THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
               HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                      MAY 3, 1994
    The House was called to order at 10:09 o'clock
a.m., Speaker Ritter in the Chair.
House of Representatives           Tuesday, May 3, 1994
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Is it me, or is the light funny in here today?  Why
don't we have everybody stand please and come to order.
We're very honored to have a Guest Chaplain today, a
very close friend of mind, Reverend Alvan Johnson, who
he and I have been through an awful lot together in our
lives and he's just a wonderful human being, and maybe
today of all days, we can use your spiritual guidance
and love.  Reverend Johnson.
GUEST CHAPLAIN REV. ALVAN JOHNSON:
    Let us pray.  We live in a world, Spirit of God,
that is filled with strife and filled with many things
that concern us and vex our spirits, but we live in a
state, whose motto is (he) who transplants also
sustains.  Through the efforts of our elected officials
our state has been "transplanted" from the meanness of
dangerous streets, from rampant wantonness and warfare
to a reasonable degree of sanity and safety.
    Now, Divine Spirit, also sustain us as well.  After
toiling through the midnight hours, through the fatigue
and streets, sustain our House and our Senate that their
decisions may benefit the citizens of our state.
Continue to transplant our anger and stubbornness.
Continue to sustain our physical strength and grant us
Your Peace.  Amen.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Father.  Representative Staples will
lead us in the pledge.
REP. STAPLES:  (96th)
    I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty
and justice for all.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Representative Staples.
    Is there business on the Clerk's desk?
CLERK:
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has in his possession a
List of Senate Favorable Reports to be tabled for the
Calendar.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move the matters be tabled for the
Calendar.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Without objection, so ordered.  Is there any other
business on the Clerk's desk?  Is there any other
business on the Clerk's desk?
CLERK:
    Today's glorious Calendar, Mr. Speaker, is the
other business on the Clerk's desk.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Any Points of Personal Privilege?  Representative
Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all the Democrats
on the Finance Committee to come back to Room 207a and
let's have a little discussion.  All the Democrats on
the Finance Committee, 207a, other than those who may
have to bring out an early bill.  Now.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I think the priority would be to be with you, sir.
REP. FEDELE:  (147th)
    Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Good morning.
REP FEDELE:  (147th)
    A Point of Personal Privilege and introduction.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Absolutely, sir.  Please proceed.
REP. FEDELE:  (147th)
    Joining me today for Husky Day and hopefully to
keep me awake are some members of my family, my son,
Michael, his friend, Evan, and my daughter Brianna.  I
would like the Chamber to wish them a normal welcome.
Thank you.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay, are we all ready to get started.  The Clerk
please call Calendar 521.
CLERK:
    Good morning, everyone.  State of Connecticut,
House of Representatives, Calendar Tuesday, May 3.
Kindly turn to Page 11, beginning on today's
businesses.  Calendar 521, Substitute for Senate Bill
264, AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT OF SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL LAWS, as amended by Senate "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Planning and
Development.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Chair of the Environment Committee,
good morning, madam.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    You have the floor.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    I would move acceptance of the Joint Committee's
Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence
with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an
amendment, LCO2590, previously designated Senate "A".
Would he call and I be allowed to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO2590.  It will be designated
Senate "A", previously designated.
CLERK:
    Senate Amendment "A", 2590.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment makes a
minor change in the appointment process to the Board of
CRRA.  It has the Governor appointing with the advice
and the Consent of the General Assembly two ad hoc
members and specifies that at least one-half of such
members shall be the CEOs of municipalities or their
designees and I would urge adoption of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  Will you remark further?  If not,
Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  We just got this amendment
about 30 seconds ago.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the
lady, would this mean that there would be an increase
in the number of those who participate in the CRRA
Board of Directors.  I guess that we're deleting the
language that two ad hoc members shall be appointed.  I
believe those two ad hoc members are for -- I really
don't know what they're for, but if he lady could
explain what the impact of Section 6 of the back of the
Senate Amendment really is, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, currently the ad hoc
members are appointed to the board by the Governor with
our advice and consent when a proposed resource
recovery facility is being considered in the initial
stages.  The amendment would have those members
appointed by the Governor.  It's not a substantive
change in the makeup of the board.  It is in how those
members actually get selected.  They were previously
done at the request of the municipality.  This would
say that at least one of those must be the CEO or his
designee and the purpose of those ad hoc members is to
represent the municipalities on their board and their
viewpoint on the board.  It does not really
substantively change the representation of the
municipalities, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The new language -- the
language that's deleted had the quantity of two members
in it.  The new language has no quantity at all, and as
I read this section, I really don't know.  Through you,
Mr. Speaker, how many members will the Governor now
appoint without the approval of the General Assembly?
Previously, the two ad hoc members for each various
project were appointed with the approval of the General
Assembly and we just acted on some of those executive
nominations very recently.
    The new language doesn't say how many will be
appointed.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, could he appoint
ten?
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, those appointments, if
the representative looks on line 57, are still made
with the advice and consent of the General Assembly and
down on lines 60, 61, it says each such facility shall
be represented by two such members.  I guess there
isn't a prohibition, but I think there is a makeup of
the board that would limit that, but it is saying that
each facility would have two members on that board,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Representative Stratton.  Mr. Speaker, I
was really trying to delay there a little bit until I
could digest what this particular amendment is really
all about.  What the change really is, is there is
another section of the statute that requires that there
be chief elected officials at every Board of Directors
meeting, and without a chief elected official there,
the board cannot conduct business and this amendment
would mandate that at least one of the two members
appointed here had to be a chief elected official and
that would give the Board of Directors of CRRA, a
better opportunity to be able to conduct their business
without having to literally send a search party out for
a chief elected official.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Good morning, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, through
you, Representative Stratton, as I look at this
amendment and I look at a memo from CCM, Section 5,
which is listed new, refers to what I would call, say,
an independent management audit.  Could you expand on
that in little longer in detail please?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I guess I would find it
hard to expand upon the language that is actually here.
It says any committee that oversees the operations of
a resource recovery facility may require the
performance of an independent management audit.  Such
audit, if it is requested, shall be paid for by the
municipality making that request, through you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    One second please.  The Chamber please come to
order.  Representative Nystrom, you have the floor,
sir.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, and through you, as I understand it,
this language came about through the efforts of the
Program Review and Investigations Committee.  Can you
just share with the Chamber if you have information
that tells us that this information is not readily
available at this time, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think that information
has been available to varying degrees.  It was the
view, as the Representative has noted, that Program
Review thought this was an important edition to the
statutes.  This was lifted from a Program Review bill
that is not before us, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you.  Just for clarity.  On Section 6,
Part G, in looking at this language, is it the intent
that the Governor, in appointing the municipal
official and one other person in effect, would we
assume that each town would have two members?  There
was some discussion about that earlier with a previous
speaker.  They were questioning the number of people
that would now be representative of this authority.
    Is it for legislative intent that each municipality
of an authority have two members or is there no limit,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The two members pertain to
the facilities run by the operating board rather than
the municipality.  It's merely saying that those two
members, one of them must be a CEO or his designee,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you.  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just for purposes of
legislative intent, the new language on lines 56
through 61 indicates a new appointing process.  Through
you, Mr. Speaker, to the lady, would this apply --
would some of the existing members who have been
appointed, have to be removed and new appointments made
or would it be your feeling that that intent of this
amendment is that at the point in time that existing
appointees' terms expire, that this law would in fact
go into effect, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the latter, that on the
expiration of terms of existing members of that board,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I asked that question very
specifically because these ad hoc members are now in
fact serving terms that expire at a later point in time
which would be after the effective date of this act, so
we do need to have some clarity as to exactly when
their terms will be expiring.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on House
"A" or Senate "A", excuse me?  If not, I'll try your
minds.  All in favor signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    Senate "A" is adopted.  Will you remark further on
this bill as amended?  Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Very quickly, the file copy of
this bill addresses two issues.  One, it empowers
municipalities to enforce both anti-littering laws and
recycling ordinances and establishes a hearing process
for those infractions.
    Secondly, it increases the civil penalties for
violation of the flow control statutes from a first
offense, from $1,000 to $2,500 and for a second from
$5,000 to $10,000 in hopes of making it easier to
enforce flow control contracts that currently exist and
I would urge adoption of the bill as a very important
measure for our municipalities.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further?  If
not, staff and guests please come to the well of the
House.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  The House of
Representatives is voting by roll.  Members please
report to the Chamber.  The House is taking its first
roll call vote of this session day.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine.  Sorry, take your time.  Take your time.
If all the members have voted, the machine will be
locked.  The Clerk please take the tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 264, as amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "A", in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            128
         Necessary for Passage           65
         Those voting Yea               128
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting     23
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill as amended passes.
    The Clerk please continue with Calendar -- I'm
sorry.  At this time the Chair would ask for Points of
Personal Privilege.  Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.  For the purpose
of an introduction.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Seated in the well of the House is someone with
whom it's been a pleasure for me to work as Chair of
the GAE Committee.  Jan Murtha is the Registrar of
Voters, the Republican Registrar of Voters of the Town
of South Windsor and the President of the Registrars
Voters Association of Connecticut, RVAC.  We have been
very, very privileged to have her as the leader of that
organization and to have had an opportunity to work
closely with her in the drafting of legislation, and if
I could, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to
Representative Prelli.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Prelli, do you accept the yield,
sir.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.  Mr. Speaker,
it's also my privilege to help introduce Jan Murtha.
She's been a friend and a hard worker on many issues
affecting our Registrar of Voters and making sure that
we understood what the effect of the bills that we
were looking at had on our local towns and I would like
to ask --.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    One second please, sir.  Will the Chamber please
come to order.  Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I just wanted to ask all
my colleagues to join Representative Rapoport and I in
welcoming a local elected official who works as hard as
we do.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Sorry, we just have a little delayed reaction here
this morning.  We're trying our best to be spontaneous,
on top of our game, and it'll take us a little while, a
couple more cups of coffee.  Representative Chase.
REP. CHASE:  (120th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, in the
gallery we have a group of students from the Town of
Stratford, if they would please rise.  Mr. Speaker,
these young men and women from the Town of Stratford
represents the cream of our student body.  They
represent the leadership from our Town Council, from
the Student Council, from the Class Councils, the
various clubs and organizations.  These are the future
leaders, not only of our town, but of the State of
Connecticut and we'd like to welcome them.
