all the time but at a time of war it's actually a very important issue to those families that are affected by those veterans coming home. So Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you and thank you for your comments, Representative. Will you care to remark further on the bill before us? Will you care to remark further on the bill before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If so the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Are there any announcements or points of personal privilege? Announcements or points of personal privilege?

Tonight we have with us a group of cub scouts from South Windsor. They're here to learn about government. I think they picked a great night to be down here. There's an awful lot of activity going on. And I would ask the chamber to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Thank you. And welcome guys and keep up the good work. Returning back to the call of the Calendar. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 124.

On page 2, Calendar 124, House Bill number 5162, AN ACT CONCERNING LICENSED ELECTRICIANS AND THE INSTALLATION OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY SYSTEMS favorable report of the Committee on General Law.

Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this bill purports to create a whole host of green jobs for the State of Connecticut. We passed a solar bill yesterday that envisioned workforce development in the solar thermal arena. This bill addresses those needs. And the Clerk is in possession of an amendment number 9237. I ask that he please call and I be permitted to summarize.

LCO number 9237 House A offered by Representatives Shapiro, Widlitz, McCluskey and Senators Colapietro and Witkos.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I said this bill should open up an industry of green jobs in solar thermal work. Currently all of our licensed plumbers and our S1 heating people are prevented from doing this work but stimulus money is on the way. There are going to be a ton of jobs and we need a lot of installers to do this. And so we're here to streamline the process and get this ready for them. The bill provides that the Commissioner of Consumer Protection with consultation with the appropriate work boards for heating and plumbing, will establish a certificate which would permit them to do this work.

All of the P1s through P4s and the S1s through S4s which is about 10,000 people who could avail themselves to these jobs. They would have to complete a training course and in addition they would have to pass a test and after doing that in conjunction with their existing licenses they would be eligible to perform this work that we so desperately need. This is just what we need right now and I urge adoption.

The question is on adoption of House Amendment Schedule A. Will you remark? Will you remark on House Amendment Schedule A.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment and I would like to extend my thanks to the Chairman of the General Law Committee for helping to ensure that people who are doing solar thermal work are actually qualified to do that work especially since we will be receiving stimulus funds into the State for all kinds of green jobs. We want to ensure that the work is done properly. And I think this amendment accomplishes that. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise in support of the amendment. I do believe as the Chairman of General Law said that this is well needed amendment and will create new jobs here in the State of Connecticut and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? Care to remark further on House Schedule A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by House A? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the board to determine that your vote has been properly cast and if so the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And the bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 698.

On page 27, Calendar 698, Senate Bill 1099, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN APPEAL PROCEDURES favorable report of the Committee on Labor and Public Employees.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark? Representative Fox.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The current law states that a worker's compensation claimant can bring an appeal from a decision of the Compensation Review Board upon the issuance of a final decision or a final judgment and that appeal would go to the Appellate Court. The -- our courts have interpreted that rule however to mean that it requires an absolute final decision or final judgment and in recent Supreme Court decision, the decision of Hummel vs. Martin Transport the Supreme Court specifically stated that the legislature should seek to clarify what our intent is.

And the reason for that is because a worker's compensation case is different from other types of cases in that often times the case can go on for a number of years even including the entire lifetime of the claimant just given the nature of the case. So what this does is it states that a claimant may bring a decision or an appeal of a decision by law by the Compensation Review Board without that decision necessarily being a final judgment. And I urge passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I concur with the explanation offered by the Vice Chair of the Judiciary Committee. This is a situation which the Supreme Court has invited the legislature to clarify the statutes and revisit issue regarding the finality of judgments as being a prerequisite for action -- for rather an appeal to be taken to the courts from the review board. And it something which apparently has been out there for a couple of years now. It's something which is fully appropriate for us to take action on.

It's really a decision that we as a legislature need to make. It's something that we should not be expecting the courts to do for us and this appears to be the most reasonable approach to dealing with the situation since so many matters do not go forward and are not ever turned into final judgments in the form that they normally would be in a court action for an appeal. And therefore it's the correct thing for us to do with respect to this. And it's one of the occasions I will say that I don't have very many constituents come and testify on various matters but this actually happened to be one where a constituent of mine was testifying as to the desirability of the act that is before us. So I would urge the assembly to vote favorably. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark on the bill? Will you care to remark on the bill? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

The House will come back to order. We will return to the call of the Calendar. Mr. Clerk, would you please call Calendar 703.

On page 27, Calendar 703, substitute for Senate Bill number 939, AN ACT CONCERNING EDUCATOR CERTIFICATION favorable report of the Committee on Appropriations. Senate Amendment Schedule A has been designated.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk mentioned we had previously been discussing Senate Amendment A LCO number 8756. I would ask that the Clerk please call and I be given permission to remind the chamber of its contents.

The Clerk still is in possession of LCO number 8756 previously designated Senate Amendment Schedule A. Mr. Clerk would you please call the amendment again.

LCO number 8756 Senate A offered by Senator Gaffey and Representative Fleischmann.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker this is precisely the amendment that was before us last night. The comments and concerns from both sides of the aisle that were shared last night were well heard by myself and others who've been working on this measure.

In response to those concerns we have prepared to follow this amendment another that would strike sections 24 to 27 of this amendment now before us. So what would remain would be simply the sections regarding teacher certification and a few other miscellaneous matters but absolutely nothing related high school reform or recycling. I move adoption.

Question's on adoption. Will you remark on Senate Amendment Schedule A? Will you remark on Senate Amendment Schedule A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker the Clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO number 9262. I would ask that the Clerk please call and I be given permission to summarize.

Clerk is in possession of LCO number 9262 which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A. Will you please call the amendment Mr. Clerk.

LCO number 9262, House A offered by Representatives Fleischmann and Giuliano and Senator Gaffey.

The gentleman has asked leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there any objection?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on its face this amendment is clear. It strikes sections 24 through 27 inclusive and has the remaining sections being renumbered. In terms of its implications what this does is it takes out of this bill all of the sections that were subject to discussion, debate, and concern last night. I have some regret about that. I do think high school reform is something that we are going to need to address in this State.

But it was clear from comments on colleagues on both sides of the aisles that there was discomfort with the drafting of those sections. Section 27 had referenced recycling. Again I had heard concerns. In an effort to come to bipartisan unity and pass a bill that does all sorts of great things for certification without raising these ancillary issues we put together this amendment on a bipartisan basis. I move adoption.

I didn't come from Yalesville. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Fleischmann I'd like to congratulate you for taking out those -- those sections 24 through 27. I have to tell you I had already left last night when you began this bill but I have been too many meetings with principals and superintendents around the State and in my district. And overwhelmingly they had major problems with this reform. And also what I learned is that other states had tried this reform and the result was that because of the testing eventually what happened was they pulled out of the reform because unfortunately the drop-out rate increased by 70 percent.

I also think it's important for Representative Fleischmann to know that in 1983, probably when he was in diapers, I was responsible for establishing high school credits for graduation. I started it 18 and then Commissioner Tirozzi came and he raised it to 20. So you have to know that my heart is in this bill but the way it is done is not something I would have been able to support. I also had a big problem in listening to the discussion last night that there was not a consideration for the students who would not be going on to college, because we do have those people out there; those students. And you know they certainly earn terrific livings and it doesn't mean that if you work with your hands that your brain doesn't work. And unfortunately that's become the philosophy of the State of Connecticut when it comes to education.

I also felt that there was a serious gap with regard to the vocational technical schools. And you may say it is not applying but we've seen that over and over again. First the vocational technical schools did not have to take the CAPT test. Next thing was they were taking them. Additionally they were not supposed to be considered under No Child Left Behind and then they were.

So my fear is that if these requirements ever pass we need to think seriously about the students -- all of the students of Connecticut and how they're affected because you know what, going to school is a major job now. When you talk to children who are in AP courses and listen to how they are trying to manage their subjects and how they are trying to get into colleges and how they are trying to participate in sports because at the end of the day everybody wants that well-rounded student. The burden is terrific and I really fear that this reform bill if it were to come about would've put an additional burden on all the students of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Distinguished Ranking Member of the Education Committee, Representative Giuliano.

Thank you -- thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. I think that there has been a great deal of dialogue and listening; most importantly listening. And that this amendment as it stands represents a distillation and an important revision. There is more work to be done and that can be done with the input of a larger arena of stakeholders at a different time when we can take into account so many voices that would frame such an important issue for the State of Connecticut and Connecticut's children. I would like to thank my colleague the Chairman of the Education Committee for being a very responsive and energetic person in the distillation revision of this most important bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise in support of this amendment and thank the Ranking Member and Chairs of the Education Committee for being thoughtful about this process. I think when we do look at high school reform I believe that we need to assure that all of the stakeholders are there. And one major party to that are those young people who appear to be disenfranchised from our high school curricula and therefore are making a choice to leave school in what we believe to be too early a time in their life. And so we need to assure that when we're looking at reform we're looking at what's in the best interest of all of our children across this State.

And in my mind when we look at the issues that we talked about earlier with regards to drop-outs and increasing the mandate for staying in school, there's no point in keeping kids in school if we're not going to provide them with a curriculum that is relevant to them and to their lives and assures them of coming out into the world and being able to earn a living and provide for the families that they'll one day have.

So I think that this is a prudent measure and I would hope that as we move forward that the Chairs and Ranking Member would assure that those who are stakeholders are in the room and participatory in designing the curricula. The one thing that I will say about the piece that was in here is that I do believe the arts are very important to providing our youth with a well-rounded education and we need to make sure that we not only focus on academia but we also focus on the things that enrich our lives. Thank you, sir.

From academia to life skills high schools usually provide poor students a balance that they will use and oftentimes for the rest of their lives. A wonderful conversation this afternoon, a bipartisan conversation with stakeholders from different parts of the State, sat down and talked -- and thrashed out what was the worry that they had regarding how this was going to be the next step and the impact that it was going to have.

Representative Fritz talked about the issues of pressure on the students. And it's those pressures that come from the students in the city to the students that are come from rural sections of Connecticut to those that are the top of the class to those that are not. Those pressures are similar though different. They're all teenagers. And they have to get through their education. And what I've just described is a group of individuals and a group that only gets, usually, one chance to go through high school, just as you did, just as I did. And that one chance that you get oftentimes shapes the rest of your life.

So when we look at what we would offer for high school reform, Mr. Speaker, we look at the situation of trying to find a balance and yet something that works for individuals as well because each child deserves the right to go through education and get -- receive an education that is best for them. It's amazing how a two line amendment can strike such passion. I too would like to thank the Chairman because he made the effort to go between the advocates, the Department, those people that had worries and concerns, those people that spoken to their towns and felt that they could not support it, to try and find a way.

And I feel that as he's come forward with this that it is strikingly obvious that he had an understanding and a passion for all the concerns that came forward. It wasn't done lightly. So I'd like to thank the Chairman and I'd like to thank the Ranking Member for their efforts in this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to rise in very strong support of this bill and with great respect to Chairman Fleischmann on this. He worked very hard to work through the issues on this and I think it's going to go and it's very exciting. I also would like to echo the responses from Representative Fritz and Representative Giuliano, and Representative Sawyer on the reform piece. I think there's a lot -- certainly the dialogue was very good.

I'm not going to repeat what they said. I agree with what they said and it was heartfelt and I think that's a piece we need to look at. And also thank you to Representative Giuliano for making this happen. I think the key, crucial piece on this is that we get this teacher certification piece of this moving. Representative Fleischmann -- Chairman Fleischmann's shaking his head. That is absolutely key. I hope you all will vote to support this and I hope the Senate will also vote to support this. And may we all work with those Senators to make them realize how important this is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BACCHIOCHI (52nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question through you to the proponent.

REP. BACCHIOCHI (52nd):
Thank you. I was contacted just today by one of my superintendents with a question that I'd like to see if I can determine. The concern is regarding section 15 and the waiver --

Representative Bacchiochi, we're on House Amendment Schedule A. I think which is in regards to sections 24 et sec. perhaps if we could just adopt this and then I'll come right to you.

Thank 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.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Representative Bacchiochi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, through you to the proponent of the bill as amended.

My question is on section 15. Would this eliminate a board of education's ability to request a waiver from the State Department of Education regarding the requirement that a substitute teacher have at minimum a bachelor's degree? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to share with the chamber that for some small towns, for example in the town of Stafford the board of education has an extremely difficult time finding enough substitute teachers especially during flu season that have a bachelor's degree. In the past they've been able to request waivers from the Board of Education so that they could employ people who have an associate's degree. And the changes in the bill as amended are going to be an extreme hardship to certain towns such as the town of Stafford.

My other question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is regarding the BEST Program. And what I'm being told by my superintendents is that this is a significant unfunded mandate but after reading the bill I'm not quite sure I understand how that to be true. And I would like to ask the proponent to please explain that to me. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in the bill now before us regarding that -- what was the BEST Program or what will be its successor program. We had contemplated working on that in this measure but the fact is that as we build the successor to the BEST Program, which we are eliminating, that will involve not only various policy changes but also expenditures in dollars and imposition of fees that are used to make that program happen. For that reason, anything regarding that program is going to an after budget piece of legislation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank you for that answer. If I could just go back to the question about the substitute teachers having to hold a bachelor's degree. Through you, Mr. Speaker, do you see any opportunity in the future to readdress that issue or is this something that the Committee feels strongly about through the public hearing process? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

We're floating a little bit off of the bill as amended but Representative Fleischmann, do you care to answer that question?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, actually I -- this seems like quite a germane question to me as it's about section 15 which is in the bill before us. And I guess I -- what I could do is offer my own sense which is I'm certainly open to further discussions on this topic.

The genesis of this section before us was a problem in certain towns where there were teachers showing up who were clearly not qualified to be in a classroom; not holding bachelor's degrees and not having a level of education that members of the Committee felt was commensurate with being in front of a classroom teaching children. And that's why it's before us. You've pointed out a countervailing concern that seems to be a legitimate one and I for one am certainly open to coming back to this issue and seeing where there are other steps that might be appropriate in the future. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I appreciate the latitude as I ask that question and I appreciate the answer. I do think that some towns are significantly going to struggle under the bill as amended and I hope that at some point we can address those concerns. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. SAWYER (55th):
Good evening, Mr. Speaker, for the second time on the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman would you please go over the section 29 on line 1913 of the bill, it's almost at the back, it was not struck by the amendment. It remains. And it's an interesting wording. It talks about a charter school that will operate at the former Timothy Dwight Elementary School in the town of New Haven that allows any student residing within a half mile radius of said school and who wants to attend said school shall be enrolled at the school.

Mr. Chairman, the question here I'm sort of familiar with charter schools, not this one in particular. The school is at the former Timothy Dwight so I'd like to know what school that is now, presently. And that we know that with charter schools there are a limit to the number of students that they have and this opens it up to any student within a half mile radius and they shall be enrolled. Is that your understanding? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think there were a number of questions in there. The school is currently not in operation as I understand it. It was the Timothy Dwight School. It shall be a charter school as of next fall. I believe the operator of that school will be Achievement First. In terms of the source of this language before us there was a lot of discussion back and forth between the neighborhood which it had previously rights in usage of the community room of that school and the new operators of the school, and the city of New Haven because there were understandings that were breached by the conveyance of the school to the charter school.

And this section represents an effort to broker a compromise among all the parties and allow for area children's participation in the schools. I would -- it is my sense that while this is a -- is something that moves us toward that compromise that it may need some additional tweaking and that we have two years from now in which to - in which to deal with that before it would be going into effect. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think that helps a bit because my concern was obviously we have a mandate here that would require that they take all comers. And we know that there's certain limitations to these schools as to size of the student enrollment, so I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Are you ready for the question? If so, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take their seat. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move that we immediately transmit all items needing further action to the Senate.

House will come back to order and we'll return to the call of the Calendar. Will the Clerk please call Calendar 659.

On page 44, Calendar 659, substitute for Senate Bill number 966, AN ACT PROHIBITING BLOCKING THE BOX favorable report of the Committee on Transportation.

A bill whose time has come. The distinguished Vice Chairman. Just a moment. Members please take your seats. I think we're down to a semi-dull roar.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report in concurrence with the Senate -- passage of the bill in concurrence with Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill will allow municipalities to adopt ordinances that will designate intersections where a motor vehicle would be prohibited from entering if the space that the vehicle's traveling on the opposite side of the intersection is too small for them to allow the vehicle to cross. It would apply even if the traffic light would permit the vehicle to proceed but it does not apply to entering an intersection to make a turn or to a tractor trailer.

