THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

(The House of Representatives was called to order at 10: 30 o'clock a. m. , Speaker Joe Aresimowicz in the Chair. )

CLERK:

Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives will convene immediately. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The House come to order. (Gavel). Will members, staff, and guests please rise, direct your attention to the Dais where Rabbi Alan Lefkowitz will lead us in prayer.

RABBI ALAN LEFKOWITZ:

Good morning. Where does God dwell? Is a saying that God dwells where and when we let God in. the question is, where is that "in" that we can let God dwell? Some answer that God dwells within each individual. Others say God dwells amongst the community. The one who truly believes God dwells within us human beings will have as our principal drive their own excellence and elevation. For this person, the goal in life is to be the most spiritual being possible, so that God will dwell therein. Our responsible then is essentially only to ourselves. By contrast, the one who believes that God dwells among us will define the goal as making humanity the most fitting for such a relationship.

Both outlooks have similar goals: "To make better the place in which God dwells. " The difference, however, is that one drive is focused inward and the other drive is focused outwards - on others. Someone once said to me, "I used to feel so close to God!" I replied, "So, who moved?" We are all here -- yeah so who moved?

We are all here being of service -- all of our work. Being in service is considered doing God's work. Doing God's work is the ultimate sacrifice and this is the freedom that we all share living here in America. There are those who are uncomfortable with the word sacrifice. We may say that this service that we do is an act of love, not a sacrifice. Well the word sacrifice as we understand it in English is a poor translation. As I turn to the Hebrew and equate the word sacrifice with -- cause today we tend to sacrifice the word sacrifice with surrender, but as I look at the word in Hebrew, it's Korban, which has its roots in sacrifice that was bringing the sacrifice to the Temple in Jerusalem, which actually translate as bringing closer or being closer. No word in English approaches a good translation, so what we do is evidence that we care - we care enough -- each of us -- to go out of our way, without needing credit. Sacrifice, bringing close, being close is getting real with life -- being closer to God because this is where God dwells. Can we say Amen?

CHAMBER:

Amen.

RABBI ALAN LEFKOWITZ:

Pleasant day.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Will the fine Representative of the great city of West Hartford or town, whichever it may identify as, Derek Slap of the 19th District please come to the Dais and lead us in the Pledge?

REP. SLAP (19TH):

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Are there any announcements -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Clerk. We'll go back to you. Is there anything on the Clerk's desk?

CLERK:

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning.

CLERK:

Yes, there's communication from the Speaker of the House of Representatives regarding Committee assignments.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

I order and print it in the Journal.

CLERK:

The last piece of business is the daily Calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much Mr. Clerk. Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Piscopo of the 76th, you have the floor, sir.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH):

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker and good morning.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning.

REP. PISCOPO (76TH):

For purposes of an introduction, we have a group of students from Thomaston High School -- honor students. They are part of the American and World Citizenship class. Their advisor is Terri Franzi who used to work with us here at the House Republican office and I would please ask my colleagues to join me in a very warm welcome to them.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

(Applause)Welcome to our Chamber. Representative Piscopo, I thought you were gonna speak of the event last night to which a few of us were honoring our former member Celine Nujane [phonetic]. That was a very nice event. Any other announcements or introductions? Representative Albis of the 99th, for what purposes do you rise, sir?

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Mr. Speaker, I rise for purposes of an announcement.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems that May is a popular month but we have yet another birthday in our Chamber today. It's Representative Roland Lemar's birthday, so let's all wish him a very happy birthday from the whole chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

(Applause) Happy birthday, Representative. I know I sent you the little emoji this morning wishing you a happy birthday. (Laughing). Are there any other announcements or introductions? Fitting the fine Representative's birthday, Mr. Clerk, will you please call House Calendar 93?

CLERK:

On page 45, House Calendar 93, House Bill No. 7047, AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE APPARATUS SAFETY AND TESTING. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Lemar of the 96th, you have the floor, sir.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker, I move the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Question is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Lemar, you have the floor.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker, the bill before us requires municipal and fire -- volunteer fire departments to maintain their pump and aerial fire apparatus components in compliance with the National Fire Protection Association's standard 1911. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO No. 7038. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and I be given permission leave to summarize.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 7038, which will be designated House amendment schedule "A".

CLERK:

House amendment schedule "A" LCO No. 7038 offered by Representative Lemar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection to summarization? Seeing none. Representative Lemar, you have the floor.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us specifies with the exact criteria the municipal and fire -- volunteer fire departments have to maintain their apparatus in compliance with the federal regulations concerning commercial motor vehicles and it specifies 49CFR393, 49CFR396, and 49CFR Chapter 3. We thought it was important to highly specifically watch federal regulations we were talking about -- having these folks maintain their standards to. I move for adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Question before the Chamber is on adoption of the amendment. Representative Zawistowski of the 61st, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning, ma'am.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

This amendment clarifies some of the language and ties it to federal regulations. I think it improves the bill and I recommend its passage.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam. The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the amendment. Will you remark? Will you remark? I'm seeing none. I will try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Those opposed nay. The aye's have it. The amendment's adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Boyd of the 50th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

I rise in support of this bill as amended. I've spent the last 10 years as a member of volunteer fire department at a small rural town and the safety of apparatus, in particular, is of a huge importance. Right now, there is very little that governs the operation of fire apparatus. Currently, a commercial dump truck is held to a much higher standard than an engine tanker because they've been exempted in the past. The NFPA is kind of the gold standard in the fire service and presently, what we're looking to do is mandate that the aerial, which is the ladder, and the pump be tested to the NFPA standards. The rest of it falls to normal practices of DOT that falls to any other vehicle of a certain size and weight and fire apparatus would be included to that, so for the safety of members of fire departments and on scene, this is a good bill cause right now department A may have a strict standard and follow the NFPA standard but department B, which could be operating under mutual aid basis in that town may have very little standards that they need to live up to and so it puts -- it puts departments and members at risk. Pump failures are kind of a catastrophic thing if they do happen, so I think this is a common-sense piece. Most departments, to my knowledge, are already operating at this standard and many operate at a much stringent standard doing inspections on an interval that is below the NFPA, so I fully endorse this -- this legislation. I think it's a good move to maintain that we have safety on our fire scenes and we've had some cases in Connecticut where we've had apparatus failures that if this bill is enacted would have prevented that or would have helped to prevent that so thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Zawistowski, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of questions, if I may, to the proponent of the bill?

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Lemar, please prepare yourself. Representative Zawistowski, please proceed, madam.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we had heard in Planning and Development that approximately 20 percent of municipalities do not currently comply with this standard. I was wondering if you had heard anything about have we gotten more information about which towns they are and what the circumstances may be?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. It was indicated in testimony that in a 2014 study of a working group CCM indicated that about 20 percent of their member communities may not be in compliance with this current standard. The costs associated with the apparatus could range from, you know, about $ 400 to $ 1200 dollars a ladder truck. We do not expect this to be a major cost driver for local municipalities and that 20 percent of towns, while they did not personally identify themselves for that list, CCM felt it was some of our smaller towns in some cases and one or two larger towns who may comply with the standard they just aren't doing it on an annual basis ensuring the compliance.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Zawistowski.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Representative for his answer. It's my understanding the state of -- another question please. It's my understanding that the state of Connecticut does not comply with the standards that are set forth in this bill. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that all state vehicles are held in accordance with this standard but there isn't a specific requirement on us due to the nature of our apparatus and that the more appropriate standard is to hold local communities where the bulk of our apparatus are in play but the -- it is our understanding that all state apparatus that fit this profile are currently meeting the obligation.

Through you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Zawistowski.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and one additional question if I may?

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What types of equipment are inspected under this bill? Is it strictly the pumps or -- and the ladders or are there other trucks that are required to be inspected under this bill?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker, through you. This requires just the pump and aerial fire apparatus to be maintained in compliance with the standard 1911.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Zawistowski.

REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (61ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do thank the good Representative for his answers. Mr. Speaker, I've voted in favor of this bill in Planning and Development waiting for additional information because I thought it was a public safety issue and I did want to hear more and I did reserve the opportunity to vote against it in Appropriations and here in the House floor. I did vote against it in Appropriations because I felt within a funded mandate for some of these towns. I've since changed my mind somewhat. While we need to trust our fire departments and our municipalities to take care of their own equipment, I think there's an overriding public safety issue having to do with mutual aid and also, because a lot of these inspections take time and money, some of them may be skipping it -- skipping the inspections because by -- for example, a ladder truck, a visual inspection will not show faults in the metal. I think it needs to be taken further so you know, while I don't like the idea of placing additional burdens on our towns, I think there is an overriding public safety issue and I will be voting in favor of this bill, will be listening to any additional questions, and urge my colleagues -- colleagues to consider the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you very much, Representative. Representative Ohler, you have the floor, sir.

REP. OHLER (64TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as amended. I think as the good Representative Boyd alluded to, myself also, I'm a 17-year member of the volunteer fire service and over that time, we've seen the fire service evolve dramatically, especially in a technological age in a time where we're relying so heavily on our equipment to do the job day in and day out and to provide that service for our residents. We also need to consider firefighter safety overall. I also belong to the local EMS departments in my town and a neighboring town and with the ambulances, there are strict standards. There are strict guidelines that need to be adhered to annually and I think when we look at our fire apparatus these are massive pieces of equipment upwards of $ 500,000 dollars and $ 1 million -- a million and a half dollars, and to forego any testing or to say that it's not needed, I think is a disservice to my fellow firefighters and a disservice to the residents because if and when that apparatus breaks down, that pump breaks down or that ladder fails, we now put our firefighters at risk and the residents at risk because we can't do our job, we can't put that fire out, we can't respond to that car accident so I think to blanket this as an unfunded mandate I think is an unfair label. You need to look at the bigger picture of firefighter safety and the residents overall -- the constituents overall -- the safety of them in your towns. I fully support this bill as amended and I urge my colleagues to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative, and might I ask the Chambers to just calm down a bit. It's getting a bit noisy in here. I'd rather not have to gavel you out so please take your conversations outside if you need to have them. Representative McGorty, you have the floor.

REP. MCGORTY (122ND):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. MCGORTY (122ND):

I stand in great support of this bill and I'm very happy to see it come out here today on the floor. It's been a long time in the works and as my colleague said, you know, 20 percent of the municipalities are not maintaining their vehicles and testing them. Well, the fire service I've been in for 37 years, we're all about public safety and we can't do our job effectively if our tools and our equipment aren't tested and maintained to the highest standard and that goes for the ladder trucks. When I'm up on the tip and I gotta rescue a civilian --

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

(Gavel) -- (Gavel) -- (Gavel). Please, I really think that these two Representatives deserve to be able to hear what each other has to say. Thank you.

REP. MCGORTY (122ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the ladder truck when we're doing a rescue and an apartment building you're going up -- you're rescuing somebody -- that ladder needs to be to the top standard. You got the weight of the firefighter on there and the victim you're taking out. That needs to be top notch so hopefully, we can get the 20 percent that aren't complying to the testing and get this going, and I thank my colleagues for bringing this out. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Representative Ackert of the 8th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill as amended?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you and to the gentleman who is celebrating his birthday today just do we have an incident list of issues that happen maybe in the operation of this equipment, things that have happened that, you know, kind of move this legislation forward? You know, is there a report of -- you don't want anyone being injured or you know, a pump not being -- do we have an incident list of issues that may have happened in any of fire departments?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you. Thank you for the kind birthday wishes. While I don't have an exact incident list, we did hear testimony from the Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association of Connecticut. We did hear evidence from the Fire Marshalls Association about incidences, particularly on mutual aid agreements where apparatus will appear in a town to help a community that is fighting a larger fire than that community can actually handle and an on-site supervisor will recognize that that apparatus is not up to the standard necessary to help and so that reference was made both in the committee and when the Professional Association of Firefighters had their breakfast here just a few weeks ago, so I don't have an exact incidents list but we did have report from that association about specific incidences that occurred in their communities that warranted the consideration of having every town comply with this standard.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you to the good gentleman. Also, to follow up with that, do we know has the equipment that has been let's say recently purchased or in a number of years was there a standard classification that they had to meet? Like, I'll give you an example. My town just bought a new aerial -- finally got the money to buy aerial equipment and had this requirement been in place long enough that if people had bought equipment in the last 5 to 10 years, would it fit that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, yes. The good gentleman highlighting a very important point. All apparatus that have been built and bought in our communities new over the last 10 years have been built to this very specific standard and what we're requiring our communities to do is just ensure through these inspections that they are maintaining that level of service so all new equipment does meet this standard currently and we're ensuring that it continues to maintain that on an ongoing basis.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my final question. I saw the -- that CCM was the opposition to this because it may be a mandate or it could be -- we may. Do we know would equipment have to be removed from say a small town's inventory and they would be without equipment to protect their community if they don't get the certification? Would they actually lose apparatus?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They -- not necessarily would they have to lose that apparatus. What we require is that they -- whatever part of the apparatus fails that they have to upgrade or modify or maintain that apparatus back to the standard. Often times what happens is an independent agency will help a community come in and evaluate and test that equipment and they'll recognize deficiencies in that equipment before they occur. They'll recognize like this is something that you'll need to take a look at moving forward in the next couple of years. You'll get a bonding request back to that community so that they can fix that apparatus if necessary. Often times, the fix is a very low dollar fix. If it has reached a point where that apparatus is unable to be maintained, then yes, that apparatus may actually come off line but we do not foresee that happening. The reports that we have is largely that this testing standard and communities undergoing this testing standard is going to help them understand where their deficiencies are, where their apparatus may begin to fail before it actually does and this may be a good preventative process for those communities.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you to the good gentleman for his answers. I am in a field that I have to follow OSHA requirements for a reason. It's the safety of my personnel. We may look at this and say, you know, what stop the mandates but if my individuals get hurt on my jobs because of my failure to follow OSHA, I'm responsible and don't want to live with that. I don't want to send an individual out onto a piece of fire equipment, especially to fight in my community and something happen with a piece of equipment, so normally, I'm not big on mandates but we sometimes have to live with them for the safety of personnel and property and I thank the good gentleman for his answers and will listen to the continued dialogue. Thank you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Ackert. Representative Borer of the 115th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. BORER (115TH: )

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this bill. Currently, today, there is inconsistencies in how the fire standards are applied from municipality-to-municipality, from fire department-to-fire department, and from volunteer fire departments to our paid fire departments and what this bill does is it addresses those inconsistencies and brings everybody in uniformity with the highest standards. I also heard while I was in the Appropriations Committee questions around what could be the price to municipalities for this mandate and I would turn that around and say what would be the price if we don't implement this mandate, and I don't think any of us can put a price tag on a potential safety issue. We have a golden opportunity to support our first responders and I don't think any of us want to be standing here in the future second guessing what we could have done to protect them. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you very much, madam. Representative Ziobron of the 34th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise with several concerns about this bill and I've been listening intently to the debate so far and I have several questions for the proponent please, through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

I'm trying to understand how this bill as amended has removed the fiscal note and taken care of the issues that came up in the Appropriations Committee, which is 20 percent of our municipalities could be faced with having to upgrade their equipment even though their equipment is currently tested and that could cause some of our municipalities up to $ 1 million dollars, so if the good representative could explain to me, through you Mr. Speaker, how does the amendment in fact make this bill better? I'm reading the amendment. There's a lot of different codes and federal regulations but if you could put it into -- get it out of legalese and just as if we're talking to our constituents -- how does this amendment actually take away this mandate?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to be really clear in this answer. The amendment specifically does not alter in any way the underlying requirement that these communities hold their apparatus to the standard. What the amendment does is clarifies specifically what standards we're applying it to, so I don't want to misrepresent that this bill in any way changes the fiscal note. The fiscal note indicates there's expected to be minimal fiscal impact because the number of communities that are not currently complying, it isn't because their apparatus is out of date or not working, they're just not testing to this standard so we don't know, so what we're likely to find out is that most of this equipment is already complying with the standard but there will be an annual test to ensure that it continues to comply.

