THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2011
On Wednesday, the 26th day of October, 2011, in accordance with the Call of the Governor, the House of Representatives convened in the House Chamber in the State Capitol at Hartford at 11: 10 o'clock a. m. , in Special Session.
The House was called to order, Speaker Christopher G. Donovan in the Chair.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
-- to the dais where House Chaplain Reverend Charles E. Turner will lead us in prayer.
REVEREND CHARLES E. TURNER:
Let us pray.
God, thanks for another day that you have provided life, health and strength. Thank you for the gifts you have given us and those gifts present in this room.
May those gifts be used to work towards those things that are noble, glorious and beneficial to humanity. Most of all, thank you for the grace to accomplish the goals set before us as we recognize that your power is shown through our weakness.
Keep our hearts and minds in peace, I pray, in the name of the One in whom there are no limitations. Amen.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Amen. Thank you, Reverend.
Would Representative Brian Becker of the 19th District please come to the dais and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
REP. BECKER (19th):
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.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
Will the Clerk please read the Governor's call.
THE CLERK:
A proclamation from his Excellency the Governor.
Whereas, my administration is committed to reinventing Connecticut, which requires bold steps and innovative solutions;
Whereas, Connecticut, along with the rest of the Nation, is currently in the midst of the most significant economic downturn since the Great Depression;
Whereas, the State is currently experiencing an unemployment rate of 9. 1 percent;
Whereas, the problems faced by our State concerning job creation and economic growth cut across socio-economic, political and ideological boundaries;
Whereas, it is incumbent on the government, on behalf of the people of the State of Connecticut, to craft practical solutions that make it easier to do business with the State; drive innovation and entrepreneurship; support small business growth; develop a sustainable and competitive workforce; and strengthen, streamline and enhance existing economic development tools;
Whereas, a unique opportunity has presented itself, in the form of an innovative collaboration between Jackson Laboratory, the State of Connecticut, the University of Connecticut and Yale University that will transform Connecticut into an international center for bioscience research;
Whereas, the Executive Branch and the General Assembly are committed to working together towards creatively and effectively addressing the problems of inadequate job growth and economic stagnation in our State;
Now, therefore, by the authority vested in me under Article III of the Amendments to the Constitution of Connecticut and Section 2-7 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I, in order to preserve orderly and decent government, do hereby convene the General Assembly in Special Session in Hartford on Wednesday, October 26, 2011, at 11: 00 a. m. , to enact legislation to improve job creation, promote economic growth, create a better business climate, develop a sustainable and competitive workforce, and ensure that Connecticut becomes an international center for bioscience research.
Given under my hand and Seal of the State at the City of Hartford, this 13th day of October, in the year two thousand and eleven.
Dannel P. Malloy, Governor.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
I order the call to be printed in the journal.
Are there any announcements? Any announcements? Representative Boukus.
REP. BOUKUS (22nd):
Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
I have a pleasure this morning to introduce to the Chamber two young men from China, from the Fujian province, who has been here for the last two weeks. We'd like them to stand, if they will. This is Mr. Wu and Mr. Huang. And they are taking part in a study with Dr. Lee at the University of New Haven. So I'd like you to -- during the course of the day, have an opportunity to say hello to them, and also, at this time to just recognize them with your warm welcome. Thank you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Are there any announcements? Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at -- at this time it's our intention to -- for the -- those on our side of the aisle to go immediately after a recess to 207A for an immediate Democratic caucus. I'd ask folks on our side of the aisle to go promptly, please, and not -- not dawdle or dwindle here in the Chamber, but go straight over to 207A.
And I'll --
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Klarides.
REP. KLARIDES (114th):
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The House Republicans caucus would -- will also meet immediately upon recess for a caucus in our caucus room.
Thank you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Lavielle.
REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Just a brief point of personal privilege, if I may?
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, madam.
REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):
Thank you.
I'd like to introduce a young man we have with us today who is Connor Walforth, the chair of the Fairfield University College Republicans. And it's always a pleasure to -- if you'd like to stand up, Connor -- it's always a pleasure to have our students interested in government and what we do here, and I hope you'll join me in welcoming him here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you for joining us. Thank you so much.
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I would move that we recess subject to the Call of the Chair.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The motion is to recess subject to the Call of the Chair.
Without objection, the House stands in recess.
On motion of Representative Sharkey of the 88th District, the House recessed at 11: 17 o'clock a. m. , to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.
The House reconvened at 1: 55 o'clock p. m. , Speaker Donovan in the Chair.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The House will please come back to order. And will the Clerk please call House Resolution Number 301.
THE CLERK:
House Resolution 301, RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE OCTOBER SPECIAL SESSION 2011.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the resolution.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the resolution. Will you remark?
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. -- Mr. Speaker.
These are the rules that we are proposing for this special session. They are identical to the rules that we have adopted in previous special sessions and I urge adoption.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you very much.
Would you care to remark further? Would you care to remark further on the resolution?
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Good afternoon.
A question through you to Representative Sharkey.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed -- please proceed, sir.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Yes. Directed to the Majority Leader, Representative Sharkey, are these the rules that are typical for a special session of this nature and bills -- or rules that we have abided by in the past?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. These are generally the rules that we adopt in all special sessions.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Would you care to remark further? Care to remark further on the resolution? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying, aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution Number 101.
THE CLERK:
Senate Joint Resolution 101, RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE JOINT RULES OF THE OCTOBER SPECIAL SESSION, 2011.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the resolution.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the resolution. Will you remark?
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
These are the joint rules that we are proposing for this special session which have already been adopted by the Senate. They are identical to the joint rules we have adopted in the past and I urge adoption.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you very much. Would you care to remark further? Would you care to remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying, aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution Number 102.
THE CLERK:
Senate Joint Resolution 102, RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE EXPENSES OF THE OCTOBER SPECIAL SESSION, 2011.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the resolution.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the resolution. Will you remark?
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The resolution is self-explanatory and I urge adoption.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you very much.
Would you care to remark further? Care to remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying, aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
And will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 103.
THE CLERK:
Senate Joint Resolution 103, RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PRINTING OF THE JOURNALS OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE OCTOBER SPECIAL SESSION, 2011.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption of this resolution as well.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the resolution. Will you remark?
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yes, Mr. Speaker. The resolution is self-explanatory and I urge its adoption.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you so much. Would you care to remark further? Would you care to remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All those in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
Are there any announcements or introductions? Any announcements or introductions?
Representative Lavielle -- no.
The Chamber -- the Chamber will stand at ease.
(Chamber at ease. )
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The Chamber -- the Chamber will come back to order. Are there any announcements? Any announcements?
Representative O'Brien.
REP. O'BRIEN (24th):
Mr. Speaker, for a point of personal privilege.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. O'BRIEN (24th):
Mr. Speaker, I have the sad news of -- of informing the Chamber that a former colleague of ours has passed on. Former state representative and an honored labor leader Dominic Badolato passed on September 22nd.
He was the -- a member of this assembly from this Chamber from 1954 to 1976. During that time, he was a great leader for, not just the people of New Britain, but for people throughout the State, passing imported labor legislation that advanced the state of Connecticut, greatly helping many working people and their families over the years.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to spend more time later on when the family is able to come and join us to honor former State Representative Badolato, but I wanted to take a moment to inform the Chamber of the sad news, and I know that we all -- we'll all remember -- remember Dominic Badolato very fondly.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
That, we'll do.
The Chamber please rise in a moment of silence in memory of a colleague who has passed.
Thank you.
Representative Schofield.
REP. SCHOFIELD (16th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A point of personal privilege.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed.
REP. SCHOFIELD (16th):
I'd like to introduce Ken Messier. Ken and his partner, Don Riley, are up in Room 310 today to display the new product that they're manufacturing in South Windsor. Representatives from that area are obviously here today as well.
But this is a small company that is just the kind of company that we are passing legislation to help today. They are a small manufacturer. They want to expand their business. And I'm pleased to say that there are provisions in the bill that we're about to take up that I think will help this company, which is called Ti-Trikes. They make titanium tricycles for adults. They're adaptive, so that if you have a disability, you can still ride a bicycle. Or if you're a person who doesn't like to sit up and wants to sit more comfortably -- as we all age that sounds better and better -- you can sit in a comfortable recumbent position in these tricycles.
So I invite you to go up to Room 310 and see the tricycles that are -- the tricycle that's up there on display. And welcome to the Chambers, and I'm glad we're doing something that will help you today.
A VOICE:
Thank you.
REP. SCHOFIELD (16th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Representative.
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon.
I also have sad news. Earlier this month we lost former state Representative Benny -- Emil "Benny" Benvenuto, who served in this Chamber from 1977 to 1989 and then served one term in the State Senate.
He occupied the seat that now I am in. And I've got to tell you, Benny was one heck of a guy. He was very, very proud of his service to Greenwich. He came from very, very humble beginnings and did very well for himself. But he never talked about any of his, you know, things he achieved wealth wise. He always talked about things he did for the little guy, as he always put it.
He was the driving force behind Connecticut's lemon law, and he also was involved with securing property for Greenwich from the state that is now the Greenwich Adult Day Care Center. And Benny was just really a heck of a guy, and we'll miss him, in Greenwich and in the state of Connecticut. Thank you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Again, will the members please rise in a moment of silence in respect for a member who's passed.
Thank you very much.
There being no other announcements or points of personal privilege, will the Clerk please call Emergency Certified House Bill 6801.
THE CLERK:
Emergency Certified Bill House Bill 6801, AN ACT PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION IN THE STATE.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The chair of the Commerce Committee, Representative Berger, you have the floor, sir.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon.
I move for acceptance and passage of Emergency Certification Bill Number 6801.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question is on passage of the emergency certified bill. Will you remark.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What we have before us today is very, very monumental. We have a bill that we are going to vote on hopefully shortly, after an explanation and a Q and A, but a bill that is the product of bipartisan support. A bill that reaches across the aisle, Republican and Democrat, deals with a topic that really isn't Republican or Democrat, Mr. Speaker, but is an issue that affects the lives of all the citizens of the State of Connecticut. And that is, Mr. Speaker, creating jobs in the state, helping business grow, building our manufacturing base, making Connecticut a global power once again, that it was in years in the past. Now we can build again from now into the future. We make that step here today in a bipartisan way.
The Governor, in his direction, after session ended said, let's get together, have a special session, and let's deal with creating jobs. Let's make some substantive changes to law, build on programs that this Legislature has done in the past, and make that difference that we need to make to make us competitive.
Under his leadership, we are here today. The Governor has traversed across the state of Connecticut. The Republican Party and its -- and its leaders have traversed across the state of Connecticut. Democratic leaders have traversed across the state of Connecticut, meeting with chamber of commerces, meeting with business, getting ideas and thoughts, and coming up with a consensus package that deals in five specific areas.
This bipartisan effort identifies five key areas, small business growth, regulatory environment, innovation, workforce development, and creating enhanced economic development tools. Within the context of this document, is the change and support for business that this General Assembly will expand upon.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give a short summary and then get into each section. And before I do that, I also should -- I would be remiss in not thanking the Governor, the Governor's staff, the Speaker, the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, and all ranking members and staff that have worked tirelessly, endless hours, along with the nonpartisan staff to come up with the document that we see here today, a solid document.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to create a summary and then go through sections.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
In a summary context, Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes new and expanding existing business assistance, economic and workforce development, and job training programs. It authorizes a rapid response financial assistant programs for small business. This is key, Mr. Speaker. Because when we look at how we want to grow, we heard about how the State of Connecticut, under recent times, has helped big business.
We heard from the small business out there, how can we improve ourselves? How can we, as a General Assembly, help small business? This bill will move to address that, both in freeing dollars up, allowing training components, and allowing for the hiring of the unemployed. New employees, Mr. Speaker, that are currently unemployed to be able to be businesses, small businesses alike, to be giving tax credits for hiring those, and expanding upon that to veterans, chronic unemployed and disabled, which increases that tax credit.
We expand the first five program and manufacturers' reinvestment account. The manufacturers' reinvestment account was an account that this General Assembly did last session. And by the way, that was the first state in the country to form an MRA, Manufacturers Reinvestment Account. We're going to expand that here today, open up the field for business, create a bigger incentive for them to expand their business, create jobs, improve their facilities. That is within this package.
It allows state agencies to contract with private entities for building, finance, operating, and maintaining facilities. The bill creates new programs for farmland restoration, town center improvements in small towns, and -- and replacing inefficient, ineffective furnaces and boilers in -- through state bonding.
It authorized additional state bonding in MAA, the Manufacturers Assistance Act, and the Fix-It-First bridge repair program. And soon, within this section, we'll talk about that. And that's a commitment, right now, on the ground.
When we had hearings last week, we heard from the industry, the labor industry, the contractors, the people that do the work of repairing the bridges, concrete, engineers. And they said, you know, we're struggling out here. We need work. It's been tough for us. Building has been slow.
This document earmarks $ 50 million. Let's get that money on the street right now. Let's improve our bridges off a priority list. Let's put people to work right now, and let's make our roads safe. This document addresses that.
We deal with workforce development programs at community colleges and regional vocational technical schools. Now, when we go -- when we go around the state, we talk to community colleges. We talked to vo-techs, and we talked to manufacturers. And we -- that's precision manufacturers, the tool and die, the sheet metal stamping. They need people. They can employ people that can make a solid wage, 50, 75, 80 thousand dollars sometimes with overtime. They can't find those people in the workforce. How do we address that?
We create a learning environment where they can get ahead. They can find jobs and they can be trained and get jobs right away. And that helps all our communities. That helps our tax rolls. That helps our communities. It increases our quality of life and it increases our manufacturing footprint innovatively, throughout the state of Connecticut, and makes us competitive in the world.
You know, we're not going to be able right now to -- this day today, by this bill, to say, hey, the state of Connecticut is going to be competing with China today after this, or other countries. But you know what? This will make us competitive. This starts the process.
If we start now in this year, in five, in six in ten years from now, that's where we make a difference with our youth and with our retrained incumbent workers. This bill addresses that.
Finally, the bill replaces three existing job creation tax credit programs with a new job expansion credit. And that's what I spoke about briefly before on hiring the chronic unemployed and the veterans.
We also reduce the minimum investment for angel investor income tax credit. This has become very, very important, because this is an area where we're going to be able to -- to store the entrepreneurial side and innovative side of creating business in the state of Connecticut.
We found this to be very successful. Connecticut has really been on the forefront of this, and this now will enable us to move forward with an innovative, effective, efficient program, Mr. Speaker.
If I could now, I will run through, Mr. Speaker, the sections quickly. That was a quick overview of what the bill does. And then I have -- some of my colleagues will have some Q and A.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Thank you.
Sections 1 through 5 are dealing with the Small Business Express Program and the Step-Up Program. This bill will authorize $ 120 million in bonds for the Small Business Express Program. This bill creates the program so spoken to through the Department of Economic Community Development in providing loans, forgivable loans, or matching grants from 10,000 to 250,000 dollars. This bill authorizes up to 100 million in bonds for the SBEP program, Step Program.
Sections 6 through 9 deal with permitting, the permitting process, and how we are able to deal with that. Now, in going around the state, and certainly we've heard it in the Commerce Committee, other committees, labor, and so forth, about our permitting process, how we can make that efficient and effective. And when we talk about this document, we deal with efficiency and effectiveness in a timely manner.
We address -- we address in Sections 6 -- 6 through 9 permitting. Section 10, we deal with the LEAN manufacturing practices. Section 11, we create a review of regulations and statutes for LEAN practices. Sections 12 through 16 deal with farmland restoration and farm wineries.
Now, in farmland restoration, this will deal with returning farmland to pristine conditions, and establishes dollar amounts for us to be able to do that up to $ 5 million. These are existing farms that have been neglected over the years. So now we're going to be able to create an environment which will help our economy but also remain the nature of what Connecticut is, in its pastoral grounds and farmlands, so we remain and keep that integrity of our land.
Section 17 deals with natural disaster permitting. And this really is directed towards Irene. Helps a lot of our communities on the shoreline. And through you, Mr. Speaker, we'll have an amendment at the end which we'll call as a short fix to Section 17.
Section 18 deals with the manufacturers reinvestment accounts. These are the MRAs that we spoke to earlier. That we, as a General Assembly, both in the House and the Senate, instituted last year. We are going to raise the limit for those companies from $ 50,000 a year, which we did last year, to increase it to $ 100,000 a year, that they will be able to set -- set aside for training of employees, for hiring of employees, for expansion of their businesses and for innovative manufacturing. This will be used against their earned income.
So it's very similar, Mr. Speaker, to an IRA for a manufacturing company that can defer against their earned income. It's a tremendous opportunity for business. It's a tremendous opportunity for them to be able to put back into their business the money that they earn.
And, in conjunction with DRS, we will now only tax on the withdrawal of those funds at 3. 5 percent, which is more than half of what they normally would be charged. It's a great program. It allows manufacturers to invest back into their businesses, and allows us to be able to gain tax revenue, both on the front end and the back end of a five-year cycle.
The job -- Sections 19 through 22 deal with job expansion tax credits. And those are the tax credits of hiring individuals unemployed for a tax credit, which is double, from $ 250 a month to $ 500 a month for hiring those individuals.
Now, if that small business of 50 individuals or less wants to higher disabled, a veteran, or a chronically unemployed individual, that credit goes up to $ 900 a month in descending value over the course of five years.
Section 23 deals with the business entity tax. Now, let's listen for a minute. The State of the Connecticut today, when we vote on this section, we're cutting a tax. We're cutting a tax to business, because why? We've heard them. We've said and heard from business, we need relief from this onerous tax. A lot of it's a liability issue. People will form a business entity just to protect their liability, and it's just another hurdle for business to get over.
What we're doing here today, we're essentially cutting this tax in half. An individual business entity now will only have to pay $ 250 every two years. We've cut it in half. This General Assembly, by voting on this, cuts a tax.
Section 24 through 27 deals with an area which is near and dear to myself, and certainly the Commerce Committee, and it expands on brownfields development. What we do here is create, basically, a first five for brownfields remediation and development on state-owned property.
It also established a little bit of discretion for the commissioner, if she sees fit, to be able to expand that to an end use program outside of state owned.
It's important to understand two things with this program. Existing programs that we have in brownfields remediation development establish a application process. This program will create a one-page application process. It will also establish an end use for that property.
So, for those that want to say, hey, we're going to use state dollars. We're going to use bonding monies. Maybe we're going to take it from another program and we're going to clean up a property, a state-owned property. This property is not going to remain vacant. It's not the intent of this to let that then remain vacant.
When we use tax dollars to clean that property up, that property then is going to have an end-use business that will occupy that. That's jobs. That's tax revenue for a municipality. That's tax revenue to the State of Connecticut, decreases blight in all of our neighbors, and increases the quality of life. That is a lot of bang for the buck. That's one of the best jobs components of this bill.
It's a great program. We have committed $ 20 million to that, and that is on top of bonding that will occur very shortly this month of $ 15 million that will support brownfield remediation and existing programs within the system. That's a leap forward. That's a commitment to us from all of our municipalities -- 151 throughout the State of Connecticut -- that we are committed. That we are making a difference in cleaning up these properties.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Section 28 establishes a DECD electronic business portal. And we have all heard it. Everyone in this Chamber has heard it. I've heard it. Everyone has heard it here and in the Senate. We're a small business, as an example. We want to find out what programs are available. How do we find out about this? No one can find out. It's a problem within our organizational structure and bureaucracy. No one can find out how to get to these so very important programs.
This portal will establish that access for business within DECD. It's so critical. We could have, Mr. Speaker, the best programs in the world. We could have the best policy in the world. But if our businesses, our employers don't know about them, then where does that place us? That places us at an unfair disadvantage. It's unacceptable.
This portal will help that small business find their way through the bureaucracy and get the help they needed, and will not duplicate -- it's important to note -- will not duplicate the Secretary of State's portal.
Section 29 deals with the angel investors. Angel investors is a tremendous, tremendous program for innovative growth. This will be able to expand and lower the threshold currently, from $ 100,000 to $ 25,000 on investment and benefit that angel investors have. It's an area that we really need to corner the market on.
We have many people, certainly in the Fairfield County area, and certainly making our way up the 95 corridor, that want to invest in startup companies, innovative startup companies. This allows the portal, so to speak, for us to be able to open the market up and capture that angel investor market. The people are out there, Mr. Speaker, that want to invest in this -- in these programs. We are allowing and creating the impetus for them to be able to do that.
Sections 30 through 36 deal with workforce development and what we can do to enhance that. How we get our workers and how we're able to train our workers, both in the inner city and in -- in urban areas, suburban areas, how we retrain them, how we get to the point where we are enabling them to get a job.
Workforce training is so very much a component of this now established within the Department of Labor. It's the right thing for us to do. It's the time to do it, and this bill does it.
Section 38 will be First Five Plus. This is an expansion of the existing First Five Program. Currently, we have four programs that the Governor has announced and we certified in last year's legislation of five companies. This expands First Five to additional five companies that will take advantage of First Five.
We established First Five to help the larger companies. We help in the other components of sections small business. We help small business. We create an impetus for large corporations to come in here. But within the language -- there's some new language -- there's several lines in there now that's say, well, the commissioner now should and could look outside of the State of Connecticut to bring in new business, large corporations into the State of Connecticut.
We've done very well in expanding it now, for what we have, with companies within the State of Connecticut, and now with NBC transforming their footprint from Philadelphia and Rockefeller Center to Stamford. We're going in the right direction with that and we're gaining a lot of momentum.
First Five Plus gets us over that hump to get to that big NBC, to get to that CIGNA, to get to that company maybe that we haven't reached out to yet, that may be in some other part of the country, let's get them here to Connecticut. And that makes us viable throughout the whole United States and certainly throughout the world.
Sections 39 through 45 deal with a airport development zone. This was a bill that we -- that we reviewed last year that needed some tweaks really, honestly, when dealing with census tracts, when dealing with the Connecticut airport authority, which we now have in place, and which will soon be formulated and do their first meeting to assist -- to assist airports.
And when we talk about the airports, the airport development zone has actually five specific airports. That this development zone, which will reach out two miles from the airport, and deals with enterprise zone credits, Bradley, Oxford, New London, Sikorsky and Brainard are really the five areas and airports that will be able to take direct advantage of aggressive language in here. Aggressive language that not only deals with airport business but which deals with businesses that are ancillary to airport and -- and manufacturing and servicing of airports in those five areas.
So it's a tremendous -- Mr. Speaker, a tremendous economic driver for those areas, reaching out the tentacles, reaching out beyond the airport, in creating an economic development zone that adds jobs, tax revenue, to not only the municipality but the State of Connecticut.
Section 46, we talked about that earlier. Fix-It bridges. There is a priority list that DOT has, Department of Transportation, of bridges that are in repair. And, Mr. Speaker, we've heard upwards of 30 percent of the bridges in the State of Connecticut are in need of repair. This establishes $ 50 million right now. Fix it first, get the money out there. Let's fix our bridges. Let's make our roads safe. This commits that in a bipartisan way to get that done, get our people employed, and get $ 50 million in safety out to the people of the State of Connecticut.
Sections 47 and 48 deal with Manufacturers Assistance Act and Urban Reinvestment Act dollars. This is an expansion of the existing MAA program.
Sections 49 through 51 deal with boiler replacement. Now, we all have a housing authority in our -- our neighborhoods. We all have a nonprofit. Those are individuals that may not have the money to be able to replace a furnace. A housing authority with a building with 20, 30 people in each building, centralized heating system, the heating time is coming upon us -- and it's supposed to be cold -- snowy again this year.
We're dedicating $ 5 million to those entities to be able to replace those furnaces, to be able to help those citizens in all our communities. And $ 5 million will go a long way. It's a competitive process. We're going to have people get their applications in. Let's get that money out. And we do that here in this bill.
Section 52 deals with CIA recapitalization. Now what a tremendous program CI is. I believe, back in the late nineties, we first capitalized them at $ 3 million. They have tenfold increased those dollars. And we, oftentimes, have went out and grabbed some of that money from them. We're recapitalizing them now, $ 25 million. Tremendous program that's going to lead to growth and advancement in innovative areas in the state of Connecticut. It's a tremendous commitment that creates a spectrum of dollars across the state of Connecticut that make a difference in each and every one of our communities.
Section 53 through 55 deal with film tax credit changes, and this deals directly with NBC. But this doesn't also help -- not only help NBC Sports move to Stamford. This helps every other qualified production facility that spends up to $ 25 million to be able to get a tax credit over ten years, to have a qualified production in the state of Connecticut.
And this isn't filming a movie in downtown Main Street for one week. This is about bricks and mortar. This is about creating an industry, creating a footprint in the state of Connecticut for film production and digital animation. This expands that. This puts us on the map. This makes it happen for us in the film industry.
Section 74 through 77 deal with licensing.
78 through 79 deal with Main Street initiatives, and those are for our steep municipalities. Those small towns of 30,000 or less that need to have their downtown areas cleaned up, facades, $ 10,000, $ 25,000, to make a difference in improvements to our small-town downtowns. This commits that Main Street initiative to that program.
Sections 80 through 88 deal with a somewhat decreased P3, quote, program. In conjunction with a lot of discussion that's gone on on both side of the aisle with our labor unions, we're -- we're going to need look at this expansion of this into 2012 session. We start here.
We start here with the document that we have before us and we look to expand on it. It's a start for us. We need to have the full light of the General Assembly look at this, and we'll do that in 2012. It's a great initiative. An issue that we need to work together on to make happen. This document gets us started and makes that happen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and that concludes the sections.
Deputy Speaker Ryan in the Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative Berger.
Representative Mikutel of the 45th.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise briefly in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good day. This is a good day because this Legislature is helping to create jobs in a state that needs jobs, and because it shows the Legislature at its best working in a bipartisan effort on matters that really are important to our constituents.
I'd like to take this moment to congratulate our Governor for being an activist in the whole area of job creation. I have not always been this -- a supporter of the Governor, but I tell you, I am impressed with his activist approach. He's got his priorities right. I think the job tour that he took was a great idea to gather input from the employers of the state. And the bill that we are discussing today reflects the messages that it came back from the employers. So this is a real document, a document that reflects the needs of our employers.