Mr. Speaker, the bill would require the municipality to post signs. Madam Speaker, I'm sorry there was a switch. To post signs that blocking the intersection is prohibited and that violators could be subject to a fine. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO number 7484. I ask that it be called and I be permitted to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO number 7484 designated previously as Senate Amendment Schedule A.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is their objection? Objection? Hearing none, Representative Fox, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What this amendment does is it strikes out a provision that the Judiciary Committee's original bill that would have limited this blocking the box municipal ordinance to communities that had 50,000 or more people. It was argued and argued successfully in the Senate that because it's enabling legislation and that it would solely require the local legislative bodies to make the decision that any municipality should they choose to do so should have the right to do so.

And I do want to make clear for purposes of this bill that this is enabling legislation. I also want to make clear that there's nothing in the bill that would abrogate the function of the State Traffic Commission. They're role would continue as currently exists. And I urge adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, sir. The question is on adoption. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment Schedule A? Will you remark further on A? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further? Representative Cafero of the 142, Mr. Minority Leader, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, forgive me, I entered the chamber just moments ago. And if in fact the proponent of the bill described it I was unable to hear it. And what I guess I have a general concept of what we're talking about here; blocking the box. That's blocking an intersection. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And through you, Madam Speaker, within the context of the bill now as amended is the box area, that intersection area defined? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, according to the bill the box would be defined first through signs that would -- that would be posted that say blocking the intersection is prohibited. Also there would be white lines that would mark the intersection's boundaries and the area within it -- with parallel diagonal lines which would be at least one foot wide which would be quote, unquote the box. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, I know there's obviously hundreds and thousands of intersections throughout the State of Connecticut. Would this bill apply to all of those? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, no, it would not. It would only apply to those intersections that a local legislative body designated as being areas where this legislation should apply and they would have to approve that legislation.

So through you, Madam Speaker, it's up to a city or municipality to designate which of their intersections within their jurisdiction they care to apply this rule to. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, Madam Speaker, that is correct and also if it is a State road it would require the approval of the State Traffic Commission as well. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, if let's say a small town has 20 intersections and they care to designate two as ones that would be subject to this bill. They would vote upon that. Is there any other procedure than just taking a vote? What would be the next actual step they would have to do so that the public was aware that these two of 20 in my hypothetical intersections would fall within the parameters of this bill? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I think the question may have two parts. If the question is whether the local -- or the citizens are aware that their local municipality is about to act and in terms of designating intersections then whatever their you know, notice procedure with respect to enacting legislation would be I'm sure must be followed. With respect to once it is designated then there would be signs that would have to be posted as well as the intersection's boundaries would need to be clearly marked and the area within which would be designated as the box would need to be clearly marked. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, is there any coincidence to the fact that the title of this bill and your last name rhyme? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Madam Speaker, is the blocking of the intersection an act that would be subject to penalty under this provision? Is it one that would be subject to penalty if it was intentional or not? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if an individual is blocking the box essentially, that would be subject to the fine. But as in many motor vehicle infractions, as this would be, there can sometimes be a justification for why you are committing that infraction and I'm sure that that could be discussed with the officer if pulled over. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Well through you, Madam Speaker, I guess I take it from the gentleman's remarks then that there is anticipated defenses to the potential infraction. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, that's correct but I should point out that you shouldn't -- the purpose is not to enter the intersection unless you can get clearly through it to the opposite side. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Well through you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate that. I'm sure it's happened to others in the room. Sometimes your car stalls. I know especially with younger drivers driving a stick shift it stalls out in the middle of the intersection. Would that be -- if your car had a mechanical failure, god forbid, ran out of gas, had a flat tire, would any of those be defenses to this infraction? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, does the language of the bill anticipate such defenses? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the language of the bill does say don't enter the intersection unless you can get through to the opposite side. If an individual does -- I don't believe any of our infractions that we deal with, if an individual's car breaks down or they have a flat tire they may, you know, subsequently be in violation somehow of an infraction of one of our motor vehicle infractions because of simply where their car ends up. And I think the objective at that point would simply be to get them some assistance. So, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I'm sorry. I -- it's my understanding that our laws currently -- our motor vehicle laws especially would allow defenses to various infractions. For instance if you were -- well, and I guess -- I guess what I'm wondering is if in fact you stalled out in the middle of an intersection and a policeman approached, you said my car is stalled. I can't get it started. Or you were able to get it started after it conked out and then move along. And frankly would have a tough time verifying that it had stalled during that interim period. Would the law as written or to your knowledge currently provide any defense towards -- to that individual from receiving an infraction? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the violation would be that the individual entered the intersection without sufficient distance to get across to the other side -- sufficient space to get across to the other side. So, so long as the individual entered the intersection with sufficient space if their car stalled or if they received a flat tire while in that box I do not believe that would be a violation because they would -- the violation is entering the intersection without sufficient space. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, what problem is I guess this bill attempting to solve? Through you, Madam Speaker. Other than the obvious. In other words has there been a -- have local police been unable to prevent the kind of obstruction of traffic that is caused by such a thing because there's no law against it? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, this legislation -- a similar concept was adopted in New York City and where -- if some of the members have traveled they may see the boxes and the signs posted. What it is trying to solve especially during periods of heavy traffic and especially in some of our more populated areas is the situation where lights are changing, cars can't go anywhere because everyone is essentially blocking the box. And law enforcement has informed members of the Judiciary Committee that they don't necessarily have a provision by which they can enforce -- there's no motor vehicle infraction that necessarily would apply. What this would do is, if done properly would clearly mark this area that would be blocking the intersection. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Well, through you, Madam Speaker, that brings up an interesting point. We're talking about obviously local roads. What prevents a municipality currently from passing various ordinances restricting the use and thereby penalizing the violation thereof of any of their roads? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if the town adopts an ordinance it would not be a State -- it could not be enforced through the State. It would not be a State infraction.

Well in other words if it -- through you, Madam Speaker, if a town designates a certain area of a street as no parking and someone parks there, what if any authority does the town have to penalize the individual who violated that parking law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, most municipalities as I understand it would have a mechanism by which you could appeal a parking ticket. It may be a parking -- there might be a commission or a board that's set up to handle those matters. With respect to this because it would be -- this bill because it would be a motor vehicle infraction that would be enforced by the State, if somebody wanted to contest it they would then sign the back, say you know, not guilty, I wish to go to court, and they would have the opportunity to go to court. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Madam Speaker, if a local town sets a speed limit on its local road and someone violates that speed limit and they get pulled over by a local cop and they're given a ticket, what is the difference between that and a town who set the speed limit of that road also designating an intersection as not to be blocked and therefore subject to a ticket as well? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, moving violations tend -- as I understand them and as I -- I don't think I can think of an example where a moving violation would not be enforced by the State. So, with respect to the example that was provided if someone is speeding along a local road that still is enforceable by a State statute, whatever the charge -- whatever the infraction charge would be. And it would then proceed to, if somebody was just to plead not guilty they would then proceed and go to court on that. Through you, Madam Speaker.

So, through you, Madam Speaker, right now if I drove on a city street and I parked my car right in the middle of the road, threw it into park, sat there with my arms folded, there is absolutely nothing a police officer of that particular city could do to penalize me for doing such an act? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I do not -- I do believe that that would be a violation. I think that it would be an infraction. I'm not sure of the specific infraction and it would be enforceable by a police officer.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Well through you, Madam Speaker, if that -- you could do that now then what's the difference -- what does this bill allow you to do that you can't do given in my hypothetical? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, there is a difference and with respect to the earlier scenario that was presented, with respect to parking the car in the middle of the road, and throwing your keys you know, into the bushes and saying I'm not going anywhere essentially. That could also be deemed to be an intentional act which could also involve additional potential charges. With respect to this bill and with respect to the blocking of the box this is similar to many of motor vehicle infractions that we have. This would be a situation where you do not, whether negligently or otherwise violate the provisions of this -- of this bill. And it would simply say you do not enter the box unless you can get across to the other side. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Madam Speaker and to Representative Fox, and yes I do practice law but I don't quite understand certainly motor vehicle law. It's been awhile since I've been in criminal court or motor vehicle court for that matter. But let me try to understand this. Let's face it. How does the box get blocked? Somebody's trying to beat a light or rush through and all of a sudden traffic starts to back up and you find yourself who had the green light now in the middle of the intersection with nowhere to go because you were, I don't know, crowding the car in front of you or whatever. There's no way under current law that if a police officer observed that and thought that it was intentional because of your hurried driving or whatever you want -- your impatience as a commuter, that they couldn't stop you and give you a ticket? A ticket that you could appeal? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, there is a real question as to that because if an individual is driving while the light is green yet they cannot proceed because there's a car in front of them, then a police officer would -- would be -- there's a very good chance that police officer may say I cannot offer a ticket or give you a ticket at this time because there's no clear violation. Through you, Madam Speaker.

And yet through you, Madam Speaker, if we were to pass the bill in your hypothetical, Representative Fox, the police officer would be allowed to give him a ticket because there is a clear violation? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, in the scenario described in the previous question with respect to trying to inch forward, trying to you know, go through a light where there's traffic that has backed up that would be a violation because the driver would have entered the intersection without a clear path to get through to the other side of the box. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I guess what I'm saying is we all find ourselves in that situation sometimes. For instance, in the city of Norwalk as you get to the top of the hill of Route 123, New Canaan Avenue, you take a left onto Main Street. So the light turns green and you take a left onto Main Street. That's how I get to the Capital every day. Except there's a Dunkin Donuts right around the corner so everybody -- there's a drive thru, and everybody stops. So you find yourself -- you've got the green light, there's a space in front of you, you proceed straight ahead, not to do so you got nine people beeping at you behind you, you pull up and you got to stop, you're in the middle of the intersection because people are waiting in line to go to the drive thru for Dunkin Donuts.

Right now, would there be any cause for a witnessing police officer because I would be blocking and half-block the intersection to give me an infraction ticket? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I do not -- can not think of the infraction that would be charged at that point because everything that was described was within the boundaries of the law as I know it. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Okay. So through you, Madam Speaker, we pass this law, same scenario happens. Could the officer then give me a ticket under this law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if the Norwalk City Council first concludes that this is an intersection that they would like to have marked. And if it is clearly marked and if the lines are clearly drawn and if the driver goes through the intersection or attempts to go through the intersection without a clear path to get to the other side, then yes, there could be a violation. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Well, through you, Madam Speaker, in the scenario that I gave that frankly I live every day in the road that I just witnessed to you, I'm never blocking the intersection intentionally. Because in many cases as we all know the light before an intersection might be a good distance from the actual left or right-hand turn. So when the light turns green, you have a line of traffic behind you, you proceed to make your turn into the intersection. It might be 20, 30 feet before you're in the middle of the intersection whereupon now you realize you're backed up because of traffic that is already in the line going in the direction you're headed.

In either case it's not your fault. You didn't do anything wrong. What you're telling me now is a police officer under current law would not be able to give you a ticket but under this law he would. And what -- I guess what I'm saying is we usually given tickets when somebody's behavior, or course, is intentional in breaking the law. In my particular case, my movement into the intersection in my hypothetical was intentional but my breaking the law or blocking the intersection was not.

In fact, through you, Madam Speaker, in the various examples you gave as cited in New York City, for instance, where inching up and blocking an intersection causes problems. I bet you at least 50 percent of the cases, that blocking is not intentional. There seems to be a clear path to go forward. It seems like the traffic in front of you is moving forward. You're proceeding along with traffic when all of a sudden something stops and you find yourself incapable of moving forward and you're stuck in the middle of an intersection. It wasn't your intention to be stuck there. You didn't want to be stuck there.

In fact there's no advantage to you being stuck there but in the normal course of obeying our laws of traffic and driving, when the light turns green, a space ahead of you, you proceed straight ahead, but because of some unforeseen circumstances before you -- in some cases 12 or 13 car lengths before you, you find yourself stuck in the middle of an intersection.

Now all of a sudden where that would have been a permissible incident under current law, you find yourself saying you've just broken State law and you're subject to an infraction. That's the concern I have. Is there anything -- and there might well be, in my hypothetical that would -- that I've stated wrong or incorrectly and if you could straighten me out on that. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, and maybe I've complicated it more than it needs to be. When you enter an intersection if -- I'll start at the beginning. If your local council adopts this bill or attempts to enact enabling legislation that will prohibit blocking the box and if there's a clearly marked -- they would then be required to clearly mark the area saying, before you enter this intersection don't -- you know, don't block the box essentially. There will be lines that need to be drawn that would say before you enter into this intersection you need to make sure that you can get through to the other side.

So you need to know when you're approaching that intersection that -- that this is an intersection that does back up -- or you would be advised because of the sign that this is an intersection that it potentially can back up and before you enter the intersection you should make sure that you could see through to the other side. So, through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen is that real life? Is that what happens? How many times have you folks been in a car, you're at a light, you're at an intersection, the light changes green, you proceed forward, and all of a sudden before you completely make the turn as you find yourself in the middle of the intersection there's some car in front of you. Maybe they're waiting to make a left-hand turn into a bank, a drive in, a Dunkin Donuts, a driveway, whatever it might be. It's not your fault. You weren't intending to do it. You did everything right. You were at a stop sign or a stop light. There was nothing ahead of you. You went forward. And all of a sudden you're stopped because you can't move because there's a car in front of you. That happens to us every day, sometimes six, seven, eight times a day. Now all of a sudden you just broke a State law.

I guess I keep going back to that question. You've got to ask for so many of these things, why are we doing this? What are we doing this for? I don't quite understand it. I don't care if you clearly delineate the box. You've got signs. I will sit there saying I will not break the law. I see the sign. I see the box. Everything's painted clearly. The light turns green. I proceed, bada bing, I got a car in front of me. What am I supposed to do about it? Now all of a sudden I broke the law. That's not real life, folks.

This bill does not reflect real life. Now it's one thing to make sure that we have the proper traffic rule and regulations to keep our streets orderly. It's one thing to give the power to our municipalities to enforce or put forth those kind of laws but it's quite another thing to just to go out hunting for trouble here. Are we going to try raise revenue by doing this? This is a whole new revenue stream. Maybe that's the purpose of it.

We're going to start handing out infractions for people who drive what we think is normal every day. I've got to tell you, I think that happens to me 12 times a day. The light turns green, I proceed, bada bing I'm stuck because there's a line of traffic and now it's an infraction? You know there's so many things we should be doing in this chamber. I'm not so sure blocking the box is one of them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I would move at this time that we pass this item temporarily.

The motion is to pass this item temporarily. Is there objection? Hearing none, pass temporarily.

Will the House please come back to order. And we will return to the call of the Calendar. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 701.

On page 27, Calendar 701, substitute for Senate Bill number 913, AN ACT CONCERNING UNITED STATES SENATE VACANCIES favorable report of the Committee on Appropriations.

That's quite a welcome to you, Representative Spallone, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this bill gives this General Assembly a unique opportunity in history to help determine how our State would replace a United States Senator in the event of a vacancy that occurs during the term of the Senator whether by death, resignation, elevation to federal office -- higher federal office, or whatever else might occur.

Madam Speaker, the issue has been before this body in the past. Historically when the United States Constitution was amended to allow for the direct election of Senators, this body had approved a law that would allow for the filling of United States Senate vacancies by special election. And that law was changed in the 1940s and we're seeking to return to the way it was between 1939 and 1945 -- I'm sorry -- 1913 and 1945.

Madam Speaker, it's important as we begin the debate to recognize that the amendment to the United States Constitution Article 17 providing for the direct election of a United States Senators provides in part when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies provided that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election of the -- by election as the legislature may direct.

So the default position in that amendment to the Constitution of the United States is to have a special election. And that's what we're attempting to do here, Madam Speaker. I would add that while this issue has been before this body several times over the last two decades it's also frankly been an issue that has been in the news. That attention has been drawn to how states fill Senate vacancies in that President Obama drew a lot of talent from the Senate where he had served to join him in his Cabinet. And he also chose a running mate from the Senate, Senator Biden became Vice President. The Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, became the Secretary of State. The Senator from Illinois himself was elected President of the United States. A Senator from Colorado was made the Interior Secretary.

And so all around the country states had to grapple with this and as you know in the State of Illinois at the time there was a Governor who was -- had been arrested on corruption charges and the appointment of the replacement for President Obama was tainted. In the State of New York the replacement for Hillary Rodham Clinton became a big media event and there was a lot of criticism of the way the Governor of New York handled that matter. But fundamentally if we move aside from these issues of what other states might have done and how it looks in the news, this is an issue of the people getting to decide who the United States Senator will be if their Senator resigns or dies in office or otherwise leaves before the end of his or her term.

