THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

SENATE

Monday, May 5, 2014

The Senate was called to order at 12: 15 p. m. , the President in the Chair.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon, everybody. The Senate please come to order. Members and guests please rise, direct your attention to Father Nock who will lead us in prayer. Good afternoon, sir.

REVEREND JAMES J. NOCK:

How are you doing? Let us pray. Almighty Father, We ask your blessings on our circle as we come together this afternoon with just two days to go in this Session. Help us to use this time wisely, to prioritize the needs of the state and the needs of our people. And, as we approach the end, let us fall back on our ending theme that says "the difficult we do right way, the impossible takes a little longer. " And we ask this of You, who lives and reigns, forever and ever. Amen

THE CHAIR:

Amen. Thank you. Good to see you again.

At this time I'd ask finally, Senator Markley to please come up and lead us in the Pledge. Thank you.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you. 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.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. At this time I'd ask if there's any points of personal privilege? Seeing one, oh, that was fast. Okay.

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR LOONEY:

And ready to get under way. I have a number of items to mark. The first tow that I'll mark will be the first two orders of the day.

The first item, Mr. President, is on Calendar page 37, Calendar 120, Senate Bill 237. That should be the item taken up first. And the second item, Madam President will be under Matters Returned From Committee, Madam President.

Calendar page 36, Calendar 99, Senate Bill 202. Those will be the first two items and then we will mark additional items thereafter. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk.

THE CLERK:

Senate Calendar Monday, May 5, page number 37, Calendar Number 120, Bill Number 237.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you.

Senator Meyer, good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR MEYER:

Good afternoon, Madam President. I do move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of this fine bill.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark, sir?

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, Madam President. We have a strike-all amendment, and I'm going to ask the Clerk to kindly call it. It's LCO 4911.

THE CHAIR:

Madam Clerk. That's okay. Take your time. The Senate is going to stand at ease for a moment.

(Chamber at ease. )

At this time, while we are standing at ease, would you like to just invite, introduce somebody in the Chamber today? Would you do that, Senator, please?

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Madam President. My great wife is here and I'm so pleased that she came today. She's been a part of all that we do. She's generally awake when we get home at 2: 00 a. m. , so I'm so pleased to have her here, particularly as we bring out the fracking waste bill.

THE CLERK:

It's great to see you here, too. Thank you very much.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Governor.

THE CHAIR:

No problem. Are we ready? Senator, could you give us that number again, please?

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. It's LCO 4911 of Senate Bill 237.

THE CHAIR:

4911. Madam Clerk.

The Senate is back in order.

THE CLERK:

Senate Amendment LCO 4911 and Schedule "A" and offered by Williams, Looney, et al.

SENATOR MEYER:

And, Madam President, I do move this amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Hold on a moment. We've got to get everything on the machine, okay? Okay.

SENATOR MEYER:

I do move the amendment, and ask your permission to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

The motion is on adoption. Will you remark, sir?

SENATOR MEYER:

Colleagues, you'll recall the history of this bill a bit. We had two bills before the Environment Committee after receiving a lot of scientific evidence that fracking waste is extremely toxic, full of radioactivity, bromides, toxic metals, lawsuits coming in Pennsylvania because of contamination of water from fracking waste.

And as a result, there were two bills before the Environment Committee. One was to ban fracking waste in Connecticut and actually the majority of the Environment Committee supported a ban.

But other people felt that we should take a more moderate approach and that is to have a moratorium on the entry of fracking waste into Connecticut until DEEP had been able to study fracking waste and had been able to provide us with regulations.

The Governor supported that kind of an approach. The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection supported that kind of approach, and so we have created today in Senate Bill 237 a very strong moratorium concept.

And what this bill does in essence is, it puts a moratorium on fracking waste coming into Connecticut or being treated here or being disposed of here until the Department has provided regulations and those regulations have been approved, adopted by the Department and approved by our Regulations Review Committee.

And that cannot happen for more than three years. The bill has an explicit provision that no regulations will actually come into effect, which could end the moratorium before July 1, 2017.

The bill goes on to provide that after the regulations have been adopted and approved by Regs Review, that there will be a permitting process, which is the normal permitting process that this agency uses.

The bill also provides from experience in other states, that the moratorium will include de-icing materials. Deicing materials are very heavy in bromides that have been used in some states, but the effect has been toxic because particularly in the State of Pennsylvania because of the Marcellus Shale, there's been heavy fracking there and efforts have been made to use some of the fracking waste as a de-icer, but the fracking waste used as a deicer got into the water stream and it led to a lot of lawsuits.

The bill also finally provides for a direction for DEEP to obtain information so that we are fully informed about a substance that appears to be highly toxic, but about which Connecticut does not yet have its own information. So you will see in one of the subsections that there's a direction to obtain information.

So in essence, that is the bill. There is, Senator Fasano and I are offering a small technical amendment, and I'm going to ask the Clerk --

THE CHAIR:

Senator, we can't do that until we adopt Senate "A. "

SENATOR MEYER:

All right. I'll hold off the amendment. Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark on Senate "A"? Senator Chapin, good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Good afternoon, Madam President.

Madam President, I have some questions to the proponent, through you, please.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. As I recall, as you mentioned there were two bills dealing with fracking before the Environment Committee and if memory serves me correctly, Senate Bill 237 was a strict prohibition and I can't remember the House bill number, but that was, I think, the language more resembles what we have before us. Is that accurate? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President to Senator Chapin. Senator, that is accurate. 237 was the original ban bill that is now the moratorium bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President, and again, through you, did the other bill die? I guess I'm trying to understand why we're taking the one that was I think what some people would say is the stronger version and making it more of a regulatory, prohibition through regulation rather than an outright prohibition?

Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, to Senator Chapin. Yes, the ban bill, the moratorium bill actually was a House bill and after conferring with advocates of both Republican and Democrat, we decided to go with the Senate bill first, so we put the House bill onto the Senate Bill 237. That's the history of what happened.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, when we're talking, I see Section 1 of the amendment before us is a definition section, and I remember during our discussion in the Environment Committee, some concern about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, I think they're used interchangeably.

Well, let me ask that. Are those two words used interchangeably? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

There is in line 16 a definition of hydraulic fracturing. I'm not sure I understand your question.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin, would you reframe it please?

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. So when we say fracturing, we're also saying fracking? It's meaning the same thing? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. In answer to Senator Chapin, the answer is yes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, there was some discussion about fracking that takes place for the drilling of water wells for the purposes of drinking water, fracking that may take place to install geothermal systems, heating and cooling systems. I think they do fracking to, lateral fracking underneath highways and things to run cables.

Are any of those included in this bill, or are they excluded? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, Lines 16 to 21 make explicit exclusion of those other things. The hydraulic fracturing we're talking about in this bill relates solely to the fracturing of shale under which is natural gas.

So we're not looking at the question of drilling wells or geothermal facilities of any kind. We're totally talking here about natural gas and the fracturing of shale that holds natural gas.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, I heard you say that during this moratorium that would run until July 1 of 2017 that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection would be studying, I guess the fracking waste itself.

Is there a provision in the bill that directs them to engage in such a study? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, there is a section. It starts at Line 108 that deals with the ability to do some research and a limited amount of fracking waste under secure conditions will be permitted into Connecticut for the purpose of studying fracking waste and for the department to get a better handle on the toxicity issues with respect to this material.

So that will be actually three different people, or companies could apply for these research studies of fracking waste, and that, together with the directive of the department to obtain information, we're going to know a lot more about fracking waste in the next few years.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, under those three allowances, are they somehow limited in, I guess it would be gallons, or could it be large tanker trucks or does the Amendment before us speak to any gallonage or restriction on the amount?

Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President. We did. We were concerned about too much fracking waste coming into the state for this research study and therefore, we put a limit of 330 gallons per request, per the three requests, so we made an exception for any one particular study that could have up to 500, but no more than 500 in one study and the others are no more than 330 gallons. And that 330 gallons was established or based upon the science that that amount would be needed in order to make a study with scientific integrity.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, what would happen if nobody comes in with any request to study it? Is the agency planning on studying it on its own because it would seem if we're setting up a moratorium for three years and they haven't taken a look at the components of fracking waste and nobody has come in and asked for any research opportunities, are they planning on engaging in that sort of investigation after the three years is up or in the meantime? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

And in answer to Senator Chapin's good question, first of all, as I mentioned before, there's a directive to the Department to gather information, so that provision in the bill says, and I'm quoting, in implementing the provisions of this section, the commissioner shall request information, including but not limited to whether and to what extent any anti-icing or deicing product is or may be derived from or contain waste from hydraulic fracturing, and it goes on to set out the information that could be required.

The department in conversations, I think you've been part of those conversations, Senator Chapin, the department has indicated that it will be actively acquiring information in order to determine the toxicity of fracking waste and the byproducts of fracking waste.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again through you, as I read the bill I guess we could, if we use the amendment before us in general terms, it's really a two-part Amendment.

One dealing with fracking waste and the other dealing with fracking byproducts. Is that accurate? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

That is true. There is a reference to, particular reference in the bill, through you, Madam President, to deicing products from fracking waste. That's the most specific reference to a byproduct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, and keeping along that line of thinking that it is somewhat two separate issues, it's also my understanding as I read through the amendment, that the moratorium would prohibit the agency from putting regulations forth prior to July 1, 2017, specifically for the treatment of fracking waste, yet to undergo any sort of an investigation or permitting process through the regulatory process on byproducts, there is no moratorium on the byproduct side. Is that your understanding as well? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President. There is a very explicit moratorium with respect to deicing material and that is the byproduct about which we have the most information because of the contamination it's caused, particularly in the State of Pennsylvania.

We're not sure yet what other byproducts may develop from fracking waste, if any.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, so the moratorium on the deicing type products, which I believe is in Section d, starting in line 76.

SENATOR MEYER:

That's correct.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

That doesn't fall within the moratorium that extends to July 1, 2017, as I read that section. It appears to me that those regulations, there is a moratorium, but only up until the time that those regulations may be submitted for adoption by the Regs Review Committee.


Is that correct? Through you, Madam President
.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, the, starting on line 76 the bill is clear that there will be no sale or purchase or treatment of deicing materials coming from fracking waste in the state of Connecticut until, and line 79 says the commissioner has adopted regulations and those regulations have been approved by our Regulations Review Committee.

So to answer Senator Chapin's question, Madam President, the de-icing byproduct of fracking waste is subject to the moratorium.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I'm not sure what I'm missing here. It really does appear to me that Section b again, dealing with fracking waste and not fracking byproducts sets up a moratorium until July 1, 2017 and then regulations can be submitted, and as I read it, when we get to Section d where we're talking about a moratorium on those byproducts, it doesn't appear that that July 1, 2017, dictates how long the moratorium will be.

The only thing I'm reading in that section prohibiting the use and sale of byproducts is simply we need to have regulations adopted, but I don't see where those regulations on the byproducts are prohibited from being submitted to the Regs Review Committee prior to July 1, 2017.

As I read it, they could be submitted as soon as the Agency can put them together and go through the UAPA process. Are you interpreting that differently? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Madam President, the, what we are trying to do with the section on de-icing was to make any sale, purchase or treatment of de-icing products subject to regulation and those regulations having been approved by us through our Regulations Review Committee.

There is no time limit set with respect to that, to the de-icing byproducts.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Can you tell me whether or not anybody knows conclusively whether we have any fracking waste or fracking byproducts in the state of Connecticut today? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, and I'm just looking at our wonderful Legislative Liaison Rob LaFrance here and he is shaking his head as he has before, and other members of DEEP have said that we have no knowledge whatsoever of any fracking waste currently being in the state of Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, so even though we can't find any fracking waste in Connecticut or byproducts that are being used, I guess we could consider this a preemptive action. Is that fair to say? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, it's a preemptive action, but the preemptive that it's got a very strong premise.

You know, as the, about a week ago the New Haven Register did a lead editorial, the headline of which says, I'm reading it. Dangerous fracking waste needs to be kept out of Connecticut, and that article, as well as other literature, indicates that we're probably not in so much danger of fracking waste coming to us from Pennsylvania because it's a long way and an expensive trip.

But in November of this year, Governor Cuomo of New York is supposed to make a decision as to whether or not New York will hit the Marcellus Shale and produce a lot of fracking waste.

New York being so close to us, and close by the way, to your Senate District, Senator Chapin, we do think that we're endangered, as the New Haven Registers suggests, by action by New York that could come as early as November.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, so there's, in your, through the testimony, you have no reason to believe that fracking will be taking place in Connecticut. The concern is that the fracking waste will be coming from out of state into Connecticut either to be treated or to be used as a byproduct?

Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, we don't have any natural gas in Connecticut that we know of. The Marcellus Shale goes through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York, but not Connecticut, so we don't think we have any natural gas that could be the subject of fracking here.

What we're concerned about is this toxic fracking waste coming in here from another state.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, are we aware whether the adjoining states to Connecticut prohibit fracking waste and its byproducts? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, Pennsylvania has enacted increasingly strong regulations with respect to fracking waste because of the contamination of their water.

New York is considering legislation to do that, which I imagine will be any fracking in Connecticut would be subject to that.

So Pennsylvania has acted. We think New York is about to act.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the gentleman for walking through the amendment with me, certainly for my benefit but I hope for the benefit of everybody in the Chamber.

Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment before us somewhat reluctantly and I say reluctantly because if I said that I heard from 200 constituents in my district on this issue, that would not be an exaggeration, and they all support a complete prohibition.

I had been asked on a number of occasions to co-sponsor this very bill and knowing how this building can work sometimes, sometimes people co-sponsor things that take a sudden turn in a direction that they don't like, so I chose to wait to see what was going to happen with this very bill number. Much easier to co-sponsor a bill than to un-cosponsor a bill.

However, in those discussions I've had with constituents on whether a prohibition kind of a prohibition versus a regulatory scheme for fracking waste, I have always been mindful of the fact that this could be considered, I think half a loaf and I think a lot of people would agree that half a loaf is better than no loaf.

Again, I can appreciate the measured approach. I think those who involved in the discussions as to how to craft this language before us today did so in a very thoughtful and measured manner.

Again, I know I will probably have constituents that aren't very happy at the end up the day that we end up with a regulatory process and not the outright prohibition that they had wanted, but as I said, I think that regulating it is better than doing nothing at all so I stand in support of the amendment before us. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Witkos, good afternoon.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Good afternoon, Madam President. A great day to be here today. The clock is ticking.

I rise to support the amendment as well, and I do have some concerns that I wanted to kind of flush out just for those folks back home that don't want me to support the bill. I want to make sure that I'm very clear as to why I am supporting the bill.

So, through you, Madam President to Senator Meyer, a few questions.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, to Senator Meyer, so most of this issue regarding fracking was the result of the discovery of the Marcellus Shale. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, that is true with respect to the northeast.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. Are we aware of, have there been any issues while the Marcellus Shale is relatively new found in the New England area as in the states that you described earlier, while there's other states that may, we've been fracking for a while, we meaning the country, or private use.

Do those states currently have any type of a moratorium or have they, oh, I'll stop at that question (inaudible).

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I have not made a study of the other states, except I have learned that Pennsylvania has regulated fracking waste because of the contamination problems that have come in that state.

I do not know what Ohio has done or Virginia has done. As I mentioned to Senator Chapin, New York is in the process of doing some regulation. That's the extent of my knowledge.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. I wrote down a comment when you were answering Senator Chapin to say that in New York, Cuomo is set to make a decision soon. Excuse my ignorance in not following New York, what's happening there, but is that the decision whether to continue a ban on fracking, or what is the decision that Cuomo will be making? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, the decision that I understand New York is going to make through its Governor is whether or not to start a fracking of the Marcellus Shale within the State of New York.

Right now, New York has a ban. Realizing that natural gas, the cost of natural gas to customers if about one-half the cost of heating oil, New York is starting to re-look at this resource it that we don't have and therefore, it has become a very lively subject in New York as I understand it, that the Governor is going to make a recommendation sometime in November with respect to whether New York will reverse its current ban and will take advantage of this cheaper energy resource.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And through you, Madam President, is there a ban, is that (inaudible) incline or indeed legislative action or executive action to cease the ban? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I have not read the New York legislation on this, but certainly it's been reported and there have been conversations that it does have a current ban that can be lifted.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And through you, Madam President, I know in our state we, a few years ago, maybe last year, we passed the Comprehensive Energy Strategy Plan and we're moving toward trying to get homeowners to a cheaper, cleaner fuel and natural gas as well and there's a lot of investment going on in that direction.

Will this ban have an impact or create an impediment for Connecticut's Comprehensive Energy Strategy Plan? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, you know, this is just hypothetical, but I would think that if New York does continue its ban and not lift its ban, and we don't know which they're going to do, but if it does continue its ban, I think our danger is far less that we'll be getting fracking waste in Connecticut, because I just, most economists and people who have studied this issue say it's very expensive to move fracking waste long distances, and therefore, we don't think that fracking waste is going to come from Pennsylvania or Ohio or West Virginia.

We do think it could well come from New York, but we want to be ready. This bill is before us today because we want to be ready to protect our citizens.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, and I understand that, but my, I guess the question I'm looking for the answer to it is, if we enact this ban --

SENATOR MEYER:

Moratorium.

SENATOR WITKOS:

-- moratorium, for X number of years, does that impact our ability to participate in the legislation we already passed through the Comprehensive Energy Strategy Plan? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos, can you reframe your question, please.

SENATOR WITKOS:

I will.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. If part of our Comprehensive Energy Strategy Plan we passed in the last Session or two years ago, I don't recollect when it was, determined that we would be able to move more of our residents to a cleaner, natural fuel, get away from oil based, which is to a natural gas base, and if part of our thought process was, we will be getting natural gas from Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York, and we can't control what New York does, but if they continue with their ban and our plan, does that impact our ability to get what we want to get done here in our state to our residents? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, Governor Malloy has been very aggressive in trying to facilitate natural gas coming to Connecticut. We have been using only about 25 percent of our energy for natural gas, where the other northeastern states are 40 to 50 percent natural gas, which is far less expensive than home heating oil.

And so, we are through pipelines and incentives and discussions, some of which we've had in, and Environment Committee's had, many of which the Energy Committee had. We are trying to put a real push behind this cheaper energy source, natural gas.

So if New York decides to go with natural, with fracking natural gas, I would think that would help us, but there are plenty of other supplies now of natural gas that we're getting coming from other states.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And my understanding is that pipelines will have to be built based on the number of places that would change over and to get the, we can't produce natural gas here in Connecticut. We've got to get it someplace else and ship it here.

And if part of the pricing were based on New York entering into the market, I think that's going to negatively impact us if they are no longer in the market and the gas is being shipped from a further distance away.

So we said that fracking won't come, travel that far from Pennsylvania or Ohio because it probably costs too much money to send, transport it either by rail or by freight on our roads, and that's what we don't want to have happen by this bill being before us.

But yet, if our Comprehensive Energy Strategy is built on the fact that our neighboring state New York produces natural gas and it's a shorter distance, we can get it cheaper, you know, I'm wondering how, as a region, how that's going to impact us.

And while we can only control our own destiny, many times in this Chamber we do things on a regional basis because either we don't want to go it alone or things happen in our region similar to and I'll name like a couple. Like when we put sulphur in our gasoline and we did a GMO labeling bill, they were trigger marks to say well, if it's done regionally, then it's going to make sense for us to participate in it because we act in a region.

So I guess to get to my question, the long way around was, if we pass this bill as amended, it's not going to negatively impact our ability to move our residents to a conversion to natural gas. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, our intent is to encourage more use of natural gas in Connecticut by our constituents. This bill does not relate to that.

This bill relates instead to a byproduct that we call fracturing waste that comes from natural gas, and that's to protect our citizens, what we think we need to regulate and have a moratorium on until we do that regulation.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And that's, I guess, and I agree, but does that impact our state in a negative way if we are the benefit of the product, but yet we're not responsible for the byproduct where the states that produce it benefit by the product but have to deal with the byproduct.

So how does that, can they charge and they meaning whoever produces it, can they charge us if you were to say, or have you heard, a fee for not accepting the waste of the product that we're actually receiving.

So we get the good but without the bad is kind of what I'm getting at. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, Governor Malloy last week made a very significant statement in answer to the Senator's question, and he said that the states which do have natural gas get a great benefit from having that resource, and that they should have the responsibility for that resource as well as the benefit.

And when he said that, he referred to, in effect, to this bill saying that we shouldn't have to accept the responsibility of a toxic poison like fracturing waste when we don't have the benefit of the resource itself, mainly natural gas.

So we're drawing a very strong line between the two. We don't have the benefit. We shouldn't have to have the responsibility for dealing with the toxic material.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. Well, I would respectfully disagree with that comment because this is the exact reason why we're switching people over to natural gas because we were receiving the benefit that it's a lot closer to Connecticut. Prior to the discovery of the Marcellus Shale it wasn't financially viable to ship it from the gulf coast or out Midwest here because it just, cost-wise it didn't lend itself.

But now that there's 100 year supply apparently that was found in New England, or in our region, the distance traveled that you have to force the gas through is less, so it makes it more economically viable, so we are receiving the benefit without the negative end of it, and that's my concern.

Have you heard from, well, let me back up. Through you, Madam President, who regulates this type of entity with the gas? I think it's at federal level. Through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, it's not my stick, but I believe it's regulated by FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And being a former member of the Energy and Technology Committee, I knew that when we had congestion problems in our state on the electrical grid down in the southwest corner of the state, we got charged a surcharge because of congestion problems, and that was administered, given to us by FERC.

Now, is it, have you heard anything about anything being discussed at the FERC level saying, if you're going to be a recipient of this gas from, of gas, and you're not willing to take the byproduct of that, you will be, you might be receiving a charge? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I've been no party to any such conversation or implication.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Very good. And so, that's a concern of mine, then. Knock on wood. I think we're in a great position that we're receiving a clean, more efficient fuel cheaper, without having to deal with the negative stuff that the other states have to do with. Knock on wood with that one.

But I'm just concerned as we move in that direction in the future, if the other states start complaining to FERC or file, I don't know how it works, do they open up a docket, are you aware of, and then somebody could file a complaint? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I don't, this is beyond my pay level. I don't understand necessarily the federal regulatory process except that it doesn't work very well.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Unanimous on that, Madam President. Thank you. And I apologize for that question. I was kind of getting my arms around how the whole process works.

So how, if it does at all, is there anything that on a regional basis where we currently have, and I think it's through the federal DOT where they say, placarding of vehicles and you have to have, you know, if it's flammable, you have to have a picture of flame. If it's hazardous, you have a picture of something that's atrocious, you have a picture or something.

And I believe it's a standardized thing across the United States so any first responder if there was an incident could readily recognize that, and I think those regulations died how these types of materials are transferred or moved along our interstate highway system.

Is there anything that, I have to think of how I want to ask this question. Can a state individually determine, which is what we're trying to so, say we're putting up a road block or a border patrol saying that particular product is not allowed in our state? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, Senator Witkos is raising an issue that the Environment Committee has often encountered, and that is when we have put restrictions on toxic chemicals we've been told, as for example, bisphenol-A, or pesticides, we've been told that that could be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

In the ten years that I've been here with passage of much toxic chemical legislation, we've never been sued for that, so I think the opinion, the legal opinion and constitutional opinion we're getting is, in the absence of specific federal preemption, we the states have the ability to regulate these kinds of toxic chemicals, and I'm a major supporter of that as the Senate Chair of the Environment Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President, and I co-sponsored the bisphenol-A and previous pesticide but that's sale. This is, we're permitting something to travel through our state and so that's why there's a difference in my mind. And I don't know if the Motor Carrier Association, I don't know the answer to that, or did they testify at the Environment Committee.

So can we put a roadblock up saying, you're not allowed to, we really can't sell it here or transfer it in our state, but we're not even going to allow you to pass through our state to get to a place that will legally allow it to be sold or transferred. So that's kind of where I wanted to go with that question. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, it's a good question and it was a question that the Environment Committee considered and we talked to our LCO at length about, and you will see in this bill that the prohibition pertaining to this bill with respect to fracturing waste does not include transportation.

In other words, we had to look at the question whether or not Pennsylvania might be shipping fracturing waste from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts through the State of New York, through the State of Connecticut, and we do not prohibit that interstate transportation because the legal advice we were given was that could interfere with the interstate commerce.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you very much for that answer. It had gone through the building and I don't serve on Environment, so I had to ask the question to get there.

But was there ever an earlier version that said you can't go through the State of Connecticut, through you, Madam President. I just want to know, was the rumor mill, the information coming out valid or not? Through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, there was an early version this winter of this bill that I think did have a reference to prohibition of export or import. I think it used the word export or import. We struck that on our lawyers' recommendations.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. so if I may, and I'm glad to hear that and that's why I'm glad I'm going to be supporting the bill.

So this amendment, the bill as amended basically says that nowhere in the state of Connecticut can you store hydrofracted byproducts, basically that's it. Is that correct? In a nutshell? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, the actual prohibition and moratorium language is in line 41 and 42 of the bill and let me read it just for clarity. Quoting, no person may accept, receive, collect, store, treat, transfer or dispose of waste from hydraulic fracturing. So that is the moratorium that we have if this bill passes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And just for clarification purposes, when I first heard of the bill, I had some concerns because, and I know there's an injunction for wells or water purposes, because that's how many people that for instance, the mountains and the ledges up here that is the only really good way to open up a line to receive water.


Is the reason why that's exempt is because it's my understanding, well, is it the same process for mining for water as it is for mining for natural gas? Through you, Madam President
.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, Madam President. We were concerned here that if we were not careful with our language, we were going to be prohibiting fracturing that's used for other good purposes, and so the focus, the clear and sole focus of this bill is on the fracturing hydraulic, means water under pressure with chemicals that focuses on hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, not on the fracturing of other substances.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. But does it use the same process that you, I mean, you get a machine going down, twisting, fracking, I guess, using water to open up a crevice, however many feet down in the earth. Isn't that one and the same? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I confess. I'm not really knowledgeable on this subject, but from what I have read, there is hydraulic fracturing in some instances with respect to minerals and with respect to crude oil.

This bill does not attempt to regulate or have a moratorium on those kinds of activities.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And my understanding, and I may be wrong, and if one of your sources could confirm or not. The process is the same. The difference is the depth at which you would frack, whereas most well water, drinking water only go down X feet and you have to go down such a larger depth to hit natural gas, and I don't know if that's the case or not.

So I was trying to say, if the process is bad, why, I would like to continue using it for water purposes, why would we allow it? Because I will tell you from building my house, as the machine was, it looked like an oil drill going up and down and, you know, I saw the heads on\ the drill spinning and it was just done with water, and as the thing came out of the hole, it looked like there was a big glob of cement that was lava flowing out. I'm assuming that was minerals and other things that are contained within the earth until they found, hit a water source underneath the earth and got enough adequate pressure and I got my water line in there from the house, or the well.

And I don't know if, I didn't ask the guy at the time. I didn't ask him well, do you have in with that water, or is it high pressure water, or is it the same process for fracking for natural gas. I wish somebody had answered that during the public hearing process because for curiosity sake, what's the differentiation between the two?

But that's all the questions I have for Senator Meyer, Madam President. You know, I do stand in support of the amendment before us, and I'll go back to the example I just gave a few minutes ago when I did the well to my house, and my wife's family has a whole bunch of acreage and they said, well, pick out a spot where you want your house and you can build it there.

And we didn't know where to go and it's a back lot. We said, well, we're going to bring services. We definitely knew we had to be on a septic system, but we said, how are we going to get water because we're going to be, we live on the side of a mountain and it's going to be tough and it's going to be expensive.

We had a dowser come out and he walks in and he walks up to a tree and he snaps a branch off and pulls the green leaves off, pulls it out and he starts walking around the woods. What are you doing? He said, I'm looking for where you're going to drill for your well, and I said, I don't believe that. How would a stick being held in your hand get a point to where water is and I told my wife, I can't believe we're paying for this. I said, a fool's born every day.

And so, he called me over. He says, Kevin, come over here. Hold onto this stick. It doesn't work for everybody but I want you to hold onto this stick as tight as you can. So I held onto the stick and literally, it bent in my hand. And he said see, there's water under here. It drives itself toward the water and I was so surprised at that and I'm like, okay.

So when we hired the guy to come in and put in our well, sure enough, right on that exact spot, he only went down like 75 feet and we live on the side of a mountain and there was water coming out. He said, you've got great water pressure and now you're good to go.

And so, I'm always concerned that, you know, who knows what's happening down in the earth and a commodity such as water. It's so precious that we have to be concerned about it and when folks get up and talk about you know, the negative impact of things and oh, it's (inaudible).

Well, growing up I'd never seen, we didn't have all these health issues that it seems like we have nowadays. I don't know if it's, we haven't had the ability to diagnose it as early, but there just seems to be so many health issues, what we eat or what we drink, and why should we allow these things to happen when we can easily prevent those, and I think that the ban, not a ban, but the moratorium gives us the opportunity to say, this natural gas is good for the residents of the state of Connecticut. It's going to allow them to continue on with converting to natural gas from oil (inaudible) very expensive oil-based product to natural gas. That in turn will save them money.

The folks, especially in an urban area where it's high density. We happened to see, if you look at Operation Fuel, a lot of those monies from Operation Fuel go to urban areas to help folks to stay warm in the winter, and if you can save money by making a product cheaper but still get the same results, I would think that's certainly that we would definitely want to support.

So we're bringing in natural gas. We certainly are the benefit of a product that unfortunately, some states, you know, they're dealing with the byproduct and I understand that might be difficult.

You know, we had years ago, and we still have, I think, two towers up for nuclear in our state, and guess what? We dealt with the byproducts of nuclear waste and we still haven't resolved that on how to deal with that and if it got loose the radioactiveness, how it could harm our citizens.

So why wouldn't we take the measures ahead of time, the preempting thing. We don't know enough about the byproduct waste in hydraulic fracturing to say, well, we don't care. You could store it over here once you build a couple rental units and I'll rent it out and I'll just throw it in there and forget about it.

I want to thank Senator Meyer and the Environment Committee for moving the bill forward. I think it doesn't close the door. I think it says, take your time. Study the issue. Find out if there are harmful side effects, because in our area of the country it's so new.

While we may have had natural gas down in the coastal region, down the Gulf Coast and out in the Midwest, this is the first time in the past ten years or so up in this area. And I will tell you that I've heard some horror stories in Pennsylvania where all of a sudden now farmers are saying, hey, bring in a well here, you know. Take whatever you can for a certain dollar amount. Not that it's greedy, but we've almost become poor stewards of our land. We used to say that the farmers were the best stewards of the land because they know the land inside and out and know when to plant vegetables, know when to plant fertilizer and switching the different crops to make it the most fertile land that they can.

But now, it seems like it's dollar signs popping up and they're turning over their farms to natural gas. I've heard of explosions in communities and there is, you know, from what I understand there's no regulations as to where some of these things are being built. They're being built close to schools, elderly housing complexes, nursing homes.

And to do that, and put the most susceptible citizens of our society, the young and the old so close to this, I just don't think it's right because we don't know what kind of an environmental impact that this will have on them.

We're taking the right steps in the state of Connecticut, so I'm supporting the amendment. I think that it doesn't shut the door. I think it says we're going to take baby steps. We want the natural gas. Let's go full steam ahead. Get the natural gas, get the pipelines built, bring this to Connecticut, make things cheaper, cleaner, more fuel efficient, but in doing so at the same time, don't bring your waste here because we don't want it.

We'll study it in the two years. I think, just one quick question with the change, I didn't see it. Through you, Madam President, the moratorium is for a two-year period that's upon passage, two years from that date? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, under the bill, there can be no regulation until July 1, 2017, so that's a little bit more than three years moratorium and then after those regulations are adopted, if they're adopted by July 1, 2017, then there will be another period when the moratorium will continue as the Legislative Regulations Review Committee considers the proposed regulations proposed by DEEP.

So, actually, the moratorium in actual fact will be more than three years.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. I have a couple questions then on that. So, no regulations can be developed until July 1, 2017? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, actually, regulations could be developed and DEEP has indicated they're going to be working on it. They just cannot submit any regulations to our Regulations Review Committee until July 1, 2017.

DEEP has indicated that they're going to be working on this, quite quickly and as I mentioned before to Senator Chapin, the bill does have an information section for DEEP to acquire information to know how to start to work and draft regulations.

But the regulations cannot be adopted until July 1, 2017.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And if the regulations speak to, they arrive at the Regulations Review Committee, and there's always conversations prior to them arriving on the desks of the Legislators that are on the Regulations Review Committee, at their first meeting if they so chose, they could adopt the regulations presented to them by DEEP and move forward from that point. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, that is correct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

And through you, Madam President, the Regs Review Committee, do they have the authority to extend the timeframe? I know this legislative body said, 2017, they're going to get the regs. Does the, and that will be voted on by both Chambers of the General Assembly and signed by the Governor to become law.

So say, August 1, 2017, Regs Review meets and can that group of, I think it's either six or twelve Legislators decide on their own, and say well, we're going to keep the ban, a moratorium for two more years. Do they have the authority to do that? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I do not know the answer to that question.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. I thank Senator Meyer for that answer, and I don't know the answer either. I would think that that wouldn't be the case. I think that the only time it would be extended while they were negotiating the specifics of the regulations. Thank you for the answer, Senator Meyer.

I know that because they take, the Regulations Review Committee takes this very seriously. I know that we've had some issues with Regs Review on another issue regarding the regulation of wind power in the state of Connecticut with the Siting Council and we finally saw the adoption, I think it's some good regulations on moving that forward.

I know I had an issue with one of my hometowns where one of the largest, would have been the largest commercial wind generation facility in the state of Connecticut, was trying to get something passed and we didn't regulate wind at that time, so we had passed through the Committee to start regulating wind power generation and it went back and forth between the Connecticut Siting Council and the Attorney General's office and finally went to Regs Review.

And I think it got sent back three or four times and I know that group does their due diligence on making sure that the legislation speaks to everything it should, so I think that's the right Committee to review anything that has to do with the hydraulic fracturing and I look forward to supporting the bill at the conclusion of our debate today. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. I stand for the purpose of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Senator Meyer for your work on this topic. We had a brief discussion about this in the Judiciary Committee and I thought it would be more appropriate to flush out some more details here on the floor of the Senate, and that's probably a good idea because it's changed since then.

I wonder if you could share with us, how long has hydraulic fracturing existed in the United States? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, actually the Judiciary Committee was considering a different bill and Senator McLachlan and I debated a bill that had an outright total ban on fracturing waste in Connecticut, and I think that bill passed the Judiciary Committee like a vote of 35 to 5, something like that.