I think this is a great opportunity also for us to develop a better partnership with our business community and to change the business climate in the state of Connecticut. This bill shows that and reflects the need for the state to have a role in job creation, so who drives Connecticut's economy is not just the private sector. It's also -- there's also a place for government to create jobs in this state.
Representative Berger did a good job in outlining the whole bill, but there's three small sections of the bill that I would like to briefly speak to. And one of them is the need to better coordinate our educating our people with the needs of the employers.
The biggest complaint that I heard from employers in my area, especially manufacturers, is that they have job openings but they can't find people to fill them. So this bill does reflect a better coordination of what the schools are doing to meet the needs of our employers, and I'm very, very happy to see that in the bill.
I'm also pleased to see the streamlining of the permitting process. Because, as I understand it, it takes an average of five years to get a permit through the DEP. That is unacceptable. In other states, they can streamline it and get a permit within six months out of their own DEP, or their equivalent, so this is a step in the right direction. And I -- I like what the bill is doing in terms of a consultant and in terms of the Governor's executive order to streamline the process.
Finally, I'm very happy to see a piece helping small business, because the complaint that I have from my small business is that all we do is help the big corporations. We never help the small mom-and-pop stores. So this is a credit to those who crafted this bill, that we actually now can go home to our small business people and say we have actually done something that can help you. That's going to help all of us and help our constituents, so that's a good thing.
I just want to close by saying that our job is far from done. We need to change the business climate in this state. And it's not enough just to pass one piece of legislation and think that we're done with -- with our work. No. This is an ongoing process. We can't -- and part of that means we need to have more certainty. The business community needs to have more certainty.
We cannot pass laws one week and then the next session change them. That's not -- especially with respect to tax policy, we must have more stability.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you. Thank you, Representative.
Representative Camillo of the 151st.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While no bill is ever perfect, in my three years up here, I think this is truly one of the better bills. Not often do I get to stand up here and talk about a bill that really addresses a lot of the concerns that small business has given to us year after year. A bill that deals with expediting the permit processes and a bill that even cuts a tax, that's -- that's pretty rare up here. As the good Representative said, it cuts the business entity tax which was 250 down to 125.
And, you know, it may not seem like a lot, but you know, if you're a small business, you know, every little bit counts, especially in an economy like this. So hats off to everybody on both side of the aisle that worked on this. And a tip of the cap to the chairman of commerce who really did a thorough job in explaining this bill.
Not much more to go on this, but I certainly, through you, Mr. Speaker, would like to ask him a few questions.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger, if you would prepare yourself. Yes.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you. Sections 1 through 5 deal with small business, as I just mentioned. Some really good stuff in there, certainly, speeding up permit processes and, you know, one-page applications, and 30 day closes.
But one of the conditions for, you know, the -- a loan to a small business in this -- this bill, it states here that a company would have to stay -- would not have -- would not be able to relocate within five years of receiving a loan. If, for whatever reason, they packed up and left after, say, year three, would they be in line for a fine, a penalty, or would we just have to eat the money that we gave to them? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Representative. I think it's important to note that, in fact, the Representative is correct, that these grants and loans are forgivable. But if a company were not to uphold their obligation under the five-year window, they would also be subject to penalties under the existing language of the loan and full repayment of the loan to DECD to -- and to the State of Connecticut and to its citizens.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Representative.
In Section 4, the definition of eligible small business, I just wanted to know for a point of clarification, states that it's at 100. I want to make sure that's not 50.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the question was 100 businesses would be eligible, and that would be correct.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, in Section 4, concerning the Step Program, which is the retraining of employees to reenter fields that they may not have been qualified to -- to hold the job in previously, it's a 13 week program.
With each passing week, I just want to -- for point of clarification -- to make sure, who is picking up, as far as their payment of this? I know at the beginning it's -- the State pays for all it, but, for a point of clarification, does the employee start to assume a lot of this debt?
Mr. Speaker, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe in answer to the good Representative's question, the employers are paid to train and hire the unemployed. And that period, it would be over a six-month period that we would assume the cost.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Okay. And the -- the grants that were given, there will -- it says here they will be canceled the date that the new employee leaves employment with the eligible small business. This is an earlier draft I have, so I apologize. I just want to make sure that's still the case.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you.
In Section 6, Mr. Speaker, the DEP permitting process, we're speeding it up now, as has been mentioned a few times already, with procedures that really look at enforcement and applications that pose the lowest level of risk to the environment, which I think is a good thing. It's a cautious way to go with this.
Are there any time limits now with this expedited process?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sorry to the Representative. I didn't catch the first part of that question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Sure. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The DEP permitting processes, we're now speeding it up to those with the lowest level -- applications with the lowest level of risk to the environment. We were talking about speeding it up. What -- what is the time frame -- time limits, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
And I know, through you, that there's, you know, obviously concern by the environmentalist. But what -- what we're talking about here is -- is -- is a decrease in the time frame, but a feasibility -- a look at the feasibility of developing a methodology for processing these permit applications in -- in a speedy way, an enforcement action based on two-tiered levels, through you, Mr. Speaker, for DEEP to follow, in not only protecting our environment, but also to expedite this process.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative Berger.
Going on now to, I think, Section 29 and the business portal section. I know the -- Representative Berger had already mentioned that it is not a duplication of services between what the Secretary of State did last year and what we voted on in this. But could you just, through you, Mr. Speaker, just clarify how it is different? Because we're going to get that question over and over again.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I -- I believe the Section 29 was angel investor, but that might be in an older document. But I know where -- through you, Mr. Speaker -- where the good Representative is going. The -- certainly, there was a lot of discussion on the Secretary of State's portal last year on, hey, you know, we've had other -- other ways that we can do this. There's other entities out there that can form this. This, however, is a separate -- a separate issue. We are -- the first contact, the portal for the Secretary of State would say, hey, now you need to go to this section, which would be then they would kick them to DECD, which then DECD would then open up as the portal of location for that business to go to to access the information on small loans, on tax incentives, on workforce training.
So this is a direct portal through DECD that would potentially link with the Secretary of State, through you, Mr. Speaker, that business then would have a one-stop shop access to. Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Representative for that explanation.
Finally, the airport authority section of this bill that concerns expansion of enterprise zones. Through you, Mr. Speaker, will there be any legislative oversight to this, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, there would be.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In what form would that take? Would it be through this body or through a standing committee?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, through the committee of cognizance, commerce.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Camillo.
REP. CAMILLO (151st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I thank the good Representative for his answers. I may have some questions later, but I think some of my colleagues have some now. So thank you very much, and thank you to Representative Berger.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Miner of the 66th.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and -- and good afternoon.
I, too, have a few questions, if I might, to the proponent of the bill, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of sections in this bill that deal with job expansion tax credits and similar credits associated with creating what we hope will be new jobs, in some cases, for veterans who are unemployed and otherwise unemployed. And there seems to be some language in here, and I want to get a clarification, as to how the tax credit can be applied.
And so, through you, if an individual is a stockholder within a small corporation, perhaps themselves solely or with a partner, am I correct that that tax credit could be passed through that business to them personally if their income tax structure is set up that way? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That -- that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Miner.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Because, like many of you, most of the small business people that I know hire these people. They operate car dealerships, parts stores. They operate all sorts of things. But at the end of the day, that personal investment is attributable to them. And more often than not, the tax exposure doesn't exist until it gets to them.
So, for those businesses that have been struggling through this economy, that small business for which they're going to add an employee or two doesn't actually show a revenue exceeding their tax liability. So I think it's important for us to know that this does have a great possibility of helping small businesses that are set up that way.
Additionally, when I read through an earlier draft of this, it appeared to me that through some of the brownfields language, there was an opportunity -- and I'll just say DEEP as an agency -- for an agency to take some of the bond proceeds and use those bond proceeds internally, in terms of their processing of a grant or their administration of a program.
If the gentleman could tell us, to what extent would those bond proceeds, if at all, be used to fund current operating costs of agencies?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that this certainly -- language would be somewhat similar to other programs that we have of administrative costs and to expand on what administrative costs may or may not be. That would be on the establishment of -- of the loan process through DEEP and DECD, the administrative processing of that loan, and -- and the oversight of the operation of that loan for the cleanup of the site, if that's helpful to the good Representative.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Miner.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know there are some specific language within the bill where, I think, under the LEAN program, there would be the ability to hire contractors. I think there is some other language in here where we fully expect to have the State engage in to some business relationship with an outside entity.
And for those cases, do those fallen in the administrative process and that portion for which those grant proceeds could be used?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. It -- it could potentially, but it is not the intent of the agency to peel off, so to speak, bonding fund costs for administrative expenses or to expand them to a level beyond what would be under the normal course of operation of the agency and the effectiveness of the loan.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Miner.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answer. I know already there have been some references to what I think is Section 6. Section 6 being that piece of this puzzle that deals with the permit process.
My read of Section 6 is that the DEEP, by February of next year, will make a report to the Committee of Cognizance. And unless I'm wrong, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that actually puts in place a sped up permit process. I think what that does is puts that process in the legislative process and it will be up to us to speed that process up. Am I right in that reading?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It certainly is the intent to speed up the process, but I guess the answer to that question could be yes and no. We will receive a report which we could expand upon in the 2012 legislative session, but it certainly is the intent of the commissioner of DECD and DEEP, within some language that we have here, to expedite certain programs and initiatives in the context of the document that we have here today, and then for us to expand on legislation in 2012 through a document we would receive on or before February 1.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Miner.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And -- and so that report then could be acted on prior to February 1, 2012, if, for instance, the agencies felt that they wanted to take some corrective action, they could do that almost instantaneously in an effort to address some of the concerns that I think our constituents have raised with us. Is that what I'm hearing?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
There certainly is commissioner discretion to expedite some of these programs and processes.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Miner.
REP. MINER (66th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I do thank the gentleman for his work and his comments.
I don't know if anyone else here is as troubled by where we are as I am. I suspect we all are concerned about the unemployment level. I think we're all concerned about when, in some cases, is a stagnant -- kind of a stagnant economy in the State of Connecticut.
The real estate market is probably having some of its worst times in recordable history. But there are some bright spots. I mean, we do have some industries that have confessed to me and have bragged to me, in fact, that things are looking better. They speak in terms of months. They speak in terms of weeks.
So when we talk up here about front end loading, something to the tune of $ 510 million, one of my constituents refers to that as big boy dollars, where someone is actually going to the bank and borrowing the money and trying to do something good with it.
But there's no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that -- that this bill only facilitates -- only facilitates those that would otherwise be thinking about creating a job to create the job. They're not going to put somebody at a desk if they don't think they can make money doing it. This credit will not be enough money. They won't put somebody behind the machine to make a part if they don't think someone will buy it.
Most of the constituents that have talked to me are the same that have talked to you. They have little different stories. They say we remember the Sick Leave Bill. We remember Senate Bill 1106 and House Bill 6486, both which are now part of an executive order. Things that drive up the cost of business and the cost of government.
So, while today it is my intent to support this bill, because I think it takes a step in the right direction, it sends a signal to other states, we're not asleep here. We don't want you stealing our companies. We want to try and participate in that arena. But we can't let today be the only day. We can't come back here in February and start with a cadre of business-killing legislation. Because today will have been for nothing. These big-boy dollars that we're going to borrow and disperse across the state of Connecticut in the hopes of creating jobs will be squandered.
So I am here today to support this piece of legislation. And I hope, as we move forward in the year to come, that we'll make an even stronger place to do business, not weaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Haddad of the 54th.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my congratulations to the chairman of the Commerce Committee for very ably describing what's in this bill today, and also to thank the leadership of all four caucuses of the General Assembly for working so hard to bring us a piece of legislation that I think will -- will put us in a much better economic position as a State, as well as thank the Governor for providing the leadership and calling us into special session and in providing us this opportunity.
I do have a couple of questions. We -- we did have a -- a public hearing last week on many of the concepts involved in this piece of legislation. And I just had a question or two to pose to the chairman of the Commerce Committee.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger, please prepare yourself. I hope you can hear the questioner.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
Last week we heard the commissioner of DECD and others talk about many ideas that were created to -- to spur innovation and entrepreneurship. They included, for example, a proof of concept center, which is an idea that's been employed at many different academic institutions to demonstrate that new technology can be brought to market effectively.
It provides protections to IP, to intellectual property. These proof of concept centers also work very hard with involved folks to -- to make sure that there's a smart business plan in place. Additionally, to the proof of concept centers we talked about an IP factory, a mentoring network in innovation centers of various parts around the state.
I was curious -- as I was reading the bill, I didn't see many of these things mentioned. But it's my understanding that Section 52 which deals with the recapitalization of Connecticut innovations is the section that would provide resources to do many of these initiatives.
Through you, I just wanted to confirm that that was the case.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, to my cochair of the Commerce Committee. The answer is in the affirmative, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Haddad.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
Additionally, the commerce chairperson might also remember that we did a bill last year. We called it the Pre-Seed Bill which ensured that university sponsored companies, that is companies that came out of intellectual property created in their universities were eligible to -- to apply for many of the programs that we were setting up.
And so, in the -- in the small business express package, for example, we have some projects that require matching funds. And I wanted to ensure that university-related companies could use universe -- private university investments to qualify for these grant programs.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. They will be allowed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Haddad.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
I thank Representative Berger for his answers.
I think, as we proceed with making -- doing the other bill that we're doing today on Jackson Laboratories, which is essentially a doubling down of our investment at that -- at Connecticut Bioscience, it will be important for us to make sure that -- that we're putting those companies that will come out of those initiatives in -- in good standing with our economic development initiatives.
I do have a couple of other questions. I think that these are probably more appropriately posed to the chairman of the Labor Committee. They concern the public partnership, public-private partnership provisions in the bill.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the chairman of the Labor Committee.
As I was reading the -- the sections that are in the public-private partnerships, I certainly, sir, recognize that public-private partnerships could have a very significant role in our economic future. That being said, I want to ensure, and would like the members of the Chamber to know, if these public-private partnerships will -- are about creating jobs and not privatizing services that are currently provided by public employees.
And so, as I was reading through the language of the bill, I was looking at line 4,896 which -- which deals with noncompete provisions, and specifically, line -- the lines say, "No partnership agreement shall contain any noncompete provisions limiting the ability of the State to perform its functions. "
I was wondering if the chairman of the Labor Committee could give me a brief explanation about what that means.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Zalaski, chairman of the Labor Committee, can you respond to Representative Haddad.
REP. ZALASKI (81st):
Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I first would like to say that it's a proud day to be here in front of everybody to speak on this bill. It -- it -- I made mention during one of the public hearings that I think it's a great thing that we can come to a resolution between both sides of the aisle to do something great for the State of Connecticut, which they can't do for the country in Washington.
With that, I would -- on line 4896 which the question was about, it seems that many states and cities have made the mistake of -- of signing on to partnership contracts which prevent the State from investing in projects that are alternatives to the public-private partnership, or which require the State to pay a reduced -- reduce the -- when they had a reduced compensation, that they have to fund more money to the partner.
Say, for instance, the partnership might fund a harbor improvement, and the State decides to build a freight line next to it, which cuts down a little on the money that they make at that time. Line 4896 is intended to ensure that these contractors don't -- contracts don't contain any provisions requiring that the State compensate the private partner for the -- in those situations.
The same thing as if we built a parking garage somewhere and the State decided to have a bus running from another parking lot to that parking lot, and the -- the private employers said, well, you've got to pay me for that because we want people to park in that parking lot. So that's what that line is meant to do.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Haddad.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
Thank you to Representative Zalaski for providing that answer.
One additional question. As we execute these contracts, who is going to inspect and monitor the contracts to make sure that partners are complying with the contract provisions and with state law?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Zalaski.
REP. ZALASKI (81st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Line 4918 through 4925 specifically requires that these projects comply with the State's environmental set-aside licensing and permitting laws. However, generally, the bill does not exempt these projects from all the State laws that make sure the contractors are honoring their commitments. These laws use impartial state inspectors, monitors, and similar employees, to protect the public, and they are fully applicable here.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Haddad.
REP. HADDAD (54th):
Yes. I'd like to thank Representative Zalaski for his answer again. And again, to complement the leadership of all four caucuses. I think it's a proud day that we're here acting on a bill that has bipartisan support in an effort to create jobs here in the State of Connecticut. I hope that will serve as a model for Washington to follow in the hopes that we can get our national economy on track as well.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Dillon of the 92nd District.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, a few questions to the proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, ma'am.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you.
First, I'd like to congratulate the representative from Waterbury for his hard work and those of you who worked with him on this bill. But I am interested keenly in the benefits of anything we do here to -- that would accrue to the city that hired me to come here. And for that reason, I guess I had a couple of questions on the -- on the impact of some of the language.
Through you, first, are there any (inaudible) provisions anywhere in this bill concerning, let's say, providing -- holding a company to certain kinds of job guarantees?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, to the good Representative from New Haven, that there is protections not only on the loan and grant guarantee side but on job creation side within this document.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I won't dwell on that. I just want to say I can't believe I'm saying this year, but I believe the year that Ronald Reagan ran, the second time, I authored what was later called the (inaudible) ordinance for the -- when -- because I was an alderman, and I chaired the budget committee. And I was asked to provide a loan to a local company. And because I invest in the market, I discovered through the financial press that someone was bragging about using New Haven's money for a leveraged buyout to move to Rhode Island.
And before that, they've made it through committee. We had it tied in knots because it was -- and that was, if there was fire-sale language -- you know, if we gave you land at a certain amount, if you left, you know, five years before the end of it, if you didn't provide x, then you would -- then you would have to pay back the city.
Now, having said that, it was not always enforced in the contracts. I believe it was -- I hope it was used as leverage to get a better deal, because I didn't see it. But I do think because -- I do think that a lot of these companies skip from one state to another once they got the benefit. And at a certain point, it's helpful if we're growing our own -- not just bringing people in from out of state because they might very well leave. I know that that's counterintuitive -- some people here on the other side of that. It's hard to know what the right thing is, but that there's a case to be made on either side.
The second is on the issue of infrastructure. I know that we've been hearing a lot about infrastructure on these -- on these two bills that are going forward. And, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask if there is any tie in between the Department of Transportation's initiatives and the job creation that -- that's envisioned in -- in this legislation.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. If I can understand the good Representative's question, is that certainly within the context of Fix-It First, DOT has a priority list which they review and thereby then work in conjunction with the implementation of the program off a priority list that's been established throughout all our communities.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I probably didn't make myself very clear. If you look at New York and the way that it came back actually after the towers went down, or if you look at the state of Montana where one town decided to grow its film industry partly by building what was, at that time, a free bus system which was invested in by -- by the private sector and by the public sector and by the university, so that anybody at that time could get on a bus and get anywhere in the city for free. And the idea, which I think you could argue is not a bad one, is that if -- if you can get the workers to the job, some jobs -- some businesses might actually grow on their own.
And, as it stands now, I believe Missoula charges about 85 cents to take a bus ride. But many of the private companies actually will give you a voucher so that you'll go for free, so that they will take that system.
The New Haven delegation had a bill this year to provide for a shuttle from the Union Station to Southern, and it was defeated. But just to use a local example, there's a nursing home in my district that was closed by the State of Connecticut. Over a hundred jobs were lost. I don't know what the property is going to do. We could actually do something, maybe, if there was transportation along that corridor.
I'd like to know -- and I see the chair of transportation over there -- is there a plan for the Department of Transportation to look at -- at access beyond trains? And I agree, I'm sure my taxpayers are thrilled that we're doing more trains, although we don't necessarily use them as much as others, but those of us who -- other parts of the State, maybe, we could do more. So the trains are on the right track.
But -- but is there another way of looking at getting workers to work?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
And, you know -- and I know certainly in New Haven they did have issues in the past on -- on, say, bus service. And, through you, Mr. Speaker, during the -- the Department of Transportation, under capital improvement project funds, has the -- has the ability now to be -- to be able to dig into that, so to speak, issue for cities, like the city of New Haven and others.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you.
This is a very important initiative, and I want to give it the respect it deserves. And that's why I'm asking these questions. But I would suggest the Department of Transportation has not always been sensitive to the context of the -- of the construction that it does, or of the impact on small business when they expand avenues that -- to increase traffic.
So -- and, in fact, if you look at the headquarters of the Department of Transportation, I don't believe it's accessible by mass transit. It looks like the space -- enterprise really.
So that I think -- I would -- I would encourage that we -- that we look at tie-ins, so that maybe some businesses that we don't have to give money to would actually grow on their own if we have a fixed bus service on certain routes outside of simply the trains on the Gold Coast. We could actually have some businesses grow on their own.
The next question is concerning the Main Street section, and that's Section 78.
I was waiting to see if Mr. -- if the chair was prepared. Okay. Of course he's prepared.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's -- you described in that section -- describes also, quote, unquote, Main Street, as you know, because you yourself were incredibly generous with helping. There is a Main Street initiative, actually, in the 92nd District of New Haven.
It appears that the language here would not -- it would not be eligible under this language because the Westfall Village is within a town that's larger than 30,000. I wonder, through you, if you envision the ability to make designated communities eligible for those dollars. I see upper Albany, New London, Rose City, Simsbury, Main Street Waterbury and Westfall Village Renaissance are mainstream communities that are within larger cities.
Was that discussed in -- in preparing this bill, and is there a potential for making those needy, worthy communities eligible for this funding?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I might suggest that if the specific city or location in the city had a Main Street designation, which is a national designation, that, under commissioner discretion, that that location could potentially be accessible for funds under Main Street initiative.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Through you. And just in concluding, one of the pressing issues that we're looking at is the problems that those under 30 are facing, either because they're not being employed, or because they're saddled with student loans. Or if they have children, they're having -- having difficulty feeding them.
It is really difficult in a bill of this scope, that required so much work on both sides of the aisle, to think of everything. But going forward, I think it's really important that we think about ways to bring in the under thirties for what -- in what -- every way possible. It's not a monolithic group, but it's -- it's a group that has disproportionately high unemployment, that cuts across racial categories, and frankly, maybe even across class. But -- but it definitely is a generation that needs our attention.
Otherwise, I want to thank you very much for the work that you've done. I'll be happy -- given that we're going to be going forward to ask for other things next session -- I'll be happy to vote for it. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Willis of the 64th.
REP. WILLIS (64th):
Thank you very much, sir.
I rise for the purpose of legislative intent.
First, I would like to say that I also rise in support of this legislation; very excited about its impact, particularly on the workforce development piece for manufacturing here in Connecticut.
A certain section in Section 31 needs clarification. It is regarding our vocational and technical schools and community college. It says, in Item 2, the use of volunteers from the manufacturing industry for training and manufacturing skills at the regional colleges and regional vo-tech schools. I think it is important to say at this time that the volunteers would not be supplanting faculty or teachers in the classroom.
Volunteers are a valuable addition to supporting the qualified teachers in the classroom. And it is only meant for them to be as mentors and support staff for those professional certified teachers and professors.
So I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, ma'am. I hope your voice gets better.
Representative Klarides of the 114th.
Representative Sawyer, who is not here -- okay. We'll come back to her.
Representative Kiner of the 59th.
REP. KINER (59th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this bill and would like to congratulate the leaders of the four caucuses and the administration in their efforts for moving the state of Connecticut forward. And I also thank Representative Berger for bringing this bill out today.
Mr. Speaker, I also stand for the purpose of legislative intent. I had a few questions, through you, to the proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. KINER (59th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a follow-up to some of Representative Haddad's questions which are regarding the public-private partnership provisions, the language in this bill.
Will there be -- or let me rephrase that. Couldn't these projects take state resources away from other critical state programs?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Sir -- to Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As Representative Haddad had -- had deferred through our esteemed chair of Labor, I will also defer to the esteemed Chair of Labor in the House, Representative Zalaski.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kiner, would you please redirect your question to the chairman of Labor?
REP. KINER (59th):
Sure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, couldn't these projects take state resources away from other critical state programs?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Zalaski.
REP. ZALASKI (81st):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
These projects are intended to be self-sufficient projects, and at least -- or at least very close to it. The definitions of a public-private partnership, starting on line 4686, make it clear that it ensures that the State will never have to pay more than 25 percent of the cost of the project.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kiner.
REP. KINER (59th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, what does the chairman mean? Through you, what does "the cost of the project" mean?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Zalaski.
REP. ZALASKI (81st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, I guess the simplest way to answer that is, it's the net expenses of the project. We hope that the project will be fully self-sufficient. But, as I stated previously, we're guaranteed that, at least, it will never cost the state more than 25 percent. So we say that 75 percent is self-sufficient in the project.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kiner.
REP. KINER (59th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And one more question regarding the public-private partnership. So, through you, to Representative Zalaski.
Through you, are the public-private partnerships supposed to be viewed as a vehicle to move public jobs to the private sector?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Zalaski.
REP. ZALASKI (81st):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It has had that impact in some states and cities that haven't been as careful as we have in drafting this bill. Our bill is intended not to move jobs from one employee to another, but to create new jobs and thereby spur our economy.
Moving jobs from one employer to another doesn't really create jobs. It just -- and it doesn't really help the economy either. That's why this bill makes it clear that the Governor can approve only projects that create jobs and spur growth. On line 4730, it's quoted as -- to that effect.
And that's why the bill subjects any partnership agreement involving operating and maintaining a facility to the strict provisions of our Clean Contracting Act.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kiner.
REP. KINER (59th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the gentleman for his answers.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Williams of the 68th.
REP. WILLIAMS (68th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, just rising briefly in support of this bill, and we'll give Representative Berger a little bit of a break. I know he's had a lot of questions so far from both sides of the aisle. But I just want to thank everybody who has worked on this bill and this initiative from all four caucuses and from the Governor's office.
You know, we're not all excited about the way that we got here. We're not all excited about the fact that we've had the most stagnant growth in the country and that we haven't created one new net jobs since 1989 here in the State. We recognize, I think, that it took us a long time to get into this problem and it's certainly going to take us some time to get out of it.
And, you know, thinking about the way the got here today, the last night of the session the Governor said we have to come back into special session and talk about jobs. That day ultimately wound up being today, in October.