So it's really a fundamental issue of democracy and in -- when a United States Representative -- Representative in Congress leaves office early we do have a procedure for special elections. Madam Speaker, there's a strike-all amendment that became the bill in the Senate. It was Senate Amendment Schedule A and that becomes the bill. And at this time in order to launch into our debate I would wish to cal the amendment. The Clerk should be in possession of an amendment bearing LCO number 8605 previously designated as Senate A. I ask that he call and I be permitted to summarize.

Thank you, sir. Will the Clerk please call LCO number 8605 previously designated as Senate Amendment A.

LCO number 8605, Senate A offered by Senator Slossberg and Representative Spallone.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Any objection? Any objection?

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll summarize briefly and then describe the mechanics of the amendment. This amendment repeals the existing law that provides for the Governor to fill Senate vacancies. In most circumstances also allows for election at the next State election. And replaces it with a system that's similar to the replacement of a member of Congress. The amendment also varies from the file copy in making some other changes concerning a rare circumstance where there be a gubernatorial nomination and appointment, establishes a primary date, and makes minor changes to accommodate 150 day election calendar. I move adoption.

The question before the chamber is on adoption. Will you remark further on Senate Amendment A?

Madam Speaker, the -- as I mentioned this amendment becomes the bill and it sets out several scenarios. The most common one would be if there's a vacancy early in a Senator's term there would be a 150 day special election calendar whereby there would be time to have a primary. If we're talking about having a more democratic process for the replacement of a Senator who leaves office early it's also important that the parties have an opportunity to select the best person for the job and be able to have that debate within their party in an open process.

However, in the interest of practicality of the vacancy occurs closer to the November election there would be conventions of the parties without a primary and then we'd proceed to the general election. Now there are two rare circumstances covered in the amendment where the Governor might still make an appointment. And that would be if the person left office, vacated the United States Senate seat that they were holding after the municipal election or prior to the last year of their term or during that last year of their term. And the reason that there would be no special election is because it would be impractical and it would be a lot of election -- to put it briefly if you had a special election in between November and another election in November. So the Governor would nominate a person who would have to be approved by two thirds of each house of the General Assembly to take office.

The other rare option or opportunity for a gubernatorial appointment, Madam Speaker, would be if a Senator were to -- if there were a catastrophic event where 50 or more Senator's seats were vacated due to a catastrophic event including those in Connecticut. In that case the Governor could make a nomination to fill that vacancy as provided in the amendment. Madam Speaker, since the amendment becomes the bill and we may some time to debate it this evening, I think it's appropriate to ask that when the vote be taken on the amendment it be taken by roll please.

The question before the chamber is vote -- roll call vote on the amendment. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The 20 percent has been met when the vote is taken it will be taken by roll call. Will you care to remark further on Senate Amendment A?

REP HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you. I wonder if the proponent would review more specifically if he will what -- how this amendment differs from the underlying bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Madam Speaker, through you to the distinguished Ranking Member of the GA and E Committee the amendment specifically -- the major change that it contains is having the Governor fill the vacancy in the event that the vacancy occurs after the municipal election or during the -- in the year proceeding the Senator's last year of their term or during the Senator's last year of their term. And also making some technical changes to ensure that the 150 day calendar works for the special election. And those are the two primary changes that make the amendment differ from the file copy.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Is that addressed in line 16 through 40 -- 54? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, through you to Representative Hetherington line 16 through part of 20 are the end of the repealer portion concerning existing law and then lines 20 and proceeding onward establish the schedule for a special election in the case of a vacancy.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
For the purposes of a primary when would a primary take place? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, a primary would take place in the event that at the convention the endorsed -- a person who is not the endorsed candidate received 15 percent of the delegate votes or a person was able to petition for primary pursuant to Connecticut law.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Under what circumstances would the candidate be chose by convention without the possibility of a primary? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, that would be if the vacancy occurred between 125 days and 63 days before a regularly scheduled State or municipal election.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
And in that case the decision of the convention would be conclusive. Is that right, through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, yes.

And in that case who would be the delegates to the convention? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, the delegates would be those persons who were chosen as delegates to the last State convention and if there were any vacancies in that convention role those would be filled by the Democratic -- the Democratic or Republican or other party town committees of the towns that had vacancies.

So, through you, Madam Speaker, those delegates as they were delegated to the last State convention could have been selected three years earlier. Is that right? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, State conventions I believe occur -- they occur when there's a race for United States Senator. They occur when there's a race for Governor. They also occur for selection of individuals to serve on the Republican or Democratic national committees. So I'm not exactly certain as I stand here but they're no less than four -- no less than every four years but it might actually be every two years that there's a State convention of one kind or another.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
If you would just refresh my recollection, how are those convention delegates chosen? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, it depends upon the rules of the party in question. Many are chosen by Republican or Democratic town committees within the communities that are selecting delegates. In some situations they're chosen by caucus I believe. And in some instances I believe there are even primaries for the selection of delegates.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
And there are super delegates. Are there not, through you, Madam Speaker, who are actually not elected but they're office holders. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington unless I'm mistaken, I believe the only super delegates I'm familiar with are delegates to the Democratic national convention under the Democratic party rules. I don't -- I'm not familiar with super delegates at the State convention although I would stand to be corrected.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Your understanding, through you, Madam Speaker, at least in the Democratic rules is that in a convention to choose -- yeah, convention to choose a candidate for the U. S. Senate state office holders such as us if you're a Democrat would not be eligible to attend as a super delegate? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, in my experience with the rules of the State Democratic Party, and I have none with the State Republican party, we do not have super delegates at the State Democratic Convention.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
How does a Senate seat become vacant? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, death, resignation would be the ways that a Senate seat would become vacant as contemplated by the bill.

Through you, Madam Speaker. If you moved out of the state and established in another states would that -- would that cause your Senate seat to become vacant?

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, the Constitution of the United States is quite clear for qualifications for the United States Senate. They're fairly limited. I don't have that page in front of me right now. I know that they concern age and citizenship. I would have to review the relevant amendment to determine whether there's a residency requirement.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
I see. Well, I'm going to have move to comment on this bill but for purposes of the amendment I'm going to conclude my questions and hold further questions and comments until we talk about the bill in chief. Thank you and I thank the proponent.

Madam, I rise in opposition to this amendment for many reasons. I believe that the underlying bill would leave us without representation for up to five months, 150 days. I think that it would be extremely costly to the people of Connecticut and that it is simply a power grab and entirely unnecessary certainly this year. Under the proposal for over 150 days -- up to 150 days Connecticut would be without a United States Senator. And particularly for a small state like Connecticut for us to not have a U. S. Senator in the Senate is just a terrible idea.

There's really no reason to do this. If this amendment became law we would be hurting ourselves so dramatically by only having one Senator and having a vacancy for five months. We have such serious fiscal issues here in Connecticut with the budget deficit that's facing us and so many other serious problems for us to be taking up this bill tonight, the night before session ends is really a mistake. And the fact is that having an election -- having an election across the State for the United States Senate vacancy is going to cost the people of Connecticut a lot of money.

So not only are we not dealing with the fiscal problems that we are facing tonight but if we did this -- this new way to fill a Senate vacancy -- if we held a election for Senate vacancies it's going to not only not solve the fiscal problems but it's going to add to them by costing us more money; our municipalities, our taxpayers, the people of Connecticut. We're talking tonight about adding more to their burden, making it more costly.

It's just a really bad idea. Why would we need to do this? What's the crisis? What are we trying to solve? What is the problem? Why do we really have to do this now? We don't. Why do we have to do it this year? Why do we have to do it during this session when we have these serious problems? And why do we have to do it the night before session ends? It makes no sense. It is a brazen power grab. It tinkers with the mechanics of the separation of powers. That's what it is. It's an attempt to grab power from the executive branch. And so, because --

Excuse me, sir. You're questioning the integrity and we're asking you to speak on just only the amendment please.

That's fine, Madam Speaker. I will. I'm wrapping up my remarks. Because this proposal would leave us with only one Senator and have us be underrepresented in the United States Senate, it's a disservice to the people of Connecticut. And I'm not questioning the motives. I'm questioning the policy. It's a bad idea. It's particularly bad for Connecticut because we're a small state. It's particularly bad this year because we're facing such fiscal problems. It's particularly bad because we're also not even addressing the real problems that we're facing. And it's particularly bad because it's the night before session ends. That's why it's the policy that I question, Madam Speaker. It's a power grab. It's an attempt to tinker with the separation of powers. And for those reasons I ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment. Thank you.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
Madam Speaker, good evening. Thank you very much. If I may just a few questions for the proponent of the bill through you.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
Thank you. As I try to get a sense of what the cost would be of the amendment, particularly the cost to small towns. We have heard it said that this will cost money. What do we expect, through you, Madam Speaker, that the cost to municipalities in the State of Connecticut would be to administer the special elections the amendment would require? Thank you, Madam.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Perillo, first of all it's important to bear in mind that this last happened that there was a vacancy in the office of the United States Senator in I believe 1949 or 1950 when Governor Bowles appointed William Benton to be a Senator. So with the inflation the cost has changed during that time if we could have had an election then. So 50 years from now is 2059. I'd imagine the numbers will be somewhat different at that time.

I would add that the fiscal note shows in direct answer to the question that in a large city the cost of a special election could range from $ 75,000 to $ 85,000, in a medium sized community $ 10,000 to $ 15,000, in a small town probably $ 5,000. I would finally add in answer to the gentleman's question that under current law there could be a special election after the appoint -- not -- yes there would be an election following that appointment that would out of normal sequence to fill out the remainder of the term. So fiscally I would submit that the bill does not change the political world a great deal.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answer. I don't know that I'm willing to go as far to say that it isn't a financial big deal especially in this day and age where we're seeing municipalities struggling quite a bit. You read in the paper every day -- especially in municipal budget season which we're right in the thick of. In fact we're reaching the end of.

You see municipalities raising their mill rates significantly. We saw in the current fiscal year -- we know there are municipalities out there. Many of us live in municipalities that are experiencing a deficit right now. And I am a little bit concerned about the implications this has on municipalities. And I am little bit concerned that we are going to put this election mandate on municipalities.

And I respect the gentleman's point that this doesn't happen every year. And there's quite a bit of truth in that. But the reality is it does happen. And we need to be cognizant of that. And I don't think that we can simply say to ourselves and justify this to ourselves by saying, well the odds of having one aren't that great and the mandate's not going to happen on a municipality every year and it's not going to cost a municipality money every year.

We need to recognize the fact that there is a distinct possibility that this is going to cost towns a lot of money. And $ 75,000 to $ 85,000 to a large city is a lot of money. And half of that to a medium-sized city is a lot of money, particularly when towns are experiencing challenged financial times. So I think we do need to recognize that. Another question if I may, and I would just sort of -- not being on the gentleman's Committee I wasn't necessarily privy to all the discussion. You know, I was watching television last night and Senator Dodd had a TV ad on. His election is a year and a half away and his reelection campaign -- his reelection is a year and a half away.

I'm just wondering whether or not there was any consideration given to whether or not 150 days is an ample amount of time for a statewide campaign and for a candidate in earnest to get their message out so that the residents of the State of Connecticut can make an educated vote on who they should elect. I know it's even -- it's extraordinarily challenging, you know, running and winning a special election myself is extraordinarily challenging to get a message out in a very short period of time and this is for district of you know, 13,000 -- 13,5000 registered voters in a -- in a state rep special election.

A statewide election's a different ballgame entirely. So did the GAE Committee, through you, Madam Speaker, give any thought or have any discussion about whether or not we'd be able to give the residents of the State of Connecticut the tools they need to make an educated decision in only 150 days?

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Perillo, that was certainly a consideration. There was -- I don't recall if it was discussion on the record in the public hearing but certainly in discussions with my colleagues and members of the Committee in crafting the legislation there is awareness that a election campaign for United States Senator would be conducted a great deal on television, in the newspapers, and on the internet. And so I think that the message could certainly get out that the election was happening and in fact the residents might be relieved by a somewhat shorter election calendar. ;

REP. PERILLO (113th):
I would agree with the gentleman that perhaps the residents of the State of Connecticut might not want us on TV and campaigning for a year and a half but -- but I don't know that that necessarily changes the facts of the case. I would ask one more question and especially in light of September 11, 2001 and the severe -- the severe -- the always real risk of terrorist attack of calamatist disaster. I personally am concerned about what would happen to the State of Connecticut's representation if in particular there were a targeted attack on Congress.

Many other states in the U. S. give appointment power to their Governors and would be able to seat Senators relatively quickly. This amendment before us would essentially take that ability away from us as I read it. And how would the gentleman respond to my concern that it is not entirely unrealistic that the State of Connecticut could be left without any Senate representation, not just one but two Senators in the event of a disaster and how this amendment as proposed accounts for that. How it mitigates it. How it deals with it. And how it necessarily ensures that the State of Connecticut still has the representation it needs in the U. S. Senate.

As we recall the bicameral legislature is designed for a reason. And representation in the Senate is designed for a reason. It's designed to ensure that small states like the State of Connecticut do get equal representation with all other states. It is really a tremendous political tool for the residents of the State of Connecticut to have two Senators. How do we mitigate that? How do we deal with it? And if the gentleman could address that concern of mine I would appreciate it. Through you, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Perillo, the bill contains a continuity of Congress provision in section 3 which provides that if there were a circumstance where 50 or more United States Senate vacancies occurred amongst the states including Connecticut that the Governor could nominate someone to fill a vacancy occurring -- could nominate someone to fill that vacancy. So there's the continuity of Congress provision that's designed to address the matter of a catastrophic attack on the Congress.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
Madam Speaker, thank you. Just to get some clarity on that. What would trigger the Governor's ability to make that appointment? What would trigger the continuity clause? Through you, Madam.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Perillo, section 3 of the bill provides in part that notwithstanding the provisions of sections 9-211 of the General Statutes, in the event that among the states there are 50 or more vacancies in the office of Senator and Congress at any single point in time and one of such vacancies is from Connecticut, the Governor is empowered to fill such vacancy by appointment as provided herein.

REP. PERILLO (113th):
Madam Speaker, thank you. So, that certainly makes some sense but it begets the question what if it's 40? What if it's 48? What if it's 49? That's a pretty calamitous situation. Yet, it would not trigger the ability of the Governor to make an immediate appointment. The State of Connecticut could be severely underrepresented for almost half a year. And I think that's a matter of concern. I think that's something we need to consider.

We live in dangerous times and that's just the reality. And I think we would be remiss, we would be doing the residents of the State of Connecticut an injustice if indeed we didn't take that severe risk, that always real risk into consideration. And I -- just to make a few closing comments if I could. This is often billed as a move to give choice to the people. The people's choice. And there's some truth in that. There honestly and truly is. There is some truth in that.

But let's not forget that in the system that we have right now, people still have that choice. They always do. There always will be an election. There always will be an opportunity to choose and it seems to me that we forget that. That we neglect the fact that there will be an election, just in the interim there will be an appointment. And that appointment is specific. It's for a reason. It's to ensure that the residents of the State of Connecticut are appropriately and adequately represented with two Senators, two individuals as the voice of the residents of Connecticut in the U. S. Senate.

This isn't necessarily about you know, giving people choice because we don't give them choice now. The voters of the State of Connecticut always have the right to choose. There will always be an election. But we have an obligation to ensure that the residents of the State of Connecticut are represented and they're represented immediately. And particularly in the world in which we live that they're represented immediately in the event that there is a severe calamity.

And I give credit to the gentleman for all the hard work that I know went into this. We heard about this last year. We've heard about it in previous years but at this time I think we need to be aware of the reality of the world. And I think we need to make sure that the residents of the State of Connecticut are fully represented at all times and I would not support this amendment. And I thank the gentleman for his time and for his answers. And I thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on Senate Amendment A?

REP. GIBBONS (150th):
If I may through you please a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

May I ask sir, through you please, how many years has the Governor been able to appoint a vacant Senate seat in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Gibbons, since 1945 so that would be 64 years.

REP. GIBBONS (150th):
Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker, is this true of all states in the union or is it just true for the State of Connecticut or is a U. S. Senator vacancy always appointed -- or filled by an appointment through the Governor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Gibbons, it varies from state to state. The Constitution of the United States provides that vacancies shall be filled by election but provides for the opportunity for temporary appointment by the executive if the state legislature so chooses.

Thank you for that response. And do you know, sir, how many states do allow the Governors to make this appointment? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Gibbons, there is some -- some variation among the states but certainly the vast majority do provide for gubernatorial appointment although again, there's -- in most cases, an election -- a special election or interim election to fill out the remainder of the term when the next State election rolls around. Through you.