    Before we give them our usual warm welcome,
however, Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield to
Representative Backer, but on behalf of Representative
Miller and myself, we welcome you, and Mr. Speaker, I'd
like to yield to Representative Backer.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Before I yield to Representative Backer, at this
point Representative Miller is right next to
Representative Chase.  Representative Backer.
REP. BACKER:  (121st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'd also like to welcome
the students to the Capitol.  It's always a real honor
and a privilege to have people come from the district,
to come up here and watch the legislature do their
business.  It's not our business, it's their business,
and on behalf of Representative Miller and
Representative Chase, I'd ask the Chamber to welcome
the people in our usual warm fashion.
APPLAUSE
REP. DONOVAN:  (84th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Donovan.
REP. DONOVAN:  (84th)
    For the purpose of an introduction.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. DONOVAN:  (84th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, today I'm joined by
my son, Aaron, who is on the honor roll at Washington
Middle School.  He's a good son, a good brother, and
he's a big Huskies Men and Women's Basketball Team fan.
I'd like to introduce him to the Chamber and ask for
our usual warm reception.
APPLAUSE
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Kirkley-Bey.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of an announcement.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, madam.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    I would like to announce, especially to
Representative Wollenberg, that Mayor Michael Peters,
the Speaker and myself are willing to have within the
next two weeks a tour of Hartford, so people can see
some of our beautiful historic things and some of the
crime ridden areas and some of the problem areas.  So
anyone who is interested in taking that trip, please
call Mary Anderson, who is my legislative aide, at
8581, and we hope to do it within the next two weeks
before vacation starts.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I will say that if anyone wants to participate in
the tour with me, it will be the Keeney Park Golf
Course and the Goodwin Park Golf Course and I'd welcome
anybody to join me on that tour.  Any other Points of
Personal Privilege?  If not, the Clerk please continue
with Calendar 313.
CLERK:
    Please turn to Page 1, Calendar 313, Substitute for
House Bill 5830, AN ACT CONCERNING BALLOT FORMAT ON
FUTURE VOTING MACHINES.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on GAE.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you very much and good morning.
I'd move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable
Report and passage of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that's designed to
allow municipalities to begin to move into the 21st
Century technology in terms of voting machines.  There
are a number of new voting machines that have come out
on the market.  Some are direct recording electronic
machines.  Some are paper ballot with electronic scans.
    This will allow -- the bill will allow towns to
start to begin to purchase these by eliminating the
requirement of having rows on it.  A number of members
expressed some concern about how these new ballot
formats would be laid out and to attempt to address
those concerns, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an
amendment, LCO4716.  Would the Clerk call and I be
permitted to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO4716, if he may call,
Representative Rapoport, would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO4716, House Amendment "A", offered by
Representative Rapoport.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you.  What this amendment does
is rather than make a blanket change in the statutes
regarding the format of the voting machines, what it
does is it sets up a demonstration project that
Secretary of the State may enact in up to three towns,
three towns only, and that those towns will select
themselves by a vote of their legislative body and
which -- in the case -- for Representative Fahrbach, in
the case of a town meeting form of government, it will
be the Board of Selectmen, and also with the approval
of both Registrars of Voters.  So I think that there
has to be a very strong expression from the town that
this is needed and then the Secretary of the State
could approve up to three.
    So I think it's a good amendment I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question to
Representative Rapoport please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Representative Rapoport, I'm just wondering what is
the mechanism that is going to be used by, I assume,
the Secretary of State, to select these three towns,
through you?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, it is not specified here
in the legislation.  Those towns, any towns -- I would
presume that any town that was interested would gain
the necessary approval of both registrars and the
legislative body and would go the Secretary of the
State with the proposal.  We don't know how many.  We
think it's a relatively limited number of towns that
will be ready to do this either this year or next, but
it would be at the discretion -- I guess by legislation
it would be at the discretion of the Secretary of the
State, which of those towns were chosen.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Was there any contemplation given to perhaps
selecting a small town, a medium town and a large town
or some other mechanism?  I'm just concerned that we
could end up with three very like communities that
won't give us a fair representation of exactly what it
is we're after.  Was that considered, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, there was some discussion
about it and there were some indications of interest
from a number of towns, but it's not clear which towns
are interested in proceeding, so the thought was, in
terms of the amendment, not to bind the towns and the
Secretary of the State as to which towns it would be.
    I would certainly say, for legislative intent, that
the purpose is to get as a broad a cross section of
towns as possible.  If there were a large city that
were interested and a medium sized city and a small
town, that would be the most preferable.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Representative Rapoport.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House Amendment "A"?
Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you,
Mr. Speaker, a question to the proponent of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Representative Rapoport, the demonstrative
equipment that's mentioned here or the demonstrated
project, the equipment that's mentioned here, has
someone offered to loan that equipment to the towns
that will be using it, seeing it may not be equipment
they might want to buy if it doesn't work out?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, yes, through you, there are companies
that market these machines either for purchase, and
there are some companies who rent them so that they
could be rented on a fairly low cost basis.  My own
view would be that it is likely that a company that
were interested in expanding this market would be very
interested in helping out a town with a low cost
experiment of this.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
to the proponent of the bill.  Then there is no
intention of the state supplying any of this equipment
for these towns or putting any funds into the program
them, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, no, there is not.  This
would be up to the towns and it would only be -- this
is enabling for the towns that choose to participate.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on House
Amendment "A"?  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise to
oppose the amendment.  As the only member of GAE who
voted against the file copy, I thought perhaps I was
doing the wrong thing and I re-examined it, discussed
it with the Office of the Secretary of State and my
vote in committee was wrong.  I'm surprised to see now
it looks like at least the Chairman of the committee
and others are going to switch and decide that I was
right.  As I examined the issue, it's clear that there
are a number of towns that may need to change
equipment.  I don't think we need a pilot program.  I
think we should go forward, allow the Secretary of
State to develop the new machine so that we can move
into the new era of electronic voting machines.  It
isn't just two or three towns that I learned that are
going to begin to have problems with the machine, but
it's happening throughout the state.
    I also think the file copy will allow us to present
a ballot without an issue we have here now about party
cross endorsements.  You wouldn't get an issue of being
on two lines.  You could list right on the ballot all
the parties that endorse you, but all your votes would
occur on one line.  So it strikes me as a fairer way of
doing it in that issue as well.  So I urge the Chamber
to reject the amendment and to proceed with the file
copy.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, through you,
a question to Representative Rapoport.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Representative Rapoport, could any of the bond
money that's been set aside for the electronic
registration system also be used to purchase this
equipment for the towns, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, if the bond authorization
bill passes, we will have to look closely at the
wording of that.  I think it was, frankly, the
intention of those of us who supported the initial
legislation for it to be in the construction of a voter
registry list, not for the purchase of these machines.
However, the issue of electronic election management
may be broad enough so that it would be, but I believe
that the answer to that question is no, that is
generally the town's responsibility to purchase their
voting machines and that this project would enable them
to do that with a different kind of machine.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  And Representative
Rapoport, I know that you answered Representative
Boughton in that you thought that somebody might be
willing to come into the state and help us.  Of the
companies we talked to in the GAE Committee or in
getting testimony at the public hearing, what was the
average cost of one of those machines, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, there are different
kinds of machines on the market with a broad range.
Some of the more expensive ones can cost up to
$7,000 per machine.  Some of the lower cost ones, which
are contemplated here, are in the vicinity I believe
between $1,000 and $1,500, and again, they're also
available for rental.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, like
Representative Ward, I prefer the underlying bill.  I'm
not going to be as strongly opposed to this.  I think
that having a pilot program does cost some problems in
towns.  When we're looking at the ballot on every other
machine, everybody is going to be in rows and columns
on the machine, yet these are going to be different.
    I'm not sure how that's going to look on the
ballot, especially where we have multi-town districts.
I think we have to be ready to move ourselves into the
21st century in voting machines.  In fact, some people
should be saying that we should be ready to move
ourselves into the 1980s on new voting machines, and
I'm not sure that this amendment does it all, but I
don't stand totally opposed to the amendment.  I think
we have to start moving forward, and Mr. Speaker, I
think there are some questions on exactly which towns
we're going to set up, how is the Secretary going to
make the decision on some other issues that we have to
address in this, but I think we should move forward,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "A"?  Will you
remark further?
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Powers, I'm sorry, madam.
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, a question to
the proponent of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative Rapoport,
when I got the mockup of the ballot machine insert, I
was a little concerned.  Every two years our town has
the State Senator, the State Reps, the Board of
Selectmen, the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and then
Board of Tax Review, Constables, and then we have 129
member representative town meeting.  How does that play
out on a ballot like the one that we got in our mail?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, I think, and I guess this
is also, Representative Powers, if you'll forgive me,
an argument for sticking with the amendment.  I think
each town situation is different.  There may be ways
in which the towns for which certain kinds of machines
work and certain kinds of machines don't.  I think the
idea here is for doing a pilot project is to find out
exactly whether these machines and which machines meets
the town's needs.  If they don't, the town won't order.
    I would say that there are some machines that would
clearly accommodate 129 member ballot and some machines
that wouldn't and the town would have to investigate
which machine would work for it.  Again, this
demonstration project idea is to allow us to get some
more knowledge on these new machines so that we can go
forward in a sensible way.  So I would encourage
members to please support the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Powers.
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I just want to double
check.  Now, if the Secretary of State does this pilot
project, we're not going to turn around and make it
mandatory on everybody, are we?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further on House
Amendment "A"?  If not, we'll try our minds.  All those
in favor --.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'm sorry.  I apologize.  Representative Gerratana,
I'm sorry, madam.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'd just like to speak in
favor of this amendment.  I like it quite a bit.  It
certainly expands the number of options that we will
have concerning the use of balloting and voting
machine.  I think everyone in this Chamber is probably
aware that the current format, the current balloting
machines that we use are antiquated and cannot be
replaced, so it certainly broadens the language of the
bill or the file copy that we had had and I believe
that we should give it a try, and I'm sure working
with our town officials and of the demonstration
project, this will be a good option.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Anybody else?  If not, I will
try your minds now.  All in favor of House Amendment
"A", please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    House "A" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the
House and the machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  Members please
report to the Chamber.  The House of Representatives is
taking a roll call vote.