And we all sort of agreed that -- that we're going to continue to have those fights, as we have in the past, about taxes and regulations and things like paid sick leave, but that today was at least a day that we could hit some base hits, and we could all agree on something. And so, hopefully, we're sending a message to the voters of Connecticut, to businesses, et cetera, that you know, unlike certain other political environments, there, at least, are areas that we can find agreement on here in the State of Connecticut.
It doesn't mean that we're happy with everything -- each and every one of us in this Chamber is happy with everything that's in this bill. It certainly doesn't mean that, you know, we violated our principles in any way. But it means that we're going to hit some base hits and we found some common denominators.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, you know, we, on this side of the aisle, have been talking about the business entity tax for some time, and very happy that we're at least reducing that and making some progress on sending a message to small businesses that, you know, we're not going to hit you every chance we get. We're going to give you a little bit of a break on the business entity tax.
I know Representative Berger has worked diligently with the Waterbury delegation on brownfields in the past, and I think that there's some positive developments in the area of brownfields.
You know, as we traveled the state -- I know Representative Berger mentioned the travels that we've all made throughout the state on our jobs tours. We've talked about licensing, and heard from companies over and over again about the arduous process of occupational licensing. There's no reason applications should sit on state employees' desks for months and months and months and months waiting to be acted upon. I think we're taking a positive step in that direction as well.
You know, we thought for a long time that the angel investment tax credit should be changed and the threshold should be lowered, and we're doing that here in this bill today as well. So I think we're making some positive steps in the right direction. We're making Connecticut a little bit more friendly to businesses.
We have so much more that we have to do in the future, though, folks. And we've had these debates over and over again. We have to lower the cost of energy here in the state. We have amongst the highest energy rates in the country. That's killing manufacturers. We have to do that. We have to make some tough decisions with regard to our State budget. We have to reduce spending. We have to reduce taxes. We have to change our tax system. That is killing businesses.
We've heard it all over the State of Connecticut in the last six to eight months on our jobs tours, talking to business owners about how taxes are killing their businesses.
We've got to take a really hard look at the regulations that we're passing. We had a nine hour debate, I think, on paid sick leave earlier, towards the end of our 2011 session. And we've heard since then, since that debate, about how bad the idea of paid sick leave will be in terms of job creation.
So we're making a few little steps here today, and I'm proud to be a part of that, and I'm proud that we've all been able to negotiate and come to this conclusion. But we're not doing anything dramatic. And I don't think anybody is pretending that we're doing anything dramatic here. But we can't go back to our constituents and say, we changed Connecticut. Today was the day that we changed Connecticut in terms of our regulatory environment.
We can go back to them and say we did a little -- a few little things here. They're all positive. We agreed, and it wasn't partisan. But let's not fool ourselves. We need a lot more help in terms of our regulatory environment going forward.
And I hope that we recognize that unless and until we change that, we're going to continue to be in the same situation, job creation wise, as we have been for the last 20 years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Sawyer of the 55th.
REP. SAWYER (55th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you look at the breadth of Connecticut, we have a real mixture of the types of businesses. From the districts that you and I represent, we can talk about farming, to the point where we've visited the egg farms in the State of Connecticut. And by egg farms, I talk about egg farms that extended from one side of this room to the other and then twice as far from that and you didn't see the other, filled with livestock, because of efforts on the part of some Legislators that said we want that type of business in Connecticut, high science, health science, nutritional science, that was going to help feed the state of Connecticut.
So when we look at the efforts today, put forward in this bill, we have in here, for the first time in a long time, another pro-farm situation. Where there is money put into to look at -- for the first time it's great to hear -- expanding farming situations where there is land. And we're going to be able to take that land back into farming, land that has remained fallow for a while. That's exceptional. That is not something that perhaps you think of when you think of jobs. But feeding the state of Connecticut does mean jobs all the way down the line.
We also look at this, and one of the things that I found most exciting, that I think most of you probably raised an eyebrow and said it's about time, is we're going to attack the computer portal that gets people into the State of Connecticut. We're going to go after it and we're going to streamline it so people can actually find it far more friendly as they get into the information and technology portal.
We want to make it easier for the businesses to work with the State. And they're going to put a million dollars in bonding to be able to clean that up. With the companies we have in this state, Mr. Speaker, we should be able to fix that and make it one of the top in the country.
One of the other pieces that we find most interesting in this is those of us that have been elbow to elbow with our neighbors who have the small businesses, who have the dry cleaners, who have the small businesses that are ready to expand and they've been held back because they cannot get the money, but you know, the state funding that they would like to apply for has always had too high of a threshold.
Some of these business don't want a hundred thousand dollars. They only need $ 25,000. They only need $ 38,000 to be able to do the expansion that they need that can bring in 10, 20 employees. And what we've done in this particular bill is made that much more accessible, reducing the angel investment threshold from hundred thousand dollars down to 25. And that will allow so many more businesses to participate and be able to expand the jobs.
I'd like to thank everyone that worked so hard on this in a bipartisan way. There was give and take on both sides. And Mr. Speaker, I see this as the beginning. I see this as the stepping stone for what we're going to start in February.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative McCrory of the 7th.
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a quick question to my colleague, and a comment first. And somewhere in that comment, there is probably going to be question.
I'm noticing -- I'm looking at the section of the bill, the -- the brownfield legislation, and it seems as though it is following the federal initiative, brownfield initiative, which basically went into disenfranchised communities. It was sort of like the marshal plan for disenfranchised communities throughout the state of Connecticut.
And the federal plan was to put those individuals who have been chronically unemployed, underemployed, or who have not been able to find work, back to work in those communities, i. e. , a marshal plan for urban communities. And I'm noticing that the legislation that we have in front of us is quite similar to the federal initiative.
So I guess my question or comment would be, as I read the legislation, it's targeting areas where there's an unemployment rate of higher than 9 percent, is targeting communities with a population of over 80,000 people. It will have the infrastructure and transportation in economically viable areas.
I guess my question or comment to my colleague is, is this the opportunity the State of Connecticut has taken upon itself to actually put people in those communities back to work?
That's my first question. Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you. Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good Representative.
That is, in fact, an affirmative, a strong affirmative, yes, that -- that this will help to do that. It will also, through you, to expand on that, help in the workforce training component for those individuals to actually be able to do remediation work and to gain encumbered training to be able step themselves up and have a job.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, another comment --
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative McCrory.
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Oh, I'm sorry. I'm glad you mentioned the workforce training. The conversations I've been having for -- on my constituents is they have been getting a great deal of training through workforce investment boards and that nature, however they have not been successful in finding employment, although they have been having the training, and they have the qualifications, they have skills.
So, I guess, again, if we're going to look at putting people back to work in those communities, therefore, we have to make it mandate that we are actually looking to employ those people in that communities. Because what -- the worst thing I would like to see is we come in here with a plan to -- to improve the infrastructure of the communities, but yet, the people in those communities are not working.
So again, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there anything in this legislation that actually says that we are targeting those people who live in those communities, we're going to do something about those people who live in those communities to put them back to work? Because if we don't, if we just let it open to everyone, then what we have is what we continue to have.
So I guess, to me, again, through you, Mr. Speaker, is I'm looking for something to say that we are targeting those individuals who have been chronically unemployed, who have been unemployed, chronically unemployed, who live in those communities, this is an opportunity for employment for them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker that is affirmative. Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative McCrory, are you finished then?
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad we got that out there for legislation intent. The last piece of (inaudible) question I will ask, we talked about this earlier, is the revolving loan, the revolving loan fund.
Will those companies, i. e. , whether they are nonprofit or quasi-private public organization be able to access these capitals so they can put the money into the small -- small businesses and communities throughout the state of Connecticut.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly nothing will change in that regards. That the loans will be disseminated through quasi-governmentals and nonprofits, because they are the individuals that will know, within their own communities, the locations and needs within those individual communities outside of the umbrella of DECD.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative McCrory.
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And finally, my question -- my last comment will be, so what we learn today is this an opportunity that we have with this piece of legislation, specifically the brownfield initiative, is to put people to work.
My last question is, who's going to monitor this process and make sure those people in that communities are going to be doing the work?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Economic and Community Development, through its office of brownfield remediation and development, OBRD, will monitor both this program, First Five for brownfield and existing municipal grant programs for brownfield remediation.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative McCrory.
REP. McCRORY (7th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the State of Connecticut is off to a great start in employing people and bringing jobs to -- to our wonderful state. And I look forward, as we move forward, in this piece of legislation this session.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Coutu of the 47th.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to be here today to discuss the creation of jobs. As you know, I've always stressed that government does not create jobs. We provide an environment for companies to prosper and hire new employees.
And as we look at the State of Connecticut, we've had a great opportunity to meet many businesses in the past few weeks and months. We actually had 50, 60 businesses come to Hartford. And I'll always remember the baker who just said, get out of my way. I don't need government. I just need government to take their foot off of my throat. He was very aggressive and very frustrated with the concept that government knows best how to run his bakery, or that maybe we know best how to create jobs.
And, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we raised close to $ 2 billion in annual new taxes this year at the state and local levels. And now we are not going to do something to spend, looks like the newest estimate, $ 700 million through the course of this piece of legislation with interest, $ 1. 1 billion.
So, I guess, for the 50 60 businessmen who came here and said just about everything but spend more money and raise our taxes, today I'm going to speak for them.
I also had the opportunity to go travel around my district and talk to other business owners. And the message that resonated was along the same lines. They also brought up things like unemployment tax, the new surcharge that's really hurting their business. Or the fact that many people, unemployment; they don't like the process of how it's appealed, and those who get granted unemployment for 99 weeks. I know that's not addressed in here. But there is quite a few things that I must compliment our leadership for addressing.
One, the business entity tax. I think that is extremely important for small businesses, people that have one, two employees, up to ten, 15 employees to know at the beginning of the year they will not get a Christmas gift, which is a $ 200 -- $ 250 invoice from the State of Connecticut, as their New Year's Day gift. It will now be every other year. And we all remember that piece of legislation started where it would be a temporary tax. But unfortunately, it looks like it will continue, but at least it will be every other year.
I think tax credits for job creation, this is, in most parts, a tax break. I think it's good. And I know some of this has started with the Commerce Committee, so I commend their leadership with that. Streamline the permit process, I believe we started this last year with Governor Rell -- legislation -- but this is taking it to another level.
I think this is critical for the future of our state to streamline the process. We all know, time and time again, businesses around the State tell us, DEP, DSS, multiple agencies, it's not working, and they're waiting six months.
And with that, through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Representative Berger.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Relating to streamline the permit process, on here, and in our meeting with many business owners we had one gentleman with buses complain the process. I've also received a lot of calls from taxi companies, and they're going through pretty much the same problems relating to the -- the process to get their employees licensed. And I just was curious, would this also benefit them?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good Representative, it is -- it is the intent, through DECD, to help with that process, and it is currently the intent of an ongoing program through DOT, the Department of Transportation, to expedite the process that the good Representative has cited in his example.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Coutu.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that answer. Because I know I've had multiple taxicab companies contact me and have much concern over hiring new employees and the process it takes to get them, basically, to complete the application and get them to drive and provide services. And that's, in my view, an area where we can instantly have hundreds of new jobs in the State of Connecticut.
And the best thing about streamlining the permit process, for the most part, this is going to cost Connecticut taxpayers nothing. We may hire somebody, 500,000 to help us with LEAN management and other creative principles, but the bottom line is that a solution that I think we need to focus on the future.
When we come in here and we say it's a jobs package and jobs creation package, in my view, it ends up becoming a spending package. When we're looking at $ 1. 1 billion overall, today it could be up to a billion and a half dollars. I don't think anybody expected we're going to create jobs by spending a billion and a half dollars today, but that's what it's come to.
I also like the area of brownfields. I think that's always important for many of our communities, including the city of Norwich and the town of Sprague. So I appreciate the initiative to push forward and repair some of the old manufacturing facilities and the brownfields that they have, to create -- or at least facilitate an environment to create jobs.
One that really stands out to me, and that I was extremely impressed with, is Connecticut Innovation's. I think just like the soldiers, sailors marine fund, these are funds that a quasi-government agency has basically complete ownership of, and it lasts for decades. And it seems the multiplier effect is huge. We don't have to generate any more money or give them any more money, but they find ways to get entrepreneurs to take action to be creative, create jobs, and the money doesn't disappear. It stays in the fund. And through loans, they generate more jobs and more entrepreneurship. So I'm extremely supportive of that.
The one area which I have extreme caution with is the extension of any program, First Five. I think we're now First Five plus two. Because if you add Jackson labs, if you add busway to somewhere, and a few other things, we -- the First Five, to me, is a nice marketing pitch, but I don't understand how we can give authority for another $ 300 million and really have reassurance, one, that the businesses will be coming from out of state, because that was somewhat the original concept behind it. And what we're witnessing is, at the end of the day, that's not what's happening.
We have a mix of great companies in Connecticut who are getting 50, 30, 40 million, and we have other companies outside Connecticut, one or two out of the five, that are coming here because they're getting some incentive. And my overall concern with that philosophy is, when you raise billions of new taxes on companies like Yardney, Cargill, and dozens of other companies across the State of Connecticut, including Pfizer, that are leaving to Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York City, the question is why are we raising taxes on our employers, our companies in Connecticut, and then giving it to five, ten, 15 companies that basically say, to stay in business in Connecticut, we need a lot of money. Or to come to Connecticut, like Jackson Laboratory, we need 300 million, after interest, 500 million. I don't get it.
So, for that reason, I can't support this piece of legislation. I just think, fundamentally, we have to come up with ways to stop spending taxpayers' money. And to do that, there's other solutions, like streamlining the permit process. But I don't know if we should be spending $ 1. 1 billion today to, quote, unquote, create jobs. Because at the end of the day, government does not create jobs, businesses do, and people do.
So thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Walker, of the 93rd District, you have the floor, ma'am.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, a few questions to the good gentleman from Waterbury, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, ma'am.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Representative Berger, in this bill, there are a number of new initiatives that are going on that I think are going to be done by Department of Economic and Community Development.
Can you explain to me a little bit, just a little bit, Small Business Express Program and the Step-up Program? Who will be overseeing that program?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Those through the Small Business Express Program will be authorized through DECD. Workforce development and job training components could potentially be under the -- under the cognizance of the Department of Labor.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank the good gentleman for his -- his answer.
On the subsidized training and the employment program and the Step Program, am I correct to understand that that will be managed by the Department of Labor?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The Step Program will be through the Department of Labor. The small business will also include the Department of Labor.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
I thank the good gentleman for his answer.
On the job expansion credit program, who will be overseeing that program?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Job expansion tax credits would be funneled through DECD, the commissioner of DECD.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you.
And through you, Mr. Speaker, the manufacturing and reinvestment accounts that are going to be established, who will be overseeing that?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
There will be no change in the Manufacturers Assistance Act. That is -- that is funneled through DECD in -- under an existing program. This is an expansion.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
I thank the good gentleman for his answer.
And I guess I heard, also, through the other people that spoke today, the brownfields will be overseen by the Department of Economic -- DECD.
Is that correct, sir?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. Through the office of brownfield remediation and development.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Yes. And the DECD portal, can you just give me an idea of who will be managing that and overseeing that?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good Representative from New Haven. That will be -- the business portal will be -- will be monitored and initiated by DECD in conjunction with the Secretary of State's office, would be -- which could be a initial point of entry for that business.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you. And I thank the good gentleman for his answers on those.
I think the -- the thing that I'm really interested in is the expansion of the agency of the Department of Economic Development -- community development, because it is going -- it's growing by leaps and bounds in this -- this particular piece of legislation.
And, I guess, my question -- my next question is, through you, Mr. Speaker, does the good gentleman know how many people are -- work in the Department of Economic and Community Development?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. I -- I don't have the exact number for the good Representative, but they apparently are up to the challenge that's going to be ahead of them.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you. I guess it was kind of unfair. I should have just stated, since I do know as the Appropriations chair, I do know that there are about 88 people right now that are working in the Department of Economic and Community Development, which makes me very concerned because we have a lot of initiatives here and a lot of things that we're going to be expanding in this agency.
The agency has many, many things that -- that are very important and are really focused. And I think the State of Connecticut is -- if we have the manpower to do it, can really, really improve and grow. But my concern is, if we are interested in all of these aspects of this bill, how are we going to do it, in all honesty, if we have such a small staff? And are we really planning on doing all of these items in this bill so that we do it to the best of our desire? That's where -- one of my questions.
I have another question to the good gentleman from Waterbury. Also, DECD has some recommendations for the vo-tech rule in the workforce. Can you explain to me a little bit about what that package is or what that component is in the bill, sir?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is a component in there to -- to establish a program similar to Asnuntuck in our vo-tech system. We need to -- it is the desire, certainly, of DECD and the commissioner, in the language incorporated within the bill, to mirror that program, to also have some synergy between our educational process in the vo-tech system and the reach out to the community of manufacturers, either metal stampers, tool and die, precision manufacturers, and how we educate within the vo-tech system. And that may include the teaching of classes and/or machinery to be included in that ramped up educational vo-tech process.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you.
I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think that is one of the most important parts of this whole bill. I had the opportunity, just last week, to go out with the Governor to one of the businesses in New Haven. And one of the things that the owner said, in his manufacturing plant, is that if you could just get more people with skills. And the thing that was very interesting was that he said just have them pass geometry. Just have them pass a few math courses, and I'll hire them right now.
And so I think that the idea of focusing on a lot of our community and vo-tech programs should be a major focus in -- in this bill. But I guess the question that I also ask in this whole bill, we only have 88 people in this Department of Economic Development, community development in their agency. And here, we have several programs that seem to be mirroring programs that are already in existence in our Department of Labor.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, I'd like to know, are we going to be doing duplicate programs in Department of Labor and Department of Community and Economic Development that are going to be dealing with the same basis?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not certainly believe it's the intent of duplication. I think the body of the language of the bill, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Representative, tries to dwell on efficiency and effectiveness within department and agencies.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
I thank -- thank the good gentleman for that answer. That was a good answer. I'm sure the intent is not to ever duplicate. But yet, as I go through here, I see some duplication of -- of components of the agencies. And I am very concerned about that because we do already have these things existing. We do not need to recreate them in other agencies. We need to stay true to the course of what we define our agencies to be. So when we do go forward with this, I hope that all of us are very mindful of watching and making sure that that is not going to happen.
I -- I struggle with the bill, and I know people have talked about this already. But coming from my neighborhood that has 14 percent unemployment in many neighborhoods, sometimes higher than that, I need to see where am I going to go to be able to go back to my district and say that this is going to help them.
I looked through many of the sections of the bill, and I looked at some of the -- the things that we are talking about helping the businesses. I agree we must help the businesses. And I agree that doing some of the things that we talk about in the bill are going to do that. But I don't see anything that's directly addressing our unemployment.
I see the Step Program. But when I looked at the Step Program, and I looked at some of the guidelines of the Step Program, one of the things is the maximum amount a person can be paid under the Step Program is $ 20 an hour. Now, I understand that, you know, as many have said here, that we're not here to buy jobs or pay for jobs. Government is here to assist businesses. But if we are going to go about trying to help subsidize employment for people that are in the middle-class neighborhoods that are unemployed, who have been 99 -- who've reached that maximum of unemployment, we've got to make sure that we are addressing them.
And looking at $ 20 an hour jobs, I understand many people say that's a great job, but it is below the median income in the State of Connecticut. And many of the families in the neighborhoods, like Manchester and some of the suburbs around Hartford, are struggling with that right now. I'm not just talking about my neighborhood. I'm talking about many other neighborhoods where people were engineers, or other positions that required a much higher -- called for a much higher per hour rate. So when we look at these step programs -- and it's only six months.
So, I guess, my question to the proponent of the bill, have we done other subsidized programs in the State of Connecticut, and how have we fared in those programs?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly, I can answer in the context of what we have before us here today. I am not familiar with the Department of Labor programs. I am, however, somewhat familiar with workforce development training programs that encumber worker trainings which have been very effective under existing programs outside of the structure of what is entailed in the bill before us today. That they have been successful in -- in, certainly, training the -- the chronic unemployed, the unemployed, our veterans and disabled.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Walker.
REP. WALKER (93rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the good gentleman for -- for his answer. And I -- I understand that this is this -- the bill before us calls for this, but we are heading down that road. And I do know that this -- the format that we have before us was sort of duplicated from the Mississippi model that provided this.
And Lord knows, we need to address how do we help the people that are unemployed and have been -- reached their maximum? But the question I have is, will this work, how are we going to make sure it works, and what are we going to do, at what point, when we find out it's not working? Are we going to say, well, we tried it and we walked away? Where are the stop gaps? And then who is monitoring it?
So, I guess, I want to say that I want to support this bill in every way, shape or fashion. But I want to support a bill that I know is going to help, not just some people in Farmington or some people in Avon, but I want to get a bill that's going to address the unemployment and the low opportunities for employment in all neighborhoods of Connecticut.
We can't just advocate for one location; we have to advocate for all. Because when one neighborhood goes down, it affects all of us. It's not just my neighborhood. It's not just his neighborhood. It's all of our neighborhoods. And when we look at this bill, it seems that we are focusing on one basic industry or two, two basic industries, and we are also focusing on corporations much more than we are for the people that are working and the people that come to support us at the election time.
So I ask my friends to look at this carefully and say what are we doing and are we truly addressing unemployment in the State of Connecticut with this bill?
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, madam.
Representative Berger of the 73rd.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For the purposes of an amendment, Mr. Speaker, I rise.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO Number 8973. I ask that he call and I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Will the Clerk please call the Amendment 8973.
THE CLERK:
LCO Number 8973, House "A," offered by Representatives Donovan, Senator Williams, Representative Cafero, Senator McKinney.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
The representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection?
Hearing none, Representative Berger, you may proceed with summarization.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The amendment will deal with Section 17, which is the section that deals with natural disaster. The clarifying amendment will add -- will add language that states that each municipality may also exempt certain single-family residential structures from obtaining coastal site plan review that would normally be required for such reconstruction.
The second portion of the amendment, LCO Number 873, will make a maximum grant to municipalities in the amount of $ 500,000.
I move its passage.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
The question before the Chamber is the adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A. " Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment?
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know this is a bipartisan bill and this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It was done because of time. The original draft had some errors in it, as the chairman indicated, and this hopes to correct those. It's been fully vetted by all caucuses and agreed to.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Will anybody else remark on the amendment? Any further remarks on the amendment?
Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying, aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
All those opposed, nay.
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.
Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further?
Representative Mushinsky of the 85th.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This bill, 6811, is a group effort, and a lot of job creation ideas are packed into this one bill. I do note that it does include several recommendations of several program review and investigation reports over the past several years. For example, better use of state aid for replacing inefficient furnaces and boilers is in there, workforce development programs at community colleges and regional vo-tech schools, and continuing to align academic degrees and workforce needs. And this helps everybody from the deli owner who cannot find a worker that can do math, to a -- to the steel plant that needs industrial engineers and can't fill those positions.
PRI has recommended business assistance package be accessible through a user-friendly electronic portal in our E-government report. We also recommended improving the speed and predictability of permits that involve more than one agency. Those seem to be the ones that have the most delay. Expanded use of angel investment tax credits and consolidated tax credits to target job creation more carefully.
So I thank Governor Malloy and the bipartisan leadership in the Legislature for including all these concepts in the bill and Representative Berger, as well, for supporting them. And on a personal level, I'm happy that the $ 250 business entity tax won't be collected again and it will be good for two years. This was a personal request from many small businesses in my town, and I'm happy to support this bipartisan bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Betts of the 78th.
REP. BETTS (78th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support this bill for many reasons. And one of the things I'm most pleased about is that it was done in a very bipartisan fashion. And that was what I really came here, when I was elected in January, to hope to accomplish, is to try and set a new mindset in which people would work together to accomplish something. And clearly, this document does just that.
If I could, through you, Mr. Speaker, I just have a question or two for the proponent of the bill, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. BETTS (78th):
And I correct in understanding that there's going to be $ 10 million set aside for two years to expand manufacturing technology for three community colleges, and $ 10 million for three vo-tech schools?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Betts.
REP. BETTS (78th):
Thank you very much.
And through you, Mr. Speaker, do we know what the criteria is going to be -- excuse me -- do we know what the criteria is going to be in the selection of those three colleges and three vo-tech schools?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The thought pattern is, again, to -- to mirror the vo-tech off of Asnuntuck and the process that they evolved through in the manufacturing, linking the manufacturing community with the on-hands teaching of manufacturing within the vo-tech system.
There will also be a process of application for the community colleges to apply for -- for entry into the program, to be able to mirror that model linking manufacturers and the manufacturing community, both in innovative manufacturing, tool and die, and stamping, et cetera, to incorporate their knowledge and expertise into the working group with -- located within the community college and setting curriculum agenda and equipment needs and wants for the educational benefit of those students.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Betts.
REP. BETTS (78th):
Thank you very much for that answer.
And I -- the last question is, do we have any kind of a sense of a timetable as to when this is going to be selected for these colleges and vo-tech schools?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It's certainly the intent of the legislation, upon passage, in both -- both the House and the Senate, and once it is signed into law, to begin the process of establishing that process for those community vo-techs and community colleges, to both apply, and then to achieve the goals enumerated within the concept of the bill and through the Asnuntuck model.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Betts.
REP. BETTS (78th):
Thank you very much. And I certainly appreciate the chairman's work on this. I know many of us have gone to visit our manufacturers and companies throughout the state. Central Connecticut is certainly well known for its manufacturing. And I think manufacturing has a real opportunity to come back very, very strong. And it would be nice to restore that reputation in Connecticut.
Certainly, speaking on behalf of my district in Bristol and Plymouth and Terryville, we really hope that there would be serious consideration given to Tunxis Community College and Bristol Technical Education Center, because we do have a lot of manufacturers that work with them, and it would be a very quick and easy smooth transition and fit.
I also would like to just congratulate everybody on helping the small businesses dealing with the business entity tax. We've all heard how much of a difference that makes to everybody, and I'm very pleased to see this take place in this legislation.