I thank Representative Spallone for his answer. It is my understanding that generally the Governors do make these appointments. Sometimes if there's three years to fill out then you have to have an interim election but I believe a U. S. Senator serves for six years. So I guess it's not three years. If there's four or five years still to be served then there might be a special election in between. But you cited the case of both Illinois and -- what was the other state -- New York where there was some problems with the gubernatorial appointment this past year.

I think there have been a lot more appointments where there's not been any issue and I would hate to think that Connecticut is doing this just because of the problems with those states. Can you tell me, Representative, please through you, Madam Speaker, why we are trying to bring this up now and is there a certain motive or an agenda as to why we should be making this -- passing this amendment today. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Gibbons, the majority of the members of the GAE Committee believe that it was good public policy to do so.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the Representative for his answer. I don't happen to agree with the majority members of -- the members of the GAE Committee. I think that this really ends up being a very political debate. I think that if the majority party were the minority party possibly the tables would be turned and we would not be having this discussion. However, this is the bill that came out of the GAE Committee and we will have to see where it goes from here. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I may a few questions for the proponent of the amendment.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
First question I would ask is related to the frequency or the commonness of this type of proposal that's before us this evening. I was wondering how many other states use a special election procedure such as the one that's being proposed here this evening. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, Senate Judiciary Committee and the subcommittee on the constitution did a study and divided the states into several categories. There are 45 states that provide for appointments, eight states provide for quick, special elections with interim gubernatorial appointments, and the remaining 37 permit the appointments to serve till the next election. There are four states that require the appointee to be from the same party as the previous incumbent.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So then, if -- and I always distrust my math, but if I understood the answer correctly 90 percent of the states provide for a gubernatorial appointment in the first instance and a vast majority of states provide for the full two years until the next regularly scheduled election. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, four states require special election, 45 provide for temporary appointments by Governors and the status in Alaska is somewhat unclear.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
So it appears then that Connecticut stands today in the majority of the states across the country in that we have a gubernatorial appointment to fill a vacancy in the U. S. Senate. And we know -- and I would -- that Illinois obviously is one of those states because of the scandal that occurred surrounding the appointment of Senator Burr by then Governor Blagojevich. Has Illinois taken action to change the way they choose United States Senators? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, a bill was submitted in the legislature in the State of Illinois but it did not so far pass.

And in the State of Delaware, I believe was recited that Vice President Biden was a Senator and had to vacate his Senate seat upon taking the Vice Presidency. And has the State of Delaware changed its process for selecting a -- first of all is the State of Delaware a state where the Governor gets to appoint the replacement Senator? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
And in light of what happened in the State of Illinois with the scandal involving Governor Blagojevich, was -- has the State of Delaware changed the process by which they elect or rather choose a United States Senator to go to an elected instead of an appointed system? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the best of my knowledge the State of Delaware has not changed its law regarding the appointment or election or an interim United States Senator.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I believe there was mentioned made of the appointment of the Secretary, I believe it's of the Interior, Secretary Salazar was a United States Senator from the State of Colorado. And is Colorado one of those states that chooses its Senator replacement by way of an appointment by the Governor? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And in light of the scandal that occurred where Governor Blagojevich appeared to be trying to auction off the Senate seat for Senator -- then Senator Obama. Has the State of Colorado taken action to switch from an appointment by the Governor to an election? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, it's my understanding that Connecticut's bill has gotten farther than those introduced in any other states.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That anticipates my next question which is are there any other states besides Connecticut that, again in light of the scandal that occurred in the State of Illinois where Governor Blagojevich appeared to be auctioning off the U. S. Senate vacancy. Have any other states chosen to switch from being a gubernatorial appointment state to a special election state? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, ten states including Connecticut considered legislation that would reduce or eliminate the Governor's authority to fill a vacancy during this year.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So then Connecticut would be at this date it's June -- it's my understanding from looking at various calendars of state legislatures across the country that most of our sister legislatures are getting done. They're finishing their work. They're pretty close to the same schedule that we have. Some are year round legislatures but most of them like us terminate after five, six, seven months into the year.

So it seems to me that if no other state has enacted this type of legislation that we are likely, if we do it, to be the only state in the whole country that is going to respond to the scandal in Illinois by changing the way we select a replacement United States Senator in the event of a vacancy. I think that that is a strange outcome.

If this is such a serious problem that even Illinois has chosen not to do anything about it by changing the way they choose Senators. They rather chose to get rid of the corrupt Governor who was causing the problem in the State of Illinois. Now, we had a little bit of a discussion of what the costs of this would be. What is the cost of having the Governor appoint a replacement United States Senator at the present time, if the gentleman knows? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, I believe that the cost is -- would be handled within the available appropriations of the Governor's office because it probably entails issuing a declaration or a letter or signing a writ of appointment. There may be some other costs entailed with conducting interviews and so forth but I believe those would all occur within the normal duties of the Governor.

And if the gentleman knows, what would the cost be for having a statewide special election, including primaries? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, the fiscal note addresses the costs to municipalities which I recited earlier. And the cost to the State is actually not addressed in the fiscal note except to the potential cost to the Office of Legislative Management for special session in the event of a gubernatorial appointment under the rare circumstance that would occur.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess what I was aiming at was the cost to municipalities if you tallied it up what the statewide cost would be if all 169 municipalities had to participate in special election system which would -- as I understand the bill. Let me stop there. As I understand the bill it is -- it calls for in some but not necessarily all cases for the option of a primary to be held. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, there would be a primary if the vacancy occurs greater than 125 days before a regular election.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So that would mean that between elections approximately 21 months of the time, that is 21 out of the 24 months that separate elections, there would be the option of a primary. And during the last 125 days -- I guess that's -- I'm sorry that's more like four months. So 20 months out of the year there would be a possibility of a primary. For the last four months before the election or thereabouts there would be no primary that would be an option as I understood the answer. So that means most of the time if there were a vacancy that would -- that occurs there would be the possibility of a primary. So, I think we should assume that there might be a primary. There's a pretty good chance that there would be a primary in the event that we have a special election to fill a Senate vacancy.

And so the question then is -- make sure it's properly framed -- what would the cost to the 169 municipalities be if we had, first a primary, and then a general election in order to -- or a special election to fill a Senate -- U. S. Senate vacancy? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, the fiscal note gives ranges; a large city a special election can cost between $ 75,000, $ 85,000, for a smaller community $ 10,000 to $ 15,000. That would be a medium small town probably less than $ 10,000. My understanding, the fiscal note does not contain math adding together averages or trying to come up with a figure for the entire costs around the State. And I have not done so personally either.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And so, a medium-sized town, did the fiscal note indicate about how big a town that would be? What they considered a medium-sized town? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, the town listed is the town of Farmington. And if the gentleman wants to -- is prepared to ask me the population of that city -- town, I don't know the size of the town of Farmington.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My vague recollection from when we last did redistricting and reapportionment was that Farmington got to have pretty much -- not entirely but most of Farmington fits within a single legislative district. I think a small slice of it is in a district that stretches over into West Hartford, if I'm not mistaken. So that would mean Farmington would have a population somewhere in the neighborhood of about 20,000 to 25,000, something like that. And what was the cost if the special election were held in Farmington? If I may ask. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, $ 10,000 to $ 15,000.

Okay. So if we take the midpoint of $ 10,000 to $ 15,000 that would be about $ 12,500. And if Farmington is somewhere in the 20s that would be about -- I would say that would be about an average sized town across the State. The population is 3. 5 million and there are 169 towns. It sounds to me like that would make Farmington about an average sized town. So if there were 169 times $ 12,500, I think that that's about $ 2. 25 million dollars or so. And that would be for the general election. Does the -- does the gentleman know what the cost of a primary might be? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, I don't believe the fiscal note discusses a division there. But when you think about it if both parties had a primary the cost would be very similar to a general election. But if only one party has a primary some of the costs are fixed but they are certainly reduced. Fewer workers are needed. Less space is needed. Possibly even fewer polling stations. So while it might not be half, it would certainly be less for a primary if there's only one party having a primary.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll work on the assumption that with the opportunity for a U. S. Senate vacancy that there'd be a lot of competition and interest by people to seek that office. So I'm going to assume that both parties would -- major political parties would have a primary. So I'm going to assume that the total cost is going to be around the same, maybe a bit less than the cost of the general election. So that would mean that we'd be spending something close to $ 4. 25 perhaps $ 4. 5 million in order to have a special election. I'm tempted since I see the Representative from the town of Farmington has reentered the chamber to find out exactly what Farmington's population is but maybe I'll refrain. I don't want to frighten him away.

Good evening, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I question the existence of a quorum.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for remembering. I believe the point that I was making at the time that the quorum was called, was that the cost of doing a special election together with a primary was going to be somewhere on the order of $ 4. 25 to $ 4. 5 million based on the relatively and admittedly rough estimates that we were making based on the -- using Farmington as an average or typical sized community for the entire State of Connecticut.

And so that seems to me at least, Madam Speaker, like an awful lot of money to spend in the process when you compare that with, particularly the current process which is the most common process across the country, of allowing the Governor to fill this vacancy by a simple appointment of someone to serve for that brief period of time definitely not more than two years, and perhaps only a few months, perhaps only a few weeks until the next regularly scheduled election when the vacancy would then be filled by the normal election process. Now there was some discussion earlier on about the process that gets us to a primary or gets us towards the election.

And as I understood -- and I want to be sure I did understand it correctly, the way the nominees would first be chosen would not be by way of a primary but rather would be chosen by way of a reconvened convention -- statewide convention. Am I correct in that? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I believe there was some discussion about the notion that conventions happen every two years in each of the two major parties. Is that the gentleman's understanding; the Chair of the Government, Administration, and Elections Committee? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the -- to Representative O'Neill I believe that when you consider that there could be a senatorial nomination, a gubernatorial nomination occur at staggered times and also election of members to the national committees of the two parties that it would probably be every two years but I do not have such a calendar before me.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that's interesting because -- and I don't know the rules of how things are done within the Democratic Party. Although I suppose with the internet I could look into it. I imagine those are posted somewhere on the Democratic Party's website. One thing I do know for sure and that is that the Republican Party did not have a statewide convention in this past election in 2008 because there was no statewide office to elect or to nominate people for election to. In other words, we had no Governor, no United States Senate race up in 2008 and so the Republican Party did not have a convention.

What that means, Madam Speaker, is that the convention if for example this law were on the books today and we had a vacancy sometime this year. The convention would be reconvening the 2006 Republican convention. I guess I would ask the question to the Chair of the Government, Administration, and Elections Committee if he is aware of whether or not the Democratic Party did in fact have a statewide convention in 2008. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, while I would welcome to shout an answer, my recollection is that I thought there was one for election of members of the Democratic National Committee. So I think there was. It's my best recollection as I stand here today.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if that were the case -- if those people were chosen for that purpose based on political experience that certainly I have but I will check in with the Chair of the GAE Committee. Were the delegates that went to that convention likely to be the same type of delegates as went to for example the 2006 Democratic State Convention? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative O'Neill, like any volunteer organization there are a few individuals who tend to carry the weight and many delegates return year after year. And of course there are always new ones who come along as well. So I don't know the exact numbers involved but there's certainly a number of returning delegates in any state convention.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because my impression is that if you have a contested United States Senate seat as was the case in the Democratic Party in 2006, contested nomination for Governor, that you get a lot of people who are very interested. You get some very energetic people. You get very enthusiastic people. You get very actively involved people within a political party. And if those people would have been the delegates to the 2006 convention but if you're just picking a couple of people or whatever the number is, I believe it's a somewhat larger number for the Democratic Party.

If you're just picking a few people to go to the Democratic National Committee and be members of that and you don't have a Senate race and you don't have candidates for all of the offices, Attorney General, Comptroller, Treasurer, Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor, as well as Governor, then the interest level is just inevitably going to have to be somewhat lower. And so it would seem to me that the reconvened convention if there were one in 2008 for the Democratic Party would inevitably be made up of not necessarily the most active and enthusiastic and necessarily representative members of the Democratic Party but the folks who care enough to show up to select National Committee as opposed to the people who show up to pick Governors and Senators.

And as I said before, I'm positive that the Republican Party did not have a State convention. At least I did not go and I'm supposed to be super delegate to the State conventions in the Republican Party by virtue of being a legislator. So I don't ever remember being invited to it, notified of it, hearing about it, or going to it. So, in the case of the Republican Party if this law were on the books we would be reconvening a three year old convention and in the case of the Democratic Party a convention whose main function when those delegates were chosen was not to pick a United States Senate candidate but in fact to pick somebody to go to the Democratic National Committee.

And it seems to me that in either case you're talking a population now that is going to be significantly non-represented. And I have some personal experience on dealing with reconvened conventions that are reconvened for the purpose of replacing a delegate -- an elected official who has let office. In the first instance was when I was first elected to the State House of Representatives in 1988. I was in a special election in February.

We reconvened the convention that had been convened for the purpose of selecting a nominee. Everybody knew who that nominee was going to be. It was a well-respected, beloved incumbent. And it was a convention of people that were that persons' -- that lady's folks and they came to that convention and dutifully nominated her and went never thinking that they were going to have to choose anybody else.

The few months later, about a year later -- more than that actually, almost a year and a half later they were called back to choose replacement when she resigned in order to become First Selectman in the town of Southbury and I was the possible candidate they had to look at. But one of the things we discovered was that in the intervening 15, 16, 17 months a lot of people had changed their lifestyles. Several people had died. A couple of people had moved out of the State. Other people were busy with things going on in their lives at this odd time, not a July convention or anything like that but a convention in the beginning of January -- middle of January is when this convention was held. And so you had to find replacement delegates for the original delegates and that process is a very convoluted one and does not really involve a whole lot of public input.

I'm not sure what the rules are necessarily for the Democratic Party to do this but I know that within the Republican Party this is not something that involves much of the opportunity for the public to get back involved again as they did when they were perhaps choosing delegates to go to a convention. My second experience with this was when I sought the nomination to become a State Senator when the vacancy occurred in the State Senate district that I live in. And again, out of the 64 people who were delegates to that convention, it's my recollection that half of them had to be replaced because people had moved. People had moved to a different town, were no longer available. They'd left the State of Connecticut. Several people unfortunately had passed away. Other people were simply unavailable and had no inclination to come the convention which was again being held in the middle of winter. Not a convention at the normal time people expected to be called to a convention.

So whenever this special convention is held to pick the delegates to -- rather of delegates to pick the nominees, it is going to be a convention that's at an odd time where the people who originally were chosen to be delegates are in many cases not going to be available. And many, many new delegates are going to have to be chosen for the purpose of filling this vacancy in the nomination of the United States Senate seat. And it would seem to me that the nomination phase, that part of it is likely to be a very, very important part of the whole process. In fact, if I might ask, is there a point in time after which only the convention nominee is eligible to be the nominee of the two political parties? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately I was distracted for a moment. Could the gentleman repeat his answer? DEPUTY SPEAKER ORANGE:

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, yes, there is a point in time after which the nominee of the convention would be the nominee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And how long before the election would the convention become the sole nominating entity? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So during the last two months prior to the time when the election's going to occur the convention will be the only source of a nominee for either political party. And that's pretty much the way we run our State legislative special elections. There is no real opportunity for a primary and the result of that while it might save some money -- a couple of million dollars, means that only political insiders are going to have an opportunity to make a choice as to who the nominees are going to be.

And given the realities of the political world in Connecticut, the likeliest possibility is that one of those two individuals chosen by one of the two major parties is going to be elected in any kind of special election. Is there a process by which someone could petition after that convention -- that point, that 63 day point in which someone could file a petition to become an independent candidate? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, in the event that there is a convention and primary under the bill there would be an opportunity for a person to petition on to the ballot for primary under current law. Under the situation where there's a truncated procedure and the convention produces the nominee, there would be no opportunity to petition on -- to petition for a primary.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in the truncated situation would it be possible for an independent petitioning candidate to be able to petition onto the ballot? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the Representative needs a moment to verify I think that it's important for us to know whether in the truncated situation if the person can in fact petition their way onto the ballot. Through you, Madam Speaker. If he could perhaps get me that information I would appreciate it.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, I don't believe that the petitioning process is covered in the bill. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So that in the event that there were a vacancy it sounds like that if the -- if it occurs within the 63 days before the election then the -- the vacancy is only going to be filled by people who are nominated only by conventions to fill a United States senate which is a pretty substantial position in our governmental structure. And we have had years and years of efforts at lowering the threshold for qualifying for a primary till finally eliminating the threshold in terms of delegates necessary so you can petition directly to get a primary.