Secondly, the cost that was thrown around of $ 800,000 to $ 1. 2 million dollars is if you have to replace an entire rig. That is not what is likely to happen. What is likely to happen is you are going to get a test for your pumps and hoses and you're going to realize that there may be a deficiency and you'll need to repair that deficiency and that cost is nowhere near the cost of replacing a rig. In fact, this testing standard and the community complying with it is likely to ensure that we never have to spend $ 800,000 to $ 1. 2 million dollars replacing a rig prematurely, so to answer your question. I want to make sure I'm clear. We did not remove the fiscal note in any way. It does not change the underlying requirement. What we are doing is just specifying exactly what standards we're holding it to and ensuring that these trucks meet the very safety standards that we're most concerned about.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that very detailed response but I think I just want to clarify on the record now that 20 percent of the communities that don't have the standard that's before us in this bill are in fact meeting the standard of safety. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a large number of them probably are but we have no idea because they are not testing to that standard. There's a very good likelihood that a lot of these communities have purchased equipment in the last 10 years or so and this equipment was built to this standard and all this will do is ensure that it continue to be maintained up to that standard as well. We are likely to see very minimal costs due to the upgrade and maintenance of this equipment. What we are likely to do is offset costs, huge costs, as communities by recognizing that issue in advance of having to replace that equipment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and so we keep throwing around the word standard but clearly, there's a couple of definitions of what standard we're talking about so again, just for clarification purposes and the intent of this legislation for the record, the standard that's being discussed here I think I'm reading is a federal standard 1911 but I'm sure that my volunteer firemen in my district are in fact testing their equipment to a standard, a different standard. Could the good Representative explain what are the two different standards that we're talking about here and what are the differences for those -- 20 percent of those municipalities who currently don't have this in their regulations.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, the test that we are referencing -- the standard that we are referencing is the National Fire Protection Association. It is the national consensus standard that uniformed fire professionals, fire marshals, and fire departments across the country and fire apparatus is built to. Like that is the standard that we use. That is the standard that attorneys use when they cite in litigation a municipality failing to comply with it. We adopted this standard because it was the best way to ensure that we are meeting a uniformed standard across all communities, particularly communities of responding and mutual aid agreements and neighboring cities and towns. There is no current state regulation that requires a testing of pump and aerial ladders so we don't know what these communities who are not compliant with the standard are actually using to test. This is the standard that has been used across the country. This is the standard that apparatus is built to. This is the standard that most of our overwhelming majority of our communities are adhering to and many states across the country are already requiring all communities to comply with this. There are -- I mean -- states across the country who are adopting this standard, NFPA 1911, as their gold standard to ensure that all communities are meeting this very specific requirement.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and so in understanding this uniform standard, I am sure that my municipality and others who are falling potentially within this 20 percent are up-to-date on their insurance, are fully covered for hazardous duty employees, and I just want to make sure we're not promoting a misnomer that these communities somehow are not meeting a standard that could in fact harm their ability to have their insurance writers when they're in fact calling to mutual aid, so if the good Representative could tell me which communities in fact are not meeting this standard that's been talked about in the fiscal note as the 20 percent?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated earlier, the 20 percent was a number that CCM used in their testimony to say who was not complying. It was an analysis that they had done across the state in 2014 as part of a bipartisan working group on this issue and the report came back that they said about 20 percent of communities across the state were not currently testing to this standard. I think the good Representative brings up another point in the question, which is insurance companies who are underwriting this often times reference this standard in their insurance writers and require communities to meet the standard, so I think and a lot of folks that I've spoken with think that the real number of communities who are not complying with this standard is far less than 20 percent. We believe it's in all likelihood as a condition of their insurance regulations and mutual aid agreements across the state that they are in fact already complying with this standard. All we're doing is ensuring on an annualized basis that that apparatus meets that standard and that we have a responsible testing authority and criteria, which we can use, to determine compliance.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that answer but I would note just for clarification for the record that it's the office of fiscal analysis who are using the 20 percent benchmark specifically and that's where I'm getting my information from so it's our nonpartisan staff who are claiming that 20 percent of our municipalities may not meet this standard. You know, I am so grateful in my communities for our volunteer firemen who put their lives on the line every day. They leave their job. They leave Thanksgiving dinner. They drop everything to get to these calls and like many other communities my is always in search of volunteers and it's a really huge cost to them and our first responders and our ambulance, volunteer ambulance crew, to get certification to do what is necessary to become licensed but I -- without hearing from them, I am very concerned about putting this additional burden on my fire department in my community. I'm still gonna listen to the debate here but the idea that my community may be faced with upgrading a piece of equipment that is meeting a standard, that's getting inspected, that's getting tested now, right now in my district and that tomorrow they could be faced with replacing that same piece of equipment for over $ 1 million dollars is really a concern. I wish the proponent of the bill had a more definitive answer on what communities are really affected because I think that's so important when we're passing legislation here, so I'm gonna continue to listen. This is a very controversial issue, especially for communities that have small towns and volunteer fire departments, and I'll continue to listen. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Ziobron. Representative Delnicki of the 14th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DELNICKI (14TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. DELNICKI (14TH):

I'm not a volunteer firefighter. I'm not a paid firefighter but I'm a former municipal leader and one of the positions I held was Chair of the Public Safety Committee and I've worked long and hard with our volunteer firefighters to ensure they had the equipment they needed to do the job, that when they rolled they knew they'd get to the fire, they'd get to the emergency, and that the lives would be saved and buildings protected and that they would be able to do their job. We conformed to the standard that we have here. Now, when we talk about mutual aid, mutual response, the question then comes into play are the other communities that are reporting to the fire that we may have in our community to assist -- are they also at that standard? Do they have equipment that will perform to that specification? Will they be able to help save the day for lack of a better term? This to me is a common sense. It's something that every community should be doing. Most communities are doing it and for those communities that aren't, they need to bring them into the standard there so that you know that when a volunteer firefighter rolls into your community from another town that they are equipped, they are ready, they have the equipment to do the job, and they will get the job done. Again, it's a public safety concern from my part and I always looked at it as an obligation as an elected official in my community to make sure that the men and women that fight our fires that are volunteers in our community had the equipment they needed and I take this very serious and I, again, rise to speak in favor of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Delnicki. Representative Buckbee of the 67th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH: )

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning. Please proceed.

REP. BUCKBEE (67TH: )

Thank you. I rise in support of this bill. While I'm not as active as I once was, I am also a member of my volunteer department in New Milford where we have three departments in the small town of New Milford but I can speak on the ability to maintain equipment and to regularly test everything that needs to be tested -- hose tested, rigs tested. Our ladder truck has been our pride and joy of our community so for us to see this I think is a great thing. It is now seeing -- while I'm not a big fan of mandates either -- to now see other people who will be mandated to stay at that level is great. I think it's important to point out that not all municipalities directly fund their fire departments. Our New Milford fire district, while we receive some funding, it is its own entity and I think it's important for others to be at what I believe is that level who I believe very strongly are the New Milford Fire Association is at that level and I'm very proud of that, but in response to one of the other Representatives, I think what this really does in question of other apparatus coming this way and people saying well I don't have that yet is that gonna be a problem for me down the road -- so many times, especially in this building, we are reactive to a problem and I think this is a far more proactive approach than a reactive approach and that's why I have cosponsored the bill as well and I hope that my colleagues see this as a serious benefit for the people in their communities as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Buckbee. The Distinguished Deputy Speaker from the 48th district, Representative Orange, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, madam.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

May I ask a question to the proponent of the bill please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

But of course, please proceed.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

Happy birthday, Representative Lemar. It's nice to see you here on your birthday. I just wanted to ask more about the 20 percent and one of the Representatives concluded that it was from our OFA and you said it was CCM, and I'm sure that OFA got those numbers from looking at CCM's numbers because they couldn't just pull it out of a hat but the question I have for you is -- well, let me just make a statement first that I do rise to support this bill and the question I have for Representative Lemar is do all fire companies whether they're volunteer or paid companies -- do they all have pumpers and aerial trucks and is this specific only to pumpers and aerial apparatus?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you. It is my understanding that not every company has a pump or aerial truck. This legislation does only apply to those components though and as you referenced in the beginning of your statement, yes, OFA did not conduct an independent analysis of all communities across the state to determine who complied and who didn't. OFA used the bipartisan report of generated -- information generated through CCM and the Uniformed Professional Firefighters Association to determine that 20 percent. They did not do their own independent analysis. That is exactly where OFA got that number from was from that report, so I hope that both clarifies the good Representative's question and also answers her non-asked one as well. Through you. Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Orange.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been an issue that has actually been around the building for quite some years now and what we're trying to do here is just adapt a national standard for fire safety. This -- if the apparatus is not working correctly, this not only impairs or could impair and has impaired the lives of our firemen but also our citizens and I can tell you that I'm happy that representative Lemar pointed out with what I already actually knew, Representative Lemar, is that not all towns have aerial or pumpers and that could be part of that 20 percent. He is shaking his head yes and so I'm sure that could be part of the 20 percent, and I can tell you that in the town that I represent they do follow the standards and they're very interested and they've been very interested in this bill coming forward throughout the past year, so I'm glad that it's here, I'm glad that it's on the floor of the House. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and I have one more question to the proponent of the bill please, if I may, through you Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Of course, please proceed.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

Representative Lemar, do you know how these vehicles are tested? Do they go to DMV or does DMV, which they once did, come to the fire stations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, I do know the aerial test is typically done by a third party certifying company and it usually cost about $ 1000 dollars to have this test administered and that the standard that they're held to is that the person performing the test work has to be certified by NDT technician in a test method use and so we're ensuring that the most knowledgeable people who about this apparatus are those who are testing it. often times, DMV may not have an individual so the community will outsource the testing to a private commercial provider who will test and then also assume the liability of that test being wrong or being in some way inaccurate sign off that the apparatus complies with the standard. I believe that answered the question.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

I believe -- through you, Mr. Speaker --

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Orange.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that it does and I believe that it sounds like that this company comes to the town or the city to be tested because that sometimes -- it used to be an inconvenience for apparatus to be missing from town and fire personnel to be missing from town to -- to have to travel out of town for these particular tests, so I applaud you, Representative Lemar, for bringing this bill to our attention and I'm proud to be able to support it here today knowing that I have the backing of my fire departments in my towns that are looking forward to having this standard be placed into our law. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you Representative and again -- (gavel) -- I would ask -- I know we're all excited to be debating this bill but it's -- it is hard for the proponent and the questioners to hear each other so please try to keep it to a dull roar. Representative Storms of the 60th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STORMS (60TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question for the proponent.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Yes, sir. Please prepare.

REP. STORMS (60TH):

Chairman Lemar, good morning, sir.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Good morning.

REP. STORMS (60TH):

I have a question. I was on the Appropriations Committee and I voted no in the Appropriations Committee. I had some serious concerns about this bill with regard to the mandates on our smaller towns. I also have a concern and maybe you can help me with this. Can you tell me whether the state of Connecticut holds its vehicles -- its emergency vehicles -- to the same standard that you're proposing in this bill?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's our understanding that the state of Connecticut's vehicles all comply with the standard. There wasn't an appropriate way for us to legislate that in quite the same way but it is our understanding that all state vehicles meeting this definition do currently comply with the standard.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Storms.

REP. STORMS (60TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I -- again, I voted no in the Appropriations, had some serious concerns about the mandate issue but when it comes right down to it, sir, it is a matter of public safety and I believe that we owe to our emergency personnel to protect their safety as they protect ours and I will be supporting the bill at this time, sir. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

You're welcome, sir. Thank you. Representative Reyes of the 75th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. REYES (75TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of House Bill 7047. Coming from the municipality of the city of Waterbury where we are very proud of the work that they fire department does for the city and is one that already does the testing of the apparatus. I believe that it is better to be safe than sorry and I would -- I rise in support of this bill number one. Number two, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider it. It -- it's much better to -- to be proactive and I want to thank the good Chair, Mr. Lemar, for bringing out this bill, which I think it's an important one for life and safety matters as it refers to the state of Connecticut. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Reyes. Representative LeGeyt of the 17th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, Representative.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

It's a distinct pleasure to see you up there, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

One question to the proponent of the bill, if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't here for the whole discussion. I walked in in the middle of it but I do have this one question. Could this process of reviewing fire apparatus in towns that don't presently comply necessitate or mandate the purchase of additional fire vehicles or apparatus to comply with some level of completeness of accessories in vehicles that would be deemed necessary for proper safety in a municipality?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you. The reality is yes. If the apparatus fails and the community cannot repair it because they went so long without recognizing the deficiency or repairing it because they weren't testing for it, they could be in a position where they would have to replace that piece of equipment and I think as Representatives have said this is a good proactive way to ensure that our communities don't find themselves in that circumstance. Continual testing to the standard should ensure and recognize that any piece of apparatus that is failing to comply or in some way a deficiency is recognized could have a quick relatively inexpensive repair completed and ensure that that apparatus does not need to be taken off line or a new apparatus does not need to be bought to fulfil their mutual aid agreements or local obligations so through you, Mr. Speaker, yes in a worst case scenario by testing you could determine that your apparatus is severely incapable of maintaining fire safety in your community and thus, necessitate the purchase of additional equipment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative LeGeyt.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I'm not sure though that I framed the question properly based on the response that I got. My question is more to the concern that once a community is being tested for compliance could it be up to the testing agency to require that a community purchase some apparatus or vehicles that they don't have, not to recommend that they completely replace a vehicle they already have. I'm talking more about the testing agency making a determination that the municipality doesn't have adequate equipment or vehicles rather than the quality of the vehicles they have.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I am understanding the question better the second time. No, the independent agency responsible for testing this apparatus cannot in any way require a local community to purchase any additional equipment. They can just make recommendations to upgrades and offer advice on how to comply with the standard.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative LeGeyt, does that answer your question?

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

That answers my question and makes me much more comfortable with this bill. I voted against it when it came through Appropriations and I've had a change of heart. I think this is a very worthwhile and relevant and necessary piece of legislation, and I'll be supporting it and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative LeGeyt. Representative O'Neill from the 69th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying to get an understanding of this bill and what all of these federal regulations and national standards, and we already apparently have a regime of testing but it does not apply to certain kinds of equipment, and I read through the testimony that was presented. Rather, not the oral testimony but the written submissions to try to get an understanding and unfortunately, I did not find them terribly helpful. It's just a lot of citations and reference so I'd have to go back and read the code of federal regulations and I was tempted at one point to put a question to the Chair if he could just sort of summarize the federal regulations for me but I thought that was just a little too clever on my part, so I'm trying to understand what exactly is the testing doing? I mean what are they testing for? I mean I keep hearing they're testing for failures and for features or -- but there's nothing specific. I mean are we kicking the tires? Are we checking the electrical systems? Do we have any idea -- cause I don't see anything presented at the committee level that indicated exactly what this testing was testing, so through you, Mr. Speaker, is -- what is the testing that we're talking about? What are they actually going to do to the Chair of the Planning and Development Committee?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment we passed clarifies in 49 CFR 393 subparts A through E describing the parts necessary for safe operation including, you know, the aerial and pump apparatus, brakes, and lights, 49 CFR 396 establishes the inspection repair and maintenance standards for all of that equipment and 49 CFR Chapter 3 specifies the conditions that prevent the vehicle from passing its periodic inspection. Withheld from my good colleagues, Representative Boyd, we're also looking further into Chapter 22 of the performance testing, which I have before me and if the good colleague would allow, I would like to summarize by reading if my colleague finds that useful?

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Certainly, I have no objection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In sections 22. 1, general 2211, inclusive, it -- it indicates all inspections and tests specified in this standard shall be conducted at the following times annually, after major repairs or overhaul, following the use of the aerial device when the aerial device could have been subjected to unusual operating conditions, stress, or load, or when there is reason to believe that the usage has exceeded the manufacturer's recommended aerial device operating procedures. It then goes into bearings and hydraulics and other components of that aerial or pump apparatus and the standards by which they have to meet.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so it sounds like and -- and I will ask the Chair to confirm or not confirm -- but it sounds like basically the entire piece of equipment, its electrical system, its hydraulics, its bearings, just about everything that's important perhaps other than the paint job is gonna be subjected to an inspection quite possibly on a more frequent than annual basis if in fact the piece of equipment goes out in one of these stressful sort of situations. I'm not sure exactly what that is and I'm guessing the good Chair does not know necessarily but one thing that would occur to me is if fire equipment gets used in extremely cold weather sometimes so if it's 10 below zero or something, maybe that's a triggering event but -- and perhaps I should just form that in actually -- actually a more opened-ended question. Does the Chair know anything about what those extra stressful situations might be that would provoke a more than annual inspection?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative O'Neill. Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not, you know, certainly not limited to but certain include an extraordinary load on the ladder or extremely cold circumstances when this apparatus may have to be used. Likely, encompassing the exposure to flames even. There are certain extreme circumstances where this apparatus would need to be tested post use to ensure its safe operation. Yes, that may lead to more than annual inspection but again, most of these communities and most fire departments across the state are already testing after those circumstances. I do not know the full definition of extreme circumstances that fire departments use but I do know that it's a safety precaution that most are already complying with.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and one of the concerns that was expressed by the CCM in their written testimony was the statement that the state of Connecticut does not require its equipment to meet these standards and I heard some kind of a discussion about that but I guess the first question that I would ask is does the state of Connecticut through either regulation or other document or statue or the invocation of a, you know, reference to a CFR or I think the NFPA or something is another alternative that was mentioned in the oral testimony -- does the state of Connecticut by any of those means require its equipment to be tested to approximately this same standard?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is our understanding that through regulation the state does not require itself to meet this standard but that it does in fact comply with this standard for all of its subject apparatus.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Okay, so we're now -- it doesn't actually -- it's not a law but the state is doing it in fact so that answers the CCM objection. The other thing is that apparently, the study that was done in 2014 that generated the 20 percent noncompliance estimate was I think CCM was a participant in that study if I understood everything that I've been hearing and reading. Is that true?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, CCM was a part of that working group.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

And, since they're in opposition to this and they presumably represent the various communities, 80 percent of which are already in compliance, and I don't know all of the internal operations of CCM but it's clearly my understanding that the larger communities have a larger voice and so the cities like Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Danbury, Norwalk and so on are really the ones who control decision making in CCM and so the -- the -- and that they all are in compliance with this already. That was part of what I heard so let me ask that as a question and make sure I'm clear on that. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is it true that the larger cities are already doing what this bill requires?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the list that was generated was non-exhaustive. In fact, I think it had no communities on it. CCM indicated through their -- their outreach to community members that 80 percent met that standard but they did not indicate which of the communities were encompassed in that 80 percent or which were encompassed in the 20 percent. It has been referenced here that for many of the 20 percent that are not holding their apparatus to this standard for many of them it's because they don't have apparatus that meet the definitions so necessarily, they're not holding themselves to that standard. It is true that CCM as a member organization has greater weight amongst our larger communities but I have yet to hear both in oral, written, or in the hall testimony from any of those communities their opposition to this bill. In fact, to date, I've heard nothing other than CCM indicate that they're concerned about an unfunded mandate and the fiscal impact which corresponds generally with their statement on anything that we pass and typically, we will hear in the Planning and Development community representation from very specific communities about the impact and why they themselves do not wish to comply but we did not hear any of that testimony from any communities suggesting that this is a standard that they do not wish to comply with or do not wish to be held to.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I too have not heard anything from any of the communities that I represent or anyone else representing other entities like the council of small towns that would presumably be more focused on the smaller towns, so -- but I'm also very concerned about the potential impact because while it's possible that one of these annual inspections will routinely find that most of this equipment, perhaps all of it, is fine that if they find something seriously wrong with one of these pieces of equipment that it's going to require expensive repairs or replacement and a replacement is $ 1 million dollar potentially item, which no one was planning on in their budgets in most cases, so you know, the danger of sort of the unintended consequence, although possibly imaginable consequence, is that we pass a piece of legislation up here and I only hear from my community sometime in July when they find out about this really what it means -- because I don't think that most of the folks working in my town hall or the fire department read the CFRs any more than I do, so they're not gonna know what all of this means. This did not get a lot of attention from anybody. The professional firefighters had a person submit testimony, CCM had a person submit testimony, and I think there was one other witness who testified orally at the public hearing and he was a technician -- a mechanic I believe he described himself as -- so we really haven't had a lot of input on this thing, although I guess there was a taskforce in 2014 that worked on this and then it sort of got forgotten until this year, so what concerns me and a primary reason why I voted against this in the Appropriations Committee is I don't know. I don't know how any towns are affected, whether it's New Haven, Hartford, Bridgeport if they had to replace all their fire equipment wouldn't be able to -- it's too expensive -- or is it just that 20 percent of the towns don't have this kind of equipment so they don't comply cause they don't need to and it would cost nobody any amount of money because everybody's doing it, and that's the -- especially, in this state of affairs we are dealing with in the state of Connecticut with our budgets and with the fragility of local budgets as well, I just have this feeling that I don't know what the impact of this is necessarily going to be and so I'm -- I'm -- I'm still troubled about voting yes. I understand the public safety implication and it's easy -- it would be easy for me to say, well -- millions for public safety and not one penny for something else but if we don't know exactly what the impact is whether it is millions or just a few dollars it's -- it's troubling at least personally to me and despite all of the CFRs and all of the code sections and references to standards, that still doesn't tell us how many towns are gonna be affected truly and how much it might cost them if they have to comply with this and they haven't been doing it, so I was hoping to get a fuller clarification of that but it sounds like all the information we got is what's been played before us up until this point in time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative O'Neill. Representative Fishbein of the 90th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you. Good morning, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Some questions for the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

The state owns similar machinery? Am I to understand that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, that is our understanding, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I believe my colleague, Representative Storms, had asked a question about holding -- the state being held to the same standard and the response was that it was your understanding that the state is held to that standard and may I ask via what regulation or statute is the state held to that standard?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, there was no specific regulation indicated. It is our understanding that we do hold ourselves to that standard and all of our current equipment meets that standard but there is no regulatory place where we require ourselves to hold ourselves to that standard. We just are meeting it through operations and practice.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so is that not like the municipalities that represent themselves to be held to the standard? Why wouldn't we have in this statute right here the state held to the same statute -- same standard?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it was referenced to us that the state does not necessarily place requirements upon itself through regulations in the same way and that it was inappropriate for us to do so through this mechanism. That the mechanism in which we cover, the overwhelming majority of apparatus that are responding in mutual aid circumstances across multiple jurisdictions, and that something like 95 percent I think was representation of all of this equipment is held by municipal fire departments, either volunteer fire departments or by municipalities themselves, and that this was covering the vast majority. That the state apparatus is very limited in our ownership and that we are complying with the standards uniformly and that there is no appropriate place in code for us to hold the state to a requirement that we are meeting through practice. I know that may not answer to the fullest degree that the good Representative is looking for but that was the answer that we received.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think everybody who has spoken on this this morning has mentioned at some point in their -- in the discussion the two words public safety and I have to ask why this bill never went to the Public Safety Committee, which I sit on?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar, do you care to answer?