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
Of course, if it has, the machine will be locked.  The
Clerk please take the tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
    I'm sorry.  Were you on your feet, Representative
Serra?
REP. SERRA:  (33rd)
    In the affirmative.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Were you on your feet, sir?  Representative Serra
in the affirmative.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5830, as amended by House Amendment
Schedule "A".
         Total Number Voting            135
         Necessary for Passage           68
         Those voting Yea               128
         Those voting Nay                 7
         Those absent and not Voting     16
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.
    The Clerk please call 501.
REP. CARON:  (44th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Hold on, hold on.  Representative Caron, for what
reason do you rise, sir?
REP. CARON:  (44th)
    Mr. Speaker, for a Point of Information.  I believe
staff and guests to the well during a vote means staff
and guests to the well during a vote and a noted a
number of people who were not members in the aisles
during the vote, sitting in members' seats.  And you
know, if the rule is staff and guests to the well, I
would expect it to be enforced, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    You're absolutely correct, Representative Caron,
and what we'll do is just make sure that during the
pendency of a roll call -- I guess that means we've got
to be very careful.  I know that we've been somewhat
lax because a lot of times or staff is here, but let me
just caution all the staff and our guests that we're
very happy to have you here and very happy to our staff
working with us, but Representative Caron is absolutely
correct and we'll ask the sergeant-of-arms to strictly
enforce that.  Thank you for bringing it to my
attention, sir.
    The Clerk please continue with -- Points of
Personal Privilege?  Representative Caruso.
REP. CARUSO:  (134th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, in the well
of the House was have some visitors fresh from
Fairfield.  They're up here today both to view this
Chamber, and hopefully the other, together with the
Supreme Court.
    I'd like to introduce Kaitlyn McKinnery, who I ask
to stand, her friend, Hayden Butts, and their father,
Jerry McKinnery, who is also the past Democratic Town
Treasurer and still a friend of mine.
LAUGHTER
    I'd ask the House to give them our usual warm
welcome.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Welcome here.  Welcome to our Chamber.  It's nice
to have you.  Any other Points of Personal Privilege?
Otherwise we'll continue with Calendar 501.
CLERK:
    Page 8, Calendar 501, Senate Bill 105, AN ACT
CONCERNING THE PAYMENT OF THE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE
IN THE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on
Appropriations.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Dyson.
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker, this is a rather
self-explanatory bill. It changes the period of
investment earnings used to calculate the Teachers'
Retirement System Cost of Living Adjustment from a
calendar year to a fiscal year and, Madam Speaker, it's
my hope that all members of the Chamber will support
this.  Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
bill that is before us?  Will you remark?  If not, will
staff and guests please come to the well.  Will members
please take their seats.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  Members please
report to the Chamber.  The House is taking a roll call
vote.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    If all the members have voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure your vote is
properly recorded.  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 105, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            138
         Necessary for Passage           70
         Those voting Yea               138
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting     13
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call of the
Calendar.  Calendar 487.
CLERK:
    Please turn to Page 17, Calendar 487, Substitute
for Senate Bill 378, AN ACT PROVIDING A GRAND TO THE
SOUTHEAST CONNECTICUT REGIONAL RESOURCES RECOVERY
AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES, as
amended by Senate "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Health.
    The committee recommends passage with Senate "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Yes, Madam Speaker, the Clerk has Senate Amendment
Schedule "A".  Would the Clerk please call LCO4706.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO4706, previously
designated Senate "A".  Would the Clerk please call?
The Representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO4706, Senate "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This amendment struck
the origin bill.  In its place is a provision to allow
the Commissioner of the Department of Public Health and
Addiction Services to issue more than one chronic
disease hospital license to a single institution.  This
will allow some hospitals to be reimbursed through
Medicare rather than Medicaid as a rehab hospital.
    While there is no fiscal impact, the cost savings
to the state is estimated up to $500,000.  Madam
Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's
Favorable Report and passage of the bill, amended by
Senate "A" -- I'm sorry, and adoption of Senate
Amendment Schedule "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption of
Senate "A".  Will you remark?  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I apologize.  I'm trying
to read the amendment against the file.  If I may,
through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the
amendment, what is the effect of striking out lines 1
to 21 in the file?  What's being eliminated?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, that has totally been
eliminated.  It is in the file copy, Representative
Ward, through you, Madam Speaker.  I'm not sure whether
Representative Ward wants to know what was in the
original file copy.  I can read the summarize.
Representative Ward, if you would clarify please.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, I want to know,
and I'm trying to read it against the file myself, what
is it -- I know we're eliminating lines 1 to 21.  I'm
wondering what the substance of lines 1 through 21 are,
through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Okay, Madam Speaker, just one minute please.
Madam Speaker, just a second.  I have to get the file
copy.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Take your time.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Sorry, Madam Speaker, thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    That's all right.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Section 1 dealt with -- that it requires the
Department of Environmental Protection to provide a
$1.3 million grant for the Municipal Solid Waste
Recycling Trust Fund to the Southeast Connecticut
Regional Resource Recovery Authority, through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, Madam
Speaker, am I correct then, with the adoption of this
amendment there will no longer be any grant to the
Southcentral Resource Recovery Facility?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, does the lady have a
fiscal note on this Senate Amendment so I know how much
my resource recovery facility loses?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Yes, through you, Madam Speaker, I'd like to yield
the floor at this time to Representative Stillman.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Stillman, do you accept the yield?
REP. STILLMAN:  (38th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed.
REP. STILLMAN:  (38th)
    Thank you.  Representative Ward, I have accepted
the yield, if I may respond to your question.  That
particular section in the bill we previously attached
to House Bill 5200, so the language did leave this
Chamber, did go up to the Senate and was approved on
the Consent Calendar yesterday.
    Quite frankly, that was the means in the
Appropriations Committee to move the grant out of the
Appropriations Committee.  At the time there was not
any contention about it and so no one has lost
anything.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you.  I thank the lady for her answer.  I
believe what I now understand is that the grant was
taken care of in the other bill and that bill has in
fact moved, in which case I have no problem doing this
Senate Amendment.  If it was still sitting upstairs, I
had a concern about losing another vehicle for that
grant, but if the Senate in fact acted upon it, then my
concerns were addressed.  Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Will you remark?  If not,
let me try your minds.  All those in favor please
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted and ruled technical.
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment,
LCO6291.  If the Clerk would please call and I be
allowed to summarize.
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, in lieu of the amount of business on the
House's Calendar in the event we cannot this amendment
and I'm sure there will be other vehicles that will be
germane for it, I will not go forward with this.  Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    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 --.  Will you remark
further on the bill that is before us?  Representative
Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Madam Speaker, yes, I move passage of the bill as
amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further?  If
not, will staff and guests please come to the well.
Will members take their seats.  The machine will be
opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members report to the Chamber please.  The House
of Representatives is taking a roll call vote.  Members
please report to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure that your vote is
properly recorded.  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 378, as amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "A", in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            140
         Necessary for Passage           71
         Those voting Yea               140
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting     11
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill, as amended, passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call of the
Calendar, which would be Calendar 219.
CLERK:
    Calendar 219 on Page 19, Substitute for House Bill
5139, AN ACT CONCERNING ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION
PRESCRIBED BY ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSES AND
PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY OF ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED
NURSES AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS, as amended by House "A"
and Senate "A", "B", and "C".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Education.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This was a piece of
legislation which passed I think unanimously in the
House, which was designated to facilitate the
administration of medications prescribed by nurse
practitioners in school settings and day care settings.
The House had adopted an amendment, House "A", which
was a response to an attorney general's opinion that
appeared to restrict --.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney, if you could pause a
moment.  (Gavel)  Could the House please come to order.
Could members please take their conversations outside
the Chamber.  I don't think we can understand what
Representative Courtney is trying to explain to us.
Please continue, Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  As I indicated, we
adopted House "A" in an attempt to respond to a recent
attorney general's ruling which appeared to put a
severe restriction on the prescribing and dispensing
authority of nurse practitioners, which again, was
something that was a recent incident.  The opinion was
rendered in February.  House "A" had stricken language
in the existing statute, which in the file copy,
started at line 139, and the closing bracket was at
159.
    When the bill was sent up to the Senate, it
appeared that we had perhaps been a little too sweeping
in the bracketing of that language and with the help of
the department and also the pharmacists who raised the
question about the, again, the manner in which we
attempted to respond to that situation I described
earlier.  A new amendment was drawn to more precisely
focus our legislation to make sure that the nurse
practitioners would continue to prescribe medications,
but would not be authorized to dispense medications in
a way that was beyond the intent of the House when we
adopted House "A".
    So the Clerk has an amendment, LCO No. 6277, which
I'd ask that it be called and I be allowed to
summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO6277, previously
designated Senate "A".  Would the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO6277, Senate "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Again, what this
amendment does is it moves the bracket down to line 157
in the file copy so that the present authorizing
language for dispensing and prescribing remains in
statutes regarding institutional settings which may be
prescribed by regs, adopted pursuant to this section
and the amendment then goes on to state that advanced
practice nurses may under the direction of a physician
prescribe and administer medical therapeutics, which
will dovetail with regs that are presently on the books
and it clarifies, again, that nurse practitioners are
not in a position to dispense medications in office
settings, which was a legitimate concern which was
raised by the pharmacist.  This is consensus language.
Again, it's been worked out with the department.  I
would move its adoption and would urge the Chamber's
support.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark on the amendment that is before us?
Will you remark?  If not, let me try your minds.  All
those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted and ruled technical.
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has an
amendment, LCO No. 954, which I'd ask be called and I
be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO954, previously
designated Senate "B".  Will the Clerk please call.
The representatives has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO954, Senate "B".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  The members of the
Chamber turned their attention to lines 56, 57, 59 and
60 of the amendment.  That capitalized language is
really the full effect of this amendment and what this
does is it modifies the language in the rebate section
of the General Assistance Medical Benefits Program for
pharmaceutical products to restate what has always been
policy in the state, that an urban price index is not
used for computing the rebate.  Apparently a ruling was
just issued at HCVA down in Washington that because our
GA Program may use a CPI Index that it would basically
destabilize the rebate system that we presently
administer through Medicaid in an attempt to make sure
that that doesn't happen and preserve the savings that
we presently get out of the rebate program.