But, again, I want to congratulate the Governor and everybody for working together. I hope we can continue to do that in other bills, because that's really what the public needs and expects from us.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Kirkley-Bey of the 5th.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY (5th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Legislator from Waterbury, the fine gentlemen. I'd like to ask him if he knows if the minority quotas on construction and the purchasing of goods will be adhered to in this project.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Within the context of the bill, and of a future bill, which we're going to hear in reference to Jackson Labs, the negotiation of -- of the contracts, the workforce pool, and the potential for a set-aside is all a negotiable portion within the final contract phase within the entities that may interact with that contract, either through what we do here today, or what we are going to do shortly later on in the evening.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kirkley-Bey.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY (5th):
The reason that I ask is when we built Adrian's Landing, we did a 10 million carveout for nonunion minority contractors. And I was hoping that something akin to that would be done for this because there are a lot of nonunion minority contractors. And when you say that they'll be using the funnel, are you talking about the construction job funnels and the workforce boards, the five workforce boards that are in the state?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It is certainly the intent to look at all of the programs that are currently available so we can return those that are unemployed, and certainly within our inner cities, to the employment rolls, either through incumbent worker training or through new worker initiatives implemented in what we do here today.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Kirkley-Bey.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY (5th):
The individuals that have gone through the construction jobs funnel are already certified for given trades and they have their union cards. So that's why I was offering that suggestion.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Gonzales of the 3rd.
REP. GONZALEZ (3rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise in support of this bill, but with a lot of concern. There is no question that Connecticut needs more investment to create jobs. This bill has a number of ways in which the Connecticut economy can improve, yet it does.
But what concerns me is that this bill does not do enough for creating job in the places that we need it the most, our urban centers, our city, the very places where the highest unemployment rates in the states.
Just this past week, we saw one more study where the city of Hartford is number one in the country for Latino unemployment. I believe it's 26 percent. Our capital city has a Latino rate of unemployment higher than anywhere else in the country. What is this bill doing to creating jobs in places like Hartford, New Haven, Waterbury? Not enough.
What is this bill doing for the small business owners in our urban areas? Not enough. And what about the fact that many of this small business cannot afford health insurance for themselves, nevermind for new employees. What does this bill do for them? Nothing.
Mr. Speaker, Connecticut has not seen the growth in jobs for 20 years. We need to start somewhere to reverse that trend or to create jobs. What is -- that is why I'll be voting for this bill. This is a bill that puts you in a corner -- and express my French -- damned if you do, damned if you don't.
But I, as well as many of my colleagues, will be watching and holding this administration accountable for the creation of -- in our cities.
And I also got a question for the proponent of the bill. I would like to know how many jobs are expected to achieve with this legislation?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Please proceed.
Oh, Representative Berger, I'm sorry.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't have a quantitative number of the exact target of -- of employees in this particular bill. However, in the bill that's soon to come before us, there is some REMI model calculations on unemployment for the bill later on.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, what's predicated in this bill is a lot of new initiatives that are maybe untested and that expand upon existing programs. So it's certainly the intent to dig into -- certainly our 9 percent or 8. 9 percent unemployment by what we do here today, both in our urban centers and in our suburbs.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Gonzales.
REP. GONZALEZ (3rd):
Thank you.
Today, earlier I asked this question about what is going -- is going to happen, and what this bill is going to bring to our community. Because I believe that my constituents, my neighborhood, they don't benefit over this.
And I see a lot of people from this room, you know, rolling their eyes. Well, I want to be very clear. I am elected by a Latino district. I believe that I have, maybe, 65, maybe, 67 percent. I respond to them. So that's what I'm here for, to ask questions. And I feel like sometimes you can ask those questions because it's -- maybe some people they get upset because -- ask questions about what this is going to do for the Latinos in my community. Well, as long as I'm here, I'm going to keep asking questions.
Now, another -- another questions -- another question that I have for the proponent of the bill, who is going to monitor this -- this legislation, and who is going to be connecting this job with the people?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. To the good Representative from Hartford and, certainly, I would probably need to answer that in a general sense. But we have the commissioner of DECD and, obviously, deputy commissioners, we have the Department of Labor, we have the Department of Energy, Environment and Protection, DEEP, and the commissioner and subordinates and deputy commissioners there, and certainly the Legislature.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Gonzales.
REP. GONZALEZ (3rd):
Thank you, again. And, again, I'll be voting for this, even though that I do have a lot of concerns. But again, we're going to be watching and holding this administration accountable for jobs in our city.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Perone of the 137th.
REP. PERONE (137th):
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to extend my support for this bill. I think this is not only a long time in coming, and a product of a lot of discussions and a lot of research, but it's also, to my -- to my mind, an important step in the right direction for the -- the entire Legislature, in -- in the sense that there was so much combined work, both sides of the aisle, to make this happen that it's an exciting step.
But I do want to address, just briefly, the -- how I can imagine this -- this bill improving our -- our state's economy. When we've got such a diverse workforce that we have, invariably, you have a division of labor. The, you know, the auto mechanic needs -- needs to buy food. The dry cleaners need other services for their -- for their own existence.
And, I think, when you create activity like this in an economy like ours, that is not only half -- half dependent on, you know, what happens on a national level, but really dependent on what's -- how -- how creative we can be, I think that this -- this bill makes a real impact. Because we are really trying to create not only a more innovative economy but -- by improving our -- our brownfield and are permitting regulations, we're trying to promote growth. We're trying to promote economic activity that has -- that -- that radiates across many different sectors in our economy.
So it is with that that I'm just very proud to support this bill. And I would also like to, again, just take my hats off to, not only Representative Berger, but also the Governor for pushing this through.
Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Holder-Winfield of the 94th.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to vote for this bill. I think probably all of us will. I have a couple of questions and some concerns to register. So I think this bill is a good bill. But I also know that Connecticut is a state with the demographics that are changing and that, to Representative Gonzales' point, we need to be very considerate of the fact that the Latino population is ever expanding, and in short order, will be a major part of our workforce.
Having said that, we know that unemployment in our community is in a place where we don't want it to be. We know that education in that community is not where we want it to be. And if we're going to talk about fiscal responsibility, creating jobs, and all of the things that we talk about here, that community should be a part of it.
And this bill does some stuff that we would like to see there, but I don't think it goes far enough. I think the efforts are efforts that one should applaud, but again, I don't think they go far enough.
I want to ask a couple of questions about the Step Program, and say one -- one other thing about the efforts to deal with this demographic shift. I think that, at the point where we deal with that shift, and deal with the fact that this unemployment rate that we talk about of 9 percent, is -- at least in the Hispanic and black communities in Connecticut -- what we would think of as a good day, when we deal with that issue, then we will do something that is truly of substance.
My question about the Step Program is, if I'm looking at it, I don't know, and maybe this was answered earlier, but if you could just indulge me, why one of the provisions is that the small business have no more than 50 full-time employees at least 50 percent. If that could be answered, I would appreciate it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
And I'm assuming this is to Representative Berger?
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Absolutely.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Okay. Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The thought pattern on the 50 employees and less was the target of the idea of small business, which 50 or fewer employees in the State -- businesses make up 85 to 89 percent of the businesses in the State of Connecticut. It was a target that would reach our biggest field.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I guess I'll just ask this back. If we changed that number to include more people, wouldn't we also include the 50 and below?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The idea is 50 employees or fewer.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Okay. Mr. Speaker. I'll move on.
The part of the bill where we talk about the number of months of employment and the decrease in the subsidy, the end of the number of months is six. First, why did we come up with the number six for the number of months?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
In mirroring similar programs that were successful, and through negotiation through the various caucuses, the determination was to cover the first six months of his or her employment under the program that will be administered by DOL.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And, through you, Mr. Speaker. And in those successful programs, did they have a similar decrease in the funding, through you, over the course of time, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that that is correct, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
And again, through you, Mr. Speaker.
And as the funding decreased, I'm assuming then, since they were successful, that retention remained -- remained constant?
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It's the intent, certainly, what we do here today in this legislation to have a permanent employment status beyond six or 12 months for those individuals that may enter into this and will be financed under the first six months.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Just to clarify, because I'm not sure my question was understood, at least how I intended to ask it. So, at the end of -- at the end of last month, for instance, if you look on the summary of the bill where it talks about six months, and it says it's 25 percent state subsidy, I assume that's maximum. So, if we're talking about a maximum, initially, of a hundred percent being $ 20, if we're talking 25 percent, you're talking about $ 5 subsidy.
My question is, when you get to a place where you're doing a $ 5 subsidy, is there -- do all of the people who are in successful programs remain in the program? Not -- not subsequent to that. I understand that we would want to have employment continue beyond that, but I'm just talking about within the parameters of the program.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Berger.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Representative Holder-Winfield.
REP. HOLDER-WINFIELD (94th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Ackert of the 8th District.
REP. ACKERT (8th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a couple of comments. I'd like to also thank our leadership and for Representative Berger on the presentation today.
As a small-business owner, I support sensible investing in our businesses, and I believe that's what this bill does, or starts to do. I believe it fosters a positive business climate in thinking that we're thinking about businesses rather than taxing them and mandating them and applying additional fees. But I also want us to remain focused on this commitment, now and going into February.
As I met with businesses, they weren't looking to have a loan or a grant or a handout. What they were looking to get is customers. People that had the dollars to use their services, to build a new home, or to start up a business.
So, I think we need to keep that in mind, as we go forward with legislation, because consumer confidence will build business confidence. If consumers feel as though they have discretionary funds to start a business, to hire people, to buy their regular goods, and not be concerned that we will impose an additional fee, tax or mandate, then I think that that will go a long way in -- in supporting this legislation today.
So I want to leave it that I am in support of this, and I look forward to further efforts on our behalf to build that confidence in consumer and in businesses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER RYAN:
Thank you. Thank you, sir.
Representative Janowski of the 56th.
Representative -- Minority Leader Cafero of the 142nd.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Chamber, I want to apologize in advance for my voice. I suffer from allergies and my voice is a little strained right now so it might sound a little funny. In fact, my doctor said you've got to not talk.
Go ahead. You could clap. Because it ain't going to happen, that's what I told him.
One brief shining moment, or maybe a new chapter in the way we do business in this Chamber, and that's what I think this bill represents. You know, we all, after being called into session by the Governor, knew we had a job to do. We knew what the issues were that were facing us.
We saw our neighbors and our relatives and our friends hurting out there, without jobs, with businesses that were not expanding, or near closure. And we listened, many people have indicated.
The Governor did his jobs tour. Senate Republicans did their tour. Democrats did their tour. We spoke to our folk. We had a small-business forum here. And we heard what they said. And let's face it. We know that there are two political parties here and there's different philosophies, all well meaning, but different.
There are some that believe that government can help more and more. And the more government we have, the more we can help. There's some that believe that government helps too much, and that maybe we should stay out of some things we don't belong in. But I think together we believe that what we need to do is put partisan politics aside and get together and help some people.
Now, we believe with all our hearts, like what is now a cliche, that government does not create jobs, that people do. But there is a role for government to change the environment to encourage and stimulate folks to create jobs.
In one of the Q and As that we heard earlier, I heard a question saying, will this bill put people back to work? Will the action that government, this Legislature, takes put people back to work? Unfortunately, no.
We can't hire and create jobs ourselves. But we can try our best to create an environment that encourages people to do so. And what were some of the things that we heard while we were out there? And we all heard them, whether it was an official tour, or just getting a cup of coffee at the local deli.
You've heard people say, first of all, you've got to change the culture in Connecticut. When we, as business, interact with the state government, please change the culture. We don't want to have an adversarial relationship with the State. We want to be partners with the State. So instead of saying, no, you can't do that. No, you can't do that. You will not get your permit. You'll have to wait for your license. We're not giving you this. You're in violation of that. Can you say, how can we help? How can we overcome obstacles together? That's what we heard.
We heard from a lot of small businesses saying, listen, I understand the allure and the attraction and the sexiness of going for big, big companies. That has to happen. But don't forget us. Don't forget us. We represent 80 percent of the job creators. Yeah, we're small mom-and-pops. Maybe we have four people or five people, but there's thousands of us.
And if you could incent us, or create an environment where each of us could just hire one more person, we're talking about thousands and thousands of jobs.
We heard them say, you know, we're in a dilemma, certainly, in these tough economic times. I heard from manufacturers who said, you know, you hear so much talk about high-tech manufacturing. And they said, I don't want any of you to believe that there's some simple, basic, old-fashioned manufacturing that's going around in the State and it's good, decent work. We pay good, decent wages, and there's a lot more of them than you think. But right now, we have to train people to, maybe, make the widget or the tool and die maker, spring maker, or whatever. And if we pay that person while we're training them, they're not being productive, and we can't afford to do that.
So it's this vicious cycle. So if you're going to help us, help us a little bit. Maybe you could give us a jump start and help us pay our employer -- employee while we're training him or her, so that when that's over we could create that job and hire that person immediately and they can hit the ground running. That's what we need.
If we go to apply for a permit or a license, for God sakes, don't make us wait three and four and five months. If it was quicker, we could create more jobs. They also said, especially the manufacturing, can you do something about the image out there, the image for young people who believe that they're only goal when they go to public school is to prepare for college.
And as you and I both know, there's a lot of people out there that just don't care to go to college. Maybe they want a trade. Maybe they want to get into manufacturing. Maybe they want to be a plumber or an electrician and earn a good, decent living. But we don't even market that. We don't encourage it enough, they said.
Talk to our young people in this fifth and sixth grade, change their mindset about manufacturing. Bolster our technical schools and our community colleges so that we can show to the world there is another alternative then just going to get a college degree. Those were the things we heard.
Now, in this bill, we do a lot of things. Is it the silver bullet? Does in and of itself reinvent Connecticut? No. It doesn't. It does not. But today, on October 26, 2011, for this one day at least, four caucuses of the legislative branch, two parties, two chambers, two branches of government with the executive branch and our Governor got together for a series of weeks, put in hundreds and hundreds of hours, sleeves rolled up, pads out, ideas flying across the table, and we came up with what's before you. It's not a perfect bill, but it's a start. And I can't emphasize enough that it is a start.
Now, at the beginning, I also said that the two different parties have different philosophies. And with regard to this side of the aisle, we believe that there's a lot more than is contained in this bill that will help or encourage growth of business and creation of jobs in the State of Connecticut.
Certainly, our tax structure is one thing we believe that could be a hindrance, an obstacle and a destroyer of jobs. Our overregulation. And we have fought in the past, as you all know, and we vow to fight in the future, to change those things.
But today, today we put that aside to say what can we do together, in a small way, that's going to make the little piece of the world, the State of Connecticut, the place we live, a little better?
Ladies and gentlemen, almost as important as the substance of the bill was the process by which this bill is before us. I touched upon it earlier in my remarks, but I can't emphasize it enough. When people put aside partisan rhetoric, when they roll up their sleeves and have a common goal, you can do something good. You can do something good.
When I looked and -- and stood meetings with my colleagues, the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader, President Pro Tem of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Governor and his staff, my colleague, Senator McKinney, who is a Republican Leader of the Senate, and saw a very, very energetic exchange of ideas -- yeah. There was some yelling and screaming, and some people had to swallow things they didn't like, and other people had to swallow things, but that's compromise.
It's a mess sometimes, but it can be a beautiful mess. Because at the end, the public knows that we all work together to do something good, and that's what's before us.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was a start of a new chapter of the way we dealt with each other, the way we governed, the way we responded to our constituencies with regard to the way we handle problems? Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing?
Needless to say, I am a supportive of this bill. I'm proud of this bill. I'm proud of the process that took place to create this bill. But here's our biggest challenge, both substantively and procedurally. Our biggest challenge is will our effort with regard to creating jobs just be this one brief shining moment or will it be a commitment on the part of all of us, as we move forward, to help the people we represent in the state we live in and love, be a little better?
And from the process perspective, will this bipartisan effort, the meetings, the exchange of ideas, the respect, the listening to each other, the give and take, will it be one brief shining moment or will it be a new day as the way we deal with each other in the future? The only people that can answer that question are in this room.
So with regard to this bill, it is cause to be proud. We did something good. We got a lot more to do. The Legislature takes action by passing the initiatives in this bill. And as the Governor will be the first to admit, it then falls on him and the executive branch to execute. And all of us here and throughout the State are counting on that to happen.
So let's not overstate what we're doing today, but certainly let's not understate what we're doing today. And let's make sure what we did today is not one brief shining moment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
(Speaker Donovan in the Chair. )
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Representative Brendan Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You know, I think a little bit of context is probably in order. We've had a very busy year this year. It was only, what -- now, ten months or so ago when we started our session, our regular session at the beginning of this year, and the state was facing a three and a half billion dollar budget deficit that we had to face.
And after spending the better part of the winter and spring putting together a budget that some liked and some didn't, the bottom line was we created a balanced budget. And, knock wood, so far that budget is holding together.
When we completed that debate over the budget, I made a comment here on this floor that I felt that we were turning a corner. What I meant was that we were turning a corner in terms of trying to get ourselves beyond the immediate crisis that was facing our State, a fiscal crisis, in terms of trying to put ourselves back in balance as a government.
And as I say, we might -- some of us here in this room, on either side of the aisle, may have disagreed with certain aspects of how that plan was done, but the reality was we did create that balanced budget, and we did turn that corner.
And so, our -- at least for the time being, and hopefully for the future, our fiscal house is back in order. We turned that corner. And while we were doing that, we all knew that the other job that we had to complete, the job that was facing us around that first corner was job creation. We knew because we were hearing it from our constituents, our constituents who are out of work, our constituents who own small businesses, our constituents who asked all those questions of us that the Minority Leader referred to. We all heard those things.
We heard the need for making Connecticut a better place to do business, a friendlier place to do business, a place where people can find jobs, where we were coordinating our services, our educational resources to match what our companies in our state need.
We talked about streamlining regulations. We talk about providing incentives for businesses to hire the unemployed, our veterans, and others who are chronically under or unemployed. We heard all those. And at -- when we adjourned sine die, the Governor announced to us something that we already knew, frankly, which is that we needed to come back in this special session and deal with this jobs issue.
Now, I think the Minority Leader also very eloquently described the process that we went through to get here, a bipartisan process, led by the Governor, and contributed to by everyone in this room and our leadership, both here in the House and in the Senate, with the help of our staffs and with the Governor and his staff and his commissioners. And the result is a bill that addresses, not everything, as others have said, but a lot of the things, the many things, that our constituents have been begging us to do.
And the most important thing that our constituents have asked us to do is to get it, to get the fact that we are in a crisis and that our constituents are in crisis because they need jobs. Our small businesses need to grow. Our State needs to grow.
And I feel that this bill is that shining moment that the Minority Leader referred to. And I also think that it represents another turn of the corner. Because, I believe, that this bill and the way it was accomplished represents a change in the way Connecticut does business.
Job creation in this State is a bipartisan issue. We all know that. That is represented in this bill. But also, Connecticut has to make itself ready and open for the things that will create the jobs that we need. We need to be open for business. We need to be sympathetic about those who are under and unemployed. We need to coordinate our resources and focus our attention on how best to accomplish the goal. I think we've done that today. And I'm very optimistic that, with the passage of this bill, we will have turned that second corner that will put our State back on the path of economic prosperity.
I urge your support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Will staff and guests please come to well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.
THE CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the Chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Please check the roll call board to make sure your vote has been properly cast.
If all members have voted the machine will be locked and the Clerk will please take a tally.
Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
THE CLERK:
House Bill 6801 as amended by House "A. ".
Total number voting 148
Necessary for passage 75
Those voting Yea 147
Those voting Nay 1
Those absent and not voting 3
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The bill as amended is passed.
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Mr. Speaker, I move for the suspension of our rules for the immediate transmittal of the bill we just completed.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The motion is on transmittal -- immediate transmittal to the Senate. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the bill is so ordered.
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, this side of the aisle intends to have a very brief caucus on the next bill that we'll be taking up. So, upon the recess, we'll be meeting promptly in Room 207 A.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Any other announcements?
If not, Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And with that, I move that we recess subject to the Call of the Chair.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The motion is to recess subject to the Call of the Chair. Is there objection? Hearing none, the House stands in recess.
On motion of Representative Sharkey of the 88th District, the House recessed at 5: 30 o'clock p. m. , to reconvene at the Call of the Chair.
The House reconvened at 7: 21 o'clock p. m. , Speaker Donovan in the Chair.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The House will please come back to order.
Will the Clerk please call Emergency Certified Bill Number 1401.
THE CLERK:
House Bill Number 1401, AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE CONNECTICUT BIOSCIENCE COLLABORATION PROGRAM, LCO Number 8922, introduced by Senator Williams and Representative Donovan.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Pat Widlitz, you have the floor, madam.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Good evening.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the emergency certified bill in concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question is on passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Will you remark?
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this bill creates the Connecticut Bioscience Collaboration Program within Connecticut Innovations. It supports establishing a bioscience cluster anchored by a research lab at the UConn Health Center. It requires the state bond commission to authorize up to $ 290,685,000 in general obligation bonds from fiscal year 2012 through '21, with that money going to a Connecticut bioscience collaboration fund administered by Connecticut Innovations.
That fund must be used for the programs and purposes for repaying the bonds. It requires Connecticut Innovations to work with a nonprofit organization to develop, construct and equip a structure to use as a research lab and office building. It permits Connecticut Innovations to provide for annual operations, research and development grants to the nonprofit for projects such as research on stem cells, DNA and genome-based medicine.
Connecticut Innovations board will establish an application process and guidelines for awarding the grants and loans under that program, and the Connecticut State Bond Commission must authorize the total bond issuance and approve a memorandum of understanding with the OPM secretary and the treasurer regarding that bond authorization.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives us the ability to bring the Jackson laboratory -- I'll refer to as Jacks -- which is a world leader in genetics research to the University of Connecticut's Health Center's Farmington campus. Jacks will build Jacks Genomic Medicine, an institute for personalized medicine. At maturity, or to be 20 years, Jacks will employ about 600 scientists and technicians in 250,000 square feet of the state-of-the-art lab space.
The total twenty-year capitol and research budget for the Institute is projected to be $ 1. 1 billion, of which the State of Connecticut will contribute 291 million, 192 million in a secured forgivable construction loan, and 99 million dollars in grants for research and related activities. The benefit to Connecticut is enormous.
It establishes us as a world leader in bioscience. We will have the world-renowned leader in bioscience working with our UConn Health Center, our hospitals, our universities, and most exciting, the jobs spinoff will give Connecticut the boost economically that we have been lacking.
According to Price Waterhouse Cooper's, the estimated personalized medicine is growing at 11 percent per year. In Connecticut, we have an advantage of having a greater concentration of research and development biotechnology jobs than most states. If we were to capture an average share of even half the growth rate, it could mean thousands of new jobs in the state over 20 years. Not only will we attract the top scientists and researchers and teachers in the world, we will give our young scholars an incentive to study with the best, to be educated in a growing, high-paying industry and stay in Connecticut to contribute to our economy, and raise their families in our beautiful state.
I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The question is on passage. Will you remark further? Remark further?
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a summation. It's just the beginning.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
If -- if I may, I'd just ask a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Widlitz, over the last few weeks we have heard about the proposal, the Jackson Lab proposal. And it certainly is one that's rather exciting to hear about. I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives of Jackson Labs, and just to hear them speak of it, to learn of their work, to learn of their dream is so exciting.
And the work that they do is -- just gives you so much hope that some of the ills and conditions, health conditions that are loved ones face, maybe even we face, someday, either in our lifetime or in future generations could be cured. It's just very exciting stuff. But, obviously, it comes at a price. And I guess our job is to say this is an investment. Is it an investment that is worth it? And that's, I guess, what we're going to try to find out. So I have a couple of questions, if I may, to ask you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please -- please proceed, sir.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you.
Obviously, though, the bill doesn't say it. Our -- our goal is to make a deal with Jackson Labs. Through you, Mr. Speaker, are you familiar with the terms of the deal that we -- we, as a State, hope to enter into with Jackson laboratories?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, certainly, the memorandum of understanding will be negotiated, not by this Chamber or this body but by the Governor's office with DECD. But we have an indication of what they will be putting into that memorandum of understanding. And we have all had the opportunity to express concerns to make sure we protect the investment of the Connecticut taxpayer. So, in a general way, yes, I think there's a framework. There are benchmarks that will be built in along the way according to the number of jobs that are acquired, the amount of money that they will be required to show that they are contributing.
I think I mentioned that, along with the state investment, they will be investing 800 million that they will acquire from various sources. So there will be benchmarks along the way. We will have a secured construction loan so that they will be responsible for building the building. They will take ownership of it. But at anytime they do not meet the requirements set forth in the MOU, we will have recourse.
I hope that helps, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, through you, am I to understand, Representative Widlitz, that -- that we -- and I think you correctly stated -- the negotiation of the details of this deal comes after our legislative action.
Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
And, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature has no part in -- other than making suggestions -- the actual negotiation takes place between the executive branch and Jackson Laboratories.
Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
That is correct, Mr. Speaker. But the final approval of the MOU and the bond issue will have to come before the State Bond Commission.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
After we take action on the bill that's before us today, will we, as a Legislature, have any opportunity to vote for, weigh in on, negotiate the terms between the State of Connecticut and Jackson Laboratories as a state Legislature body?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
On an individual basis, we certainly have been welcomed by the administration to share our concerns and input. As far as the final negotiations, no. But, certainly, that will reflect the concerns that we already have expressed in the public forums and will continue to express. And I think our -- our Speaker and our Majority Leader, and I hope yourself as well, have pledged to work with the administration to share concerns and make sure we do have that input.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank Representative Widlitz for her answer. As a matter of fact, I have, and I want to get to that story in a minute.
But let me tell you, if I may, the Chamber, and then ask further questions of Representative Widlitz, of what I know about the deal. It's probably what most of you folks know. If you know more, I'd be dying to hear about it.
But here's what I know. This incredible company that was founded in Maine in, I believe, the late twenties, has another office in California, I believe, is looking to open a brand-new business. Not relocate part of the business that they have in Maine, but open a brand new, exciting business of genomic laboratory here in the State of Connecticut.