That's only a recent innovation in Connecticut election laws. And for many, many years there was an extended debate about whether or not the conventions really should have the dominate role that they play during the -- most of the last century in our political life. And only in the last few years we've basically moved away from having conventions be the pretty much sole source of candidates to saying that we are going to have the opportunity for primaries. And now with this piece of legislation it looks like we're creating a situation in which it's going be quite possible that a convention originally convened not to pick a candidate for the United States Senate convened -- reconvened years after those delegates were originally chosen to be delegates to a different convention with a different purpose are going to be reconvened to try to choose a nominee to be a United States Senator.

And it doesn't strike me that that necessarily is help the voters get a good choice or allowing the kind of public input that it was suggested that this bill was designed to try to accomplish; that we were really democratizing the process of electing a United States Senator. I am put in mind in fact of a comment once made by Boss Tweed who made the statement, I believe that he didn't care who did the voting just so long as he got to do the nominating.

And in a state such as Connecticut where the two party system is as dominant as it is it appears to me that whoever does the nominating is likely to choose whoever the United State Senator is going to be. At least choose the last two individuals whom the voters get to choose from. And the voters are not going to be choosing who they really want necessarily but rather the people who a couple of conventions may present to them. And again, we would be taking in some ways a fairly large step backward compared to all the reforms that have been made to our political process and our nominating process here in the State of Connecticut over the last 20 years or so that I have served in the General Assembly.

Now, I would ask is there any other office in the State of Connecticut -- statewide office that is filled by way of a special election? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we don't -- so then, if there were to be a vacancy in the office of Attorney General with all of the power and discretion that the Attorney General has we would not have -- the voters would not have the opportunity to have a say as to who the next Attorney General is going to be. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, no, but it's not a bad idea.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, if the Chair of the GAE Committee is aware, what is the process by which we replace a vacancy -- or fill a vacancy in the office of Attorney General? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, there was testimony regarding this before the GA and E Committee. The Governor fills vacancies in the office of the Attorney General.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the same thing true of the office of State Treasurer, the person who makes all of the investment decisions involving the pensions of State employees and public school teachers and so forth? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, no, the legislature fills vacancies for Secretary of the State, Comptroller, and Treasurer.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the legislature always fill vacancies in the offices of Comptroller, Treasurer, and Secretary of State? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to Representative O'Neill, I believe there's a procedure when the legislature is not in session for the filling of those vacancies.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if the -- the Chair of the GAE Committee could remind me what is that procedure when the legislature is not in session? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative O'Neill, General Statutes 9-213 sets forth the provisions. The General Assembly would fill the vacancy for the unexpired portion of a term. If it's not in session or if it fails to make the appointment, the Governor shall appoint a person to serve in an acting role until the next regular session of the General Assembly.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, it appears then that unless it happens that the vacancy occurs when the General Assembly is in session. The Governor gets to fill the vacancies in the offices of Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller. And that in any event the Attorney General is a gubernatorial appointment as well. So it seems to me, Madam Speaker, -- I could ask, the Chair of the GAE Committee in response to my earlier question about the Attorney General suggested that it might be a good idea to have a special election to fill a vacancy in the office of Attorney General. Was any such legislation introduced this year? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what we have is a situation that almost every other state in the union, I mean only a handful of states don't have the Governor do the appointment. In the State of Connecticut the Governor is frequently and sometimes completely the appointing authority for a replacement of a statewide office such as the Attorney General or the Treasurer. And that only in the case of a vacancy in the United States Senate seat are we going to go through the tremendous expense of having a special election to fill that vacancy.

And as was indicated earlier by one of the other speakers while all that is going on we're going to be in the position of not having an incumbent in that office in Washington to represent the interests of the people of the State of Connecticut.

Now, for a state like New York or a state like California that may not be such a big deal because they have huge congressional delegations. But in the case of the State of Connecticut being a relatively small state we only have five U. S. Representatives. New York, I believe, has something like 35 and the State of California has something in excess of 50.

So we're in the position where other states are in the House of Representatives are going to be very dominant in terms of moving legislation. And that our principal voice of the big opportunity we have to be heard is to have a United States Senator there to represent the people of Connecticut, not just one but actually to have two. And so that for months after a vacancy occurs we are going to be in the situation of not having a voice in the United States Senate.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So it's only in this one very strange case with a person who -- I believe the last thing I read about former Governor Blagojevich was that he couldn't participate in a TV show in which it was -- I think the title of it is something like help, get me out of here I'm a celebrity. He had to send his wife to be dropped by air into a jungle someplace so that she could be filmed trying to escape from the situation there in the jungle because he was now being detained and the judge wouldn't allow him to leave the United States. So, Mr. Blagojevich is a very strange person. And to cite him as a leading example for why we need to change the way we here in Connecticut choose United States Senators and the position that we've had on our books now for half a century seems to me just to be stretching it a little bit. That was -- I don't know, a burlesque, vaudeville show travesty. It was many things, what happened in the State of Illinois.

But I don't think that it in and of itself proves the case for why you should just have a special election in any case and every case in the event of a vacancy. So, Madam Speaker because it's going to cost $ 4. 5 million to have primaries and special elections, because it's going to deny the State of Connecticut it's proper voice in the United States Senate for the better part of four months, because it's going to bring about a competition for nominations among delegates who were chosen for some other purpose years earlier.

It seems to me that the system that's being proposed in this bill is really not a very good one. But if we were to follow this system then it seems to me, Madam Speaker we should apply it to everyone and not leave the other offices such as Attorney General, Treasurer, Comptroller, and Secretary of the State out of it. If this is really all about giving the voters an opportunity to weigh in and make a choice to replace someone that they elected originally then it should be applicable to all of those positions and not just to the position of a United States Senator, which happens to be a gubernatorial appointment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, with all my respect to the Chairman of the GAE Committee, I rise in opposition to this bill. And I would like to let Representative --

On the amendment. Madam Speaker, after listening to this dialogue between Representative O'Neill and Representative Spallone, after awhile you lose your speech. But Madam Speaker, with all my due respect I rise in opposition of this amendment. And I will not be asking any questions because honestly Madam Speaker I know the answers. I know most of the answers that were going to be given anyway and I do not want to be redundant as to repeat something that any of my colleagues or for that matter Representative Spallone would say. But I wanted to associate my comments with my colleague behind me here, Representative Labriola who talked very adequately about the problems that we face with this issue and why this should not be done.

But Madam Speaker, as I am listening to the conversation and the dialogue between Representative O'Neill and Representative Spallone I concluded that we have a -- we have a system here in the State of Connecticut. A system that has been in place since 1945. Now we want to change it one night before the end of the session. When there are only four states in the entire nation who have this process and obviously the State of Connecticut wants to be the fifth.

Madam Speaker, this morning I went to work. I got to work real early at 6: 00. I had to go and catch up and see what's going on. So by 8: 00 a. m. right on the dot I started calling my customers. Economy is tough. Everybody knows this and business is slow. I wanted to get some business. Every single customer that I called before I talked to them about wanting to do business with them, they know that I'm a legislator. They knew that we were here until after 1: 00 a. m. this morning. The first question that they asked me, have you done a budget yet for the State of Connecticut? They don't care whether we are Republicans, Democrats, or the Governor. They don't care. They just care about the fact that they want a budget so that we can go on with our lives. But yet one night -- one night right before the end of our session we are introducing a bill to fix something that we think that we have a perception that it is a problem. A system that has worked since 1945 but now we want to change it one night before the end of session at 9: 45 p. m. when we have been here since 10: 30 this morning. And now we want to introduce to change a system that has been with us since 1945.

Madam Speaker, when this bill was called and I saw legislators walking in I got really excited. I thought that we are going to debate a budget. And we will have a budget in time. But yet we do not have a budget in time. What we have is a debate on a bill that in my opinion -- an amendment, I apologize, and a bill to follow that in my opinion is totally and completely unnecessary one night -- one night before the end of session. One night. People in municipalities are asking us to give them a budget when we are in the hole by $ 9 billion. Nine billion dollars.

We are looking now to spend more money on an election that is totally and completely not needed. According to the conversation between Representative O'Neill and Representative Spallone they are saying $ 4. 5 million. So I was doing a little calculation myself as they were speaking and adding things up. I think it will cost the State of Connecticut $ 10 million -- $ 10 million to do this process. For what? I can see Representative Thompson in there saying I can take this $ 10 million and send it into the children of our State.

We have too many other needs in our State of Connecticut that are prevalent, that are needed, that something we must do to take care of the needy, to take care of the underprivileged, to take care of our municipalities, to reduce taxes on people, to help people who are out of jobs. But yet we are debating a bill that is not necessary. A system that has worked with us in this State since 1945. Not a problem occurred. We have never had a problem with this since 1945 but yet now one night before the end of session we are going to change it. Why? I have no idea. Save the money. Do a budget. Let's keep the system the way it is until things get better and we are out of this financial dilemma. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I could a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the bill was being -- or the amendment that is before us was being fashioned did the GAE Committee rely on the public testimony in the crafting of this item? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Alberts, there was testimony before the GAE Committee. The Committee reported out a bill and then the amendment was refined based on the record, based on consultation with the Office of Legislative Research, the Office of -- and the Legislator's Commissioner's Office and so forth.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is -- I've had an opportunity here over the past several hours to look at the written testimony that was submitted. I believe there are four pieces that were submitted and one of the pieces was from the Attorney General of the State. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and is the proponent of the amendment familiar with the Attorney General's proposal? Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Alberts, yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I think just to generally summarize, you know the sense that the Attorney General presented was he was in favor of the amendment that's before us. One of the things though, however that he urged the Committee to consider was a similar process for filling vacancies of State constitutional officers, including the Office of Secretary of the State, Comptroller, and Treasurer. Was this considered by the proponent of the amendment in the crafting of the language?

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Alberts, yes, I think the Attorney General's testimony was certainly intriguing. However, there was no public hearing -- public notice for making that substantive change in Connecticut law and it is probably worthy of a discussion in a subsequent session.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the Attorney General correct in his testimony that under the present process the legislature would fill those vacancies for those state constitutional offices? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Alberts, following on my colloquy with Representative O'Neill, the Governor fills vacancies in the Office of the Attorney General, the legislature for the other constitutional officers unless we're not in session then the Governor appoints until we're back in session.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do thank the proponent of the amendment for his responses to my questions. The hour is late, Madam Speaker. I know that we probably want to call the question at some point but I look at this and I believe that this legislation is at least partly before us for the opportunity for political gain. Clearly that may not be present in all of the constitutional law offices and for that reason, Madam Speaker, I will be opposing the amendment and after that the bill. Thank you.

Will you care to remark further on Senate Amendment Schedule A? Do you care to remark further on Senate Amendment Schedule A? If not, staff and guests please come to the well. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

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.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If all members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk will please announce the tally.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended?

Thank you, Madam. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill the Clerk will soon have in his possession LCO number 9285. I ask that when the Clerk has received it --

Madam Speaker, when the Clerk has indicated he has the bill I would ask -- the amendment, I would ask that it be called and I be permitted to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 9285 designated as House Amendment Schedule A, I believe it would be.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very simple amendment. The bill that we are dealing with relates to -- ultimately to Article one, section 3 of the United States Constitution, and this does as well. It would add three lines on new section 501 providing any person who holds the office of Senator in Congress shall remain a resident of Connecticut during the entirety of such persons term in office. And I move -- I move approval.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule A? Will you remark on House Amendment Schedule A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Constitution originally provided in Article 1 Section 3 that the legislature of each state would choose the two Senators. It also provided that the qualifications for a Senator would be 30 years of age and so forth and that should be an inhabitant of the state at the time he is selected.

The purpose of this amendment would to provide that the Senator, he or she, shall be a resident of Connecticut throughout his or her term. This seems to me consistent with the demands of modern life. We're going to have a Senator. We ought to have that Senator reside in this state and focus his attention on the people of this state throughout his or her term. And that's all that this does is simply adopt what seems to me an intuitive requirement that the Senator chosen from Connecticut ought to remain a resident of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the distinguished Ranking Member of the GA and E Committee I would like to pose a question or two.

Through you, Madam Speaker to Representative Hetherington, how is resident as contemplated by this amendment defined?

A resident yields the definition that would be required of a resident for any other purposes such as voting in Connecticut. It is different from an inhabitant of Connecticut and indicates a degree of permanency and involvement with the political life and civic affairs of the State.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, would a person therefore fulfill these requirements if they are a registered voter of the State of Connecticut.

They would unless their registration would be subject to void because that person was no longer a resident of Connecticut.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, as the Representative I'm sure knows, Senate terms are six years and often Senators will establish a home in the District of Columbia or the surrounding area. If a person were to purchase a home or rent a home in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia, or anywhere in the Washington, D. C. area would the gentleman therefore decide that they were no longer a resident of the State of Connecticut through this legislation? Through you.

No, because I believe that the individual would still choose Connecticut as his residence and not make any decision that would be inconsistent with being a resident of Connecticut. For example, such person would not register to vote in Washington, D. C.

Madam Speaker, I would just -- I'm not going to belabor this with further questions. I would just ask the members of the chamber to oppose the amendment. The amendment is really trying to resolve an issue that is not a significant one facing our State. Our Senators, are residents. If they were not residents I think that the people of the State of Connecticut would take action at an election to resolve that if they felt they weren't in touch with the State.

I would further add that this is coming before us at 10: 07 on the night before adjournment when the bill has already passed the Senate and has come down to the House with a day remaining here. And that it -- would have certainly require repassage in the Senate if passed. It also, as I stated, is not resolving a problem that the State faces and that qualifications for the United States Senate and House of Representatives are exclusively in the domain of the Constitution of the United States. And so I therefore strongly urge rejection of the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment A? Will you care to remark further on House A? B -- no, A.

Thank you. This is not a complicated amendment. It's not going to take a lot of time. It's three lines. It simply sets forth what I think everybody would reasonably expect. And that is if you're going to serve the State of Connecticut, you be a resident of the State of Connecticut. And that you not become a resident of some other place for whatever reason. And I ask that when a vote is taken a roll call be taken. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The question is on a roll call vote. All those in favor of a roll call vote when the vote is taken please signify by saying aye.

Twenty percent has been met. When the vote is taken it will be taken by roll call. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule A?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may a few questions to the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this issue being brought out tonight. And I was wondering what be the -- well, I guess my first question would be, is it not a requirement that our Connecticut -- the Connecticut U. S. Senators be a resident of the State of Connecticut in order to represent the people of Connecticut? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I can only refer the Representative to Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution which sets forth that a Senator need only be an inhabitant of the state at the time of his election. In those days of course of it was his election. And since the Constitution together with certain other things are the supreme law of the land, I take it that that is the only requirement. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate that answer. It would seem to me that anybody that would certainly run for office would have an interest in being a resident of the State of Connecticut. So, I'm wondering what the purpose of this particular amendment would be. If there's a situation that may have given rise to why we are debating this issue today. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, there was a -- several published reports that a Senator serving from the State of Connecticut in fact removed from the State of Connecticut and became a citizen of another state. I believe it was Iowa, in order to participate in the political process of the State of Iowa. So that such furnishes a rather dramatic example of -- of the point that I'm seeking to address here tonight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, currently I guess in as our laws read an individual could run for U. S. Senate to represent the State of Connecticut but subsequent to getting elected after -- I guess would it be the day after the election if they so choose they could move out of the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would construe it to mean that he would have to hang around long enough to be sworn in and after that it's out of here. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So then under our current laws without this amendment it would be possible for someone to run for Senate, be elected Senate, sworn in, and after the swearing in the very next day if they so choose they could move out of the State of Connecticut to some other jurisdiction for say three years and then move back into the State of Connecticut in time to run for reelection? Through you, Madam Speaker.

I see no constitutional prohibition to that. I suppose that in time ones registration as a Connecticut voter would go stale and at such time as the voting list was called to remove those voters who were no longer qualified to vote in Connecticut that might be an issue of some embarrassment. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CANDELORA (86th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, but as I read this amendment the amendment nearly is requiring residency but not necessarily whether or not that individual is a registered voter in the State of Connecticut. So I would think that in order to run for U. S. Senate you would not need to be registered to vote, rather you would just merely need to be a resident. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would agree that's probably right. You know as a lawyer I think the Representative knows that the question about resident and domicile and so forth are complicated issues. But certainly a resident would be someone who has settled ties with the State which most -- probably most formally be suggested by someone who had registered to vote -- who was a registered voter here. But I would accept the question as to whether or not that is absolutely required to be a resident. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my understanding of the definition of resident I just did a quick reading of our statutes. I'm not sure if it is defined anywhere. Would the good Representative know if the definition is contained in our statutes or is it something that maybe defined through case law? Through you, Madam Speaker.