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the inworking process for which bills get referred to specific committees. This bill was sent to P&D originally because of its municipal impact and we had the conversation because all bills that have a municipal impact do end up being referred to P&D. After that, it was referred to Appropriations because of the nature of the mandate and the cost it may have on municipalities. I think the public safety concerns were well understood and it was more the impact on communities operating budgets that demanded the public hearing and interface. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I think it very hypocritical of the state to mandate something upon our towns unfunded and yet is unwilling to have it held to the same standard, which it very easily could have done language in this bill. I don't think that's appropriate and I think that's exactly what our towns complain about that we do, and for that reason, I am more than likely gonna vote against the bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Fishbein. Representative Belsito of the 53rd district, the floor is yours, sir.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions for the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed and please prepare yourself, Representative Lemar.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill. Do you have any information on how many vehicles of the 20 percent that are not actively being tested now have failed?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, again, through you, the 20 percent wasn't a real exhaustive study. It was CCM calling their member communities and asking how many of them complied with the standard being referenced and the responses were largely yes or no we don't do that, and it was not exhaustive of the number of apparatus or if they were not complying due to the fact they had no apparatus so we don't have an exact number. What we do know though is that this is the standard that states across the country are holding their apparatus to and like this is what is considered by everyone to be the standard that we should have our fire apparatus' responding to emergency calls held to -- to ensure the safety of firefighters and civilians alike, so I don't have an exact number. That wasn't the nature of the study. The study was to determine whether it was a good public policy. The determination was that it was in fact good public policy to incorporate this standard in our statutes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent. Once again, if you looked at this before you wrote the bill and there was only 20 percent that was an estimation and you went by that estimation to present this bill to the floor that has unfunded mandates in it, why did you not look at the 20 percent who were not participating in getting their vehicles inspected?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are no reporting requirements that we hold our host municipalities and fire departments to. The determination was that this was responsible public policy and the impact on communities is very minimal as indicated in our OFA report and these specific standards that we are incorporating are the necessity for our fire apparatus to meet when they're responding to emergency phone calls throughout our state.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent. If 80 percent and you say that these numbers you haven't verified them but you're saying it's 80 percent or more are currently getting their vehicles inspected and are under scrutiny by all the fire departments, why would you bring out a bill for maybe 5 percent? It doesn't make sense if we are already doing the work -- the towns and cities are already doing the work and it's costing them funds now and now you're going to put an additional funding on them, an unfunded mandate, that most of them cannot really handle?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Mr. Speaker, through you, we determined that this was the appropriate public policy action to ensure the safety of our civilians across the state. This is the standard that's been incorporated in numerous states across the country. We found it appropriate for Connecticut residents to be protected to the same extent as those in Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and numerous other states in the country. We have no idea how many communities are comply or not complying. It was an estimate produced by CCM upon discussions with their membership. We feel that this is the appropriate standard to hold our apparatus to. It ensures public safety for everyone and frankly, the number of apparatus that are not complying whether it's 5 percent or 50 percent should worry all of us, so we want to have a standard in place we feel comfortable with in moving forward in a proactive manner ensuring that they are tested regularly and under certain extreme circumstances to ensure that their ongoing safe operation protects our community as a paramount importance and through P&D and Appropriations, we felt the same last year. When this went through Public Safety, they felt the same. Last year, when this bill passed the House I think with only one no vote, we felt the same and moving forward, I believe that this is an appropriate standard we should feel comfortable with.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill one more time. Since we do not have any information of any accidents or any disruption with the vehicles up to this date, then why are we running this bill? I understand you want to make a standard. Is this what you're doing? This is the standard for Connecticut to cover all of the vehicles?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lemar, I believe you made an attempted answer and would you like to try again?

REP. LEMAR (96TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will give this a shot for the fourth or fifth time. This is a standard which are Uniformed Professional Fire Association has asked for. They have indicated to me circumstances in which certain apparatus were not held up to this standard. There are national tracking organizations that highlight the number of incidences that are occurring across the country. I do not have a specific list that I can point to right now and saying that this happened on this date in this community, but the people that we trust on the ground, the people who are doing this hard work who are risking their lives on a day in and day out basis have told us that for public safety purposes they need this standard incorporated to ensure that all apparatus, their lives, and our civilian lives are most adequately protected.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you to the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Well, for the second time, Representative Ohler.

REP. OHLER (64TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the second time, if my colleagues could indulge me, I would just like to rise and to say one last comment regarding this bill. You know, for so long a lot of standards and regulations that come out with the fire service is the result of an accident or a death. I can think of a number of safety guidelines and policies that have been created because a fellow firefighter died in California or Florida and this was a national tragic event and a safety standard was created, so to put your minds at ease or to put your worries at ease and just to consider if we can pass this legislation and perhaps this prevents an accident or a death, then that's a job well done. That's our small part in this to -- to be a steward and an advocate for the fire service, for the firefighters and I just wanted to leave you with that one last comment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats and the machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7047 as amended by House A.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 139

Those voting Nay 5

Absent not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill as amended passes. (Gavel). Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions? Representative Wilson.

REP. WILSON (66TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate this opportunity. It's my pleasure today to introduce to the Chamber members of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors who are here visiting their legislature today. They're seated in the well and I would appreciate if my colleagues could give them a warm welcome.

REPRESENTATIVES:

(Applause).

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Welcome everyone. We hope you're enjoying your time here in the Chamber. I believe Representative Ferguson of the 138th would like to speak as well.

REP. FERGUSON (138TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. FERGUSON (138TH):

Thank you very much. Joining me today here in the Chamber are students from Ridley-Lowell Business and Technical Institute -- the Danbury, Connecticut campus. They are joined by the Director of Student Services, Andrew Wetmore. Andrew is also a member of Danbury city council and we thank them all for joining us today and for being here and I ask that you give them a warm welcome. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVES:

(Applause).

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Welcome. Nice to see you here. Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker -- for an announcement please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to acknowledge the hard work, dedication, and birthday of the hardworking clerk of the Environment Committee, Mr. Robin Bumpen [phonetic]. Happy birthday Robin.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Happy birthday Robin.

REPRESENTATIVES:

(Applause).

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Gresko of the 121st, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

REP. GRESKO (121ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. GRESKO (121ST):

As we all know, it's CBIA manufacturing day and I'm lucky enough to have my constituent here, David Aquillino, who works for AGR Bodine in Bristol, downstairs and showing everyone how great his business is and I would like the Chamber on behalf of myself and Representative McGorty and Representative Hoydick to give them -- give him a nice round of applause.

REPRESENTATIVES:

(Applause).

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you. Welcome, sir. Representative Harding, good morning, sir or good afternoon, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

I would like to just record that I am here and I would have voted in the affirmative if I had pressed the button in time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. The transcript will note that. Thank you, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

We will return to business. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 123?

CLERK:

On page 6, Calendar 123 House Bill 7090, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING TRANSFER OF A PATIENT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PSYCHIATRIC SECURITY REVIEW BOARD FOR TREATMENT OR RECOVERY. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. If the distinguished Chair of the Public Health Committee, Representative Steinberg, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker for that wonderful honorific. I move the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, please proceed.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This legislation seeks to codify in statute a current practice of the Department of Mental and Health Addiction Services for very narrow circumstance relating to the medical treatment of an acquittee. An acquittee in this instance is an individual who is rendered not guilty by reason of mental defect and is committed to a maximum-security facility because they are considered dangerous and violent. The statute -- the legislation seeks to make clear that this situation where an acquittee is to receive special medical services in a location other than the maximum-security facility can only take place in very specific circumstances, namely that the facility in which the treatment is to take place must have equal security to the maximum-security facility and that it would only take place in the instance that the treatment cannot be provided in the existing maximum-security setting. I move adoption of the legislation.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Srinivasan of the 31st, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, a few questions to the proponent of the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so in this bill as we are talking about and discussing, in what circumstances will this transfer need to take place?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, this is only to take place in circumstances where the maximum-security facility in which the acquittee resides is unable to provide those medical services either through lack of staff or equipment and that only if that -- or if the introduction of such equipment might jeopardize the health and safety of the acquittee or other individuals in the maximum-security environment.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you. Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, as we speak now without the passage of this bill, what happens to these acquittees when they need medical attention, which cannot be provided where they are?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently, DMHAS is following this process but it has not been codified in statue and they have sought to make it so, so that there are clearer indications of best practice moving forward, so to answer your question, that is the process that is currently in place.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, we have a process in place but what we are trying to do this afternoon is see if it can codify that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

That is correct.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, will this be only for medical reasons or it could be for mental and psychiatric indications as well that the patient -- or the acquittee -- I'm sorry -- the acquittee may need to be transferred?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is it relates to any medical treatment that is required to serve the health needs of the patient -- of the acquittee that cannot be provided in the maximum-security setting.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, when this transfer takes place to an institution because of the need whether it be mental health or it be physical health, who is then responsible to make sure that those very stringent requirements are met given the nature of the person who is going to be transferred to these facilities?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of DMHAS to assure that this treatment location has the same security standards as the maximum-security situation and that the acquittee is returned to the maximum-security environment as soon as the treatment has been completed.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, when this transfer does take place and the person is now in an -- in a place -- a medical place where the necessary help is being provided be it mental or the physical health -- but if, unfortunately, something were to go wrong and the security is not adequate or something falls short, in this bill, through you Mr. Speaker, is there any change as far as who is held responsible? Who is held reliable?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I've said previously, this codifies existing practice. I'd like to believe that DMHAS would not be recommending this be codified in statute if they had any experiences that would suggest that the security has not been maintained or other problems have arisen.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, I know DMHAS is the one requesting us to codify this. Was there, to the best of the knowledge of our good Chairman, was there any opposition to this bill at all?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the good Representative for the question. This bill passed unanimously in my understanding in committee without any serious oppositions.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the good Chair for his answers and as he appropriately pointed out, this is being practiced and it needs to be done because the services -- the places where the acquittee is there is not able to provide the necessary services so when services need to be provided and DMHAS to have the authority to make those transfers A and B be as they are responsible so that when they are moved to these new institutions of healthcare the appropriate security is also taken care of so that's the intent of this bill to codify that and I hope that my members on both sides of the aisle will support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats and the machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7090.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

(Gavel). The bill passes. Will the Clerk call House Calendar No. 439?

CLERK:

On page 32, Calendar 439, Substitute Senate Bill No. 839, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING REVISIONS TO ITS STATUTES IN REFERENCES TO INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Chair of the Public Health Committee, Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Good to see you again, Mr. Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes minor word revisions to statue as well as two other changes. One is a simple matter of replacing a Council of Developmental Services appointee to the -- to the existing taskforce with a relative or guardian of a person with intellectual disability, so if somebody from the Department of Developmental Services would be replaced by somebody from the public and secondly, to repeal an obsolete provision that establishes a misdemeanor charge for someone who has escaped from the Southbury Training Center or from the Connecticut Juvenile Training School. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further? Representative Srinivasan of the 31st.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, just a few questions to the proponent of the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so in this legislation before us what we are attempting to do is replace one member -- A, a member who does have Autism, is receiving the services or received the services in the past, that member is being replaced in this legislation by a family member, a relative, or some other person?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, the number of people serving on this council, the total number does not change?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if this change were to happen, would -- are there still people who have received services or are receiving services -- are they still on this council?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is they still have representation on the council. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, in this change, we are not now having somebody who has the spectrum disorder or is currently receiving the services serving on this council? Through you, Mr. Speaker, is that the change that we are seeing?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I could ask the good Representative to -- to repeat the question? I just want to make sure I'm clear.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan, would you please repeat the question?

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I definitely will. Through you, Mr. Speaker, so what we are doing here is replacing in the council a person who has the Autism disorder, either he has received services in the past or currently receiving services, is being replaced -- the person who had these services is being replaced by a relative or a guardian?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, this request of this replacement -- what is the origin of that request?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't say with precise certainty who requested it. The goal was to achieve greater balance and representation on the council and it was felt a good idea to make sure that we had a guardian or family member included as a council member to provide that kind of representation.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding and maybe the good Chair will clarify this for our Chamber that there already is in the existing language -- we are not touching that obviously today -- but there already is existing language for such representation with a guardian or a family member?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here so we are all aware of the change is we are increasing the total number of either family member or a guardian in this legislation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the good Chairman's answers and as I see what we are doing here is replacing somebody who is actively getting the services or received services with a guardian or a family member. Obviously, their voices will still be heard loud and clear in the council and I urge members of both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 839 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 440?

CLERK:

On page 32, House Calendar 440, Senate Bill No. 842, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST A LICENSED HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

This seems to resemble the movie Groundhog Day, but Representative Steinberg, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you again -- again. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This legislation seeks to make some minor changes to the activities of the Department of Public Health regarding enforcement actions, again, in a very narrow instance. This relates to current practice of placing a practitioner on probation and maintaining that probationary status. Instead, what we seek to do is to put this individual instead of probationary status on a limited restricted license as they would put it so as to maintain an ongoing restriction, which can still be changed at some subsequent point but would not leave them in the so-called limbo of probationary status. Through you, Mr. Speaker -- oh, excuse me -- I move adoption of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Srinivasan, the Ranking Member of the Public Health Committee, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you there again for the third time -- three bills in a row.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

It's the charm isn't it, Representative?

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Third time is definitely the charm. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good proponent of the bill a few questions for clarification purposes? It is a good bill. It's a bill that ought to pass no question about that at all and -- but just for the intent of clarification I would like to ask a few questions through you, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we have probation and now we have restriction. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the difference between these two -- between the probation status and the restrictive status, through you, Mr. Speaker, for a healthcare provider?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Representative for an excellent question. Probationary status is as it sounds sort of ongoing probation. The benefit of a restricted license is that it can stipulate explicitly what those restrictions are so that the practitioner can continue to practice in all other ways but might be limited for example in the prescription medications such that it's very clear the limits of their professional status.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so who then decides as to whether it is going to be a probation or it's going to be a restriction of some competent of the healthcare practice?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that DPH has a process for making these determinations and it is their objective in all possible cases where a restricted license would be appropriate to choose that approach as opposed to the probationary status.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good Chair give us maybe an example or two where somebody's license could be restricted rather than the healthcare provider going through probation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another good question. I gave one example in the context of perhaps it being in appropriate for a practitioner to prescribe medications for a period of time but there can also be circumstances, which are by definition more temporary that have to do with the practitioner's experience in a certain area. I would not go so far as to presume all the different circumstances that DPH might consider as appropriate for restricted license.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, if DPH after due diligence decides that restriction is appropriate, is there an appeal process by the healthcare provider against this restriction?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that DPH has a well-established and respected approach for their process whereby the individual has ample opportunity on more than one occasion to register their opinion or reservations and to get a fair judgement by the Department of Public Health.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, when this restriction is imposed, is it temporary, permanent, or who decides that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is the restricted license provides for, as I said, something other than probationary status, so it could be in place for however long DPH views it appropriate and I'm sure that there is an opportunity for the individual involved to seek review in a period of time but it is never intended necessarily to be permanent.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there a process when this restriction has happened for the healthcare provider to then say that his or her restriction needs to be removed and that they can practice to their full extent of their privileges?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that that does conform with DPH experience. That under the current probationary status practitioners have been able to apply for removal of that restriction and my understanding is the intent is the same for a restricted license that when such evidence is presented and DPH considers it they will consider resending that status.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good Chairman for all his answers and as we've heard from DPH, the need is definitely there where a healthcare provider's services may have to be restricted either temporarily or even a little bit longer than that for whatever time duration DPH feels is appropriate. There is a process by which this happens. There is an appeal process and there's also a process, which I'm aware of, where one can request the reinstatement of these restrictions so given the fairness of the system that we have to give DPH the opportunity or allow DPH to say they do not have to put the healthcare provider on a probation but instead can restrict their services depending on what they feel is appropriate is definitely a step in the right direction, something that we as a state, as a legislature, should be able to endorse and move it forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 842 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Total voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 158?