With respect to your question about how long have we had hydraulic fracturing in the United States, I don't know. I'm sorry, Madam President, I don't know the answer to that question.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Well, it's my understanding that it's somewhere around 50 years, but I don't know the exact time either, but I believe it is a substantial period of time.

And through you, Madam President, to Senator Meyer, the Marcellus Shale touches Pennsylvania, you mentioned West Virginia and western New York. What is the distance from the Marcellus Shale to western Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, my understanding is that from the most distant point of the Marcellus Shale to New York, I don't know the answer for Connecticut, is about 550 miles.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. And so, I thought I heard you say earlier that the likelihood of waste byproduct traveling that distance was highly unlikely because of the cost and the distance. Did I hear that correctly? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, I did, because what people who do hydraulic fracturing like to do is to take the waste, put it in trucks and take it to wells where it can be recycled. That's the principal activity as I understand if of hydraulic waste. It's to recycle it and then bring it back and use it again for example in the State of Pennsylvania as again, a hydraulic pressure fracturing system.

The people who are knowledgeable with whom I've talked about it said that it's just too expensive to come from the State of Pennsylvania all the way to Connecticut. They can find other places in either Ohio or New York or within Pennsylvania itself, but not Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. So I thought that the concern here was being driven by a perception by some that fracturing waste could find its way to Connecticut, but I'm not hearing that in this discussion. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, in answer to the question of Senator Chapin, I pointed out that we are very concerned about New York. I think Senator Chapin's district being right on the border of New York would be endangered if and when New York lifts its ban and New York is considering lifting its ban.

We've been told that the Governor is going to make a statement and decision on that as early as this fall.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. The process that you described, I believe being employed in Pennsylvania for the fracturing company to take waste and bring it to another site for recycling, what is the distance between the original site and the recycling site? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I don't know enough about that to really answer that adequately. I don't know. Obviously, I've been told from an economic standpoint the shorter the distance the better because of the cost savings. But how far are these transporters willing to go, I just don't know the answer to that.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. The research that I've done was that it is advantageous for them to do it either on site or very close to the site in which they are generating the waste from hydraulic fracturing.

And so, through you, Madam President, the Marcellus Shale in the State of New York appears to be primarily in western New York, though I see it touches one of the larger state parks. In fact, the most recent part of the Marcellus Shale takes up a good part of the Adirondack State Park if I'm not mistaken.

And so assuming that they would never allow, I'm assuming and I may be wrong, they would never allow activity of that nature in a state park, if you go further west of that, through you, Madam President, how far is that to western Connecticut?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Well, if you look for example, through you, Madam President, at Onondaga County, which is sort of in the center of New York, I speak as a former New Yorker as you know, the distance from the center of New York, Onondaga County to Connecticut would be a distance, I would estimate of about 150 to 200 miles.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. I suppose that could be the right answer and as an estimate I'm sure that's fine. In any case, I think it's a lengthy distance and my point is, is there some number that tells us we're safe?

For instance, if the nearest shale operations that employ hydraulic fracturing is perhaps going to be in Webster, New York, and that's some four or five hour drive by tractor trailer to western Connecticut, is it safe to say that for instance, Massachusetts or Rhode Island or Vermont is safe from this problem because of the further distance? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I'm not sure that I really can answer that but the fact is that we have the less exposure the farther we are from the source of the fracking. But when you're talking about central New York and I'm looking at a map that my aide has just provided me of the Marcellus Shale, it actually goes further east toward Connecticut than I thought it did.

And as Senator McLachlan pointed out it includes the Adirondack Park, but it also goes south of the Adirondack Park into central and eastern portions of the State of New York.

So the distances are not that far, but these are economic factors that will be taken into consideration. I don't think it's proper for me to hypothesize about them.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator. I guess maybe I looked at this same map or a similar map that was available to us on Google through the EPA and the most eastern point of the Marcellus Shale in the State of New York is, as I could pinpoint, Oswego, New York. I'm not sure that's the town you just told us about and if you plot that to New Milford, Connecticut, that's about 250 miles, so it's a five-hour tractor trailer trip from the Marcellus Shale.

And I guess the point I'm trying to make, Senator Meyer is, I don't think we're in shot of that type of problem. I may be wrong, but I'm sensing that. If you look at hydraulic fracturing operations across the country, they don't travel that far with their waste because they want to recycle it and bring it back to the original site.

So it doesn't seem economically feasible or make much sense for them to do that and you know, I understand everyone's concern about the potential damage that waste can cause, but I really would like to be realistic in the discussion about this topic of how likely it is to come here, and based upon sheer mileage, I don't see that happening.

Are you aware of other states where they travel a long distance with their fracturing waste? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I am not, Madam President, aware of the distances that are traveled. But again, this bill is being offered to the Legislature and to the people of Connecticut in order to avoid what many people feel is a danger to our security and our safety and our health.

And you could say, Senator McLachlan, better safe than sorry, and I think it's a little problematic to hypothesize as to whether New York is too far or too near on the question of this poison.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. Actually, I think it's our job to hypothesize because we don't have science and we don't have anything to compare to, so it's important for us to do that.

SENATOR MEYER:

And through you, Madam President, Senator McLachlan is correct, and that's why we have presented a bill that's a moratorium and a regulation rather than an outward ban. And that's what the Governor really asked us to do, realizing that this science is not yet completed, at least within the knowledge of us here in Connecticut.

Instead of doing it as a ban, as I had initially recommended, we're taking a more moderate approach. You heard Senator Witkos speak to that. It's really an incremental type of approach.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. In your discussion with Senator Witkos, you said that there is fracturing for good purposes and I wonder if you can explain what you meant by that?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President. I, you know, just in terms of own reading as a history major in college and afterwards, I have read about fracturing that fracturing is used, fracturing the earth surface is used to capture certain minerals, to capture certain crude oils, maybe for gold, I don't know, but the fracturing for natural gas is something that generally, according to the material I've read, is a little bit different because that fracturing gets beneath the shale into the natural gas below it, is often actually a mile deep in the surface of the earth.

So this is a deeper penetration plunging into the earth's surface than would be for example if you were trying to reach aluminum or bauxite or coal. This is a very deep penetration into the earth.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. Yes, it's my understanding that most deposits of this nature are deep into the earth because they're far below water sources.

It's my understanding that when they drill for oil or natural gas they tend to be drilling far below traditional levels of water and that they have certain safeguards to protect the water resource as they go through that level of the earth into the lower levels where the minerals and natural gas are found.

So through you, Madam President to Senator Meyer, are you familiar with the Environmental Protection Agency's study of the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

I'm not, through you, Madam President, I'm not familiar with the details of that report. I understand, I've heard about the report but I'm not familiar with it.

But just in answer to Senator McLachlan's suggestion about a federal report, you know, our experience in Connecticut has been that the federal government has been very slow to react with respect to toxic chemicals and I think it's very much in the interest of our state that we be aggressive here and move and not wait on the federal government.

The federal government for example, hasn't even made a definitive statement about electronic cigarettes. We're still waiting on a whole bunch of things from the EPA that are not coming and I'm recommending to this Circle that we not wait on the federal government.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. And through you, Madam President to Senator Meyer, in fact, this study that I referred to, which I read, do you know if the people who have assisted you in writing this bill have read this report? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

I'm just looking at, through you, Madam President, just looking at the Legislative Liaison for DEEP and he indicates that his office has not read the report.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. This report is the latest progress report, was released by the EPA in December of 2012. This has been underway for two years. Their draft final report is due this year. They have scientists across the country and apparently across the world studying this issue very carefully.

There are a number, it's a very impressive report. And so if you don't have time to read the report, please read at least the Executive Summary of the report, which I believe is only seven pages. And in the Executive Summary, Senator Meyer, I just want to share with you and the Circle some of the things that are being done now that you're in this legislation asking our local environmental regulators to take on this responsibility when it's already being done.

And that is that they're looking at water acquisition, what are the impacts of water and ground surface and surface waters as it relates to fracking.

They're looking at chemical mixing, what are the possible impacts of hydraulic fracturing fluid surface spills on or near wells.

They're looking at well injection, the process, what are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on drinking water resources.

They're looking at flow back and produced water, again, related to surface spills.

And here's some of the important part of it is, they're looking at waste water treatment and waste disposal, what are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic fracturing waste water on drinking water resources.

Now this report describes 18 research projects under way to answer these research questions. This, it boggles the mind, with all due respect, Senator Meyer, that the federal government and literally hundreds of people are studying this right now and our government in Connecticut is wanting to write laws without even reading the report.

With all due respect, I think that is short sighted. The analysis of the existing data is coming from multiple sources. They're looking at hydraulic fracturing activity in 24,925 wells. Their additional data they are researching is on chemicals and water use, what they're actually pumping into the ground and there's 12,000 well specific chemical disclosures on frack focus.

Now, I'm assuming that the advocates of the legislation before us are familiar with frack focus and certainly they're familiar with the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. These are both pro and anti-fracking organizations that are sharing their study information with the Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA is weighing what's real and what isn't, I guess.

And then there's a panel of experts. Now, you referred to, we have a pretty good expert right here at Yale University. I believe you referred to, and I know that expert has chimed in on other chemical type topics here at the State Capitol.

But they're also looking at state spill databases in Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and the EPA is reviewing scientific literature and probably one of the most important things is that, last year they put out a call to scientists for peer review. So maybe we even have a scientist right here in the state of Connecticut who has chimed in on this. I don't know. We should know, but I don't have a list of who they are.

In a separate research project, and this will be of interest to you because you talked about these particular chemicals in your opening statement. They're studying the concentrations of bromide and radium in public water supplies to see what's the impact. This is an amazing undertaking and it's taking a while to do it because it's so extensive.

The laboratory studies are focused on identifying potential impacts of inadequately treating hydraulic fracturing wastewater and discharging into rivers. I mean, they threw a very wide net when they decided to do this study and we're going to get the draft report this year, but we don't know what's in it yet.

Finally, existing analytical message for selected chemicals are being tested, modified and verified for use in this study and for other studies they plan to do in the future outside of this initial report.

At this time, as you properly stated, the EPA has not made any judgment about the extent of exposure to these chemicals when used in hydraulic fracturing fluids or found in hydraulic fracturing wastewater or their potential impacts on drinking water resources.

But this was their progress report. I assume the draft report that's due this year is going to answer that question.

But if we as Legislators should rely on scientists for these questions, it seems like this is the third or fourth time in the last couple of years I've stood up and said, can we please ask the scientists before we play scientists in the Legislature. Can we just get their opinion first?

I understand there's a lot of stories out there. There was even a move about it. I get that. But now we're going to have definitive, unbiased, although the natural gas industry may not feel it's unbiased, but the Environmental Protection Agency is looking at the history of this hydraulic fracturing in multiple states where it's been occurring for years. If I'm not mistaken Texas is probably one of the oldest states that has undertaken this type of activity and we're going to see very carefully from those states what's happened.

The peer review process they talk about in their progress report is very important because obviously some of the most knowledgeable people about the effects of hydraulic fracturing work for the hydraulic fracturers.

If you're looking to be a chemical engineer today, rest assured you can find a very good job with the natural gas and oil industry right out of school, so they get the best of the best working as scientists.

But it appears that the federal government and some of the finest schools across the country have some pretty tremendously brilliant scientists studying this issue.

So, Madam President, this is premature. Once again, it's premature. In a matter of months, Senator Meyer, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection regulators, all the advocates for tight regulations on fracking waste, all of the politicians who are concerned about this issue, and even the Governor of New York perhaps before he makes his decision as Senator Meyer said is anticipated in November, is going to have a draft report from the Environmental Protection Agency that is definitive.

It's no longer going to be hearsay, because people have been shouting at each other on this topic for years.

Now, I'm not calling into question at all that somewhere along the line there have been some nightmares on this topic. I don't dispute that. But when you're talking about waste, look at what happened in Stamford last week. I mean, mistakes happen. Problems happen.

So yes, we should be prepared for an onslaught of fracturing waste coming to New England, but if you look at other parts of the country that are already in this business, they don't travel that far with their waste. And the Marcellus Shale is not in Connecticut.

So Madam President, I'm going to continue listening to the debate on this topic, but I fundamentally have a difficult time understanding why the Legislature insists on jumping in to a topic to regulate something without having the information.

How can the authors of fracking waste moratoriums, regulations not be intimately familiar with what the Environmental Protection Agency has already produced? It's 278 pages. We should be studying that first before you push a button on this bill.

Perhaps maybe we should wait a couple, three months, or whenever this draft report is available and even if it's just a draft report we know that in that draft report the Environmental Protection Agency is going to ask, or is going to answer Senator Meyer's biggest question. His lack of support, his lack of trust in the Environmental Protection Agency may not be unfounded. I don't dispute how he feels about the EPA and federal regulators on this topic and other environmentally sensitive topics, but a decision from them is imminent on how to proceed.

And this Legislative Body should wait for the scientists to tell us what's the best way to proceed. It may not be a moratorium. Maybe it's something more stringent which was one of the other proposals. That's for others to decide after the scientists tell us what they found.

So, Madam President, at this point I'm very uncomfortable with the bill and I will continue to listen to the debate. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I actually rise to support the amendment and the bill. I do believe that it is a very good example of when two sides come together and reach a compromise that tries to accomplish the original goal of the bill while not producing a negative outcome, particularly in the economic condition that the state is in right now.

Many of us, if not most of us, are highly sensitive to the issue of a possible pollution and an impact on our public health, particularly in the water, that we have particularly in a state that has a great deal of towns where the water supply comes from personal wells.

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I actually grew up from the age of five until after college in the Town of Naugatuck and half of that time living right next to the Naugatuck River, very close to the spillage of the Naugatuck Chemical Plant. It originally was a town that was supported in great measure and had a great public education system because of the very large corporate partner and that was Uniroyal.

With time things changed. We learned a great deal more about pollution. I can tell you that I personally experienced and saw the different colors of chemicals that would flow through that river on a daily basis. People didn't even, weren't aware of what type of chemicals those were and the air could be cut with a knife on any given day.

And so many of the residents there, who knows, at this stage of their life what other health negatives could be there. And as a result, when I was serving in the House some years ago and the very controversial issue about shutting down the City's six coal plants in Connecticut came up to a vote, I ended up becoming the deciding vote and it was very, very difficult to do, particular at that time. I was representing one of those coal plants and you would get phone calls by the employees there who were very concerned about their livelihood and their jobs and it was a very, difficult, difficult decision to be made, as are so many of the decisions that we make here.

So at the same time that I support this bill and I supported the closure of the City's six power plants, Connecticut had some of the highest energy costs in the country. It is often cited as one of the things that this is pointed to, it's one of the difficulties of continuing to conduct their business here or even locating here.

We are also embarking in an interesting period where we're becoming more energy independent as a country. That's a very, very good thing, very good thing. It may very well be that soon we are becoming the net exporter of energy rather than importing it from so many other places, so that drive to reduce costs to provide energy at a time when energy is driving everything and so much of what we do is dependent on that energy source.

So many of our towns, I'm sure so many of yours right now are asking for gas lines to be extended into their municipal buildings or even into their homes if they can, and that becomes difficult unless a good number of people sign up for that. So there's a great demand that is there.

So on one hand we're looking very much to supporting, extending natural gas for our state and its residents but on the other hand the byproducts of producing that is very, very controversial.

But, you know, towns really then could actually gain more funds that they're using right now for those high energy costs to supply our classrooms with more resources, to help our police, fire and social services as well.

I however, do believe that we can accomplish both. We actually can promote natural gas but do it safely and that's why this is, this compromise is a very good idea. It's, from what I've been learning in reading up on this, I understand that actually that fracking was being used in the oil well production back in the 1860s and then later in the 1940s, late forties, I guess we embarked on hydraulic fracking as well and that in doing so in the seventies it actually became much more popular and was really extended outside of our borders in Canada and Germany and the UK where we know that they have some very serious power issues as well.

And I am going to ask a couple of questions if I can, if I may do so to the proponent of the bill, because the good Senator knows a great deal more about the ramifications of this process.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed ma'am.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you very much. I understand from what I read that 90 percent of this fracking process is composed of water and that 9. 5 is composed of sand and just 5 percent has about 13 other type of chemicals that are involved in that. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President, that's roughly the components that I have heard as well. Part of our problem with understanding the small amount of chemicals is that most companies have treated them as trade secrets and what this bill tries to get at those trade secrets to find out what the components are so that we know the level of toxicity.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you very much, Madam President. That would be helpful to all of us I'm sure, that is of concern. And speaking of that, the process that is used in the opponents of hydraulic fracking point to certain risks and I wonder if you could give us a few more details about those risks. One of them would be, and I'll name a few, but the first one that comes to mind is the environmental risk including the contamination of groundwater and the depletion of fresh water. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President, and this is in answer to Senator McLachlan's points as well. When we held a public hearing on this bill, we did have scientists who did testify.

For example, Dr. David Brown, retained by the Environmental Human Health Nonprofit here in Connecticut. Dr. David Brown is a public health toxicologist at Yale and he testified to answer your question, Senator Boucher, as follows, I'm quoting.

A study in 2012 of over 1,300 births found 25 percent lower birth weights when mothers were living near active hydraulic fracking drill sites, and then he goes on to talk about other toxicity issues.

But lower birth weights, other endocrine effects, carcinogens, particular carcinogens from the high radioactivity found in fracking waste.

I think the reason why this bill has so many sponsors is the information that I know you perceived as well as I, that indicates a huge amount of toxicity from this stuff of which perhaps the most dangerous is the high degree of radioactivity that could cause cancer. So birth weight, endocrine, cancer, those are the things that have been cited to it.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, other issues have been cited, such as the noise pollution. Now, how does that impact public health in your view? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Well, I think, through you, Madam President, Senator Boucher really answered the question. Noise is a form of pollution and the noise of hydraulic fracturing in neighborhoods as people try to make a profit from this activity, has caused, has become really a public nuisance and we're hearing that in Pennsylvania and other parts of the country. So noise pollution is a factor.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, also the depletion of fresh water. How would that occur through this process? Through you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, the experience that we've read in Pennsylvania indicates that when fracturing waste or any of its byproducts, such as de-icing materials have been used, these materials, these waste materials have filtered actually into water streams and have contaminated drinking water, and that's led in Pennsylvania to a number of lawsuits. The lawyers are happy with that.

But it is, that is perhaps the biggest danger is to our water stream and particularly to our potable water from these wastes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President. For sure, that is a great concern, and I do believe fresh water and our food supply are some of the. two most important things that may be affecting our rates of cancer and other health issues that have come to the forefront for sure.

I wonder if the good Senator can talk a little bit about the increases in seismic activity, mostly associated with deep injection of disposal of flow back, which is producing the brine through the hydraulically fractured well that has become actually an international concern and has brought about some international scrutiny. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I have also read about the seismic effect about fracturing but I don't have any more specific details about it than what the little bit I've read.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you very much, Madam President. It appears to be of such concern that apparently the international community have some countries doing both. They're either protecting the activity of fracking, or they are suspending or even banning it, which again, a thorough review, study and research in this would be very helpful.

It would appear, as we saw, that other countries really got into this process much, much earlier than we have here in the United States and have been using it for some time and that they are moving forward, most notably, the United Kingdom it appears.

The United Kingdom, interestingly enough has actually lifted their ban and instead, they're choosing regulations instead of outright prohibition, and in fact the European Union is in the process of applying regulations to permit it, for it to take place, so we can understand the great conflict that the Europeans would have.

Such small countries, such high demand for energy, lack of natural resources of their own, having to import it, whereas the United States and Canada are actually in a very enviable position of actually having both the need and they have also a great deal of natural resources.

So I believe that embarking on, rather than the outright, position seems to be the tack and the direction they are going. But it's important, obviously, for us to be functioning on two tracks.

One on exploring, possibly even say for methods for the extraction of natural gas, but also in finding ways that we can do this in a safe way, and knowing even more clearly what the byproducts are. Those areas, other . 5 percent of what's being used in this if those, how toxic are they? Are there alternatives that are safer? Can we find other means?

I think all of this even speaks even further to the fact that we really haven't come far enough. There's been a great deal of effort being made for alternative fuel sources, but not far enough. Even our own, I think, flirtation here in Connecticut with fuel cell technology that was gaining some measure of support had a lot of support, I know on my end, that produced water, H20 as a byproduct.

Some even showed that they could drink that residue from fuel cell technology and so it's very important, I think in discussing this that we also not forget and lose our focus on trying to look into other methods of producing energy, which is going to be even more critical as time goes on as our technology improves, as it grows, as it becomes more sophisticated that this topic controversial as it is, will follow us I think, for some time to come, that we have two masters here.

One for more energy, affordable energy so that businesses can be conducted, and on the other hand to make sure that our residents, our towns and cities are as safe and pollution free as possible, because we do see, and a good example is Naugatuck, Waterbury, many other towns that have gone from very thriving, healthy, vibrant communities, to losing their mainstay industries that have left those cities really in serious economic trouble for decades to come.

Thank you very much, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of the underlying bill, which I voted for in Judiciary, but I had a couple of questions, through you, to the proponent of the amendment just to clarify some points.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer, I see in the initial part of the amendment that the fracking activity currently would be allowed under RICRA, which is a federal statute that came into existence as part of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with hazardous materials similar to CIRCLA. There was CIRCLA and there's RICRA>

So if I understand correctly, this activity, the hydraulic fracking and radioactive material would not be outlawed by RICRA, through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. One of the things we're trying to do in this bill is find, put this in the regulatory process of hazardous materials so that we have a regulatory process to do this. I don't think I know the answer to your question, but I can consult with staff for a minute and try to answer it if you'd like.

THE CHAIR:

Would you like?

SENATOR KELLY:

Yes, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease for a moment.

(Chamber at ease. )

The Senate will come back to order.

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, in answer to Senator Kelly's question, my understanding after talking to staff is that this bill will have the effect of applying RICRA in Connecticut, so RICRA will become part of our regulatory process in Connecticut.

The current exemption will be dropped and the application of federal RICRA will be something we'll be doing here in Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. So I'm a little bit confused. RICRA is not applicable in Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

No. Through you, Madam President, I'm advised by our staff that current law is that we're exempted from RICRA in Connecticut and the effect of this bill, hold on a second.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease. )

The Senate will come back to order.

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I'm informed, and I apologize that I didn't know the answer to this legal question, but I'm informed that we, Connecticut was delegated responsibilities under RICRA and that there was an exemption for the regulation of natural gas and that we will, by this bill, be removing that exemption for natural gas so that natural gas will come within the RICRA regulations.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you very much, Senator Meyer. So when we look at this exemption if you will with regard to fracking, it is limited to a prohibition on natural gas fracking? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President, actually the earlier drafts we're not clear on that. It looked like fracturing was going to be, hydraulic fracturing was going to be prohibited for other activities and in the definition part of this bill and in other sections, we made it expressly clear that this only applies to the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. And you know, I do apologize if I'm asking questions that have already been asked and answered. I was out of Chamber for a few minutes with a fourth grade class from my district that came up today and so I wasn't here for the entire debate. So in regards to if these questions have been asked and answered, once again, I do apologize but I do want to get a couple of points through because I did support, once again, the bill in Judiciary and I want to make sure that the bill does what I hope it will do.

When we look at fracking, some of my questions have been answered. I just wanted to preface it in that regard.

So when we look at fracking itself, and we produce fracking waste that is considered hazardous, what is it that makes it hazardous? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

The science on the subject indicates that the hazard or toxic material of fracking waste comes from a combination of radioactivity, bromides and a variety of toxic chemicals.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Madam President. Appreciate the yield from Senator Meyer. Since we have some pressing business in terms of tributes to retiring members to attend to, would ask that this bill be passed temporarily and will then, we will return to it post haste.

THE CHAIR:

The bill will be passed temporarily. Will you proceed, sir.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Madam President. And at that this point, I would like permission for a point of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, as we know, a number of our members are choosing to retire this year, so that the composition of the Senate, even without regard to the elections that take place in November will be significantly different next year, and the first person I would like to speak about is the person who has been on the floor for the better part of the last two hours, and that is our beloved Senator Ed Meyer, the Chair of the Environment Committee.

Ed has decided not to seek another term this year and we are going to miss him, miss him greatly. I will miss him in particular as my seat mate here sitting to my right, although not necessarily on all issues to my right for the last ten years.

Ed has become a dear friend and he has had an extraordinary career even prior to coming here to the General Assembly ten years ago.

As we all know, a graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, began in public service when he was hired as a young Justice Department attorney, by then Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the 1960s and after his career with the Justice Department where he did prosecute a number of major criminal cases involving organized crime and other kinds of activities of that kind, he then had a really exciting career in the private practice of law as an attorney representing high profile clients and sports figures in major fields in the professional sports teams in New York, as well as those involved in professional tennis.

The people that Ed has encountered throughout his career is a Who's Who of prominent people and many of them have been clients of Ed Meyer at one time or another.

But beyond that, we know that Ed then became a member of the New York State Assembly, and that is, I think it's an unusual historic reference. I don't know of anyone else who has served in the Legislatures of two different states in his career.

We have had just a couple of people in Connecticut, obviously, the former Representative Dick Antonetti, who served a term as a State Representative from West Haven in the 1970s and then served a second term as a State Representative from Meriden in the 1980s and then of course we have our own Senator Markley who had a 24-year hiatus between terms and representing essentially the same district.

But Ed Meyer, having been a New York Assemblyman during a distinguished career there, and now, after moving to Connecticut to become a member of our Connecticut State Senate. That really is unprecedented and I think that shows how the political parties and voters of two separate states have recognized his merits, his dynamism, his intelligence and his great ability.

And as we know that as the Chair of the Environment Committee, Ed has been a leader on so many issues and he has been a spokesman for preserving and protecting our environment, in particular protecting our air and water and advocate for the preservation of Long Island Sound, a staunch advocate of protecting us against toxic chemicals in every form and a staunch advocate for protecting the Connecticut shoreline, the beautiful, pristine Connecticut shoreline, which so many people on a bipartisan basis represent and of course he represented a number of shoreline towns, beginning with Branford.

But he has also been a spokesman on so many other issues. As a long-term member of the Judiciary Committee, he has been a strong voice in terms of making sure that the Legislature operates on high principles of ethics and also being able to give the public reason for confidence in the integrity of all of the members serving in the General Assembly and how important that public trust is.

Ed is someone who constantly reminds all of us of the great gift that is given to us by our constituents to serve here, what an honor it is and what in a sense, a precious gem it is to be selected by the constituents of a district, whether it be a House District or a Senate District to serve in the wonderful Connecticut General Assembly and that no one should ever take that for granted and always should operate on the highest level possible to justify that confidence.

Ed has been the kind of voice in our Caucus that has regularly reminded us of that, that it is important to not only operate on that high level, but to inspire that confidence and not even give the appearance of doing anything other than that.

He has, of course, a wonderful family. His wife Patty Ann is here. His son who was recently elevated to serve as a Federal Judge, Federal District Judge in Connecticut after a distinguished career as a professor at Quinnipiac University Law School and prior to that having been, early in his career, a U. S. Supreme Court Clerk.

But Ed, during the last ten years, has brought so much to this General Assembly and to the political life of the state of Connecticut that I for one, am going to miss him greatly, not only as a colleague but also as a friend and somebody who has brought such energy and dynamism and spirit to our Body and I will yield the floor to other members at this time. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McKinney, good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR MCKINNEY:

Good afternoon, Madam President.

Madam President, I will admit to the Circle and I don't know if I've fully admitted this to Senator Meyer that before Senator Meyer was first sworn in, I didn't like him.

Senator Meyer, one of the few members of this Circle to be elected by defeating an incumbent, defeated my best friend in this Circle at the time, former Senator Bill Aniskovich and quite frankly, I wasn't happy with you.

On the first day you were sworn in, Senator Meyer came over and introduced himself and said, I really wanted to meet you because Senator Meyer when he spent time down in Florida, spent time down with my mother when they were much younger and my grandmother, so he completely got me off my I didn't like him kick, disarmed my defenses and won me over very early on.

Madam President, I got, and that was despite the fact that we both went to Yale, by the way. I still didn't want to like him, but, I had a great opportunity to serve on the Environment Committee. When I was first selected it was my first choice of committees. It still has been the best committee I've ever served on in this Legislature and it was for two reasons.

One, the environment really is one of those areas where we can have an impact well beyond our time here, where we can protect open spaces, protect Long Island Sound, do things that will last for generations.

And the other reason why I always enjoyed it was because it was always a bipartisan committee where leaders, whether it was Senator Williams when he was Chairman of the Environment Committee or Senator Meyer, opened their doors to Republicans to sit down and work together, and Senator Meyer and I worked together on many issues from banning of toxic chemicals to protecting Long Island Sound.

I'm going to get myself in trouble for this, but one of the things I've always respected about Senator Meyer is he's unafraid to speak his mind, even with you disagree with him, even when it may rankle those in his Caucus.

Quite frankly, when those in the Majority rankle those in their Caucus we like them even more, but Senator Meyer has been unafraid to speak out on important issues.

Senator Looney mentioned the issue related to ethics and that's something that we have shared along with others, not just the two of us and spoken out upon. That's because I think in some ways you are somewhat of a dying breed in today's politics. I don't mean that as a criticism of today's politicians, but the world has changed with social media, with TV, with radio. It's so easy to go out and attract attention and the more, the louder you are, or the more partisan you are, the more attention you can attract. That's never really been Senator Meyer's style. He's always been a gentleman. He's always been very thoughtful. He's always been willing to fight the good fight whether it's things like the Haddam land swap or other issues to protect the environment.

And I just wanted to say, thank you, sir, for your service. All the best to your family. It is a testament that you've been an elected official in two different states from two different parties. Your first choice was better than your second.

But maybe there's a third act somewhere down the line, and I hope there is in many ways. So Senator Meyer, all the best to you in your future. I know you'll still take an active role in public service in one way or another and Godspeed. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Madam President. Ed, I'm going to sad to see you go. I believe we've become friends over the years. First off, your wonderful wife who you met through your tennis exploits. She was on the Virginia Slims Circuit. You were playing tennis at Wimbledon. I wanted to let you know, believe it or not, once upon a time, I was holding a real Wimbledon first place trophy over my head. The way you can vouch for that is it's about ten inches. It's not the giant plate that you see on TV. It's smaller than that, and after I did that, the actual owner of the trophy really chastised the heck out of me. He said never, ever, do that again. It was in their living room. But I had to do it because it was so cool.

The fact that you actually went and played at Wimbledon to me always amazed me. That, in and of itself is extraordinarily noteworthy, but you have so many things in your past that we've chatted about over the years that are so tremendous.

When you were a U. S. Attorney, I believe, I hope this is correct that you helped put behind bars members of one of the five families. I believe it was the Vito Genovese family.

Little did he know that my wife's uncle, Jimmy Rodina's middle name is Vito. That was pretty interesting. That's the only relationship whatsoever, but the fact that you were out there putting members of one of the five families in New York behind bars. This is a guy that's not afraid of anything. That's heavy duty. That's the stuff of legends and movies.

I agree with Senator McKinney. I wish you were still a Republican. In some measures on the Judiciary Committee we were able to win you over. Hard to predict your views on specific issues. I always thought it was interesting that you had your son coming and testifying before the Judiciary Committee on behalf of the death penalty. That was sort of unusual.

And talking about, I mean, I said you have a wonderful wife, fabulous children, highly accomplished. I mean one his, I believe your son-in-law just became a federal judge, daughter professor, son professor, both law clerks on the Supreme Court.

But the thing that always amazes me and I consider myself so lucky to be on your Christmas card list, how do you get this gigantic extended family to be color coordinated in sweaters and stuff like that? Red in family? I can't get my two kids in one spot, and you've got, I mean, this last year I mean, I don't know. You're out on a trail, nine horses, you got different color sweaters. I mean, does like a card go out in November, all right, everybody in yellow, you guys buy blue, you guys buy red. It's amazing. It blows my mind.

Some noteworthy history. You know it's almost, it probably is, a little bit of a legend, the one-armed fishing man, fisherman in our Caucus, one of our very lengthy debates on the floor of the Senate, I believe that one was on the death penalty and I think it was either one or two or three in the morning, something like that, and you stood up and objected and I looked over at you and it's like you wanted to throw a book at my head or something like that. You were really upset, and I believe I was called out of order and then I just jumped right back in and just sailed through with the debate.

But that's not probably the most famous one because I was blown away when you did your press release announcing that you were leaving the Senate and you noted as one of your most noteworthy events another time that I was debating on the floor of the Senate at length, some would say ad nauseam, on an environmental bill and I believe it was Senator Duff was acting as President of the Senate and he held you in contempt for arguing against me because your protest was to get in the middle of the Circle on a cell phone and just call up your wife saying there's an idiot just talking on and on and on here in the Senate. So thank you, Senator Duff, wherever you may be. But the fact that you put that in your press release always blew my mind.

There's an awful lot of other things that I could say but I want to leave the Circle with this, because getting to know Senator Meyer and his illustrious history, I mean, you know, like one of the things we were chatting in the office and you were mentioning your friend at that time, Governor Spitzer, but that didn't work out so well.

The fact, the people that you know, and the things that you've encountered over your years, but also your family history as well. Senator McKinney noted that there is that connection with his family. Probably the thing that I found most interesting, now when you said that you were going to retire and I actually went up to Senator Meyer and I asked him not to retire. I've done it with pretty much everybody in the Circle who said that they are going to retire, try to think about it because I really love serving with each and every one of you.

But he said no, I promised my wife two years ago, one more term and that would be it, and that's plausible. I believe that. But one of the things folks don't know about Ed Meyer is, this sort of other story, and I'll leave it with this.

Without getting into too much detail, and we chatted a couple of years about this very briefly and see, I do my research on you guys, a little bit. Ed's uncle Cord was a hero and a member of the CIA. And Cord's wife, and I won't mention her, was rumored to have had an affair with President John F. Kennedy, and then she was mysteriously murdered and now I pick up the paper and I'm seeing the person that's probably going to replace Senator Meyer is a guy named TK2, and I was coming up the stairs and I'm JK1. I go, who's TK2? And I go, that's Ted Kennedy, Jr.

So you're on and JFK and now 58 years later, TK2? Coincidence? I'm going to let the people of the Circle be the judge.

Ed. It's always been a pleasure. You're a great advocate for the things that you believe in. I have loved debating you. You are a gentleman and a scholar and you're a great dad and a great grandfather.