    This language was offered, again, through the
Department of Social Services and also the
pharmaceutical industry.  I'd move its adoption and
urge the Chamber's support.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark on the amendment that is before us?
Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Frankly, this doesn't
seem to relate very close to the file copy that's
before us.  It may be that it saves some money and we
should go forward with it.  Through you, Madam Speaker,
to the representative, if he could indicate what the
fiscal note is on this amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, the fiscal note is
actually no fiscal impact and the reason that it says
that is because if we didn't -- if we didn't do it,
then there was exposure under the HCVA ruling to lose
money because pharmaceutical manufacturers, and again,
they've been in the Capitol the last few days, so that
they would withdraw from the rebate program if this
correction was not made, based on the ruling.
    So it's sort of like it's a cost avoidance type of
amendment, but again, the fiscal note is no fiscal
impact because it's just simply, again, restating what
is existing policy that produces the savings under the
rebate program.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, and again, through you, Madam Speaker,
is this ruling, and the reason I ask this question -- I
see something that doesn't look too close to the file,
and it's in the last couple of days, through you,
Madam Speaker, is the ruling something that happened
recently or is this something that could have been
taken up at the beginning of the session?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, I first learned of it
approximately two and a half weeks ago from the
Department of Social Services, and again,
representatives from the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Council who were in quite a panic over the effect --
the issuance of this letter.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    And through you, Madam Speaker, then to your
knowledge there's really no one that's involved with
this program in either the state or the private sector
that has an objection to what's being done here,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, absolutely not.  This
is definitely by agreement among all interested
parties.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  With that, I would ask
the Speaker to try to find the silken thread here.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Will you remark?  If not,
let me try your minds.  All those in favor please
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted and ruled technical.
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has an
amendment, LCO No. 4963, which I'd ask that he call and
I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO4963, previously
designated Senate "C".  Will the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4963, designated Senate "C", offered by
Senator Mustone.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  What this amendment
simply does is it adds physician assistants --
physician assistants to the language of the file copy,
which again, is addressed to nurse practitioners.  The
prescribing authority between nurse practitioners and
physician assistants is the same and all this does is
it keeps the parity between these two professions
regarding their subscribing authority.
    I personally think we should probably have a law
revision review of all these prescribing statutes to
make sure that we don't have to keep doing this every
time a glitch is found where a prescribing authority
has not been included in other statutes, but again,
this is a good idea, and again, it preserves the
authority that we gave physician assistants in prior
sessions.  I'd move its adoption and urge the Chamber's
support.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark on the amendment that was before us.
Will you remark?  If not, let me try your minds.  All
those in favor please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted and ruled technical.
    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.
Will members take their seats.  The machine will be
opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  The House of
Representatives is taking an exciting roll call vote.
Members please report to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure your vote is
properly recorded.  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    Representative Nielsen.
REP. NIELSEN:  (138th)
    In the affirmative, Madam Speaker.  My machine
doesn't seem to be working.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The machine has been locked, but you will be
recorded in the affirmative, sir.
REP. NIELSEN:  (138th)
    Thank you.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5139, as amended by House Amendment
Schedule "A" and Senate Amendment Schedules "A", "B",
and "C", in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            142
         Necessary for Passage           72
         Those voting Yea               142
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      9
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill, as amended, passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call1l of the
Calendar, Calendar 491.
CLERK:
    The bottom of Page 6, Calendar 491, Substitute for
Senate Bill 373, AN ACT REQUIRING THE STATE TREASURER TO
CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE SECOND INJURY FUND.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Labor.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Honorable Representative Dyson of New Haven.
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker, this is a rather simple bill.
It instructs the treasurer to undertake a study of the
Second Injury Fund and it details what the study
consists of, and Madam Speaker, it's my hope that the
Chamber will support it.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?  Will you remark?
Representative Chase.
REP. CHASE:  (120th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker, through you, a question to the
proponent of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please frame your question, sir.
REP. CHASE:  (120th)
    Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker,
through you, do we really need a bill do to this?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Dyson.
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, it's a very interesting
question and clearly by my response I concur somewhat
and this is something that the treasurer's office asked
for and my assumption would be that they thought --
they felt that there was some doubt as to their being
able to carry this out.
    Even though there is no fiscal impact to the state,
since the cost is anticipated to be minimal and because
they requested this, they wanted this done, I was only
trying to assist in that endeavor.
REP. CHASE:  (120th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Chase.
REP. CHASE:  (120th)
    Madam Speaker, I understand the position that the
good Chairman of the Appropriations Committee is in,
certainly.  When the constitutional office requests
something, you try not to say not, but Madam Speaker,
we have very few hours left.  You know, we have some
major issues on that Calendar, one of which is the fact
that we're all waiting to override the Governor's veto
on the Indian Compact.  I guess we keep ignoring that
one, not to mention we got a tax package we haven't
done yet and we're going to start passing legislation
that treasurer already has the authority to do.  This
is a waste of our time.   With due respect to the
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why are you
wasting our time with this kind of nonsense.  This is
ridiculous.  Let's just vote it down.  The treasurer
already has a responsibility to do this.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Will you remark further on the bill that is before
us?  Representative Bowden.
REP. BOWDEN:  (31st)
    Thank you.  Madam Speaker, thank you very much.
This particular issue began with the Program Review and
Investigations Committee.  It turned out that the
Second Injury Fund had absolutely no idea, that is the
administrator for that fund, no idea how much unfunded
liability was down the road years ahead, projected out,
for those people who were in the system.
    In addition to that, there were those insurers who
were trying to circumvent the Workers' Compensation
process by going straight to this fund with no
particular reason so to do.  We think this is a very
crucial study and mandating it, we will be sure it gets
done.  Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir, for your remarks?  Will you remark
further on the bill that is before us?  Will you
remark?  If not, will staff and guests please come to
the well.  Will members take their seats.  The machine
will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  The House is
voting by roll call.  Members to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure that your vote is
properly recorded?  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 373, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            140
         Necessary for Passage           71
         Those voting Yea               125
         Those voting Nay                15
         Those absent and not Voting     11
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill passes.
    Are there any announcements or Points of Personal
Privilege?
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative somebody --.  Representative
Nielsen.  Oh, no, where are you?
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Way over in the corner.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, members
of the House, I would like to introduce to you my
family who has joined us today instead of tomorrow.  I
thought it would be a little less hectic and I agreed.
This is our youngest daughter, Molly, our oldest, Kate,
my wife, Linda, and our son in July, soon to be,
unnamed.  Thank you.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Madam Speaker, seated in the well of the House we
have three young people who are visiting with us.  They
are Zev Menachim and Bella Sandman.  If they would
rise, from New Haven.  They are the children of
Professor Josh Sandman from the University of New
Haven, a political science professor.  I'd like
everybody to welcome them, but I would also ask the
members of the Chamber, they are here escorted by a
very special guide, someone who graced this Chamber for
quite some time, who is here to guide us and give us
advice for our last 36 hours, bringing the children to
watch for the future generation.  Anyway, I'd like our
colleagues to greet the Sandmans, and their guide, Irv
Stolberg.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Are there other announcements of Points of Personal
Privilege?  Would the Clerk please return to the Call
of the Calendar?  Calendar 522?
CLERK:
    Page 11, Calendar 522, Substitute for Senate Bill
385, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A RACKETEERING AND CONTINUING
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES UNIT AND A BOND FORFEITURE UNIT
WITHIN THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, AND PROVIDING
FUNDS FOR THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, the bill before
us establishes two different units within the Chief
State's Attorney Office, one dealing with a Continuing
Racketeering Unit, if you will, the other dealing with
establishing a bond forfeiture.  It also sets up --
authorizes the setting up of $100,000 for a Witness
Protection Program and the funds for this are already
accounted for in the budget that we have passed.  The
Racketeering and Continuing Criminal Activities Unit is
things that have come and gone periodically and because
it wasn't established by statute, it had been
generally been the funds get shifted around and it goes
into the system all together.  I think it's very
important that we have statutorily established a group
within the State's Attorney's Office that is permanent,
able to track organized crime, gang activity, etc.
    I move its passage.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Will you remark further on the bill that is before
us?  Will you remark?  If not, will staff and guests
please come to the well.  Will members take their
seats.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members please report to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure that your vote is
properly recorded?  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative McDonald.  Representative McDonald,
in the affirmative.
    Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 385, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            141
         Necessary for Passage           71
         Those voting Yea               140
         Those voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not Voting     10
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call of the
Calendar.  Calendar 337.
CLERK:
    Calendar 337, on Page 19, Calendar 377, Substitute
for House Bill 5386, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS AND RACKETEERING ACTIVITY ACT, as amended
by House Amendment Schedule "A" and Senate Amendment
Schedule "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment,
LCO4286.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO4286, previously
designated Senate "A".  Would the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO4286, Senate "A".
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  This amendment makes a
technical change in the House Amendment, specifically
that CORA does not make unlawful joining together with
others in pursuit of goals and advocacy, again,
reaffirming the decision made by this House earlier on
that in fact a conspiracy law would not and is not
expected to apply as it is in CORA to these kinds of
otherwise specifical goals and freedom of expression.
    I move its passage -- adoption of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark on the amendment that is before us?
Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I am a little bit
confused that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee
would say that this ratifies what the House did,
because in fact, this Senate Amendment removes the new
language in lines 27 through 33 of the file copy, which
is the only new language that the House adopted.  So,
through you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate chose to
ratify what the House did, why do we need Senate "A"?
    Through you, Madam Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker.  I think I indicated
that it makes a technical change.  It includes an
association, but I think that same acceptance upstairs
of this similar type of language was in fact, an
acceptance of what the House did.  I don't know if it
was exactly the same words.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    So through you, Madam Speaker.  And I don't think
we need to go through the debate again.  For
legislative intent the debate regarding lines 27
through 33 and the intent of this particular
legislation is reflected in Senate "A" in the opinion
of the opponent of the bill.  Is that correct, through
you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, it is.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Will you remark further on the amendment that is
before us?  Will you remark?  If not, let me try your
minds.  All those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed, nay.   The ayes have it.  The
amendment is adopted and ruled technical.
    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?