CLERK:

On page 46, Calendar No. 158, Substitute House Bill No. 7118, AN ACT CONCERNING BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Health.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Baram, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a rather complicated bill in that it involves what we call biologic products, which are the wonder drugs of the future. These drugs, unlike other medications, are made of human cells and tissue, genes, and cellular therapies, which are combined in a specialized way to address particular illnesses. The biological products right now are mostly brand name products that are on the market that address things like Crohn's disease, cancer, arthritis, and more and more are being developed. Many of which are being developed by Connecticut companies. There's also another biological drug called biosimilars, which are similar drugs that are prescribed directly by the doctor but they're not generics in that sense. They are individual drugs. What this bill really addresses are what we call interchangeable biological products, which are drugs that have been approved by the FDA that are exactly identical. Because of the importance and potency of these drugs involving living cells and organisms, they have to be tested and scrutinized very carefully and so they have to be exact and so our attempt is as these interchangeables come on the market in the next couple of years to make sure that number one we regulate it properly and that we provide as much protection for consumers as possible. This bill parrots about 31 states that have legislation addressing the same issue. There has been a great deal of negotiation, Mr. Speaker, with the governor's office, Department of Consumer Protection, and all the different entrusted parties from the pharmacists, the manufacturers, and so on and so based upon some negotiated changes, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 7122. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and then I'd be granted leave to the Chamber to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will the Clerk please call LCO 7122, which will be designated House amendment Schedule "A".

CLERK:

LCO No. 7122 designated House amendment Schedule "A" and offered by Representative Baram and Senator Leone.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you. The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative Baram, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is really a strike-all amendment to consolidate all the provisions into one -- one legislative proposed bill. What I will do is highlight some of the pertinent sections. Jumping to section 1c, this gives authority to the pharmacists to substitute an interchangeable biological product provided it's been approved by the FDA and further provided that the doctor does not designate that no substitutions are permitted. Section 1d indicates that upon dispensing, which would be prior to the time that the consumer takes the drug and leaves the pharmacy, so prior to dispensing, the pharmacists has to inform the patient that a substitution by the pharmacists has been made. Within 48 hours of that time, there has to be an entry by the pharmacists in the medical or pharmaceutical records, which are set forth how that happens in this proposed bill. Now, some of these drugs are delivered by mail order or parcel and in those cases, we have a provision in the same section that indicates that the pharmacy issuing this biological substitute has to contact the patient to let them know when the product will be delivered and to make sure that the patient will be present. Many of these products, Mr. Speaker, are packed in frozen ice to protect the living cells and again the nature of this drug so it is important that there be somebody available if at all possible to get the drug in a reasonable period of time, not later than 48 hours after the pharmacists makes the call and confirms that the delivery will be made, the pharmacist has to make a notation of that conversation. Upon delivery of this product, the consumer or their representative must sign a receipt if there is a receipt attendant with the kind of mail that's being used and if the person is home to sign. If they're not home to sign, then later on in section n it indicates that there will be an informational sheet in the package where the consumer can call and it's in the consumer's discretion whether they want to call to acknowledge receipt. The reason why somebody may want to call is that if they were away and they weren't sure if the product is still safe to use, they might want to call the pharmacy to double check and confirm that. Within 48 hours of dispensing, the pharmacy must also notify the prescribing doctor to let them know that a substitution has been made so that the doctor, if he has any concerns, can post those concerns and contact the patient immediately. Section f of the bill allows the doctor to require that there be no substitutions and so the doctor always has that discretion to prevent a pharmacist from making substitutions. In a pharmacy, the existing law requires that a sign be posted indicating a pharmacist can make substitutions for generic drugs. This has been amended to include these biological interchangeable products but again, the consumer has to agree to it and also the consumer has to understand that this will be at a less cost than the brand-name drug and the next section, h, indicates that a substitution can only be made if it will save the consumer money. Section i is labeling and like our existing statue, you have to put the brand name on the label, the generic, or now the biological interchangeable product name, and the name of the manufacturer to give the consumer, again, as much notice as possible. Section m, again, requires that within 48 hours of dispensing the drug there has to be a notation made in accordance with the rules set forth in this bill sufficient to give notice to the prescribing doctor as well. This excludes hospital pharmacies from that requirement. Section n indicates that if any of these drugs are shipped directly to the consumer and we have many specialty pharmacies that are out of state that are making these drugs and shipping them and preparing them then as I indicated not only do they have to call and let the consumer know that the product will be delivered and when but there has to be a written notice inside the packing information that indicates what the product is, who the manufacturer is, the pharmacy that is sending this product out, and also the notification that I just discussed indicating that the consumer can contact the pharmacy to ask any questions and confirm receipt. Section 2, which is the last section of this bill, also requires that the prescribing physician must have a consultation with the patient before they prescribe the first biological product and this applies not only to interchangeable but biological products of any kind and in that consultation, the doctor has to review the various treatments for this medicine, the risks, the alternatives, and that discussion has to be documented within 24 hours. Again, this bill tries to address reasonable and appropriate regulation of these biological products and particularly, what we call these interchangeable, which is analogous to a generic drug but because these medications are made of living cells, it is quite important that the consumer have knowledge ahead of time that a substitution is being made by the pharmacist and that they have an opportunity to ask any questions that they may have. Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a good bill that will serve the people of Connecticut very well and I would move adoption of the amendment and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Smith of the 108th, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions to the good Chairman please, through you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

A few questions on the amendment. Yes, sir, please proceed.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Yes, thank you for that, so I recall the conversations we had during the public hearing about this bill and it was complicated and confusing from the start but I remember then Commissioner Harris doing a nice diagram for the committee and kind of helping us understand the differences between biologicals and interchangeables and how it all plays into the medical field and the patients who are actually using these. There were some notice provisions in the draft of the bill that came out of the committee and this seems to change the notice provisions dramatically in a number of different ways so I think it's good for the Chamber to go through that now and just try to make sure we understand what we're doing, so first, through you, Mr. Speaker, is the question about notices to the physicians so if the good Chairman could just describe for the Chamber what type of notice is required to be sent to the physician when an interchangeable or a biological is administered.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the pharmacist would make a notation and can communicate that electronically or by phone or fax and give the prescribing physician all the information so that the physician will know that the interchangeable has been substituted and can decide whether or not he agrees or disagrees with that pharmaceutical decision and that has to be done within 48 hours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

I thank the Chairman for that answer and so if the pharmacist sends the notice to the doctor, the doctor looks at it and says I'm not really comfortable with this interchangeable and I don't think it's a good idea, what happens then?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the doctor could then number one call the pharmacist and indicate he does not want any further substitutions but more importantly would contact the patient immediately and express his concern. Hopefully, at that point, the patient would agree, return the product, and get the brand name biological product that the pharmacist is recommending. I would also point out that most states have a notice requirement that's longer than ours. Many of the states have 72 hours but we felt given the potency of these drugs it should be shortened and the decision was made and agreed to by all the entrusted parties to reduce it to 48 hours.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I again thank the Chairman, so as I understand the response, then the doctor and ultimately the patient would have the final say on whether to allow these interchangeables. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct and as I indicated in my main presentation, the patient or consumer can reject the interchangeable substitution at the time it's dispensed. They do not have to accept it if they have any concerns or fears about it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you for the answers. I just want to go through a scenario, so if I'm a patient and I had an interchangeable being mailed to me through the U. S. postal service, as I understand the Chairman's comments, you know, they're packed in dry ice, I'm away on vacation. I'm away for a week or so and I come home and find out there's a package there waiting for me. What's the process then? Do I have the right to accept it? Do I have the right to reject it? Do I have any obligations as a patient to do anything in terms of notification to a pharmacist or to a doctor or whoever sent it to me?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's hypothetical, if the person wasn't home, when they got home they would open the package and they would see the informational sheet that we're requiring be placed in it and it would have all the information about the product, the shipment date, and it would have a number where you could call the pharmacy to ask any questions and confirm receipt. If you had any concerns about the length of time it had sat -- let's say in the mailbox -- you could ask the pharmacist any questions and if it was determined that the length of time posed some danger, hopefully, the consumer would not accept the product, return it, and call his doctor to have a new product delivered.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

So, just following up then on that response. Do I have an obligation upon receipt if I'm a patient to actually do anything other than consume the product or do I have an obligation to actually call the pharmacist or call the doctor saying yes, I have received this and give notification of that fact?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, in the bill, if you were home when the product is delivered and there is a receipt, you're required to sign the receipt because that is proof that you received it. If you're not home, then it's discretionary whether you wish or may to call the pharmacist to confirm delivery and ask any questions. It's not mandatory. It's discretionary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to dig down a little bit on that so as I understand the Chairman's response, I'm assuming if I have to sign a receipt as a patient the delivery then would be either by a certified or some type of delivery where the postman would come to the door and say here I have this for you would you please sign -- like certified mail for instance. Is that what we're talking about here or is it just simply mail directly and I get it and then I have to somehow confirm receipt?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think your suggestion is exactly correct. If it is delivered let's say by UPS where they require the signature of receipt you have to sign it and the protocol as I understand it -- it would not be left unless the receipt was signed but if somebody sends it through the U. S. postal mail where the person is just putting it in your mailbox or in your screen door, then there's no requirement for a receipt and you would then decide whether you wanted to call to confirm receipt of the product itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

I thank the Chairman for that clarification because I think it's important as a patient because you may actually receive the product, you're happy with it, you take it and neglect to confirm receipt because it was simply sent through the U. S. mail but there is as I understand it there's no penalty, there's no repercussions, if I may, for failure to actually confirm receipt. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

And, again, if the UPS delivery person came to my door and they put out their little pad for us to sign and I decide you know what I'm too weak to sign or I don't want to come to the door could you just leave the package there -- do I have the right to do that or can the UPS delivery man require that I actually put some signature on his electronic pad?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd answer that in two ways. The bill requires you to sign a receipt if a receipt is given to you and you're asked to sign it. Secondly, it's our understanding from our hearings and discussions that when they are shipped UPS, FedEx that those companies will not leave something, especially a medical product, unless the receipt is signed so I think you have your rules of the deliverer, as well as the requirements of the bill that if a receipt is given to you -- you need to sign it to confirm that you have received the product.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Again, I thank the Chairman for the clarification. This is all new in terms of the language in the bill so just wanted to dig down and I know he mentioned before that within the package would be some type of slip or form that the consumer or the patient would have access to -- to confirm receipt or to acknowledge receipt but as I understand it, the patient can simply do nothing with that form. There's nothing that needs to be done. It's really simply for notification purposes that if they do wish to confirm receipt or they do have a question, they can call their pharmacist or call their doctor. I just want to make sure I'm correct in that thinking.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

And, in terms of the notice to the doctor -- shifting gears a little bit -- I believe the Chairman said 48-hours-notice had to be given to the doctor prior to any type of exchange or substitution for these products. I just want to make sure I'm correct on that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's actually 48 hours subsequent to the dispensing of the product so it's not before it's after.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Yes, thank you, so I'm just trying to play that on my mind, so the product is shipped, it's received by the consumer or the patient, the patient receives it, takes it in, and then decides to read the informational packet within the product and realizes that oh perhaps I should have called the pharmacist or the doctor but it's already too late because the product has been consumed. Is there a reason why we have 48 hours after as opposed to 48 hours before?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that there are actually two things that happen before the patient receives the product. The first is the doctor has to have an initial consultation with the patient explaining what the biological product is and also, hopefully explaining what interchangeables are. Secondly, when the pharmacist first dispenses the interchangeable, the pharmacist has to inform the consumer that he is making this substitution so hopefully, the consumer will be aware of what is transpiring but then again when the product is delivered the pharmacist then has a further obligation to notify the doctor within 48 hours so that the doctor is aware that this substitution has been made and if there are any concerns can intervene.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, I thank the Chairman for the clarification. I think that's an important clarification because obviously, if they received it after the fact without a prior consultation with the doctor or the pharmacist it could result in some complications and potential harm to the patient but knowing that there is a consultation beforehand and this interchangeable or biological is being sent because of that gives me a greater comfort for this bill. I supported the bill out of the committee. I continue to support it today. I just wanted to dig down on the notice requirements a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, through you, is there any liability in any sort of way to the pharmacist of the company that's sending this product to the consumer for failure to get the type of acknowledgment that they received the product? I just want to make sure that there's no liability on the business end of it.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this bill has to my knowledge no penalties of any kind. There may be, you know, other legal remedies if somebody received an incorrect medication just as would exist for any medication that exists today but there's -- there's no any kind of a penalty inserted in this proposed bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would agree with the Chairman that obviously, if the business or the pharmacist sent a wrong product there is exposure there and should be but we're talking about notice provisions here so as long as the notice provisions were complied with, they sent the form, I guess that's my only other question. If for some reason the notice or informational packet that supposed to be within the content of this package is not and there is no paper for the consumer to read, is their exposure a liability in that scenario?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, probably the most immediate exposure would be if there was a complaint made to the Department of Consumer Protection that a pharmacy was just failing to comply with the provisions of this bill I would assume the DCP would then take some administrative action against the pharmacy if it was a repeated violation or intentional. That's the only thing right now that I can think of that would be involved in enforcement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

I thank the Chairman for his answers. He's always been very knowledgeable in terms of bringing out these bills and I was a little worried about this one because it is very complicated but as usual, he's done an outstanding job explaining it. I appreciate those answers and I'll continue to listen to the debate but I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I think it's a good bill overall and it certainly will help the industry and help those consumers with some cost-saving measures with these interchangeables and biologics. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Smith. Speaking on the amendment, the distinguished Deputy Majority Leader, Representative Albis, you have the floor, sir.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions through you to the proponent?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I was listening to the debate that was just occurring and I apologize if I missed some of these answers but I just wanted to -- to clarify a couple of things regarding the mail order prescriptions. Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the Representative explain what happens in current practice now? Are there companies that are actually mailing these prescriptions currently?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, because there are many biological products that are on the market that have been approved by the FDA and in talking to the various parties, it seems like many of these products are put into the regular mail and delivered directly so it is currently happening.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Albis.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, when these prescriptions are mailed, are they required to be signed for upon receipt or can they be left at a person's door?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Baram.

REP. BARAM (15TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, currently, to my knowledge, there is no requirement legislatively that they be signed for but the protocols of the delivery method may require signature -- for instance, FedEx or UPS. Here, we're talking about substitution of what we call biological interchangeables and because, again, these are living organisms that are being taken by the patient, the potency and severity of it we felt required some kind of acknowledgement upon receipt so that if a receipt is required by the deliverer, it needs to be signed and if it's not required, we leave it to the discretion of the consumer based upon the consumer information enclosed in the informational sheet in the package.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Albis.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that answer. One more follow-up questions, so the amendment before us requires a signature if the patient is at home and is able to sign for the prescription but if they're not at home and the prescription is left, they could volunteer to call and -- and decide if they want to get more information or confirm delivery through that so it doesn't really change current practice?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Our esteemed Majority Leader, Representative Ritter. Go ahead.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we pass this bill temporarily. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Without objection, this bill is passed temporarily. The Chamber will stand at ease. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 204?

CLERK:

On page 12, Calendar No. 204, House Bill 7194, AN ACT CONCERNING EXCEPTIONS TO THE TEN-YEAR REPOSE PERIOD FOR CERTAIN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you up there, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us extends an exception to the ten-year statute of repose period in certain product liability claims and in doing so, clears up -- I guess what I would coin a little bit of inequity in our statues concerning when workers are injured by -- on-the-job by defective products. Under our current product liability statues, citizens may bring a claim against a manufacturer if they prove that they are injured by a defective product within the product's useful life. The only exception is the part of the statue we are seeking to remove here which limits the time for workers injured on the job to ten years. If the product -- so for example, if the product is nine years old, the worker has a claim for the injury. However, if the product is over 10 years, the worker may not have a claim based on our current law.