I only wish that you were hanging out in our room as a Republican, but you made your choice. You did it well and I'm always going to miss you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO:

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Ed, I don't even know if you're there. All I see is flowers. I can't even see if you're there.

You know, Senator Kissel alluded to the fact that you never know what Ed Meyer is going to say. Just yesterday or Saturday, when we were here and I was wearing those funky looking shoes that a lot of people commented about, Ed walked over to me, looked down at my shoes and said, for a little guy, you got big feet. I said what? Where the heck did that come from?

All right. You know, whenever a phone goes off in here? Hello. Hello. You know it's Ed. Ed's phone going off all the time. His booming voice that he has and he uses it so effectively. His voice is that of a prosecutor. To me when he talks, even though I'm not on your side a lot of these issues, you say it with such forcefulness and such assuredness that I say, you know, he's got to be right. Then I read the bill and I say, well maybe he's not so right. But you believe in what you say and you believe in what you do.

The other thing is we're going to miss around here is your ties. I notice you're not wearing the infamous Spider Man tie, or I think when I first met you, you were wearing a cow tie. You know, we're going to miss those wardrobes you used to wear.

And the people that you know, I remember one time you were talking, and I don't remember what the bill was, and all of a sudden you mentioned that you played tennis with Senator Nickerson's father, which is amazing both in chronological terms but also amazing in terms of people that you've met around this Circle being from Long Island and from Connecticut.

But your principles is what you really stood up for, whether people were with your or not and in fact, some people know around this Circle that when you were a Legislator, the reason why you lost your seat wasn't that you weren't popular, it was that you stood up for a neighborhood where they wanted to put a bridge and you said to the Governor, it's not going to happen to my neighborhood on my watch.

And he said to you, that if you continue making this bridge an impediment, he would change the district and you would lose your seat. And you said, you do what you have to do but I'm going to do what I have to do and he changed the district and you lost your seat, but that bridge didn't go where it was supposed to go because you stood up for your district. That mattered more than having a seat in a Legislature.

That speaks to the person you are. That speaks to the person you are in this Circle, and that's something that's everyone's going to respect that you do what you do, you say what you're going to do and you believe in your principles.

Ed, you've done, you've had a terrific life with a terrific family. Many more years to come. When we talked about it, you were saying you one time were in Durham, the beginning of the year and you said, Len, I'm thinking about retiring, and I said, well how many grandkids do you have? And I don't know, you said 100 or 105, I don't remember what the number was. And I said, what the heck are you doing here? Go and enjoy life with your wife. Go enjoy life with your grandkids. Life is short. You've done your service to the state and to another state.

So God bless you. May you have many healthy years to come and thank you for being a friend of mine in this Circle.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Yes, thank you, Madam President, and I stand for the following purpose, and that is to give the fashionable tie award to one Senator Edward Meyer. This is a gift to Vineyard Vines. The only problem with this, Senator is that I checked with, and there's some people giving you some pretty good competition here today in the Circle, maybe perhaps in your honor, I don't know. But if you direct your attention to the fashion model, also Senator Gary LeBeau over here, he's wearing a cow tie.

We have Senator Leone over here. I don't know what it is. A license plate tie? A license plate tie. The only problem is, I checked with Ethics, and they said that the most I can give you personally is 20 bucks. So you may have to settle for a little kerchief or something like that instead of a full tie and it's a good, Connecticut state product by the way. The only problem is, they're a little bit more expensive than Ethics allows.

So just one little bit of advice as you depart the Circle here, that wonderful plant that you just pulled down in front of you so we can see your wonderful face and figure and everything else. Don't use Roundup on it, okay? That's not a fertilizer.

We all have to take our hats off to you and what everybody else has pointed out is a culmination of some of your great efforts such as stopping broad water or stopping the bridge from going across Long Island Sound. I mean, can you imagine that today? Having a bridge going all the way across the Sound?

And every other issue in between those two, you have really stood up and been a huge, magnanimous voice for the environment, something that every single one of us to varying degrees, but I think everybody in this Circle really appreciates the environment, the outdoors, the water and I look forward to, I know you have a lot to look forward to.

But I also look forward to running into you on Long Island Sound. I look forward to running into you on a stray tennis court somewhere hopefully and I've heard all about your backhand. Anybody willing to play him watch out for his backhand. It's really wicked according to the sources that I know.

So Godspeed to you and Godspeed to your family, and to your 105 grandchildren, that's pretty amazing, Senator. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Ed, you know, there are so many things I'm going to miss about screening with you in Environment. For your entire time as Chairman, I've also been ranking member both from the House and the Senate and I was getting to that. I was getting to that. You have always been very willing to take other people's perspectives into account. It's, I think one of the examples of how this building actually does work well together and most of our work is through, by compromise and negotiation and I've always been very appreciative of how respectful you've been in receiving some of the comments, even on those issues where you and I have disagreed.

It got to the point in screening when you'd tell a story, I couldn't tell if you were telling the truth or telling tales, but it didn't really matter. It was always very entertaining and will forever be confidential.

You have this propensity for introducing some very interesting legislation that generates so much e-mail traffic for those of us that serve on the Environment Committee, especially and I think I told you this at the time. I think it was a ban on lead sinkers.

I created a new folder and literally had over 750 e-mails that I moved into that folder in opposition to that bill. Thankfully, most of them were from not inside my district, so I didn't have to respond to them but you have this way of putting ideas out and making us all think. You may not get it across the finish line but they're always excellent ideas that I think are worthy of consideration.

Just a little hint when your cell phone goes off during Committee meetings, you're probably being less discreet when you duck down behind somebody else. Perhaps I should have mentioned that several years earlier, though.

Lastly, and I think Senator Fasano touched on this. We could be debating a bill, an act concerning peoples' approval of all grasses being green and you would do it with such conviction and such passion, and I think it's that very attribute that I'm going to miss the most.

It's been a pleasure serving with you and I look forward to the next two and a half days. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer has been my seat mate in two other committees that we have served together, on Judiciary and Government Administration and Elections, and we've had some entertaining conversations.

And when I say entertaining, I mean that oftentimes we didn't agree on a topic before us in committee but we enjoyed one another's viewpoint and I must say there were more than a couple of times where he convinced me to take pause in my decision.

And I have a feeling that because I represent part of his family in my district, assuming that they decide to stay in that beautiful part of western Connecticut, that I'm likely to be tapped on the shoulder one day and get a finger wagged at me that I may have swayed off the reservation on a particular topic of interest to him.

You know, Ed is as others have said, is incredibly passionate about the topics in which he has introduced to us and sometimes has adopted other topics that came from somebody else, but one thing's for sure. You must listen attentively to his opinion and in some cases you may surprise yourself, as I was, where I changed my mind based upon his input.

I wish you well, Ed. I do hope that we do get to cross paths again in the 24th Senate District. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator LeBeau.

SENATOR LEBEAU:

Thank you, Madam President. Ed, it's great to stand up and give you some accolades today. One of the things that amazes me about you, as has been mentioned, are the number of people that you knew and you knew a couple of my heroes, Robert Kennedy and Nelson Rockefeller.

And believe it or not, those are going back some years, I was a Republican, and I loved Nelson Rockefeller. I thought he was a practical man and Robert Kennedy of course was one of the most inspiring people of all times. And now you know Ted, Ted Kennedy, so you've kind of completed the entire circle.

One of the things about Senator Meyer is his really outstanding trait is his tenacity. I think, you know, we were experiencing it before we went into this tribute, his tenacity on the fracking bill, his tenacity on pesticides just this year. But in the past, there's always been that tenacity. Just, you're committed. When you decide, you make your decision, we go forward and you carry us with you and you've changed my mind as I've indicated to you on a couple of important bills this year.

And a part of what you had is also the perseverance. You don't stop. You just continue and you go and you go and you go and you go.

And I've got to (inaudible) of tennis players. I have to ask your wife about that. You seem to be able to go and go and go and continue fighting the battle.

And just the other day I was reading an article about what makes a person successful and the key was, there were a certain number of traits. The real key trait in almost every successful person has and you have this, conscientiousness that you have an ethic about you in the sense of doing what is right and working on it and being here on time. You're one of the few people in the Caucus on time. Senator Crisco, of course, he's number one.

And always working on what needs to be done, and I sit a couple of seats away from you in Caucus and look over and Ed is always working on his bills, always having conversations with people, always making sure that we needs to be done is being done.

And one of the outstanding concerns that you have and why you change my mind, along with your seat mate, Senator Bartolomeo, is that a kind of overriding concern for children's health, for all of our health and particularly for children.

And I think we all are very concerned about that. And when you press that button with me it works and it has worked.

And talk about unafraid to speak out. I'll never forget Ed Meyer standing up and calling the question, and we share that. I did that in the House 20 years ago. I stood up in the House and called a question and the same thing happened to me. I was immediately swarmed. You can't do that. You can't do that. We don't do that. Of course, I didn't know and you didn't know.

But again, it's your tenacity, you want to just keep moving ahead and it can be frustrating in this Chamber.

Now, you were talking about your sartorial taste and I have this tie on. It's a cow tie. Well, last week I tried to give this tie to Ed. I thought it would be a great present, kind of a going away present and Ed said no, I've already got that one. He owns 30 cow ties. Twenty-two, okay. Well, pretty close. Sixty-eight percent there, or whatever.

So, I just want to conclude with saying that this was a very moooooooving tribute. It's udderly wonderful and we're all cowtieing to you. Thank you, Ed. I look forward to seeing you down the road.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Senator Leone.

SENATOR LEONE:

Thank you, Madam President. And it's an honor today to stand up and say a few words for Senator Meyer, and his decision to make, to move on to greener pastures, if you will.

The fact that you've been here in Connecticut as well as in New York speaks volumes serving as a Legislator and I just want to mention the fact that when I came here to the Senate only a few years ago and relatively new and I'd like to say somewhat younger, you know, Senator Meyer was quick to say hello, welcome me to the Chamber and has always been helpful in providing some insight and some input on legislation.

And any time I had any questions, either on his bills or others if I asked him, he always took the time, you always took the time, Ed, to give me your point of view based on sound, legal advice and thinking, critical thinking skills, which, you know, we can always use more of.

And the fact that I like to try and be a student history because I feel that what we do here in the Senate is so important, it's good to know what we've done in the past and how we've gotten here, and when anytime I speak with Ed either in other groups or even one on one, he always had a story to tell that brings the history alive, because he actually lived it and he has participated in it.

Whether it's been John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Robert Moses from a story just the other day that was actually quite comical. I don't want to go too much into it, and a few others. What I took for granted as reading in the history books, here's a person who lived it and now I've had the chance to serve with him with you in the Chamber and have these conversations.

So to me, it has more of a deeper impact and longer lasting as well. And the fact that you've had so many other things that you've done in your life, whether it's professional tennis or serving in different Chambers in two different states and so on, I think that speaks volumes on who you are as an individual. It speaks to your character, your integrity, and the fact that he'll come and give you praise and support when you're not even asking for it as he had done just recently to me, personally.

I take that very personally in a very good way and it was very much appreciated because I know it comes from the heart. It was unasked for and the fact that he took time out to do it speaks volumes.

So for me, you're a model Legislator that I think we could all imitate and could do more of doing that by standing your ground, speaking for what you believe in, even when others may disagree, whether it's in your party or in another party. I think that's the reason why so many people enjoy your company and why you've been elected two times in two different states.

So I wish you very much the best wishes, as I'm sure you have another act to follow because you have plenty of stories to tell, still. All the best. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SENATOR STILLMAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Ed, it's an honor to stand up and say a few words about you. I was hoping I didn't have to follow Senator LeBeau. His comments were, and I won't repeat them, but I know they were greatly appreciated and in good humor.

And that is one thing that you possess that so many of us, is that your phone going off Ed? Okay. Just making sure, because so much has been said about your cell phone already, so.

And a sense of humor, the sense of humor that you possess is really vital to the survival in this institution, but so very important as we debate issues, that we cannot forget the importance of putting things in perspective, and that's certainly something you have brought to the Circle.

I believe we were both elected to the Senate in the same year, although our histories are different. I served in the House for twelve years here and you in New York, which is my roots, but I had not lived there for many years.

And when I was first, my first committee assignment here, Senator Williams asked me to serve as the Chair of the Environment Committee and I was thrilled. It's the committee I really wanted. When I was in the House it's the committee I really wanted to serve on and I never had that chance. I was thrilled, moved into the office, got everything set up, went through the first year of the term and then I get a call just before the start of the next Session, due to some impropriety from some members, a member of the Senate, Andrea, Senator Williams asked me, he said, Andrea would you mind leaving as Chair of the Environment Committee and taking on the responsibility as the Chair of the Public Safety Committee. And it took me a few days to give him an answer because it was difficult for me to leave.

So when I hear Senator McKinney speak about the Environment Committee and I served with Senator Chapin who at the time was Representative Chapin in that committee, I understand how people become so attached to that committee because the issues that have been stated are so really personal and understandable to all of us, in effect, the greater good in this state and the country.

But after I got over it, I was delighted to turn the reins over to you so to speak, and your stewardship of that committee has been wonderful. It has been a pleasure to work with you on environmental issues knowing your passion for chairing that committee and your passion for so many other topics and understanding how things are sort of interwoven, and so even though I was disappointed and I got over it, we all do, I was pleased that you stepped into that role and you've proven to be a remarkable Chair and will be leaving a legacy in that committee that you should be very proud of and that the people of this state should be proud of as well.

It has been just an honor to serve with you as you know and members of the Circle know. I won't get the committee back because I'm leaving, but my heart will always be there and just knowing that I had an opportunity to be a part of the decision making on some of those issues, you know, certainly makes me feel better.

I wish you well. I wish your family well. I wish you a long retirement. I look forward to seeing you on the shoreline. Hopefully we'll bump into each other and enjoy every moment trying to get back to whatever is considered normal life and again, it's been an honor and a pleasure to serve with you and maybe we will again somewhere down the road. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Cassano

SENATOR CASSANO:

Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is, indeed, a pleasure to rise and speak in behalf of Ed Meyer. We talked a little about his history. I was at a meeting maybe two months ago, right after when Ed said he wasn't going to run again and somebody that I've known for a long time said I see Ed Meyer's not running again. I used to be one of his aides.

So I'm thinking. When was he up here to be an aide? Oh, no, no, 40 years ago when the General Assembly in New York City and he still lives in town and Ed knows who I'm talking about, so I relay that message to Ed.

I've only been here four years. Chairing P&D in my first year we had our battles. We seemed to be municipal and Ed was environmental and we just locked horns and at the end of the year, we were talking at the end of the Session saying you know, we've got to do a better job of working together here and start talking about some of these bills and work some things out and that's exactly what we did, and the last three years have been a lot more successful, I think, for the two committees working together. We've gotten some good things done, some historic things done by bringing people together from all sides and trying to listen to each other.

We're still going to have differences because we represent in some ways different areas and yet they're the same areas, but then when you start to look at finances and so on, it all becomes part of the issue and I admired Ed through the whole process because he was so strong and so committed. He's the great example of what we should be doing and the way we should be thinking, putting Connecticut first, putting the people first. You've done a magnificent job of that, Ed, and I wish you nothing but the best. A long, healthy, retirement and I know you'll enjoy it. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

Thank you, Madam President. Well, Ed, two words come to mind when I think about Ed Meyer. The first one is integrity, but the second one may be more important. It's friend.

And we talk a lot, a lot of people said, very true words about your work here, but you and I, I think, share a special bond in that ten years ago we came in here together. We were the underdogs. You had a term for that I'll share. I don't think Senator McKinney's going to like it at all, but you called us the Dragon Slayers, so we came in here together and I can remember campaigning with you and meeting and we looked at each other and you said to me, you know, nobody thinks we're going to win. I said, I know that, Ed. And he said but we're going to work really hard and we're going to win anyway, and I said, you're right, Ed, we area. And we did. And here we are ten years later. Wow, has time flown. It has quite flown.

I was honored to have you as my Vice-Chair at GAE for all these years. You and I shared a lot of common quests on ethics and other issues that we both passionately, deeply believed in and were really important to us and to many other people in the Circle.

People talked about you being outspoken and certainly that's clear and no one could compare with your intelligence and ability to talk about the law or critical thinking.

I've enjoyed greatly, as many other people have, all of the stories that you've told, who you've met. It's always amazing that you think you've heard everything about Ed and then you hear something else and you go really, he did that? You know that person? It's unbelievable (inaudible).

And we were talking about summer vacation and he all of a sudden says, oh yeah, one of the best trips we ever took was this bike trip with my entire family through the south of France. It was just amazing.

So if you think about that Christmas card that I think Senator Kissel mentioned, think of them all on bikes in the south of France and that is Senator Meyer.

We've loved your stories about the New York Legislature and all the places you've been and Senator Stillman mentioned your sense of humor, which is very important and very much appreciated.

I think one of the funniest things that happened most recently was, there was a really in the building, and you know how sometimes you hear all the cheering from downstairs or outside and you know the various rooms. We were standing, a bunch of us were standing in the front of our Caucus there and we'd hear all the cheering and Ed flew in the door and so jokingly I said to Ed, wow, you know, they're all cheering for you, and without even missing a beat he said, oh yeah, I had to get away from them all. Completely deadpan, absolutely on target, really just, what a wonderful sense of humor. We just enjoy that.

I think sometimes you refer to yourself, and I would definitely use the word as a maverick, and I think that's a good word to describe you. Never afraid to tell it like it is, and we think of, and many people have mentioned all the times Ed has turned this place upside down and Senator LeBeau, I would say when you talked about calling the question, you may say that you didn't realize that wasn't the rule but Ed definitely knew it was.

And if you asked him about it, he said, gosh, that's just what I had to do. It was just the right thing to do. I had to do that. So, and that's it. It was the right thing to do and that's why you did it.

Ed, it has been a pleasure and an honor to work with you, but more importantly, it is an honor to call you my friend. I wish you and Patty Ann, your children and your grandchildren a wonderful retirement and I wouldn't be surprised that at some point along the line you took up residence someplace else, not that we'd ever want you to leave Connecticut, but you took up residence someplace else and ended up in that Legislature, and I can tell you, that would be our loss but their gain.

The people of your district have been very, very lucky to have you as their advocate. You've always fought the good fight and all I can say is, I will miss you.

THE CHAIR:

Will your remark? Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Madam President. Senator Meyer, it's truly been an honor to serve with you. You've had such a storied life and I think that story has kind of preceded you into the Senate, but it also has reached outside of the Senate, so that even when I first came here and saw you, the richness of all you've done over all these years was already on my mind.

And you know, we've heard a little bit about serving in two different states and serving in two different parties but I think what speaks volumes more than anything else is the family legacy that you have with credible accomplishments for those people sitting right behind you is something definitely to look up to.

Senator Meyer, one thing that I think you really impressed upon me and really touched me is with your thoughtfulness of your debate. We heard a lot about your forcefulness of your debate, but also your thoughtfulness.

The number of times where there was an ear for the Judiciary Committee, the debate might have even been done, but you would come up to me afterwards and say Senator Welch, Jason, I noticed you said this, but didn't you really mean this, or did you think about that? The debate's over and you're still going. And it was wonderful, from a senior statesman to a junior statesman it really made an impact and it was very important conversation. I thank you for that.

And also your humor, which you've heard so much of here because a junior person coming into this Chamber for the first time, looking around at just this glorious paneling and décor, it's a little bit intimidating, but to have your sense of humor take the edge off of it was very much appreciated. In fact, it allowed me to talk longer and ask more questions and keep the debate going and going and going. So thank you for that, Senator Meyer.

And I think, Madam President, I don't know if you noticed this, but Senator Meyer began 95 percent of his Mr. President debates with one word, and that word was colleagues, colleagues. Mr. President, I don't know if I'm ever going to be able to read that word or hear that word spoken without hearing Senator Meyer's voice. So thank you for leaving that with me as well.

Best wishes, Godspeed. It's been an honor and a privilege. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

(Senator Duff the Chair. )

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Mr. President, and Senator Meyer, I am truly sad because I feel as though I haven't had enough time to work with you, and especially this past Session where we've collaborated on our pesticide bill. I have so enjoyed and learned so much from working with you.

And I have to say, you've also given me some of the best material I've had to bring away from my first Session, because as a new Senator last year coming in at a time where we had some unusual circumstances and we were working on the Gun Prevention Violence and School Safety Act, and I remember the day that we were coming to vote and going through the Capitol and the yelling and the chanting and the full areas up there, and Ed had actually, because you had been the proposer of the single bullet, I got to a point where I thought of crafting a sign because we not only share as seat mates here, but we also had officers next to each other that had an arrow said it's next door because it was getting a little concerning after a while.

So then the day that we came here after having gone through that for a few weeks, I really thought I was going to have a heart attack because when I sat here and you were giving your speech and I looked at you take out a brown paper bag and reach in and grab something, many people noticed that I started to dive under. I truly thought there was something in there that was going to get us both in trouble and it happened to be quite benign. But that has been one of the funniest stories that I have been able to bring back and I've actually re-watched it a couple of times.

So I thank you not only for teaching me, working with me, but also many of the best stories that I'll have for my first Session and I will very much miss you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Bye.

SENATOR BYE:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Meyer, in this job we get a lot of compliments and we get suspicious of compliments, but I think what you're hearing today is how we all truly feel about you. You're leaving. We have nothing to gain by complimenting you yet, maybe a couple of bills here and there.

But I want to say, you are a great person. That's what you are, and we all know that. And I'm listening to the exploits and all the things I know you've done. We had a long conversation about Rene Richards and how you were with her through some of those challenges and I'm starting to think you're sort of like Forrest Gump. You've got links to everywhere and now you have Ted Kennedy, Jr. running for your seat to continue this. You just have had quite a life.

I remember you most for the tie you have on today, I think. Is that your rat tie? Oh, it's not your rat tie? I love that you wear the rat tie in implementer day. It's awesome.

And one of my favorite stories was, I was a new Senator. I think it was my first year and you learned that we shared a love of tennis and I didn't know exactly how great you were, but I remember, I was sitting in my seat and you were standing right here telling me that you had to work on your serve and there was the talk going on and you were like this and you came across and I thought wow, your stance was a little open. I think that was the problem, but it was just quite something and I thought, oh, that's Senator Meyer.

For me personally, I want to thank you for being a role model and a mentor. My first year, we did some great work on getting rid of BPA in children's products and the thing I liked most about you was, you brought clarity to the issue, but you made sure that there was research, that it wasn't just nothing and you said well, Beth, there's some problems. There's just research and we would make the bill a little better. You weren't just about getting something done that seemed great. You've always been about getting tee policy right.

And I remember after that passed, very soon after, we learned that not only did we get rid of BPA in formula for babies in Connecticut, that the companies changed their cans throughout the nation, and you were a big part of passing that. We were a team.

You have clarities on issues around the environment and social justice, and as I said, you combine your heart with your head and that's what makes you such a great policymaker.

So thank you for me personally, but I know your constituents are so grateful because they know you're a fighter and that you're a fighter for their interests and you give of yourself not just in what you do up here, but in all you do in your district helping with charities and events, and I've been in your district and I've seen the love. I know I was down there for a dinner and I saw that.

And then you also really have done so much for our state, and you balanced that thing that we have to balance, which is our district's interest and the state's interest. Sometimes what our exact districts need might not be the best policy for the state and that's a hard thing, and I've watched you walk that carefully. So I think of it as a Jeffersonian and Jackson balance, right, when there's that kind of work.

So I want to close just by saying, Senator Meyer that I'm going to miss you and I love you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Crisco.

SENATOR CRISCO:

Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Circle, it's been a real honor knowing Senator Meyer and I always like to associate myself with all the remarks by my colleagues and the remarks yet to come.

It's been interesting for me because he and I, I didn't realize it, have a lot of things in common and interests. Our wives both are named Pat and many times when I attend a musical event at Woolsey Hall or Sprague Hall at Yale, I see Senator Meyer and obviously, we're aware of his heritage with Yale University and I have a grandson who's graduating this year and so we have a lot to talk about in regard to Yale University.

But there's three points that I'd like to make, Senator. First, while it's not said enough by many people for many of us in the Circle, I want to thank you for what you've done for the people of Connecticut. There's such a high ignorance of what is accomplished for the people that I just want to say again and again and again, thank you.

And just two quotes from Emerson abbreviated. You know, Emerson has a quote about the success, if you make life easier for people, if you make a garden a little bit more flowery and a child smile more you are a success, and by all means you far exceed what we mean by success, and I want to thank you for that.

And lastly, there's a quote on my desk that was so graciously given to me by Senator Maynard that reads, do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail, and Senator Meyer, you left a trail as wide and big as Route 95.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. And just so everybody knows, the Lieutenant Governor had a list, so I'm respecting her list. Senator Musto.

SENATOR MUSTO:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Meyer, thank you for all your help on all the committees. You've been vice-chair on committees I've chaired I think three times, Children's Committee and then certainly this year GAE and frankly, I'm drawing a blank on the (inaudible) of Human Services, but I'm pretty sure you were there, too, and you've given me much to think about.

I'm never quite sure what you're going to say, and it's a good thing because it always makes me think about it a little harder. You've done that both in the committees and in the Caucus room when we chatted many times about various things.

One of the things that struck me when I first met you and started talking to you and I found out you were on Wikipedia and it struck me than, and as I've gotten to know you better that you know, any one of us here might be on Wikipedia for our service in the State Senate. You're probably there for about four or five reasons.

Your history as a prosecutor, your tennis playing, your service in New York, here and who knows what else you've done that you haven't even told us about yet because usually we drag this stuff out of you over time. You just kind of say something and that leads us to a whole other level of Ed Meyer that we didn't even know existed.

So I've always admired that about you, you varied career and really just, I guess the elegance with which you carry yourself and you purport yourself. It's always been a source of instruction to me and I've tried to sort of carry that out. You're a little taller. You strike a little more imposing figure than most, but just want to express my gratitude for having met you and served with you, for all your help on my committees and on various other issues and wish you well in whatever state you decide to run for Senator next, we'll be watching. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Markley, followed by Senator Kelly.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I was all set to say all these mushy things about Senator Meyer when Senator Bartolomeo reminded me about that single shot gun proposal.

Unfortunately, I noticed that Bob Crook flipped out of the Gallery a moment ago so maybe I can proceed in any case.

You know, it's interesting that when we come to this moment, sometimes I think, obviously, everyone that I serve with in my own Caucus I know well and have nice things I can say about and people that I've worked with on committee, and people that I sit, in whose immediate vicinity I set, but there's some Senators whose path I haven't crossed in the course of business that much.

But interestingly, even though our relationship has almost entirely been limited to being in this Circle, Senator Meyer has been somebody that I've had a very vivid and positive impression of and relationship with, and I guess I'd say in part that's because I feel like he's a bit of a kindred spirit in being independent and a little unpredictable about things and something that I admire and something that I attempt to achieve for better or for worse myself as well.

And another thing I'd say that I've always respected that we saw an illustration of earlier this afternoon is, I've always admired the sincerity of your presentation in debate and in responses to questions, that you have never been irritated. You've never been flippant. You've always been honest in the argument in trying to get your point across and trying to bring people to your side and trying to explain things as best you could, whatever the intent of the questions might have been.

Whether it was questions for, to bring more light on the subject or questions simply to move us further into the night, you've treated them all as legitimate questions in a way that I very much admire.

And I will say that although we have not physically shared a microphone in this Chamber, I hope that maybe afterwards at some point we might be able to share some other microphone in some other place as we discussed.

So best wishes and thank you for your friendship and your service here.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Kelly, followed by Senator Hartley.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Mr. President.

And thank you, Senator Meyer.

As Senator Markley just indicated, I haven't had the opportunity to sit with you on a committee where we were chairman or ranking member together, but we have had an opportunity to work together because of the issues that come before us and specifically those dealing with the environment and safety of the constituents that I serve in my district, and where that has happened, it really was because of the respect that you had for the process, and more importantly that you listen.

As Senator Welch had indicated earlier, it's just not the debate that occurs on the floor, but it's the discussion that continues thereafter, because what I found in you was a willingness to work. If you heard in the process of that discussion a good idea, and that there may be some common ground to explore, and in those regards and at that opportunity, the conversations always continued, and I know that there are a number of opportunities where we had the ability to come together and work together, and I think that was because you didn't view us through a political prism, but you viewed us as colleague, somebody whom you respected so that when we spoke you listened and if you thought there was something there reacted.

And in that regard, I'm very thankful for your listening and thankful that you were here to help the people of Connecticut. It's all too often not only do we not thank the people that serve, but it's very difficult to get people to serve, particularly with the passion that you demonstrated. Thank you for that passion and thank you for your service.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Hartley, followed by Senator Doyle.

SENATOR HARTLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. So when we first learned that there was to be a new Senator from the 12th, actually my neighbor and a very good campaign worker had just moved down to the shore and quickly called me up and said, I've got a great candidate to work for and I said oh, you're going to come back and work for me. No, she said. We've got this great recruit who I guess you came in after there was a (inaudible) holder on that first nominating committee, but the entire 12th District was totally energized and it was shortly after the election that I realized why they were so energized, because Ed Meyer was a very special and unique candidate, as he has been a very special colleague and Senator to all of us.

You certainly are, Senator Meyer, the quintessential Environment Chairman, very prolific. There has not been a dirth of ideas, proposals and creativity which you have proposed and championed, and we are all the better for that.

From perhaps the smaller proposals, the ones that I have even sent your way, the extension of the nutritional senior programs, the bringing of dogs into the state for adoption, to the larger areas of environmental waste, recycling, and not the least of which moments ago, fracking, and we are indebted for your work on all of that and we have been blessed to have your leadership on that, Ed.

But beyond the substantive matters, I feel like we have all gotten vicariously to know the Meyer Dynasty. Patty Ann and the family have really been part of our family. We talk frequently about the escapades, the incredibly rich life, the unbelievable mentoring that you've done. I've met the grand in the hallways and in the committee rooms and you have so much to be proud of, because we're just gloating when we see you all.

And I have to say, it's not been once or twice, but very frequently where my family and friends, both in Washington, D. C. and New York will approach me and say, so you serve with Senator Meyer? And your reputation is well beyond this state, Ed, and it's not just in one side. It's on both sides of the aisle.

So I'm just going to leave you with a very simple request, and it's one that I mention to you all the time and that is, please keep me on the Christmas card list, please.

And like always, there's always a message that Ed has, and that Christmas card has a message and for those of you who may have missed this year's iteration everything was color coded with the tie died shirts, so we knew what family members belonged to which and I have to say that could only come from Ed as the head of that dynasty.

Ed, this is not goodbye. I know that Ed Meyer, there is always another chapter. Public service is synonymous with your being and so I know we will be in those circles again. The best, my friend. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Doyle, followed by Senator Kane.

SENATOR DOYLE:

Well, it is goodbye. I was sitting here just thinking about what to say. Senator Holder-Winfield said, the more the people talk, the more difficult it is.

But I was sitting here thinking how to describe you and I really think of you as one of the most entertaining people I know, and I'll try to describe why I say entertaining in a positive sense.

Many late nights we served together in the Senate. As other people have mentioned, when things get late, one or two in the morning, we all kind of get relaxed in the Caucus room and early on a few years ago I first heard some of your life stories and they really struck me as unbelievable, I'll be honest, all the different stories.

In terms of the Kennedys, I've always admired the Kennedys. I've read books on the Kennedy brothers through the years and the fact that you actually worked for and with Robert Kennedy really struck me as quite remarkable, because I just reviewed them and admired them through all the way through my youth.

Other stories, you mentioned Governor Rockefeller in reference to the story and one of them there was a physical confrontation in one of those. It was quite the interesting thing, but it really displayed the courage that you displayed in your career in New York and I admire that and you've displayed that similarly in Connecticut.

The truth is, I really wish I had experienced many of your life experiences because it really was a wonderful thing.

I also would describe you at times in a good sense, you're outrageous. And I can think, there's been a reference to the cell phone incident in the Chamber. Mr. Duff, Senator Duff was presiding as he is right now.

I also can think of, there's a reference to calling a question. I don't remember one in the Chamber. I do remember one clearly in the Judiciary Committee. I believe Michael Lawlor was the Chairman at the time and I've been around here a long time and pretty much most of my career was on Judiciary and all of a sudden at one point, Ed grabbed the mike and called a question in Judiciary Committee. The whole Committee stopped dead and even Mike Lawlor, a long-time Chairman, we were all befuddled trying to figure out where we go from here.

But the point was made Ed, and Ed at times gets frustrated with the Legislative process like we all do sometimes. It seems like it goes on for long, but Ed may be a little more outrageous and a little more outspoken than others, but in a good sense, and I appreciate that.

And I also just have to reference. You really do have sincere conviction to your beliefs. In Judiciary Committee we've had discussions and disagreements but you've always, and in a proper sense, tried to convince me to come your way, but in a respectful sense, and I appreciate that, Ed.

I also, of course, in your environmental causes, you, as others have referenced, you really are a passionate leader for a cause and you've done a great job and I do appreciate your hard work in education to me for the environmental issues.

So again, Ed, I just want to thank you for your service to Connecticut and your country. I wish you the best of luck and I do look forward to seeing your outrageous rat tie on Wednesday. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane, followed by Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, rise today to talk about Senator Meyer. If you remember, I came in a special election in January of '08. I was leaving and where are you going today? I came in a special election in January of '08 and there wasn't enough room so Andrew Roraback moved his office into the Caucus and I ended up in the Environment Committee, although I didn't serve on that Committee, and so one of the first people I got to know was Ed Meyer and I appreciate meeting you and talking to you during that time during my first Session.

The things I will remember and Senator Kissel touched on it is the time when you stood up in regard to his long colloquy there and the time you used the cell phone in front of Toni Boucher and Senator Duff had to call out of order. Those were just too funny and something I will always remember.

But the best one is when you know, we all have our roles in our Caucuses, of course and certainly I and not many people can speak as long as Senator Kissel, but there are times that I have to get up and ask questions and talk on a bill and continue the debate and unlike, you know, Senator Looney certainly has to sit in the Chamber because he's monitoring the bills and the progress and what's taking place.

You do, I give you a lot of credit for sitting in the Chamber as much as you do. Most Legislators, there are meetings behind closed doors or in their offices or what have you. You probably spend the most time in the Senate Circle of anyone aside from Senator Looney of course.

And the best time is, and you came running across and bolted across this center and said, Bob, how long is this going to go? How long can you keep this going? And Jason Welch and I looked back and like whoa, he's pretty mad.

But all the best to you and certainly you won't have to put up with our debates any more, but I do wish you the best of luck. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Gerratana, followed by Senator Linares.