Yes, I understand that they had a -- a -- experience in Florida that didn't quite work out. And -- and I think that that might be instructive or interesting, but -- but what we're talking about here is in Connecticut. And from what I understand, here's the deal.
That upon passage of this, we're authorizing the State to borrow -- bond $ 291 million. That, almost immediately, we will spend $ 191 million of that to construct a building, except, see, we're not constructing it.
We give the money over -- we lend the money to Jackson labs and they construct it. And they own it from the moment that takes place. The moment the first shovel is in the ground, they are owners as they're constructing the building. They have title to it. We have what you might call a construction lien on it, wherein they would owe us the $ 191 million we just lent them, but that would be forgivable over a period of years based on certain conditions.
In addition to the $ 191 million, we are obligated, under what I understand, to subsidize their operating costs. They're a start-up company. They might not have a lot of money at first. So we have, under the terms that I've been made aware of, pledged to give them over a period of ten years an additional $ 99 million in certain increments.
For instance, in the first year, we give them $ 5 million. In the second year, we give them $ 7 million. In the third year, 10 million dollars. In the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh year, $ 15 million. And then it goes down to 10 million, 7 million, 5 million, and 5 million.
The total amount that we give them -- and they're called grants -- is $ 99 million. That's where we come up with the $ 291 million in total. And we expend the first $ 191 million almost immediately for the construction of this building. It's, from what I understand, a 178,000 square-foot building that's going to be built on the campus of our University of Connecticut Medical Center in Farmington, Connecticut. The land upon which it will be built is owned by the State of Connecticut and will be leased to Jackson Laboratories for 99 years for $ 1 a year.
That's what I understand is our obligation as the State of Connecticut. That is our investment. And I'm not going to comment as to whether that's reasonable or unreasonable, yet it's an investment. But the question we all ask ourselves when we invest our own money, and certainly which I think is incumbent upon us to ask when we're investing our constituents' money, is what is our return on the investment?
Now, first of all, you have to be darn fool not to know that nothing is guaranteed in the world. It's a risk. Most investments are a risk. You hope for the best. When you go into a casino and gamble, your gambling, hopefully, God willing, with discretionary money, knowing that if you happen to lose it, you're still financially sound.
When you invest in a stock, your hopeful for a return, that maybe your broker advised you you might get, but you understand that that might not happen, and that controls how much you invest in that.
When you purchase a house, or a building, or even an automobile, you make that decision. I'm investing in something, what will the return be for me. And that's, I guess, what our job is. But the way the system works is we, sort of -- we have our role at the beginning of the process. Because you see, folks, after today we're done. Oh, yes, we can make individual comments and suggestions, but we're done. The money has been granted and may be spent.
And I understand that has to happen sometimes. But what our role is is to find out as much as we can, in the very short period of time that we have, as to how we're going to spend this money, what we're spending it on, and what we're getting in return. Now it's my understanding for that stuff we give, which I just mentioned, $ 191 million entitled to a building that they will construct with a construction lien on it, that is forgivable upon the satisfaction of certain conditions.
In addition to $ 99 million being given over a period of ten years as a grant, what are we getting? Well, as was said, we get what is known as a world-class laboratory to be in Connecticut. That's not an insignificant thing. We get that world-class laboratory to work in collaboration with our flagship university and our medical school. That is not an insignificant thing. And joining them in that collaboration is Yale University, a world-renowned institution. That is not an insignificant thing.
It is said that it would augment the investment we made as a State in the last budget with regard to the UConn Health Center. That is not an insignificant thing.
So then you want to get a little deeper into the details. Because, let's face it, this is a jobs session and we want to create jobs. We want to create jobs, and spur industry, and have magnets that attract even more jobs.
So Jackson Labs says, we've never done this before. Obviously, they don't have a business like this. They'll be creating the business.
Now, believe me, they have incredibly bright people with a lot of history and a lot of cachet to attract even brighter people. But they never have done this particular thing before, to my understanding, and I can stand corrected.
So in that first year, as we're building this building, they said -- and I'm going by their sheet, their financial projections -- that we will create three jobs at the facility. Maybe it won't be in the building itself, because it's not up yet, but there will be three jobs.
In the second year, they hope to create, cumulative, 32 jobs, or in other words, add another 29 jobs. And by this time, I think the building might be done, so now we're rolling. Now remember, the first year we gave them 5 million bucks and -- in addition to the building. The second year we gave them 7 million. Now comes year three. And in year three, it's my understanding that they're going to have 80 -- I can't read this too well. Excuse me a second. It's rather small. We all received one. It look like an eye chart to me, but I'll give it a shot. I believe it is 80 jobs, so an additional 50 -- 47 more jobs, something like that. And it goes up to 132, 165, 201 -- these are cumulative numbers -- 242. In year seven, they have 257 or 97 jobs. I can't read that. And finally, in year ten, they project 320 jobs that they're going to have there.
Now it's my understanding that's all they had to promise. And by the way, they had to promise it in at least the increments that I said. It's not like they can wait, as was said at the beginning, nine and half years with two people in the place and then all of a sudden they get 300. No, they can't do that. It's supposed to have this progression of jobs. But at the end of the day, they have 320 jobs.
Now a lot of people have simplified this and said, wait a minute. We've spent approximately 300 million bucks and, in ten years, we get 320 jobs. What am I missing? Well, these aren't ordinary jobs. They're pretty neat jobs. And we are also told that these jobs and this activity will attract other jobs, spinoff jobs. So it won't just be the 300 direct jobs. It will be other jobs that are created by their very presence there.
So here's my question. In that first ten years, let's say, in year four, if they don't meet the job total that they are supposed to in year four, which I believe is 156 jobs, what happens?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
There is also another requirement. They had pledged to raise over $ 800 million in capital from other sources that they're putting into this as well. And there would also be a requirement within the first ten years that they would have to show that they had raised 295 million of the capital. So there are financial benchmarks that they will have to meet, as well as the jobs.
If, at the end of these targets, they are not successful in meeting those, the loan would not be forgiven at that point.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Does that mean they would be then obligated to pay the loan back?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Mr. Speaker, I don't have an answer for you on that because that would have to be, as you said, negotiated in the MOU. And I don't want to guess at an answer.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Okay. Appreciate --
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
The loan certainly would not be forgiven at that point. They, perhaps, would have more time to make up those benchmarks as they go further out, but I would not like to -- to guess at that.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I'm curious about is, these are very specific numbers when it comes to job creation. You know, I said in year four 156 jobs, not 150, 156. In year six, 244 jobs. In year eight, 315 jobs.
So it seems to me -- and this is way over my head -- but somebody really put a pen to paper and has some sort of formula where it's not 316, it's 315. It's not 344 or 345, it's 344. So there's a very exacting reason they would put this down.
And yet, I'm wondering, what happens if, in a given year, they don't reach that exact number? Do we give them some wiggle room there? Eh, it was a tough year. We'll give you a chance. Give you another three months. What's the deal?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
(Deputy Speaker Aresimowicz in the Chair. )
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
And I would assume that the administration would try to work with them to -- to make sure they reach those benchmarks. These -- these goals actually were provided by Jackson Labs so, you know, they are their -- their numbers of what they expect to achieve, their projections. So I'm sure that in putting that forward and writing and presenting it to us, they feel very confident that they can do that.
If they did not, and it were within a -- a small variance from that target, I'm sure the administration would work with them. But, again, they have set these -- they have set these numbers. And the targets have to be met or the loan is not forgiven.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you. And, through you, Mr. Speaker, when the loan is forgiven, is that in year ten?
Is that when, I don't know, to simplify it, we actually rip up the mortgage, that we no longer have security on the property in year ten if they've met all these goals?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my understanding that, at that point, they would take ownership of the building. Once -- as long as the financial requirements have been met -- now at that ten-year period, according to the projections, it should have paid for the cost of the bond issue by generating new revenue that will be coming into the state. So that's -- that's something we have to look at. But the agreement, as I understand it, is at the end of ten years, if the targets have been met, then they will have ownership of the building.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm a bit confused. I thought the deal was they have ownership from the very beginning. We would just rip up the debt at the end of ten years. Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, they would have ownership of the building, but it would be encumbered by a construction loan that we would hold.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you.
So they have ownership of this building and they only got a few people in it. It's a pretty big building. Are they allowed to lease out some space, sublet some space?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. They cannot do anything, in that way, with the building without the permission of the State.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm just curious because they were pretty exacting as to how many people will be in this big building. What are they going to do with all that space? Have they indicated that, like, what they're going to do with -- understanding, whatever they do with it, they needed the State's permission.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
A large portion of that building will be taken up with very sophisticated state-of-the-art laboratory space.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand that there is quite a market for renting laboratory space. In fact, we, as a State of Connecticut, actually do rent out some laboratory space at a pretty good profit at the University of Connecticut right next door to where we hope to build this building.
Would they be allowed to do that?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker. They would not be able to lease out the space without the approval of the State.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
And through you, Mr. Speaker, would we -- if they were allowed by the State to lease out the building, who gets the rent income?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Could he please repeat the question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero, would you please repeat the question, sir.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you. With -- with the permission of the State, if they were able to sublet the building to rent out lab space, or make some other income in any way, who shares in that income? Is that all Jackson Labs or do we get a piece of it?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
A lot of these details we don't have.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
I know.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
So all of that would be in the memorandum of understanding that's negotiated. All those are details which I would like to be able to give you the answer. But we are not the negotiating body, the executive branch is. And until we actually approve the bond issue, they will not negotiate the final agreements, the memorandum of understanding. So we -- you know, everyone has a little frustration with this. Certainly, we would like to know all of the details before we -- we approve a bond issue.
And, certainly, Jackson Laboratories does not want to spend all the time and the money that they did in Florida for two and a half years without a commitment. So it's sort of the chicken and the egg.
But, however, we are not -- we are not the negotiating authority. OPM is the negotiating authority. And the only power in this we have is actually to be assured that it's a good deal for the State of Connecticut and approve the bonding issue.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you.
And that's -- that's the rub, Representative Widlitz. How can we tell if it's a good deal if we don't have the details? And you're telling me we can't get the details until we pass the bill.
And what bothers so many people in their normal life experiences, and even in the Florida deal that you mentioned, we learned that for two and a half years they discussed this. That they came up with details as exacting as some of the numbers they have here, in pages upon pages of how they were going to do, and what they were going to do. And it was based on that, that the Florida Legislature or the county government was expected to vote. Now, it never happened. But at least it was logical that they would have that level of detail.
I'm an attorney by profession. I've represented a lot of developers. And I know many developers have to invest money, not knowing if planning and zoning and wetlands is going to approve the deal. That's, sort of, their skin in the game. That they invest time to map out a deal in as much detail as possible because they're presenting it to an audience, such as this General Assembly, and saying we'd like you to give us 291 million bucks. And maybe, just maybe, one of us might say, okay, but just tell us, how does it work? And when the answer is, we'll tell you once you give it to us, that's tough. Commonsensically, that's tough to accept.
See, here's my thing. You just told us if they reach their financial goals and they have 320 employees at this lab, what happens? We've now ripped up our mortgage. They own the building free and clear. They could -- now we -- we have no say in whether they sublet it, or mortgage it, or take other collateral against it. We have no say.
But what happens if one month after ten years they lay off 200 people, relocate people? So now the total people working at this laboratory isn't 300. Maybe it's 250 or 200. What can we do?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
There is probably not a lot we can do, realistically. That is a highly unlikely scenario. And, you know, as you mentioned, there is risk in any arrangement that you go into going forward like this.
I think, you know, rather than focusing on, if they're going to have ten less jobs than the benchmark requires, or what happens if somebody gets laid off, we need to look at the bigger picture here. The bigger picture is we will have a state-of-the-art world-renowned institute, research institute, right next to our UConn Health Center and our medical school. We will have the advantage of drawing in scientists from all over the world. There will be spinoff jobs.
So we're not looking at this just as the cost of each individual employee at that facility. There will be tremendous spinoff. There will be collaboration with universities, with hospitals. The medical -- what they will be doing is doing the research that will take -- allows a collaborator to take something to market.
The whole idea of this is something that we -- we have been lacking. We have been lacking in providing this kind of incentive, this kind of excitement for the state of Connecticut.
Not too long ago, we had -- we had Pfizer moving jobs out of state. Why did they do that? They actually said they did that because there was nowhere for them to go into Connecticut. We didn't have all of this infrastructure in place. North Carolina did it years ago. They are spinning off 1800 jobs a year, on an average, every year, growing and growing and growing.
We can't just stay the course. I mean, you yourself have said many times, we haven't had job growth in this state in 20 years. It's time to take this opportunity to draw in the potential that we have for Connecticut for our young people. Our young people are leaving.
This is -- this is an arena. The growth in bioscience is projected to be 11 percent a year. Even if we look at half of that, it would be a boost for the economy in the State. So, you know, we don't have every single detail. We have to -- we have to have faith in our -- our leadership and our executive branch. They want this to be successful. This is an exciting opportunity for Connecticut.
Is it's totally risk free? Of course not. Nothing worth doing is -- is risk free totally. But every indication from -- from the studies that have been done -- our economic and development agency has done a REMI-based study along with a Price Waterhouse Coopers study. All of these things point to -- this is the growing field for Connecticut. It's a good fit. We have the -- we have the intellectual infrastructure here. This is the place.
You know, I have to read to you a quote from Fred Carstensen that I thought hit it right on the head. In an e-mail that I received this morning, and I'll quote from Fred, who's an economist at UConn, as you know. I will tell you this is not a case of the government picking winners. Jackson Labs is the Mercedes-Benz brand of medical research. It's an extraordinary coup for the State, its citizens, and its economic future. It transforms the extravagant $ 840 million bet that Governor Malloy made with BioSciences Connecticut into as close as a sure thing as I think it would have been possible to achieve. A high risk bet has won.
I -- you know, we -- we could be pessimists and -- and pick this to pieces, and analyze it according to every job at the lab, but the picture is much bigger here. And I don't fault you for scrutinizing every number that's -- that we're given. That's our responsibility. But I really feel very confident in saying that this is a risk very well worth taking.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO (142nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Widlitz, I truly appreciate those words. But let me just say one thing. As I mentioned before, I'm an attorney by profession. And attorneys make their bones by preparing contracts. And the -- the hope always is is that contract gets filed away and never looked at, because everything we hope that goes right goes right. But contracts are made when things don't go right. And we have a responsibility to make sure, to the best extent possible, that we minimize those risks.
You know, as you were speaking, I was thinking -- I thought back to, say, January 1st of 2008. Maybe people all over this country were ringing in that new year. And I don't know the guys name, but I picture the president of Lehman Brothers toasting his family and colleagues to another good year. The president of Merrill Lynch saying to another great year.
And I believe with all their heart they believed they had an excellent management team, a world-class company for hundreds of years. And they, nor anyone in this room, ever dreamed or fathomed that in less than 12 months there would be no Lehman Brothers. There would be no Merrill Lynch. That people who had saved their money for years and years and years would be wiped out. No one ever expected that. No one ever wanted it. And I bet you you couldn't find three economists that would have predicted it. But guess what, folks, stuff happens. Stuff happens. And it's our job to make sure, yes, it's a risk, but that we minimize that risk.
And when I hear, stop scrutinizing, look to the future. Look what we could have. Of course, I want that. Let me tell you my personal story with Jackson Labs. Myself and the rest of the leaders were called to the Governor's office on September 26th. It was a Monday. And on that day, he said that he had a special announcement he couldn't reveal, but hopefully would be calling us in because he would have buttoned it down. We were all surprised and excited to hear the news.
And two days later, on the 28th of September, less than a month from today, he shared with myself and Senator McKinney, after sharing with Senator Williams and Speaker Donovan the broad details of the Jackson Lab bill. There was no one in the room except for maybe the Governor's chief of staff that was as excited as I was. And I didn't even know what the hell geonomes, whatever the heck they are.
But if you saw the excitement and the possibilities as you describe, you couldn't help but be excited. They were vague on the parameters of the deal, but I -- I wanted it to happen. The next day the Governor was gracious enough to invite myself and all the leaders to a reception, and I met some fantastic people at Jackson Labs. I met their incoming president, Dr. Ed Liu, a charming, brilliant, knowledgeable, optimistic man.
And I sat next to him at dinner, and I looked him in the eye, and I said, Dr. Liu, why do you want to be in Connecticut? What happened in Florida? Why don't you want to be there? Are you looking for the state that gives you the most dough? He said, no, Larry. He said when I got hired by Jackson Labs, it was at the end of the Florida thing. And I said why do we want to be there? We want to be in Connecticut. It's geography. We're halfway between Boston and New York. We get to work with two world-class institutions, be on the campus of one of them.
You could traverse the whole state in less than two hours. You could be in New York in two hours and Boston two hours the other way. That's different. That's unique. They can't duplicate that in Kansas or Tennessee or South Carolina. And I'm thinking at this time, that means something to this man. I believed him. I believe him to this day he wants to be here. But I assume that had a value to it. That even if a State were to offer him more money, he'd still want to come here, because I believed every word he said.
And then the details came out. And I worked with the administration, even developed a Q & A so we could get this done. I said at a public hearing -- a public press conference, I want to get to yes, but we've got some questions. And we understand it's a risk. But we've got some questions.
I invited Jackson Labs into our caucus. I wanted to accommodate them so I invited the Senate Republicans. For two hours they were gracious enough to stay there. But at that stage, they'll be the first to admit they didn't have all the answers. They wanted to get back to us.
We asked, for instance -- one member of our caucus said what do you hope to make by -- (inaudible) possibly your royalties on the sale of your intellectual property? And they presented this financial projection, that after 20 years, 20 years in operation, they hope to make in royalties $ 10 million.
It became evident in our caucus that there was concern about the security. And even though the general parameters of the deal might be able to happen, we thought we'd be a little more secure if we could retain ownership of the building until they met some of these goals, and at that point, turn it over to them. So they wouldn't have a liability to the State because we own the building. And it was pretty appropriate and commonsensical for us to own the building because it was sitting on our land. And it was sitting on our land at a medical school.
So that, God forbid, if this whole thing went haywire, and Jackson Labs was like a Lehman Brothers or a Merrill Lynch no longer, at least we had a building we owned, on our land, next to a medical center. You've got to figure we'd put it to use.
But we were surprised to learn, no. You're not going to own the building. We're going to own the building, and you've got a lien on it. But after ten years, you don't have that either. So a lot of people got a little squeamish about it. We made our concerns known, as you said Representative Widlitz, to the administration.
We said there's a very easy way that we can have the same result, but it would give us a little more security because we are put in a risk. We're putting that money up front.
See, Jackson labs said, yes, they're going to invest $ 811 million. But they were first to admit, it ain't going to be their money. They're going to get it from the federal government grants and philanthropy.
Well, God forbid, if this recession hits another bump, we're already hearing from Washington there might not be as much money as they once had. And maybe that philanthropist ain't going to have enough change in his pocket to give. So he might fall short. And if it does, how does that affect us?
So those were really common sense questions. So a bunch of us approached the administration and said what if we just tweak it a little bit? We own the building. When they get the 300 jobs, we'll give them the building. Everyone said it sounds very reasonable, very rational.
I had the opportunity to meet the vice president when we had our public hearings. I brought the same thing to his attention. He said, I've got to admit that sounds pretty reasonable to me.
And just two days ago, I got a call from the president from Singapore. We had a beautiful conversation. Dr. Liu, fantastic man. And he said I want to work to get it here. I said, Doc, you've got to help me a little bit. There's a couple of us that just want to have a little more security. We could work this out so there's not a glitch in what you plan on doing. It's only a matter of us holding title to a property.
He said, Larry, what you said is very fair and reasonable. Let me get to work. And then all of a sudden, in less than 24 hours, bam, it was over. I was told that's nonnegotiable. That will not happen. It is imperative to Jackson Laboratories that they have title to the building.
Why, I said. I understand they can't mortgage the building, because we would have the first mortgage. I was told it's a balance sheet issue. You have a liability. You have to have an asset. I said, well, they wouldn't have a liability so they don't need the asset. I was told a whole bunch of things. And I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not a dummy either. And it didn't make sense. And it seemed like such a little change. Enough to give us, in these tough times, security, as we pour in $ 291 million within a ten-year period.
Why didn't it happen? Why shouldn't it happen, especially in light of the fact we don't have the answers to these questions. I had a board member from Jackson Labs call me, and she said, well, Larry, just get the bill passed and we can negotiate all this stuff later.
I said, what? You mean, we? I'm not going to be there. We get one shot at this. It's Wednesday. We make our decision Wednesday and we're gone. We're out of the picture. So give us a little help. Give us a little security. I said, you know, at the same time we're talking about Jackson Labs, we hear the great news about NBC Studios and Blue Sky Studios. And to some people, they scratch their head because they say, hold on a second. NBC Studios is moving to Stamford. They're retaining 137 jobs, and they're bringing 450 jobs in less than two years. And we're giving them 35 million bucks.
So for 35 million bucks, we get a studio that they build, they paid for, and 435 jobs. Blue Sky Studios, they're renting a studio. We're giving them 3 million bucks. They're bringing in 70 jobs.
So when you juxtapose this with that, you say, I don't get it. 35 million bucks for 415 jobs. 300 million bucks for 300 jobs in ten years? Now, I'm not going to dare compare the kind of jobs we hope to create at Jackson Labs. But you can't blame someone for saying, geez, that sort of doesn't sound right. So at least let us hold title to the building.
And when you say, well, just trust it, it's going to work out. The administration -- of course the administration wants it to work, and of course Jackson Labs wants it to work. But stuff happens.
Now you might say, well, if it does, it's not going to happen on my watch because it ain't going to happen within the next ten years. I'm out of here. But, folks, we have a bigger responsibility than that. We're the trustees of the public dough. And with all due respect to all of us -- not so sure we're going to get high ratings on our progress thus far, which brings even more pressure to us on this time.
Do we just say, no, we don't invest anything, it's bad economic times? Of course not. We do have to take a risk, Representative Widlitz. But we have an obligation to minimize that risk. And, you know, what's so sad? Of the 187 legislators that are in this building, not one of us knows any more than what you just learned right now. That's it.
We don't know what happens if they dip down in their employee count. We don't know what happens if, in year 15, they don't reach their $ 811 million goal. We don't know what happens if they screw up in year four and they're still at three employees. We don't know these things. And yet, we are about to make a vote.
Folks, you've got to believe, with every fiber in my body, I wanted this thing to work. These people are wonderful people. They do incredible work. God, I would -- the thought of them being in Connecticut and doing what they hope to do is so exciting. And I understand there's going to be a price to pay. They're not just going to walk in and do it for free. But we've got to be responsible for that.
I'm not talking about major changes. I'm talking about little tweaks. I had one person say to me, well, we don't have enough time. I said what do you mean? Well, you're voting on it Wednesday. I said, with all due respect, you can't go there, that dog doesn't hunt. Because, of the one hand, you said you had to do it quick. And we couldn't wait a couple of months to get the details and do this in February. And then when we say, well, we'd like to make some changes, you say, we can't because we've got to do it on Wednesday. You can't have it both ways. But that's what we put -- put in.
You know, I read a little Q & A handed out, I believe by, the administration. It said a lot of people were asking why do we got to do this now for, since we don't have these answers? Can't we do it in February? It's four months away. And the response to this Q & A was why not? (Inaudible). There's a lot of reasons why not. Because we don't know what the hell we're voting on. That's what's scary.
Listen, I'm pretty much sure how this vote is going to go down. And let me tell you something. In my 19 years in this building, I never hoped so bad that this vote that I'm going to take, which is a no vote, is wrong.
I would relish people coming up to me and say, well, Cafero, you blew that one. Look at how well Jackson Labs is doing. Believe me, as a father of three kids, as a relative of people who suffer from diseases that maybe could be cured by these people, I want them here. I want them here with all my heart. But you've got to work with us. You've got to work with us, because we took an oath. That we represent 23,000-plus people each. That we'd watch over their money. That we'd invest it wisely.
And how the hell can we look them in the eye and say, I did this on the blind because I didn't have any answers? I find it difficult to do that, and I hope to God I'm wrong. But, folks, stuff happens. Stuff happens.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Will you remark further?
Representative Hetherington of the 125th, you have the floor, sir.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I may, through you, to the proponent.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz, please prepare yourself.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
I -- I apologize if -- if I'm being somewhat redundant, but I only saw the text of this bill a little earlier. And I've listened to the terms that the Representative gave us, the terms of the -- the progress of payment, the consequences of failure to create jobs, the term, the ownership of the building.
In fact, those terms are nowhere in this bill. Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
The terms of the contract, the agreement between Jackson Labs and the State of Connecticut, is negotiated by the executive branch. And I think, as I stated earlier, our authority here is to authorize the bonding. The MOU that will be negotiated by the executive branch will have to come before the state Bond commission, as well the whole schedule of bonding that goes with this.
But the bill itself, you're right, is very -- is very narrow. It's just establishing, within Connecticut Innovations, this fund that will be used to promote the bioscience under -- under the conditions outlined in the bill, which will allow us to negotiate with -- with Jackson labs and, hopefully, secure bringing them to Connecticut.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Hetherington.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
I -- I thank the -- the gentlelady.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the name "Jackson Labs" doesn't appear anywhere in the bill. Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. It is not appropriate to put in statutory language. We do not identify a particular business or -- within a statute.
We are forming this fund with -- for the terms of the -- of the bill before us, we are establishing this program, establishing the fund within Connecticut Innovations, that will allow us to go forward with negotiating with Jackson Labs.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Hetherington.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. So if tomorrow morning Mercedes-Benz Labs showed up and proposed a different deal than that which we understand, through what is reported to be -- likely to be in the memorandum of understanding, we'd be free to go with Mercedes-Benz rather than Jackson. Is that right?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I think, under the terms of the statutory language, that would be a decision that would be made by the board of Connecticut Innovations.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Hetherington.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you. That's -- that would be my -- my reading as well.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, are there any other states actively competing with us for an opportunity to bring Jackson Labs into that state?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do not have specific knowledge of particular states. But it has been conveyed to us, by the people at Jackson Labs, that, yes, other states have contacted them. If this deal should fall through, they are very much interested in going forward.