We believe this bill will help to clear up that inequity and actually, will be good for many businesses and employers in our state, including the state itself and municipalities when they have workers who are injured on the job after the ten-year statue of repose period has run for a particular product but the product still has a useful viable life moving forward. The employer, in that circumstance, would be entitled to a lean in the personal injury action and could recover the Worker's Comp benefits it has paid out; thereby, recouping and saving money for the employer. I would ask for the Chamber's support for the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further. the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that's before us but I certainly did want to just clarify. I think the Vice-Chairman did an excellent job in highlighting the bill before us but just for some clarification, through you, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the good Vice-Chairman could just clarify whether or not this proposal would change the statute of limitations in filing a lawsuit. It's my understanding under current law the statute of limitations is to bring a lawsuit within three years of the date of injury or damage was first sustained or discovered or should have been discovered. Does the legislation before us change that at all?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. The statute of limitations is not affected by this legislation. The three-year statute of limitation period which the good Ranking Member referenced remains in effect regardless of the age of the product.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that we currently also have some exceptions in our law regarding certain products such as asbestos and when there is an explicit written warranty that goes beyond this time period. Are there any changes to that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. The bill does not change that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the good Vice-Chairman had indicated earlier that we are trying to put a person who is currently hurt at work and someone who is hurt and unemployed in the same position but for clarification purposes, again, if the individual who is hurt at work and does have a Worker's Compensation claim, again, just to make sure that it is clear. That worker's compensation claim the employer would still be able to have an interest in anything that would be recovered for lost wages for example in the product liability claim. Is that correct?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker if the good Vice-Chairman knows -- are we anticipating that this is going to have a large impact? In other words, will there be a lot of individuals that can avail themselves of this change in legislation or do we believe that the impact will be fairly small?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I believe it was the testimony submitted to the committee by the trial lawyers who would be most intimately familiar with that that this will affect a very limited number of instances. Of course, we are talking about a product that is already over ten years old and there's a personal injury from that so the likelihood of this occurring is somewhat remote and will cut down on the number of filings as a result.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the Vice-Chairman for his answers to those questions and also his introduction. I do believe that this is good legislation. Again, we should be looking at an individual who gets hurt as a result of a damaged product equally the same whether or not the injury took place at work versus if the injury took place off of work time so I think that's important, and again, it also gives the ability that that individual who's filing a Worker's Compensation claim that that employer may be able to have a lien and recoup for any payments that that individual had made as a result of a damaged product, so I do believe that this is a good business bill as well in that regard and does set the individual who was injured in the same level playing field, so Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative O'Dea of the 125th district, good to see you, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, good to see you up there. A few questions to the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

In taking a look or examining this, I voted for it out of committee but I had some questions and concerns. I see on lines 10 the factors be considered on what the useful life is. Would -- would the depreciation age -- so say like for example a product has a depreciation schedule for that you can deduct on your taxes, would that come into play on what a useful life would be of a certain product?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is actually existing law, which would remain unchanged by the bill -- just for the benefit of the good Representative and for the Chamber -- the factors to be considered in the useful life. We are not seeking to change those through this bill but to the Representative's question, I believe deterioration would qualify or depreciation would qualify under the first factor to be considered in lines 10 or 11, which are currently in statute at section 52-577a. The effect of the product of wear and tear or deterioration from natural causes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the proponent. I understand and so simply eliminating 6 and 7 the purpose of this bill is then to do what?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to give a worker who is injured by a product whose useful life is over ten years of age the same opportunity to file a personal injury suit as someone who was injured by a similar product who was not on the job. If I could, Mr. Speaker, perhaps give an example or an illustration to the good Representative. If I owned a certain piece of equipment, say I owned a Bobcat earthmoving piece of equipment that had a useful life of over 10 years. If I was injured using that piece of equipment through my job on the job site, under our current law, I would be barred from bringing a personal injury action based on our current statute of repose. However, if I owned that piece of equipment in my personal use and used it on my land on my property for my own personal use and maybe I was building a stone wall or something in my backyard, I would still have a personal injury case in the event that that product was defective against the manufacturer or again -- excuse me -- against the manufacturer of that Bobcat.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and so as I understand it this is simply a mechanism by which an employer can recoup monies paid out for Worker's Compensation? Through you, Mr. Speaker -- in addition to what was already articulated?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I think this bill has a dual purpose. It would allow the worker to recover additional personal injury damages they might have sustained but it also would allow the employer to recoup Worker's Comp payments, which were previously made.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and so in looking through the -- the comments and the testimony that was submitted, I didn't see any negative testimony and I'm wondering if the proponent is aware of any negative testimony concerning this bill?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm not -- I believe initially there was -- there was some comment or concern from some in the business community during the initial public hearing of this bill when it was in its infancy. I have not heard much objection or opposition to it as of late as it's moved through our process. I guess the only -- in the interest in fairness to the Representative -- I guess the only real opposition could be if I was a manufacturer of a product in the state of Connecticut that had a useful life longer than ten years and I was worried about somebody using that product in the state of Connecticut through their job and then eventually being able to recoup the costs but aside from that, I -- I can't see any downside to the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments by the proponent and I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Carpino of the 32nd district, you have the floor, ma'am.

REP. CARPINO (32ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question through you to the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. CARPINO (32ND):

Thank you. If the proponent can just tell me how often he expects this particular bill to come into play in the event it's passed? I think it's important that we have a perspective as to how often this particular situation is happening here in Connecticut? Through you, sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe the testimony from the Connecticut Trial Orders Association, who would be most intimately involved with this issue, during our public hearing was that they perceived this to be relatively infrequent. Of course, we are only dealing with products that have a useful lifespan over ten years of age and only then would the bill be effective in an instance where an employer -- excuse me -- where an employee is injured using that product so the chances of giving rise to the statute are fairly slim and so I would not anticipate more than a couple filings a year.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Carpino.

REP. CARPINO (32ND):

I thank the good gentleman for his answer. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7194.

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 119

Those voting Nay 27

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Are there any announcements or introductions? Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Genga, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

REP. GENGA (10TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. GENGA (10TH):

I have the pleasure of introducing a young man who's a political science --

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

(Gavel) -- (gavel) -- (gavel). Will you please come to order? Representative Genga is preparing an introduction. Thank you, sir, please proceed.

REP. GENGA (10TH):

I have the pleasure of introducing a young man from Stonington, Connecticut who is a political science major. He's here shadowing today shadowing a lobbyist and asked if he could come into the session and see what's going on here and he's asking a lot of great questions and will be going to London for the summer to study at the London School of Economics, and I would like to have the House recognize him as we normally do our guests. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Welcome to the Chambers and I hope you enjoy your time here. (Applause).

We will return to business. Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 308?

CLERK:

On page 48, House Calendar 308, House Bill No. 5529, AN ACT CONCERNING CENTRAL COUNTING OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Appropriations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox, you have the floor, sir.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fox, you have the floor.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to require that absentee ballots cast at any election primary referendum in a municipality be counted at a central location unless the registers of voters of such municipality agree to count such ballots at their respective polling places. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of amendment LCO 7078. I ask the amendment be called and I would kindly leave the Chamber to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will the Clerk please call LCO 7078, which will be designated House amendment Schedule "A"?

CLERK:

House amendment Schedule "A" LCO No. 7078 offered by Representative Devlin, Representative Fox.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Fox, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's a minor change. It addresses the potential fiscal note that was attached to the underlying bill to -- it specifies the counting of absentee ballots centrally be within existing resource. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further? Representative Devlin of the 134th, you have the floor, madam.

REP. DEVLIN (134TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This amendment was worked out on both sides of the aisle and I ask that my members do support it. Thank you very much.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative, thank you very much. Representative Fishbein of the 90th, you have the floor to speak on the amendment.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions for the proponent of the amendment if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, sir. Am I to understand that the bill as originally drafted was a mandate but the amendment makes this totally arbitrary?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment addresses that what was the potential fiscal note attached to the underlying bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Okay, so am I to understand once again that with the amendment that this new legislation is totally arbitrary to be exercised by the municipalities?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Mr. Speaker, the amendment does not address whether or not it's mandate or not. It directly addresses it with the fiscal note that was attached to the underlying bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment adds the word -- if I could read that portion? At any election primary referendum, all absentee ballots shall within existing resources be counted at a central location. I don't know how that isn't just arbitrary?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Why are we doing this?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Was the question why are we doing this?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fishbein, please clarify.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Yes -- yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment is being filed so that the -- we can -- so that the underlying action may be addressed within existing resources by the municipality.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that currently municipality can do this if they choose? Through you, Mr. Speaker -- using existing resources?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fox.

REP. FOX (148TH):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

All those opposed nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (Gavel). Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 5529 as amended by House "A".

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 1

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill as amended passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 441?

CLERK:

On page 32, House Calendar 441, Substitute Senate Bill No. 846, AN ACT CONCERNING SECURITY OFFICER LICENSES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Safety and Security.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Chairman, Representative Verrengia.

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Verrengia, you have the floor, sir.

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH):

Mr. Speaker, this makes two minor changes to the underlying bill. The first one is in the event that a security officer license is not renewed it will -- the timeframe will be extended by 90 days in which a security officer can reapply for his or her license. There is also a $ 25-dollar late fee and the second piece is that the Commissioner of DESPP would send a notice to the licensee 90 days prior to the renewal of the application.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further? Representative Sredzinksi of the 112th, you have the floor.

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill as well. This is a common sense bill that makes some changes that makes the security license application more consistent with applications in the Despi [phonetic] realm. It passed the Senate 36 to 0. It passed the Public Safety Committee unanimously, and I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 846 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The bill passes in concurrence. (Gavel). Any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions? My very good friend of the 73rd district, Representative Berger, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BERGER (73RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of an introduction.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

That's why I'm out here. Please proceed, sir.

REP. BERGER (73RD):

Thank you, sir. With me today is Antoinette Chick Spinelli, Town Clerk in the City of Waterbury, but even more importantly other than the city of Waterbury, which is one of the more important things, is that she is President of the Town Clerks of the state of Connecticut. Chick has been a top vote getter in the city of Waterbury for many, many, many years, a dedicated professional, and a proud Italian American who grew up in the famous town plat section of the city of Waterbury which is known for its strong Italian American heritage, so I would ask the Chamber to please recognize Antoinette Chick Spinelli and all the hard-working town clerks of the state of Connecticut, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

(Applause). I see other members of the Waterbury delegation also around you so thank you very much for all you do for not only the town but also working on the state association.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 477?

CLERK:

On page 48, Calendar 477, Senate Bill 910, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Well, Representative Fleischmann, good to see you.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Good to see you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is in acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fleischmann, you have the floor, sir.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Speaker Morin. The measure before us is indeed comprised exclusively of recommendations that came from the State Department of Education. I'll highlight some of the main ones here. It would remove any in-school suspensions of a half day or more from the calculations of student absences, which was a concern raised with us by boards of education, superintendents, and many involved with schools. It would remove certain requirements for cooperative regional special education facilities to be eligible for state school construction grants; again, this is something we've heard from around the state had been a challenge. It would allow teacher prep programs and their students to avoid taking the state competency exam if they qualify for a waiver based on criteria established by the state board of education. This is a concept that we've discussed for a few years and think its time has come. There are series of other tweaks to education statutes that were recommended by the Commissioner of education, voted upon by the state board of education, and supported unanimously by the Education Committee, so I hope this chamber may join me in unanimously supporting the bill before us. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark further? The esteemed Vice -- actually Ranking Member of the Education Committee, Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

I have a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Firstly, I just wanted to confirm the requirements that applicants have to meet in order to qualify for the entry-level certificate -- just as we have that as part of the record.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would love to answer that question but if the esteemed Ranking Member could sort of point me to which section of the bill she is referring, I think I will be better able to respond.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Section 8, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so the measure before us would allow an individual with a bachelor's degree in any subject area from a Representative Borer or OHE accredited or regionally accredited institution to be eligible for a certificate as long as he or she has completed either of the following:

1). A State Board of Education approved educator program or program approved by the appropriate governing body in the state where his or her higher education institution is located.

2). An ARC program, Alternate Route to Certification program, that's approved either by the state board or the appropriate out-of-state governing body and also satisfied either the state's temp certificate requirement or the resident teacher certificate requirement.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I thank the good chair for his answer. I have another small question on the change and -- the removal actually of the April 15 reporting date for recs to submit open choose seat availability to the state department. Is there now no deadline or what does the deadline become?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the measure before us removes the formal legal responsibility of the annual report in April regarding the number of spaces available for the following school year. I believe also that it was the position of the state department that even without this formal reporting there is communication happening between the state department and the regional education service centers that allows them to note the number of slots so that essentially what we're deleting from statute was something that was not necessary for the calculations involved.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you and finally, I did want to ask about the change of the date of administration of the statewide Science Master Exam from grade 10 to grade 11 and why we are making that change?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the good ranking member, so as she may recall, this was of concern to people on both sides of the aisle. We weren't happy about the timing here but there is a new set of science requirements in the state of Connecticut to which this mastery exam applies and those requirements are not completed by most Connecticut students until they have finished their junior year of high school, so administration of this exam to tenth graders, sophomores, cannot work under the new curriculum that has been set up for science, so it is for that reason and only for that reason that the Education Committee went along with this change. We really have no choice based on the curriculum and the test.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the good gentleman for that clarification. That was of some concern to several of our members and I think that clarifies the reason for the decision, which certainly makes sense and therefore, these are recommendations that generally throughout the bill make compliance easier with existing law and in general just sort out some housekeeping details, so I support the bill. I would urge everyone to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Bill 910 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 6

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The bill passes in concurrence. (Gavel). Are there are any announcements or introductions? The fine Deputy Speaker of the 28th district, Russ Morin, you have the floor, sir.

REP. MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purposes of an announcement?

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to follow up on Representative Berger's introduction. The Town Clerks Association was in the House today, was outside, and they wanted to let every member of this body know that if you haven't had a chance to meet with your town clerk they have provided -- there is a bag with some information and such outside by our message center, so please stop by and pick that up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

And, you say and such -- that would refer to the sugary goodness that they put in there to keep us awake, Representative Morin, is that correct?

REP. MORIN (28TH):

I have not seen it but I'm hopeful that it's there.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

That's what I'm told. Thank you very much, sir. Any other announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions? Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 445?

CLERK:

On page 33, House Calendar 445, Substitute Senate Bill No. 946, AN ACT CONCERNING THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TECHNICAL AND OTHER CHANGES TO THE INSURANCE AND RELATED STATUTES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Insurance and Real Estate.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative de la Cruz of the 41st, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DE LA CRUZ (41ST):

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative de la Cruz, please proceed.

REP. DE LA CRUZ (41ST):

Thanks again, Mr. Speaker. This bill is simple. It just makes numerous minor technical changes in the bill introduced by the Real Estate Committee and it came out of committee unanimously. Thank you. I move -- for adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

[Laughing]. The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark further on the bill? Representative Sampson of the 80th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SAMPSON (80TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the distinguished Vice-Chairman of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee for his description of the bill. It's about 99 pages long and there are numerous changes but I have been through this a couple of times and I have also had a few other people look at it and we are reasonably certain that it contains no substance in policy changes or anything other than technical and minor revisions but I'd just like to ask two questions through you, Mr. Speaker, for the proponent if I could?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. SAMPSON (80TH):

The first one is I'd like to verify that in fact there are no policy changes contained in this document -- it is just minor and technical revisions to incorporate other bills that have been passed and corrections over time?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative de la Cruz.

REP. DE LA CRUZ (41ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Sampson.

REP. SAMPSON (80TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for his answer and just one more question and that is I would like to verify that there is no cost to the state to implement the bill before us?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative de la Cruz.

REP. DE LA CRUZ (41ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it came through with no impact so yes, correct -- sorry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Sampson.

REP. SAMPSON (80TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks again to the Vice-Chairman. I'll encourage my colleagues to support the bill before us. I just wanted to get it on the records that this is just purely a technical revision bill. It makes some updates to existing law corrections and because other bills have passed that make changes to the insurance statutes, they have to make corresponding changes in certain places. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it and thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Sampson. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guess please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 946 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 196?

CLERK:

On page 11, House Calendar 196, Substitute House Bill No 6334, AN ACT REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF ANIMAL SHELTERS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Environment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Chair of the Environment Committee, Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Demicco, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill directs the private animal shelters to register and comply with basic facility and animal care standards. Currently, the other animal-related facilities such as pet shops, groomers, animal training facilities, commercial kennels, and so forth are licensed and subject to inspection and this bill would create an equal obligation for private animal shelters so I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on the bill? Representative Harding of the 107th district, you do have the floor, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

A few questions to the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good proponent please tell me the reasoning some of the testimony the Environment Committee received on why this is a necessity to do this?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, as I eluded to -- in introducing the bill, there's concern that the -- some animal shelters do not adhere to standards for safety and cleanliness and so forth and this -- this bill would bring those entities into -- into compliance with the standards that are expected and demanded of other animal facilities.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the proponent for his answer. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I may? The next question I have is in regards to some of the testimony we received regarding the department going in and inspecting these -- these shelters. From my understanding, the testimony we received is they only had the authority -- the animal control officers and alike -- they only had the authority to come in and inspect these facilities after there was a determination that animal abuse was ongoing. Could the good proponent please explain what this legislation does to allow them to come in and inspect prior to that?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, this -- this would -- this bill would require that each applicant register with the Department of Agriculture and pay a $ 50-dollar fee for that registration and it would allow the department to -- to come in and inspect the animal shelter at any time rather than wait until there was a problem that developed.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, a final question if I may? There was some discussion I remember in committee if the good proponent could please clarify on what exactly the definition of an animal shelter is and what falls under the purview of this particular statute? So, for example, if there was an individual that had a few pets at their home where they were keeping some pets at that house that they weren't necessarily the owner of would they fall under this statute? If the good proponent could please explain the definition of animal shelter?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, in the bill lines 159 and following, an animal shelter is defined as any private entity that operates a building or facility that is used solely to house animals for the purpose of rescue or adoption and that is not operated within a private residence.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the good proponent for his answers to the question and some of the clarifications. I believe this is a good bill. It addresses a serious issue. I think it allows a lot of the animal control officers and those in authority in these situations to address some significant problems regarding the safety of animals and making sure that there are some regulations in security surrounding the shelters we have throughout the state of Connecticut. I know many of my colleagues support this bill and I would ask that they join me in my support as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Kupchick of the 132nd district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. KUPCHICK (132ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this legislation. Just to give a little background. This is for brick and mortar private nonprofit shelters, not our municipal animal shelters and it really is targeting rescues that may either come off the grid because they get overwhelmed or would use animals solely for the purpose of profit and not care for them. there was a particular case that happened several years ago with an animal rescuer who left 40 animals in a facility without any heat in the dead of winter and there really was very little recourse for those animals to be prevented from being in that situation. This will allow the state to regular brick and mortar style shelters and also protect towns from having to incur the cost of taking care of those animals in a situation where they become in inhumane care. I would like to thank the Connecticut Animal Welfare community, most specifically Connecticut Votes for Animals, the AASPCA, the Humane Society United States, Connecticut Humane Society, and Our Companions Animal Rescue, and the Department of Agriculture for their assistance with getting this legislation through because hopefully, we will be able to protect the many animals that rely on us -- that rely on us to take care of them and make sure they're not in harm's way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. KLARIDES-DITRIA (105TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I echo my fellow Representatives. This bill does go ahead and protect our furry friends. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this bill because it's vital to ensuring the health and safety of all our animals in the shelters in Connecticut and I encourage again my colleagues to vote for this. I had person issue with an animal shelter when my sister and I went to go adopt a cat and these conditions in this shelter were deplorable so this bill helps to regulate all these animal shelters. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further? Representative Sredzinksi of the 112th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The genesis of this bill came about because of an animal shelter in my district that we are ashamed to say was not held to proper conditions. I believe this bill will help the state in the oversight of shelters such as the one in my district. It's actually a shelter we have been dealing with in my involvement in the town of Monroe since 2004 and my understanding is it goes back before that when it comes to zoning issues and even accusations of animal abuse, so I think this is an important oversight for the government to have when it comes to shelters. We provide animal oversight for many, many different areas and this is another one that we are adding to today. I want to thank the Environment Committee for raising the bill and thank the Ranking Member for his cooperation, as well as the Chairman and everyone else on the committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Ackert of the 8th district.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon, sir.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Through you, a question to the proponent of the legislation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you and the good Chairman of environment, so just looking at line -- the end of the sections 160 to 163. In my town, we have a wonderful operation that takes care of abused and -- horses -- but that is a private farm so that farm that brings them in, gets volunteers to help with them is a private functioning farm. Would that be included in this legislation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe that it would be included in the definition that we have here in the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Ackert.