Will members please take their seats?  The machine will
be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll.
Members to the Chamber.  Members, to the Chamber,
please. The House is voting by roll call.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted and their votes are
properly recorded, if they are not, please vote.  If
you haven't voted, please vote.  If all the members
have voted and if your votes are properly recorded, the
machine is locked.  Representative Simmons.
REP. SIMMONS:  (43rd)
    Mr. Speaker, in the affirmative.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Simmons in the affirmative.
Representative Castro, you were in the Chamber during a
vote?  Please vote, Madam.  With the microphone, Madam.
REP. CASTRO:  (3rd)
    Affirmative.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Castro in the affirmative.  The
Clerk will take the tally.  The Clerk will announce that
tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5386, as amended by House "A" and
Senate "A"
         Total Number Voting            138
         Necessary for Passage           70
         Those voting Yea               133
         Those voting Nay                 5
         Those absent and Not Voting     13
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill, as amended passes.  Clerk, please return
to the Call of the Calendar.  Calendar Number 226.
CLERK:
    Page 19, Calendar 226, Substitute for House Bill
5754, AN ACT CONCERNING THE CONNECTICUT LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY ACT, as amended by Senate "C".
Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    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 PUDLIN:
    The question is acceptance and passage in
accordance with the Senate.  Will you remark?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an
amendment LCO4313.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO4313, Senate "A"?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Permission to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Excuse me, I believe I was wrong on that.  Senate
"C".
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Permission to summarize, Mr. Speaker.
CLERK:
    LCO4313, Senate "C".
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman has asked leave of the Chamber to
summarize.  Hearing no objection, proceed sir.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, this deals with some technical changes
to our current LLC statute which sets up a new business
entity which we established last year.
    It clarifies that the file in the amendment, if the
file of the annual report is incorrect and is not
correct on a due date, the LLC can be held in default,
much like we do in a corporation, but the Secretary of
State's Office.  It clarifies that certain documents
must conform to whatever the Secretary of State's
Office's size and measure.  It includes LLC's which
require filing under assumed names.  If you have to
file -- if an LLC uses a fictitious name, the
municipality has to file a certificate of trade name in
that municipality.
    I move its adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark?
Will you remark on Senate "C"?  If not, let me try your
minds.  All those in favor of Senate "C" signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Those opposed, nay.  "C" is adopted.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has another amendment.
LCO6641.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO6641, House "A"?
CLERK:
    LCO6641, House "A" offered by Representative
Tulisano.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection, summarize, sir.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment makes some changes on
line three and on line six which effectively, although
it is shortened term --
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Excuse me, sir.  I believe we have an objection on
the floor.  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, I don't see any copies of that
amendment on this side.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Then the House will stand at ease until copies are
provided.
PAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The House will return to order.  Copies have been
provided to both sides of the aisle.  Will you continue
with your summarization, Representative Tulisano?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment makes it clear
that you value the partnership assets that maybe
converting to an LLC.  On the day liability became due.
It clarifies that partners cannot limit a creditor.
The conversion rate as the date, as the only date to
determine the value of the partnership assets when it
has been converted.  It is designed to protect
creditors.
    I move its adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption of House "A".  Will you
remark?  Representative Nielsen.  No.  Will you remark?
If not, let me try your minds.  All those in favor of
House "A", signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Those contrary minded, nay.  The ayes have it.  The
amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further on the bill, as amended?
Will you remark?  If not, staff and guests to the well
of the House.  Members please be seated.  The machine
will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members please report to the chamber.  The House
is voting by roll call.  Members, to the chamber,
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Have all the members voted?  If they have not, will
they please vote?  If the members have voted and if the
votes are properly recorded on the machine, -- would
you please vote, sir?  Ladies and gentlemen, it is the
usual 48 hour drill caution.  The machine will not be
opened for very long periods of time.  If you don't
move quickly, you will miss votes.  My apologies.
    The machine is locked.  The Clerk will take a
tally.  The Clerk will announce that tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5754, as amended by Senate "C" and
House "A"
         Total Number Voting            142
         Necessary for Passage           72
         Those Voting Yea               142
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      9
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill, as amended, passes.  Are there any points
or announcements?  Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I would remind all House Democrats on
the Finance Committee to come back to the Speaker's
Office immediately.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I am not sure I heard that, sir.  Could you repeat
it?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    All Finance Committee Democrats, back to the
Speaker's Office immediately.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you very much, sir.  Representative Beamon.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    For a transcript notation.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your notation, sir.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Would the transcript please note that
Representative Anne McDonald of the 148th missed early
votes today in our session due to legislative business
away from the Chamber?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    So noted.  The Clerk will return to the Call of the
Calendar, Calendar 489.
CLERK:
    Calendar 489, on page 6.  Calendar 49, Substitute
for Senate Bill 102, AN ACT CONCERNING THE COLLECTION
OF CIVIL PENALTIES BY THE LABOR DEPARTMENT.  Favorable
Report of the Committee on Appropriations.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Good morning, Representative Eberle.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Good morning, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report
and passage of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on acceptance and passage.  Will
you remark?
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Mr. Speaker, this is in concurrence with the
Senate.  And there is an amendment on it.  If I could
ask the Clerk to call amendment, LCO6009, previously
designated Senate Amendment "A"?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO6009, Senate "A"?
    Representative Eberle, you will have to stand for a
moment while we look for Senate "A".
    Representative Eberle, for what reason do you rise,
Madam?
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Mr. Speaker.  I rise for permission to withdraw the
amendment, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    It has not been called.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    It has not been called.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection, the uncalled, non-amendment
is withdrawn.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    All right.  Mr. Speaker, permission to summarize,
the bill, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection on the request for
summarization, please proceed, Madam.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This bill requires the
Director of the Division of Personnel and Labor
Relations in the Department of Administrative Services
and the Commission of Labor to jointly appoint an
advisory committee to review the statutory provisions
concerning collective bargaining and binding
arbitration and to develop recommendations to improve
the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such
provisions.
    Recommendations and any proposed legislation will
be provided to the Appropriations Committee no later
than January 11, 1995.  I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark?
Will you remark.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an
amendment, LCO4166.  Would he please call and read?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will the Clerk please call LCO4166, designated
House Schedule "A"?
CLERK:
    LCO4166, House "A" offered by Representative
Krawiecki, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.  Clerk, summarize.
CLERK:
    In line 20, insert the following and renumber the
remaining section accordingly:  "The nonlapsing funds
appropriated for a fiscal year which is carried forward
to the succeeding fiscal year, shall be identified, by
appropriated account in the biennial budget act or in
any public or special act in which such funds are
carried forward."
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Yes.  Members of the House, what this amendment
does is require that whenever nonlapsing funds exist,
that they will be incorporated into the biennial budget
or whatever special or public act we are endeavoring,
they would be reflected indicating the amount and how
they are working.  The thought is that as part and
parcel of us trying to establish exactly how much money
the State of Connecticut is spending, where the money
is being spent, it is a useful piece of information to
be provided to members of the General Assembly.
    The current practice is these nonlapsing funds do
not show up as part of the budget document.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Excuse me, Representative Krawiecki for one second.
The Chamber, I have some very important personal guests
here today with us in the Hall of the House.  Would you
please show a bit more than usual decorum?  Thank you.
    Proceed, Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    As I was indicating a moment ago, what this would
do is provide all of us, as members, with I think,
additional useful information as to not only the budget
document that we have, but also these nonlapsing funds
that exist that we do not currently get information
about.
    Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption of House "A".  Will you
remark?  Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Yes.  Mr. Speaker, I guess this is a point of
parliamentary inquiry.  I listened to what
Representative Eberle described as the bill.  I guess
what we are going to do is have an amendment on a bill
which isn't the one explained and I guess after we vote
on the amendment, we will go back and figure out which
bill we are actually talking about.
    Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I assume that is an inquiry requiring.  No
response.  I will therefore proceed with the debate on
House "A".
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, having been provided the amendment, I
was wondering if I could ask just a couple of quick
questions?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  Could the proponent of
the amendment just summarize, briefly, its purpose?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Certainly.  Representative Luby, there are any
number of nonlapsing funds in our state budget
currently.  This file is creating a new one for the
subject matter at hand and in the process of trying to
put together budget amendments establishing exactly
what our state spending is, we recognize that these
nonlapsing funds are not included in our budget
document or the information that we receive as we try
to evaluate exactly what the amount of money is the
State of Connecticut is spending.
    What is meant here is just that these nonlapsing
funds will be reflected and shown.  As they are being
carried forward, they will be identified with where
they are and how much is in them and it is just
additional information for all of us in this Chamber to
know more about our State budget.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, I regard this as a
friendly amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    No further comments.  Ladies and gentlemen, let me
try your minds.  All those in favor of House Schedule
"A", signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Opposed, nay.  House "A" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on the bill, as amended?  Representative
Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker to follow up
on Representative Farr's comments, through you, I would
like to give the lady from the 15th an opportunity to
explain Senate Bill 102, Calendar 489 to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Eberle, will you recognize the
challenge?
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  I very much appreciate
Representative Andrews' offer since I by mistake did
read the wrong bill summary.  And I would very much
appreciate the chance to summarize the right bill.
    This bill creates a separate nonlapsing
appropriation for the Labor Department to use to
enforce the State wage laws.  The funds for the
appropriation come from a $150 civil penalty, payable
to the Labor Department and in addition to other
penalties that the law already imposes on each wage law
violation.
    Under current law, the money received from this
additional penalty must be credited to the Department's
personal services budget and maybe used to employee
additional wage enforcement personnel.
    This bill, instead, requires the funds to be
allocated to the Department's Other Current Expenses
and allows them to be used for wage enforcement.
    I move adoption of the bill, as amended.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill has actually been moved for adoption
already.  Representative Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    If I may continue, through you and ask
Representative Eberle if she knows the dollar amount
that is in this nonlapsing account today.  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Eberle.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  No, I do not.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you very much.  And you are excused,
Representative Eberle for your mis-statements on
bringing the bill out.  Some of us have had more sleep
than others in the last week or so.  It's okay.  Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, Representative Andrews.  Representative
Eberle.
REP. EBERLE:  (15th)
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to
Representative Lawlor, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Lawlor, do you accept the yield?