I'd also just like to mention there has been press in Florida, a headline in the St. Petersburg Times, as biotech jobs go elsewhere, Floridians wonder, what happened? I think they dropped the ball in Florida. That's the way the Florida press is reporting it. And if we do the same, we may find ourselves in the same situation.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Hetherington.
REP. HETHERINGTON (125th):
Thank you. And I thank the -- the gentlelady for her explanation and responses.
What troubles me, Mr. Speaker, is I'm not sure what our action signifies here. We have a blanket authorization to give to the Connecticut Innovations authority to negotiate on terms and conditions, as they may approve, an agreement to build a laboratory.
I guess, the idea of providing a blanket authorization is not so shocking. It's a good purpose, but it's somewhat of a surprise, in view of the substantial amount of purported information that's been distributed about a tentative arrangement -- arrangement with Jackson Laboratories.
I don't know why -- I don't understand why, given the fact that there is no identified competitor for the facilities, I don't know why we need proceed without having access to the memorandum of understanding, without being able to have responses based upon an actual memorandum of understanding. So the question of our oversight responsibility is -- is troubling.
It's hard to understand why are we being asked to issue a blanket authorization without information. A blanket authorization blind, in effect, when there is no argument compelling or otherwise, as to why it must come ahead of any developed details of the proposed transaction.
I, frankly, don't know how I'm going to vote on this. I was very much impressed with the personnel of Jackson Laboratories. Everything I've read about them is wholly laudatory. And I strongly believe that -- that the work that they are engaged in is to be encouraged, holds out great hope, holds out great hope for everyone. But I don't know why the Legislature is now being asked to act in advance of the details of the transaction.
If -- if that was to be what we are being asked to do, that might have been treated with a little more candor in the beginning, instead of -- instead of a -- an elaborate presentation about the terms and conditions and the identity of Jackson Laboratories. That when, in fact, there was nothing, is nothing certain, at least as far as we know, with respect to the terms and conditions.
So I -- I'm troubled. And I -- I would think we would all be examining our conscience as to what our responsibility is here. Whether, in spite of what appeared as this was developed, we are being asked to issue a blank check. And I'll listen to the further remarks with respect and a tentativeness, but that continues to trouble me.
Thank you -- through you -- thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Will you remark further?
Representative Mikutel of the 45th, you have the floor, sir.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When -- when it comes to the Jackson Labs deal, I'm keeping an open mind on this. I intend to listen to the debate and, hopefully, I can be convinced, with the sound arguments, as to why we should be providing these kind of incentives to bring Jackson Labs into the state.
Now, I'm familiar with the arguments in favor of it. It would put Connecticut in the forefront of the growth industry, biomedical science. I believe Jackson Labs is a good fit for the State of Connecticut. They're good paying jobs. It could be the way to reinvent the State of Connecticut, jump-start -- jump-start our sluggish economy. And I like the idea of being in the -- the personalized medicine field, where, hopefully, we can find cures for diseases that -- deadly diseases that can benefit mankind. Those are all good things, and I get all of that.
On -- on the flip side, what concerns me is the lack of royalties for intellectual properties. We are investing a lot of money in the UConn Health Center and Jackson Labs, and is my -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if we have any royalties coming to the state. And I know that in Florida, they were on the -- the proposal there was Florida would get 10 percent royalties on the intellectual property.
So I hope that if that's not in -- and I don't think it is in the package -- that our leadership will see to it that maybe that's the way the final deal comes about. We should recapture some of our investment, and royalties is one way to do that.
I'm a little concerned about the lack of transparency. I think we're all concerned about the lack of transparency. And it bothers me that we don't have all the details in front of us to vote. This question as to the job multiplier, whether or not we're going to get these 6,000 spinoff jobs. The -- the normal multiplier in projects like this is five, and we're using a multiplier, I believe, of ten. So this question is there.
So the idea here is to minimize the risk to the State of Connecticut in making this kind of investment. Now, it was said before that we all want Jackson Labs to be here, and that's true. We all want Jackson Labs to be here. It's a great outfit. It would be an asset to the state. It's all about the deal. Right? It's all about the deal, and how do we -- how do we craft the deal that minimizes the State's risk in doing that?
Did we get the best deal? I don't know. I don't know if anyone here can answer that question, did we get the best deal? Is there risk? Yeah. We know there's risk here. I invest in the market periodically, and I tell you, hope is no part of my equation when you invest in the market. You don't have hope. You've got to -- you've got to base your decisions on knowledge. Experience is a good thing, but hope and trust -- when you get to hope and trust in -- in the stock market, you're going to be in for a bad ride.
So we're placing hope and trust in the -- in the administration that they will do -- and answer some of the questions that I have, and -- and make sure that they will protect the best interests of the State. But I have a few questions for the proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz, please prepare yourself.
Please proceed, Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Yes. A few questions, Representative. Trying to get a comfort level here on some things, and we hear things bandied about. And of the -- of the 6,000 spinoff jobs, is that coming directly from the Jackson Lab project or does it represent all bioscience jobs in the state?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not an expert on analyzing that study. But I will share with you that I think what those numbers are indicating, is that when Jackson Labs establishes a presence in the State of Connecticut there are -- they will be -- they will be doing research which brings things to market in other places, other businesses. They will be doing all kinds of research that assists medical advances.
So there are -- there are spinoffs of all different kinds. Some are direct. Some are hiring lab technicians. Some are -- some are hiring restaurant workers in the local vicinity when more people come in. Some are -- there are a significant number of construction jobs early in this process for the facility itself.
There will be people relocating to this area. There will be homes sold. There will be all kinds of spinoffs, some directly related to the lab itself, some as a consequence of the generation of more activity.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Right. I guess, my question, specifically, is the six -- the 6,000 figure they're using, those are spinoff jobs directly related to the Jackson Labs project and not -- not statewide bioscience jobs from every other place.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Is my understanding that it will be a direct spinoff from Jackson Labs.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Okay. Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Jackson Lab, up in Maine, experimented -- experiments with -- with mice, and in a way that, it has been said, that this is a new venture for Jackson Labs. It's moving from experimenting with mice to personalized medicine with human beings. So, in that respect, it's a new venture, so it carries with it more risk. That's what -- that's what is being alleged.
Do you feel -- do we have some comfort level -- can you give me some comfort level that with this new venture into personalized medicine, that they are more apt to be successful in that?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, let me give you an example that was given to us by one of the representatives from the lab.
Just as an example, lung cancer. There are 400 types of lung cancer. Now, with the research that the Jackson Labs can do with the genome, now it's my -- if I'm recollecting this correctly, we have, in our cells, in each one of our cells in our body, I think the number was 20,000 genes. Now, if you can pinpoint for a patient who has lung cancer what type of gene they have that will react with a certain medication or a certain medical procedure, then you can avoid all the trials and tribulations of trying things that you know will not work. They've been researched.
This is the type of research that they will be doing -- one of the examples -- that will allow patients to be treated on a personal level, where a treatment is targeted directly to their specific need because of the research that's done at this lab.
So do I think it's a risk? I think it's off-the-wall exciting. That this could be a frontier in medicine that Connecticut is on the forefront of. So, you know, as we said before, anything is a risk. This one -- with -- especially with the affiliation with the UConn Medical Center or Hartford Hospital, all of the hospitals in the area and in the state, I just don't see that this is such a risk to transform their operation into -- into this type of focus.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Jackson Labs is -- is putting up $ 3 for every dollar that the state puts up. How secure is their part of the funding for the project, and where -- where do they anticipate getting their -- their portion of the funds?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
They do get grants from the National Institute of Health. They do get philanthropic donations. And they do actually sell, I think, through the -- mostly through the mouse product, they do sell their product on the market to laboratories that need mice that are genetically altered for the purposes of such research.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Could Jackson Lab, in your opinion or in the opinion of others, they're seeking the state assistance because they could not pull this project off by themselves?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't think there was ever a proposal that I'm aware of to -- for them to do this independently. They are looking for a collaborative situation.
Also, understand, they are a nonprofit research institution. It's very important for them to put their -- their profits from -- it could be royalties. It could be any of the other sources we previously discussed. They put them right back into the research and the facility. So it's important for them to have a collaboration.
I will tell you, in Florida, that's been -- that's been mentioned frequently, about why, you know, why didn't it work out in Florida? Florida was a rather interesting situation where Jeb Bush, when he was governor in Florida, had a real focus on bioscience. He wanted to build that. And they started to do that and they did bring in companies. I believe Squibb was one.
But as the -- as he went out of office and the next governor came in, the focus was different. So it's not that they weren't looking to build collaborations there. They were.
It also is a much -- in Florida, there is a much heavier focus on financing from the county level. And as budgets were cut and money was not available, the climate that presented itself was not really conducive to Jackson Labs actually ever making a proposal.
So, it is to their benefit to be in an area where there is collaboration. It is in the State's benefit to be part of that to have them here. So that's the -- the deal that they're looking for.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL (45th):
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'll just end by saying that I believe this is a very important debate we're having and a very important matter before us that really will set the future of the State of Connecticut. So I'm going to listen to this debate.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Will you remark further?
Representative Srinivasan of the 31st, you have the floor, sir.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want Jackson Laboratories or the Mercedes-Benz Laboratories to come to Connecticut. Personalized medicine is the way of the future. That is the only way we are going to be more effective and contain our costs in managing our patients.
So what is the future, 2012, 2014 going out? No question at all, it's personalized medicine. It is the way to go. But my concerns are, and through you, to the proponent of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Thank you, sir. The -- we talked about a leap in faith. And when you go from mice to human beings, treatment is not for the mice. Treatment begins with the mice, we all know that. And that's what these people have been selling or marketing for more than a couple of million dollars on an annual basis, when I saw their, you know, what their revenue source is.
It is a long time that it takes from mice to human beings. We know what impact pharma has. When they're trying to do a medication, spent millions of dollars, at times billions, and at the end of the day, they're not able to use that medication effectively.
So my question, through you, Mr. Speaker, is we are moving from mice to human beings for personalized medicine. Do we have a plan as to -- at what point we are going to be saying, we are ready to cut our losses? We know this is a leap in faith. Obviously, everybody knows that this is research. And at what point, if they come back to us and say, you gave me $ 300 million, I need X more, and I need Y more, and I need Z more, at what point are we going to say, enough is enough?
And the reason I ask that is, if you look at the history of UConn, UConn Medical Center, we, as a State, have been constantly feeding in to keep that going. And my concern is, much as I want Jackson Labs to come here, much as I want personalized medicine to be the cutting edge -- which is the cutting edge, whether we get it or some other State gets it in this country -- at what point are we willing to cut our losses and say enough is enough?
Do we have a plan?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
And I know, as a very prominent physician, that you -- you certainly have these sincere concerns. Part of the plan outlined in the booklet that we have all received from the Jackson Laboratories, they are to -- they are going to leverage their research, along with what's being done at Yale and at UConn, not necessarily on mice, but looking to -- that's part of the collaboration, to pool all of these resources that we have here in Connecticut.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Right.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
So, I -- I think, you know, Jackson Labs has received many Nobel prizes. They are identified as a cancer researcher institute. So, I think, you know, they -- they are the premier world's laboratory when it comes to this type of -- of research. So, I think, coming here and wanting to collaborate with a structure that's already here, the research that's already being done here on -- on cures for cancer and all kinds of diseases, is part of this.
It's not just using the mice. It's -- it's a -- they may -- they may have collaborations with all kinds of businesses in Connecticut, or businesses that come to Connecticut as a result of they're being here. So I think it's a much broader look at that.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Srinivasan.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I still did not get an answer to my question. And that is, at what point are we, as a State, ready to cut our losses? I only hope Jackson Labs is successful. I only hope that personalized medicine becomes the way of the future through Jackson Labs, and not through somebody else. But as a responsible person going to go back to my constituents and say this is how I spent your tax dollar, my tax dollar, after coming on the back of the -- of the highest tax hike that we just recently did, is this going to be on -- yes, I know you probably may not know a long-term vision. But are we going to encourage, or even consider, if they keep coming back to us, because that is reality.
The reality is that leap from mice to human being is not going to happen overnight. It's going to take years and years of research. So what looks like $ 300 million today is a lot of money for you and me, on a personal basis. But my concern is that they really will need much, much more than that to sustain themselves over a period of time. And are we, as the State of Connecticut, ready, having paid the first check of $ 300 million, to keep funding them rather than withdrawing at some point and cutting our losses?
I hope we don't have to, but if we do.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, I think the only way I can possibly answer that question is to say that, you know, you never know what will happen in a future General Assembly. I mean, that is -- if you -- if you look at North Carolina, as an example, it does take years, but they started years ago. And now, they are up and running and ready to go.
I think, before you come back to the State of Connecticut for extra money, there are collaborations, there are venture capitalists, there are all kinds of start-up businesses that I -- personally, I can't speak for what would be in the MOU. But I personally would expect them to -- to go in all of those directions before we would consider putting more money in. And, certainly, the language in this bill is a finite number. So that's the only way I could answer your question. It's looking hypothetically into the future, and I don't have that answer.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Srinivasan.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to thank you for that. It is a hypothetical question, but that has been a concern to me, and I wanted to bring that up to the assembly.
Through you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier on, a mention was made by the previous speaker about royalties. And I'm hoping that Jackson Labs will be successful, very successful, that they will bring in a lot of money.
Are you aware, through you, Mr. Speaker, of what that contract or that relationship is going to be? Because I have heard different things from different people, including the media, as far as royalties are concerned.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't have any knowledge of any arrangements on royalties. And, again, the MOU will be negotiated by the legislative branch, and it would be great if they could put that in. I don't know if they will or not.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Srinivasan.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, one final question, if I may?
And what I've heard, through you, Mr. Speaker, is the -- the ratio between what we, as a State, and our tax dollars are going to put in, is $ 1 to the $ 3 that Jackson labs is going to be putting in into this particular project.
What I'm not aware of, or not sure about, is at what time is Jackson Labs bringing in that money. Is it earlier on in this ten, 20-year relationship, or are we funding upfront and they are bringing in the $ 3 to our dollar much later? Because that $ 3 has definitely been touted about, that we are just paying a third, and they are paying so much more.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I think that three to one ratio is a total project over the 20 years. There are benchmarks along the way that will be evaluated. I know that there -- I think the -- the number that I recall was they would be required to have $ 295 million investment from other sources before that ten-year period was up, but there will be benchmarks along the way.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Srinivasan.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
And, through you, Mr. Speaker, in case those benchmarks fall short, because we all have to live the reality, and Jackson Labs is depending on the National Institute of Health. They are depending on philanthropy to bring in their funds. And if they are not able to meet those requirements, funding requirements, what is going to be our obligation year one, year two, and going forward?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, again, Mr. Speaker, that will be more detailed in the memorandum of understanding. But it's my understanding that if they do not reach these benchmarks, then the loan is not forgivable.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Srinivasan.
REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to thank you for giving me those answers. I appreciate that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Representative Candelora of the 86th, you have the floor, sir.
REP. CANDELORA (86th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, for me, this debate is -- is really not about Jackson Labs and all the exciting things that they perform in the bioscience industry. But this is about our obligations, as a Legislature, and our judiciary duties to the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut.
And I understand that this industry certainly comes along with many risks. But I think we, as the -- the institution that holds the purse strings, needs to balance those risks with -- with the tax dollars that are given to us to administer.
This summer I had an opportunity, with other legislators, to visit the UConn Health Center. And it was exciting for me to go through that process and see all the different things that that institution does, many of which complements what this proposal seeks to develop, on the one hand.
On the other hand, when I saw this proposal, I -- I am reminded of the risk in the industry. In our area, we had an industry, Carriage Incorporation. It was a publicly traded company that had investors come in, and they were in the same bioscience market. There, they received mostly federal grants. I don't believe there was any state dollars involved. But many people, including myself, purchased stock in that industry, and there was a lot high hopes in that area. And within about a decade, unfortunately, that company didn't create the jobs that were promised. We ended up seeing about, I think, to the current day, there's about 16 employees at that institution. In their heydays, they had many more. But the fact of the matter is there are risks through this industry.
When I reviewed the REMI report, so much of our discussion -- or so much of that report was based on the Price Water Coopers, the new science of personalized medicine. And in there, they projected that there is 11 percent growth. And this was, sort of, the premise that Connecticut was basing its job growth on. And when I read the report, I get concerned.
I mean, in the report, it directly cites the fact that this is an industry that has many, many risks. And just to quote a short section here, it says that some businesses have experienced success in the personalized medicine market but there are few viable business models for other organizations to follow. And some of the models that this report sets forth, it doesn't appear that we're following any of them, when I look at what's been given to us. Many of these models suggest more of a partnership, whether it be private-private, private universities or, you know, private-government. There is some sort of partnership. There's some sort of sharing in royalties. And I don't see any evidence of that.
And, quite frankly, as the questions were being asked -- and I think they're simple questions that could have been answered that don't involve trade secrets -- we didn't get any of those answers. And I think it's our obligation, as a Legislature, to obtain those answers before we take this vote.
It was frustrating for me, after reviewing everything, to be given an opportunity to ask just one question and get a single answer with no follow-up. And, again, it sort of stifled the process. It's stifled our ability to have comfort, not even in the science behind it, because I get there's risk to that science, but to the deal that we're potentially making here today with this vote.
This was a proposal that, seems to me, was well lubricated and went through the process with absolutely no friction whatsoever, and that's not a good way to craft legislation. We need to have the give and take. We need to have the debates. We need to have the public hearing process. That's when our products are at their best.
And what we saw was a proposal that came out in September, as Representative Cafero pointed out, and we're now voting on a bill today. So in about a month, we're going to spend $ 300 million. And what makes no sense to me is the way this was packaged to us, in that we combined the operating expenses and revenues with the capital investment. And we sort of created the illusion that Jackson Labs has skin in the game. That they're putting in $ 3 for every dollar that the State is putting in, and that is not the case.
The reality is that the State of Connecticut is putting in 100 percent of all of the capital expenditures in this project. We're putting in all the funding for the building. And so, it leads me to the next question. Well, why aren't we retaining the asset?
Because, in the tours that were provided to us by the UConn Health Center, it became very clear to me that the laboratory space is a very valuable asset in Connecticut. And we already have bioscience in Connecticut. We -- we are one of the leaders in this -- in the country for bioscience.
So, to say that we need to catch up is certainly not the case. And for us to be giving up this asset, that the taxpayers of Connecticut have paid for, is a nonstarter for me. And I wish that the State of Connecticut sent that message back, that to give up this asset is a nonstarter. Not even getting into the science piece of it, because again, I think it certainly is a worthy pursuit. Personalized medicine is the way that we are going. But I don't see any state in the union, or any public entity, putting in as much money as the State of Connecticut is, and we are retaining nothing.
So, with that, I cannot support this proposal.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Representative Adinolfi of the 103rd, you have the floor, sir.
REP. ADINOLFI (103rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd just like to clear something up, if I may? Through you, to the proponent of the bill, I have a question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. ADINOLFI (103rd):
On last Wednesday, most of us received a book -- if you were up here for a magazine from -- from Jack, and it was very informative. And I read the whole thing. And what impressed me most was page 7, where they could give their job projections over the year and the cost. And what troubled me most is that we keep on talking about $ 291 million in bonding over ten years. However, the cost to the State, over 20 years, paying off that loan is $ 411 million.
Why aren't we making that public, and we're only talking about the 291 million, when it's costing the taxpayers 411 million?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There is always the cost of carrying debt on bonding. That's with any bond issue. And you're absolutely right. The total number, over a long period of time, must include the cost to carry the debt. That is actually paid for in the General Fund. We have debt service in -- on the -- in a line item -- in the General -- in our budget, rather.
My friend here is trying to help me, showing me something in print. I can't see it. I don't have my glasses on.
But, you know, I don't think anyone is trying to keep that a secret. You know, that -- any bond issue carries the cost of -- of the debt. However, if you look at some of the charts that are provided in this magazine, you will see that the economic advantage that is generated from the jobs that will come into Connecticut are actually expected to, sort of, "equalize," I guess, is the right word, the cost of carrying that debt very early in this process.
So, yes, it's there. The activity that will be generated, and the income that we anticipate coming from all this activity, people will be paying income tax on new jobs. There will be new houses built. They will be all kind of activity. That will generate -- that is projected, in those graphs, to generate revenue that will take care of the interest on that debt.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Adinolfi.
REP. ADINOLFI (103rd):
Thank you (inaudible).
Mr. Speaker, then, in actuality, the total cost to the taxpayers, as listed in the book that Jack put out, is $ 411 million. There's no question about that. That's what they say and that's what Jack says, and I've got to believe them, because they've been pretty forward with us on everything in this book.
The other question that I have is, I keep on reading -- although I don't see it in the bill -- reading it in the media and every meeting I've been to, is that to get this $ 291 million, they only have to guarantee 300 jobs in ten years. Is -- is that going to be in the memorandum of understanding, or we have to wait and see? This is what they -- has been coming right out of the Governor's office.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, yes, it is in the memorandum of understanding. We have -- it has been indicated by the executive branch that they would have to, within the ten years, achieve the 300 new jobs plus raise 295 million of the other capital that they were to bring into this venture, and that will -- that will be evaluated in stages. It isn't just all of a sudden, when you get to year ten, you have to come up with those people. There are incremental stages, as you go along, on which they will be evaluated.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Adinolfi.
REP. ADINOLFI (103rd):
Thank you. Also, what I noticed in the same page, page 7 here of the book, is that, in ten years, giving them the benefit -- we're going past 300 jobs. They're guaranteed 339 jobs.
So just taking that into the $ 411 million is costing us, mathematically, that's costing us $ 1,212,000 per job. How do we expect to gain that back in tax money from other jobs or spinoffs?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I now have my glasses on.
According to this information that you referred to that we were given on page 8, it refers to the GDP, or the gross domestic product, increases that will be generated by the Jackson project. It indicates that the estimated spinoff activity increased, on average, each year -- will increase by 546. 5 million, rather, from 2011 through 2031.
So it's not -- you can't divide the number of jobs at Jackson Labs by the total amount of money we're spending because there are all these other factors that come into it. Increasing our productivity in Connecticut, new jobs, all of the ancillary spinoffs from -- from activity that is created go into that.
So, you know, it's unrealistic just to divide that number by the amount of money and saying that's how much we're paying. This is a much bigger -- it's a much broader picture than that. And you have to look at it in the total economic realm, I think, of -- of the -- all of the activity that is generated by this.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Adinolfi.
REP. ADINOLFI (103rd):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, looking at the figure of -- that they project in 2031, of 4,035 spinoff jobs, and dividing that into the 411 million, that's still costing us, over 20 years, $ 74,349 per job. So I -- I really think -- I'm not asking a question, I'm just making a statement now -- is that this leads me in the wrong direction. Nothing is exact. Nothing is in writing. And until I see something that I -- that I can really concentrate on and look into and believe, I can't support this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Thank you very much, sir.
Representative Ritter of the 38th, you have the floor, madam.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, most of my concerns when I first looked at this were really around the opportunities that I believe it could bring to the State of Connecticut, that I believe it will bring to the State of Connecticut, around our healthcare industry and our ability to continue to educate and provide the professionals that we need to deliver health care to all of us here in the State of Connecticut.
And I just wanted to frame my questions in that context. Because, in these last few years, standing here on the floor of the House and other people who have helped me in these discussions, we've spent an awful lot of time trying to figure out ways to do that.
And when this opportunity, this investment opportunity, first came to me, I will tell you that was my first thought. And that's a lot of my excitement and -- and optimism around looking at it comes from, what I view, as this opportunity to really transform a lot of our health -- health care sector that -- as we know it today.
So I have, Mr. Speaker, a few questions for the proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Please proceed, madam.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, my first question is, it's my understanding that this lab is to be located on the campus at the health center. But I wondered if we could have a little clearer description from the proponent of exactly where that would be.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
It is in close proximity to -- it's a 17-acre parcel of land that it will be located on in proximity to the UConn Health Center and Medical School.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Ritter.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I might just follow that up with an assumption that the close proximity -- and that actually is important, I think, for us all to understand -- just how close that would be. So, perhaps, a little more elaboration as to the access that could be afforded by folks that work at the medical school, as well as interact with the research.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That would -- you're absolutely right. That's an important point because that does provide for collaborative efforts between researchers, professors at the medical school. It also provides interesting opportunities for internships for students at the medical school, businesses that have an issue in the area that they would like to bring forward to those facilities, hospitals that are located in the greater Hartford area -- actually all over the state.
But, I -- I think the biggest impact is that it will allow for collaboration. And because the UConn facility will actually be developing at the same time as this lab, with our incubator laboratories and the new facility, the new tower, it's an excellent opportunity for everybody to, sort of, form these collaborative relationships because they will all be -- they'll all be looking to establish those relationships starting out together.
And that's really kind of nice, because they will be able to actually form an agenda, a target, that they develop together instead of the new guy coming in and trying to adjust to what somebody who's already there has thoughts on.
So I think it's a great collaborative opportunity, not only for the researchers and the -- and the doctors but the students as well.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Ritter.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Another questions at the proponent of the bill, and actually she's taken us a little down the road on this already. We've recently made, as everybody in this Chamber knows, substantial investments at the UConn Health Center. And the big impetus behind a lot of those investments was to provide an opportunity, as I understand it, to attract this kind of infrastructure for future research.
Many of the reasons why we want to do that are to provide opportunities for our students to participate in that research and provide career paths to remain in Connecticut. In addition, the vision was that these investments would provide Connecticut with the -- the ability to attract big outside research investments and the potential for spinoff.
So my first question to the proponent is that it's my recall -- and I remember much of the discussion at the time from her particular to this -- that that is exactly the kind of thing that was contemplated when we first made those investments.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, the -- the spinoffs were a major proponent -- a major component of the economic activity, so that we not only benefit from these collaborative relationships and the research and the results from the research, but also it's a boost. It's a boost economically for the State of Connecticut.