REP. ACKERT (8TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, cause they always are struggling for funds and I know it's a $ 25-dollar a year fee and they do the best job that they can with volunteers so I was curious as to how that would affect somebody that's trying to do a value to the community and to the animals also, so I thank the good chairman and I am co-sponsoring this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? The fine gentleman from the 151st seat that's warm to my heart, Representative Camillo.

REP. CAMILLO (151ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you. I too rise in strong support and parrot some of the previous speakers who stood in strong support of the bill. The overwhelming majority of private, not-for-profit animal shelters are really well-run and are staffed by lots of caring and passionate volunteers but every once in a while, we see a case that's horrific and it calls out for regulatory enforcement, so this bill takes care of that, addresses that issue, and I urge you all to strongly support this too. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Camillo. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. (Ringing)

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 6334.

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 202?

CLERK:

On page 11, Calendar 202, Substitute House Bill No. 7069, AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF COMISSION SALES STABLES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Environment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The fine Chairman of the Environment Committee, Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question is for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Demicco, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill revises the current statue governing commission sales stables, which are -- which are basically private livestock auctions. This bill revises the statute in a way that provides for the increased safety of the animals, traceability of the animals, and access to records about the animals that are sold at these auctions. I think it's a good bill and I would urge -- urge passage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Ah, Senator Representative Harding of the 107th.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon once again, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, sir. I have a few questions for the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good proponent please explain some of the testimony we received, particularly from the Department of Agriculture in regards to some of the concerns that were raised with this sales commission stable?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes. The -- I'd say the major concern that was expressed is that without access to -- to -- to records, it's -- it's difficult, if not impossible, to trace where the animal -- where these animals go so if there's a problem down the road, it's not -- it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to -- to identify where they are and -- and this, you know, this legislation will -- will seek to remedy that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, another question if I may? If the good proponent could please tell me how many facilities this applies to? My understanding right now is that it's currently only one facility that is a commercial sales stable here in the state of Connecticut. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, the gentleman is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that this does not apply to any public sales so if an individual or a farmer wanted to sell their animal, this doesn't apply to them? This only applies to auctions in which the facility takes a certain commission on the livestock sold. Is that true?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. The gentleman is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker. Going through some of this bill, particularly lines 84 onward through lines 103, it kind of goes over some of the requirements that this commissions sales stable will have to abide by. One of them being the identification for the livestock sold. It's my understanding that the Department of Agriculture already provides this commission sales stable with those identification tabs. Is that true?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there's a few other provisions through your conversations and testimony from the Department of Agriculture. Really, the main purpose for this is just tracking down who sold what and to whom. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that's the basic -- the basic intent, yes.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

And, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Speaker, how long does this commission sales stable have to hold onto the records for? Is there a requirement for that in the statute?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, on lines 89 and 90 of the bill, it says that such records shall be maintained at the commission sales stable for a period of three years from the date of sale. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and looking at the bill, it seems like it's a common sense approach to addressing this particular issue, of finding out who and where this livestock is being sold from but one particular provision, which I was a little leery of, is whether or not is the intention or the place or destination or disposition of the animal and some of my concerns was that the individual -- the commission sales stable would not know the destination or disposition of the animal -- and so further on in this section, if you look at line 98, it says that providing false or misleading information is illegal in regards to those provisions and there's a fine accompanied with it, so some of my concern is that the commission sales stable might not know where this animal goes and it's unfair to place that burden on them to track that and so if they give the destination as an errant location, it may not be fair because they might have gotten information that was poor from the individual buying the livestock to begin with so with that being said, I think it's easily correctible and Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment. It's LCO 7207. Would you please ask the Clerk to call it and I be allowed to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The Chamber will stand at ease. Will the Chamber come back to order? Will the Clerk please call LCO 7207, which will be designated House amendment Schedule "A"?

CLERK:

House amendment Schedule "A" LCO No. 7207 offered by Representative Harding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? I'm hearing none. Representative Harding, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and just as I was saying before, this amendment puts intentionally on line 98 before provides in number three, which saying you only -- the Department of Ag can only penalize the commission sales stable if they intentionally provide false information so if for example, the example I was giving someone buys livestock at the auction and they end up going to a different destination than was originally intended or what was told to the commission sales stable, the commission sales stable wouldn't be liable cause they'd have to intentionally provide false information. I think this is a good amendment and from my understanding, the Department of Ag appreciates it and would only be looking to fine individuals that would intentionally be providing false information anyway, so I would hope that the Chamber supports the amendment. Mr. Speaker, if I may? I move the adoption of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. The question before the Chamber is adoption of House amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I agree with the good Ranking Member's description of the amendment. I believe it's -- it's a good amendment. It clarifies the situation and I would consider it to be a friendly amendment and I would urge -- urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on the amendment? I just want to be clear that there are a couple of names on here. I take it you want to speak on the bill? Okay, will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment passes. (Gavel). Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Harding.

REP. HARDING (107TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just finish by saying that this is a common-sense approach to addressing the issues the Department of Agriculture has in tracking down these livestock, tracking down some of the diseases that may be coming from those livestock, where the livestock is coming from. As of now, there really is no requirement to keep any records. This is a simple step in requiring the commission sales stable to keep some sort of records on what was sold, who it was sold to, and possibly where it went, so I urge my colleagues to approve it and support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Cheeseman of the 37th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. If I understand correctly, this in effect brings our regulations in line with federal regulations? Yeah, I know -- yeah.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Sure. Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

My understanding -- through you, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is yes, that is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I see that we've removed the requirement that calves need to be vaccinated against brucellosis to be sold. I know brucellosis is a very infectious disease. Can you explain why that's been removed?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, yes, in lines 29 through 36 of the bill, it makes reference to -- it makes reference to the standards that the Department follows in order to assure that this livestock is -- is free from brucellosis, so basically, the line that excludes -- the line that is taken out of the statute is considered to be duplicative and therefore, unnecessary.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you. Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, so, the understanding is the farm or facility will have verified that their heard is brucellosis free and therefore, the calves or whatever will not need to be vaccinated because they've demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency that this heard is healthy?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, the gentle lady is absolutely correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

I want to thank the proponent of the bill, Mr. Speaker, for his explanations and thank you very much for that information. It sounds like an excellent bill and I will be supporting it. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. The gentleman from the 47th district, Representative Dubitsky, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is -- has been in the works for a long time. A lot of different people have participated in putting it together and I think it's an important bill but I do have a couple of quick questions for the proponent if I may?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you. This bill is designed, to my understanding, to affect facilities that bring in animals from outside and sell them at public auction for a commission and I just want to get on the record that the response to whether or not this bill would affect people that sell horses, sell animals for a commission but do not -- are not involved in one of these facilities, so for example, horse trainers -- one part of being a horse trainer very often is to locate horses for your clients and when the client purchased the horse, very often the trainer will get a commission, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that this bill would not have any effect on that type of relationship or that type of sale.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, that's a very good question so I will direct the gentleman to lines 52 and 53, which indicate that the provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale of an individual heard at an auction conducted by the owner thereof, so basically, that exception is provided for within -- within the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also would just like to confirm from the proponent that this bill would also not affect general livestock brokers who would for example raise their own animals and sell them at -- to customers and obtain -- or broker a sale between two clients and obtain a commission?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Demicco.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the gentleman is correct.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Dubitsky.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to get that on the record for legislative intent that this is only affecting facilities that bring in animals for the purpose of auction, and I do think this is an important bill and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7069 as amended by House "A".

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill as amended is passed. (Gavel). Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions? Representative Dunsby of the 135th district, for what purpose do you rise, sir?

REP. DUNSBY (135TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Today, is Town Clerk Day at the State Capitol --

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

(Gavel) -- (gavel) -- (gavel). Please pipe down so Representative Dunsby can make his introduction. Thank you, sir.

REP. DUNSBY (135TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today is Town Clerk Day at the State Capitol. The town clerks perform indispensable functions for our municipalities and we are honored to have a group of them today from all across the state sitting down at the front of the Chamber, and I would ask that they stand for acknowledgement and that we extend them a warm welcome. (Applause).

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Welcome to the Chamber. Thank you for the service you provide to our town and our state. I hope you've enjoyed your day here. We've enjoyed having you. Thank you. Will the Clerk call Calendar No. 495?

CLERK:

On page 41, House Calendar 495, Substitute House Bill No. 7316, AN ACT CONCERNING EVALUATION OF BUSINESS ASSISTANTS AND INCENTIVE PROGRAMS. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Finance, Revenue, and Bonding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Rojas, you have the floor, sir.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this bill does is require a more extensive analysis of the different economic development programs that are being administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development. It requires that report to be submitted annually to the Finance Committee, to the Appropriations Committee, and to the Commerce Committee and also mandates that either the three committees have a hearing separately or jointly and also requires the state public auditors to also analyze the report to make sure that the methodology that is used to do the analysis is appropriate and convincing in an effort to make sure that we're utilizing limited resources that we have at the state just for economic development.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? The fine Ranking Member, Representative Davis, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, a few questions to the proponent of the bill if I may? Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the kind proponent, under current law, does DECD currently have to draft this report that we're calling for them to draft here today?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Right now, they do produce an annual report but current law only requires them to do a report every three years.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and this bill would require them to review these programs every year annually?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and currently, there is no requirements that a committee even holds a public hearing or discussion about these reports. They're just submitted to these committees currently under current law and nothing really happens. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, currently, they're submitted to the entire legislature and none of the committees are mandated to have a hearing. This bill would certainly expand legislative oversight over this important program.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and in this bill, I believe it's at the end of section one, it requires that those committees hold those hearings before March 1 of that year. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and under this bill, the public auditors would then have the opportunity to review these reports and make recommendations to those legislative committees on changes to these programs based on their analysis of this report. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the kind gentleman for his answers. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill here today is a step in the right direction for the state of Connecticut. Often times, we discuss how economic development plans under the current administration are done in a way that does not have the proper legislative oversight. This bill here today makes those recommendations that many of us have been fighting for -- for a long time and not only requires that DECD does a report every three years but now requires them to do it every single year. It also requires that those committees that have oversight over these programs actually hold hearings and discuss the results of these programs and then additionally, on top of that, another very good benefit if the public auditors get to -- are required to analyze these reports and then make recommendations based on the analysis to those legislative committees who will hopefully act in the best favor of the state of Connecticut and make any of those recommended changes that are in the best favor of the state, so with that, it is a rare time where I believe the Yankee Institute supports this bill and Unions support this bill so with that, I support the bill here today and suggest that everyone here support it as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Lavielle of the 143rd, you have the floor, ma'am.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon again.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

I have a couple of questions for the proponent please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Would this include in the obligations of the DECD report coverage of transactions or deals or assistance performed these of the individual companies as opposed to entire programs?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, my reading of the bill includes the analysis of entire programs and not individual deals.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the First Five or First Five Plus or other variations or iterations of the First Five programs included in this?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you and so there could be consequences for example of the auditors' reports did not show a good return on investment or if the analysis done by committees subsequent to public hearings showed that there was a shortfall in value from the programs, perhaps not as many jobs as promised delivered, could those programs potentially be discontinued or modified?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, that is correct and it requires a commissioner to make recommendations as to whether any particular program should be modified, repealed, and/or continued.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you and I did want to ask -- I had a memory of the year 2013 when we discussed a bill that came through the Commerce Committee -- that passed in Commerce. It was 5302 of that year and at that time, the idea of a cost benefit and return on investment analysis on economic development capital investments DECD had testified against it at that time saying that DECD always conducts a REMI model analysis on major investments and that that protected proprietary information. There was a fear that this sort of reporting and analysis would not do that. Has the DECD gotten over that reluctance and hesitation?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. The Commissioner testified in support of this bill and was active in drafting the legislation as well. Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Representative for his answers. I do stand in support of this bill. In fact, I was very disappointed about House Bill 5302 in 2013. We have the First Five Program as well as others where I remember certain individual transactions as well where the state gave or loaned or granted or promised money to various companies in return for the promise of the creation of a certain number of jobs and once that was done and we had a couple of long discussions about this on the floor -- once this was done, there was no evaluation of wait a minute how much did we pay, what were the jobs that were created in consequence, and how much were those jobs worth in tax revenue to the state? Now, the -- this analysis would, if I understand properly, include a reporting on how much in tax revenue those jobs would create -- had created for the state?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct, yep.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Excellent. This is a very, very long time in coming. If these deals that we have been doing -- these programs we've been offering are not actually coming back to us net positive, then we have some real work to do and I think it's time that we found out, so I do support the bill. I hope everyone else will. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Lavielle. Will you remark further? Representative O'Neill from the 69th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of questions if I may to the proponent of the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

I noticed that one of the things that's called for is a performance audit by the auditors to review the activities of these various programs for economic development. I'm trying to -- in looking at the auditors website, I looked up what a performance audit was and also what or how frequently or how recently they have done one and what I noticed was that -- at least what's on the website, which I assume is the most recent documents -- documentation -- the most recent performance audit by the state auditors was in the year of 2006, and I'm just wondering if they were consulted in the process of developing this legislation because it appears that they have not been doing performance audits and I assume they don't have any recent experience and/or expertise in doing performance audits, so based on the fact that nothing shows after the year of 2006, so the first question is where the auditors of Public Accounts consulted on the development of this bill and are they prepared -- do they have the resources and the capacity to do performance audits?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, they were in fact consulted and I happened to actually run into one of the auditors here today in the Chamber and referenced the bill and that they were consulted and while they're always concerned about recourses, they believe they have the capacity to do this important work.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because, I don't quite fully understand all the details that they would necessarily have to be going into but there apparently are some fairly substantial federal standards for how to conduct a performance audit doing fieldwork and that sort of things, and I guess I'm -- the impression I have is that doing a performance audit is -- is really checking to see if the money is being spent in accordance with procedures and that sort of thing. That's what the auditors normally do and I just want to make sure I understand what is it that the committee has in mind that the information they expect to get from the performance audit? What is the performance audit going to tell you about a particular program? What are we looking for? What are we expecting to see?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think the most important function that we anticipated with the auditors was third-party validation, not allowing just the agency to analyze their own programs and tell us that they're doing wonderful. In so much we believe in what they're saying, it's important to have third-party validation and we want to make sure that the methodologies and the assumptions that they're using in their analysis are appropriate for the programs themselves.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because, I guess when I was looking at the title of this I was thinking that if we're gonna evaluate these things and to see if they're effective one of the kinds of people that I would have thought that might have been asked to do an evaluation would have been an economist and I'm just wondering is there any place in this process where the economist would be able to look at the impact of the assistance and incentive programs to see if they in fact are doing something -- that we're making -- causing a result to occur? Is that supposed to be part of this in some way that there is some sort of economic analysis? I know there is this REMI thing and I -- I share -- if there is skepticism out there, I share some of the skepticism about really how meaningful those computer models are.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there an economist to be found in this process?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the department does employ economists and they can be called upon for review and further analysis or explanation while the auditors are doing their analysis.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are they required though as part of this to get an independent outside economist to come and take a look at the economic viability of the program?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rojas.

REP. ROJAS (9TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no, they are not required to do so but certainly, they could avail themselves on their own.

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think one of the commenters said that this was a good first step in a direction that we need to go in to determine the effectiveness of the programs that we are creating and the monies that we are giving out and tax incentives and that sort of thing. I would hope that in addition to having the auditors check to make sure that the model is being followed or that the whatever analytical tool that was claimed to have been used was in fact used in order to come up with the everything is just wonderful conclusion that probably is gonna be what's gonna be presented to us -- that there be some additional looking at these programs to see if it in fact is an economic base or basis for these programs to even have a chance of succeeding and what things work versus what things don't given the ultimately limited resources we have, and I look forward to perhaps this being the first of many steps towards getting to a point where we really can evaluate what we're doing because in my years here, Mr. Speaker, one of the true weaknesses is our process has been that we pass legislation, we expend money, we create a tax exemption, we create a tax credit, we do a lot of things but we never seemingly go back in a systematic fashion and really look to see if what we were trying to do actually was working and often times, we have by accident kind of gone back and looked to see what happened and discovered that in fact much of what we've tried to do hasn't worked very well at all, so I hope that this legislation is, as I said, the first of many steps towards a really serious process of evaluating our programs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative O'Neill. Will you remark further? Representative Mushinsky of the 85th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. MUSHINSKY (85TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the bill and to reassure Representative O'Neill that this work will be done because the auditors' office now has many of the staff of program review and investigations and that was the committee that was originally scheduled to do the evaluation of business assistance and tax incentives, and now that the committee no longer exists and the staff have been relocated, the same capable staff who has done analysis work like this for dozens of years will now be working on behalf of the auditors to do oversight of DECDs programs for tax incentives, so I personally have faith that this will happen. I have great faith in the staff that now works for the auditors and I think we can rest assured that they will critically analyze these programs and make sure the tax payer's money is being spent wisely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7316.

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

(Gavel). The bill passes. Will the Clerk please call LCO 454?

UNKNOWN SPEAKER:

House Calendar -- Calendar -- Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Calendar 454. Thank you, sir.

CLERK:

On page 34, House Calendar 454, Substitute House Bill No. 7309, AN ACT CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The distinguished Vice-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Stafstrom.

REP. GODFREY (110TH):

Whoa -- whoa -- whoa -- it's not on the board.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

It's not on the board yet. I apologize. It's not on the board. Thank you, Representative Godfrey. Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you doing your yeoman's work up there and a long day up there so -- [laughing] -- we understand the technical difficulties. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate we're here talking about this legislation today, which is legislation aimed at reducing and combating human trafficking in our state. Unfortunately, instances of human trafficking are still occurring and in fact, there is evidence that it is on the rise. Human trafficking really is a kin to modern day slavery in that we have individuals who are being taken against their will and/or their own free will and being placed into situations where they're being required or forced to perform sexual acts. The federal government has taken dramatic steps to try to curtail human trafficking at the federal level. This is our state's effort to catch up. The federal statutes, unfortunately, require intrastate commerce and a trafficked victim to cross state lines in order for those statutes to come into play, so this statute would apply both for a victim in our state who does not happen to cross state lines or there is not evidence that they crossed state lines or -- or in the instance that the state statute -- the prosecutor decides to use the state statute in a state prosecution instead of a federal prosecution. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 7203. I ask the amendment be called and I be granted leave of the Chamber to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will the Clerk please call LCO 7203, which will be designated House amendment Schedule "A".