SENATOR GERRATANA:

Thank you. Senator Meyer, I am going to miss you. You sit on one side of me in Caucus and I'm losing Gary LeBeau, who sits on the other side. You have been sheer entertainment. That's all I have to say, in such a wonderful, wonderful way.

You know, you're such a fierce advocate for the environment and any issue that you are interested in and that concerns you and concerns all of us, I have never seen such a fierce advocate and I have to say, you know, that I admire you so much for that.

Now, Senator Meyer, I love your ties. My favorite one also is the rat tie, and I think that we're going to have to declare Ed Meyer's Tie Day very shortly in the future, in the near future because certainly just the fact that when you walked in and I would take a look and I'd say, oh, my God, look at that tie. What tie does he have on today and I, of course asked you questions about that.

But, I also appreciate the fact that because of the mind that you have, that I picked your brain on more than one occasion and we have had interesting conversations from everything that has to do with the Federalist Papers to the Fourth Amendment and to any topic that was in the news that day. It's just such a delight to be able to sit next to someone who has such a broad interest in so many issues and to be able to chat about it and also learn. I certainly learned quite a bit from you.

I'm glad that we both shared the passion of tennis and have for many, many years and I can see that leaping across the Circle, because I can imagine you on the tennis court. I'm sure you're just as fierce a competitor there as you have been a fierce advocate here in the Chamber.

You're a big personality, Ed. I'm going to miss you and I know that there will be another chapter in Ed Meyer's life. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Linares, followed by Senator Holder-Winfield.

SENATOR LINARES:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Meyer, it has been just so wonderful to get to know you over the past two years and I think it's a wonderful coincidence that today outside, when you look around the trees and the flowers are blossoming, everything's in full bloom and the environment is showing its strength and its beauty that you have worked so hard to protect in your career.

We haven't gotten a chance to really get to know each other too well, but I have to say that every time you stand up and talk, everyone listens. I listen and you have this big, beautiful, contagious smile that just makes everyone in the room smile and it's really just been an honor to get to know you and I wanted to thank you for your service and enjoy life in retirement. Play as much tennis as you can.

Your wife was my high school tennis coach so I know she's pretty good herself, but I've heard you're pretty good, too.

I hope I can see you around the district. I know we're neighbors. You're just one district over. I hope I see you around and wish you the best wishes in the future.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Holder-Winfield, followed by Senator Maynard.

SENATOR HOLDER-WINFIELD:

Thank you. Ed just said I'm not supposed to talk. He's right. I told him I wasn't going to say anything and then I told Senator Doyle that the more the people speak, the harder it is to do this.

But I think as you sit here and you listen to people you recognized one, the reason why people are doing it, and you think about why you should be doing it.

And I will say this. You know, I have a reputation that comes from my time in the House for doing controversial bills to say the least, and every time that I was working on those bills and I looked around, one of the people I could count on to be with me was Senator Meyer.

And when I got here, you know, you're new, you look around. You're trying to figure out your place and one of the people who was easy to have conversation with was Senator Meyer, partially because of the smile that Senator Linares just talked about. It kind of allows you to feel comfortable with someone. And also, because he's someone who extends himself even to new people, and that is something that I appreciated.

But I have to tell you as someone who did a lot of the controversial things, it's good to see someone who is outspoken, who has figured out how to do that and still be someone that people can respect and work with. It's a lesson without actually trying to teach a lesson for people who are trying to figure out how to say the things on their mind.

The discussion about using colleagues I think is important. You can't have certain conversations if you start out talking about colleagues, and so I've learned a lot from my time in the General Assembly.

I haven't had the time here to miss you as a Senator, and some people say you can't miss those things which you haven't had the chance to experience. But I'll tell you one thing. I will miss you.

And I'll tell you one more thing. Everybody's talking about all of the stories that you tell. The other night Ed was in the back and he was telling a whole bunch of stories. He had everybody paying attention to him, and I guess as some people would say maybe he's like Forrest Gump. I just think of him as a walking history book.

But I'm happy to have been able to be a part of one of the stories. I was the prop in the story. I was about the right height and not the right weight. I was a little bit too think, which is not something people tell me often, but I was happy to be a part of it and happy to sit there and listen to those stories and you know, that's just something that I won't have the opportunity to sit in the back and listen to as I go forward here, so I will miss you very much. Thank you for your time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Maynard, followed by Senator Ayala.

SENATOR MAYNARD:

Ed, I have to say it's been my greatest pleasure up here serving on the Environment Committee with you as Vice-Chairman. So much great work done here. So much incredible accomplishments. The wonderful gift that Brad Towson gave you and the luncheon we had I thought framed it up rather well. Landmark legislation on behalf of the environment of the state of Connecticut, the people of the state of Connecticut. You've done such a marvelous, marvelous job here.

The thing that I want to express is the extraordinary kindness I felt from you always here. Just an extraordinary kindness and I value that so much in this place. You know, we all take our bumps in the road, but every time you're around, we felt just a very comforting feeling of a colleague, in fact, just sharing a load with you and I'm going to miss that very, very much.

One other thing. Other people have stolen my Forrest Gump reference. I guess that isn't unique to me but I say it with a kindness and the deepest of respect, obviously, but we just are in awe of all the things that you've done throughout your life and I want to share, colleagues, with you, one other.

Yesterday I had a casual conversation, no on Saturday with Senator Meyer and during the Kentucky Derby race and the topic of polo came up and you can now add to your list that Ed was a former polo player. Who knew?

So the story just keeps unfolding and what a pleasure it's been to serve with you. I feel honored. And I want to say that when I grow up I want to be like Ed Meyer.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Ayala, followed by Senator Coleman.

SENATOR AYALA:

Thank you. Senator Meyer, I want to thank you for your service to the State of Connecticut and I almost feel a little bit cheated that I haven't been able to have all of these extra opportunities that other folks have had in talking about their experience with you.

But I can tell you this, that I have not served on any committee that you serve, so our work in committee hasn't really even combined, but sitting in the Caucus room and sitting next to you in Caucus, it's interesting, because usually kind of like what happens in Caucus stays in Caucus, but Ed gets kind of passionate when he's in the Caucus room.

And a lot of what happens in Caucus, you know, we're kind of like jockeying to get the attention of our leadership to maybe raise our hand and add a comment or two, but because Ed sits immediately to my right, every time I try to get the attention of leadership to talk, Ed's kind of in the way. So that's one of the things I guess I won't miss, the fact that you won't be blocking me for trying to get a point or two in.

But in all honesty, I've learned a lot about you in Caucus and in your passion for the environment and you know, who knew that Bamboo actually ran? I didn't.

But I learned that because Ed was passionately defending the bill and there's been a lot of issues and a lot of things that I was not necessarily knowledgeable on the environment.

But you may not have known, but through your discussion and your interpretations of the bill, I learned just simply by listening to you and a lot of what happens here I think is important because when we listen to each other that's how we become better Legislators, and I just want to thank you for being that person in the Caucus to teach me something new, to teach me something that I was not familiar with.

And, you know, not only are you retiring, but we also got word you're in the year that David Letterman is retiring. I think that before the Session is over, we ought to come with a top ten of Senator Meyer's tie, that he makes that list because I'll tell you. That's one of the things I quickly took notice of when I saw (inaudible) when I saw Ed come in with the different ties that he wears, I particularly like that turkey tie. I mean, I have not seen one like that and I don't think I'll ever see one like that ever again.

But to wrap up my comments, Ed, we've had conversations about your son in Bridgeport and we talk about getting together and I know that before Session is over I want to make sure that we're able to compare calendars and we're able to have that conversation over lunch whenever. Whenever you are in Bridgeport, I'd love to sit down with you and have those conversations. Thank you, Ed.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Coleman, followed by Senator Boucher.

SENATOR COLEMAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. Ed, I just wanted to take the opportunity to express how much I appreciate you and the role that you play not only in this Circle but in the work that we did on the Judiciary Committee. You were a tremendous ally to have on so many issues and I was always buoyed when I learned that you saw things similar to where I saw things and disheartened to learn on those few occasions when we had differences of opinion. But you were a tremendous ally and we did some heavy lifting on the Judiciary Committee and you were always very willing to do more than your fair share of that heavy lifting and that was certainly tremendously appreciated.

I admired your knowledge of the legal issues and the way that you so passionately expressed your support and the application of those legal issues to the concern that you advanced during the committee process.

Many people have already expressed how entertaining you are and I have to agree with that. I'm just amazed concerning your reach. You seem to know just about everybody. I admired and was entertained by your stories about Jimmy Connors and Rene Richards and the other night you even expressed that you were a close friend of one of the faculty members of the high school that I attended. This is just amazing to me.

I enjoy all of your stories, but I will share with you that while I was entertained by them, there's at least one of those stories that I didn't quite believe and that is that you were beamed five times during one baseball game. Although that may explain something.

But Ed, it's been a tremendous joy to serve and to work with you. I wish you all the best at whatever it is that you decide to do next. It's been an honor to call you my friend and I hope that you'll think of me as your friend. Thank you, sir.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, the name Senator Ed Meyer is bound to produce quite a reaction. A bigger than life personality I believe, and it brings to mind various images and points of view and like a few others that have spoken, we did not have the privilege of working with each other on committee. I'm sure that if we had, we would have provided great entertainment value to our fellow colleagues both in verbal gymnastics if not physical gymnastics given the differences in our stature as well as in our point of view.

But seriously, we do all thank you and I do as well for the years of service that you've provided. You use the term colleagues probably best than everyone given, that you have served on both sides of the aisle and I'm sure you had great experiences, maybe not so great on either side.

But certainly your family has sacrificed a great deal of their time with you so that you could provide the service to better the conditions for the State of Connecticut, so we thank you and I personally thank you as well. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Fonfara, followed by Senator Osten.

SENATOR FONFARA:

Thank you, Mr. President. Ed, I was not intending to speak today. As has been said, much of what has been said by others I cannot add much to. We have not served on committees together amazingly as that might be, and we don't sit next to each other in the

Chamber, which I'm saying this more for the benefit of our family and others who may not understand the idiosyncrasies of this institution. But those are certainly ways in which we get to know someone well and we, our districts are not close together, either.

But I certainly have enjoyed over the years as others have, listening to your stores, you representing Jimmy Connors, one that comes to mind most, and of course your wife, that you cannot have a conversation with Ed Meyer without Patty Ann coming up at one time or another and the love that you have for her and for your family.

But I'd like to take just one second to speak to your family, if I could because the sacrifices that families make to allow us to do what we do, and all of us here know what that sacrifice is, whether it be a spouse, partner, children, grandchildren and to them, it's important, I hope, that they understand that your husband, your father, your grandfather has made a difference in our Caucus and in this building.

Not just in terms of the bills that were passed, because that's only one part of what happens here. He has staked out a position, very often a progressive one, one on the left, you could say, that makes us think, that challenges, as Senator Ayala said, challenges our thinking.

Sometimes that shifts to debate, sometimes it doesn't. But it's an important job, one Ed that you performed greatly, and I'm grateful for you for it.

All the best to you and your family.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Ed, I'm brand new so I haven't had the opportunity to either sit next to you in the Caucus room or serve on committees with you, but I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart for your thoughtful representation within the Circle here, for your constituents down in the New Haven area, and also for the people in the state of Connecticut and for the environment in general. Thank you very much for everything you've done and everything you've taught me.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. I'll say my words here from the Chair, Senator Meyer. When Lieutenant Governor before she left, she offered me the opportunity to speak from my chair or to come up here and I said oh, no, I'm going to speak from here.

I said it seems so familiar and I thought well, maybe you'd hear me better if you were over there by Senator Boucher, but I have to say that you know, being up here and presiding over the Senate is opportunities to watch facial expressions and to see who's paying attention and not paying attention and from being up here watching everybody in the Circle, listening to the speaker and watching everybody else smile and kind of stare at you.

And it really makes me think about how wonderful this institution is and this Body is, because there's, just as we were before debating fracking legislation or Saturday we were debating a budget which was partisan, that no matter where we are with things that we're always friends and colleagues and we have, our interests are aligned in lots of ways and that we're all family here in the Circle.

Ed, if I can just say that from my perspective, you know, we came into the Senate together. I view you as such a gentleman, somebody who is honest, ethical and has a lot of passion at a time when some people will have lost their passion a long time ago, I think you have always challenged us to continue to have passion no matter what the subject is, whether it's fracking waste or running bamboo, something that we've never heard of before or other issues that are important to you in the district or the State of Connecticut, you have always challenged us, and nobody can ever question your commitment that you believe in.

But the other thing is, everybody's talked about how the stories that you know everybody in the world, it seems like. We were talking the other day in the Caucus room about hockey and the hockey playoffs and we got on the topic of the original sixteens of the NHL and Ed says, well, you know, I was a counsel to the New York Islanders and I thought, well of course you were. I'm sure you helped found the NHL, too.

But that's what makes you special, Ed and the fact of the matter is that we're going to miss you. We're going to miss Patty Ann and the stories. Hopefully, you'll continue to send us your Christmas cards, and your wonderful family and you have made a mark on the State of Connecticut that will long be remembered and we certainly remember all that you've done for all of us and our friendship that we've always had. Thank you.

Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Meyer, I want to thank first Patty Ann and your family for sharing you with us here in the Circle, for our benefit and the benefit of the people of Connecticut because you've left an indelible impression here in the Circle, and your work on critical legislation has also left an indelible impression for the benefit of the state of Connecticut going forward.

You know, folks have talked about some of the special moments and on the one hand your tremendous civility in approaching colleagues, in your delivery here in the Circle and your approach to issues, and you know, at the same time there's an edgy quality. You are able to get frustrated and outraged to the point where, as was indicated before, you would call the question because you wanted to move the business forward.

And I remember shortly after that speaking with you in the Caucus room, we thought that you were calming down at the time and you told me, you told me a story about a close relative of yours, an older close relative who had been thrown off of a particular railroad and banned from riding that railroad ever again because someone had said something he disagreed with and they just hauled off and slugged them.

And I was trying to comprehend the message you were sending me in telling me that story. And then I was reassured that the other day you said, you know, in the final days of the Session I'm wearing nothing but cow ties because cows have a calming influence.

Senator Meyer, you have been called a maverick, and that's true. But I want to echo what Senator Coleman said, which is that you have done heavy lifting. Sometimes being a maverick can mean, you know, that a particular issue or a bill is just never quite good enough. But for you, you have been willing to stand up and to disagree to make it a central point, but you've also been willing to take those really tough votes on very important and critical issues, and I'm thinking of very important Judicial issues following your legal career and your deep understanding of the law and your looking out for those who need the protections of our laws the most. You've never been afraid to take tough votes on those and every other issue.

Your stewardship when it comes to the environment and the State of Connecticut, the protection of the Long Island Sound, the protection of our air and our water has been tremendous, but also looking forward, so hard for us to do in our day-to-day lives, looking forward at the impact chemicals, pesticides, et cetera, and standing up and calling out for us to do something now to avoid the problems of the future. Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate leadership on those issues.

You know, I think of how you were appointed to the Justice Department in 1964 by Robert Kennedy, a person who I greatly admire and that public service career has continued until this time. And when I think of all of the issues you had not only been involved with, but have lived to see, so much essential change in our country, I am reminded of Martin Luther King's quote and I'll paraphrase it, that Ed Meyer, you have seen the arc of the universe bend toward justice, and in your service as a public servant, you have helped in that fight for equality and I want to thank you for your service here today. Thanks very much.

And I have something special I'm going to walk around the Circle to present to you right at this time.

(Applause. ))

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Really. Too much. I find myself quite teary.

I'm so happy today to have a few family members here. His Honor, son Jeff, you know, to see him go on the Federal Bench is just something else, and I want to tell you just a little bit about his wife.

Linda (inaudible) okay. When Jeff was clerking for Harry Blackman, Justice Blackman called me at my office, my law office and asked me to come down for breakfast and argument and he told me that he had a very difficult case coming up and he needed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's support in this court decision.

And he said, I want you to know that I've asked your son, Jeff to get close to Sandra Day O'Connor's clerk, because we've got to bring around Justice O'Connor on this particular decision. Well, that clerk is now my daughter-in-law.

(Applause. )

And some of you know her. She's been a passionate person in the Judiciary Committee and one of her dreams, and you're going to see more of her next year, one of her real dreams and expertise is sentencing policy, and in particular the juvenile sentencing bill, so get ready for her next year. Not going to do it this year because she will be a very, very strong advocate.

You know, when we left, when Patty Ann and I left New York, we left New York to get out of politics. We did. Shortly before we decided to leave, I'd been offered the Democratic nomination for district attorney and we decided that we were going to leave politics, we'd had enough of it and had many happy memories, but we were going to come to Connecticut and I was going to phase out of the law practice and go into teaching somewhere and something happened along the way, of course.

A friend who was a delegate to the State Convention to nominate the State Senator came to me and said would I go as an alternate to him because he had a problem and couldn't go and I initially said no, I'm not going. I'm out of politics.

And this friend said, well, we've got a candidate to run against Senator Aniskovich. She's terrific and the convention will be 15 minutes. I said to my friend, okay, I'll go. So we go and the candidate stands up at the podium and said she's got a problem, a serious problem in her family and she can't do anything, and she can't do it and Pat Widlitz, who's here, I think, Representative Pat Widlitz tells people in the room why there's somebody in this room who's done this before and so they offered me the nomination and I called Patty Ann and we left politics in New York, right? And I'm expecting her to make it very easy for her to say no.

She says, why, we live at home just you and I and the dog. This is the perfect time in your life to do this. She did. And that's why we're here this afternoon because of that.

Patty Ann is an enormous competitor as some of you know. I think, Art, you know from her coaching. She has inspired me as a competitor in politics as she has inspired many people on the tennis court and I just want to publicly in front of all of you just thank her dearly for so much love and so much companionship and so much political partnership. Thank you, sweetheart.

(Applause. )

I just, I'm going to be very brief but I want to just say to each of you in this really remarkable life that we live in politics and it is truly different than almost anything else. We really are all friends. Really in some ways, because the time we're together, the issues we decide and the things we do for so many people, we are really very special friends.

The friendship of each of you here is just remarkable, and when you serve ten years you really feel it and there's so much diversity. We all come from very different backgrounds, different places.

I have been very influenced by something that Martin Luther King said from the Birmingham jail. That letter he wrote is remarkable, but when he said, we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny, whatever affects one, affects all. That's really what our lives are about as Legislators and with our constituents. That single destiny, single garment of destiny. I feel it so much.

I have been very blessed, and I use the word blessed in the strongest sense by having a wonderful aide here. One of them is up in the Gallery. Mike, thank you for your work. I've had more recently Jacqueline Kozen who's here. What a special aid Jacqueline is. She's now in the Comptroller's office. Darcy Jones was a very special aide. Where are you Darcy? There she is. Now counsel to the Senate.

And my current aide, Eric Emmanuelson is just terrific as some of you know? Where's Eric? There he is over there. Eric, thank you.

The Clerk of the Environment Committee, who has become a very special friend, Linda Buchanan is here. Thank you Linda for so much.

I want to just close by referring to some of the things that you said about my character. It's not my fault. So this is what happened. This is what happened.

I am a fervent Yankee fan as the Majority Leader well knows and many years ago the Oakland As traded Reggie Jackson to the New York Yankees and Reggie Jackson came to the Yankees and the first public statement he made was not about baseball. He said, I want to stir the drink. And when he said that, I knew that that's what I tried to do all my life and what I'm still trying to do is stir that drink. Thank you.

(Applause. )

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes. May the Senate just stand at ease for a moment, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease. )

The Senate will come back to order. Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I believe the Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda Number 1 for today's Session.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

The Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda Number 1. It's dated Monday, May 5, 2014, has been copied and distributed.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I move all items on Senate Agenda Number 1, dated Monday May 5, 2014 to be acted upon as indicated and that the Agenda be incorporated by reference in the Senate Journal and the Senate Transcript.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I would yield now to Senator McKinney I believe for a point of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Let's make sure we have the Senate in order first. Senator McKinney.

SENATOR MCKINNEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR MCKINNEY:

Mr. President, just as we've had an opportunity to bid our farewell and best wishes to Senator Meyer, it's also an opportunity for us to do the same for Senator Welch.

I remember the first time, I think it was the first time I met Jason, he had come up to the Capitol to discuss the possibility of running for the State Senate. We spent some time together, maybe 15 or 20 minutes. Jason at the time was practicing at the Law Firm of Cummings and Lockwood, a law firm that I had worked at.

We talked about his background, his interests, the difficulties of running for the State Senate with a young family, the difficulties of running against an incumbent, someone who had served many years in this Circle, and Jason is, I think one of two in our Caucus, and one of very few in this Circle who run races against long-term incumbents and come out victorious.

And I came away hoping that Jason would make the decision to run, and he did and he won. And as those of you who have heard and listened to Jason in the Circle if you've had the opportunity to sit with him on the various committees he's been on, you understand the man, his intelligence, his calm demeanor, his thoughtfulness of purpose when he thinks about issues and debates.

I have spent a lot of time over the last year trying to convince Jason to run for re-election, a lot of time. And every conversation we had has focused on the fact that Jason has his priorities straight.

The other day I had this amazing opportunity to host his family in my office. They were sort of out there in the hallway and I've got a big office that I rarely ever use, and I said come on in, sit down and relax. Turn on the TV, watch your dad. They were all eating popcorn and the like and I wrote their names down because I wouldn't remember all of them.

But I got to spend a couple of minutes with his kids, Sarah, Seth, Grace, Wesley, Luke, Hope. If she's watching, Hope is the most adorable young girl you've ever seen in your whole life. Sorry for the other six, my personal favorite, and Benjamin, and I realized after spending a couple of minutes with those seven kids and his amazing wife, Elizabeth, that Jason Welch is a blessed man and a very smart man.

I've been proud to know him. I'm proud to call him a friend, but I'm more proud of the decision he made to focus on his wife and seven kids. Jason grew up in Torrington. I don't know if a lot of you knew that. Went to Hamilton College, Quinnipiac Law School. I think was managing editor of the Law Review. He's an extraordinarily talented and gifted person.

A lot of you may not know Jason served in the United States Coast Guard Reserve and Army National Guard. He doesn't talk a lot about his service to our country because he's not someone who talks a lot about himself, quite frankly.

Jason is someone who, now that I've reached the age of leaving this place myself after 16 years, who I believe and still hope and believe will be a future leader, not just for our party, but for our state. He is incredibly gifted and talented.

He engaged and engages in public service for all of the right reasons, all of the right reasons.

I'm really sad that he will not be a member of the State Senate, but as I said before, I'm equally proud and happy. As all of you know, I grew up as one of five kids, the son of a politician, and I know the difficulties of not being able to see your dad a lot, and I know the sacrifices my three children and all of our kids make when we're in public service.

And to be able to step away from that, hopefully temporarily, not permanently, shows a real strength in my opinion, of character and understanding of priorities and the true love he has for his wife and his seven kids.

Jason, you're going to be missed in this Circle. The state is going to miss your thoughtful leadership. I'm going to be happy to still call you a friend, however, so I wish you well. I can't wait to watch your kids grow up and see where they go and somewhere along the line, down the line, you're going to get a phone call from me saying, hey, Jason, time to run for office again and I hope you'll say yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, we are going to miss Jason. When Jason in his first two years, he kind of went along with the flow and I remember him coming to me and saying, you know what? From now on, I really want to make sure that when I vote, I know every bill inside out, and that takes a lot of discipline, and he did that because he brings a lot to the circle, and he felt that these bills need a second look, and I respected that.

First of all, I respect the fact that he could do it and juggle seven kids. But the fact that he felt that it was very important for him to do it, and he's added a lot to our conversations in the Caucus, whether it's bills from his committee or other committees. He was able to bring significant input there and in the Circle.

You know, Mr. President, this job that politics itself can suck you dry of everything that you have. It takes a lot of time out of your personal life. It takes a lot of time out of your business life. It takes a lot of time out of your social life. It can really draw you in. And Jason realized that.

Now maybe some of us could do it with two kids. Maybe some of us could do it with three kids. Think about it with four. Longer thought with five, but when you get up to six or seven kids, you have a lot to start thinking about, and when those kids reach the teenage years, you have to be around. You have to be around because they need the guidance, they need the support. They need the channeling and they need to have a strong figure around, and Jason realized that.

That it's tough to make the practice, that it's tough to engage with all seven and keep them in line in what are the fundamental growing years of their life, and he was able to look at that and say, being a State Senator is great. Giving service as I've done in the past is terrific. But a priority of life, my children and my family come first.

And sometimes I think in this building, people mix up priorities. But Jason got it right and Senator McKinney is correct, that at his very young age, after his kids are grown and he's got them on the path that he feels are appropriate, to come back to politics because we need people like Jason who have public service in their blood and the ability to move this state forward and the ability to work with others.

The way he approaches the bill and it's legal background and the legal education that he's received is important, but he also puts the humanistic quality into it.

The other day, we had that bill about impact sentencing, about if you have children you have to look at the children. We were saying Jason himself could go on a burglar spree for years and he'd never go to jail with all the kids he has.

But Jason does bring a certain amount of fun to our Caucus but certainly an amount of intellect to our Caucus that's going to be missed. His leadership role, and I think he was grooming to be one of the young and stable and leader of the future, I think, in our Caucus and in this building.

But that's only going to be put on temporary hold. He's going to come back and he's going to come back after he does what he feels he has to do, which is support his family.

So we're going to miss you Jason. But long after I'm gone, I'm sure you're going to be back here. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. I consider Senator Welch the, I don't know how you do it, Senator, State Senator of the state of Connecticut because there isn't a day goes by when someone walks by him in the corridor or is talking to him in the Caucus or whatever and says, I don't know how you do it.

He's got a very distinguished and successful law career. He's flying around the country all the time. We know what our duties are like here under the dome. I don't know how he does it.

He's got seven kids. I don't know how he does it. They're home schooled. I don't know how your family does it. I don't know how you do it, and if you haven't been to Senator Welch's website, you have to because it's just like the Sound of Music.

He and his family walked into our home, into our backyard one day in an event about a year and a half or two years ago and it was just like that scene out of the Sound of Music. It's the most beautiful family you've ever seen. Elizabeth is an absolute angel. She's a beautiful woman who somehow is able to home school with your support and your assistance as a home schooling teacher as well, to teach these kids the ways of the world. It's just absolutely unbelievable.

And you know, you will be missed. You'll be missed sorely, mainly because you're such a great guy. You're as fair and square as they come. You're deliberate. You have questions when you don't have an answer, which is extremely rare. It's very unusual to ask you a question on any bill that you're, that is within your cognizance and you not have a 150 percent answer of what we were looking for. That is truly remarkable. It shows that you're as conscientious as they come here within the Chamber, and that's a wonderful thing. We'll miss that.

We'll also miss your sense of humor. You're like the sniper hiding off in the woods every once in a while, a zinger comes out. Where did that come from? And that has added for the last four years now to our experience here and that's something that we will miss as well.

So all 36 of us wish you nothing but the best, not only to you but your incredible, beautiful and wonderful family. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Senator McLachlan, followed by Senator Kane.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, stand sad, really, that Jason leaves us, but happy for him and his family. It is a true statement that Senator Meyer had that this is a very diverse Circle. We come from many different life experiences and I am the youngest of seven children myself and frankly, have always asked that question that Senator Frantz just said, how do you do it, Jason?

But what I've always enjoyed about having Jason in the Caucus is giving us the perspective, the very important perspective of family first. Yes, we're all family first, but when we can see it from the eyes of someone who is living the challenge of raising children in this economy, in this environment, in this political atmosphere and know that Jason and his beautiful wife have made a very difficult decision, certainly for a political leader, to home school their children, that is indeed, I might add, precedes his decision to be here in the State Senate.

But that in and of itself provides us many viewpoints that we can't see on our own. So, Jason, when I heard you were retiring, I left you alone, because I knew that for you, you had made the right decision and indeed it was a struggle because I know you love what you're doing here in the State Senate because your passion showed, as others have already said in your knowledge of everything you touched, and that is a difficult thing to do.

Some don't understand that you come to this building and they dump 4,000 new proposed bills on your lap and you're lucky if you can keep an eye on just a handful or two.

Jason had a complete control over the bills that were before him and indeed, we are grateful for the expertise that you've brought us and I hope that Senator McKinney is right in saying you do have a future in public service and we look forward to that.

But in the meantime, God bless you and your family. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane, followed by Senator Linares.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Mr. President. When I heard that we were going to honor Jason Welch today, I thought really? Didn't this guy just get here? I mean, I don't think he has his own parking space, yet.

No, listen, we kid because we love and when Jason won that race, that was a big deal. I mean, here's a guy who had no political experience, really and moved into a town shortly before he ran and just took the whole place by storm, incredible amount of volunteers, incredible amount of family, and people who got behind him and you saw the energy in his campaign and this past year when we redistricted and Thomaston was moved from the 32nd to the 31st, I knew that that town was in good hands and probably better represented by Jason Welch than even by myself.

He is a person, as many have mentioned, of honesty and integrity and when you talk about his family, Senator Frantz is right. He is all about his family, whether it be getting to a soccer game in New London, another one in Windsor and he's got a kid playing this sport and another kid doing this and I mean, he's just all about his family constantly. His phone, if it's blowing up it's because of his seven kids and his wife and because of the amount of time he spends with them, and I give you a great deal of credit for that.

What Senator Frantz also mentioned, which I think is very important is his sense of humor. Len Fasano, Senator Fasano has to yell at us a lot of times at our end of the table with Senator Guglielmo, myself, Senator Frantz, Senator Linares, we tend to have a good time at that end of the table and even when someone's making a bunch of jokes back and forth, Jason Welch doesn't even look up. He's just typing at his computer and just boom, here goes a zinger right out of nowhere and it's always funny and it always stops us in our tracks, and that's something that you know, people really have to appreciate.

But others have talked about your intelligence, and that's certainly, you know, he is on top of every bill whether it be in the Public Health Committee or otherwise.

But he's also an effective Legislator, and I teased you about not being here very long, but in the short period of time you were here, you're amazingly effective. You certainly have the respect of the Public Health Committee and the entire Legislature.

But your positions with both sides of the aisle have been incredible and especially because you're so respected by both sides of the aisle. No matter what happens in this building, people always say, you know that Jason Welch is a good guy. I really like Jason Welch, and always good things to say about you.

And it has been my pleasure to sit in the caucus room and especially right here in this Circle with you as your neighbor because you are an amazing person and someone I look up to and always consider you my friend.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Linares.

SENATOR LINARES:

Thank you, Madam President. I rise today to thank someone who I consider is a great man and someone that I admire. I admire Jason for being a terrific and dedicated father and husband, and I admire Jason for his work ethic.

As you know, he has a very large family and we spend a lot of hours here in the Senate and sometimes people around the Circle do complain about how long we are here, me being one of them. But Jason never complains and if anyone has an excuse, it's the guy with seven kids. It's pretty incredible.

I have to say that for someone that is so young, he has accomplished so much. He served in the U. S. Coast Guard, in the National Guard. He has a wonderful family, served in the Senate, has a terrific job. He's a leader in the private sector, and I have to thank Jason because after I was elected, he was one of the first people to reach out to me. He gave me a phone call and said, if you ever have any questions, don't hesitate to ask and I'll always remember that.

And after spending some time with Jason and listening to his speeches on the floor of the Senate, I, every single time he spoke I was more and more impressed and I just can't thank you enough for your service to the state.

Jason and I do have a mutual friend. A friend of mine in Haddam got to know Jason when he was a very young man, and what most people don't know about Jason was that when he was 11 years old he was a catalog model, which, yeah, exactly, right? And my friend in Haddam used to help drive him to his photo shoots and got to know Jason and he remembers one time where Jason, 11-year-old Jason was sitting in the back seat of his car and Jason starts talking about politics and he was just astounded by how intelligent and well informed this young man was, and so he asked Jason, who do you think is going to win the presidential election. And Jason goes, Reagan, but I'm uncomfortable with his position on social security.

And Jason, when he was in high school, I got this from my inside source, had mapped out an electoral strategy to be President of the United States of America and I could honestly say, Jason, I hope that you run for president and I will vote for you.

Thank you for your service to the State of Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gerratana.

SENATOR GERRATANA:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I can't believe that Jason is leaving us. Senator Welch, we are going to miss you. The last four years have been just a delight. We appreciate all your hard work on our Public Health Committee.

You know, I want to just say a few words, quote some people on the Committee, you know, and this comes from staff people as well as some of your Legislators. They call you a good guy all around, and a stand up guy and a gentlemen, and believe me, that is high, high praise for someone who works in this milieu, let's put it that way.

You know, I've always appreciated your expertise and your honesty and your advice also, which really has come in many, many cases to be an advice that I certainly took.

You know, you were talking about Senator Meyer and the fact that you know, when you hear the word colleague, you'll always think of Senator Meyer. But when I think of the word colleague, I will always think of you, Senator Welch, because I truly felt that way.

I think, you know, in my fantasy life, I think that perhaps we transcended the politics and the partisanship and we were able to accomplish so much on our Committee. I truly believe that actually. That's more reality than fantasy because I just so much cherish the fact that you were there and that we were able to work together.

Now, I just want to say a few things about Jason, too, and the experiences that we had. You know, I consulted with Jason all along. He is my ranking member of course on Public Health and we would discuss you know, legislation back and forth and that sort of thing and it would come to the floor and I would go to Jason and I would say, okay, now, we have this bill, whatever bill it is and I said, so how do you feel about it. How do you guys feel about it? And he'd say, well, you know, I'm okay with it but, and so we would at least go from there and I was able to, you know, talk to your other colleagues as necessary or whatever.

So I always appreciated that because that was very, very good and helping to accomplish and we did pass some very, very good legislation on Public Health Committee and truly, truly, all of our colleagues here, both sides of the aisle and of course in the House, too, worked very hard on the legislation.

But I think the fact that we were able to do it in a very calm manner and a very appropriate manner and we both have in common the fact that we would focus on the policy and what was good for our constituents and that is sometimes a little bit rare here. We all want to think the best of everyone but truly, I felt that I could trust you, trust you implicitly.

I also want to say, I'm so glad I got to meet your wife and your children are beautiful children. They are so well mannered and truly, I can understand Senator McKinney saying, you know, he may have his favorites, but all of them are certainly special.

Now, I want to present to you from the Public Health Committee, a little thank you and a little memento of your time mere in the General Assembly, so I'm just going to take that time to do that, Madam President.