And, you know, through -- through you, Mr. Speaker, to the chair of the Public Health Committee, in 2005, as you recall, we had a very controversial discussion about whether or not we should fund stem cell research. And I recall going to Mt. Sinai Medical Center in New York City with other legislators from this Chamber, and we had the -- the unbelievable opportunity of meeting with the two head researchers on stem cell. I came out of there so excited. I actually saw a progression of petri dishes with mouse heart stem cells, and they -- as they combined -- in the last petri dish, they actually pulled together and they were beating like a heart muscle would.
I came out of there so excited, and that is part of what -- after sharing that with my colleagues, that is part of what we were trying to pull together in this state, but we kind of just didn't go to the next step. We funded the stem cell research. We have that research going on in -- at Yale, at UConn, at Wesleyan, I believe, as well, and maybe other places in the State. But this -- we needed the next step. We needed to provide the next infrastructure that's important to take all of these pieces, put them together, and have a bioscience cluster that is state-of-the-art, and will -- and the world will recognize. And Jackson Labs brings that "cohesiveness," I guess, is the word I'm looking for, to that effort.
So I thank you for your question.
(Deputy Speaker Godfrey in the Chair. )
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Ritter.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, for the proponent of the bill, we have made other attempts in the past to jump-start or create impetus to growth or expand existing industries. And I think that one of the things we're all struggling with here in the Chamber is we're -- perhaps haven't been consistently satisfied with all of those results.
And my question for the proponent of the bill really is, if she would please help us understand perhaps why that has not been the case, and what is different about this particular opportunity.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ:
Good evening.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
This opportunity is -- is a little different because we have had failed opportunities. And I -- in your -- your part of the State, we had Pfizer leave with many employees and take them to Massachusetts.
Well, shame on us for that, because we have not provided the infrastructure that they needed. They didn't have the collaboration. They were in an area where they didn't connect to all of those things, and they left. Because in order to grow and to form alliances with other scientists and research labs, they left. This is very different because we have that infrastructure here now. We have the stem cell research. We have the UConn Health Center. We have the medical school. We have the hospitals.
Jackson Labs will fit -- it marries into the situation very well and it -- every -- every piece complements the other pieces. And I think it's a very different situation and -- that will make us successful.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Ritter.
REP. E. RITTER (38th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And I want to thank Representative Widlitz for her answers to my questions. And she is correct. When this proposal first came, my -- to me and to my colleagues, particularly in southeastern Connecticut, one of the first questions we did have in our minds is, well, we've tried this before and it hasn't done so well for us in southeastern Connecticut. In fact, we're not -- not terribly happy with the results, as we view it today.
And it became apparent, in conversations about this proposal and others that we've looked at, that part of the reason for that was this is exactly what we were not able to provide for those opportunities. And I will tell you that has made a difference for me in how I have viewed this proposal.
Initially, I was perhaps not as enthusiastic and did not feel as certain that it could have the energizing impact, really, not just to the entire health care sector, but well beyond that, into scientific, technical and engineering aspects as well of our economy from the spinoff opportunities. And I feel differently that way, now, Mr. Speaker.
And I understand, particularly from Representative Widlitz's responses, that perhaps in the past we have not always been bold enough to step up and do things in the way, perhaps, we should have. And maybe that was, at the time, with the information we had, the correct answer. But today, we see that has not been working for us. And it really is for those reasons that I want to not only support this bill but encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Thank you, madam.
The gentlewoman from the 143rd, Representative Lavielle.
REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):
Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much. The work that Jackson Labs does and Jackson Labs' reputation is all very exciting. The idea of having them here is very exciting. And that isn't anything that I want to debate or dispute.
There are a number of things, though, about this deal that I find disturbing; some of my constituents find disturbing. Representative Mikutel has brought up a number of those, like the unbalanced distribution of risk, what Connecticut gives up, what Jackson Labs gets, the fact they don't pay taxes, the lack of our portion of royalties, the fact that we have very finite resources, as does every state, and that a very large portion of those resources would be parked in one place and one industry.
But -- but there's something on top of that that disturbs me more. And it has to do with the actual numbers we have and how we got to them. And, Mr. Speaker, through you, I have just one question for the proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Please proceed.
REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):
Thank you.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is, do we have an independent opinion on the valuation of the deal, of how much it is worth, and should be paid?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I think that would be very difficult without knowing the details of the memorandum of understanding. What we do have is the report from the Price Waterhouse Coopers evaluation and our own Department of Economic and Community Development has used the REMI method, which has been used consistently in -- in government for evaluations of potential activity.
But I don't know -- without having the details of an MOU, I don't know how you would have an independent evaluation without those details. So, I think the answer is, no, to the best of my knowledge.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Lavielle, you have the floor.
REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I thank Representative Widlitz for her answer. I am -- in any acquisition I've ever worked on -- and I understand this is not an acquisition -- but in any contract negotiation I've worked on between the two parties, one party has something to offer and they have an opinion of how much it's worth. And then there's the party who's going to pay for it and they have an opinion of how much they should pay.
And often, when you do know what's being offered, you can evaluate that, or you can ask for an evaluation of that before you decide how much are going to pay. As my constituents ask me what's the basis for these numbers that we're hearing, the 291, the 99, the building, the duration, what is the substance behind this? What is the reasoning for it? I find I have not had the answers to those questions and can't provide them. And without them, it's -- it's difficult, not only to say are we paying too much, but even are we paying enough?
I mean, I don't have that answer, but it is a lot of money. It is a substantial investment and a substantial risk. And I find, at the moment, that -- that not having that basis is very difficult to rationalize.
Now, it -- it seems that over the past few days, a lot of people have gotten a lot of calls. I -- I had -- Representative Cafero had mentioned he had a call from a Jackson Labs board member, so did I. And I asked that question during that conversation. And the answer I had was, well, it's a unique opportunity, and -- and it's somewhat hard to put a value on a unique opportunity.
With a unique opportunity -- again, I find this troubling -- because that's -- that can be true. But then you often are in a competitive bid situation and you know you're going to offer 500 because the next highest guy offered 480. And if you're going to get it, you've got to offer 500. And that -- that makes sense to me. But we don't really have that situation now either.
So I feel that we are dependent for what we're offering simply on Jackson Labs' own assessment of what this opportunity is worth to us. And I find having to give that as an answer, to constituents who ask me, very troubling.
And so I'll just close on something. During -- during that conversation -- and I think this was a throwaway, but it made me think -- the board member I spoke to mentioned the attractiveness of exploring the art of the possible. That was the phrase -- and I think it was a throwaway -- but, anyway, the art of the possible -- I think that comes from Bismarck, by the way. I looked it up.
And the art of the possible, there are a lot of possible worlds. But if you don't combine the art of the possible with the science of judgment and informed choice, you might unleash so many possibilities that you won't get the best of all possible worlds, but maybe something that's much less attractive. And then you can lose control of your destiny and so can the residents of Connecticut.
There's a lot of exciting possibilities here, but I don't think I can sell art without science to my constituents right now. And, strangely, we seem to be without adequate science as we watch the structuring of this deal.
So with great regret -- and I mean that -- I'm going to have to vote no on this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Thank you, madam.
The gentleman from New Fairfield, Representative Smith.
REP. SMITH (108th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see you again.
You know, when this proposal came to our caucus, I must say I was very, very intrigued -- actually, remain very intrigued by this whole concept. I think it's a -- it's an idea that deserves a lot of merit and attention. And I have gone on record with the caucus and with others that I'm very much in favor of putting Connecticut on the map, having them be the leader in the U. S. for bioscience.
But what I said then, and what I'm going to say tonight is, you know, I just wanted to see some details in terms of, you know, what are we actually voting for?
I'm not afraid to take risks. I'm not afraid to make investments. I know that it takes money to make money. I'm aware of all that. But here's the problem. Here's the problem. We never got the details. We don't know what the benchmarks are. We don't have a memorandum of understanding. We have a dialogue, and dialogue is good, and it should continue. And a memorandum of understanding then should be presented to this Chamber so we can actually vote on something yes or no with an understanding of what we're voting on.
We don't know whether if Jacks defaults, if we could call the loan. We don't know if we can foreclose. We don't know if we can terminate future advances. We do not know if there's a penalty clause if they leave Connecticut early. We don't know if they can sublease or not. We don't know any of this. And the reason why is because we don't have an agreement, ladies and gentlemen. We do not have an agreement. We have a very vague open-ended bill. We have a huge commitment to the public.
You and I are simply being asked to sign on the line, with a statement, trust me. We're being asked to sign on the blank dots, trust me. Now I can tell you, I've learned a long time ago, that I put trust in writing. Now, there's a lot of lawyers in this Chamber, but you don't have to be a lawyer to know that what we're being asked to do here tonight is malpractice. It's not something that I would ever do in representing a client. And it's not something that we should do in representing our constituents.
So I would very much love to hear more about this plan. I would very much love to vote in favor of this bill. I would love to see Connecticut put on the map for this type of project. It's -- it's a great opportunity. It really is. It's a wonderful chance to help this economy grow, to make Connecticut a better place, to bring in world-class people, but you can't do it in a vacuum. You can't do it on a hope and a whim. You have to have details. Trust me. I've been through it.
I've represented people throughout the past 27 years. And unless you have the details, you're setting yourself -- you're setting yourselves up and we're setting ourselves up for failure.
So, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would have to vote no on this, but would love to support it at a future time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
The distinguished chair of the Commerce Committee, Representative Berger of Waterbury.
REP. BERGER (73rd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening.
My -- my comments are not questions to Representative Widlitz, who's been doing an outstanding job defending this important cause here tonight, but just as the way of a comment of levity and then a comment about the process here, and to show the Chamber the different constituencies that we all have.
I received more phone calls about us changing the date of Halloween than having to deal with what's going to go on with Jackson Labs. So, as we see, the landscape of the State of Connecticut is quite different.
But let's look at what's in Farmington right now. Let's talk about economic development for a minute. You come off of 84 and you have a vacant piece of land there. And what we're going to do as a State, through economic development -- and let's just talk about that for a minute -- is create a building. Create a building there that's state-of-the-art, that's going to be paid for by Jackson Labs, that's going to create jobs, on a vacant piece of land that there's nothing there right now, next to our flagship medical facility.
That's progress. That's having money well spent. Because, at the end of the day, if Jackson Lab is not there, we have a state-of-the-art building next to our flagship university hospital right off of an exit ramp. So if we want to talk about economic development and money well spent, that's money well spent.
Let's talk a little bit about the public hearing. And, certainly, there were comments pro and con on that. And, by the way of a comment on that, all of this debate and dialogue that we're having tonight is going to be wonderful. Because I'm sure the Governor and his staff are listening; commissioner of DECD is here. She is witnessing and hearing all these comments, and that's going to be part of making a final contract. And there's a lot of good comments that are made here on the Republican side, on the Democratic side, and they make a lot of sense. And let's get those vetted out and into a contract. And I think they make sense.
But in public testimony, scientists -- now these are people that work on the petri dishes, not the people that are the investors. They're really, like, doing the grunt work in the labs. They have come to us and said, you know what, by you doing this as a state, you're going to put the State of the Connecticut on the map. I mean, these are the people that are living this every day.
They're telling us that when you do this, you now have immediately, with instant impact, put the State of Connecticut on the map for this research in a worldwide capacity. And this company is not fly-by-night. Everybody in the chamber has read what this company is about. They're world-renowned. They're not going anywhere. They're not a venture capital firm. They're not just looking for an angel investor. They're beyond that. They're huge. They're a make-a-difference business in research and medical research. And that gets to my other point, let's create an industry.
We did a bill a little while ago -- 147 to one, I think it was -- and we talked about how we're putting Connecticut on the state -- on the map, both as a country and as a worldwide market, a worldwide market, genetic research, Jackson Labs. History here. History that they can calibrate, and we can gain and reap a benefit from. So what we do there -- economic development, creating an industry and footprint in the state of Connecticut.
I cannot think of a better way for us to use taxpayer dollars, and for us to grow and create the biomedical corridor that will now run from New Haven, 95 to 84, to Storrs, right up to Massachusetts, who eats our lunch on this every day.
But you know what? That's going to stop when we vote for this today and move it forward. And incorporate, in the final MOU, all the positive, solid comments and opinions that everyone in this chamber here has made tonight.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Thank you, sir.
Gentleman from Bethel, Representative Carter.
REP. CARTER (2nd):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Unlike many of my colleagues, as I rise tonight, I have no regrets whatsoever in voting no on this bill. Now, I believe in bioscience and I believe that Connecticut can be a leader in bioscience. I don't think this is the way to do it. It's a bad investment.
I sat around a room with some business people last week and I explained what had just been given to us and what we were looking at with this opportunity, and they thought I was absolutely crazy. And they said we needed more information. There's no way you can invest $ 300 million in any organization when you have no idea what it's going to look like. So, on step one, there's just no way to support a bill like this.
Step 2: When you look at -- when you look at the financial report of Jackson Laboratories, they survive on donations. It's a nonprofit. The entire company itself has an operating revenue of $ 192 million. We're doubling -- we're doubling what we're going to give them, which is one year of their operating revenue right off the bat.
I don't think that's the kind of amount that we should donate to a charity when we have no guarantee we're actually going to get this many jobs. Three hundred jobs is not worth $ 300 million. I'm sorry. And the fact that we're thinking we can get another thousand, 2,000, 3,000, like, where does it end?
When we have as many companies in Connecticut right now that do good work in research, and they've been built over time, I think those are the companies that we need to be looking at. Those are the organizations where we need to be spending our money, not looking at one company that we're going to bring in with a pipe dream.
Because the bottom line is, they can tell us anything we want to hear. And -- and all the research they're doing is good and it's valid. But I am not in the business of risking my constituent's money when I probably would be better off at the casino, and that's how I honestly feel about it.
It's a great company. I would love to do what we could. I would love to find value out of things we could do to get them here, but $ 300 million layout, it doesn't work for me. And I am definitely a vote no.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
The gentleman from Manchester, Representative Thompson.
REP. THOMPSON (13th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
To begin with, I would like to identify myself with the remarks made by Representative Berger. I think he described my position rather eloquently, and I would like to add to that some of my own thoughts about what we're doing here as a state and what is happening in America.
The World Health Organization, if any reads their publications, ranked -- the last I saw -- ranked the United States as 37th in the world in effectiveness in providing health care. They -- we also ranked number one in the cost of our health care. And as a result, I believe, part of the lower ranking than the expenditure is due to the fact that so many of our people do not have access to health care on a regular and routine basis. Many of those people live in poverty areas.
But, in one of the greatest poverty areas in the Middle East and Asia, Doctors Without Borders have, through their work, reached the poorest on the regular basis. In fact, the World Health Organization recognized them for improving the vaccine for measles and the treatment of measles, which benefited millions of the poorest people on earth.
Now, I listened to Dr. -- pardon me, Dr. , if I mispronounce your name, but this is the first time I'm saying it solo -- Srinivasan -- I hope that's pretty close -- he made the point, and it was a good point, that the goal of the Jackson Lab is to work on the DNA. And I'm not sure exactly how you described it, but as I understand it, it would make treatment very personal by recognizing exactly the genetic makeup of the patient. So the goal is out there, and it's a wonderful thing. And I'm sure there are other people investigating this and working on it and so on.
When I read the report that was circulated about the failure of the Laboratory and the state of Florida, rather, a county within the state of Florida, to come to an agreement, and the county walked away from it. And the -- the report then analyzed that, among other things, said one of the major factors there was the governor was not committed to the issue, and that there was no connection to a higher education medical facility. And -- so they, sort of, brushed that off as being -- not brushed it off, but gave that as two of the valid reasons for the county not getting it and Jackson walking away. But the story seemed to indicate that the state had failed on their part.
And I didn't think of that again until tonight, and when Representative Widlitz read the editorial from the St. Petersburg paper down in Florida, which was very critical of the state for walking away from such a wonderful opportunity to invest in this type of research. And we're starting with not only a great state university medical center, but we also have one of the most renowned medical schools in the nation -- in the nation and in the world at Yale University, who has bought into this and will participate.
And, as Representative Berger has described the excitement that was present at the hearing, the public hearing -- and I was there -- and there were people who spoke highly of the industry that wants to come in here, the company that wants to come here, of their work in the past and their continued good reputation. And I think Representative Cafero made an eloquent argument about some of his reservations. But the one thing he did point out was that he respected the people he met from that organization and was hopeful that he could support it. But for the reasons he mentioned, he could not. And I respect that.
But there has been bipartisan agreement, I think, in this chamber on other issues, the job issue tonight, how we handle certain programs. And one area we did work on together over the years was mental retardation. And as a younger person, some years ago, I once visited every mental retardation institution in our state, got to know the employees, got to know the program. And we were at the -- Connecticut was at the cutting edge of treatment of the mental retarded.
Since then, we have completely changed and evolved into what I think is another cutting edge by community-based services. We have deinstitutionalized mental retardation. And much of that credit to that deinstitutionalization goes not only to the administrators of that program, but here in this Legislature, when we work together to improve that service.
There is still some need for institutionalizing some of those patients. But generally speaking, because of community acceptance, we are providing excellent services now, I think, and we have the support of the families and the population. And the same thing happened, also, in the treatment of the mentally ill. We have deinstitutionalized that. Some of the horror stories that we used to hear about institutions were probably extreme and maybe overblown, but we found it more effective to treat those patients in the communities as possible, and that has worked.
Another example I might give you is that the Birth to Three program, which we have all supported, has made a big difference in the lives of children born with birth defects. We provide programs from Birth to Three, to Four, to Five. And the results are -- in accounts-based reports, the results are that over 50 percent of those children will not require special education when they start -- begin school. In one report I saw, in 25 percent, the following year will not require special education.
But we took a risk. We invested money in that idea. And now, in education, we're investing money in early childhood. And that can replicate the kinds of results we're getting with the Birth to Three program. It's a good program. We've all invested. I think it's been bipartisan in those programs and they work.
So what I am suggesting is that we have delegated to others, administrators, families, communities, and so on -- a good example -- another good example is the community college system. When we looked at higher education in our state, we recognized one glaring error, one glaring statistic, kids were not able to afford higher education. We didn't have enough room, did not have enough facilities, so we came up with the idea of community colleges. And people in communities all over our state worked for that.
In my community, we loaned to the system to begin school space, other spaces, and so on. We now have a campus on the grounds of Manchester Community College. It's opened up opportunities to thousands of our kids, all who are with -- reach financially and commuting.
So we have, as a state, worked together on programs. And this, perhaps, is the most important program we have an opportunity to do something about, to get it off the ground, and do it effectively. So I am suggesting that we come together. We support this initiative. We work very hard to put it into effect, and we can defend it.
There is -- as the gentleman up there, there is always a risk when you're investing in something unknown like this, but the risk is worth it. The payoff will be, as the doctor explained, the possibility of pinpointing more exactly the problems that a patient may have and will get the right treatment, the right medication, and so on.
So I think it's a good investment. There will be a lot of excitement about it. There will be offshoots. They'll be doing a lot more than just the DNA research. They'll continue to provide research in other areas. But it's worth the investment to zero in on this with two great health centers, both at the university and at Yale, and all of the people who came in and testified that day who represent that population.
So I urge your support of this legislation. It's a good investment and some day it may pay great results.
I'd like to end on how many people in this audience -- I asked this question of our caucus -- had diphtheria when they were growing up. Anybody? Anybody? Raise your hand.
Well, I'm the only one in the chamber that had diphtheria. And some predecessor of the Jackson Laboratories came up with a vaccine that prevents diphtheria and has prevented diphtheria from occurring to any of you in this room because they were vaccinated with that. I had the misfortune of being born before that vaccine was made available. I was a kid in the 30s, and I'm here alive to testify that this is a good investment. Health care, at this level, is always a good investment. And if it's taking a risk, don't worry, we'll succeed.
(Speaker Donovan in the Chair. )
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
Gentleman from the 40th, Representative Moukawsher.
REP. MOUKAWSHER (40th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in the past, I've spoken against corporate incentives, tax credits, and things of that nature, you know, preferring, if -- if that was possible, to create an environment where we could lower costs for business, create a better climate, and -- and perhaps incentivize business overall in that manner. But we find ourselves now in a -- in a much more difficult situation.
We currently spend billions every year to compensate for the consequences of underemployment and -- and unemployment. We have a persistent rate of unemployment and we have unenviable record of not -- of failing to create jobs for the last 22 years.
This proposal is a proposal to spend $ 29 million a year. Yes, it's an investment in -- in the Jackson Laboratory. But it truly and really is an investment in the future of this state.
We have been awaiting a jobs bill from -- from Washington. It's not happening. We find ourselves on our own. If we intend to create jobs in this state, we need to make it happen. The greatest aspect of this investment is that it has a tremendous upside. And we've heard all the different projections about spinoff jobs, creating clusters of bioscience. This -- this particular investment has a tremendous upside and an opportunity for us to create a real nexus of research that is -- that exists but needs further encouragement in this state.
I've learned and I've spoken to scientists, Jackson -- the Jackson Laboratory has a sterling reputation. They're going to own and operate this facility in Connecticut under the same corporate ownership that they have in Maine. They're putting their full -- their reputation and their full faith and credit on the line in -- in coming to Connecticut and making their investments in this project. They're betting their future, as we are.
I believe this is a bold and yet prudent investment in the future of opportunity in Connecticut, and I -- I believe we must seize it. So I'm -- I'm supporting this -- this measure very wholeheartedly. I think we're going to see a tremendous growth in -- in science and -- and all the associated businesses that will -- will derive from that.
And, again, I think it's a modest bet on a very bright future.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
Gentleman from the 51st, Representative Rovero.
REP. ROVERO (51st):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I'm asking all my colleagues to please, please support the Jackson Labs Bill. I'm asking you to support it for a different reason than most reasons you've heard this evening.
As you might know, I voted against the 800 million to 1 billion dollars that was voted on this year for the Farmington medical center. Now, I want you to vote this $ 300 million to be in conjunction with our Farmington medical center, to support the $ 800 million, which I did not vote for. But I think the combination of both the Jackson Lab and what's going on at the Farmington center is nothing but a home run. Not only is going to create jobs, it's going to put Connecticut on the map.
Some might say I'm throwing good money after bad money, but I disagree with them. If this facility was going to be built any place by itself, I would probably -- voting against it. But being built on the UConn campus right next to our other labs is going to create a facility that's going to be second to none, and it's going to support the original $ 800 million we supported.
I heard several people here speak about not knowing what the Governor is going to have in the final bill. Is he going to go in and negotiate in good faith for the state of Connecticut? A lot of us have known the Governor prior to him becoming governor and we know that he knows what he's doing when it comes to negotiating. He will do the best job that he can do for the state of Connecticut.
So, in closing, again, I ask you please, please let's get on with this wonderful deal for the entire state of Connecticut and vote positive for the Jackson Lab.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
My good friend from Stratford, Representative Larry Miller.
Good evening, sir.
REP. MILLER (112nd):
Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
I just have some comments. No questions for the lovely lady.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
I'm sure she's happy to know that.
REP. MILLER (112nd):
I'd just like to say that there's been two major breakthroughs in the medical field. One is the computer, which allowed programs that had been running maybe for a month or two, now they can do them in a couple weeks. And the second one is a brand new technology breakthrough, stem cells. And Jackson Laboratories has been involved with stem cells a few years back and they still are involved in that when they reengineered some of these mice. They'll take their DNA, and maybe throw some stem cells that might have some kind of a little crooked spot in it where it's going to give them some kind of disease, and then they ship these things out, 2. 9 million of them, all over the country to various laboratories and universities, and research laboratories across the country.
I've been going down to Little Rock, Arkansas for the last 13 years. Down there, they're noted for their stem cell transplants. There are roughly about -- between 7 and 8,000 transplants they've done to date, and they've come a long a way. And some of the things they've done is just outstanding and they've prolonged life for a lot of people. And in some cases, they've even cured a couple of people.
So I think that Jackson Labs is a wonderful organization. They do some great things. And they're probably going to do a lot better if they're connected to places like Yale and UConn. We have probably the best stem cell program in the east, and I think it's probably a worthwhile thing to do.
But the financial aspects of it scare me because we have $ 70 billion worth of unfunded liabilities. We've got the worst debt in the nation, per capita. And our pension system, we're probably the worst in the country with under funding it. We just spent some money on the jobs bill. And here we're asked to pass this bill, which is going cost a ton of money, and something that we're not going to see for quite awhile.
I don't know how I can go back to my district and tell people who are losing their homes, losing their jobs, maybe they've got to take their children out of the college they're at because they don't have the funding to continue to pay. It's just -- we're in bad shape financially. And I think this is not going to make us any better. And I think it probably has a lot of merit, but financially, it just scares me. And I don't know how we're going deal with this.
You know, not this November, but next November, are we going to see another deficit, and is that the last deficit or are we going to see some more after that? Connecticut has always been the last state out of recessions. And I just feel that while this is worthwhile project, financially, I can't support it. I just think I'd -- I'd get taken over the coals when I get back to my district.
So that's all of my comments, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
The gentleman from the 68th, Representative Williams.
REP. WILLIAMS (68th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good evening.
I know that the hour is getting late and we've been at this all day. And I just wanted to make a few comments, in -- in general, about the bill that's before us.
Like so many of you, I want this bill to be a bill that I can support. I want this concept to be something that I can vote for. What Jackson Labs is offering is unquestionably exciting. We all understand that or we all should understand that. We all should understand that what is before us here today hopefully will be the future of science here in the state of Connecticut. We hope that they will be a good partner for us going forward in the future. But with so many unanswered questions, how can we vote yes on this.
We heard, just here in the debate tonight, there are many unanswered questions. There's many things that we don't know. And yes, I understand that the executive branch is the negotiator of this bill and that's their responsibility, but we're an equal partner in this government. We, as a Legislature, are an equal partner in this government.
We should have those answers before we cast this vote here today. We should expect to have those answers, whether we're Republicans or Democrats, or whether we love the Governor and his progress thus far in his governorship or whether we don't like what he's done so far, we should be asking and demanding those answers. And we clearly don't have those answers here today.