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just to clarify.  Through
no fault of Representative Eberle, the wrong file copy
was in the file provided by the Clerk.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    A noble defense, sir.  Will you remark further on
the bill, as amended?  Will you remark?  If not, staff
and guests to the well of the House.  Members, please
be seated.  The machine is open.  I would repeat the
invitation for guests to come to the well of the House.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the chamber, please.  Members to the
chamber please.  The House is voting by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted and if your votes are
properly recorded, the machine -- if all the members
have voted and the votes are properly recorded, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    Representative Cleary.  Representative Cleary in
the affirmative.
    If all the members have voted, the Clerk will take
the tally.  The Clerk will announce that tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 102, as amended by House "A"
         Total number Voting            144
         Necessary for Passage           73
         Those voting Yea               144
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      7
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill, as amended, passes.
    At this time, are there any announcements or points
of personal privilege?  Representative Gerratana.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  For purposes of an
introduction.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would the House come to order?  Proceed, Madam.
REP. GERRATANA:  (23rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I would like to introduce
to you and to the Chamber, students from the 4th grade
at Vance Elementary School in New Britain, my alma
mata, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Michele Abraham
and some parents chaperones, Mrs. Borders, Mrs.
Delachik, Mrs. Fiore and Ms. Lisa Maloney.  Please join
me in giving them a warm welcome.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Let the transcript reflect that my son, Sam, who is
now four years old, thinks that yours is the best
school in the world.  And with that, I would appreciate
it if the 4th grade would please come to the podium.
Kids, come on up.  Why don't you join us?  And we will
continue with points of personal privilege and
announcements.
    Representative Fritz.
REP. FRITZ:  (90th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery today, we
have been joined by a group of children from Highland
School in Cheshire.  And if the people, if the children
would stand and the members of the Assembly would
please rise and give them a warm welcome.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Lawlor, for what reason do your
rise, sir?
REP. LAWLOR: (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A point of personal
privilege.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    And your point, sir.
REP. LAWLOR: (99th)
    To further clarify on the last bill called.  On
further reflection, it was the fault of the Chairman of
the Labor and the Public Employee Committee.  The House
Chairman for handing Representative Eberle the wrong
file.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Generous, sir.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    So noted.  Further points or introductions?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Point of personal privilege for an announcement.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your announcement, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    There will be a House Republican caucus immediately
on the -- I don't know what stairs those are, but the
front of the building, I guess, that is called.  North
side.  Immediately.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I hope the lighting serves you, sir.
Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It is our intention to
recess for approximately ten minutes to permit the
lovely women on the other side to have their picture
taken.  As a result, I move that we recess subject to
the Call of the Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The Chamber stands in recess.
The House recessed at 12:13 o'clock p.m.
The House reconvened at 12:45 o'clock p.m.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The House will come to order.  At this time the
Chair will entertain any points of personal privilege.
Good afternoon, Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    A fine afternoon it is too, sir.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    And your point.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    For an introduction, if I may, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. MADDOX: (66th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Ladies and gentlemen of the
Chamber.  Seated in the gallery we have some very
special visitors with us from the Litchfield Elementary
School.  As we are winding down our session here, I
think it is a great opportunity today that we have some
people to come and visit and I would like to take the
opportunity, if the membership would accord them with
our usual warm welcome.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Are there other announcement or points at this
time?  Representative Fusco, my neighbor.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of an introduction,
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your introduction, sir.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Ladies and gentlemen of the House, seated in front
of me in his old seat is a former distinguished member
of this chamber, who diligently and faithfully and
honorably and patiently, I may add, served this chamber
for 18 years.  The Honorable Gene A. Migliaro, Jr.,
Mayor of Wolcott.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Clerk will return to the call of the Calendar, 493.
CLERK:
    On page 7, Calendar 493.  Substitute for Senate
Bill 218, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SMALL BUSINESS
INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Betkoski of the wonderful Naugatuck
Valley.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  That it is.  I move
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report
and acceptance of the bill, in concurrence with the
Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Will you remark?
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This bill allows
Connecticut's --
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Excuse me, Representative Betkoski.  Do you get the
impression sometimes that we are missing all the good
stuff out there?  Proceed, sir.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    There is something rather interesting going on,
yes.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    This bill allows Connecticut's small businesses,
those with up to 500 employees that participate in the
Federal Small Business Technology Transfer Program to
apply for existing state funds to help commercialize
their research results.
    It allows these companies to access the Small
Business Innovation Research Program which renames the
FAC Reassistance Program Revolving Account.  This
competitive funding program is administered by the
Connecticut Innovations, Incorporated.  Basically, it
is a cooperative effort between businesses and colleges
in terms of enhancing technological development within
businesses in the State of Connecticut.  There is money
that has been allocated for this.  We have $500,000
unallocated for this fiscal year.  We have $1 million
authorized for fiscal year 95.
    I believe that this bill stays in line with what we
are attempting to do through the efforts of the
Commerce Committee this year and last and with that, I
will yield to the distinguished Vice Chairman of the
Commerce Committee, Gary LeBeau of the 11th district
and I hope he speaks louder than the people speak out
there.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau, your headphones may prevent
you from hearing that music, but it sounds wonderful.
    Please speak clearly and please speak loudly.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you.  For purposes of an
amendment.  Would the Clerk please call LCO6666 and may
I be allowed to summarize?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO6666, House "A".
CLERK:
    LCO6666, designated House "A" offered by
Representative LeBeau, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau has asked leave of the
Chamber to summarize.  Would you proceed, sir?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment allows for
consideration of executive compensation in the granting
of aid through the various authorities that we have,
the CII, CEA and DED.
    In doing that, it would compare, the authority
would compare executive compensation schedules of the
applicant for aid to other industry groups.
    Specifically, the amendment requires that two
prior years are looked at and the current year is
looked at in terms of the executive compensation plan.
    The amendment gives particular emphasis to stock
options.  If an executive compensation plan exceeds or
has exceeded other industry standards, then the
awarding authority provides and shall provide a finding
if they go ahead and do the grant application.  That
they provide the grant or the loan or the loan
guarantee.
    And in making that finding, they have to explain,
DED would have to explain why the PPR is of the public
policy objectives outweigh the compensation factors
that are part of the executive compensation plan of
said company.
    Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption of "A".  Will you
remark?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear what the
imperious for the adoption of this amendment is.  We
have been seeing a cascade of executive compensation
schedules being printed in the newspapers and I think,
particularly bowing to the people of Connecticut are
those companies that we have helped or attempted to
help.  For me, this is not just a matter of politics or
even policy.  It is personal.  I have got within 200
feet of my home, I have neighbors who are being laid
off.  Three or four.  My paperboy's father.  A woman I
attend church with and sings in the choir.  A man I
helped build a play scape with.
    When it comes to job lay offs in the current
economy, East Hartford is in the epi-center of this
earthquake, this economic earthquake.
    Like so many issues, it would be easy to follow the
demography because our emotions and our passions run
deeply.  To some degree it is legitimate to talk about
those.  Because as public policy makers, we have an
obligation to be the voice of our constituents, but
more than that is our role to be reflective, to be
deliberative, to consider and to do what makes us not
just feel good, but what is in the best interest of the
State and the people.
    Mr. Speaker, we have read a series of articles in
the paper, editorials, innuendo, a local paper has said
we were conned, we were swindled in the past.  I don't
believe we were.  Most of the breaks that we gave to
business last year were across the board.  They weren't
to any particular companies.
    But that doesn't lessen the hurt, the sense of
betrayal you feel when you think you have a
relationship, a partnership with a company or companies
and they appear to break that relationship.  Because
last year, in fact, particularly with one particular
company, labor did make concessions.  The State made
concessions.  Even the stockholders made concessions.
    But the executives took, what I consider to be an
exorbitant compensation package, based not so much
upon production, based not so much upon more sales, or
more products or more value added, but based upon the
increase in the price of stock.  Which itself, is based
upon the layoffs of thousands.
    To take this compensation package, at that time,
was incredibly, at this time, was incredibly
insensitive and in my opinion, just plain wrong.
    That horse is out of the barn.  But in order to
deal with future situations, I bring forth this
amendment.  It embodies the concepts that were passed
by the Finance Committee on another bill.  I believe it
is a fair amendment.  It is a measured response and a
proportionate response to keep our eye on what this
state should be all about, what our public policy
should be all about as we talked about last week,
which is a creation of jobs and helping companies to
create jobs, to retain jobs and to help our taxpaying
public.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I guess I will have a
couple of questions, through you, to the proponent of
this amendment, if I may.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
When reviewing this, particularly this amendment in
lines 42, you say industry group, do you mean sic
classification, s-i-c classification?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Now is this to Representative Betkoski or to
Representative LeBeau?
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Representative LeBeau who is --
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau, do you accept --
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Proficient on this amendment.  If he would.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you respond, sir?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Yes.  For legislative intent.  Yes, sir.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    The s-i-c classification.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, as I read this
amendment that it would seem that it is a look back and
not a look forward.  Is that correct?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  No, not at all.  This
amendment would be attached to the bill.  The bill
takes effect on July 1, 1994.  Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
There is a portion of that --
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Representative Maddox, there is a portion of that
where you are looking back on past executive
compensation schedules for the last two years, in a
sense, to get a look at what the track record of that
company is.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  Let's talk about a
particular instance.  Let's say UTC.  When UTC, had
this been in effect, came before the state, they would
have reviewed the application at that time and as we
all know the tremendous public outrage that has occurred
with the recent bonus, that occurred after the fact.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, how would this amendment
catch any future UTC type deals?
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  This would be -- you
would have a track record of executive compensation as
noted in the last question.   The second day you would
be looking at the current executive compensation
schedule.  That would be part of the process of due
diligence that is performed by DED.
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    So, through you, Mr. Speaker.  This would only
pertain in those instances where a company like UTC
would come back for more aid, for a second bite of the
apple and not the first bite.  Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about first bites and
second bites.  But it would -- you would look at the
previous two years and the current compensation plan.
As you moved forward, you would be looking at the
application in front of you. You would look at the
executive compensation plan, but that would be part of
the corporate structure.
     Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you, Representative LeBeau.  That's all the
questions I have at the moment.
    Ladies and gentlemen of the chamber, is the worse
amendment I have seen?  No.  But I must admit that it
does raise concern again with me.  We have had a couple
of those last week, I believe on this issue.