CLERK:

House amendment Schedule "A" LCO No. 7203 offered by Representative Tong, Senator Doyle, Representative Kissel, Representative Stafstrom, Representative Rebimbas, Representative Cook, Representative Morin, Representative Kokoruda.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? I'm hearing none. Representative Stafstrom, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a strike all amendment, which will become the bill, and is a product of bipartisan work by the leadership of the Judiciary Committee, as well as interested parties and advocates over the last several weeks to try to refine the bill that came out of Judiciary Committee unanimously and make sure we got to the strongest product we possibly could. The bill essentially does several things. Section one beefs up our existing trafficking and person's council by adding a few members including a victim of human trafficking, who will be appointed by the governor. It also assigns certain duties to the trafficking council to report back to the General Assembly before the start of our next session. Section two increases the penalty for sex trafficking to a Class A felony, which again matches with the federal statute and would provide for term of incarceration for someone who is trafficking persons at the rate of 10 to 25 years. Section three cleans up our existing patronizing a prostitute language. It does not increase penalties but it does clean it up so that it makes the language gender neutral, which it has not been. Section four creates a new crime of commercial sex abuse of minors, which would be the equivalent of the patronization of a prostitute under the age of 18 and creates a Class B felony for individuals between the age of 15 and 18 years of age and a Class A felony for soliciting a minor under the crime of commercial sex abuse for someone who is under the age of 15 years of age. Again, that is consistent with federal law and the federal penalties that are on the books. Section five, creates sign posting requirements for the Trafficking a Person's Council hotline. Section six and section seven place some requirements upon DCF and DAS to provide additional training and awareness in human trafficking and also to study the federal contracting provisions and the executive order on federal human trafficking to make sure our state contracts are in compliance, and finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank several of the advocates who worked hard on this bill including the victim advocate, the Commission on Women, Children, and Seniors, the Trafficking of Councils person, the Department of Children and Families, and many legislators in this Chamber who spent countless hours over the last several weeks working to perfect this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Do you move adoption, sir?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Move adoption of the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Ranking Member of Judiciary Committee, Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the amendment before us and I think the good Vice-Chairman did an excellent job in highlighting the amendment for us and I too share his sentiments that I wish this was legislation that we didn't have to pass but certainly, legislation that we worked in a very bipartisan manner jointly with input from the advocates and I can certainly say up until the very last hours before this bill was filed, we all were diligently working making sure that everyone's input was taken into consideration and I think this is a wonderful copulation of all the legislation that was submitted. Before we get involved, there is commissions and councils out there doing the difficult work of investigating and gathering all of the information and stories that lead to the proposals once we see it as legislators and that's work that's very difficult and challenging and I just want to commend them for that, and then certainly the leadership of yourself, Mr. Speaker, also Representative Cook and Representative Kokoruda in seeing this through all through the process and certainly the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Judiciary Committee that we usually are faced with a variety of different good proposals but usually it's several, and what we try to do is take the best parts of each and see if we could, again, in a bipartisan manner support and I think we did an excellent job in that regard.

Also, I want to thank the business community for their partnership and having input and understanding the severity of the situation and it's sad to have heard that this is on the rise in the state of Connecticut and I know we, in many occasions here, highlight the difficulties of businesses in the state of Connecticut and sometimes even pass legislation and I know I have said it that were closed for certain types of businesses and again, this is certainly one, that we want to close the doors on this and I think we have to keep this in the back of our minds when we do patronize certain establishments in the state of Connecticut that when you see something please say something, and we will now have legislation that will support the enforcement of that and we're here prepared to put the tools in the toolbox for our law enforcement to certainly investigate and enforce these laws, again, protecting some of the most vulnerable, which are our minors that are victims in these situations, so I do rise strongly in support of this legislation for all of the good work that everyone has put into it and I hope that this will help an innocent individual out there that, unfortunately, is a victim that will become a survivor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Rebimbas. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I'm gonna try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. (Gavel). The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Kokoruda of the 101st district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. KOKORUDA (101ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want my colleagues to know how important this bill is. It is unbelievable to me as a mother, as a grandmother to know in our state that we have such a problem with young children being trafficking. I know more than I would ever want to know about this issue and I want to thank the leadership of the Judicial Committee and also the members, the wonderful strong members of the Connecticut Commission Women, Children, and The Aging -- and Seniors. What I learned is that this is a public health issue. It's a safety issue but more importantly, we all have to be aware this is a human rights issue and is the human rights of our children. What I learned is how popular, unfortunately, and how often young, young girls and boys are advertised for trafficking. It is shocking to me. This is -- I also learned that our DCF children so many of them have been targeted by these traffickers -- these criminals, so again, I want to thank everyone for -- Connecticut problem is on the rise and that's why this bill is so important. We need to do something about it. I want to thank everyone who educated us. I want to thank everyone who worked on this bill in such a bipartisan manner. It's the right thing to do. It's an important bill. I hope you'll support it. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Kokoruda. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Linehan of the 103rd district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. LINEHAN (103RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to take a moment and thank the chairs and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for putting together this bill. You know, I have received some feedback from members of my community who have told me "why are we doing this? This doesn't happen here" and I have to tell you that it does happen here. We heard from so many people who are victims of sex trafficking, of trafficking persons, of the new commercial sexual abuse of a minor. This does happen here and we need to open our eyes to it and we need to protect or women and our children from this abuse and I just want to say that when we heard the testimony during the public hearing it was very emotional and it was hard to kind of cut through that and I know a lot of you were listening to that but the one thing that I really took away when you cut through that emotion was that this is growing in leaps and bounds because of the drug addiction of our youth, and so when we say that this doesn't happen here and I tell you it does happen here, I'm telling you it's going to happen more and more and more, and what this bill does by protecting our youth is extremely important and I am so happy to stand up in support of this bill and I thank everyone for their support and urge you to vote for this. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Linehan. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Cook, the distinguished Deputy Speaker from Torrington, you have the floor, madam.

REP. COOK (65TH):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. How are you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

I'm great now. How are you?

REP. COOK (65TH):

Ahh. Mr. Speaker, as we stand today and we hear the great testimony on such a horrific subject I think that we need to sit back and recognize as we've heard our colleagues speak just the tragedy that is happening right around our capitol but in all of our communities, and I think it's tragedy that we don't all recognize that are there, and the Representative just before me spoke about it is happening in our neighborhoods. We don't want to admit what's happening here but it is happening and as you and I, Mr. Speaker -- and I find it fitting that you are leading this debate on the floor because of your diligence and your work and commitment to this and being a father and a husband and a grandfather. It's really about protecting our youth and as you and I did a ride-along a little while back in the wee hours of the night, being taken around to the places that you or I or anyone in this room would not necessary recognize is a dungeon for human trafficking and the people who are patronizing these dungeons and the events that go on inside of a place that you and I would never know was what it is once you walk in a door and the videos that we've seen and the stories that have been told and about the people that just try to survive to get through one day to another day. People don't wake up and ask for addictions. People definitely don't wake up and ask to be abused. We definitely know that people don't ask to be trafficked, and once you're in a situation that way, people are owning you, they're selling you. You've lost all sense of rights and confidence and you don't have the ability to fight your way out, and as we don't like to have these conversations and to deal with these types of tragedies, it is our job as legislators to ensure that the people who cannot fight their way out of such a horrific situation have the tools and the abilities to do this, so I want to thank you delegation. I want to thank our caucuses, both side of the aisle, upstairs and downstairs, for really understanding that it is our job to protect people that cannot protect themselves, and as we heard people testify about how they were able to get out, it was because people were able to find the courage to speak out before them and tragically someone who stood next to us in a press conference a few years back lost her life due to an addiction because she could not find the courage to get out of the horrific situations that she was in but yet saved somebody else in the meantime, so Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to give a personal thank you to those advocates that are really doing the yeoman's work on what we could not imagine what they're seeing and what they're doing and thank our colleagues, thank the Judiciary Chairs, thank Representative Rebimbas, Representative Kokoruda, Representative Stafstrom, Representative Linehan, and yourself because I truly think that this is the way legislation is done. It's bipartisan. It's important and we're saving lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Cook. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative LeGeyt of the 17th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill. I fully agree with the intent of it and the need for it and the structure that's been put together for the council that's identified under this bill but I have one question to the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

In line 67 and again in line 74, it suggests that the council is going to develop curriculum and training but then is also going to conduct -- conduct the training in line 67 through 73 for a whole host of healthcare workers and others, and in 74 through 77, develop and conduct training for personnel. I don't object to the idea of the council conducting the training. I'm just wondering if to what degree that was thought through as to how big a task that's going to be to manage all that training and fulfil what's in the bill?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I think the intent of the language here is for the council to develop the curriculum and then to also offer that training where appropriate. Obviously, their resources are not endless. Certainly, it is a broad swath of individuals and institutions who would be eligible to receive that training. I believe the intent of the legislation here is that those institutions would ask for the training to come in and within the resources of the council and within the time allotted would get around to offering that training as they can.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative LeGeyt.

REP. LEGEYT (17TH):

Thank you for that and I appreciate that answer. It sounds like the intent is more to make that training available and wherever it's convenient to have that training put forward that maybe a variety of ways that it could be handled without having the council acting personally and doing all that work. That's my only question, Mr. Speaker. I'm fully in support of this bill. I was just concerned about the broad brush that that -- those references intended. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative MacLachlan of the 35th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few quick comments on the bill at hand. I just want to thank everyone involved who worked so hard to pin this piece of legislation. I was about 12 or 13 years old and I -- a group of us from an institution of faith youth group went on this retreat and part of the -- part of the program for the weekend was a visit by an organization called Love 146 based out of New Haven and they put together a slide show for us to explain what they do and for the past 12 years, they've been raising money to combat the trafficking of human beings, of children specifically, and they told us a story of how they stumbled upon this trade on a trip to Southeast Asia where they went under cover and infiltrated one of these -- these homes where this trade is operated out of and in being taken through the home -- [sigh] -- they came across a young girl in cell number 146 with a fiery and unyielding stare and that -- that young girl became the epitome of what they stand for and what they have spent their time and energy in their lives working to and forever, which is the slavery of children and I cannot believe that in 2017 we have to discuss and legislate these issues and I'm -- I'm so proud that we're wrestling with the hard ones -- with the tough ones -- with the issues that nobody wants to talk about because it's so disgusting and -- and I also -- I just want to take a moment to point to the men and women who serve in the nonprofit organizations across the country, organizations like Love 146 in New Haven who are offering survivor care, who are offering prevention programs. Organizations in Washington D. C. like International Justice Mission who take the time to litigate and bring human trafficking brothels to -- and rings to justice through the legal process and I would encourage us to continue working alongside these organizations and listening to them cause they are on the ground. They are working firsthand with survivors. They are partnering with law enforcement to break up these rings and again, I just thank the proponents on both sides of the aisle for all the hard work that they did. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative MacLachlan. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7309 as amended by House "A".

Total number Voting 146

Necessary for Passage 74

Those voting Yea 146

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill as amended passed. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 473?

CLERK:

On page 37, House Calendar 473, Substitute Senate Bill No. 888, AN ACT CONCERNING LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY A DOG ASSIGNED TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon, Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Conley, you have the floor, madam.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill makes some slight changes to the dog bite statutes to allow members of the Department of Corrections who have dogs, the same protections as other officers -- state police officers, municipal police officers, and our capitol police officers -- regarding if their dog does damage to persons or property. The liability would be on the department just as it is on the state police, Capitol police, town police, and not on the homeowner themselves as the dog is employed by the department and is not the same as a pet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Rebimbas, you have the floor, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us. Just some clarification questions through you to the kind Representative?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, my understanding and if you can please confirm that this in fact would then -- if one of those employees -- law enforcement officer or a correction officer -- brings the dog home from work, home with them, and the animal is left in the care of a family member at their house and the dog then goes out and bites another animal would that family owner or anyone within that home be liable for the dog if any damages were caused?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, that family member would not be liable for any damage under the dog bite statute.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, does this legislation in front of us change any liability to any -- to the state or anyone that would be the owner of the animal?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It does not as the state has always carried the insurance on these Department of Correction animals if they cause any damage to person or property.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the Representative for the responses to those questions and again, I believe that this statute really does just clarify the understanding that the animal is not owned by the individual once its brought home or any of the individuals that may reside in that home or own the property, which the dog resides in, so I do rise in support of the legislation before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If note, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 888.

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 145

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 361?

CLERK:

On page 24, Calendar 361, Substitute House Bill No. 7154, AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENTS' RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THEIR PERSONAL MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The fine Chairman of the Education Committee, Representative Fleischmann, you have the floor.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. fine Deputy Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fleischmann, you have the floor.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so the measure that's before us today reflects two years of bipartisan work to address a basic issue. There are literally thousands of children who go to school today in Connecticut carrying a mobile electronic device. It might be a mobile phone that's theirs or belongs to an adult in their family. It might be a device that is not a phone but allows for texting or music or other applications and we really don't have anything in our statutes around what is permissible or not when it comes to search or seizure of those devices and if you think about it, if it's your child who's in school and who happens to be holding your phone and it's confiscated and someone starts doing a broad fishing expedition on that device, the results could be pretty upsetting for everyone involved because if it's your device it has photos that may be yours or those of other relatives may have absolutely no relationship to the child who happen to be holding the phone when it was confiscated, so the measure before us seeks to strike a balance between the importance of teachers and administrators maintaining control and a proper atmosphere in the schools and students and families maintaining a proper right to privacy, so under the measure before us, an employ cannot take custody of a student's personal electronic device in order to search it or compel a student to provide access to applications on that device unless they are on school property and the school employee has a reasonable suspicion that either A). The student has violated an educational policy and the device contains evidence of the violation or B). Its use poses a risk of eminent personal injury to that child or others. The bill also limits the search that's conducted by an administrator who receives the device to finding evidence of the suspected violation or the risk of personal injury so that there cannot be a fishing expedition on someone's personal device and it also requires notification to the student and the student's parents within 24 hours of the search, so that's the basic concept of the bill. In discussions with my good Ranking Member and Representative Staneski and others who were involved, we discovered that this good bill could be improved and in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 7230. I ask the Clerk to please call it and I be given permission to summarize?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will the Clerk please call LCO 7230, which will be designated House amendment Schedule "A".

CLERK:

House amendment Schedule "A" LCO No. 7230 offered by Representative Fleischmann, Representative Lavielle, et al.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? I'm hearing none. Representative Fleischmann, you may proceed with summarization.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The amendment now before us is very similar to the original bill. The fundamental changes are three.

One, in line 30, we make it clear that there is violation of an applicable educational policy. Second, in line 47, we make it clear that the report regarding the confiscation and search includes information on who the teacher turned the device over to. It's an administrator and we think it's valuable for everyone to know who received the devices and finally, there was a section in the underlying bill that would have barred the sharing of any other information outside the four corners of the search, which sounded like a good idea until folks realized that virtually everyone involved in this process is a mandated reporter so if you're searching for a text message that may have involved bullying or may have been sent in the middle of class and you find that the child sent an inappropriate naked image of another child, that is something that a teacher or administrator would have to report immediately under existing statute, so we -- we struck the paragraph that would have gotten in the way of what is clearly a paramount child safety concern to allow mandated reporters to report elements they find in the search that might fall outside of the original scope of the search but would nonetheless, jeopardize child safety or violate statute. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just say very briefly that the chair summarized it very well. I support the amendment. I suggest everyone else does as well.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Staneski, you have the floor, ma'am.

REP. STANESKI (119TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Good afternoon.

REP. STANESKI (119TH):

I think it's still afternoon and not evening yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Sure, it is.

REP. STANESKI (119TH):

I just want to thank the committee for raising my concept that was filed under a different bill and the good Chairman of Education who as last year walked me through this process when we put this in his amendment and this year when I put this in as a stand-alone bill had many conversations around protecting our students but not just those, our teachers. You know, with evolving technology comes challenges, and some school districts allow kids to bring their own device and some districts say no cell phone use but there are times when a device is needed to be confiscated and that is when it's in the best interest of educational security issues. Unlike a locker search, a cell phone is home to a lot of information -- information beyond the scope of your educational issues and I think that the good Chair of Education outlined some of those concerns. This bill looks to balance that interest. I think that this bill does a good job protecting our students' privacy but not just our students' privacy, our good teachers who with all good intent may open up a phone without this and find something that they don't want to get into, and when you talk about some of the concerns that the good Chair of Education actually brought out with respect to mandated reporting, if there is a possibility of some illegal activity, it is best that an administrator is able to preserve that -- that data for a further investigation, so again, this -- the scope of this bill is to protect our students' privacy but also to protect our teachers and other employees from getting involved in matters that they may not necessarily need to be involved in so I want to thank the good Chair of Education. I want to thank my Ranking Member for helping me on this and I hope that my colleagues will support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative France of the 42nd district.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have just one question for the proponent of the bill, through you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On lines 51 where it talks about the report and discussed what data was accessed from such device, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any provision for where that information may be downloaded and the protection of that information, should the school administrator see fit to do that, and how would the parent and the student know that information?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so I heard the beginning of the question but I feel like I missed the end, so it had something to do with how the parent and student would know something but I would ask my good colleague to just elucidate the end of the question and I think then I'll be able to answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative France.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

I'm happy to do that. It really deals with -- it says the data was accessed and if that data was downloaded since there's no prevention from doing that and the school administrator sees fit to do that, how is the data protected and also, how would the parent and/or student know what was downloaded, where that information was stores, and how it was protected who had access to that data?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my good colleague for that clarification, so we have federal law that protects student privacy regarding any of their student information and in this case if you got a teacher and then an administrator who had just done an investigation, a potentially dangerous behavior or behavior that's against school policy, it's incumbent on the administrator who has done the search to save the information that shows that there was a violation of policy, so a couple of examples -- if there was a text message, I would expect that there would be a picture taken or an image saved of the text message that was a violation. If there is a post on some social medial site, there would be, you know, an effort to capture the image of the post that was made during school hours and against school policy. That information would go into the student's file, along with the information on the punishment that was to be meaded out. That student file is then something -- that portion of the file I'm sure would be shared with the parent at the point when they were learning about the child's punishment. It might be shared with the teacher so the teacher would know, but otherwise, student files are not shared beyond the ambit of those who must know so the parent needs to know why their child was punished. The teacher needs to know what happened after they confiscated the device, but under both federal and state law, the information would travel no further than that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Representative France.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

And, I thank the good Representative for that answer. It sounded like the Representative was talking about a paper copy or a hard copy of the screen capture. My more concern is if it ended up on a network somewhere are those files -- not being familiar with how electronic files or student records are maintained -- you know, are those protected from general access and limited access as a course of -- a natural course of events within the school?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative France.