You know, we've heard a number of things. We've heard Florida dropped the ball and -- and, you know, we picked up the pieces were Florida dropped the ball. I remember reading an article several months ago that Governor Rick Scott, when he was a candidate for governor, said he was against this project when he was a candidate for governor. Now, I don't know whether that's true or not. We don't have an answer to that. But we've heard one story, and now we know there's another side of that story.
We don't know the terms of this agreement. We're being asked to approve -- we, the Legislature, are being asked to approve $ 292 million. I understand that the Governor's office is negotiating it, and I give them the benefit of the doubt that they think they have negotiated the best deal they possibly could. But we're being asked to approve $ 292 million and we're saying -- we're being told vote for this and we'll figure it all out later. We can't accept that as an answer.
And, by the way, we're being asked to do this after a very brief and rushed public hearing process last week, wherein members of the Finance Committee were told after a presentation from the administration and Jackson Labs, you get one question. Each member gets one question.
We went into a joint Labor, Commerce and Finance Committee meeting where the public was invited to testify. And at the beginning of that public hearing, we were told no questions. The public will come and say their peace, and there will be no questions of the public.
Why do we have to do this right now? Why is that today, October 26th, is the day that we have to do this? One of the gentlemen from Jackson Labs testified a few weeks ago that -- that this is not a ultimatum. It doesn't have to be done right now. October 26th is not an ultimatum. That we've got other states that are interested, but it doesn't have to be done on October 26th. Why can't we give a little bit more time and thought to this? Why does it have to be done today? Why are we rushing this through?
You know, earlier today somebody used the example that -- I don't know if it was here on the House floor or out in the hallway. It's been a long day -- but somebody used the example that, you know, many of us have gone to a car lot and the salesman says here's the car that's perfect for you, and you say, well, I'd like to think about it. And the salesman says, if you -- you can do that, but if you walk away, somebody else might buy that car. So you sort of feel the pressure. Right? You feel the sales pitch. Don't we feel a little bit like the car buyer now? I certainly do. I feel like we're rushed. If we don't do this now, somebody else might scoop it up. But we don't know who. We don't know who we're competing against. We don't know if we're competing against anybody.
We've been told that there's other states that have an interest in this, but we don't know. We don't know. You know, on a big project that was proposed many years ago that went south, the New England Patriot's deal, some of you in this chamber served at that time. I did not. But you may remember that there was a -- or have heard that there was a 9 or 10 or 11 hour public hearing here in the House of Representatives, a long public hearing. Every single member of the public who wanted to be heard was heard that day. And members of the Legislature were able to ask those people questions. That didn't happen here. That didn't happen here. It was rushed through. And now we're being asked once again just trust us, this will be a good deal.
I want to be able to trust that this is going to be a good deal. And I hope to God that this is a good deal. Because, at the end of the day, we're all residents of Connecticut; Republicans, Democrats, Majority, Minority, Senate, House, all of us. We're all Connecticut residents. We all want what's best for our state. But I think that some of us think we need to take a little bit more time and think about this and get the answers to those questions in a public forum.
You know, we always talk about good government here in this building. We have to have a thorough process. We have to have the public heard. Can we really say that's what happened here? I certainly don't think so.
You know, we heard earlier tonight that we should create an industry. We need to create an industry. Government needs to create an industry. Why -- why do we have to create an industry? Why? Why does government have to do that? Why is that the government's job? Isn't that the free market's job? Isn't that the small business world's job to create industry, to create jobs?
I know, as Representative Cafero said earlier, it's become very cliche that, you know, government doesn't create jobs, but people do. But it's true, and it's happening in other states. Other states are not creating industries. They're creating an environment where industries can create jobs.
And as we learned earlier, although we hit some base hits with our previous bill, and I'm very supportive of the bill that we passed, we didn't do what we need to do to allow government -- to allow the free market to create jobs. And here we are once again taking a gamble, throwing the dice, and saying, you know what, we hope this works. I hope it works, too. But I'd rather to do it on our terms, with all the questions answered.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The gentleman from Southbury, Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If I may, a couple of questions to the proponent.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
In -- in looking at the document that was distributed to members a few days ago, "The Jacks Genomic Medicine" -- that's how it's entitled -- it looks like an excerpt from a magazine -- there is an explanation of the project and there's Appendix Number 2, which has a 20-year financial projection in it. I guess I would like to direct the chairwoman of the Finance Committee to that so that she will be able to, hopefully, know what I'm asking about.
It's somewhat difficult to read, but I think with a little bit of effort, I have been able to get some of the information. And one -- to me, at least, the key lines in this financial projection is the -- something called the "Net Operating Surplus," that is shown. It has, actually, a bunch of negative numbers for the most part, but it's a -- a net operating surplus. It -- the -- runs for the first ten years. It shows a grand total of a negative number of something, which I believe is $ 29 million.
So I guess the first question I would ask is related to this. With respect to that net operating surplus, am I correct in understanding that that is the net effect of both revenues and expenses for the operations of this organization. That they, themselves, are projecting for the Farmington facility.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, I did find the line. It is very difficult to see and it does show, as you indicated, a negative. You know, I have not -- I have not discussed this particular line item with the Jackson people, so I would assume that your interpretation is correct. It looks like a negative number.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And -- and looking further along -- along their timeline, it shows that their net operating surplus, again, is a negative number, which I believe is some $ 47 million, which I guess represents the full 20 years life of the project that's projected out in this financial projection. And -- and so, again, I was going to ask but -- and I guess I will -- is -- is there anything -- any document that the representative was shown to indicate that they have a net operating surplus that is a positive number, or is -- were numbers -- were numbers shown to her that show that this $ 47 million deficit is, in fact, what is expected to occur in the operations of the Jackson Labs facility in Farmington.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Through you, I'll direct your attention to the line directly beneath that. And it shows, I believe, a positive number as a -- as a total. So I'm -- I'm not sure that -- that may have been compensated for by something else. I'm really not sure, Mr. Speaker. But it looks like -- it looks like the -- the final number, the total, is a positive number.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Actually, I was going to get to that line that is below, but I was going to come to that in a moment. Again, hearing the answer, I assume, therefore, that the $ 47 million deficit is, in fact, what Jackson Labs describes as its net operating surplus.
Below that, however, is another line or section called "Other Operating Support". And, again, there is an item, a line of -- item called "Gifts. " That starts in Year 2 with 100, I assume, thousand dollars, and that gradually goes up till it gets to be, I believe, $ 10 million in Year 10. And there's a gradual accumulation of gift -- gifts that are being made to Jackson Lab's Farmington operation.
Could I ask the Chair of the Finance Committee what is the source of the gifts? Where are these gifts coming from that are projected in this document?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I would assume that is philanthropy. They do get some -- they do receive philanthropic donations along with their grants and other sources of revenue. So I would assume that that would fall under the line of gifts.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Has the -- has there been any indication in -- in the other conversations, or other documents presented to the Chair of the Finance Committee, that would detail what the gifts are projected to -- or who the gifts are projected to come from? What the source of the gift income is? Is there -- beyond just saying that's is philanthropy, is there anything that indicates an expectation of where this gifting is to be coming from?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not recall seeing that information.
Through you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Okay. And below gifts, there is something called "Endowment Income. " And again, that starts in what appears to be Year 7 with 200, or is 250,000 -- I can't quite tell -- and it gradually increases during the next couple of years and then seems to sort of flatten out at around $ 1,200,000.
Approximately, the same question to the Chair of the Finance Committee, is there -- first of all, is there an explanation as to what "Endowment Income" is? Has Jackson Labs provided any detail as to what the source "Endowment Income" is?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
Unfortunately, I do not have that information, sir.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Okay. I guess I'd ask the question does -- has Jackson Labs provided a document similar in its informational content to this appendix that I'm -- to which I'm referring. First of all, it's easier to read, but perhaps that provides more detail to the Chair of the Finance Committee.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
We have all received the same information. And I don't have anything that you haven't been -- have access to as well.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative O'Neill.
REP. O'NEILL (69th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Because, again, as I look at it, this document, which apparently is the only information that any of us have to go on, first of all, it's pretty close to difficult, if not impossible, to read without magnifying glasses, which I'm wearing right now, to try to get some information off of the sheet. That it really isn't the kind of the information that, I think, if any of my clients went to their local banker and looked for a mortgage and presented something that nobody could read, I don't think they'd be able to get the mortgage.
You usually are expected to provide, if you want to just get a couple-hundred-thousand-dollar home mortgage, you have to provide a lot more information then what's being given to us right now in exchange for $ 300 million that the Jackson Labs people are looking for. Just a home mortgage. Everybody does these every day in the state of Connecticut and they give a lot more detailed information. And they're able to say where they expect their income to be coming from, and if they have a source of a gift that's supposed to help pay for the down payment on a mortgage, you have to show it. You have to have a gift letter. You have to explain where the money is coming from. And none of that information is forthcoming to us today.
Without the gifts, without the philanthropy that's projected to come from an undisclosed location or endowment income, which is something different, but there's absolutely no explanation as to what "endowment income" really is, then we are left with a net operating deficit that runs into the tens of millions of dollars during the course of the 20 years that Jackson Labs is projecting out in their own document. This isn't somebody else doing it -- making a critical analysis. This is the Jackson Labs own documentation, which is presumably the best projection that can be made, based on the available information.
Just this little exchange, without -- because there's been a lot more detailed exchanges by other people looking at other aspects of this with respect to the security the state gets, the level of risk that the state is taking, which seemed to me to suggest that this a project that doesn't make financial sense. That doesn't pass the basic requirements that we should have before we give some money to somebody to show that, in fact, that they can make this project succeed, other than by gifts from unknown sources and sources of income that can't be explained or haven't been explained.
It was said earlier that, with respect to investing, that hope is not a strategy. And -- and I think those are words that we should, in fact, embrace when we're looking at this. Whether Jackson Labs builds the facility in Farmington, if they're they going to discover a cure for some of these dreadful diseases that they are studying, they will discover that cure, whether they're here in Farmington, or they remain in Bangor, Maine, or they build some facility some place else. And if they don't, somebody else will, because that's the nature of this scientific research. These cures will be discovered.
It would be good if we were able to get jobs and help build our economy around a new set of industries that are going to be making these kinds of discoveries over the next ten or twenty or thirty years. But there are going to be unsuccessful companies as well, that don't make the big successful breakthroughs and that are going to leave behind them failed projects, and they're not going to be successful. And the question is, how do we tell which one Jackson Labs is?
Are they going to be the successful one, or are they going to be the one that just didn't quite make it in this new competitive world of genomic investigations? And my impression is that, certainly based on what I've heard tonight, nobody in this chamber is equipped to be able to answer that question. There's hope. There's excitement. There's enthusiasm. But that is not really the same thing as knowing the answers to the questions.
Somebody mentioned just a few minutes ago, one of my colleagues, that we had a project proposal about the Patriots. And there was excitement and there was enthusiasm, and there was a governor who was determined to make that project go forward. There were questions. And there was an extensive debate at that time. And I started out with the Patriots project very skeptical about whether it made any sense and whether it could ever come to fruition. And as I raised questions, as I went through the documents, I went through the contracts that had been negotiated with the owners of the Patriots, I asked various questions. I said this doesn't make any sense. This other part needs to be changed. And the people on the other side in the administration responded.
And by the time the bill got to be -- to the floor, to a final vote, they had made enough changes in the document, they had addressed the issues that had been raised by myself and others specifically and sufficiently so that it really was hard for me to vote no.
My specific detailed questions and the things that I thought were wrong with the contracts for the Patriots, one by one, were addressed in one way or another. I still had misgivings and doubts and uncertainties, but I ended up voting yes on that particular project because it was taking a little bit of a leap of faith, which I think we, perhaps, can be expected to do.
But in this case -- in this case, every effort to try to bring about a higher level of comfort to ease concerns and doubts about this project have been rejected. The project has been brought to us as, essentially, a take-it-or-leave-it deal and -- and you better take it quickly because they might go some place else.
Now, we all know the Patriots deal didn't come to fruition because surprise, surprise, the National Football League decided they weren't going to let the Patriots move out of Boston. And that was a great loss to the state of Connecticut because they would have been the national champions, for how many years running, after they didn't move here. And it would have been a lot of prestige. And it would have been a lot of excitement and a lot of enthusiasm, and who knows how many spin-off industries might have been generated. But it didn't come to Connecticut. It didn't work. And there are a lot of people who have had a lot of skepticism about it. Fortunately, we did not spend tens of millions of dollars before we found out -- or hundreds of millions of dollars that they weren't coming.
With this project, if this doesn't work after four, five, six years, if the NIH grants don't flow as folks at Jackson Labs hope that they will, if the philanthropy doesn't flow as they hope that it will, if the endowment income -- whatever that is -- doesn't come forward, as they hope that it will, then we are liable to be left with a large building that we don't own, that somebody else owns, and we're not really going to know what to do with it, and they're not going to know what to do with it either, except that we'll have spent a couple of hundred million dollars, and maybe more, to try to bring this thing to fruition.
And with so many unanswered questions, it just doesn't seem reasonable to vote yes on this proposal. However attractive the -- the prospect is, that if this thing is built and if it's a success, and if all the spin-offs occur, it will be such an important engine for economic growth. And yet, we're spending $ 300 million that are real dollars. And when the interest payments come due, it's closer to $ 400 million. And that's an awful lot of money in the state of Connecticut.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, as I hope -- am guessing is nearing the end of the debate, that I have not heard the information that will persuade me to vote yes on this.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, sir.
Representative Coutu of the 47th.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today we're discussing Jackson Labs $ 411 million investment from the state for a industry that venture capitalists and other groups are maybe unable or don't want to invest in. This is a risky proposition.
And, I guess, where I come from, is a background in finance, you start to analyze things a little bit differently. And when you look at the government, the government is always viewed as safety. You buy government bonds, you buy municipal bonds because they're safe. The government, you assume, is investing taxpayer dollars in safe areas, making sure the basic functions of our society are being supported through taxes and then them spending them on core services.
It's hard to believe that, in this room, much of the speculation is being based on hope, thinking, and that this is exciting. If we made our decisions in our normal life based on that, we would have a lot of problems inside our home. It would be exciting to buy an 80-inch TV, but we don't buy an 80-inch TV just because it's exciting.
So it's a little bit confusing how people can have that type of opinion and that position when you're looking at $ 411 million investment with taxpayer dollars. It's hard for me to question are we really doing our due diligence.
When you make an investment in anything, if you were to buy a home and you didn't know the rules or the perimeters of what the home would be, the cost, some of the variables with the mortgage, you wouldn't buy the home. So how can we vote on a piece of legislation where a lot of the Xs, Ys and Zs are still unknown variables.
I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that far too often, as the numbers get bigger and bigger, it gets easier to say it's only a couple hundred million dollars. A couple years ago we had the big debate on the health care center, $ 300 million dollars. And there was a lot of questions with that.
Now, we're looking at basically building a biotech campus for a $ 1. 5 billion government investment with the UConn Health Center, and now this facility, that we really are not sure of what the final result will be. And if there's any doubt, that means it's a risky investment. And that means most people would question should the government be investing in that type of operation.
There are some facts that I think are very relevant and I would just like to verify through you, Mr. Speaker, a question to the proponent of the piece of legislation.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just want to verify, this is a nonprofit operation?
Through you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Coutu.
REP. COUTU (47th):
And, through you, Mr. Speaker, does that mean this operation will pay no corporate taxes?
Through you.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Coutu.
REP. COUTU (47th):
And, through you, Mr. Speaker, does this mean that this operation -- it's a very big facility, obviously -- will pay no property taxes to the community that it will be within?
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Widlitz.
REP. WIDLITZ (98th):
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
That is correct.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Coutu.
REP. COUTU (47th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for answering those questions.
These are all the areas where, if the state is investing into an operation, it's probably first of a kind for our state to invest $ 400 million and -- in an entity that's a nonprofit, that will not have any corporate tax liability -- because we hear this very often in -- outside the private sector, we have people right now. They have a wonderful fort. It looks like a disgruntled fort operating base in the army, but it's still near our -- basically, near this building, and they are complaining that corporations, entities, are not paying enough taxes.
I don't know how many in the public are going to feel knowing that we are spending $ 411 million, and the entity we're going to quote/unquote invest in will pay no corporate or property taxes. That may be a problem for many people in my district and many people across the state.
Also, what I find what troubling, and the most concern for me, is steady revenue streams for the operation we are investing in. If you invest in a franchise of some other business, usually, you have to have, on paper, solid, stable revenue streams to invest into that corporation or that business.
In this case, we have an entity, which, while it may be exciting and there's a lot of excitement around the whole DNA and biotech field, I think their revenue stream focuses on things such as grants, gifts, endowments. These are not guaranteed. And in a society where the federal government is cutting back, even our government is cutting back grants right now, our state government, we have to have some concern that this entity really doesn't have a stable revenue stream. And in some ways, its questionable what will come in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the speakers that this process, I think, if you're investing $ 410 in an entity, there's nothing wrong with taking your time and making sure you have all the answers, and also, every T is crossed. We don't know a lot of things. And it's putting the taxpayer in jeopardy, and in my view, the future of our state in an awkward position.
At the end, I look at poor processes and think of things like Solyndra. That's another high, exciting field, green technologies. And this is a high, exciting field. But at the end of the day, it was rushed through, and the ultimate failure was the taxpayers on the hook for $ 500 million.
Mr. Speaker, it all comes down, to me, to one simple concept. We have raised taxes to the tune of close to $ 2 billion. And we are picking winners and losers. In this organization, without knowing all the data, without me being able to do my due diligence because I don't have all the information that I need to make a sound decision, knowing the risk associated with this potential investment, I cannot vote yes. To say to one company, which is a nonprofit that won't pay corporate taxes or property taxes, that we will give you $ 411 million from taxpayers and businesses across this state, and we hope that you will be able to generate 300 jobs in Year 10. It doesn't add up to me. And I hope some of my colleagues really think this through and make a sound decision based on facts not speculation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The distinguished dean of the Connecticut House of Representatives, Representative Mary Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY (85th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Program Review and Investigations Committee passed bipartisan recommendations on economic development in December 2009 when we were more than a year into the latest recession. And this report was a very blunt and uncomfortable assessment of the state's shortcomings and assets. And we felt that we needed to confront our shortcomings and assets honestly to get the state's economy moving again.
The report advised that we return to investing in economic clusters; that we recognize the knowledge economy and support research and development; that we prioritize, among economic development, recommendations and not try to do everything and we turn the curve on job losses intentionally.
This proposal is an investment in the growth and expansion of the bioscience cluster of high-value jobs, and it is one of the nation's few growth clusters. Gene-based therapy or personalized medicine is the future of medical science. And with this bonding for Jackson Labs, which we'll get from Maine, and the previous authorizations of renovations at UConn Health Center, the state will now be poised to promote an economic cluster that is a good fit for, let's face it, we are a small, cold northern state, but we do have a high concentration of elite colleges. That is our asset. Higher education is our primary asset.
In May, in the Finance Committee, the UConn bill came through, and I did oppose the sudden request for 254. 9 million for a rebuilt lab at UConn because I had no information on it. But by the time the bond request got to the House floor, I did have enough information to understand that the lab proposal was not our usual investment in the bottomless UConn Health Center money pit, but instead, it was a bioscience investment, the type of investment that Program Review and Investigations recommended to grow jobs.
This vote tonight is another commitment. This time, the 291 million, over ten years, to the same bioscience cluster and the total investment, which is what's causing people trouble here, is almost 550 million. And so, obviously, we say is this the right investment? I believe it is, based on the PRI report that an investment in bioscience is a good fit for a state like ours. It will generate spin-off businesses. It will attract federal grants, research grants. And it will bring bright, young researchers and their families to our state.
We will have to rely on Governor Malloy and Economic Development Commissioner Smith to structure a tight memorandum of understanding, because lack of detail is what is causing some concern in the House today, probably the principle hesitation.
But we do have to be honest and admit that we need to find replacements for many of Connecticut's traditional businesses that will not be coming back in order to rebuild our economy. We have to face up to that and please support this investment.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Madam.
The distinguished Majority Leader, Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'm going to just briefly summarize the bill before us tonight. The hour is late and I think we've talked about all the things that need to be talked about.
You know, earlier tonight, when we did the other bill on job creation, I talked about turning a corner, and the fact that, I think, we, on a bipartisan basis here in this Legislature, have decided that we want to turn that corner. That we want to make Connecticut a better place for business, a place that we can grow jobs and invest in our future. And in my opinion, and I think for those of us who are supporting this bill, this Jackson Labs opportunity just furthers that opportunity to turn the corner.
I mentioned earlier in the other bill that the Majority Leader's Job Growth Round Table that has been meeting for the last couple years, with me and my counterpart, Senator Looney, and my predecessor, Representative -- then Representative Merrill, now our Secretary of the State -- there's been one consistent theme that has come out of that jobs round table from all of the -- the best and brightest minds in this state about how to create jobs. And that message has been that we need to make Connecticut a place that has a critical mass of investment in certain key clusters, in certain key areas, that we do well.
Because when you do that, you -- you foster a sense of commitment, a sense that this is the place to be for that particular industry. And success breeds success. And greats minds bring other great minds together when you have the academic institutions of your state, you have government involved, and the private sector invested. That is what this Jackson Labs deal, I think, signifies. It is that opportunity.
Now, look, we've talked a lot about -- tonight about risk. And let's -- let's admit it right now. We've been burnt before in other plans, other programs, other deals. And, understandably, we, as a Legislature, have some reticence about repeating mistakes of the past. That is why there is a desire to ensure, on both sides of this aisle, in good faith.
In this chamber, we've discussed the fact that all of us would like to have some assurance. We would like to know that the risk that we are taking, in terms of our financial investment in this project, is going to reap rewards. And we don't have all those answers tonight because the memorandum of understanding has still yet to be negotiated.
But I personally believe that this governor, our -- our current governor, does not want to repeat the mistakes of the past. I think he understands the fact that there were mistakes made in the past. And I have every assurance from -- and I think those of us who have spoken to the governor's office on both sides of the aisle -- have heard from this governor, who has -- who has said to us repeatedly, he understands those issues and is going to negotiate the best deal possible for the State of Connecticut with our taxpayers in mind, reducing and minimizing the risk to the state.
Can he eliminate it entirely tonight? No. Can he guarantee that that deal is going to be the ultimate deal? No. We have to take a leap of faith.
Now, six years ago, this Chamber invested in stem cell research. It was an investment that we made in UConn to try to make UConn the center for this type of research. It was a seed that we planted six years ago. And earlier this year, this body and the Senate approved a bond package for Bioscience Connecticut to invest in our UConn Health Center facility in Farmington, for exactly this type of research, to augment the stem cell efforts that we had done six years ago. Those were seeds that we planted. And the Jackson Labs -- those -- those seeds that we planted are exactly the reasons why Jackson Labs has chosen Connecticut as a place where they want to make their investment.
Jackson Labs represents the fruit of those seeds that we planted beginning six years. This is the fruit that comes from those investments and those smart ideas that we tried to establish in the past.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to harvest that fruit. We have a unique opportunity right now that's presented to us, sooner than many of us even thought. We have that opportunity, because when Jackson Labs comes to Connecticut, they create that critical mass that will -- that will generate the investment that will put Connecticut on the map, make it the center of bioscience technology, one of the fastest growing industries in this country.
Without Jackson Labs, we can continue to struggle to try to put ourselves on the map, but Jackson Labs uniquely -- because of their unique stature internationally, they have the ability to put this all into -- into place right now. Right now. This is the moment.
If we do not the harvest the fruit that we have -- from the seeds that we planted going back six years ago, those efforts, those initiatives, this opportunity will die on the vine. Let's support this bill and move Connecticut forward.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative.
Staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.
THE CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber. The House is voting by roll call. Members to the chamber, please.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted?
Will all members check the roll call board to make sure your votes were properly cast.
If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will please take a tally.
Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
THE CLERK:
House Bill 1401.
Total number voting 142
Necessary for passage 72
Those voting Yea 101
Those voting Nay 41
Those absent and not voting 9
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Emergency certified bill is passed.
Any announcements or introductions?
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Good evening, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Good evening, sir.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Just one announcement. I would -- well, first, I guess, I would move that we send this bill immediately -- transmit this bill immediately to the Governor, Senate Bill 1401.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The motion is for me to transmit the last bill to the Governor. Without objection, so ordered.
Representative.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just informed that one of our members is fast approaching the witching hour for his 41st birthday. Representative Juan Candelaria, if we could wish him a happy birthday.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Happy birthday, Representative. Many happy returns.
Representative Piscopo.
REP. PISCOPO (76th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
For a journal notation.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. PISCOPO (76th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Will the journal please note that Representative Simanski missed votes due to illness; Representative Rigby, business out of state. Will the transcript please note that Representatives Rowe and Hovey missed votes, they're out of the chamber on legislative business.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Representative Flexer.
REP. FLEXER (44th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind all of our colleagues that now is the time to apply for an intern for next year's legislative session. You can apply online on the "myjobs" feature on our web page, and I also have paper copies here and Representative Giegler has paper copies as well. So please see us if you would like to get an application.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative and Representative Giegler.
Representative Clemons. You look short-cornered there, Representative.
REP. CLEMONS (124th):
Yeah, I'm going to have to sit down, Mr. Speaker. For a journal transcript notation.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Please proceed, sir.
REP. CLEMONS (124th):
Missing votes due to -- for journal notation, missing votes, legislative business out of state, Representative Butler, Representative Rose; missing votes to illness, Representative Hamm, Representative Becker; and transcript notation, missing votes due to legislative business outside of chambers, Representative Robles.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
Thank you, Representative Clemons.
Representative Sharkey.
REP. SHARKEY (88th):
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, now that we have completed the business of the day, congratulations to all of us for the hard work that we put into this special session. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move that we adjourn sine die.
SPEAKER DONOVAN:
The motion is to adjourn sine die. Any objection? Any objection? Hearing none, the House stands adjourned sine die.
On motion of Representative Sharkey of the 88th District, the House adjourned at 10: 37 o'clock p. m. , sine die.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the foregoing 324 pages are a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on
Wednesday, October 26, 2011.
I further certify that the digital sound 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.
90 Brainard Road, Suite 103
Hartford, Connecticut 06114