    It is well and fine and we all justifiably so should
be outraged, with what I consider to be the lack of
sensitivity that was offered, specifically by UTC.
Clearly, that is why this is here.  The proponents of
the amendment, of course, very justifiably so, are
bringing this forward, but it sort of closes the barn
doors after the horses have been let out.
    In addition, I think, Mr. Speaker, my concern with
this is that quite honestly, we, of the Legislature,
have created a system that almost asks executives to
do this.  Let's be very honest about the Department of
Economic Development's programs that are in place.
    We are taking to cash cows and saying we are going
to help you make more cash.  The Board of Directors
then goes and says thank you, very much.  The
stockholders say thank you very much and they reward
the executives accordingly.
    I think we would do better to look at the type
programs that we have in place than second guessing and
putting some feel good legislation out there after the
fact.  But there is some danger to this legislation and
my concern is the message that it sends about this
legislature to other businesses seeking to locate or
expand here in Connecticut and I would submit to this
body that if you go to the North Carolina Legislature
and look at their laws and then you go to the Georgia
Legislature and look at their laws and you go to
certain other states, you wouldn't see this nonsense in
statute.
    I don't think it does a whole heck of a lot, to be
very honest.  But, from a public relations point of
view, it is horrible just as bad as UTC's chairman of
the board laying off a bunch of people and then giving
himself a big raise.  I think that was morally wrong.
I don't support that.  But then again, we created the
system.  In some ways, I think this legislature and
through the DED programs, are almost responsible
because enabled it to happen by putting the system in
place that basically, awarded these cash cows.
    And here we are now, attempting to deal with the
problem, after the fact.
    Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the
Chamber, I just don't think the amendment does a whole
heck of a lot.  Maybe it provides some opportunity for
some people to speak about some things this fall in
their upcoming campaigns and that's about it.
    Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Munns.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question, through you, to Representative LeBeau?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau, ready yourself.  Proceed.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative LeBeau,
this certainly is a good idea.  I am not sure if it
goes far enough.  As a matter of fact, I wrote a
similar amendment like this, but on another bill which
I think goes far enough.
    I guess I would ask you, Representative LeBeau, we
share East Hartford and we have the same concerns, in
your opinion, how would this have affected what
happened in the United Technologies?  Say, if this law
was in effect a few years ago before they came to the
State of Connecticut and got financial aid.  Would this
have prevented the executives from getting the
exorbitant raises they got, whatsoever?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  I don't think it would
have prevented some of the larger tax breaks that we
gave across the board to any company that does research
in the State of Connecticut.  I do think it might have
had some impact on the KISON Program where essentially
the State has promised a grant to UTC, which by the
way, UTC has not accepted one penny of yet.
    But I think, yes.  I think it might have had
something.  It might have had an impact.  I think -- we
are going to look at that as part of the package.
    In that tax package, in that tax credit, we looked
that research tax credit -- we looked at a lot of
things.  We insured that there was a certain level of
employment on a Connecticut wage base.  But we didn't
drop into a certain point and then it would level off
or those tax credits would be lost.
    But we were blindsided on this.  This amendment
would insure that we are not blindsided again by
another company.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Thank you, Representative LeBeau.  I guess, Mr.
Speaker, I didn't get the answer I wanted.  The answer
I got was this might have done something.  If we are to
do something about the problem, then by God, let's do
something.  Let's do something that will prevent that
from happening.  Let's do something that will prevent
executives of United Technology has exorbitant raises
while my constituents, Representative LeBeau's
constituents and many of our constituents in the
Greater Hartford area who worked at Pratt and Whitney
were being laid off.
    I am not confident, Mr. Speaker, in voting
something in that might prevent that from happening
again.  Again, as I mentioned, I have an amendment on
another bill that will do something about it.
    I don't think we should be voting on stuff that
might do something.  I will tell you what it will do.
It will prevent those companies from coming to the
State of Connecticut.  Add one to the checklist of a
reason not to come to Connecticut.  That will happen.
So, what I am saying to you, Mr. Speaker and the
members of the chamber, if we are going to do something
and take a stand, let's do something that will work.
Let's not do something that might work.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, ladies and
gentlemen, I have been aware that this issue would be
debated at some point. I have been following it for
some time and I too share the concerns of executive
compensations and how they have been so far out of
whack in this state and it does make it very difficult
to go home to your constituents and explain to them
when they ask you, how can you let this happen.
    But, I think on the other side, we should also be
concerned with a balance that must be struck in this to
truly what the State should be doing, how much should
we be intervening.
    I am wondering how the affect of this amendment
would work and sir, if I could ask a question, through
you, to Representative LeBeau, please?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Representative LeBeau, I understand that we are
tying this to state money that is being awarded and I
am looking at the language of the amendment around 37
or so that talks about the awarding authority making a
finding, detailing why the financial assurance should
be approved.  How binding is this going to be?  I mean,
will this be -- and I realize that we should have a
review, the State should be making some type of a
statement on this.  I am wondering how strong a hand
the State is going to be playing in the awarding
authority.  I am wondering if you could explain to me
how that would work?  Once this is being reviewed, what
will the next step be?  Is this binding this finding
that is going to be written through the awarding
authority?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  It is not binding.  And
what might be looked at in terms of executive
compensation and the question is, you have some
companies who may have high executive compensation
packages based on stock options.  You may have other
companies who have executive compensation packages that
are keyed to the creation of jobs, that are keyed to
the creation of wealth, that are keyed to building a
tax base, that are keyed to the public policy
objectives that are in high performance work
organizations, bill embodies and the bill that we
passed last week, embodies.
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you, Representative
LeBeau.
    So, looking at line -- I think it is starting on
line 37 of the amendment where it says, "if such
compensation is believed to exceed that of similar
officers, the awarding authority shall make the written
finding, detailing why the financial assistance should
be approved."  That then, would be just a written
opinion?  What kind of force would that have?  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    No.  Actually, the follow up was what kind of force
would that have?  Would it be just a written --
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    It would be implemented by DED and it would weigh
the factors.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I am sorry.  I just
realized I was reading off the wrong LCO.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    That's what happens, sir.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    I am sorry.  I was looking at Representative
Rennie's amendment.
LAUGHTER
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Well, if that is the case -- excuse me, Mr.
Speaker, for a moment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir, would you care if we came back to you in a
bit?  Save some time.  Let someone else speak now?
REP. FLAHERTY:  (68th)
    Actually, I just finally found that language down
on line 53 and I thank the proponent for his response.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    You are welcome, sir.  Will you remark further?
Will you remark further on House "A"?  Representative
Miller.
REP. MILLER:  (122nd)
    Mr. Speaker, a question to the proponent of the
bill, the amendment rather.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your question, sir.
REP. MILLER:  (122nd)
    If I were starting a new business and I had been
working on starting this business for four or five
years and never received a pay for those four or five
years and when the business did start to make money, I
got a salary that was out of whack compared to other
industries, only to make up for the four or five years
that I suffered without a paycheck and if I applied for
this particular program, how would they look at my
compensation?  Would that jeopardize my participation in
that program?
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, that's why this is not a binding
piece.  That would be allowed to be looked at by DED.
That could be part of the reason that that would out
weigh the public policy objectives.
REP. MILLER:  (122nd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  Again, I think that in
some cases, where you might hire someone with some --
let's say in the computer field, software.  You might
hire some particular individual who writes outstanding
software and you pay this guy a quarter of a million
dollars a year and he is also on the payroll.  Would
that do anything to jeopardize participation in this
program.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, no.
REP. MILLER:  (122nd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like
to oppose the amendment.  I think if Connecticut were
noted for entrepreneurs and large businesses that
started here and we do pay executives very large
compensation.  But they also are very successful in big
companies that are start up companies to pretty much,
national significance in a lot of cases.
    I think this is just going to turn a lot of people
off in participating in this program.  Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you to
Representative LeBeau.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Representative LeBeau in section B there are
several references to the financial awarding authority.
Considering the other compensation and making
comparisons with like companies in the industry, is
there any formula that they would be following, any
weight given to say, stocks versus salary versus
differed compensation?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    No, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Is there any consideration given with regard to the
value of the individual stock?  You might have a large
stock option if you are one company, but a stock is
worth far less?  How do you envision that being
measured?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    It would be measured by the Department of Economic
Development, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.  I didn't hear the
response.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Could you please repeat yourself, Representative
LeBeau?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Excuse me, Representative
Cafero.  It would be measured by the Department of
Economic Development.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Thank you, Representative LeBeau.  Once again,
through you, Mr. Speaker, is there, is this bill just
to leave that up to their discretion or there is no
guidance provided?  I am not quite sure I understand
what mechanism they are going to use to evaluate these
various compensations.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, they would have to balance all the
factors and how much good this loan would do for the
state.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Cafero.
REP. CAFERO:  (142nd)
    Thank you, Representative LeBeau.  Mr. Speaker, I
think we all applaud what is trying to be done by this
amendment.   All of us were outraged by the recent
executive compensation packages awarded by UTC and
other companies. What I am concerned about is whether
this amendment is very vague.  It says that DED shall
look at and consider, but I don't think it provides
them any guidance and what practice they would weigh
and in what way.
    And that's why I would oppose the amendment, Mr.
Speaker.  I believe we are threading on dangerous
waters when we leave those questions as open as they
are in this amendment.
    Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on "A"?  Will you remark?
Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question, through you, to
the proponent of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    So if this amendment takes place and the Department
of Economic Development goes forward and has to do one
of these criteria and let's say this develops again
with UTC and they go again to UTC and they say, your
salaries are too high for your top executives.  We are
not going to negotiate and give you any loans.  Have
you thought of the consequences to the employees of UTC
says, fine we are moving down South?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  This would allow the
Department of Economic Development to look at the
factors that might outweigh a high executive
compensation schedule.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    So they can disregard this totally and not take
into consideration salaries of top executives?  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    It could not disregard it totally, Mr. Speaker.
They would have to issue a finding as to what their
rationale was for making that outweighing decision.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    Then they make that decision and still go forward.