(Applause. )

THE CHAIR:

Senator Gerratana, do you still have more to say?

SENATOR GERRATANA:

(Inaudible. )

THE CHAIR:

Oh, good. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Oh, hi, Senator.

Senator Welch. Well, yet another person I'm sad to see leaving the Senate. God willing, I'm back here next year but you never know in my district.

Probably my favorite Jason Welch story was just last week. We're sitting, you know, heated discussion of bills, you know, our room just like your room across the way loaded up with candy and treats and snacks and there was a big thing of candy in front of Jason and he said, somebody's got to push this away from me, and somebody turns to him, don't you have any self discipline? He goes I've got seven kids. What kind of self discipline do you think I have, so we moved the candy immediately.

First I learned of Jason was actually from one of my constituents and a friend of mine. Many of you may know Dominic Alaimo, very passionate on matters regarding alcohol, and he just didn't see eye to eye with Jason's previous Senator from that district and so he had actually gotten to know Jason and was working on his campaign and he said to me, wow, this young guy down there, he's fabulous. This guy can really do it. This guy can win, and so he was telling me all about Jason before I actually first got to meet him and everything he said was exactly correct.

Home schooling? Seven kids? My son tried to, was having trouble with physics a couple of years ago, so I said, bring home your book. We'll work on it together and it took me like an hour just to get through like the first two pages. I don't know? Home schooling? Seven kids? You've got to know how many different grades, all the things in those grades. That's amazing. You have to be like a professor to do that, so between you and your wife, that's just phenomenal.

How you juggle everything is beyond me. Beyond me. I have a hard time keeping it together week to week and some days I just, you know, lose it because I just feel like I'm getting bombed from a million directions.

I have never, ever, ever, seen Jason Welch lose his temper. Ever. Lose his cool, ever. Child model. I've never even seen his hair mussed. You know, when they say Army National Guard, you know, I'm thinking of stripes and I'm thinking, I can't see you like on the training ground like getting mad at a dummy or anything like that. You're so even keeled, and I want to thank you, because you've been a tremendous asset to all of us who serve on the Judiciary Committee in particular. That's where I've got to work very closely with you and you're brilliant. Your insights are masterful.

We could discuss any difficult bill and you not only know it like the back of your hand, but you have opinions regarding it and you know how the practice of law works on a very high level.

As previous speakers have indicated, you know, it's not unusual for us when we're teleconferencing or something like that for someone to say, yeah, Jason's out in California for a deposition or Jason's, you know, down in Florida doing something for a case, and he works real hard.

But as previous speakers have also indicated, Jason never talks about himself. His world is about his constituents. His world is about his wife. His world is about his children and not in that order, and he does it all.

And I can't tell you the number of times, especially this year, but in previous years as well, my friend and colleague over here, Senator Gerratana, whenever Public Health bills are getting ready to go, she will always lean over to me and say, it is such a pleasure working with Jason. I am so sad that he is going to be leaving. I understand, but he is so great to work with on the Public Health Committee. She's like a cheerleader here for you. But it's all true because I feel the exact same way.

Not only a fabulous colleague on the Judiciary Committee, but in our Caucus room as well. And people have noted that wry sense of humor, you know, something out of left field that we won't see coming but we'll all just start cracking up like crazy because it's a tremendous insight and it's good.

And as Senator Kane had indicated, it's like he just got here. I understand. The fact that you even wanted to become a State Senator, with all the other fabulous things you have going on in your life, your wife and your children, we have been blessed. Been lucky for us to share you for that brief period of time.

But the part that's sort of sad is that you're just hitting your stride, man. I can just tell. Not that you didn't have it when you first got here, day one, because you definitely hit the ground running, but you seem very comfortable here now, and I could see you filling some of the leadership voids that unfortunately will occur as the years march on.

So I definitely want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator McKinney that at some point in the future, I can see you coming back into public service and it might be, it might be that plan to march up or down to Washington, D. C. as president, and we'll have to chat about your opinions regarding social security.

But until then, we're going to miss you here around the Circle, without a doubt. But your constituents and all of us are all the better for you having decided that you wanted to give back to society in a small way, in a big way, in a big way. God bless you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Leone.

SENATOR LEONE:

Thank you, Madam President. I rise and I want to give some remarks, sort of along the same line as Senator Gerratana to my ranking member on Veterans Affairs and serving with Jason has been truly a pleasure.

And I got to know Jason not so much from the family side, such as many of my colleagues on the other side, because when we have the down time or we go back to our respective Chambers to either do business or to just settle down and get a lot of other business done, or even sometimes just to de-stress in anticipation of incoming legislation.

I got to know Jason as a colleague first on the Veterans Committee and the pleasure has been that you have been quick, direct, responsive, whenever we had questions on legislation and your input and your guidance has made it better each and every time and it's one of the main reasons on the Committee that when we do bring bills out, very often it's either unanimous or overwhelmingly close to unanimous and I don't think that could happen without having strong leadership from your side.

And I think that's truly important. That's how committees should run and can run and for the most part they do, but coming from this particular Committee, we haven't had too many hiccups. I don't recall any hiccups if you will. It's been truly an honor there.

And so, I really didn't know his history and his background because as you mentioned, he doesn't talk about himself. It's always about the business and the policy, and again, on the Committee, it's about policy. It's not about politics. Politics have never gotten involved to whose benefit is this for. It's always about the people that we serve, our constituents, the veterans in general, and he has held true to that line.

So it wasn't until recently that I knew he had seven kids and I said, seven kids, what, are you crazy? What are you doing up here? Seven kids? It's, you know, I'm jealous because I think having seven kids must be so much fun, as much work as it is, it's got to be truly a blessing and your wife must be truly amazing to be able to do that together in partnership.

So when I heard the news that you were stepping down and learning of the fact that you had such a large family, home schooling, a law practice, I said, well, it's a no brainer. That's the right decision to be making. It's understandable.

But it's also true that he does have the talent to be here and to do bigger and better things. But the fact is, this Senate Chamber, this building under the dome here, it can become an addiction and it's a fun addiction. It's a good addiction, but sometimes it could also become a bad addiction in the sense that you could put family second, or sometimes even worse, third or in extreme cases last, and that's the last thing I think any of us would want to lose is our family in our desire and our effort to be part of this great Chamber, this great system that we hold dear and give back to our constituents in public service.

So with Jason moving on, I can understand it. It makes sense. You're doing it for the right reasons, and I think your constituents and your family applaud you for that.

I know on the Veterans Committee, I and my colleagues will all miss your input, your guidance and your leadership because it has been a pleasure and I hope to say that we've become friends along the way and I hope our paths do cross again, and I think everyone that you've been in touch with has been well served by your service, and so I thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Osten.

SENATOR OSTEN:

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm going to talk about Jason as the oldest daughter of a family of seven, and that's how I know Jason, as what is probably one of the best things anybody can be called, a good dad.

I think that what you do is amazing. Your passion for your family, for your wife and your children is evidenced every day and I love seeing that. I think you are a great family man.

I did not get to work with you on any committee, so I'm not going to even going to talk about that. But you are truly a gentleman. You've been nothing but kind, and I want to thank you for letting me get to know you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Earlier we heard there are various ways that we get to know one another and like Senator Osten, I haven't served on a committee with Jason. He hasn't been here as long as I have, been in the Circle longer than I have, but when I was first approached about running for the Senate, one of the selling points that Senator Roraback used was, you'll have the best seat mate in the Circle.

And I said, well, I know Don Williams. Just kidding, Don. I said, I really don't know Jason at all. What's he like? And he said, he's very much like your good friend, Craig Miner. He reads the legislation. He thinks about the legislation and he has just a slightly different way of looking at things from the rest of us.

And I have found that to be 110 percent true. Len Fasano talked earlier about how sometimes we get in the rush of bills and we come into this Chamber and maybe you have to do a little bit of relying on somebody else and what's in the bill, why do you like it? Why is it bad?

And I have found that any time I needed to rely on somebody, my seat mate was the perfect person to rely on.

I think one of the other things that has impressed me the most is the demeanor that he conducts himself with, his character.

But the thing I've enjoyed the most is, occasionally he'll share a photo or a video of his kids, and not only is the video itself entertaining, but just seeing the pride on his face is, really explains his reason to depart the General Assembly.

So, I wish you nothing but the best. It's been my privilege to sit next to you for the last two years and again, I'm going to enjoy the next two and a half days of doing so. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Madam President. Jason, isn't it fun to be an incumbent? As Senator McKinney said, it's a special thing and I think it brings us to the Circle with sort of a get up and go that others don't necessarily have.

You have seven kids. Everyone talked about. I have six. I am so competitive that tonight I'm going to go home and talk to Patty Ann about a seventh. Believe me. I am. I don't know how it can be done, but.

You and I serve on the Judiciary Committee and I don't think there's any Republican on that Committee, or maybe in the Circle with whom I've had a few really engaging conversations about legislation, a give and take where I've tried to persuade you and you've tried to persuade me and your intellectual caliber is just something special.

I dearly wish you were going to stay here. I get concerned after hearing about your seven kids that legislative compensation would make it very difficult to afford this position and I think it suggests, and you're a very prime example, of the fact that we as an institution have got to address compensation, and you know, a base salary, which most of our constituents don't know of only $ 28,000 and you're trying to raise a family of seven. It's very difficult.

The rigors of this job have become greater and I'm sure you're feeling that, so you're a very good reason for us to raise compensation in a responsible way and I urge my colleagues, because I won't be here to use you, Senator Welch as an example to do that.

I've loved serving with you and God bless you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer, Senator Welch, I have two kids and if I told my wife I was going to come home tonight because I'm competitive, too, that we're going to have five more, I think she'd change the locks.

But there's an old preacher saying that says, save the world, lose your family and I think that for those of us who are in public service, we wrestle with getting sucked into all of the problems of the world and all the things we want to help solve and constituent issues and other types of things that take time away from what's really important to our families.

And I certainly, as having two children, understand the difficulties of balancing what we have here but it's interesting because I remember when I, when Senator Welch was first elected and we had our opening day ceremony here and he had his family right behind him, sitting right here. I remember how wonderful they all looked and how quiet and well behaved they all were. And that day, as sometimes happens on opening day, it can go on and on and on a little bit as everybody is introducing their families and has a very proud moment, and those of us who bring up our kids sometimes know that they last about maybe a half hour to 45 minutes before they are pretty much done, when we're not even being close to being done yet.

So for that time, I know that my kids were probably in the back over here eating cookies and who knows what mischief they were causing with Toni Boucher and Senator Mike McLachlan and sitting here and touching everything.

Not Senator Welch's kids. He had all of them sitting right there. I think they sat, I don't even think they moved the whole time, and I thought to myself, that's a good dad, that's a good mom and that's a good family.

And while we haven't served on a committee at all, I know that whenever you raise questions, you always bring it from a lot of thought, intellect, passion, caring about the issues of the state of Connecticut.

And as so many people have said, you've done such a wonderful job here in the Circle and have really brought a lot of integrity and passion to what you believe, that I know that we're certainly all going to miss you and I certainly appreciate your service and look forward to our paths crossing again in the future. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, it's very obvious today with the wonderful words that were spoken by both of my seat mates to my left and my right, how fortunate I am to have such wise colleagues. They really expressed some of the concerns about priority and very few people know, really, surprisingly in Connecticut that we really are only a citizen Legislature. They don't realize that, and you know that's hard to explain to them that in fact it's both a good thing and a bad thing.

It's a good thing because most people have other jobs and professions and they can bring that real world experience to the issues before us.

But it's also a big negative. The big negative is the juggling of families and careers and in trying to keep your perspective and having priority, and I know that our good Senator Meyer is keen on quoting Martin Luther King and I would agree with him that he's probably one of the wisest public figures that we have seen, probably in this century.

And I also like the quote that he has that states the thing that we need in the world today is a group of men and women who will stand up for rights and be opposed to wrong, whatever it is, a group of people who have come to see that some things are wrong, whether they are never caught up with, and some things are right, whether nobody sees you're doing them or not.

All I'm trying to say to you is that our world hinges on moral foundations, and when you think about moral foundations, I think about Jason Welch. He is, as many have already said, you know, is truly, truly, an exceptional person, a lovely person, a good, good man, a man of character.

And when he disclosed to us in our Caucus that he wouldn't be coming back there was a collective sigh of disappointment by everyone. I must tell you. And for good reason, because he is truly a loving father with a wonderful wife, wonderful children that some of us have been fortunate to get to know a little bit more personally.

What I remember, and am impressed with and everyone here is, your incredible intelligence, your trust worthiness, but for me personally, it's your incredible insight. It seems like you very quietly listen to everyone and then all of a sudden you come out with some of the most insightful observations about people and policies both.

You're quick to understand because you listen and you don't miss a thing. That's really incredible. You are a person that lives your values. We've been all so much benefitted from your being here and I know that you definitely respect your constituents and that you'll be here, hopefully in another form to continue that service.

We will miss you tremendously but hope to see you on a personal level going forward. Thank you for everything that you've done for us, Jason. Good luck.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Cassano.

SENATOR CASSANO:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll take a moment while Ed leaves to go on a mission if he wants. Let me be very brief. I can remember the first time as a Chair bringing bills out and Jason was the first person to ask questions, and I think for anybody, when you have that first moment of being a Committee Chair and you've got that responsibility, you don't know what to expect and he had some questions that made sense, but it wasn't that they made sense, it was how he asked the questions, how he goes about his job here.

I've thought often, I still remember seeing the kids in the back, I'm the oldest of nine. I know how difficult it is. I can't imagine what it's like to be away as much as you have to be away. I've said often, he's got to be a terrific father, because that's the kind of person you are. You bring a certain class to this Circle that many of us envy and we will miss.

I just wish you a great future. I don't know about the White House. I don't think you could afford the security costs for all those kids but I just wish you the best, Jason. I will miss you.

We never served on a committee, I just, you've done a good job. Thanks.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Holder-Winfield.

SENATOR HOLDER-WINFIELD:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Welch, so I started off in the House and I spent a number, I spent five years down there and there's some people down there who I still haven't had conversations with and I'm talking about even people on my side of the aisle.

But when you first came, you and I shared a conversation, I think it was outside of one of the Judiciary Committee meetings. It was a very good conversation. I got to understand you a little bit and I have to tell you that when I heard that you weren't running I wasn't actually surprised and this comes from that one conversation.

And I have to also tell you at the same time I was a little disappointed and I may not always say that, given where you sit, but I thought that you were someone who belonged here.

I know that people talk a lot about your family and I think, I know that that's important to you, but I also recognize that you served both the state and the country and I would say to you that even though you're not going to be here, I look at the world through the lens from what I know from my background and my mother raised me and she often was concerned about what service she could give to both the state and the country and she unfortunately before she died wasn't able to do so.

And I look at what I've done, both being in the United States Military and being here as being able to fulfill some of the things that she had hoped to do, and I know that your love for your children, the way you talk about them, how important where you put them, whatever you're doing, one thing I do know is that you will continue in the service that you've displayed to both this state and the country in a way that you raise those children.

So thank you for being here. I will miss you and I had hoped that we could have more conversations but the one conversation that we did have, we had other smaller conversations, but that one conversation really meant a lot to me and told me that you were someone who belonged here, someone who was thoughtful and I really appreciate that you ever walked through these doors. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. Jason, I just wanted to say one thing that I will always remember and appreciate is that when I came as a new Senator, you have always addressed questions with a way that's kind and respectful and I very much appreciate that.

And as someone else who has young children at home, although only two, I know by this time in the Session, my husband is going out of his mind as a single parent just trying to be in two places at once.

I am very happy for your wife and your children that they will have you back and we will miss you, but I'm very happy for them and happy for you, so best of luck.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Madam President. You know, I don't have anything particularly humorous to say about Senator Welch and I don't have anything particularly warm and fuzzy to say about him. I think everything I'm going to say about him is more aimed at being respectful.

It's interesting, that's despite the fact that I've known him a little bit longer than anybody else here except for the few people that were in the House when I was in the Senate once upon a time because I met Jason early in 2010 when we were both candidates and at a time that I was looking to help people that were running and fell in the course, of which I fell into running myself and I quickly found in talking to him that he didn't need my help. He knew exactly what he was doing and I thought, that's exactly the kind of person we need, although I don't know in that district if it's doable, but doable it was.

It seems to me that I think Senator Welch can do pretty much anything he puts his mind to, and I think as a Legislator, he has shown exactly to my mind, exactly the right approach to be level headed, to be fair minded, intelligent and dedicated, and balanced as a person in a way that I think many of us are not. I think this is a profession that sometimes encourages a kind of an imbalance and the very fact of what he's doing now to step away from it for other reasons is testimony to the essential balance that he has.

And finally, that most essential quality for a Legislator in my opinion, he's a conservative, so he's ideal from my point of view and I hate to see him go, and I particularly do, too, because I feel like he's been a friend to me at moments here when I have most needed to have somebody to be a friend and I've know that he's somebody that I can count on.

I hope that, I hope and I trust that he will have a moment in his life when he returns to this arena one way or another and I think he knows that when that happens whatever it is he aspires to do, I am there for him and I will be with him, and it's been an honor and a pleasure to serve with him. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Stillman.

SENATOR STILLMAN:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Welch, I must say that I was as surprised as everyone else when I heard that you were leaving, but as someone who's been here many years, I don't know how you've juggled all this, the two terms that you have been here.

There is no doubt that you have been an asset to the Senate, the debates, that we all participate in here in the Senate. Your voice is heard. People listen. You're very thoughtful. You might not always agree, but that's what this is about. It's about thoughtful, important debates on issues that are important to people of the state of Connecticut.

I think we were all surprised when you first arrived, to see what a large family commitment you have and to think, to take this on, on top of that and obviously your full-time employment because we all know you can't live on the salary here, but your full-time employment and supporting your family and being there as much as you could these last few years, I think we could all understand that challenge.

But you have been, as I said, a great asset to state government and I wouldn't be surprised, because I think you've gotten a little taste of the bug, that I wouldn't be surprised if in the future we do hear about you taking on another challenge in public service, and I know whatever you tackle you will do well and your commitment to it will be strong.

It's been an honor and a pleasure to work with you. I'm sorry we haven't worked more closely in committee. I hate to be part of the chorus that says we have not had that opportunity, but our interests have been in other areas, but I've always enjoyed your input here in the Senate and I know that you will be missed, not just by your Caucus, but by the Senate in its entirety.

I wish you well. I wish your family well, and again, please leave knowing that you have made a difference. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bye.

SENATOR BYE:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Welch, we came in together. I can still remember that first day when we came with our families, meeting you and having orientation together and it's really been a pleasure.

I think members of the Circle know that your Legislative class, you feel a connection to and even if its passing you in the hall or you know, seeing over at the LOB I think we've had that connection and camaraderie that comes with that.

I've always been a little jealous of you and your ability to think on your feet, to speak, to ask the critical questions. We've been through some long debates on the Judiciary Committee about really important topics and you've added to all of those and I think made the policies we have better.

On Public Health I would say, that's where I see you standing out the most because it's such an important issue to you and it's very clear that Public Health is not a part of an issue that you work with my colleague, Senator Gerratana very collaboratively and there have been some incredible advances, I think, in Public Health policy that the back and forth and the questions have made better.

I know you're also a champion for veterans and I know you served yourself in a couple of capacities and we can't do enough to thank our veterans.

But in this Circle and on committees, you have a way of hitting the high points. You can connect with the camera and the audience and those of us in the Circle and even sometimes you're giving a speech on an issue and I have a polar opposite opinion and I find myself after ten minutes leaning in and thinking, oh, that's a good point.

And so you have a real gift. Your mind, your spirit and your caring, and you share that with your family and you've shared that with us.

So I just want to say, in four years you've added a great deal to this Circle and you continue that, I think sentiment that we all have of respect for each other, no matter where we come from and a way of speaking to each other that I think is an example for sometimes people on the outside who don't have the decorum that comes with the conversation here.

But I know from knowing you outside of the debate in these rooms that that's how you speak with people and interface with people all the time and your community and your family and the state is better for it.

So we're going to miss you. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Crisco.

SENATOR CRISCO:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator, I just personally again want to thank you for all you've done for your district and for the people of Connecticut. I also appreciate all the insurance questions that you have.

But more importantly, I could share what the demands on your family time. As the father of six, I was very fortunate when I worked for UTC at the time, but when I started my Senate career, they were beyond the high school age, so I now, in fact we're still taking care of them even though they're much older, but I know what you've gone through. You've just done a fantastic job trying to balance the two and I just want to wish you and your family the best of health and good fortunate. Thank you, Sir.

THE CHAIR:

Senator LeBeau.

SENATOR LEBEAU:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Welch, I don't believe we've ever served on a committee together, not a single committee. But I just want to add a few words.

All the remarks so far have been wonderful, and frankly, that's what my sense of you is, because I only have a sense of you is that you are, you have tremendous composure. You seem to have tremendous compassion, clearly very intelligent.

You have a tremendous sense of dignity, I think also, and this decision you're making shows that you have a tremendous sense of integrity and you're remaining true to your beliefs and doing what you need to do at the time you need to do it.

So you are an exception, along with some other members who have joined this Circle in the last couple of years and I've actually expressed it to them and I haven't had a chance to say it to you.

You give me hope. I'm leaving after many moons, but when I leave and I look at some of the newer folks that are coming in, people getting involved in politics, people in this Chamber and in the Chamber down below, I see those wonderful human traits and I feel good about the future.

So thank you for helping me have some more faith in the future and I wish you the very best in everything that you do and the best of health and good luck to your family. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. It was back in the summer of the fall of 2010 and I heard that there's a new guy running in the 31st District and people are saying, oh, you should see this guy. He does the waves and everybody's out knocking on doors and he's going to win and I was curious, because I share a town with the Senator from the 31st District.

So in this Town of Harwinton there's a big fairground. They have a big fair. So, okay, I'll get a chance to meet him when the Harwinton Fair comes to town. So I was talking to the Republican Town Committee Chair and I said, well, who is the guy? He goes, his name is Jason Welch. He's a good guy. I said, well, can you tell me anything about him? What does he look like? And he said, you won't miss him when you arrive at the Fair Grounds. I said, all right, well, I'll look for him.

So when I showed up at the Republican Town Committee, because I didn't have to get too far from the booth, because here was a guy standing out there with a Jason Welch for Senate tee shirt and there was probably about 40 people surrounding wearing Jason Welch for Senate tee shirts, balloons, he had charts out on easels, he was telling everybody the difference of why they should vote for him for election, and he was successful.

That said to me right there, this is a smart guy dedicated and driven in what he wants to do and what he wants to accomplish and I think we've all seen that here in the Chamber when Jason was appointed as the ranking member on the Public Health Committee.

I don't know how much experience he has in the realm of Public Health, but you certainly wouldn't know that based on his contributions, hot only to the formulation of legislation but to the debate on the floor and also the simplification of describing the legislation to his fellow Caucus members in the Caucus room, taking a complex matter and just making it in layman's terms so we can understand it.

You know, I'm not going to make a big deal on the kids because that's just part of you. I think that your wife and kids are part of your DNA and just molded you who you are and it just comes natural, so it's not a juggling of anything. I think it just comes natural to you and that's a sign of a great guy.

I hope you take this enlightening experience that you've had over the past four years. So if we're ever together and somebody says, what the hell are they doing up there at the Capitol, I can turn to you and say, well ask him, he's been there, too.

You've lived it. You know it. It's been a pleasure serving with you. I'm not one for farewells and goodbyes, so I'll just say I'll see you around. You know you a resource whenever you need to. Congratulations on your retirement, Jason.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Doyle.

SENATOR DOYLE:

Thank you, Madam President. When I think of Jason, I think of, maybe because of his military background, but he's a true gentleman and he's carried himself very well up here in a respectful manner and I do appreciate that.

I personally, I never served with him in the Public Health Committee, but I did have an issue over there last year. I appreciate how he went out extra hard and assisted me with my personal situation in my district, and I always appreciate the Senator for that.

But I did serve with you on the Judiciary Committee and I always found you to be a very thoughtful, intelligent and really present yourself well for such, as they say a rookie. You've only been here four years. I've been here a lot longer than you. I'm proud to serve, but I think in your short time, you really did make a good impression on my favorite committee, the Judiciary Committee, so I really appreciate your service there.

And I wish you and your family all the best, and I really do think of you as a true gentleman. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Jason for everything that you've done while you're here, your insight, your intellect is first rate and I really appreciate that.

I also would like to thank your wife, Elizabeth and your seven kids for sharing you with us. Those were the first eight votes that you had to get, obviously, the most important eight votes, but I think it's because you look at this as, and how you were able to juggle it, because I know it's difficult from my own family, is that you look at it as a vocation.

There was really no differentiation and you looked at how you could be a great dad, be a great father, a teacher, and yet still make a contribution to your state.

As Senator Crisco said, he liked your questions, and many people here think that sometimes I come out and I know a lot about insurance and I'm sure Senator Crisco would think that, but it was because I went through a Caucus and screening with you and I've already had the questions first, so I got grilled and drilled, got the ap experience of Senator Welch, who gave us a lot of insight. We're going to miss that.

The thing that I found most practical, particularly sitting with you in Judiciary, is just your way to boil hard complex issues down to the practical. Your feet are on the ground. You're a family man and it's that perspective that I think we most need here, and that will most certainly be missed.

It's just the practical understanding of how hard it is to get through the day, to struggle, to do what you believe is right and to make sure that everyone in your family is happy. So that again, thank you for that.

As Senator Witkos said, I'm not going to say goodbye. I'm certainly going to miss you down in the lounge. It's not going to be quite the same. I'm not going to have somebody to bounce ideas off of, but I certainly hope you come back and visit the lounge often and we'll look forward to that. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Will you remark? Can I take a point of personal privilege? I am going to take a point of personal privilege.

I'm sorry that I had to leave during the time that you were honoring Senator Meyer, and I'm sorry, Senator Meyer you're not going to hear me, but we'll talk about it later.

But I want to thank him personally for all he's done. But when I compare Senator Meyer and Senator Welch, I look at the Christmas cards. You go from the color coordinated ones to Brady Bunch. And it was one of the best Christmas cards, I said to Jason, I've ever seen.

And you looking up and down, and my husband and I still don't look at each other that way after all these years. That's why I don't have seven kids.

Of course, Senator Meyer, his personality of always joking and always having stories to tell me and being out there fighting for the environment has been unbelievable and I've learned an awful lot from you on that.

Jason, it is, ever since you announced though, that you weren't running, you've been smiling a lot more. Of course, I may never forgive you about the Silver Tsunami but in all seriousness to both of you, take away from this Chamber the fact that both of you have done such a great job. You have made this state a better place for all of us, our families and our kids and our grandkids.

Thank you both for the service you've given to all of us. So now, is there anybody else who would like to speak at this time? Whoopsie Daisy, I guess Maynard, Senator Maynard.

SENATOR MAYNARD:

Well, I have to echo the words of several folks here having not served with you, Jason on any of the committees, but boy, just in the short time we've gotten to know each other I just think what a helluva nice guy. You've been a real example here of how to conduct oneself and I think of the Roman figure Cincinnatus, who you know, served just briefly but came, did the work that needed to be done and went back to the plow.

So you're even a model in your departure here. It's an example for many of us, to get our work done, to do what we can do, the good that we can do and then go on with other callings in life, so great to have known you. I look forward to hopefully seeing you around here once in a while.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Coleman.

SENATOR COLEMAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I want to take the opportunity just to express my gratitude to Senator Welch for all of the thoughtfulness that he displayed as a member of the Judiciary Committee and all of the insight that he shared with the Chairs and the other members of that committee.

I think back to opening day 2011 and the conversation that we had about you to be extremely approachable and during the course of the conversation I learned very quickly that we had things in common. Not seven kids, but we had when I first began service in the Legislature, I had an employment situation that caused me to be on the road and pretty much out of town almost two weeks out of every month. But I knew that it was going to be a difficult proposition for you but when you told me that you had seven kids, I thought to myself, wow. This fellow is going to do very well here because he's had probably hours of experience trying to make certain that the kids play nice in the sandbox and managing those seven kids and those skills were extremely transferable to working with the 36 of us as well as the others downstairs in the House.

When I think of Jason and not only the contributions that he's made to the Judiciary Committee, just on a very personal level, I think of extremely good guy and I have an uncle who's passed away, but this is an uncle who has 11 children. He had 10 daughters and his 11th child was a son. And I always admired Uncle Melvin because he was very fitting that he had that number of children. He just had such a big heart and he had a lot of love to share and a lot of love to go around, not only for his 11 children, but for all of his friends, all of his other family members.

And I think the same of you, Jason. I think you've got a big heart. You're a great guy. You have a lot of affection and intimacy to share and I'm so happy that we were the beneficiaries of it while you were here in the Senate. Good luck to you. God bless.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, four years ago when Senator Jason Welch was first elected, Vinny Mauro said to me, you know, I remember him from Quinnipiac Law School and he's a really bright and capable guy, but also a fundamentally good and decent guy and as usually, Vinny was right on all counts as he often is.

And my reaction was, well if all that's true, why is he one of them rather than one of us, you know? But on a larger scale, on a larger scale, he is, we all benefit from the service here of someone who is as good and kind and hard working and conscientious as Jason Welch proved himself to be. Because when you take the broader view from a higher elevation, his presence here has really been good for the institution, ennobled the institution and is something that we can all be proud of because he does, in fact, have the right temperament, the right demeanor for both politics and government. Thoughtful, collegial, conscientious, and all of that as we know needed in every corner of this building every day and he has certainly provided that for the last four years that he has been among us.

And obviously in terms of, but his decision to leave and the loss that it will cause for all of us, not just his own Caucus, is a sign about how difficult it is to sustain service in the General Assembly for a young, mid-career professional person with a family. That is a struggle that everyone grapples with who is in that stage of life and it's also why we lose so many good people who have been here for only a few terms and decide to leave because that juggling act does get to be too hard for many to sustain over time.

And that, but it is something that does point out the strength in his commitment to his family and I think that that decision in terms of priorities like everything else he's done has shown to be the correct one.

I remember about 25 years ago when I was serving in the House and my son was then about 12 years old, then Representative Bob Hauser, who had a son about the same age, his son and my son were each playing in the New Haven Parochial Baseball League and their teams were playing against each other, St. Rose and St. Bernadette's and we decided we were in the House. There was a debate going on. We were agonizing about missing the game and we said, and an older Legislator heard us talking and he said, you guys really should take off, go to that game because you will always remember that game. But what's going on here will be over in a few days. So we went to the game, and 25 years later Bob and I still talk about that game.

And we know that Jason is doing that in a way that is absolutely the right thing to do for his family, the seven beautiful children that he has, his lovely wife, and so those experiences will be multiplied seven times over for him. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS:

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to thank Jason Welch for his service here in the Circle, and the State of Connecticut. Also to thank his wife, Elizabeth and his children for sharing him with us and the state.

You know, there are a couple things that I want to dispel. First of all, Senator McKinney talked about how initially he wasn't thrilled that Ed Meyer was here because he had defeated a good friend of his and Jason Welch defeated a good friend of mine. Naturally, now as I turn and look this way and think of seat mates as Senator Chapin talked about, all of a sudden all I see are Republicans over here.

But I have to say that in meeting and getting to know Jason Welch, I met just such a fine, outstanding person and it's been a pleasure to serve with you here in the Circle.

And I also have to say that it's tempting to characterize this moment, as you know, Jason, we hardly knew you. Four years, and yet at the same time, I disagree with that, too, because we do know you. We know you as a hard working and smart and principled Legislator, somebody who really is guided by principle and not partisanship and that means that we can disagree on numerous issues, but at the end of the day we go away with respect for each other and we listen to each other and sometimes we learn from each other and you have been guided by principle and not partisanship.

So as I think about your service to the State of Connecticut, we do know you. Four years is not nothing. It's the entire term of a U. S. President, four years. You have been able to come here and make a difference and represent the people of your district, and so I want to thank you for stepping into the area. Not an easy thing to do. Running for office in these modern times when that is not so easy, and coming up here and serving.

We have been privileged to serve with you and good luck to you and your family in all that you do in the future. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Will you remark? There we go.

(Applause. )

JASON WELCH:

Thank you. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you very much. I really, I thank you for your very, very kind and humbling words, and by the way, will somebody wake Tony G. up for this? It's an inside joke.

But truly, it's been a wonderful experience to serve with you all and you know, policy aside, you guys are wonderful people and you serve your districts well. Although we might disagree on issues, I think we all have the same common goal (inaudible) and it has really, really been a blessing to serve.

From the leadership on both sides of the aisle, thank you. Thank you very much, to I think the Governor's best decision ever to have Lieutenant Governor be Nancy Wyman.

(Applause. )

And I've been very fortunate, of course, to have great staff, Jill Fitzgerald, wonderful staff in the Public Health Committee with Virginia and Bev. I don't know, I saw her here earlier. It's really, the great Chairwoman and great Chairman to work with both on Public Health and Veterans.

And of course, you know, I couldn't do any of this with the people that you spent so much time talking about and that's my family, who is not here today, but I think that's because they understand the legislative time better than I understand legislative time. And when I told my wife, 2: 00 o'clock, you can make it, she said, yeah, right, 2: 00 o'clock and now we're into soccer practices and things like that.

But to my wife, Elizabeth, I mean, if it weren't for her and if it weren't for you, obviously I couldn't be standing here. Holding down the fort at home is such a difficult task as I think you all touched on today.

In fact, I think one my, one of the lawyers that I used to practice with would often joke with me saying you know, one day when your wife's done raising seven kids, she'll have the experience to run a Fortune 500 company and you know what? It's true. It really is. She's a big part as to why I'm here and she's also a big part as to why I won't be here next year. Thank you. I love you, Elizabeth.

And to those wonderful kids that so many of you have met, Sarah, Seth, Grace, Wesley, Luke, Ben, Hope, do you have a list? See, I've got good news and bad news for them and the good news is, I'll be home a little bit more to read a few more stories and to kick a ball around and to help them with schoolwork.

But the bad news is that I'll be home a little bit more to make sure they make their bed and clean their room and do their chores and they do that homework well, so it really is, you get into an effort like this. You get into wanting to serve for those very same people that I think you wind up getting out for, to make sure that there's a sustainable Connecticut, the ones, you know, like we remember growing up in is here for them as well.

There's also a very special person behind me, Representative Betts. Some of you refer to him as my better half. Couldn't have done this without him either. He and Jill have been so helpful in the community up here in Hartford dealing with a myriad of situations that I can't do it all, you know, because it really does (inaudible).