REP. FRANCE (42ND):

Thank you very much for that answer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (Gavel). Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I was saving my very short remarks for the bill itself and I just really wanted to thank Representative Staneski for bringing up the subject last year and continuing to work hard on this. It had passed in the House last year so it's wonderful to see it again and I want to thank the Chair of Education for being so cooperative and working so hard with us to make sure that this got done. It's an important subject. It's one we hadn't been able to -- everything is new in technology so getting your arms around an issue is you don't always get it right the first time and we probably will have more to do as things evolve but it was necessary to do. I'm glad we're doing it and Representative Staneski deserves a lot of applause for a wonderful job. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, madam. From the 83rd district, Representative Abercrombie, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, just a quick question please?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Mr. Speaker, the question I have has to do with the bullying so part of your comments were about anybody that's texting during school hours, right, and we know that bullying takes place outside of school hours. What kind of protections are in here for if that's the case?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, so this bill is meant to focus on the problem that we have sort of no guide rails at all today regarding what happens to a student's mobile electronic device while in school, and that's all that the measure speaks to. For things that happen outside of school hours, there are measures we've passed in this Chamber regarding school climate that have required every district in the state to have standards relating to bullying and so if for example there are some students who are cyber bullying another student outside of school hours that is something that the school would police in the manner that has been developed in the school board's policies on bullying but under this measure, a teacher or an administrator wouldn't have the power to go ahead and take away a student's cell phone outside of the school or outside of school hours but if that student who's suspected of bullying is in the classroom with the device and the teacher has reason to believe that they're visibly violating school policy by bullying another child or potentially make another child feel fear in the midst of the school day, it would basically say confiscation is permitted and a search for this evidence of the bullying is permitted.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Abercrombie.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good Chair of Education. I think this is a good bill. I just wanted to make sure with all the work we've done around climate in the school districts around bullying and I just wanted to make sure that this wasn't gonna interfere with that at all so I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Belsito of the 53rd district.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although I voted yes for this bill in committee, this is not the bill we should be passing. This is a b. s. bill and that means a bad solution to a problem in -- in short. First of all, we should be telling every student through every school either you -- you cannot bring your phone to school or when you come to school with a phone, it goes into your locker and that solves the problem. This does not solve the problem. This is gonna cause problems down the road. This is going -- I don't' care. It's a bad bill. This is a bad bill. It's gonna cause problems down the road because they're gonna confiscate somebody's phone and then the parents are gonna get an attorney. They're going to sue the school. They're gonna sue the teachers, sue the principal. This is not a good bill. This does not solve the problem. The problem is they're using the phones in school and they shouldn't be so either they put the phones in a footlocker or a locker or they don't bring them to school. Now, all you have to do is stop them from walking through the door with the phone and you will not have this problem. This is a complicated law that should not be passed. In fact, it should be PT'd right now. I'm recommending that it gets PT'd because this is not a bill that will solve the problem. This is a simple problem. You want the problem solved you tell them they cannot bring the phones to school or it goes into a footlocker period. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Belsito. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative O'Dea, you have the floor, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a heck of a line to follow. Mr. Speaker if I may follow up to the proponent with a few questions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please do, sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

To the proponent, it's my understanding that this bill is actually to protect students and their privacy.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think my response to that would be yes and. Yes, it's to protect student's privacy in their data that would lie outside the four corners of a search that an administrator might logically do if they think a child has violated certain policies but it's also meant to protect parents like you who may have leant a phone to a child who's in school. It's also meant to protect the teachers and administrators who are trying to do their jobs because currently we don't have any clear standards in Connecticut around what is or is not acceptable and there is a danger that a teacher could go ahead today and confiscate a phone and start a fishing expedition on a phone that could lead a parent to sue them because the parent discovers their privacy's been violated by a teacher who went on an unwarranted fishing expedition so in short, it's meant to provide protection not just to the students but to the teachers, administrators, families, to everyone who has a nexus with the electronic mobile deice.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the proponent for that response, and so to clarify for myself and legislative intent, lines 22 through 35 set forth the circumstances under which the phone -- the custody can be taken of the phone from the student.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, is that correct?

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that sounds to be like a reasonable summation.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

And, lines 36 through 53 goes kind of over the school administrator may conduct a search. Am I to infer from that from legislative intent that the school administrator is the only one who can conduct a search, not the -- whether it's the teacher or coach or whomever -- they can't conduct a search. Only a school administrator once the phone's turned over to them?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, having spoken with the attorneys who helped us with drafting and Representative Staneski and Representative Lavielle and others about this, yes, I share that reading of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, so I want to make clear for the record my understanding in reading it that it's my understanding that a teacher or a coach or whoever confiscates the phone is not allowed to do a fishing expedition, even a search of any kind of that phone, but they have to turn it over?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative O'Dea.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the proponent for his responses. Despite what some have said about this bill, I think it's a good bill. I think it protects our students, it protects their parents, and it sets forth a procedure by which any phone should be taken and may be searched so I would urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative McCarty of the 38th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. MCCARTY (38TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise in full support of this bill as a very longstanding member of the board of education, former teacher, and member of the Education Committee. This is an excellent bill. It provides measures that protect student privacy to a greater degree. Many of our school districts, a good percentage of them, now do have bring your own device policies, so this adds a layer of student protection, as well as protection for the teachers and administrators, so I am in complete support of this bill and I would urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative McCarty. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dubitsky of the 47th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DUBITSKY (47TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, these days cell phones and other devices have become an intricate part of our society even for children. My own children carry them. They're necessary as part of a communication network that we have developed in our society. Perhaps during the time when high schools or when schools actually had footlockers, perhaps at that point it would have been appropriate to say put your telephone into the footlocker. Now, however, that isn't really the situation in -- in this state and even if it were -- even if the rule was that you should put your telephone in the footlocker, there may be instances when somebody does not do that and maybe that's one of the reasons why this device is confiscated. This bill is pretty common sense. It lays out some basic rules as to what administrators can and can't do with data that's on these intricate communication devices. Information can be transferred from phone to phone and very often a child will have information on their phone that is information from their parents, information from their friends, and it just makes sense to have some basic rules as to how these devices and the data on them should be treated if they are confiscated. Now, there are certainly some safeguards in there for instances where there are -- where the risk of immediate injury or -- to an individual is eminent and the -- and the administrators need to make a decision quickly as to what to do based on the information they find on the phone. That's in the bill but barring something that is immediate and a requirement that's -- that is eminent, it sets out certain parameters and from the perspective of a parent, it gives the parent the information as to what was done with the phone, what data was recovered and very importantly what the reasonable suspicion was that caused the school employee to seize the phone in the first place so not withstanding some of the commons by my good colleagues, I think this is a good bill. It's not a perfect bill but it is a good bill and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Dubitsky. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? The fine Deputy Speaker from Danbury, the 110th district, the hat city, Representative Godfrey.

REP. GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in very strong support of this. For every complex question and problem, there's often a simplistic solution that's wrong. Not letting children -- students bring in their smartphones into class is a wrong answer because they're not just phones. Smartphones have apps and many of them, especially with children going off to school are medically related. Children with type 1 diabetes -- the phone in the monitor and if anything's awry as that monitor works, it phones the parent. Sometimes, depending on how you set it up, it phones the doctor. Diabetes isn't the only medical condition that these are used for so just saying, you know, we'll lock up the -- you can't bring your phone in -- that's such a 20th century kind of concept and it doesn't work in 2017, so I would hope none of my colleagues actually think that the phone part of a smartphone is the only part of the phone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge everybody to vote yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Godfrey. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Orange of the 48th district, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ORANGE (48TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I rise in strong support of this bill and I think that Representative Godfrey nailed it with the apps system and what this phone can also be used for but I rise to thank Representative Staneski for bringing this to our attention and actually addressing the issue with this bill, so I also urge support for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Orange. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

House Bill 7154 as amended by House "A".

Total number Voting 145

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 138

Those voting Nay 7

Absent not Voting 6

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill as amended passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 476?

CLERK:

On page 38, Calendar 476, Substitute Senate Bill No. 908, AN ACT CONCERNING THE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE STATUTES RELATING TO EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Education.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Once again, our fine Education Chair, Representative Fleischmann.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Thank you to our fine Deputy Speaker, Representative Morin. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fleischmann, you have the floor.

REP. FLEISCHMANN (18TH):

Mr. Speaker, in the longstanding tradition of the Education Committee and hopefully, other committees in this building, this measure which is described as technical revisions is purely technical, so these were recommendations from the Legislative Commissioner's office to clean up our statutes. They will have no effect on how those statutes work or to adopt some language I heard earlier today. There's no b. s. -- no bad stuff in this bill. I hope everyone will join me in supporting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and also in that grand tradition. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this bill is technical. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, Representative Lavielle. Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seat? The machine will be open. (Ringing)

CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by roll
. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 908 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 144

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 484?

CLERK:

On page 39, Calendar 484, Senate Bill No. 982, AN ACT CONFIRMING AND ADOPTING VOLUMES 1 TO 13 INCLUSIVE OF THE GENERAL STATUTES REVISED TO 2017. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The fine Vice-Chairman of Judiciary, Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is an acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the title of this bill is fairly self-explanatory. This is the biannual requirement that we formally adopt, ratify, confirm, and enact our revised general statutes to January 1, 2017.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats and the machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

CLERK:

Senate Bill 982 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 144

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 490?

CLERK:

On page 40, Calendar 490, Substitute Senate Bill No. 1032, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT SENTENCING COMMISSION CONCERNING A TECHNICAL REORGANIZATION OF STATUTES INVOLVING THE ILLEGAL SALE OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate, and Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Mr. Speaker, again, the title is fairly self-explanatory. This bill comes to us from our sentencing commission and recommends technical changes to reorganize our drug statutes in order to make them more user and reader friendly. I will emphasize that this bill does not -- it does not in any way change any of the existing penalties under our drug statutes. I urge passage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us. If I may, just some clarifying questions seeing that the good Vice-Chair didn't have to answer any questions on the prior legislation. [Laughter].

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you to the good Vice-Chairman, is this true that this passed unanimously in the Judiciary Committee? [Laughter].

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

That is correct.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker, this never happens or if it does it's usually by the force of Chairs and the Ranking Member to have the Division of Criminal Justice, the Judicial Branch, and the Office of Public Defenders in support of any piece of legislation. Is it correct that all three departments support the legislation before us and says that it's completely technical and believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, these are all attorneys that are trying to make statutes clearer? Is that correct?

Through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct and as the good Ranking Member notes, her -- her persuasion and negotiating skills I'm sure is what brought those parties to the table.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with everything the Vice-Chairman just said. [Laughter]. I ask my fellow colleagues to support the legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Well, thank you, madam. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

To the members of the Chamber, please stay close to the Chambers. We have two more bills that we expect will go expediently as the previous bills so please stay around so we don't have to wait. Thank you. Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check to board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

CLERK:

Senate Bill 1032 in concurrence with the Senate.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 144

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 461?

CLERK:

On page 35, Calendar 461, Substitute House Bill No. 7291, AN ACT CONCERNING THE USE OF CELL SITE SIMULATOR DEVICES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO CONDUCT CELLUAR TELEPHONE SURVEILLENCE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The third times a charm. Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this again is another bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously and has broad support both from the Public Defender's office, the Chief State's Attorney, the ACLU, among others. The bill sets standards for law enforcement when conducting surveillance using a cell site simulator device -- also known as a stingray device. The bill establishes a law enforcement official may install and use a cell site simulator device to obtain geo location data for no longer than 48 hours. If the official wants to use the device longer, they need to make an application for an ex parte order to the court and as part of the application has to make a statement under oath attesting to the facts and beliefs as to why they believe such accommodations are necessary for an ongoing criminal investigation. I urge support of the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

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

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us and I do want to take the opportunity to thank the Chairs and the Vice-Chairs for supporting the legislation out of committee and for Representative Sampson for bringing this to our attention. It is a good bill and it provides some guidelines much needed and I ask my colleagues to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MORIN (28TH):

Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill 7291.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 144

Those voting Nay 0

Absent not Voting 7

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 81?

CLERK:
On page 4, House Calendar 81, Substitute House Bill No
. 6099, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CHILDCARE FACILITY NEIGHBOR RELATIONS TASKFORCE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Children.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd of the 50th district, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Good evening, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good evening.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Boyd, you have the floor.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Thank you, sir. This is a bill that came out of the Committee on Children unanimously. It's a subject that was brought to us by Representative Ackert based off some issues in his district and some others that have come about. The basic premise of this taskforce is gonna establish to look at improving relationships between licensed Department of Children and Families' facilities and the municipalities itself knowing that there's a lot of resources municipalities need to provide -- in some cases, some troublesome features there, so it was unanimous through the committee and I urge acceptance. Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Representative Zupkus of the 89th. How are you, madam?

REP. ZUPKUS (89TH):

I'm great. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation and I would like to agree yes to my good friend Representative Belsito. This is a taskforce. I believe it's number 15,944 but I do encourage you to support it because there -- there is a need for this but there are also people in neighborhoods that are concerned so I look forward to taking the recommendations of everybody at the table and putting them to a greater cause so thank you and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Low and behold, I see Representative Belsito of the 53rd district on the board.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Oh, my God! Another test study number 14,359. We are on our way to exploding with studies. I have a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd, please prepare yourself. Representative Belsito, please proceed.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent, how many -- how many facilities are you expecting to cover to get your information?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Oh Jesus, everybody's coming after me. [Laughing].

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, at this point, the parameters of the study have not been determined. However, Department of Children and Families is willing to work with us based off the concern that was brought to us by a member of this esteemed body.

Through you.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent, will you as the proponent be on this taskforce to do the study?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Page 2 of the bill outlines exactly whom shall be appointed to the taskforce and if the Speaker of the House deems that I am the most appropriation person, I would serve in that capacity but the appointing authority is clearly laid out in the bill.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, are you gonna cover the whole state or are we just gonna do a certain section of the state meaning the southern part of the state, the northern, the northwestern, northeastern? Where are we going to cover to do this study?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd, do you care to respond?

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Yes sir, so to my good neighboring district, through you, I would say any good taskforce or any good study needs to involve various parts of the state to make sure you have an accurate sample of what the conditions are between these facilities and municipalities so just choosing one area would not give an appropriate result.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, so does that mean that you are gonna cover every section of the state or at least it's cutting into quarters?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

Thank you, sir. Through you, again, the Department of Children and Families will be spearheading this piece but I would imaging both urban, suburban, and rural would be taken into consideration cause otherwise why would we do a study if we don't do an accurate sample.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the proponent of the bill if he knows that last year we did 15 studies and of the 15 studies or taskforce, only 4 had some sort of recognition?

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Boyd.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

As this is in fact my first rodeo, I do not know that. However, this study was brought to us by a member of this body and the Committee on Children felt it was a worthy one to -- to get the result.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53RD):

And, through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this is another taskforce. I'm not sure it's worthwhile of doing but if we want to vote on another taskforce be my guest but everything cost some amount of funds because in the world of economics nothing is for nothing, and I'm gonna be voting against this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Zupkus of the 89th. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House, members take your seats, the machine will be opened. (Ringing)

CLERK:

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

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all the members have voted, please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill 6099.

Total number Voting 144

Necessary for Passage 73

Those voting Yea 123

Those voting Nay 21

Absent not Voting 7

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The bill passes. (Gavel). Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcement or introductions? Representative Byron of the 27th and the great town of Newington, Connecticut.

REP. BYRON (27TH):

Well, thank you very much. It does neighbor your town of Berlin, Connecticut. I rise for the purpose of an announcement.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. BYRON (27TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just like the House Democrats, the House Republicans are also celebrating a birthday today. That would be for the one and only Cara Christine Pavalock D'Amato. She -- [cheering] -- not a day over 21. I'm sure you agree with me. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Happy birthday, Representative. Representative Porter of the 94th, for what purposes do you rise, madam?

REP. PORTER (94TH):

I rise for the purpose of an announcement, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed, madam.

REP. PORTER (94TH):

Well, I would like to join in the birthday celebration. We have one of New Haven's finest celebrating a birthday today so can we give it up for Representative Rolland Lemar. [Cheering].

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Are there any other announcements or introductions? I see Representative Luxenberg of the 12th district. Madam, for what purposes do you rise?

REP. LUXENBERG (12TH):

For purposes of a Journal notation, sir.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. LUXENBERG (12TH):

Thank you. The following members missed votes today for illness, Representative Santiago; a death in the family, Representative Tong; family emergency, Representative Urban; business outside the Chamber Representative Gentile, Baker, Dillon, Miller, Paolillo; and for personal business, Representative Lesser.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam. The Journal will so note. Representative Betts.

REP. BETTS (78TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the Journal, Representative D'Amelio missed votes today cause he was back in the district on business and Representative Harding missed a vote. He was out of the Chamber on legislative business. Thank you very much.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. Are there any other announcements or introductions? Representative Albis, for what purposes do you rise?

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For purposes of an announcement.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed, sir.

REP. ALBIS (99TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of all those in the Chamber, we will be back here at 10: 30 a. m. tomorrow morning. We'll be starting right on the dot so please be here on time and with that, Mr. Speaker, there will be no further business on the Clerk's desk. I move that we adjourn, subject to Call of the Chair.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Question is on adjournment subject to Call of Chair. Is there objection? Is there objection? I'm seeing none. (Gavel). We are adjourned.

(On motion of Representative Albis of the 99th district, the House adjourned at 5: 56 o'clock p. m. , to meet