I think it probably is defined in the statute. I mean the question of jurisdiction of the courts, someone dies, domiciled here, so forth. So I don't have the complete answer to that but I would suspect if we did the research we would find that the definition -- that the term resident is probably pretty well settled. Through you, Madam Speaker.

REP. CANDELORA (86th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the good Representative for his answers. I have to say when the bill was called -- this bill was called tonight I -- I wasn't all that frankly interested in the topic because I think that whether or not a vacancy is created in Connecticut is probably rare indeed. And maybe if we amended the statute we would see it being evoked, I don't know once every 50 years or once every 100 years.

So certainly it just -- it didn't strike me as being all that necessary of an amendment. But I do feel that this present amendment frankly excites me. I think it's something that makes a heck of a lot of sense for the State of Connecticut. We certainly want our public officials to be a resident of the State of Connecticut when they run for office. And absolutely we want them to remain residents while they're in term in office.

I was actually frankly surprised to hear that that wasn't the case. And I think many of us realize that that was not the case when our own good Senator from Connecticut had moved to Ohio, Representative -- sorry, Senator Dodd had moved to Ohio -- I'm sorry Iowa -- excuse me. That the residency requirements was not necessary. And I heard from many constituents ask me how is that possible that our U. S. Senator does not need to be a resident of the State of Connecticut in order to represent its people. It put me aback a bit. I was quite surprised to hear that. And I think that this is a very strong public policy that this chamber should certainly support. I think it's important.

Certainly all of us had that requirement when we run for office and we're sworn in. We're required to reside in the district that we're representing. And as all of us know every day it's critical because when we're home we have our businesses -- our local businesses, our constituents coming to us with questions and concerns. We're accessible. But we're connected to our community. We're connected to our State. And certainly I know in the recesses of my mind, the term resident in case law speaks to a very important component. And that is the person's state of mind.

In order to be a resident you need to have the state of mind of wanting to be -- having permanency in that jurisdiction. I believe that some of the analyses that courts have gone through when they're determining residency. And so certainly we would want our U. S. Senators to have the state of mind that they want to be residing in Connecticut, representing the individuals of Connecticut, being accessible to their constituent base, paying taxes in this community so the decisions that they make down in Washington D. C. certainly will affect them, will affect their neighbors, will affect their businesses. They will have a vested interest in those decisions they make. It gravely concerns me the way our laws are currently written that a Senator has no such requirement. So they have the ability to just pack their bags, up and leave, move to another jurisdiction, and even possibly advocate for people in some other jurisdiction.

And because they're not a resident of the State of Connecticut, they no longer necessarily have that vested interest of have those ties connected. So I strongly support this amendment. I thank the good Representative for bringing it out. And I look forward to the debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir for your comments tonight. And will you remark further on House Amendment A? Will you remark further on House Amendment A?

Okay. Good evening. This is an easy one I think we've got here. And I rise in support. I -- if I could -- I know you just sat down but through you if I could ask a quick question to the proponent.

Thank you. Reference was made that the issue of residency for one of our U. S. Senators wasn't in Connecticut for awhile recently. And I think you referenced some reports but can you -- can you tell us with a little more detail or specificity the background of that? Through you.

Well during the course of the 2008 primary campaign Senator Dodd entered the race as a candidate for President of the United States and chose to participate in the Iowa primary. And I'm relying on news reports now, I mean wasn't -- wasn't there.

But -- that's right. I stuck with my district. But apparently Senator Dodd removed his family to quarters in Iowa, registered them in school in Iowa I believe -- the children, and I think -- I think registered to vote in the Iowa primary -- caucus.

Thank you. As I said, this -- this seems to be an easy one. If we asked our constituents this question, should our United States Senator live and be a resident of the state that he represents my guess is that those numbers would come back pretty close to 100 percent. Perhaps the only reason to not support this is the difficulty that it would go back to the Senate but one the Senate can pass this in a nanosecond and two the underlying the bill I don't think is going to be signed into law anyways so that -- that shouldn't be an issue.

What we should do is make a statement here tonight, it's a simple statement that if you're going to hold the office of United States Senator from the State of Connecticut, you've got to abide by the constitutional requirements and also by the way we're going to require that you're a resident of the State of Connecticut. That's far from burdensome. It's entirely appropriate.

It would be shameful for a United Senator not to be a resident of the State of Connecticut while he is in an -- in office. But politics aside that is inappropriate -- clearly inappropriate and I dare say all of our constituents would agree with that. So I appreciate the gentleman bringing out the amendment and Madam Speaker, for your time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House A? Care to remark further on House A? Representative Aman of the 14.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm just listening to the debate and again like most of us I was very, very surprised about a year ago to learn that you can be a Senator from the State of Connecticut and not be a resident. I find that surprising because you have to have -- be resident to receive in-state tuition. You've got to be a resident to get a motor vehicle license. You've got to be a resident to get a divorce. You've got to be a resident to get a marriage. You've got to be a resident to be -- or most of the time you have to be a resident to pay income taxes within the State of Connecticut. And for elected office on the municipal level you have to be a resident.

In fact there's been several cases over the years where people have debated a second home, if they really intended to live in the location. But they -- it's been fairly well held along the line that Connecticut statutes require someone be an elector in the town that they're serving in the municipalities. Most of our town charters or rules say that the elected officials, they not only have to be an elector but they have to be a resident.

Very often police officers, a police chief, fire chief, other town and state employees are required to be residents. And the reason they're all -- the requirements on the municipality side is they recognize very clearly that to really represent your community its best that you live there, that you know the people, that you participate in the activities in the area.

I'm fully aware that a Senator spends most of his time in Washington, D. C. It would be very difficult for them not to do that. I would also understand a Senator whose children were registered in schools in Washington, D. C. I would have a problem if his children were registered in school in Washington D. C. and on the registration for becoming a student they put down they were a resident of Washington, D. C. and not of the State of Connecticut.

So I will be endorsing this amendment because I feel that from the municipal level right up to the Senate level we should be represented by people who live here and have the best interests of the State of Connecticut at heart. So I urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir for your remarks. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule A?

The honorable deputy Minority Leader from Terryville, Representative Hamzy, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think this is about as simple an amendment as can possibly be offered on the floor of the House. It simply says if you choose to run and be granted the privilege of representing the State of Connecticut in the United States Senate that you be a resident of this state. You know there's a lot of towns that adopt ordinances that have residency requirements for people who take jobs such as police officer, or fire fighter, teacher, superintendent of schools where they require residency within the -- within the border of the town in which they -- in which they work. In fact there are incentives that are usually offered as part of those job openings.

With regard to -- with regard to arguments in opposition to this requirement frankly I just don't understand them. There's been a -- there's been a point made that the bill has already passed the Senate and is now before us in the House. There is still a full day left in this legislative session for the Senate to take up this bill. And I'm not sure why it's ever not the prerogative of the House to adopt an amendment to a bill based on its merit.

The merit of this amendment I think far outweighs -- far outweighs the detriment that may become of this bill. We don't know that this won't get taken up in the Senate. We don't know that they won't adopt this amendment, this very common sensical amendment upstairs. So I don't understand the opposition to this. It may be procedural. It may be something else. But I would strongly urge the members of this chamber to adopt this amendment, this common sensical amendment to this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir for your remarks. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule A?

The honorable gentleman from Waterbury, Representative Noujaim, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and good evening. Mr. Speaker, very briefly at 10: 10 this evening about 20 minutes ago Representative Spallone made the statement and I am paraphrasing just to make sure that I do not misuse any of the words that he said. Based on the request to have this amendment adopted, Representative Spallone said -- and I stand corrected if I am wrong -- Representative Spallone said we should not send it back to the Senate because it has already been approved by the Senate and this is not a crisis. So there is no crisis in the State of Connecticut.

So in my opinion if there's no crisis in the State of Connecticut A, we should adopt this bill or we should not take up the -- we should adopt this amendment or we should not take up this bill altogether. We have more important matters to consider. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The honorable gentleman from the 69 district, Representative O'Neill, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and if I could just a couple of questions for the proponent of the amendment.

Where in the Constitution of the United States does it specify what the qualifications are to be a United States Senator? If the Representative knows. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the qualifications for Senator are found in Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution. And it's in the third paragraph. I'm sorry, fourth paragraph.

Thank you. And in looking at the language contained therein now that it's been located for me by the Representative, I noticed that there is a provision for the individual to be an inhabitant of the State when elected. Is it that phrase about being when elected that enables a United States Senator to after election remove themselves from the state which they -- to which -- from which they were elected and live somewhere else. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And it appears that we have an actual example of a United States Senator in the form of Senator Dodd who removed himself from the State of Connecticut for many months while he was campaigning for the United States presidency, the nomination in the State of Iowa. And am I correct -- I'm not sure if I remember it correctly but did Senator Dodd move his children to the State of Iowa and enroll them in Iowa's schools? Through you, Mr. Speaker for the proponent.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. I hesitate -- I never like commenting on children because I don't think it belongs in political context. And I won't in this case except to note that the fact of the matter is that he did enroll his daughter in school in Des Moines and rented a house. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And this is something that actually happened as opposed to the situation which this underlying bill is addressed at the removal of the United States Senator from the presence of the State of Connecticut for months, not in order to carry out the duties of the United States Senator in the environs of Washington D. C. or to carry out missions abroad on behalf of the Congress or to conduct investigations of our military situation or foreign policy situations in foreign countries but for the purpose of campaigning to be the holder of another office. Removed himself from the State of Connecticut, enrolled children -- his child in a public school system or school system in another state and for all practical purposes for months at a time became a resident of that other state. That really happened.

The problem of some kind of corruption or of some kind of abuse of power in the appointment of a United States Senator by a Governor of Connecticut has so far as I know not happened, certainly not for decades, probably generations. And we now are facing a situation where we have this bill before us, the underlying bill to address a problem that we don't have and the amendment to address a problem that we do have, which we have dealt with, which we've had to cope with. And that is having a United States Senator not living in the State of Connecticut for months and months at a time while campaigning for this office rather than being a United States Senator wanting to be something else.

It seems to me that the amendment is very simple. I think it's something that would be amazing to the people of the State of Connecticut that the United States Senators for the State of Connecticut are under no obligation whatsoever at the present time to actually maintain a residence in this state. And I would urge adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The honorable gentleman from Bethel, Representative Bartlett, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the proponent has mentioned the Constitution and where the qualifications to be a U. S. Senator are. I'd just like to read it. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of 30 years and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Now I'm not a constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that we all took U. S. history in high school and we should all have an understanding that we cannot write into statute prerequisites to be a U. S. Senator. The Constitution governs the qualifications to be a U. S. Senator and I can't for the life of me understand why we're take -- discussing an amendment that would supersede the Constitution of the United States in this manner. Mr. Speaker, a question to the proponent.

Mr. Speaker, to the proponent is there any other state that has added prerequisites to being a U. S. Senator and if so can you tell me what state and what they added to the Constitution and what was upheld. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

A little problem there. Thank you. I -- to the Representative, I don't know what other states may have done in terms of their qualifications. However, I would point out that the same requirement, that is only inhabitant at the time of election is -- was -- or in the Constitution for House members. And although I haven't researched the point, I believe that a House member currently must be a resident of the state.

I appreciate the answer that -- the question had to do with the United States Senate and U. S. Senators. So, my follow question, Mr. Speaker, is -- is there -- can we then as a body pass a statute that says that if you are African American you would be disqualified to be a United States Senator. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

We passed a statute, Mr. Speaker, and said if all African Americans are no longer qualified to be U. S. Senators would the proponent consider that Constitutional. We added a prerequisite to the Constitution that you must not -- you're not allowed to be an African American.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that -- it's hard to regard that as a serious question but I mean no disrespect and so I of course will answer it as in that manner. That would violate not only the U. S. Constitution. It would violate the State of Connecticut Constitution. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well I asked the question because on its face I mean we know the answer because the Constitution sets the qualifications to be a U. S. Senator, period. And what is being suggested tonight is unconstitutional. And I just have to say that you know I listened to the proponent bring out the underlying bill and I listened to my colleagues in terms of their opposition and what rang out was that we were being political by bringing out this bill. And what rang out was that this was a power grab by bringing out this bill. But for the last half hour what I've heard is not a discussion as to the merits of the bill but an attempt to embarrass our sitting U. S. Senator.

Representative Bartlett, please don't impune the character of any of the people making opposition remarks.

I'm sorry if I -- I apologize if I did. What I'm just saying though is that the conversation about Senator Dodd moving to another state when we know he did not move to the State of Iowa. To suggest and to push a myth that he did I think is very unfair to Senator Dodd. And I consider that a political argument and not an argument about the merits of the underlying bill and certainly not putting forth an amendment that's constitutional. And so for that, sir, I hope that we reject this. Thank you.

The honorable gentleman from Manchester, Representative Thompson, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I've been here 23 years and this is the most painful night I've sat through. And all of the deliberations we've had all of those years and I really believe that I don't want to ask for point of order but I would make an appeal to leadership on both sides to PT this bill and let's go on with other business. And I would make that appeal directly.

Chamber will come back to order. Seeing that there was no specific request, I'm going to the next speaker.

Mr. Speaker, good evening. Thank you very much. I -- Representative Bartlett made reference to the U. S. Constitution. I think it's all fitting and appropriate that we do that. And while on the topic of constitutions I thought I would look at our own here in the State of Connecticut.

Article 3, Section 4 of our own Constitution covers our seats as members of the House of Representatives. It says the House of Representatives shall consist of not less than 125 or more than 225 members each of whom shall have attained to the age of 18 years and be an elector residing the assembly district from which he is elected. We can change that now to he or she. If it's good enough for us and if it's important enough that members of this body reside in their district in order to appropriately and best represent the members of our districts, then it would only seem logical that we would extend that same thought process, that same set of values to our representation in Washington as well.

Others have mentioned and it seems like a common sense sort of thing to me. And I thank Representative Bartlett for bringing out attention to constitutions because we can use our own as a very simple and very obvious example. If we're going to hold our legislature to a standard here in the State of Connecticut, here in Hartford -- and by the way that's true for our Senators as well in Article 3, Section 3.

If we are going to hold ourselves to that standard then it's only fitting that we do that for our national representation as well. I don't want to belabor this point. I actually share some of the thoughts of Representative Thompson that perhaps there is other business before us that merits our attention. But I do think that I needed to bring that to everyone's attention and I think this is a fitting amendment and it's appropriate and it's reasonable that the citizens of the State of Connecticut expect that our representatives reside in the state and represent them appropriately in doing so. And I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir for your remarks. The gentle lady from Bolton, Representative Sawyer, you have the floor, madam.

Mr. Speaker, growing up I think there are certain expectations that children have. They expect that they will always live in their town. That doesn't always happen. They expect that mommy and daddy are going to stay together. That doesn't always happen. But we also know, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to the stability of the government people have certain expectations as well.

They have an expectation that their mayor is from town, that their first selectman or in the case of their council people, their board of ed members, the board of finance members perhaps. We've had the case where -- I've seen where people have been out of town for periods of time in local government because there has been a family emergency. They've been -- had to reside with an elderly parent, a sick child, in college, someone who's had an accident. We had an issue where there was a state representative who was on the other coast a few years ago because her child was very badly injured in an accident and she stayed with that child.

So it's those types of expectations that I think people expect for short periods of time when there's an emergency. But they expect people to fulfill their duties. And what we're looking at -- I think in the expectation of the House and the Senate here in Connecticut that people live within their district when elected. It's an acceptable and expected thing so much so it's referred to in statute.

What we know certainly is that we believe that the President of the United States is going to be a U. S. citizen. That was something that's been in the news fairly recently. So I don't think that this is out of line, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we have found to be sort of in the course of expectations in America that our form of government which was formed and modeled after nothing else. There really had never been a country that had broken away and created its independence.

So some of our beliefs are hard and fast and I believe that what we are -- is proposed now tonight was something that was accepted. It was already happening. It was something that we felt that our -- our Senator would live in the state except when he was in Washington or perhaps when he was away on vacation or perhaps for a family emergency. We could understand that.

So I'm going to throw my support behind this amendment Mr. Speaker, because it follows expectations. It certainly follows the question that people had in their mind fairly recently in the State of Connecticut. And this chamber oftentimes responds to those types of situations that have occurred in which the residents in Connecticut find that there is a question in their mind and we respond. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, madam, for your remarks. Will you remark further on House A? Will you remark further on House A? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will members please take their seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call on House Amendment Schedule A. Members to the chamber.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. If all the members voted the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce that tally.