Thank you all. I promise to stay engaged, but in a way that's more personally balanced. I don't know what that looks like yet, but it's truly been an honor to serve with every single one of you. You are all wonderful and I've got great confidence that not only in the next 48 hours but in the years to come, this Chamber will continue to do wonderful things for the State of Connecticut. Thank you very much.

(Applause. )

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney. Do you want to start the debate again?

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Madam President. I believe the Clerk is now in possession of Senate Agenda Number 2 for today's Session.

THE CHAIR:

Senator, we are in the middle of a debate. Do we go to that first, or do you want to do the Senate Agendas first, sir?

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes. We would just adopt Senate Agenda 2 if we might.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

In possession of Senate Agenda Number 2, dated Monday, May 5, 2014. It's been copied and is on Senators' desks.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I move all items on Senate Agenda Number 2, dated Monday, May 5, 2014 to be acted upon as indicated and that the Agenda be incorporated by reference in the Senate Journal and the Senate Transcript.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered, sir.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes, thank you. Also, Madam President, for a change in marking. There is an item on the foot of the Calendar, Calendar page 50, Calendar 259, Senate Bill 107. If that item might be removed from the Foot and marked passed temporarily.

THE CHAIR:

So ordered.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thanks, Madam President. If we might stand at ease for just a moment.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease. )

Senator Looney. The Senate will come back to order.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, if we might return to the item that was passed temporarily earlier, and that was the matter under debate at that time before our introductions and discussions in celebrations of the careers of our retiring members today, and that was Calendar page 37, Calendar 120, Senate Bill 237.

If we might return to that item, Madam President. I would yield to Senator Meyer.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer, will you accept the yield, sir?

SENATOR MEYER:

I will, Madam President, thank you. And we're continuing with our entertaining of Senate Bill 237 and this is an act, you will recall, colleagues that puts a moratorium on fracking waste coming into Connecticut and then it will be regulated.

So when we left off I think Senator Kelly was asking questions and making a couple of comments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. And I believe where I left off at that time was, we were talking and I mentioned that I was out of the Chamber at that time and these may have been asked prior, but you know, what is hydraulic fracking?

And what I'm really looking at is, what are the materials that are used? Obviously water, but what else is introduced into the hydraulic frack? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President. Hydraulic fracturing consists of high-powered pressurized water plus chemicals, and plus bromides. As I said before, the chemicals have often been kept as a trade secret and one of the things our agency is going to try to discover is what's in those chemicals.

It appears that at least some of the chemicals are toxic because they cause contamination to drinking water. So, that's in substance what we know about it. A lot of this bill will deal with research and information so that we get a better handle on exactly the components of fracking waste.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Through you, Madam President, so is that, I noted in the amendment that there was some discussion with regard to disclosure. Are you trying to get at the disclosure so that there wouldn't be withholding of information because it's a trade secret? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, we've covered this all at great length before Senator Kelly came into the Chamber, but just to repeat. There's a section in this bill that relates to information gathering and in fact it's a mandate that the commissioner gather information in order to assess the toxicity of these materials.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Through you, Madam President, but one of the purposes of that disclosure is to get at the issue as to what is exactly being mixed with the water in the hydraulic frack to look at toxicity in the byproduct, if you will? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

That's correct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Okay. Are there any natural hazardous wastes that result from the fracking activity? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

I'm sorry, Madam President, I don't think I know what natural hazardous wastes are.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly, would you reframe your question?

SENATOR KELLY:

Certainly, Madam President. And I apologize for not being clear. I guess what I'm looking at is the hazardous material that is present in the byproduct, is that always introduced as part of the hydraulic frack, or is it sometimes the result of, as we do this fracking, I'm going to say, it's released in the process from natural elements that you're engaging as part of this process? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, the extent that I understand the question, the answer would be that 90 percent, as Senator Boucher explained, 90 percent of the components are water. The other 10 percent consists of other things, and maybe as Senator Boucher pointed out, only about 1 percent, 1. 5, . 5 percent she said actually are the toxic chemicals we're concerned about.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Okay, and that . 5 percent, is there a way to maybe prohibit those elements from coming into Connecticut without prohibiting the whole conduct? In other words, can you frack without that? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, that's the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is for our agency to have several years to examine these materials and decide whether some are toxic, some are not toxic, whether some of the components can be separated from the others and be safe for the citizens of Connecticut. That's, this is, we're in its infancy in the state of Connecticut with respect to these materials.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Senator Meyer. So one of the purposes here is to do that research, put the moratorium on so that we have a better idea of what's actually happening and then can approach the issue in a more cautious manner? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, you recall we dealt at length with this issue and the answer is yes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. In Section c of the amendment it talks about a permit, and at one point it says that such permit shall be required even if such collection or transportation is undertaken by a person whose principal business is not the management of such wastes.

Now, that to me means that, you're going to have, if I want to transport this waste, I'm going to need a permit. Does it also require an additional permit for somebody who's already permitted to transport this waste? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Just give me a second.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease. )

The Senate will come back to order. Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, I'm informed by a representative of DEEP that if you already have a permit, another permit will not be required, but if you don't have a permit, you will be required to get a permit under the standards set by this legislation.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. Moving on, and I thank you for that area.

On the anti-icing product, do we right now allow fracking byproducts to be spread on our roads as an anti-icing agent? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I imagine that our towns use a lot of different de-icing materials. What this bill says, starting in line 76 is, that if you want to use de-icing materials that come from hazardous waste, you're not going to be able to do it until DEEP has done a regulation and that regulation has been approved by our Legislative Regulations Review Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

So with regards to anti-icing presently, or let me scratch that.

With regards to anti-icing, we're going to put a moratorium and/or prohibition to say that if you're going to use that, it cannot have fracking waste until such time as DEEP issues regulations on that activity? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

That's correct, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. Now, with regards to those regulations, I understand that the regulations have to be submitted not before July 1 of 2017, which I imagine is to enable the department to get the proper information, research, so that we can address this in a cautious manner, but not later than July 1 of 2018 they have to come up with the regulations.

Is that for the exemption on the hazard, being it deemed hazardous waste as well as the anti-icing. Is it the entire statute or bill? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, as we discussed before earlier this afternoon, there is no particular time structure concerning the adopting of regulations for the de-icing materials.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

And once again, Senator Meyer, I do appreciate if I'm going back over past material. I do thank you for your patience with regard to that.

Now, and you may have answered this one, too, so bear with me. With regards to the regulations, let's say DEEP doesn't get those back by July 1, 2018, or let's start with that one, through you, Madam President, what happens?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Hydraulic fracking waste will not be allowed in Connecticut. The moratorium will continue unless and until DEEP adopts regulations and those regulations are approved by Regs Review Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President. And I understand if they've submitted the regulations to our Regulations Review Committee and, you know, that Committee doesn't adopt them, I can understand that the moratorium would continue.

But let's just say, because in my first term, I was on Regulation Review and I know that there's many agencies that while they're required to bring regulations to Regulation Review, don't always do so, or they don't do so in a timely manner.

What is there available to the Regulation Review Committee or to this Body to compel DEEP to bring those regulations forward so that they meet the July 1, 2018 deadline? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, DEEP is very much committed to this bill, is committed to the research and study of hazardous waste materials and to fracking waste in particular. So they have made statements to many of us in the Circle that they intend to move expeditiously here, that they will not be waiting until 2018, but they will be immersing themselves in research and study of fracking waste before then and bringing as soon as a bill permits it, which would be July, I'm sorry, July 2017, a bill to Regs Review.

So, you know, I'm not going to be here then. You may or may not be, but they have, that is the statement of intent by this agency and in some concern, many Legislators, to be sure that they did move on this because the agency is understaffed, we set a date here by which they must do that, which is the one mentioned July 2018.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kelly.

SENATOR KELLY:

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Senator Meyer, for answering my questions. I do, I know I've set it a number of times. I do apologize for missing the -- but I do appreciate your apt explanations to answer these questions so that I will be better informed on the amendment.

Madam President, at this time, I have no further questions with regard to the amendment. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. I do have a few questions for the proponent after a quick statement about my support of any effort to do what we can for the environment in all respects.

And as we said during your farewell speech, speeches, you are a true leader in this field and that's a good thing because those of us who really care about the environment but don't necessarily know a lot about a particular set of chemicals or a particular procedure can turn to you because if you don't know it yourself, you at least run into the experts who probably know exactly what the details are with respect to a complex set of chemicals in the case that we're talking about today, fracking waste liquids.

And what I'd like to do is, through you, Madam President, ask a few questions of Senator Meyer.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

I know you've been on your feet a lot today, Senator and you're up for much more? Much least, don't fight the (inaudible). We like that. We like a lot of energy, Senator, that's one of the things.

Could you run through, through you, Madam President, could you run through the history of fracking? I had a couple of summer jobs where I actually was working for an oil exploration company and it was primarily oil and any of the gas that we discovered was always by mistake. We never used any fracturing processes or anything like that. Could you run through the history as best you know it of fracturing?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I don't know the history. All I know is that hydraulic fracking we're told, started sometime in the 1800s, the middle 1800s and other than that, I don't, I'm not your person to tell you about the history of hydraulic, I think you're talking about hydraulic fracturing. This bill relates to hydraulic fracking of natural gas but you know, I think it's a statement of fact that hydraulic fracking began in the 1800s, mid-1800s, I'm told.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, for the Circle's edification, hydraulic fracturing involves a technique of injecting liquid down with much more sophisticated material than they used to use in the earlier days of hydraulic fracturing back in the 1800s and certainly when I was looking for oil back in the late 1970s, early eighties, any kind of fracturing hydraulic fracturing that was taking place at that point was pretty primitive in that it did use sand.

Are you familiar with some of the newer additives to hydraulic fracturing liquid?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I am you know, just a student of what I have read and I'm told now that current hydraulic fracking uses not only water at a high pressure, but also bromides, salt, sand, and chemicals, which appear to be toxic because of the contamination they cause to drinking water. What those chemicals are remains a trade secret as far as we know.

And one of the things we're trying to do with this bill is get to be able to answer the question, the good question you're answering, you're asking, by getting the information from those companies that are producing hydraulic fracking chemicals. That's a good part of what this bill is all about.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, is it fair to say that since we know based on your statement, that some of these chemicals are protected by trade secrets, they may be patented in many cases, that there are a variation, there are variations on hydraulic fracturing fluid and there may be half a dozen, maybe 100 different types of that kind of fluid out there?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, as a matter of hearsay, that's what we're told. I don't have any personal knowledge about the different type of chemical.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, do you think it's possible that there could be an environmentally friendly fracturing, hydraulic fracturing fluid product out there?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, Madam President. That is what much of this bill is about is to find that out. We had a choice as I said earlier in the debate on this, between banning fracking waste on the one hand and regulating on another and the Governor and DEEP chose the, doing the regulating of it because it may be after we've studied it and got the information that this bill requires there will be some fracking waste, some byproducts, particularly, that may be perfectly safe for the citizens of Connecticut.

So this bill is in part not just a moratorium, but it's in part an investigation and a research.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Right. Thank you, through you, Madam President, for that answer. And could you, Senator Meyer, give us a little bit of background on how this, these sets of chemicals are analyzed and how it can be determined that they might be hazardous to human beings, to water table. Do they use spectrometers? Do they taste it? How do they do that testing? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, a little bit beyond my pay grade, but the staff is telling me that they do use just what you said.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Through you, Madam President, saving the tasting it and trying to figure out what's in it part? You might have not heard that, because I said you use spectrometers and the like to try to figure out exactly what kind of chemicals are in there and/or maybe they taste it and figure out what's in it.

SENATOR MEYER:

The DEEP representative is telling me that they're going to use spectrometers, so.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

The former, not the latter. Got it. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

But this, you know, clearly through you, Madam President, this is an area of science and clearly science is advanced to a point that we can analyze these materials and determine whether or not they're toxic, and secondly to what degree they're toxic and then what they're toxic on.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Through you, and it's a point very, very well taken, Senator and I appreciate that.

You know, I want to say, I really appreciate your patience in answering all of these questions. I think it is important for all of us to understand this process, the chemicals, and everything in it that might be hazardous to our health and the health of children and animals and the environment in its entirety, so I want to thank you for that.

The question I had through you, Madam President, continuing on in informing all of us about hydraulic fracking waste, you touched upon the sort of universal science before, having to do with the generic hydraulic fracturing waste chemical.

Can you just, because I think I was out of the Chamber, can you just in a nutshell kind of sum up what's the worst part about it? You had mentioned, I think, there was plutonium involved potentially and some other chemicals related to plutonium. Is that correct?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, from the studies that we've had and from the literature, the most significant component of fracking waste is radioactivity and the high rate of radioactivity, which could cause cancer, and I cited a study that was brought to the Environment Committee by Dr. David Brown, a public health toxicologist who found that there was a dramatic change in birth weight of babies of mothers who lived adjacent to hydraulic fracking.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, thank you for that answer as well.

The reading that I had of the federal guidelines or federal regulations on this, and I'm scratching my head about this, maybe you can set me straight, they say unequivocally that hydraulic fracking waste is not a hazardous waste product.

Now, common sense would tell you that this is probably not accurate but why is the federal government saying that when it's probably not the case, but we're addressing that we don't know enough about and you know at the end of the day I'm going to probably be for this, but I think the concept of trying to ban something before it's actually even a problem with an extremely low probability of it becoming a problem because the distance between us and New York and Pennsylvania. Can you set the record straight, Senator? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I'm not sure, set the record straight on what? May I ask to rephrase the question?

THE CHAIR:

Rephrase, please.

SENATOR MEYER:

Sure. The question is, the federal government says that hydraulic fracking waste is not, and I'm quoting this, not hazardous waste.

And we're here dealing, and we're here dealing with the potential of a very hazardous waste product. How can there be such a difference?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Well, through you, Madam President, our understanding is that the federal EPA has not yet made any actual findings. They are in the process of looking at it.

Senator McLachlan in his extensive questions established the fact that there were studies going and that perhaps the federal EPA will reach a result in a year and we don't have to do that work.

Obviously, our department will take into account any findings made by the federal EPA so we don't have to duplicate the work, but right now, you know, the Environment Committee heard substantial evidence through scientists and others, and others being like over 100 witnesses, that fracking waste is toxic and that's why we're taking the precaution of doing a temporary moratorium and a regulation. So that's about as much as I can answer your question.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Senator for that answer. That is very helpful.

A procedural question, through you, Madam President, for the Senator and that is, when the federal government comes out, the EPA comes out with their findings, do we always at DEEP, and do we always perhaps legislatively consider that the highest and best answer that we can get on a particular issue and consider it you know, biblical and that we should follow that finding?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Well, we would, through you, Madam President, we would like to think that DEEP would give the highest answer, but the Committee and advocates felt that we needed a check on the agency and that's why this matter will actually have to be approved by the Legislature through our Regulations Review Committee.

And you know, this is very significant that one agency should not be making this without some oversight and we will have oversight over this through this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. Suppose we come up and this is purely hypothetical. Suppose we end up in a situation where the federal government, EPA says, you know what? The following 75 hydraulic fracking waste products are fine. They are totally fine. They don't harm the drinking water as long as you process it in the following way, you're going to end up with pure water and pure bromide and you can use the bromide as fertilizer for example.

Would we at that point, do you think we would revise the discussion or do you think we'd still just continue to try to ban this stuff going forward?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, you're asking a pretty hypothetical question, but I will answer hypothetically. I think that we in Connecticut don't have a lot of confidence in the federal EPA, even though it's got a marvelous administrator who used to be our commissioner.

And therefore, unless Congress preempts this as a federal matter, preempts the states from acting, I think that we will be doing our own review and I think that's a good thing for our constituents that we do that.

I would assume, again I'm speaking hypothetically because I think your question is hypothetical, I do think that a presumption would be given in favor of any findings by the federal EPA, but I would hope that we would have what you might call a second look.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. Through you, Madam President, an additional question, shifting the focus to the states up in the northeast in particular, are we in a competitive environment with the other states surrounding us to try to ban the importation and processing of hydraulic fracking waste?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

We learned in the last month that Vermont has actually banned fracking waste, and I think your question is, for those states that have not banned it, are we competitive with them? I don't know. You're asking, if I understand your question, you're asking are we going to be competitive in using fracking waste as an economic activity?

It's sort of going to be, depends on what our agency finds, how it regulates this. It may ask the Legislature to do a ban. It may say that certain byproducts of fracking waste that are perfectly fine, and not a, you know, no danger to our safety or health.

That's what this bill is all about is to find out those answers.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Right, thank you, And through you, Madam President, that is helpful and I guess what I'm trying to get at is, if all of the states are in a competition to be the first to ban fracking waste and you have potentially Maine and you have Vermont already. New Hampshire, I don't know what they're going to do but it's certainly a possibility there, Massachusetts as well and Connecticut, of course. New Jersey I think is half way, three quarters of the way there. I think they're waiting the Governor's signature on that bill at this point and so the bigger picture issue that I'm trying to get at is, if we all in the northeast who are great beneficiaries of natural gas, especially because from an environmentalist point of view, which I think most of us have around this Circle, it's a great step in the right direction.

It burns very, very clean. It's affordable, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't come without a cost and this fracking waste treatment is definitely part of the cost, but if we force it on the states that produce it, and we don't give them a competitive advantage being able to spread it out at least a little bit, are we not being fair to them?

And so I guess I'm asking for your subjective opinion as to what your thoughts are on that subject? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, that is a, Senator Frantz is raising an issue that we definitely talked about. CBIA for example, and I see its representative in the Gallery, Art Brown, has said in substance to some of us that if we're going to get the benefit of the lower cost of natural gas, as you point out, or lower cost in home heating oil, if we're going to get the benefit we should take some of the responsibility, and that responsibility should be taking fracking waste, even if it's toxic and dealing with it.

That's an argument I think that maybe you're suggesting now, that you should not get the benefits, cost benefits, without taking the responsibility.

Governor Malloy in a very clear statement last week that I heard, said you know, you pointed out that the initial benefit of natural gas is from the states that have it and can sell it and get a financial benefit, and his point was, they should deal with their own, they should have the responsibility for any poison coming out of this, out of the profits and benefits they're getting, and they shouldn't make other states take this stuff.

So that's the other side of it. But what we're going to find out in a very few years is whether or not there is a safe, economic activity that can be had from this whole area of the waste coming from fracking natural gas.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, that's a very good rebuttal to the original line of reasoning that the cost ultimately should go back to the producers who are benefiting economically from us. So I appreciate that.

Following up on the whole economics issue behind the industry of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production. Do you know, what would be the closest drilling site using hydraulic fracking procedures and the products to the western border or the northern border, for that matter, of the state of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, you recall we talked at length about that earlier today. Maybe Senator, you were out of the room, but we looked at the map of the shale, Marcellus Shale in New York and we talked about the distance from that Marcellus Shale to the Connecticut border and I think I had estimated at about 150 miles.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you, and I appreciate that answer and I do apologize for being out of the Chamber for one point of a little bit longer than I was hoping to.

So 150 miles. I just did a rough back of the envelope calculation, this being an ordinary liquid with maybe some extra elements in it, it's probably about seven pounds per gallon and that means that that is as heavy a material as you can find to transport. A hundred fifty miles when you're transporting something that's that dense and it's liquid, you have to have specialized trucks for it, especially if it's something that could be considered slightly hazardous or maybe very hazardous, require special equipment and I'm just wondering if you know whether the economics would even remotely work bringing it from say 130, 150 miles away to a place in Connecticut?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I think Senator Frantz, when you were out of the room, I, sort of a hypothetical question in many ways, but I think I gave my own opinion that because of cost factors, I don't think we're in danger of fracking waste coming in from Pennsylvania.

But you know, the economists that we talked to, the Environment Committee's talked to and people we've heard from have said that it's very expensive to transport fracturing waste for the purpose of recycling it and that the closer to the source of the natural gas the better, and therefore, I think the advocates of this bill after hearing about the toxic dangers of fracking waste, felt we should be safe rather than sorry and that New York is close enough to our western border and as Senator Chapin's Senate District that we talked about earlier this afternoon that we would, we should legislate this now.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ:

Thank you, and in fact the 36th Senate District is on the border of New York as well.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes.

THE CHAIR:

Through you, Madam President. The next question I have, is there an alternate form of liquid to use for hydraulic fracking on the drawing board anywhere? Have you heard that from anybody?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I don't know if there are any alternative liquids available now.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Frantz.

SENATOR FRANTZ

Thank you. Okay. I'm done with my questions for you, Senator. You get a well-deserved break for standing on your feet for such a long afternoon, and thank you for your explanations and your answers to the questions.

While, at the end of the day I will probably be on board with this bill once it's fully amended and presented to the Circle way late tonight. I am probably going to be in favor of it but I do want to qualify that and I might as well do it right now on the overall package that this bill will be in a few hours from now.

And that is, we probably shouldn't be in the business of legislating against something, banning something before it's a problem, before it's an imminent problem. We've had this discussion, I think over the GMO grass seed issue as well.

It's great to be proactive as opposed to being reactive, which is what we get accused of all the time, but I think it's even more intelligent to be proactive when you know there's a real problem out there, you know.

You see the fracking stuff starting to migrate toward us because they figured out a more efficient way to transport it or the killer bees coming up from South America, you know. You see them coming. It's a very real bidding time for legislation to keep them out of the borders of Connecticut, because it's a little bit of a Pandora's box once you open that up. You'll be legislating from now until kingdom come, a lot of things that aren't necessarily worth spending much time on.

I'm not saying this is an initiative that doesn't deserve our focus. It certainly does. Anything that could potentially harm the environment, even incremental, we need to spend time focused on.

But the point is, you know, at this point, if we continue to do this and we do other bills that proactively ban things, especially since we don't know everything we should know about a particular product, then we might as well be banning the sky from falling and telling Chicken Little to you know, go home and close the door and lock it.

The important thing that we as a Legislative Chamber have to keep in mind is that we have to be fair about all of these issues and we have to kind of keep things focused on the here and now as opposed to the hypothetical.

When we get into the hypothetical where we don't have the facts in front of us, especially when they're probably going to be available in the not too distant future as per Senator McLachlan's comments before about the study, the federal study or studies that are being completed now. There's going to be a tremendous amount of information out there and I think it sets us up to be unfair, not necessarily with respect to this particular issue, but unfair to industries, the individual small business, people who are looking for jobs if we go to legislate things that we don't know enough about proactively. It's just one of those things that will always be an issue for me.

So once again, Senator Meyer, thank you for your work on this bill. I will, in all likelihood be in favor of it and I appreciate the answers that you've given to me tonight and for all of your time on it. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you, Madam President. Great to see you.

THE CHAIR:

Good to see you, sir.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Just some questions, through you to the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer, do you want to prepare yourself?

Senator Kissel, please proceed.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Sure, thank you. First of all, I want to thank Senator Meyer for bringing this amendment forward. As anyone can see, I'm one of the co-sponsors of the amendment. I want to thank Senator Meyer for including me as one of the co-sponsors and commend him for his efforts regarding this. I think it's important.

I do have some questions to establish some legislative history and them I'm probably just going to speak probably at length a little bit on the bill, but hopefully during this period of time folks are in various rooms discussing plans for the rest of today and this evening.

First of all, it was brought to the attention of some of my constituents that I was supporting this moratorium, some folks came up to me and they asked me a question and I was struggling a little bit for the answer.

And they said, well, how can Connecticut have a moratorium on hydraulic fractured waste? Wouldn't that run afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution?

And so, through you, Madam President, I'm just wondering, what is the legal ground that the state is relying on in sort of banning this substance and how does that not run afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President.

Senator Kissel is asking a good, legal constitutional question. Our counsel, our LCO, Brad Towson advised us that it would be a violation of the Commerce Clause if we prohibited the transportation of fracking waste through the State of Connecticut, and therefore, an earlier version of this bill was amended to take away any reference to transporting, exporting or importing to avoid that interstate.

With respect to the waste as a product, Connecticut as you know, and you've done a very effective job on this, Connecticut has definitely restricted or banned in some instances, chemicals that we determined were toxic to the people of our state, bisphenol-A would be one example. Lead would be another. Cadmium would be another. Pesticides in grades K through 8 would be another and we have, while some parts of the chemistry industry have opposed our effort to do that, the fact is that we never had a legal challenge, so we believe that we're entitled to protect the citizens of Connecticut with respect to toxic chemicals.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President, just again for purposes of legislative history, I note that this amendment, which becomes the bill in Section, in the definitional Section Number 8 says transfer and I'm just wondering how the term transfer would not necessarily include transportation through our state.

In other words, if a train is coming up from the south and you know, I can actually see the train tracks from the front of my house and I can actually see the Connecticut River from the front of my house, so they run along the River, would transfer in this amendment entail a train that brought carloads of this waste on a trip to Canada from decoupling those car loads in Hartford and then backing up another engine to those and then moving them up the line. Is that considered a transfer? Through you, Madam President.

SENATOR MEYER:

No. I don't believe it is. Transfer is used in this bill in a much more limited sense, through you, Madam President, Mr. President and that it, is means just transferring hydraulic fracturing waste from one vehicle to another, and would not incorporate the kind of transportation that you're referring to that might indeed invade the Interstate Commerce Clause.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. So when you say, through you, just to be clear on this, let's say tractor trailer trucks, could someone, some company bring tractor trailer trucks of hydraulic fractured waste into their tractor trailer truck lot, perhaps let them sit there for 24 hours and then hook them up to another cab and then have that cab continue to bring them out of the state.

Or, is the only thing that we are allowing is someone entering the state and then going right through the state but they're not allowed to stop in the state? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, I think the, we have to be very specific on this and look at the language of the bill.

The moratorium is on starting on line 41, it says no person may accept, receive, collect, store, treat, transfer, or dispose of waste from hydraulic fracturing. So that is the crux of the prohibition here, the moratorium here and intentionally as we talked before, does not refer to transporting across the state of Connecticut that might be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Okay. So through you, Mr. President, so in reading the definition of transfer, rather than how, quote, you know, one of the ways I look at transfers, I'm picking up this pamphlet and I'm transferring it from here point A to point B.

But this transfer seems to be a different definition of transfer that is more geared to changing the composition of the hydraulic fractured waste. It speaks in terms of the physical chemical composition.

So when we're saying we're banning the transfer here in Connecticut, it doesn't really have to do with transportation. It has to do with taking these substances and re-processing them somehow into some other product. Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yeah, as a matter of legislative intent, I think that the Environment Committee had in mind here a situation where citizens of Connecticut could be exposed to the toxicity of this waste, if this waste was transferred say from a train to a truck within the state of Connecticut, something in which the waste would actually, people would be exposed to this waste that we believe is toxic. So it's that kind of transfer that we're trying to inhibit.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. I appreciate that answer and that's a terrific answer for a point of legislative history.

I'm sorry. Stand at ease for a second?

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease. )

SENATOR MEYER:

Excuse me.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come back to order. Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

I didn't get the question, I'm sorry.

SENATOR KISSEL:

No, I waited until you were done.

THE CHAIR:

There was no question.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Saw that you were speaking to Committee. Through you, Mr. President, another question for points of creating the legislative history.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Once upon a time being lucky enough that my constituents have blessed me and watching some of these farewell speeches it's going to get harder this week before it gets easier, but my constituents have been very kind enough to bless me with being able to serve them for 22 years of this Chamber and for a couple of those years I served on the Regulations Review Committee and my recollection is that on

Regulations Review, we have the ability to go to a department and say, we don't like those regulations. Go back and reformulate them.

But I'm just wondering. This bill anticipates that at some point, regulations will be developed and that they have to pass the approval process of the Regulations Review Committee.

And so my concern is that I have seen people in the past never accept regulations. They just keep sending them back to the department over and over and over because until there was, maybe they got moved off that committee because they were just not happy with whatever the particular regulations were touching.

So is there a mechanism where we can make sure that this review that I believe is just by the Legislature, can't go on ad infinitum? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, we entertained that possibility and we've got a conscientious agency here in DEEP, but it is one that doesn't have all the staff in the world to move expeditiously, and therefore at the request of a number of Legislators, we put in a provision starting in line 61 that the commissioner can submit the regulations to Regs Review no later than July 1, 2018.

Your next question, Senator Kissel appears to be, through you, Mr. President, appears to be what happens if they don't do this by July 1, 2018? Well, you're talking about an agency in effect violating a law of the state. I think that would be highly unlikely, but it's my opinion, this may be personal, that under this bill if they didn't do it by July 1 of 18, the moratorium would continue unless and until those regs had been adopted by the agency and approved by the Legislative Regulations Review Committee.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Mr. President, actually, and this is probably my personal perspective. I have less concern with the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection than I do with ourselves, sometimes, pushing things back into the agency because for whatever reason, we may not like one specific portion.

And again, not having served on Regs Review for two years, I did see that happen. It just was not automatic that regulations submitted to that committee would be approved and sometimes agencies, to their great consternation would have to come back two or three or four times.

So, if the Legislature continues to push back proposed regulations to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, for purposes of legislative history, would it be safe to say that the moratorium would continue in effect as long as it takes until those regulations were approved by the Legislature? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Mr. President, that is my opinion as a sponsor of this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. Now, I've learned a lot listening to most of the debate this afternoon and not having served on the Environment Committee ever, I guess I have to start working on that one at some point in the future, if God willing my constituents are kind enough to re-elect me and I am running for re-election because I love this job, and serving my constituents and the people of the state of Connecticut.

But, one thing I did learn is that apparently hydraulic fractured waste is incorporated in certain products being used now and those being de-icing products. I don't know if there's other. Well, actually, let me ask the question.

I've learned through reading the amendment and listening, that de-icing seems to be a major product. I'm just wondering is this hydraulic fractured waste being incorporated into any other products that we're aware of right now? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, we don't understand whether there are not any other byproducts. We do know that there's de-icing. The department advised the Environment Committee that they believe that the de-icing materials coming from fracturing waste are toxic, that they've caused water contamination in the State of Pennsylvania and therefore, what this bill does is, it subjects the use in Connecticut of de-icing from hydraulic fracturing waste to the same regulatory system and approval system by Regs Review that actual hydraulic fracturing waste is subject to.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kiseel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Mr. President, do we have people in the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection that are monitoring the utilization of hydraulic fractured waste as far as it being incorporated into products, and I can't imagine what it might be, but sometimes there's road products. Sometimes there's shingles, who knows? It's pretty much what somebody can come up, and I'm sure if this is a byproduct of something that's going on, I'm sure there's some folks that would like to turn lemons into lemonade somehow.

So my question through you, Mr. President is, are we assured that there's some folks over in our Department of Energy and Environmental Protection monitoring the practices of industry regarding the waste from the hydraulic fracturing that's going on in the country?

Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, to Senator Kissel. That's what this bill is all about. It's to direct this agency to make that study to discover what products other than de-icing exist and what are toxic and not toxic and it sets up a whole information gathering system and a research section of this bill as well to find that out.

Right now, as the representative of DEEP just told me, they don't have enough, much knowledge about it. But that's what this bill is going to do.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

Thank you very much. Through you, Mr. President, is there any fiscal note attached to this, because if they don't have a huge knowledge base, I'm just wondering whether we're asking them to do it within available resources or if we've committed maybe some resources so that they can go hire some folks that have expertise in the field? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Mr. President, the fiscal note says, I'm reading, says the amendment, and that's what we're talking about here, strikes the underlying bill and its associated fiscal impact. So, the Office of Fiscal Analysis has found that there is no fiscal impact from this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Mr. President, does the good Chair of the Environment Committee, given his expertise and the public hearings regarding this and his contact with representatives from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection feel confident that the Department is able to handle this additional responsibility within their available budgetary resources? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, we've had extensive meetings with DEEP and with the Governor's office concerning this bill, and in each instance, the Governor's office indicated that it will motivate the agency to do the work and the representatives of the agency have indicated that they look forward to doing this work on an expedited basis.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Mr. President. That's very nicely put. I'm wondering what, when the Governor's office motivates an agency to do something, what that actually entails, but I'm guessing that it's probably some very direct orders to the commissioner and the commissioner's staff.

Just getting back a little bit to 30,000 feet and I know there was an extensive colloquy between Senator McLachlan and Senator Meyer regarding this, and I caught most of it.

But again, not having sat through the public hearings regarding this, Senator Meyer has referenced Marcellus Shale a lot and I'm just wondering, my understanding is the closest this shale is to us is probably somewhere in the middle of New York State.

Let me just take a step back. It's my understanding the closest that any of this hydraulic fracturing that may be occurring or possibly occur is about 130 miles west of our western border, somewhere, wherever that would be in the heart of New York State? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, earlier today on several occasions I gave the estimate, having been a former New Yorker myself, as I looked at the map of the Marcellus Shale and I looked at the border, the western border of Connecticut, I made a guesstimate that it was around 150 miles.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. Now let's say that that's the eastern edge of where this Marcellus Shale is. How pervasive is this shale? How far west and is it like one giant area or is this, are there pockets so that if one looked at a map, one would see, you know, various islands where this shale is? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, we do have a map of the shale, the Marcellus Shale, and it basically goes in a diagonal from northern New York down through Pennsylvania. It hits the eastern part of Ohio and goes down through Pennsylvania into West Virginia, and that, my aide might show you the map so you can confirm what it looks like.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Exhibit A.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Let the record note that the good Senator did provide me with a map, but it actually does spur a few more questions.

Through you, Mr. President, I've also just heard through watching television that --

SENATOR MEYER:

Why did I do that?

THE CHAIR:

Pardon? In watching a lot of programs regarding this, it's my understanding, and it doesn't necessarily comport with the map, that although maybe it does, is that a lot of the hydraulic fracturing is also occurring in Canada and I'm just wondering if that's an area that's creating an awful lot of waste as well? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, I have no personal knowledge in that regard.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. Does Connecticut, through you, Mr. President, does Connecticut reap the benefits of the hydraulic fracturing that's occurring in the States of New York and Pennsylvania and Ohio and West Virginia? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, my understanding is that our natural gas is being derived in part from those states exclusive of New York, which is not fracking natural gas at the present time.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And it's my recollection from previous discussions on this bill, that I believe Senator Meyer indicated that Governor Cuomo is still determining whether New York will actually even allow fracturing, hydraulic fracturing in the State of New York? Is that correct? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Mr. President, I believe that's correct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. That actually concludes my questions for the good Senator, so I just want to speak on the underlying bill itself.

My understanding as to what is going on regarding hydraulic fracturing to derive natural gas is that it poses a huge environmental concern in those areas where it's being done.

While one might say that hydraulic fracturing at, I think I've heard as much as a mile down, how could that possibly pose a threat to the environment on the ground. Senator Meyer has stated numerous times in response to various questions that the ground water is most at risk and in reading the bill and in listening to the debate this afternoon, now going into this evening, it's not necessarily what one would guess the hydraulic fracturing waste to be.

It's not that the ground water is simply getting muddied up or that small fine grain mineral particulates are causing a problem.

From reading the bill and listening to the debate, there's an element of ionization. There's an element of radioactivity that is being released when the enormous pressure that the hydraulics has brought to bear to burst the shale and release the gas.

My guess is that those pressures that those jets have as a consequence, also the ability to release those ions from the molecules that are down there and creating that level of radioactivity that is problematic.

When, and I hate, you know, my mom was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and so I visit there very often and I have relatives down in the Pennsylvania area to this day, and cradle of our liberty, beautiful city, Philadelphia.

But as one proceeds west in the great State of Pennsylvania, the topography changes and one can almost recall the movie Nothing but Trouble. If you go back to that movie a couple of decades ago, Dan Akroyd, Chevy Chase, Demi Moore and others, John Candy, the late John Candy, it has a visualized depiction of Pennsylvania that would make your hair curl and I think it's based upon a lot of reality.

I mean, it is not unusual for sink holes to develop in certain areas of Pennsylvania and that poor state now dealing with this, it's unbelievable.

If one goes back and for example reads, and I've only read portions of it because it's a huge amount of pages, but Ida Tarbell's, the History of Standard Oil. Well, as one perceives, one gets a, she starts off with a very great account of oil in the United States and you might wonder, you know, why Pennzoil? You know, we're familiar with that, Pennzoil.

Well, Pennsylvania was the very first state where oil was discovered in the United States up in the northwest corner of that state. The Colonial settlers finding it pooled right on the top of the ground trying to figure out what they could do with it.

Indeed, if one follows the development of oil in the United States, a lot of interesting characters, some of which may be forbears of our colleagues right here in the Circle. But why Standard Oil is called Standard Oil is because they were having a difficult time figuring out specifically kerosene as to its properties and sometimes it would just explode and cause huge amounts of damage. Sometimes it wouldn't perform accurately and so one would wonder, you know, why in the middle of the 19th century, you know, why was there initially such a huge and this is us, whaling industry?

Well, whale oil was far more reliable and so for a few decades that was the preferred fuel until some folks, including John D. Rockefeller came up with his engineers and chemists with a procedure to standardize the composition of kerosene and make it reliable, essentially supplant the whale oil industry and that's why we get such an utterly non-creative but highly depicted name such as Standard Oil, because they had a standard that could be relied upon.

Then of course, the rest of what old John D. did, pretty much interesting history of mergers, conglomerations, threatening individuals, but the net result was a huge fuel base for the people of the United States at a time when we really needed fuel.

And all these things are connected together, just like right now we're in a different era and I don't know who the John D. Rockefeller is out there right now, but I'm sure there are some behind the hydraulic fracturing that is going on throughout Pennsylvania and West Virginia and parts of Ohio and I'm sure they're putting a full corps press on in the State of New York trying to get Governor Cuomo to say okay.

There's no easy answer when it comes to our reliance on various energy sources. Probably the best rule of thumb would be trying to conserve and looking at that side of the equation as opposed to trying to find huge amounts of new energy sources.

Some people have felt that the renewables would be the panacea and the savior, solar, wind. I'd like to include hydro power. I've never understood how somehow hydro is distinct from solar and wind because if you have a reliable river system, to me while it's not necessarily, quote, unquote, renewable, it's to some extent never ending, as long as mother nature is continuing to feed that river, so it's good to harness that as well.

But none of those are the be all and end all when you look at the totality of the developing and developed the nation's need for fuel of some sort.

And so for a long, long time we've had a great reliance on oil. Say, let's give oil its due for about a century at least. And to a great extent we've done well as a nation in creating the fuels that we use.

I believe it to be a fact that the largest provider of oil to the United States is the United States. We did, though, if one goes back and recalls one's history, we have gone through periods of time where, for example, the oil producing nations, OPEC being their organization would cut back, causing severe fuel shortages.

I was just a little kid, but I do remember in the early seventies cars lining up to get gasoline. I can't imagine how horrible that must have been during that period of time, depending on your license plate number you would be either an odd or an even day, but those things have happened and we've done well to avoid that.

The problem we have with our oil supply right now in the United States in my view, two fold. First, we are, we had, are creating so much oil in the United States, but we have not concurrently expanded our pipeline for a variety of reasons, so we're relying extremely heavily on rail transportation of crude oil and if you continue to ratchet that up, accidents are going to occur.

It wasn't that many weeks ago I was reading the paper and I saw some huge accident west of us where just tons of these cars loaded with oil jumped the tracks and leaked and then burned, and one can imagine the environmental devastation that that has done to wherever that accident happened and it's happening more and more.

The other problem that we have with our oil supply and this is what's tied into this is that we have decommissioned a lot of our refineries, and you need both. You need the supply, but you need the ability to refine it. It doesn't help if you have huge amounts of supply if you don't have the ability to turn that crude into something that the public not only wants, but needs, and it's always amazing to me that you have, you know, North Atlantic Crude and Sweet Texas Crude and how they define it. And I would have these images of these folks down there when they would strike the big gusher and I don't know. Sweet Texas Crude. You taste if it's sweet, but it's probably sweeter than the North Atlantic Crude.

It's probably got a different composition because it has a different chemical base, based upon what plant decomposed millions of years ago.

So we have in my view, this bottleneck when it comes to oil, which we've relied upon for decades and decades and decades because while on the one hand we have new sources and we're utilizing not pipelines, but rail lines for its transportation.

We also, unfortunately, don't have the refining capacity that we once did. And so when you put those two things together that undermines our ability going forward to cut ourselves loose from foreign sources of oil, not the least of which is the one that's being touted in Canada and we're dragging our feet in creating that giant pipeline to bring that Canadian oil straight through the middle of our country and one wonders why we're being so dilatory regarding that.

I can understand the political expediency of President Obama not wanting to alienate his environmentalists going into the last election cycle, but that has now come and gone and he will not be seeking re-election under our Constitution, so hopefully some of those impediments will evaporate.

So at this point in our nation's history with the pressures brought to bear on the oil industry, lo and behold, what have we found? We've found hydraulic fracturing creating an abundance of natural gas.

But everything has a price. Everything has a price. It's almost like Ying and Yang or Karma and the Universe. I mean, even if you drink too much water it can act as a poison on your body.

And so, to the extent we now are looking to natural gas to fill the void that heretofore had been provided by oil, and we tout its wonderful aspects such as that it burns cleaner, to some degree is easily transported, although for parts of my district it's not readily available. The cost to put in pipelines to people's homes is not negligible at all, and in fact even with the Governor's efforts to expand natural gas here in Connecticut as a cheaper fuel for homes, as a cheaper alternative, one still has to grapple with the cost associated with that especially in rural or mountainous areas where there may not necessarily be an easily accessible trunk line, and also typically those gas lines are located along our roadways and so, when you dig up one of our roadways, when you replace it, it has to comport with applicable state or federal regulations. So it's not as easy as people think.

And people might look at this amendment, which becomes the bill as perhaps a disconnect and I have had individuals come up to me and say, you know, you're on this amendment, Senator Kissel, and I go, yes, I am. Yes, I am. How be so? Because I am concerned about hydraulic fractured waste coming into Connecticut and if I just, you know, we can call it fracking or hydraulic fractured waste, but if I tell people it's radioactive waste, that's much more easily understood because people still remember Three Mile Island and the dangers that are posed by melt downs such as Fukushima in Japan or Chernobyl in Russia.

In fact, I was watching a program the other day, I don't know if anyone else in the Circle may have watched this, but on Animal Planet station they have river monsters. I enjoy watching River Monsters, it's pretty cool. Some of the fish that this guy catches are amazing.

And so, just last week River Monsters was on. It was Monday. We didn't have Session last Monday and I was watching it and he was trying to get his arms around the Loch Ness Monster. If you're going to go after river monsters, that's probably the biggest thing you can go after is the Loch Ness Monster.

And what was interesting about the program, and I have been to Loch Ness, believe it nor not. It is gorgeous. I did not see any monsters, but you can tell through the ripples that sometimes your mind might play tricks on you, but yes, indeed, I did look for the Loch Ness Monster once upon a time. The nearest town to Loch Ness where I was, was Drumnadrochit, and then I walked down the road to Castle Urquhart, which most folks may recall from a Scooby Doo episode, but I was actually there.

The reason I reference River Monsters and Loch Ness is that when they did sounding of the Loch, one of the things they noted was a very thin layer on the bottom. Part of this inquiry was to determine whether the Loch had enough oxygen and plant life and things like that to sustain a fish and b) something as large as the Loch Ness monster and amazingly, at the bottom of the Loch, there was his microscopic layer of radioactivity. Not enough to affect life in the Loch. But where did it come from? It was the fallout from Chernobyl. Amazing. Amazing.

So these things are all interconnected. So we're dealing with radioactive waste. Let's all be very clear about this, radioactive waste. But what's the disconnect? The disconnect is that we have a Governor, Governor Dannel Malloy pushing the expansion of natural gas here in Connecticut to help consumers and he has charged the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection with moving this process forward, and he has charged Public Utility Regulatory Authority with moving this project forward, and he has urged utilities throughout the state of Connecticut to help move these goals forward, all laudable.

But my constituents come up to me and they say, Senator Kissel, your name is on this amendment. I've read your quotes in the paper. I've heard you discuss this issue on the radio, saw you on CT-N in Committee. Doesn't that sort of go against what the state's trying to do.

One the one hand you're saying, no waste in our state. Go away. Don't want it. But on the other hand, you want to get the benefits of natural gas and natural gas expansion and I would say yes. If you're going to look at it that strictly, perhaps there is a little bit of a disconnect.

But I would posit this as an answer to those concerns. Where there is money to be made, people will try to make money. If we expand our ability to utilize natural gas, they will come. In other words, manufacturers, developers, those responsible for hydraulic fracturing creating more supply of natural gas are not going to sit down around their board tables and say, hey, look at that state of Connecticut. Who are they? They don't want our waste. We're not going to sell them natural gas. They're never, ever, ever, going to do that.

They're going to sit around their corporate board tables and they're going to say, who cares? We weren't going to ship it there anyhow. The closest we can even come if Governor Cuomo gives us the green light is 150 miles and the cost to transport to Connecticut, those guys will kill us with their environmental regulations anyhow.

We were never going to go there. You know those sink holes down in Pennsylvania? Perfect. Do you ever go by the railroad tracks on occasion, see them from your car? Maybe you're at an at grade crossing. The train goes by. Do you ever see those incredibly long railroad cars, one another with just garbage and refuse? I've seen that. I've seen it go, I don't think they're coming from Connecticut. My guess is they're coming from like Massachusetts or somewhere up north, but they're going down and they're going west, and do you know why?

And I learned this a few years ago on Program Review and Investigation when we looked at, are we meeting our goals for recycling as a state and what are we doing with our solid waste and you now, should we continue pushing for creating energy from waste and things like that, was that these states think completely different than us.

You see, we're about this evening talking about keep your hydraulic fractured waste to yourself. We don't want it. Now maybe four years from now, July 1 of 2018 we'll have regs promulgated and probably sometime after that Regs Review will sign off on that, so I really don't see anything happening until 2019 as far as us accommodating hydraulic fractured waste.

But, those giant trainloads, car after car after car after car after car with refuse and debris and you know, like they tore down entire subdivisions and threw them into these rail cars, garbage. They're going out, they're not going that far. States like Pennsylvania and Ohio actually encourage waste to be brought to them to be buried in gigantic landfills in some of these huge sink holes. Now, I haven't driven out there to see anything like this, but I can imagine what it looks like because again, I referenced that movie, Nothing but Trouble, mid eighties, Dan Akroyd, Demi Moore, John Candy, Chevy Chase. Rent it. No place to rent movies any more. Go to your library. Get it on line. Send away to Amazon. Maybe in Target, $ 5.

But anyhow, it's a great movie, it's a funny movie but they have these wonderful visions of what Pennsylvania is like in that part that we don't visit. There's no Liberty Bells out there in the middle of that part of Pennsylvania. Apparently, it's pretty toxic and the mistakes that they've made, they've sort of given up on certain parts of their state.

Now I'm not picking on them and if anybody out there is listening to this or watching this from Pennsylvania, beautiful state, love that state, my mom was born in Philadelphia, a lot of family in Pennsylvania. Actually, I've had the tremendous honor of taking about corrections issues at the most recent NCSL, National Council of State Legislatures' annual meeting a couple of years ago in Philadelphia.

But I've also heard, and this is sort of smarmy and I apologize, it's not me, because I don't agree with it, but I did go another conference at John Jay University in their legal department, John Jay University, heart of Manhattan, I think it's like upper west side, though I'm not completely familiar with east side, west side in Manhattan.

But anyhow, highly regarded and they had a guest speaker and he was very smarmy and he was picking on Pennsylvania and he said, you know what Pennsylvania's like, and I couldn't believe this, but I will tell you, his attitude about Pennsylvania. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama stuck on its side in between. Now that's mean, and first of all it's mean to the people of Alabama because that's assuming that they're bad and I don't know anybody from Alabama that's bad.

But it was a reference and I think it was probably around the time that President Obama was saying something about the middle of Pennsylvania like they just like their guns and bibles or something like that, so I think he was trying to like, tag into that, again, that whole Manhattan sort of world view that we know it all, nobody else does. Very unfair. Very unfair.

But the point is, there are portions of Pennsylvania that are in such ecological decline that they look to supplement their income as municipalities and as counties by enticing northeasterners, send us your waste.

So on philosophical grounds you might think that there's a disconnect between this moratorium on hydraulic fractured waste and our initiative as a state to expand the utilization of natural gas both residentially and commercially, but I don't look at it that way at all.

I don't think that Connecticut was ever on the radar of any large scale producer of natural gas as a waste destination. I think this helps us, makes it very clear, but even without this, my guess is that those companies have very bright people that are looking at maps and Connecticut is a highly regulated state when it comes to the environment. Why? We're small. We don't have a lot of these resources and we have got to protect that with which we have.

Now, there's been some books written lately and I hope they're incorrect in their conclusions, but we talk about the world's growing need for energy on a large scale, and what I mean by that is, we have to look at this in its proper context is that, it used to be, and some would say, social justice dictates that it's fair, the developed world and the third world and the developing countries were sort of having a hard time picking up any fee.

That has changed. We know that. Books written. The world is flat. Highly competitive and our competition for energy now is not our colleagues in the developed world, and I use these terms with a little bit of caution because I, quite frankly not sure how politically correct they are right now.

But typically when one thinks of the developed countries one thinks of United States, Canada, Europe, Russia to some extent, Russia. But we used to sort of discount two giants, giants, China and India. Big mistake. Big mistake.

China's economy is about to surpass the United States in the next few years. That's not me. I think that's economists. And as their economy grows, what that means is that their desire for precious energy resources will continue to grow.

I don't know about you, but a lot of my constituents and I remember my dad when I was growing up, used to be dang, made in Japan. Remember that? 1960s, everything was made in Japan. Not everything.

But a lot of the inexpensive, easily manufactured items. Transistor radios. Then all of a sudden something changed. Try to find some inexpensive gadget or gizmo made in Japan. Hard to find nowadays. Made in China. In China.

In fact, some of my constituents, it's almost a game, find something that's not made in China. How happy is that? Of course if it's Taiwan or India, you know, until you see the U. S. of A, well, it makes you wonder. Because we can't continue to send all our dollars out and just get junk in. Stuff that we don't need.

But if I'm China or India, or one of the other developing countries, I want to grow my middle class. Now, are they fair countries? No, I don't think they're fair countries.

Remember back, the protest, it used to be Peking. Now it's Beijing, but the capitol of China. Remember that one guy that went up to the tank? If you paid any attention to the news at that time you remember that one guy going up like to the front of the tank and pointing his finger. I don't know, but my guess is that after that guy was off camera I think they killed him. That's just me, but I don't think they tolerate dissent real well.

And we saw all these young people protesting, Red Square, a big picture of Mao in the background and then all of a sudden, sort of like a news blackout, and all of a sudden all those young people were gone. Now do I think that they all got killed? No. Do I think that many of them were removed to very bad places? Yes.

So China still to this day does not have a great human rights record, and we file our protests and things like that, but I have hope because with their capitalism, and they have made a philosophical decision to embrace capitalism, with that, as a consequence of that, they are creating a middle class.

It may not be the middle class that you and I are used to, but they are creating a middle class and with that comes stability. And if you have a middle class, you want them to participate, but they still have got a long way to go.

And here's an example. I had reference a guy pointing to the tank and the protests several years ago in Beijing and I hope he went home and everything was okay or he was smart enough to like duck and change how he looked or something. You know, once you get away maybe you can change your ID. Hopefully, they didn't like zoom in with some super high powered lens and say, oh, we know who that guy is. We'll just get him at some point.

But let's zoom forward. Not that long ago there were horrible earthquakes in the center of China and in one of these times a school, this is so heartbreaking, a school fell apart and killed all these kids because the idea was, stay inside, don't run out, and what occurred was that this school was built so shoddily that it couldn't withstand even a little tremor and these little kids got killed.

And so the parents were ripped, and who wouldn't be? Because they thought they were getting solid school A, and they got shoddy school B because county commissioner in China was getting graft and getting money on the side or something like that. It was corruption.

See, in dictatorships it's corruption. Not always, but it seems prevalent at least in that instance.

And so the public, the moms and the dads protested legitimately, but after a while, the government said enough is enough and shut those parents down and those parents lost their kids, so that country has still got a long way to go, but it has kept, while keeping its totalitarian nature as far as dissemination of information and ruling its people, and letting them be free to an extent, it has made a calculated economic decision to embrace portions of the free market.

How, you know, I was watching this thing on 60 Minutes not that long ago where they were looking at President Obama's failed energy initiatives. It was pretty disappointing. Now maybe I'm a little biased when it comes to President Obama, but he had given tens of millions of dollars to companies to create, you know, super duper batteries, everybody would have electric cars and all these things. I mean, huge amounts of subsidization with our tax dollars.

And then these companies just went out of business, you know, solar arrays, stuff like that. And so the fact that they failed and went bankrupt and out of business, doesn't mean that they disintegrate and leave the face of the earth. Typically what will occur if it's a bankruptcy is that a trustee will take over and then there will be sales, either in total or in piece meal.

And the crazy thing, the heartbreaking thing of this 60 Minutes story was that China, China was buying up all these businesses at a fire sale price.

So we put in tens of millions of dollars in these energy initiatives to create solar arrays or super duper batteries or all these other kinds of high tech wonder things. They don't materialize or they don't materialize in a way that is profitable so as to sustain the businesses and this is looking at in the best light possible because I do think some people padded their pockets with some of our tax dollars, but hey, I don't work for the U. S. Attorney's office, so I'm not involved in bringing cases against some of these folks and I wish there were more.

But the heart of the story is that China came right up and bought all these things out and what was great was in this particular 60 Minutes story, the person who was doing it then went up to this guy, this Chinese investor and says, does this seem fair, and he goes, we're playing by your rules. Hey, we're playing by your rules. Hey, Mr. and Mrs. America, if you want to put billions of dollars in energy high tech and it fails and then you sell it and then we come up and we buy it, don't blame us. We offered the most. Now it's ours.

And you know what they do? Either they turn it around or they're happy to take it piece by piece and ship it back home. So with the solar array place, I think they just were happy to just own it, strip it, create no jobs because they've got other plants in China doing the same thing. Take it off the market. One less competitor. Take everything you can from it. Leave it a skeleton. Guess what? Most of it was bought and paid for by U. S. taxpayer anyhow. Such a deal.

So that's the world that we're living in right now. Very highly competitive energy market where it's not just a developing, developed countries, rather, that need and rely upon a finite number of energy sources, but we have this voracious growing appetite by two huge super powers of the future and I predict that to be China and India, by virtue of, if nothing else, huge populations.

I sort of dwelled a little bit on China, but let's go down to the sub continent of India. We all know, we have bills in the building, General Law Committee. I'm trying to get a hold of someone to fix my computer and the person I'm getting is in India.

Hundreds of people losing their jobs because their jobs are being transferred to India if they're in telemarketing or if they're in information technology or if they're dealing with one aspect of a corporation or another.

So yeah, China doing tons of manufacturing you out of India where jobs are being shipped because they can be done much more profitably, less expensively.

Now some folks would tout the fact that, well, you know, it's easier to get 24/7 service because our night is their day and they just supplement what we do here in the United States, and I understand. I understand business motivation when it comes to some of these things. I get it.

Of course, in the long run, you know, we can't shoot ourselves in the foot, you know. In the long run, looking for profit doesn't mean that we need to impoverish the majority of our fellow citizens because they don't have decent paying jobs. See, that's very shortsighted.

Wall Street may reward that today. Wall Street may reward that tomorrow Wall street may reward that a year from now. But where will that put us 10 years from now?

How about this? Telemedicine. Why can't I have a battery of extraordinarily highly qualified physicians in India reading radiographs, x-rays, telling us what their deal is, sending it back? Just as much quality? Half the price. What does that do to all of us? What does that do to the folks here in Connecticut?

So that's the world that we live in. Highly competitive. And again, India, voracious appetite for energy.

So on the one hand, part of me wants to say, wow, it's great that we are developing energy resources here in the United States. It is fabulous that we have at least created a way to extract more precious natural gas for our own businesses here in the United States and how great is it that these resources are located near the areas that they're most in need of.

But, at what price? So let me circle back to the book that I was referencing about 20 minutes ago. What it says is that, take this world where energy is a huge commodity, whether it's solar, wind, hydro, natural gas, oil, propane, wood, wood chips, wood pellets, however you want to get your energy.

People understand geopolitics. People understand the politics of energy. We have seen, unfortunately, wars fought, if not solely over energy issues, primarily over energy issues.

Say what you want about some of these wars in the Middle East, but I think that oil comes into play a little bit here and there. Maybe it's me, but you got the same human rights problems in the heart of Africa. You just don't see the military resources being dedicated to the Congo. But Kuwait? That's a different story. Right?

So, what's the next precious item according to the author of this book that I had referenced now almost 25 minutes ago? It's water. Water. See water over there? Senator Welch is holding up water. Water.

You see, water is just as precious as oil or natural gas or those other energy resources. We just don't fundamentally grasp that just yet because right now we look at water as if it's never ending and quite plentiful. But it is a finite resource just like everything else, and we have a tremendous capacity to mess that up.

Now I know that we are extremely conscious of that here in the state of Connecticut. We map out our water table and it's a huge issue. It's a huge issue in my district. If something bad happens and some of these wells get contaminated, I have that in some of my towns. I think we've gotten our arms around it, but in some portions of my district because of believe it or not, you would think that with our history of farming tobacco and other agricultural products that it would be the pesticides.

We've heard Senator Meyer talk at length regarding pesticides. We don't like pesticides. Don't use the Roundup.

The well water contamination in my district in talking to the folks from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, not the pesticides. You know what it was? And this is not like just one town. This is different areas. Apparently it's the solvents used on the farm equipment.

Now, I don't know what they were doing in the forties, fifties, thirties, but they were spraying these tractors with something. People lubed up. That sank into the ground year after year after year, the rain brought it down, brought it down and all of a sudden these solvents are creeping into people's well water and you know what happens? The state comes in and says you can't drink this and the people go, well, what am I supposed to do? And quite often the state has taken on the responsibility of providing bottled water.

Well, bottled water is okay to drink. Not so good if you want to take baths and do your dishes or take a shower, so these folks looked for solutions, and depending where the residences have been, I've had to fight, a fight that I've been happy to take on for my constituents, but to try to get the state to help fund the extension of town water to some very difficult areas because these poor people have been drinking bottled water and living off of bottled water provided by the state for four or five years, an untenable situation through no fault of their own.

And I'm proud to live in a state where eventually we do step up and take responsibility to help these folks out. Those are great success stories. Nothing's glamorous. You're not going to get a huge, occasionally there's some headlines when the bonding's finally authorized. So it's great if you can help 10 people out on a street that lost their water supply.

But, boy oh boy, you realize real quick how precious that is if all of a sudden it becomes an issue. Here's another one. You know, we had Hurricane Irene and then we had that sort of like three days before Halloween or Easter, Halloween storm, and for some reason, this is a couple years ago and you know, we had a late canopy. The trees for whatever reason, going into the end of October, that fall, and pretty much only that fall, they were just clinging to the trees.

At that time, I was digging into why that occurred and it had something to do with the amount of rainfall throughout the entire summer and going into that fall, but it was either too much or too little, or whatever it was, caused the trees to want to hold on to their leaves longer than normal. So when you couple that with the fact that we had snow way earlier than normal and it was heavy snow, because it wasn't that light, dry snow. It was that heavy, water bogged down snow, couple that with the canopy and then you had what we all remember as like, you know, the great power outage that just devastated an entire municipalities. Freaky. Weird. Hard to predict, you know, year to year.

One can debate, you know, a few days before, but the reason I reference that is that the power outage, and we'll set that aside, but people's wells needed the power to trip them and get them to operate, and what I didn't realize is that if so many days went by and those wells weren't energized, then they became not necessarily contaminated, but they needed to be decontaminated.

In other words, the water wasn't potable. I guess it was contaminated to some extent and that created a huge issue because when the power came back on, they couldn't get their water immediately because someone had to go out there and decontaminate their well.

And believe me, set aside getting the power back on and everything else related thereto except this, this is the point I want to make. And it's what your mom and dad told you when you're growing up. You never know how precious something is until it's gone.

And that's why I'm happy to support the amendment that becomes the bill because it protects that natural resource, which we may take for granted, but which is so precious and if it's gone, it is hard to recover and that's our water supply.

So for those reasons, Mr. President, I am happy to stand in strong support of the amendment, happy to be a co-sponsor of the amendment and feel that our public policy is not inconsistent in wanting to protect our precious water supply while at the same time recognizing that commercial interests will make sure that we get the natural gas that we so desire, that I think the process of a moratorium rather than an outright ban makes more sense.

I think that in 2018 going into 2019 the promulgation of regulations so that we know what the rules are going forward is appropriate, and again, I commend Senator Meyer and members of the Environment Committee for working hard on this issue.

For those reasons, Mr. President, I'm happy to support this amendment and would urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further? Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you very much, Mr. President, and I, too, rise in support of this amendment and in support of some of the comments that Senator Kissel made, though I wouldn't attach myself to every single one of them.

I want to say that I have supported this ban, which is controversial throughout the Capitol, I believe and maybe in my own Caucus particularly, since it was first proposed and I guess I'd say something that I've said before, I've alluded to before in other bills, which is, I'm tremendously distrustful of the many chemicals that are in our environment now that come at us from all different directions and concerned about the effects that they may be having on us and skeptical about our ability to actually make solid conclusions about the effects that these chemicals might have.

And I have to say something, I joke with my colleagues sometimes about feeling like an old man and talking about when I was a kid, but I am at that point in my life where I can look back 50 years now and remember the events of 50 years ago quite clearly.

And I'd have to say in particular, it seems to me that there's been a plague of cancer that has grown tremendously in my lifetime, grown in numbers, grown in virulence, grown in variety, grown in the age of onset, childhood cancers that I think were a thing unknown when I was a child myself and I can't help but think that it's because of the things that we've introduced into our environment, not particularly, not necessarily any one particular chemical, but possibly the combinations of the interactions that no scientists could ever entirely understand.

And I'd say in my own hometown of Southington, we had, we've had several areas of town that were poisoned over the years by the introduction of chemicals. In particular, out in the northern part of town what was once open fields where a chemical recovery business operated for many, many years, with a pond where the refuse was stored and treated, with always assurances that everything was under control, and as always is the case the assurances were fine until they weren't fine any longer.

Then in very short order the company was gone out of business and the town and the federal government were left with the poisons which remained, poisons sufficient to close one of the important wells we had for our own public water supply in Southington, and other such cases of destroying the land, threatening the water supply and putting things into our local environment that could be very hazardous to us.

The result of that is that I am very wary of accepting anybody's waste, a waste of any kind for any purpose that we don't have to accept. I don't, I think that our state can aspire to higher commercial functions than becoming a repository for waste. I don't think it's a good use of our natural resources. I don't think it's the best use of our human resources, either, and I feel that ultimately it's a threat and a thing that we won't regret until we've done it and can't undo it, and too many of these things we have done and have never been able to undo.

And finally, I'd say, in answer to something that some of my own colleagues have said about this, that because we receive the benefits of the processes, which make energy available to us, we then should be obliged to take on some of the poisons that are released in the production of this energy supply.

I would say that the places, which produce this energy have profited from the production of that energy. Certainly they have boom economies in North Dakota right now and I think it's certainly an improved economy in those parts of Pennsylvania to which Senator Kissel was alluding, t hat once upon a time dependent on coal and now may benefit from natural gas.

But let them have both the profits and the perils and let us keep our own land as pure as we can keep it and purer than we find it perhaps at this time. We put a lot of money into cleaning it up. I'd like to see us keep it clean.

And I guess I'd say, again, that that to my mind is a conservative position, that the things that are good, the things that are natural, ought to be maintained as such and should not be risked unless we're very sure of what we're getting and what we're getting into in the course of undertaking those risks.

I have a little more I want to say about energy policy in general, and not too much more, but if I might, I have a couple of questions for the sponsor of the amendment, which are pretty straightforward questions, I suspect questions he may have answered in the course of his afternoon, but having praised him for his patience in answering questions earlier, I'll invite him, through you, Mr. President, just for, I think just three quick questions.

And the first one is, for my own edification, I wonder if the procedure for the storage of waste, of this fracking waste could be explained briefly to me. In other words, how is it kept and what is the ultimate disposition of this waste? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Mr. President, we don't actually of course store any fracking waste in Connecticut and there is no fracking waste in Connecticut as far as we know, and this bill will put a moratorium on it.

But my understanding of how fracking waste is stored, it's stored in wells and very often within the wells it is immersed in clean water and try to decontaminate it and then recycle it, recycle the fracking waste. It goes back on the truck and goes back to the area that's doing the actual fracking of the shale.

So we've been concerned about, we actually have three wells in Connecticut that could be used for recycling of fracking waste and at the public hearing on this bill, people who were familiar with those three wells told us their concern because of the availability of these wells to store, your word, and recycle. So that's about as much as I know about storage of fracking waste.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. That's just what I was looking for in terms of an explanation.

And let me ask you a second question on something that's come up in the course of the conversation, which is the transportation of the fracking waste, through you, Mr. President.

Is it, I assume we're talking about trains and trucks and I ask the good Senator, through you, if there's anything else that I'm missing there?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

As far as I know, through you, Mr. President, fracking waste today, at least in the northeast, is done by truck, tanker, actually, because it's a liquid, so it's done by truck tankers and we had to deal with that issue in this bill because our LCO pointed out to us that we would be violating the Interstate Commerce Clause if we actually prohibited the transportation of fracking waste across the state of Connecticut.

And so in the bill you'll see there's nothing that refers to transportation or exporting or importing. We're not going to be able to interfere with fracking waste that's going say, from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Madam President and thank you, Senator Meyer.

And finally, I've heard discussion of the possibility of this waste being used for road de-icing and I would just ask, through you, Madam President, if Senator Meyer is aware of any other potential commercial use for this waste?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, and good evening. Nice to have you back.

THE CHAIR:

So great to be here.

SENATOR MEYER:

Really?

THE CHAIR:

Yeah.

SENATOR MEYER:

What was the question?

SENATOR MARKLEY:

I would say, I was wondering if there was any other commercial use for the waste besides the possible use to de-ice the roads as has been mentioned.

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes, through you, Madam President, I have talked to our agency about that and you'll see that the bill deals with one product of fracking waste and that is de-icing materials, but we do not have any information right now about any other byproducts of fracking waste and so we're not really, at this point in this bill, regulating any other byproducts because we don't know if any exist.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Senator Meyer for those answers. And I'll just say a few more words generally, about energy policy without going through the history of the process.

I'll say about the history of the process, you know. It is one of the great stories in American history, the development of the petroleum industry and the impact that it had on us. And it's funny to think back to the fact that once upon a time we were sending men out on ocean voyages to catch whales, to get the sperm oil out of the whales, which was the main source of the oil for illumination, and it was to replace that oil produced by whales that petroleum was first put to use here in the United States in the mid nineteenth century.

And as Senator Kissel mentioned, initially in Pennsylvania, which is why we have Pennzoil and Quaker State and so forth and oil that was practically bubbling right out of the earth. I mean, there were areas in Pennsylvania that were essentially marshes because the oil was so close to the surface, and it was not immediate, but within not too many years that with the development of the internal combustion engine a greater use, a greater demand, an almost insatiable demand for that oil was created and enormous supplies of the oil were found of course in Texas and Oklahoma and other places throughout the United States and throughout the world in the Middle East above all.

And it might be one of the great facts of the 20th century, the sudden availability of an extremely cheap and efficient form of energy, and I think it's a fact that has fooled us in a certain way.

We have had 100 years of a kind of an economic boom that has been fueled by energy that was very, very easy for us to get at and what happened as a result of that is we have restructured the whole way that we live.

Remember that a suburb is something that never existed in human history until the 20th century. You lived in the city. A few people lived in the city. The vast majority of the people lived in the country but no, there was no intermediate zone and there was no great transportation system to move people from one place to another.

With that transportation came the spreading of our residences across the landscape and it's so much a part of our society that I don't think we can see how unusual it is.

But we have just about squeezed, in my opinion, the toothpaste out of this particular tube. We have used up the oil, a great percentage of the oil which is easy for us to get at, and the very fact that we're engaged in a process like fracking shows that we're down to getting the last bit of it out.

We're very ingenious, but I think we kid ourselves if we think that there's a replacement for the petroleum that we found so easily and which we depended on, we have depended on so heavily.

And I think that again, in the sense of speaking about being conservative, I think one thing you'd say if you're conservative is, I'd just as soon not use up the last bits of something. I'm not in a hurry to say, okay, we've got the last barrel out of the ground and we've put it into the back end of our SUV. I would almost feel better if I knew there was a little bit of it left, because I think we're at a point in our history where we're going to have to transition back to a more traditional structure for our society.

And I think part of that will be the resurrection of our cities. The cities didn't exist there by chance. The cities existed where they did because there was power in the form of water power to run mills. There was transportation. There was a natural transportation system, and that's why all the cities ended up where they did.