House A failed. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had earlier made some comments about the underlying bill and during the course of that discussion the thought crossed my mind that if this is a good bill for the United States Senate vacancies it would be a even better bill if it were applied to the offices of Attorney General, Treasurer, Comptroller, and Secretary of State. And in fact I believe that I heard the Chair of the Government Administration Elections committee that he thought at least as it applied to the Attorney General that it might be a good idea. So in an effort to test that sentiment and give the assembly an opportunity to expand the scope of this bill to cover more offices and if the underlying notion here is that we need more democracy and more elections to fill vacancies I have drafted an amendment which I believe the Clerk is in possession of, LCO number 9296. Would he please call and I be given leave to summarize.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 9296 to be designated House Amendment Schedule B.

The gentleman has asked leave of the chamber to summarize his amendment. Is there any objection? Is there any objection? If not, sir, please summarize your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated earlier the purpose of this amendment is to expand the scope of it -- the underlying bill so that it would apply to filling vacancies for the offices of Attorney General, which are now only filled by the Governor, and the offices of Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller which are filled by the Governor until the next session of the legislature if the legislature is not in session at the time of the vacancy. And I would move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I would -- since I believe this is an important matter coming before the House, I would ask that when the vote be taken it be taken by roll.

The question is on a roll call voted. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

The 20 percent certainly has been met. When the vote is taken it will be taken by roll call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I would just make a relatively few comments on behalf of the amendment. Again, everything that was basically articulated on behalf of this amendment by the Chair -- by the underlying by the Chair of the Government, Administrations, and Elections Committee is equally, forcefully applicable to the offices of Attorney General, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Comptroller. If it is improper for the Governor to have sole discretionary appointment authority over the Attorney General -- or over a United States Senator, it presumably is equivalently improper for the Governor to have that authority over the elected office of Attorney General. The same thing would apply to Secretary of State, Comptroller, and State Treasurer.

These vacancies -- these positions have actually become vacant during the years that I have served in office here. When I first arrived I believe we had just filled the vacancy in the office of Attorney General when then Attorney General Lieberman moved up to become Senator Lieberman. A short time thereafter there was a vacancy in the office of Treasurer and the incumbent resigned that office and the Governor appointed with the approval and I think I voted at that time on the replacement for the Treasurer of the State of Connecticut.

And shortly before I was elected, I think it was in 1987 or 86 there was a vacancy in the office of Treasurer that occurred and there was a one year period of time during which a lady was appointed to that office. So in the last 25 years or so we've had -- it's my knowledge at least -- three vacancies in the three offices -- three -- in the offices that are in statewide, one in the Attorney General and two in the office of Treasurer.

So this is something which happens with much more frequency. It's something that is a reality as opposed to the vacancies in the United States Senate which have not happened since shortly after World War II and I think that it's much more likely that there would be a vacancy in one of these other offices than there is in the Senate. And so if we are trying to make sure that there is no abusive power, if we are trying to make sure that there's going to be more democratic participation, then we should expand the scope of the bill to embrace these other statewide offices. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further? Representative Spallone, on House B.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I will just speak briefly in opposition to the amendment. I rise in opposition. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment for the following reasons; one, while this may promote a good public policy the bill was not submitted in this session. There was no public hearing on it while we do change the law sometimes without public hearings this is a very significant matter that concerns the election of officials -- statewide elected officials. Second, Madam Speaker, I would note that the terms of these individuals are four years rather than six years.

These are four year terms regarding departments of the State and so any vacancy would be for at the most four years but probably significantly less depending on what happens. Third, the United States Senate vacancy issue concerns issues of national importance and it's very important that the individuals of the State, the residents have an opportunity to select their Senators. That's distinguishable from the amendment. Again, I urge rejection of the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule B? House amendment?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this amendment. Unlike the underlying bill, which I believe is a solution in search of a problem. This amendment in fact corrects the appointment process or the way a vacancy in these offices are filled when they have actually been vacated. If the goal of the underlying bill is to promote democracy and promote citizen involvement in its government, then rationally that public policy should be extended to these offices as well. And I would urge the members of this chamber to support the amendment.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House B? House B? Will you care to remark further on House Amendment B?

Yes. Briefly, Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to earlier comment of the Chair of the GAE Committee and point out that the offices that we're talking about are offices that have great importance to the people of the State of Connecticut. Yes it's true that a United States Senator is a national office and has an impact across the country. The Attorney General for example of the State of Connecticut makes vitally important decisions. Decides whether or not, for example, this legislature has to approve a -- what's called continuing resolution or an extension of the budgetary authority in order for the government to continue functioning. The Attorney General has twice issued rulings on that subject.

Slightly different, one from the other but nevertheless it is upon those rulings that decisions have been made about whether or not the government of the State of Connecticut will continue to function, whether or not the government could be shut down as former Governor Weicker attempted to do in 1991. It was the Attorney General who ruled that that basically could not happen.

Those are important to the people who live here in the State of Connecticut. They have a vital and direct impact. Had the Attorney General ruled the other way, perhaps the Governor would have been able to shut down the prison system, the hospitals, and every other institution of importance in the State of Connecticut. But the Attorney General ruled no, that the Constitution and the laws of Connecticut required that the government had to continue functioning.

The Attorney General makes these decisions with respect to settling lawsuits that are worth millions and in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars that affect the people of the State of Connecticut. This happens constantly. The Attorney General makes decisions about commencing lawsuits on behalf of the people of the State of Connecticut to vindicate their rights or to decide that the lawsuit is not going to be successful and need not -- should not be brought. These are vitally important decisions for the people of the State of Connecticut.

The Treasurer also makes vitally important decisions about investing the pension funds of the thousands and tens of thousands of State employees. United States Senators are part of a group of a 100 and then beyond that they're part of a group of 535 with the United States Congress. They're part of a very large group. And one Senator while vital to the people of the State of Connecticut, we have that voice, ultimately those decisions are made by a very large group. The Attorney General makes these decisions that we're talking about all by him or herself.

And so filling that vacancy if it's really important that we have an election to fill this vacancy for the Senate, it is even more important that we have an election to fill the vacancy for the position of Attorney General. And I would urge adoption of the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment and for many of the statements that Representative O'Neill has just pointed out. I think today we're discussing the public policy of how vacancies are being filled. And certainly in these discussions this chamber is making the determination that a U. S. Senators position should be filled through an election. And I understand where that discussion germinates from. And certainly I believe in our State offices, this discussion should apply equally.

As Representative O'Neill has pointed out, all of these offices are critical to our government. The Attorney General, just as this legislature, even the Comptroller and the Treasurer and the Secretary of State all are responsible for setting public policy in the State of Connecticut, for carrying out the duties under the Constitution. And I certainly think that if these individuals are charged with those great responsibilities they certainly should always be elected by the residents of Connecticut if we are carrying the logic through that we're applying to the underlying bill.

I think it's -- it's just as important these offices, although they're the executive branch offices, they're rolls are equally as vital as State Representatives and Senators. When our chairs become vacant, certainly there are always special elections. They're not filled by appointments for the purpose that we represent the constituent base in the individuals -- those individuals should be responsible for putting the people into office. And I think the same certainly would carry for our State offices, the Attorney General, the Treasurer, the Comptroller.

All these offices and the duties they perform go well beyond just ministerial acts. But they're making decisions of what type of cases to bring on behalf of residents of the State of Connecticut to protect the public trust, protect our interests. We've heard many -- had many meetings with the Comptroller and the Treasurer in these budgetary times of how to invest our money, how to set policies that might be more efficient for us to save money or giving us suggestions on budget policy, cutting government spending, things of that nature.

So I think the functions they serve are vitally important. They certainly are setting public policy. And so for those reasons I support this amendment because if the underlying bill is concerned with individuals not being disillusioned and making sure that the elected officials are elected by the individuals that represent them then certainly that same logic carries very nicely and smoothly to our constitutional officers. And therefore I support the amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment Schedule B? Will you care to remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And the amendment fails. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by Senate A? Will you care to remark further on the bill? Representative Hamzy.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has amendment LCO number 9282. May he call it and I be allowed to summarize.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Hamzy, please proceed, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very simple amendment, it extends the effective date of the underlying bill to January 3, 2011. What is the effect of this amendment? Very simply, I think it takes all the politics that is -- that is assumed in the underlying bill out of this process. The current U. S. Senator will not be affected. The current Governor could be effected hopefully if she gets reelected -- and chooses to run and gets reelected. But we start fresh. None of the current players will be impacted by the underlying bill.

If the public policy of this State is to have an election for a vacancy, no one is assuming there's going to be a vacancy between now and the effective date of this amendment, January 2, 2011. The public policy of this State has been what it is to this point. I don't think -- I'm not sure when the last time it was used. I don't believe there's any harm in extending the effective date. Madam Speaker, I would ask that when the vote be called it be called by roll.

The question is on a roll call vote. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

Madam Speaker, if I may add, I can't remember if I moved adoption, but I do move adoption.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule C? Will you remark further on House C? Representative Spallone.

REP. SPALLONE (36th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Briefly, I rise in opposition to the amendment and I will give two reasons. The first is that -- and I'll repeat it, is that the bill passed the Senate. It's before us with just over 24 hour remaining the session and it would have a heavy lift to get repassed in the Senate if this amendment were adopted. And I think it's incumbent upon us to proceed with the bill. But secondly, and I appreciate the opportunity to address this and I will be very, very brief about it.

But from my perspective and I believe my co-Chair and members of the Committee, this is not a bill that was -- that is laden with politics. That I have the greatest respect for Governor Rell, and in the remote opportunity that she would have the opportunity to fill a Senate vacancy I believe that she would use a systematic process like she did when she filled the Department of Environmental Protection vacancy years ago. And -- but this is a law for the ages not for this moment. It may not be used again for another 50 years, 25 years, or two years.

And I would further add, Madam Speaker, that the effect of adopting this amendment would be very small indeed in that the underlying bill provides that if the vacancy were to occur after the municipal election in the year proceeding the final year of the term of the Senator, that the Governor would appoint a replacement for that short period of time in any event because there'd be an election coming up. So because it would have very little change, because there was -- at least from my perspective not a political motivation here, and because the bill has already passed the Senate and we'd like to get it to the Governor's desk, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, sir. Will you care to remark further on House C? Representative Hetherington.

Madam Speaker, I rise to respectfully urge the adoption of this amendment. I appreciate the argument that this would have to go back to the Senate, but I think that our first responsibility here is to get things done in accordance with our best judgment not just to get things done. And if we believe that this is the thing -- this is the course we should follow, and I believe it is, then we should do it and if it's compelling the Senate will do it. They've done it once. They would do it again. It's a small change and I believe it could be done. It is -- in many ways it is conventional not to diminish the powers of an executive in office absent some offense by the executive that requires that we address it by action.

There is --there's no reason to fault the Governor for her role in appointing a Senator. She's not had the occasion to appoint a Senator. In all likelihood in this term at least she certainly won't have. Both Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd seem to be in robust health. I think we passed the time when positions -- high positions in President Obama's administration will be filled so as possibly to take away Dodd or Lieberman.

So in all likelihood this won't come up in the balance of Governor Rell's term. And it would be -- it would be offensive in my judgment to diminish the powers of the incumbent Governor no matter who he or she may be to reduce their powers over what is purely a hypothetical. And certainly does not address any abuse of power on the part of the executive. So I would urge that we do this. It would be -- you know we don't reduce the salaries or shorten the terms or do other things that limit the effectiveness of an incumbent unless of course that incumbent has directly provoked some action needed to curb the excesses or the abuses of that incumbent.

It seems to me that it's very much in keeping with the notion of a civilized and orderly and decent government that regardless of the politics of it we don't take action to reduce the powers of the incumbent absent a good reason. And in this case there is no reason. So let's -- let's do this. Let's change the date. Let's urge our colleagues in the Senate to go along with that. And let's not -- let's not be drive by the calendar. Let's be driven by our responsibilities to our constituencies and this State. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further on House C? Representative Shawn Johnston, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, speaking in support of the amendment I had actually drafted an almost identical Madam Speaker. It came across from LCO with the date of January 31, a misprint instead of January 3. So I was actually glad to see that someone else drafted this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I've been in this chamber -- this is my 15 year. And tonight will be the third time that I vote on this language. I voted no two prior times, Madam Speaker. And not because I don't think it's a good idea that we ought to elect a replacement for the U. S. Senate. I think it's a great idea. And I agree with 99. 99 percent of the bill before us as it is right now, Madam Speaker, except for the effective date. The first time I had a chance to vote was my very first term up here.

And that time when I voted no I think I surprised some of my colleagues and they wondered why I voted no. And I told them because I don't think it's our responsibility or our privilege to diminish someone's power when they're in office. I said if you had had -- you had drafted the bill so it takes effect after the next gubernatorial election I'd vote for that bill. My next term either the next term or the next year, I couldn't remember which, the identical bill was before us again, Madam Speaker. Again, effective upon passage and I voted against that.

I would dearly like a chance tonight to vote for this bill. I think it is good public policy. I think our citizens of the State of Connecticut deserve the right in the case of a vacancy to elect and have a special election and not have the Governor make the appointment. There's been a procedural recommendation that we ought to vote this down because it might jeopardize the bill and send it back up to the Senate. I would make a procedural recommendation exactly the opposite. I think that we ought to adopt this because if we do not I think we can all figure out what the outcome of the bill will be when it reaches the Governor's desk.

And so maybe we pass the bill in the legislature but it doesn't become law. Because I would guess there's a pretty good chance that a sitting Governor is not going to pass -- going to sign a bill that diminishes their power. I would suggest to you if we really want to move forward tonight, adopt this amendment and then adopt the bill and I think we have a fair shot at this actually taking effect and being law going forward. I would seriously ask this chamber to think about that for a moment. I think that we would be doing a great service if we could do just that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I'm sure it will be a shock to a lot of people in this chamber but I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Representative Johnston. I think it does take the politics out of the bill at this point by moving the date to some point in the future when the Governor is not going to be affected. And I would also agree with Representative Johnston because I've had the experience.

This is an amazing place, both the House chamber and the Senate chamber. Sometimes it takes a long time for a bill to get through both places and amazingly sometimes it doesn't. And in fact last year, Madam Speaker, a bill passed the House here on the last day and within an hour and a half that bill passed the Senate. Go figure. Three years earlier I tried to pass the bill. No luck and bango it's done in an hour and a half through both chambers. I don't think the issue of time is an issue. I think actually we could do this. And actually I think if the bill didn't get signed by the Governor at that point then it wouldn't have been our fault that that didn't happen, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, just to summarize a little bit of what's already been said as I don't want to repeat a lot of the testimony that was provided but I do rise in support of this amendment. And I do so for the mere fact that as people are saying that there's no political intent regarding the underlying bill, then I would ask everybody to support this amendment to demonstrate in fact that there is no underlying political intent there. And again just to reiterate what has already been said by the other Representative that that is the process.

We are here to improve these bills and if we can improve them by submitting an amendment then we certainly have that responsibility to do so. And certainly we have look forward to then -- to having this bill if it is passed, submitted to the Senate and then hopefully proceeding from thereafter. But again we do have a responsibility to improve bills whenever we can. So I would certainly encourage everyone to support this amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you care to remark further on House Amendment C? will you care to remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting House Amendment Schedule C by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all members voted? Representative Genga. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If so the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

House Amendment C fails. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended by Senate A? Will you care to remark further?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just one question to the proponent and then I'd just like to make some summary remarks.

REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, what do you conclude is the maximum amount of time that Connecticut could be without one Senator if -- if the procedure contemplated by this bill passes. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, I believe it's 150 days.

Thank you. And does that include the time -- that's the election but then there'd be some time to be sworn in which would be presumably in January following the election. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative Hetherington, that would only be in the case where the election at or around the time of a regular election in November. However, there would not be an interim period. I believe once the person is qualified they would present their credentials to the Clerk of the Senate at the Capital in Washington and then be sworn in thereafter.

Thank you. I will accept 150 days as the greatest number of period that Connecticut might be without one Senator. But it may not break quite that simply. I would remind -- since we're talking about experiences in other states, let's remember the experience in Minnesota where -- I don't know, maybe it's settled now but until very recently Minnesota did not have a Senator because the election -- the popular election could not be settled since November of 2008.

So conceivably you could have a situation even in a popular vote where the outcome would not be known for a long period of time. But consider what would happen if the Senate is closely balanced as it so often is in -- over the course of history. The stimulus bill, for example that was one of the early priorities of the Obama registration could well have failed had Connecticut not had both Democrat Senators on board. There have been a number of times in history when one vote of a Senator has made a big difference.