And I think the other thing about it is that I think some of us have discovered, I think the rising generation has discovered the advantages to city life, that a city doesn't have to be a grim place. A city doesn't have to be unsuccessful, that a city can be a vibrant, social place.

And I think that the day is going to come when the trend to the suburbs will really reverse itself and that we might go back to closer to where we were and in doing so, use much less energy than we're currently using.

I think if we're wise, we will move in that direction under our own power and if we're not, events will force us in that direction.

But I don't believe there's a miracle solution. I don't think we can count on science to come up with a fuel cell or a solar panel or a wind turbine or anything else which is so efficient that it can replace this marvelous petroleum product that we have depended on for so long.

So, I'm saying if we know the resource is limited, I hope we don't use up the final drops, and if, in getting those last drops off, we produce hazardous waste, I certainly hope we don't bring them to the state of Connecticut and for that reason, Madam President, I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Good evening, Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Good evening, Madam President. Welcome back. We've had a very interesting and informative debate over the last few hours. Senator Markley, I thank you for your comments and also Senator Kissel I think had a lot to say. I think now affectionately known as JK1.

I rise to support this bill, or this amendment, I guess I should say. When you talk to constituents, when you hear from people about this issue right now in Connecticut, you really hear one of two things.

One is, you absolutely have to ban this stuff, it's horrible stuff. We can't let it into our state.

And the other side is, what are you guys doing in Hartford? You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet because there is no fracking waste in Hartford and it's, you know, Connecticut, and it's not going to come any time soon.

And those are really the two sides, and what we have here, I think is a happy, I shouldn't say happy, I think a well thought out meeting. I've done a lot of mediations in my life. I still do mediations. I participate on either side, and sometimes I'm the one actually mediating, and there's a saying in the mediation industry and that is, when nobody's happy you have a good deal, and I think either sides of those equation that we just talked about aren't really jumping up and down about the amendment we have before us.

But this amendment really is, I think, a measured response to a problem that if we're not facing now we might well be facing in the future, and I don't think I need to go into the parade of horribles that potentially exist with some of this waste because I think Senator Markley and Senator Kissel both underscored what some of the potential problems are, and they both, I think went in thoughtfully to the history we're experiencing the humanity today of all sorts of problems with cancers, allergies and everybody scratching their heads saying, how is this happening? Where is this coming from?

Now we can't definitively say it's coming from fracking waste, but it's in essence a question that needs to be answered. How bad can this stuff be and that's exactly what we're going to hopefully had an answer within a few years and a response as to how to deal with this waste.

I heard a lot about the Commerce Clause question. It was something that was essentially a concern of mine. I have, sitting here listening to this debate, at least come up with one hypothetical that might potentially cause a problem. I don't think it's something that we need to address with legislation before us, but I think it's something we need to be sensitive to because if a lawsuit were to come down the road and we haven't necessarily addressed the potential of the situation, we might have a problem with this law.

And although the bill no longer mentions transportation or transporting through, we do have a definition of transfer and that definition of transfer means to move from one vehicle to another or to move from one mode of transportation to another. So, I think on its face is fine. I can conceive of a situation where, let's say some of these chemicals are coming through Connecticut either on rail or on truck and something happens. The truck breaks down. Rail breaks down. We need to get a new engine. We need to get a new rig in. We need to essentially move the fracking waste from one vehicle to another or move it from one mode of transportation to another.

God forbid that's ever going to happen, but on the remote chance it does, that company could run afoul of the statute that we have before us, therefore, there might be a legitimate challenge to the statute that we have before us. Nonetheless, I don't think it's anything we can fix today.

With that said, I do have one question for the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Madam President. As I understand the bill, we are imposing a moratorium. The moratorium is going to last for a finite period of time and during that finite period of time DEEP is going to essentially do one of two, or three things.

They're going to eliminate, they're going to deal with the issue of hazardous waste in statute, in regulation.

They're going to ensure that any radioactive materials that may be present in waste from hydraulic fracking do not create, or will not reasonably be expected, et cetera and then require disclosure of composition.

Now, I've tried to give some thought to the answer of this question and I'm not sure that I have it, but under the three charges we give DEEP, will DEEP be able to kind of come back and through the regulations, essentially ban fracking waste in the state of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, the intent here is not a ban. The intent here is to find out what is toxic and what may not be toxic and under what circumstances there's a danger to the citizens of Connecticut, and therefore to regulate it.

Madam President, I think Senator Welch knows that there was a bill to ban this fracturing waste and we made an ultimate decision that we were not going to ban at this time because we didn't know enough about it. Therefore, we were going to research it, study it and put a moratorium why we did all that.

So the spirit of the bill, Senator Welch is not to ban it, but to regulate it and to prepare regulations that are in the letter and spirit of the three paragraphs, three numbers here that you referred to starting in line 41.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer for that answer. That's kind of what I was reading into it. I did get a little bit concerned about the section on radioactivity, whether or not the language we have in there would allow DEEP to actually impose a ban themselves. I didn't see it, but it was a concern so I'm very glad to hear that what we're saying today is essentially that's not within the purview of what we're asking DEEP to do.

We're asking them to regulate this, not ban it, and so I appreciate that answer. Thank you, Senator Meyer.

That was the only question that I had for you. Again, Madam President, I think this is a good solution to understanding what the potential problems are and coming up with even further remedies to make sure that the people of the state of Connecticut be open space, the lands of the state of Connecticut, our water supply as Senator Kissel and Senator Markley talked about, remain intact, remain in potable situation so that we can continue to use it, use it healthfully and not have any adverse effects.

So thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Kane? McLachlan for the second time.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

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

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer, I've been listening carefully to the debate this afternoon and evening, and there's a question that I have as it relates to specific language in the bill that refers to, in line 47 to eliminate the exemption in the state's hazardous waste management regulations and then it refers to federal regulation. That federal regulation 40CFR Part 261. 4(b)5.

Through you, Madam President, that particular federal regulation is where you and I were talking earlier about EPA stating that hydraulic fracturing wastes are not hazardous wastes. And so, could you tell me, what is the impact of the language at Lines 47 to 51 in the amendment?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Okay, through you, Madam President. The federal CFR reference here is to a federal regulation that regulates different forms of energy, crude oil, natural gas and so forth, and right now the, what would be fracking waste is exempt from that regulation.

And what this bill does in part is, it eliminates that exemption so that fracking waste and natural gas will be subject to the Connecticut's hazardous waste management practices.

I think earlier today you may have been in the Chamber. We explained and I was helped by staff in this, that our hazardous waste regulations in part emanate from the federal government and we adopted, we adopted those regulations in Connecticut, but those regulations actually exempt different forms of energy including natural gas and this bill if it's passed and signed into law would end the exemption so that it would be, fracking waste would be subject to the regulations.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Meyer. Senator, can you share with us where else in state regulation and statute that we eliminate whatever federal regulation applies as it regards to environmental protection? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, I'm informed by our good staff person that we do that exemption with respect to hazardous waste, we do it with respect to air quality as another example of where we've done that.

THE CHAIR:

Senator McLachlan.

SENATOR MCLACHLAN:

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. Appreciate you calling on me. We know that this discussion has been ongoing for a good portion of the day. Unfortunately, I was out of the Chamber for some of that and was unable to get a lot of it.

But this issue came to me in my own district when Representative O'Neill and I held a town hall meeting, open house, whatever term we typically use in this Body when we hold in office hours in our own district, and out in Roxbury we had a full house, and I would say we probably had 75 or 80 people come to town hall to talk about legislative issues, the budget, taxes, you know, the kind of things that all of us tend to relate to and tend to have conversations with our constituents.

But a large group of people, mostly from the Town of Washington, a large group came and wanted to talk about fracking and fracking waste and the original bill that was before the Environment Committee and I learned a great deal that evening from advocates of this bill and since then have had many conversations with people on both sides of the aisle, especially members of our Caucus.

And of course I've had conversations with some lobbyists and some advocates and it's been quite an interesting experience and education.

Still not 100 percent clear on everything in the bill and of course in the underlying Amendment that we've been debating for a good period of time, so if I may, through you, I'd like to pose a couple of questions to Senator Meyer if he'll indulge me.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Meyer, it's certainly, we know we're on an Amendment that is changing the underlying bill and moving away from just a total ban, which was suggested in the committee process to this moratorium that we're going to debate now.

Is, and I understand that I think it's 2017 is the year that DEEP, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection will come back with some kind of study. Correct me if I'm wrong on that part and the reason being, is that because this currently is not an issue in the state of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I don't understand what the issue is he's talking about.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane, will you reframe?

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President, I will. Meaning a) the issue of fracking number one, and number two, the issue of fracking waste? Through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I've been asked that question for four hours today and is the Chair ruling that I have to answer it for the fourth or the fifth time?

THE CHAIR:

Sir, I'd ask you to answer it as best as you can, as quick as you can.

SENATOR MEYER:

Because the repetitiveness of this debate is becoming shocking here with the time that we need to help the people of the state of Connecticut, so I will answer it again.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir.

SENATOR MEYER:

Wondering about the purpose and motivation of these repeatedly same questions.

THE CHAIR:

I don't think you answer the motivation, sir.

SENATOR MEYER:

This bill comes to us, Senator, because of high scientific evidence as acknowledged by most of the members of the Circle including members of your party, that fracking waste is highly toxic. It's a carcinogenic. It interferes with birth. It interferes with endocrinology that has caused water contamination, at least in the State of Pennsylvania and it's something that we should regulate. That's the basis.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. When I stood up, Senator Meyer, I mentioned that although this has been a lengthy debate that has taken place, I was not necessarily in the Chamber for that entire time, so when I asked the question it's not that I choose to be repetitive with you. I do not. I literally just mentioned that I held a town hall meeting in the Town of Roxbury with Representative O'Neill and 75 to 80 people showed up and a good majority of them were there on this issue, on fracking.

So I listened to my constituents. I listened to the advocates. I listened to lobbyists. I listened to members of our Caucus and I stood here and I asked the question that I thought was important to me and my constituency.

You know, and then quite honestly, sir, you didn't answer my question because my question was, is the issue of fracking and fracking waste an issue in the state of Connecticut? I didn't ask about chemicals. I didn't ask about what it does to children. I didn't ask any of those things. I just asked if it was an issue in the state of Connecticut. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, the answer to the question is yes.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir.

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. So there is fracking that takes place in the state of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Through you, Madam President, the answer is no.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

And is there fracking waste being deposited here in the state of Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, the answer to that is no, as far as we know.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

So my initial question was, is it an issue in Connecticut and you said yes and when I said do we have fracking you said no, do we have fracking waste, you said no. So maybe you could explain to me the issue then? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I think I explained to Senator Kane a few moments ago that this is an issue because we want to be safe rather than sorry. If this material comes into Connecticut from New York as could happen this fall, we would be, we believe we would very likely be endangering the health and safety of the residents of Connecticut and that's based upon extensive studies of fracking waste that shows it's toxic in a number of respects.

First, because it's radioactive. Secondly, because it has extensive bromides in it and third, because the metals have become toxic. So for all those reasons, we're trying to regulate this through a moratorium process, and that's why it's an issue in the country, including the State of Connecticut.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. And so the change in this bill through the amendment does not create a ban as to what the underlying bill sought. It is now a moratorium on the issue so we can study it or DEEP can study it until 2017 and I believe they have to come back to the Regulations Review Committee, if I'm correct, and I serve on the Regulations Review Committee, so I'm curious as to how the Regulations Review Committee will act upon the report from DEEP. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I, the bill really speaks for itself, but the last part of the question by Senator Kane is, what will the Regulations Review Committee will do, I'm sure they'll act responsibly and they'll look at the recommendations of the regulations that have been approved by DEEP and they will decide whether or not to approve those regulations. It will give us the safety of a second chance by the Legislature through its Regulations Review Committee and I think that kind of oversight makes good sense.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. No, I obviously I know that. I just wanted to understand if regulations will be put forth by the agency, will it conclude that a ban is necessary or we still don't know that because their studying of this issue still needs to take place? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I'm going to ask you to rule that question out of order. That's been asked and answered and is confusing both.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease for a moment.

(Chamber at ease. )

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

As annoying as it is, let me try to answer it.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

For maybe the tenth time. What the bill does is, it creates a regulatory process, a regulatory process that we use a great deal in our state, and that regulatory process starts with a study and research by our relevant agency here, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection to determine whether or not hydraulic fracking waste and the byproduct of de-icers and any other byproducts with which we're not familiar now, whether any of those are a danger to our citizens either from radioactivity or from any other injurious result or effect of these materials.

And the bill directs DEEP to arrive at those regulations by no later than July 1, 2018 and the bill also says that there will be a moratorium on it doing those regulations until July 1, 2017.

So the citizens of Connecticut are protected for the next three years while the agency is looking at this issue. When and if DEEP approves its regulations, it will then submit them to our Legislative Regulations Review Committee and it will do what it has done for a long time and that is review, approve or modify or amend the regulations by the agency.

And what the framers of this bill are trying to do and the Environment Committee is trying to do is have some legislative oversight. While we have confidence in DEEP, we want to be sure that there is some legislative oversight and the Legislative Regulations Review Committee has the expertise, we believe, to review with confidence, these regulations.

So the question then has become, what if Regulations Review does not approve, well the clear implication of the bill is that the moratorium will stay in place until regulations have been adopted by the agency and approved by Regs Review.

And you know, the Connecticut General Assembly is in Session every year and if developments occur which might happen in this emerging field, we will be able to adjust within a rule of reason, and that means, that seems to make some sense.

And so, Madam President, what there is in this bill is a balance, and it's a concept of better safe than sorry. The Governor and the Environment Committee have strongly supported this initiative. We believe that we're protecting the good people of Connecticut in this manner but at the same time we're recognizing that in a regulated manner there could be some positive economic activity here, and we want to preserve that possibility as well.

And that, Madam President, is why the Environment Committee and those of us who are advocating this bill did not go with a ban. We had a choice between a ban on the one hand and a regulation on the other and the ban bill was actually approved, Madam President, by large numbers in the Environment Committee and Judiciary Committee. The ban bill was approved in the Environment Committee as I recall about 25 to 5 and in the Judiciary, larger Judiciary Committee, the ban bill was approved by about 35 to 5. But at the same time we're taking a more moderate approach here, what some people view as a more pro business approach here that will protect the people of Connecticut but at the same time leave open the possibility of something that could be a positive economic activity.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. I will. Thank you, Madam President, and I'm sorry that Senator Meyer is annoyed, to use his words of my questioning, but I represent 100,000 people, just like you do, Senator Meyer and I have that opportunity, being a member of the State Senate to ask those questions for my constituents like any other member.

I thank you for answering that question because you finally did by saying that if Regulations Review doesn't approve the regs, then the moratorium continues, and that's actually the answer I was looking for.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, that's an answer I've given for four hours and this Senator not being in the Chamber --

THE CHAIR:

Senator.

Senator Meyer, thank you. Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Madam President. I do believe I have the floor. I did mention that I did have a town hall meeting in the Town of Roxbury and a number of constituents came and spoke to me about this issue and as a matter of fact, I'm a co-sponsor on the underlying bill, so I do believe that this is a good piece of legislation. I will be voting in favor of it, but had some important questions that I needed to have answered and I think it's important to have this type of dialogue when we're passing legislation, so I will be voting in favor of the underlying Amendment and the bill and I thank you, Madam President, for your time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I would yield to Senator Meyer for the purpose of an Amendment that I think he has in the file, which I think he intends on --

THE CHAIR:

I'm sorry. We're on Senate "A," sir.

SENATOR FASANO:

Well, I apologize.

THE CHAIR:

Me too.

SENATOR FASANO:

All right, thank you. I will save it for later.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. If there's no more comment, Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote? Oh, hold on.

I made a mistake. We'll try it for a voice vote on Senate "A. " All those in favor please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate "A" passes. Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of one small amendment, which is LCO 5103. May it please be called and I be given permission to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO Number 5103, Senate "B" offered by Senators Meyer and Fasano.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I move it and ask permission to summarize.

THE CHAIR:

Motion is on adoption. Will you remark?

SENATOR MEYER:

Yes. Colleagues, this amendment to Section B of the bill is the actual amending the new language is at the bottom of, is on line 13 and Line 14 and it adds the words as applicable.

And what happened was that when we made fracking waste subject to our hazardous waste management regulations, there was a question as to what part of those regulations related to fracking waste and our LCO said that there were some, that the amount of current hazardous waste management waste regulations were so extensive that there was a question as to what portion of those regs related to hazardous, I'm sorry, to hydraulic fracturing waste.

And so, we added these words so that DEEP as it prepared regulations, would be able to apply the appropriate part of the existing hazardous waste regulations and would give without specificity, would allow it to make applicable those part of the existing regulations, which would properly relate to our fracking waste materials. So that's the purpose here and I appreciate Senator Fasano bringing it to our attention and I'm pleased to join with him in this proposed Amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark? Senator Fasano. Good evening, sir.

SENATOR FASANO:

Good evening, Madam President.

Madam President, I want to thank Senator Meyer for, and Representative Albis, for working on adding this language to this amendment to make the bill a better bill. I think this goes a long way and I support the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? If not, I'll try your minds on Senate "B. " All those in favor please say aye.

SENATORS:

Aye.

THE CHAIR:

Opposed? Senate "B" passes. Senator Fasano.

SENATOR FASANO:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I know this debate has been long and I will be relatively short. Senator Meyer, I do not have any questions for you, so you can stand at ease.

Madam President, although I understand fracking material is something we should be concerned about based upon not knowing what it is that's out there, and understanding the significance of that.

But here's the issue that I raise as we look at this issue and go forward. It was only five or six years ago this General Assembly was up in arms because we were going to put broad water in the middle of Long Island Sound. Broad water was a natural liquid, natural gas tanker, if you would, permanently parked in the middle of Long Island Sound and we were afraid of that liquid natural gas being parked there forever with pipelines going to the harbor. Rightly so.

However, there was a, or many Legislators who wanted that to happen because our natural gas prices have gone so high that the ability to provide energy, heat, and electricity to the State of Connecticut was in jeopardy based upon high prices.

And the resolution was to use this liquid natural gas facility. That's how desperate we were six years ago. It was going to happen but for a task force, but for New York and others who got together to fight this, but that was a serious alternative because the price was so high.

Madam President, what has happened between now and then? Energy is the lifeblood of our society. Energy, I would argue, is the lifeblood of humanity at this point. We have computers. We have cell phones. We use more electricity now than ever before.

So if that price goes up, it affects everybody, no matter where you are in the economy, no matter what business you have. So, we need to keep the prices low.

They went out and they figured out one way of doing this is through fracking. I don't know a darned think about fracking. I've heard about it here. I've researched it. I've got a general broad concept, but I don't get it, but I know the results are, it has opened up reserves of natural gas, which will allow us to drop the price of natural gas below that of oil.

So now let's look at our alternatives for energy. We have nuclear, pluses and minuses. We've got oil, pluses and minuses. We've got natural gas, pluses and minuses.

I think we all agree we need something, and I think we don't want to be dependent upon foreign nations and the gas that the fuel pipeline coming through the country, whether that happens or not, there's environmental issues there, but we need energy and we're going to get it, whether we're going to pay a lot for it and not control our destiny or not, we're going to get it.

So I think we have to look at fracking, but we have to look at it in the context of unfortunately, something has to give. Purity as a result cannot work.

We either are going to be dependent upon a foreign nation to give us oil, or we're going to allow the pipeline to go through the center of the country, or we're going to allow to drill oil in areas we may not want to drill, or we're going to allow fracking, or we're going to allow liquid natural gas. We're going to allow something, because if you don't, we're going to have a problem with the high prices that we can't afford and we've seen what happens.

I'm not saying fracking's good. I'm not saying fracking's bad. But what I am saying, the holistic view, we can't look at fracking and say, we don't want it because it's bed. We need to look and say, we don't want it. We don't like it. This is the quantifiable problem, but if we use oil, here are the problems, let's quantify that. If we use nuclear, here's the problems. Let's quantify that.

Hate to say it, we do have to pick our poison. That is the way life is going to be and we have to recognize that. And I know there's a lot of people that it doesn't ring true with. Solar and wind are good energy options, but in all candor, they're not the most efficient, economic options with respect to businesses and high tech.

So, I just throw a word of caution when we look at this. It needs to be looked at, but we have to look at it holistically when this all comes back to us three years from now.

So, Madam President, I'm going to support the bill as is amended, but my concern is that whoever is here at the time that all this gets shaked out, that we look at these options. Because if I'm a state and I'm accepting fracking, and I'm being paid by the gas company to accept the fracking, someone's going to pay for that cost. Someone's going to pay for that cost for another state to accept it. So we have to look at all this. We have to protect our constituents and our businesses against high prices.

All that has to be thrown into a mix. Madam President, I thank you for your time.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? If not, Senator Meyer? Senator Meyer.

SENATOR MEYER:

Madam President, I want to apologize for being a little intemperate there after a long debate. Maybe it's my age.

THE CHAIR:

I gathered, sir. It's the time.

SENATOR MEYER:

I want to apologize to my colleagues about that. It's been a good debate, a good give and take. I think we've learned more through the debate and it looks to me as though there may be a strong consent to this. Could this bill pass by consent, Madam President?

THE CHAIR:

Seeing no objection, it's going on the Consent Calendar.

Okay, Mr. Clerk. Oh, Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, if we might stand at ease for just a moment, preparing the next Go item.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease, sir.

(Chamber at ease. )

SENATOR LOONEY:

Mr. President.

(Senator Duff in the Chair. )

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come back to order.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Yes, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

Thank you, Mr. President, for an item that we will mark. Earlier in the day I said we were going to mark some additional go items and that additional go item, the first of those items at this time is Calendar page 29, Calendar Number 537, House Bill 5051.

If the Clerk would call that item and we will take that up as the next item.

THE CHAIR:

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

On Page 29, Calendar 537, Substitute for House Bill Number 5051 AN ACT IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF NURSING HOME OPERATIONS. Favorable Report of the Committee on Human Services. There are amendments.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Good evening, Senator.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

THE CHAIR:

On acceptance and passage in concurrence. Will you remark, madam?

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

Yes, thank you, Mr. President. This bill will require increased transparency in financial reporting for for-profit nursing homes, which receive state funding. It would require homes to include as a part of their required annual cost report filed with the state, that it be most recent profit and loss statement for any related party of the home, which has received $ 50,000 or more a year from the nursing home for goods, fees charged to the home by related parties and services.

A related party is defined in the bill.

The goal of the bill is to ensure the protection of the increasingly frail and the vulnerable population of nursing home residents in the state by giving the state an earlier and more accurate picture of the financial solvency of the homes and their greater entities and that the annual cost reports on which the state payment to the homes are actually based on an accurate picture of the home's finances.

According to the Office of Policy and Management, the state spends approximately $ 1. 6 billion on nursing home care for state residents, and the additional data that is required under this bill will ensure that the state has on hand an accurate picture of the homes' finances.

Although the vast majority of nursing homes in our state operate ethically and with great attention to the residents in their care, there have been many instances of concern, and the state's successful efforts to transition nursing home residents to home care means that the great majority of those residents remaining in nursing homes are frail, elderly, dependent, desperate in need of protection and the transparency bill before us is a means to ensure that state funds are being spent wisely and nursing home residents are protected.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. A little out of order here. I was hoping our ranking member would be available to start the debate on this bill but he's not in the Chamber at this time.

In light of that, I do have a number of questions, and I think the first question that I have is more philosophical and rather than technical. I do have a bunch of technical questions as well.

And that is, how, what I understand this bill to be doing is essentially requiring a profit and loss statement with an annual reporting, and I guess philosophically the question I have is, why is that needed as you say, Senator Slossberg, to ensure healthcare for the elderly population that might be within this home. Through you, Madam President, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

Thank you. Through you, Mr. President, what is required under this bill is that if a related party to a nursing home is paying, if the nursing is paying a related party more than $ 50,000 a year, that related entity must submit to the nursing home and the nursing home would then submit with their annual cost report, a profit and loss statement.

And the purpose of this is that with the changes in the corporate structure of nursing homes nowadays, we're seeing many related entities and different corporate structures where it's very easy to shift assets from the nursing home to those related entities, and by being able to see the profit and loss statement from those related entities, we're able to determine the financial health of the nursing home as a system.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I apologize for any confusion I may have. But when you say, well let me back up. What is a related party? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR WELCH:

Yes. A related party is defined in the bill. It's in the first section, Section a, and it's defined in the bill as a company related to a chronic convalescent nursing home through family association, common ownership, control or business association with any of the owners, operators or officials of the nursing home.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Okay. So if I am the owner of a for-profit nursing home and I have a son that owns a landscaping business, would that landscaping business be a related party? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR WELCH:

Through you, Mr. President, if that landscaping business is being paid by the nursing home more than $ 50,000 a year, that answer is yes.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. And actually, I see that our ranking member has entered the Chamber, and if it's appropriate, I would like to yield my time to Senator Markley.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley, do you accept the yield?

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Yes, I will, thank you, Mr. President. And I suppose I will allow Senator Slossberg to sit down for a moment if she'd like to and when I get to the questions, I'll ask her to spring to again.

So, and you know, I have to say this is a bill that I've thought about a good deal and we've dealt with a good deal in the Human Services Committee. I haven't really considered too deeply what I was going to say about it, and I don't know that I have anything to talk about in great depth about it, but this.

Let me start by saying, let me start by saying something that's been obvious to anyone who's been observing the Human Services Committee, which I feel like we had a very good Session together, enjoyed working together on many issues, and I believe this bill is quite possibly the only bill that came out of Human Services that I voted against, and yet it was a very emphatic no on this particular bill.

And the reason is, as I think Senator Welch was beginning to explore, I feel that it is unwarranted interference in private industry, and I think one which creates a very dangerous precedent.

So to recap to some extent was Senator Slossberg was saying, the concern is that a nursing home, which has to report already all its various costs of doing business to the state, and which has to report the cost of ancillary businesses, which are directly involved in supplying the nursing home, that in addition to this, the nursing home would have to disclose profit and loss statements concerning other associated businesses throughout the country.

And let me say first of all, one of the strongest things I can say against this bill is that when it came before us last Session, the commissioner of the Department of Social Services opposed it and he said, the information was not necessary and that the department was not really in a position to take advantage of it and I think that's a very, and I invite Senator Slossberg when she gets back up to correct me on any incidentals that I might be wrong about because it's entirely possible that I am and I have confidence in her recollection of all these events.

But it seems to me that that in itself is something that should raise a caution flag for us.

The second thing about it is that this information, upon being obtained by the state, would then be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, so even if we admit that there's a state interest and in this year's testimony, the commissioner said the state's interest in this was essentially to find out whether corporations were fiscally sound or not, and whether there was a concern for, that needed to be addressed by the department that might be disclosed through this information being made available about associated industries.

If we admit that that's the case, to my mind that is an issue which is only of interest to the State of Connecticut and to the Department of Social Services. It's not necessary that anybody else be able to look into the books of this private corporation.

There's all kinds of information, which the state receives for its own purposes, and legitimately so and as government functions nowadays, which we expect will be kept confidential.

I would say that the first thing that comes to mind is our own personal income taxes. We have to disclose that to the government. It certainly is intrusive in a certain sense, but we do it with the guarantee that nobody else has access to that.

Would people take it if they could? Yes, I think they would. I think some constituent or some ambitious politician or some digging journalist would say, let me take a look at Senator Meyer's income tax returns and see if there's anything interesting in there. I'd start with Senator Meyer, that's why.

And yet you'd say, that is simply, it's random digging. There's no public policy purpose served by making that material available to people.

And that, I think also applies to corporate tax returns, corporate statements of all kinds. I don't want to lean on this notion of the person or the corporations which I for myself am not entirely comfortable with.

But I would still say, insofar as they have legitimate interests and they have legitimate and eager competitors, that for them to disclose this material is potentially a dangerous thing to them.

And for that purpose, let me start by proposing, by calling an amendment, which the Clerk has. It's LCO Number 5419.

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk.

THE CLERK:

LCO Number 5419, Senate "A," offered by Senator Markley.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, that is one of only two amendments that I believe we have filed, so you're not going to have a long night unless something changes quickly, at least as far as calling amendments goes.

I would move adoption of the amendment, Mr. President, ask the reading be waive and beg leave to comment further.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator. On adoption. Will you remark, sir?

SENATOR MARKLEY:

I might as well say while I'm thinking of it to, that I ask that there be a roll call vote on it, yes.

This Amendment is very simple. It simply inserts one line, such profit and loss reports, which is what would have to be provided by the nursing homes, shall be exempt from disclosure under Section 1-210, essentially to say that this information will be protected from Freedom of Information requests and be reserved to the department, which has indicated this Session that they could make use of it in certain instances.

And I'll be interested, let me say, to hear what Senator Slossberg has to say in response to it because I respect her opinion and very much respect her powers of argument and persuasion.

But I honestly believe that this is a completely appropriate protection for these corporations, which simply addresses the danger, which is inherent in this bill without preventing the gathering of any information that anyone could imagine would be important for the State Department of Social Services to have.

So for those of you who have had hesitations about this, because certainly this is a bill that has been the subject of consideration attention and considerable, and intense lobbying over the last few days especially, I believe that this addresses what the nursing homes are the most concerned about, and I think it still satisfies what the state ostensibly presents as the purpose of the bill.

And I think that if we are honest in our intent in this bill, that there's no reason that this amendment cannot be adopted to thus guarantee the privacy of corporations.

And let me say finally, that I hate the establishment of precedence. I think it's important that corporations be able to keep things private that have traditionally been private, that they have reasons to wish to have private and if this can be done to nursing homes, we establish a precedent that can be established to other corporations which do considerable government business.

And of course, this is one of the problems we have in the expansion of government. Not simply the expense that's involved and the fact that we have to support it, but the fact that we begin to have a governmental interest in private behavior, and it's hard not to see that interest, but I think it's important that that interest not simply overwhelm the issues of privacy, both personal and corporate that we're all sensitive to.

To say that because, well, to talk about an example that came before us a few weeks ago because government has an interest in keeping us healthy, a fiscal interest, not simply a moral interest, let's say. It also has an interest in what kind of milk children drink or whatever.

It's a slippery slope to some extent. All of our life here in Hartford at the Capitol is lived on a slippery slope, but I don't want to slip any further down the slope than I have to and I think this represents a very dangerous jump, which this amendment would prevent.

So I urge its adoption and look forward to hearing the causes that might prevent its adoption. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Slossberg.

SENATOR SLOSSBERG:

Thank you, Mr. President. And before I rise in opposition to this amendment, respectfully, I'd just like to share the mutual experience, the feelings that it has been an incredibly wonderful Session on Human Services and I have enjoyed immensely working with Senator Markley.

We've had some wonderful discussions and worked collaboratively on every Human Service bill with everything that we have done for the people of the state of Connecticut and it's been a pleasure and I respect Senator Markley's opinion greatly and we have gone around on this issue and this bill for many, many months and sadly we come to a different place and a different conclusion, but nonetheless with all the respect in the world for the position that Senator Markley is offering.

So with that said, I rise in opposition to this amendment before us. Primarily, you know, we are talking about nursing homes that receive significant taxpayer dollars. The nursing home industry is paid over $ 1. 6 billion taxpayer dollars that we are the stewards of, and I believe that under those circumstances the public has a right to know and a need to know where those dollars are being spent and how they are being spent especially because what we are doing is, we are paying the nursing homes to care for some of our most frail and needy and vulnerable citizens.

And I would just, you know, bring to the attention of the Circle here that it is so important. You know, while we submit documents to the government, sometimes the government doesn't figure it all out and so in 2007 is a perfect example where we had a nursing home that was transferring dollars to the CEO and it wasn't the Department of Social Services that figured it out, it was actually the newspaper that broke the scandal and had those documents and that information been available, had it not been available to the public, then we would never have known all of the problems that would have occurred.

So we are all, need to be vigilant in terms of the information and the dollars that are spent as, you know, people recognize our cost reports that are filed by the nursing homes currently are open to the public and people are able to see them.

This is, with the change in corporate structure, those related party entities where they are making significant dollars, transfers of assets and transfers of dollars, that money has to be able to be followed and we need to be able to see where that goes.

So I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think the public has a need to know and a right to know.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Welch.

SENATOR WELCH:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of this amendment. I think Senator Slossberg made a point that we give a lot of money to these companies, but this bill isn't just about those companies.

This bill is about so much more than those companies and exempting this kind of information, if the state is going to possess it, I think is important, exempting from FOI, I think is important for two reasons.

The first is that very reason Senator Markley talked about and that is that is the corporation's right to privacy, which I think is valid and I think it's something that we ought to be concerned about.

The second is the erosion of FOI itself. If we get to the point where the State of Connecticut is just gathering more and more and more information, information about us, information about companies, information about transactions and all of this information is disclosable, at some point, at some point in time the doors of open government are going to close because a society cannot function with that much non-governmental disclosure, that much disclosure of private information and I think it's going to cause the very purposes that we have FGI to swallow FOI itself.

And frankly, if we are truly concerned about the things we're truly concerned about, things we're saying we're truly concerned about now, and that is, the viability and the integrity of these nursing care institutions, which are receiving state funds, we already have the information we need to make sure, to make sure that that's the case, that they're not inappropriately spending our money. They are already subject to so many regulations and disclosure requirements.

In fact, Senator Slossberg said it herself. A newspaper reporter uncovered information about a bad actor. We didn't need this law. We didn't need this law to make that happen. It happened on its own, and that's a good thing, and that's a very good thing.

But to now ask for profit and loss information and essentially unrelated companies that have contracts with nursing care facilities, to require that information to be held by the State of Connecticut and then available to every single person on earth that essentially asks for it is incredible.

And that's why I think Senator Markley's Amendment is appropriate. It's measured. It protects the very institutions that have this information, are concerned about disclosing it because they're afraid of it going everywhere and yet it allows the State of Connecticut to accomplish at least our stated goals here today of making sure that the healthcare, the nursing homes remain viable and with integrity. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, Senator.

Senator Kane.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise for a couple of questions to the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR KANE:

Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Markley, the nursing homes that we're speaking of in the underlying bill and subsequently in your Amendment, are they publicly held companies? Through you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Slossberg or Senator Markley?

SENATOR KANE:

Senator Markley, the proponent of the amendment.

THE CHAIR:

Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Markley.

SENATOR MARKLEY:

Thank you, Mr. President, through you. I think that as a matter, as a practical matter, they may be in all cases, but I don't know that they would have to be. I suppose there may be some combination