Let's remember that in 1999 the article of impeachment against Bill Clinton that charged obstruction of justice got a 50/50 tie in the Senate. And in fact those of you who like history, in 1868 Andrew Johnson would have been impeached were it not for the vote of one Senator. So one Senator can be very important. And it's particularly important in the times we face. This is not a time when we can look upon our representation as to be completed leisurely.

We may need both Senators -- we may need both Senators on the job as quickly as possible. Reflect on what would happen if we did not have two Senators when we were threatened with the loss of the subase in Groton. So, it is vital that we have our Senators on the job just as quickly as possible.

Which brings me I guess to the last point. Why are we doing this? which has come up in terms of a number of bills. Why are we doing it? I mean there have been references to the scandals in Illinois and so forth but they didn't happen here. I mean you can point to some process of government that's been abused somewhere always. And if you want to look at the experience of other states look at Minnesota they had a popular election. It wasn't a scandal exactly but it proved to block the office from being filled for what five, six months. We just cannot afford that time in the world we live in.

We would do this why because we want to -- we wanted deny a Governor appointment for a limited amount of time -- for a limited amount of time and for that we would give up -- we would give up a Senator. I don't think that's -- I don't think that's a very good balance. We give up -- we run the risk that we lose a Senator for 150 days in exchange for having a gubernatorial appointment for some period of time. I don't think that's a very good trade. I don't think that's a very good trade.

Ultimately the democratic process will be served and we will have an election whether or not we have a gubernatorial appointment in the interim or not. But we need a gubernatorial -- we need a Senator. We need a Senator right away. It's odd in a way that Connecticut should be one of the small minority of states that wants to tinker with the system in the Senate when it was Connecticut that stood up for the small states and accomplished the original balance in the legislature -- the national legislature, that's reflected in the Constitution.

So in conclusion I would urge you, again, not to -- not to give up a chance of losing a Senator in exchange for gain -- for avoiding a short gubernatorial appointment. And I urge the rejection of this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition to the bill as amended. Madam Speaker, we have a process to fill a Senate vacancy that works. There has been no rumblings that I've heard of that either Senator Lieberman or Senator Dodd have any intention of resigning and creating a vacancy. We offered an amendment to postpone the effective date of this bill to January of 2011 which I thought was a very reasonable amendment if we were going to change the policy -- the public policy of the State of Connecticut with regard to this issue.

I don't believe that there's been any compelling reason made to change the system as it exists now. Because something so distasteful occurred in a state -- in the State of Illinois, I don't believe is justification for changing the process that we have here in the State of Connecticut. I would ask the members of this chamber to take into consideration the huge costs involved in conducting a special election and balance that with current system that we have which does involve the public in a very timely manner. And I would urge the members of this chamber to vote against this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise also briefly to speak against the bill and to be honest with you until I listened to the debate tonight I really was uncertain as to how I would vote on this bill. Some six or seven years ago, long before we faced the issues in Illinois or New York State this bill has been talked about in this building, maybe even longer than that. And at that time when it was posed -- the question was posed to me, do you want the Governor to make this choice or do you want the people to decide.

Well I'm on the side of the people. I absolutely, positively would prefer that the people have an opportunity to voice their support for a candidate. But if you posed the question, do you want that seat in Congress to sit vacant for up to five months versus the potential -- potential of someone died or withdrew or whatever the day after they were elected, perhaps for two years we'd have to deal with the Governor's appointment. I would say, I want that seat filled in Washington. As others have said before us tonight we only have a handful of people down there to represent us. And I think that is far more critical. So I have to say I have truly changed my mind tonight based on the debate that I've heard. And I cannot support this bill. I think the people of the State of Connecticut will be better served to leave the law the way it stands now. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to associate my remarks with my colleagues. I guess my basic response to this is I don't understand. I don't really understand why we're doing something that I don't perceive nor has anyone else perceived as a problem. If there had been some concern in the State of Connecticut with the way we do things I would certainly understand why we would sit down, go back to the drawing board and figure out how we should fix it and make our process better going forward. That's what we do in this building.

But to look at another state or somewhere else and see they had a problem that had nothing to do with us does not make any sense to me and I don't think it makes any sense to the people of the State of Connecticut. We've heard the phrase if it isn't broke, don't fix it. And as simple as that is I think it certainly applies to this situation. Madam Speaker, I would not be supporting this amendment and the bill. Thank you.

On the bill, Madam Speaker, in opposition. Madam Speaker, we in this chamber would not pass a bill that would diminish our own power. And I don't think we would pass a bill to increase our power while we're in office. This legislature's been careful in the past when we have voted on pay raises, Madam Speaker. We've not voted for pay raises for ourselves. We voted for pay raises for the next person that would take that office. And whoever the public would elect to that next office would elect that person at a different pay scale.

If I was to vote for this tonight, Madam Speaker, I think that that would be an arrogant vote to a different branch of government and to say to that branch of government you were elected by the people of Connecticut with certain powers, duties, and responsibilities, and in the middle of that contract we've rewritten the rules on your power. Madam Speaker, this is not good public policy. I would urge rejection.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the position of United States Senator for the State of Connecticut belongs solely with the people of the State of Connecticut, not the Governor. And the people of the State of Connecticut have the right to choose a replacement, not the Governor. So let's be about voting for this and giving the right back to the people as it has been in the past in the State of Connecticut. At one time in Connecticut the people voted for replacements for the office of U. S. Senator for Connecticut. Let's do it again. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further?

Madam Speaker, very briefly I agree with my predecessor Representative Caruso that this is not a bill in response to my friend Representative Johnston, it is not a bill about trying to diminish the authority of the executive but rather a bill about trying to enhance the authority and sovereignty of the people of the State of Connecticut.

This is a bill about restoring the rightful place of the voters of this state in selecting a United States Senator when a vacancy occurs. It is not presented will ill intent. It is presented as a good government bill. It is a good measure to, as I said, restore this authority and to -- and it is not a reaction to a particular event but rather the best public policy at this time considering all of the circumstances. It would be a good bill whether it was Governor O'Neill, Governor Weiker, Governor Rell or whoever might be elected in the future. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Will you care to remark? Will you care to remark? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted -- if all members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. Will the House please stand at ease.

Will the chamber please come back to order. Is there any business on the Clerk's desk?

Madam Speaker, there is business from the Senate. We have a list of favorable reports on Senate Bills.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move the waive the reading of the Senate favorable reports bills be tabled for calendar.

Without objection, so ordered. Returning to the call of the Calendar, will the Clerk please call Calendar 659.

On page 44, Calendar 659 substitute for Senate Bill number 966, AN ACT PROHIBITING BLOCKING THE BOX. It's amended by Senate A.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate A.

The question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill with Senate A. Will you remark?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill had been discussed previously. The Senate A had been passed in the House and I urge passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the correction and I appreciate it. Madam Speaker, block the box is back and we've had a good amount of time to discuss it. I think Representative Fox and I met for several hours behind closed doors to discuss the intricacies and nuances of this bill. So for legislative intent I'd like to ask a few questions through you to Representative Fox.

Thank you. Representative Fox, if you might recall several hours ago when we discussed this last I gave you a hypothetical of me crossing an intersection whereupon I would proceed thinking it's clear and then all of a sudden there's a line of traffic and bada bing I'm in the middle of the intersection. That sounded like that would not be, as you explained it to me in our back door meeting, that was not an intentional act and therefore I could at the very least escape prosecution or the receipt of an infraction by alleging that the intersection block was certainly not of my doing in that it -- because of traffic. Am I correct in that thing? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, and as the distinguished Minority Leader and I have discussed several times over the last few hours, the infraction would be if you entered the box, essentially the box when the box is not open to be entered. For -- if there are cars that are currently there. So if the distinguished Minority Leader had entered the area that is designated as the box and that area had been clear at the time that he entered then he discussed certain potential problems with his car et cetera that could potentially cause him to stop in the intersection. That would not be the infraction. The infraction is if you can see clearly that it is not clear yet you still decide to enter into that area that is designated as the box. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, I feel a lot better having known that. I also -- one of the experts or certainly great authorities on this subject, Professor Gabe DeLuca from Stamford, Connecticut also was able to enlighten me on some of the intricacies of the bill. And it's not that bad, Madam Speaker. I had first thought, what a disaster this could be and all of a sudden I find out, hey, you know what, you listen, you learn. And I'm here to say I'm still open to this debate. And you know maybe the box thing isn't that bad a deal. So let's proceed. Thank you.

Bada bing. Thank you. Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further?

Just for a matter of legislative intent, could the proponent please clarify in reference of the language as I recall this must be approved of by the legislative body of a municipality. Is that correct?

And in that we had some lengthy discussion, I believe it was yesterday with Representative Kehoe over the definition of a legislative body. Would you please for the benefit of our legislature explain to us what your interpretation of the legislative body be?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't have a precise definition with me, but in Stamford it is the local board of representatives. In other towns it is the city council. Other towns may have different entities. Whatever would make the laws involving ordinances or allowing certain -- this type of action. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you for that clarification and I share a similar assessment. I wish you had perhaps offered that help to Representative Kehoe earlier yesterday. In addition to that I believe that there was also a suggestion that if -- if a subject intersection was part of a State road that over and above the local ordinance to create the box, that it would have to go before the State Traffic Commission. I didn't see the specific reference to that in the language that was before me but I think I heard you say that that would be the case and I think that is current law. Could you please confirm that? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. I know that the original proposal was amended within Planning and Development as I recall and I think it had to do with creating an exemption for tractor trailer trucks from this proposal. Is that true? Through you, Madam Speaker.

And just one more question. In regard to the white lining that is to be created in such a boxed intersection. Are there specific specifications that are required in that -- that lining provided to a municipality so that it is in some way uniform. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, as with many of our roads the lines would be according to the bill in white paint and not less than one foot in width within that area. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just in closing, I did want to comment on the proponent's tie. It's quite dashing. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Okay. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further? Representative Candelora of the 86, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, just a couple of questions to the proponent of the --

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My questions really pertain to -- I think as Representative Scribner pointed out -- of when a -- the situation arises on a State road. I think it seems pretty clear that in a local road situation the municipality could invoke this provision by passing an ordinance striping the roadways. As I read this, is the legislation still enabling in that the municipality would control what intersections would be subject to this law even if it is a State road. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, it is enabling but in order for a municipality to impose this legislation upon a State road they would also need the approval of the State Traffic Commission. They would have to meet whatever guidelines they set. So the State Traffic Commission could in fact say no if they chose -- if they felt that this was not appropriate. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And it's sort of my understanding that when we're dealing with State roads the local traffic authority is the decision maker, sometimes it's the police department. They would make a recommendation to their governing body to pass an ordinance and then a request would need to be made to the State Traffic Commission in order to be able to effectuate that changes of lining and striping the roadway. And I just wanted to be sure and to make this clear that in need to get STC approval that it doesn't allow the State work in reverse where the State would be able absent municipal ordinance to designate a State intersection for this provision. They necessarily would have to get approval via a municipal ordinance. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, if the State -- I guess -- if I may, is the question, if the State decided that they wanted to do this on a State road would they require local, municipal approval through their law making body? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. My concern is today I think we're trying to create a local option. And of course involving State roads we're going to need to invoke STC. And I wanted to be clear here that the State would not have the ability to just impose this section on a municipality by saying, you know this intersection should be striped accordingly and it's going to a black block the box, that if it is a state road a local ordinance would need to trigger the provisions of this bill. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, the local municipal action would be -- by the lawmaking body would be the trigger. So of course if it is a State road then State approval would also be required through the State Traffic Commission. I do not believe it works in reverse. So I think local municipal approval would always be required. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Will you care to remark further on the bill? Will you care to remark further?

Hello. How are you, Madam Speaker? I rise just the point of view having been a truck driver most of my life. Driving a large tractor trailer it's sometimes difficult to get all the way through the intersection so I was concerned about this bill. And I was happy that we were able to amend it to -- to not have tractor trailers. But just for legislative intent I'd like to ask the proponent of the bill to, you know, to confirm that tractor trailers are not covered under this bill.

Through you, Madam Speaker, line 1, section 1 of the bill says no operator of a motor vehicle comma other than a tractor trailer unit comma. So they are excluded. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The debate that occurred earlier between the Minority Leader and Representative Fox I think highlighted the fact that it takes a lot of responsibility to be on the road and you have to make adequate decisions when entering an intersection and that is most especially true if you happen to operate a large vehicle like a tractor trailer. So, you know, these issues are very important and I support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir for your comments. And when I said good morning to you, I just want to remind you that it's Wednesday. Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? Will you care to 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.

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.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted please check the board to be sure that your vote has been properly cast. If so, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally.

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. Will the Clerk please call Calendar number 249.

On page 6, Calendar 249, House Bill number 6523, AN ACT CONCERNING LICENSING OF ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITIES favorable report of the Committee on Human Services.

My good friend from Meriden, Representative Abercrombie, you have the floor, ma'am. Good morning.

As we move into our last day of session. I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

The question is on acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO 9090. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO number 9090 House Amendment Schedule A offered by Representatives Walker, Gibbons, and Abercrombie and Senator Doyle.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Abercrombie, please proceed, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, currently providers of residential adolescent substance abuse programs and maternity homes must be licensed by both DPH and DCF. Providers have raised concerns about this process because it's cumbersome and some of the requirements do conflict. Under the amendment these programs will now be exempt from licensing under DPH and will be licensed only by DCF. It's our intent that there will be no change in the standards applied to these programs and DCF has committed to reviewing its licensing regulations regarding these programs to ensure that the standards remain the same. I move adoption.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you -- the question is on adoption. Will you remark further? Will you remark further?

The distinguished Ranking Member of the Human Services Committee, Representative Gibbons, you have the floor, ma'am.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. It's nice to see us all -- you up there and all of us still here.

For legislative intent, could I please ask the proponent of the bill the four facilities that are going to be covered by this bill and would she please name them. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it's the Children's Center of Hamden, Midwestern Connecticut Council on Alcoholism in Norwich, New Hope Manor in Hamden, and Rushford Center in Durham, and then we also have two maternity homes, St. Augustus Group Home and Mi Casa.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of this amendment and hope the chamber will do as so -- as so as well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you care to remark further? Will you care to remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open on the amendment. Okay. Let's back up here. All those in favor of House Amendment Schedule A please signify by saying aye.

The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you care to remark on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark on the bill as amended? Will you care to remark further on the bill as amended? If not, now staff and guests to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be opened.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call.

The bill as amended passes. Are there any announcements or introductions? Any announcements or introductions? Representative Boukus.

Why thank you. Missing votes under journal notations today, yesterday was Representative Kehoe, personal business, Larson, family business, Orange was changing a flat tire, Dillon, personal business, Bye, family business, Conway, personal business. Missing votes in legislative business outside the chamber for transcript notations, Representative Butler, Geragosian, Mioli, O'Connor, Perone, Ritter, Sharkey, Staples, Tercyak, Walker, Kirkley-Bey, Aresimowicz, Miller, Holder-Winfield, Villano, Lawlor, Godfrey, Barry, and Fox. Missing votes due to legislative business in the district was Representative Candelaria, Clemons, Greene, Leone, Tong, Roldan, Zalaski, Fleischmann, Janowski, and McCrory. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the journal please note that Representative Frey missed votes for business in the district. Representative Noujaim missed votes, illness in the family. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Mr. Speaker. I move that we immediately transmit all business needing further action to the Senate.

Motion's to immediately transmit to the Senate all items that need further action. Is there any objection? Any objection?

Thank you, Representative. Hearing no objection the items are immediately transmitted. Any other -- Representative Cafero.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, for purposes of announcement one of our members celebrated a birthday nary 15 minutes ago. Let's say happy birthday to Representative Fred Camillo.

And he's co-sponsoring bills on his birthday. What a wonderful thing. Representative Caruso.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce in the gallery the fourth graders from Johnson School in Bridgeport. We all give them a warm welcome.

Welcome to the chamber. I hope you enjoyed our debate on block the box. Representative Merrill.

Yes. Tomorrow is the last day of session. So there will be a breakfast in 207A for all members at 9: 00 from 9: 00 to 10: 30. And we'll come into session tomorrow morning at 10: 30.

Motion is to adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. Any objection? Any objection? Hearing none, House stands adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

On motion of Representative Merrill of the 54th District, the House adjourned at 12: 18 o'clock p. m. to meet again at the call of the Chair.

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the foregoing 594 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of an audio cassette sound recording of the House Proceedings on June 1, 2009. (Tape 1 - 9).

I further certify that the audio cassette tape recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of United Reporters, Inc. , under my direction.

_____________________________

Guy B. Raboin, President

Notary Public

UNITED REPORTERS, INC.

43 Woodland Street, Suite 200

Hartford, Connecticut 06105