Does the General Assembly still have the right to say
no?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    No, sir.  It is not in the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    Then who are they making justification to?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    They are making it as part of their due diligence
process, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    I am a little confused.  They don't have to take
salaries into consideration.  They have to make
justification, but there is nobody that they are making
justification to other than themselves since they don't
have to go to the General Assembly.  Unless there is a
funding or unless we have the ability, if we don't
agree later on to deny them funding, is that the
intent?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker. No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    So then there is no real -- then this seems to be a
rather more of a statement than anything else.  It
really doesn't have any substance behind it.  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  It establishes a
process, which I think has been well defined.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    Can you explain to me what the -- I understand what
the process is, but how does the process work?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  The process is the
amendment, itself.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS  (132nd)
    Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the salaries
that those individuals took were unjustified given the
give backs, but the way it was just described to me,
Economic could, if it wishes, take that into
consideration, but it doesn't have to.  If it goes
forward and gives the money anyway, it has to make
justification, but doesn't specify to how.  And it
doesn't have any redress if any individual in the
General Assembly or public feels that the monies should
not have been awarded based on obscene salaries.
    So, I find this a rather meaningless piece of
legislation who the only consequence I could see is
companies that are considering moving to Connecticut
feel that we maybe getting into the rate structure and
salaries structures of industries.  And unless somebody
is going to make -- if we are going to do that, then we
better make it very specific and make it have some
consequences.
    Other than that, I think it is anti-business.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I am not
shocked, given the time that we're talking about here,
but ladies and gentlemen, we're putting one more nail
in the coffin to any semblance of jobs or job creation
in the State of Connecticut.  This amendment is before
us because of United Technologies.  Let's not fool
anybody.  That's what it's here for.  But let's have a
real quick history lesson.  How many people in this
Chamber remember the package that we did on a
bipartisan basis with the governor's office on behalf
of United Technologies, and more specifically, for
Pratt & Whitney?  And how many people have any kind of
a recollection of one penny leaving state coffers and
going to United Technologies?  That bill that we
passed, ladies and gentlemen, did not transfer any
state money to United Technologies.
    There were some incentives for them to spend
manufacturing, to spend money in the State of
Connecticut on research and development and a large
portion of that was the Workers' Compensation reforms
that we passed in this Chamber and upstairs.  Those
reforms affected every employer in the State of
Connecticut.  There was not one red cent that went from
the General Fund of the State of Connecticut to United
Technologies, yet we have people running for higher
office in this state that are trying to woe some votes
on some people that are rank and file at Pratt &
Whitney or people who have been laid off at Pratt &
Whitney on the backs of this amendment and the other
pieces of legislation that have passed dealing with
economic development.
    Let me ask another rhetorical question.  Why was it
in 1991 that we passed the Manufacturer's Assistance
Act?  And I'll answer my own question.  Because there
was no other funds available in the private sector for
companies to get capital to retain jobs, to create
jobs, or to stay in the State of Connecticut.  So we
created the MAA.
    It's absolutely incredible that for a couple of
people running for higher office, we've got to go
through this.  Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I
want to ask a question, if I may, to Representative
Young.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I'll leave that up to Representative Young.  Do you
accept the question, sir?  Frame your question, sir.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative Young, part
of the amendment here has to do with stock options and
I think, you know, we're doing some history lessons and
some education, seeing as we couldn't do an education
bill the other day.  Let's educate the Chamber,
Representative Young.  Where do stock options come into
play for major Fortune 500 companies, for example,
United Technologies?  And how do they play out for the
officers of United Technologies, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Young.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, generally, stock options
are granted by the -- I guess the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors of a given company
to officers of that corporation of certain levels.  The
options are an opportunity for those directors to buy
stock in that company at a given price at a given time.
    It's an incentive given to officers and other
directors of the corporation to enhance corporate
performance, but it involves payment for those options
by the individuals receiving them, through you,
Mr. Speaker.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Representative Young.  And I just want
to clarify.  You said it was the Board of Directors,
and through you, Mr. Speaker, who elects the Board of
Directors of Fortune 500 companies?
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the stockholders.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    And one more clarifying question.  You said that
the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors
would generally grant an option for an officer to buy
stock.  It's not a gift, through you, Mr. Speaker, is
that correct?
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    That's correct, through you, Mr. Speaker, and I
might add that traditionally the Compensation
Committees of Boards of Directors of major corporations
are made up of outside directors of that corporation,
not directors who are employed by the corporation,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    I want to thank Representative Young, and I guess,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the Majority
Leader at this time.  Excuse me, I will yield to
Representative LeBeau for the purposes of a motion.
Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the motion -- withdraw
the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Is there any objection to withdrawing the
amendment?  Hearing none, the amendment is withdrawn.
Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move that this matter be Passed
Temporarily to permit us to have a number of
announcements.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection, the matter is P-T'd.
Representative Dyson.
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Mr. Speaker, for purposes of an introduction
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your introduction, sir.
REP. DYSON:  (94th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, in the
gallery of the Chamber, if any of you have noticed,
there are number of students up there from a school in
the City of New Haven, Beecher School.  And if they
will stand, I would like to introduce them to you.
They are the winners, and I'll have Representative
Brooks, who will explain that to you, they have
rendered a song or two outside.  They sound wonderful.
These are some youngsters from New Haven and which we
are indeed proud of them.  This is public school.  I
know some of you are probably looking at the uniforms,
but we do have a number of public schools in New Haven
that are now using uniforms and this is an example of
schools in New Haven in this lovely crowd and I am
proud as I can be that they are here today and I'd like
to -- at the proper to time to have this Chamber extend
their welcome, but I'd like to yield to Representative
Brooks at this moment.  Representative Brooks, if I
might, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Jackson-Brooks.
REP. JACKSON-BROOKS:  (95th)
    The children from Beecher School participated in a
contest.  They are the national -- winners of the
National Achievement Scholarship Program in this
country.  They are first place winners.  They collected
money and contributed it to Pike, Illinois, to the
victims of the flood there.  I'd like to yield to
Representative Scipio.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scipio, do you accept the yield,
sir?
REP. SCIPIO:  (93rd)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  I accept the yield.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. SCIPIO:  (93rd)
    Thank you.  One other thing that my colleague,
Representative Brooks, did not mention that these
children are winners of a contest that involved 50,000
others of the same brand of singing or these actually
were National Achievements Contests, not just singing.
    Beecher School is located in an area, and is one of
the schools that I spoke of the other night when I was
progressing and discussing the possibilities of
uniformed children and good schools have handled it in
the proper fashion.
    This school is governed by a Mrs. Gatterson, the
Principal of the school.  I wish she'd take a bow.
APPLAUSE
    And the first grade teacher that we're proud from
L. W. Beecher School, is Mrs. Martin.
APPLAUSE
    And with that, before I let you extoll all your
pleasures on them, I'll turn it over to Representative
Dillon, who is also a member of our third CD, or better
still, our district that handles these schools.  Thank
you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Dillon, do you accept the yield,
madam?
REP. DILLON:  (92nd)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. DILLON:  (92nd)
    Thank you.  Good morning and there are a couple
people from our district up there I believe and I
couldn't hear everything that Representative Scipio
said, but I did especially want to pay honor to Ramona
Gatterson, an outstanding principal.  I can't see her
though.  Oh, there you go.  Okay.
APPLAUSE
    And thank you for the work that you've done with
our children and also Verna Jones over there.  Thank
you.
APPLAUSE
SCHOOLCHILDREN SINGING
APPLAUSE AND CHEERS
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The Chair would like to address the children in the
balcony.  You can't see me and please don't lean over
the rail, but a lot of us haven't been home in the
evenings for a very long time and we miss our kids and
we're real glad you're here today.  Thank you very
much.
APPLAUSE
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, for a Point of Personal Privilege.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your point, sir.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    From this side of the aisle I just wanted to also
express to the children how much we enjoyed their
serenade.  Certainly, as I stood outside the hall and
here this afternoon, and while we may differ from time
to time with the right approach.  They remind us what
we're here for, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir, and thank them.
APPLAUSE
    The Clerk will return to the Call of the Calendar,
493.
CLERK:
    On Page 7, Calendar 493, Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 218, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SMALL BUSINESS
INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Betkoski, we all hope you can pick
up where you left off, sir.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Well, we may have done that, but doing it again
won't hurt.  Thank you.  Proceed, sir.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    They told me to say it again, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Okay.
REP. BETKOSKI:  (105th)
    Thank you.  This program funds research to develop
projects undertaken jointly by small businesses and
nonprofit research institutions.  It's basically a
partnership, a collaborative effort on the part of
colleges and businesses to parallel what is offered
through the Small Business Innovation Research Program
at the federal level, and as I mentioned previously, we
have $500,000 in this fund as of March 1, 1994, and
$1 million authorized for fiscal year 1995.  I urge
passage.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on passage.  Will you remark?
Representative Young.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I also urge passage of
this bill. The programs at CII, Connecticut
Innovations, Incorporated, has been involved with have
been far and away the most successful parts of the DED
efforts we've done in the state and they certainly need
our help, and they do work.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
Representative Miller.
REP. MILLER:  (122nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of the
bill.  I think maybe we could get some companies like
Microsoft or Digital of Hewlett-Packard to look
favorably upon the State of Connecticut because we
don't have anything in this bill that would make it
bad.  Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on this
bill?  Will you remark further in this bill?  If not,
staff and guests to the Well of the House.  Members,
please be seated.  The machine is opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is taking a
roll call vote.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Have all the members voted, and is your vote
properly recorded?  If so, please vote.
    If all the members have voted, and if your votes
are properly recorded, the machine will be locked.
    The Clerk will please take the tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 218, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               146
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      5
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, return to the Call of the
Calendar 473.
CLERK:
    On Page 17, Calendar 473, Substitute for Senate
Bill 280, AN ACT CONCERNING PRODUCER LICENSING.
Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Gilligan.
REP. GILLIGAN:  (28th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage.
REP. GILLIGAN:  (28th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Ladies and gentlemen of
the House, the bill before you was brought to the
attention of the Insurance Committee by the Insurance
Department and is really the culmination of two years
of study of the various statutes that regulate the
issuance and renewal of insurance agents and brokers'
licenses.
    The basic bill would unify the process of issuing
and renewing those licenses and retain certain
distinctions between brokers and agents that basically
would result in one license being issued.  It's an
attempt to streamline the procedures in the Insurance
Department and I move adoption of the measure.  Thank
you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Flawlessly done, sir.  The question is on adoption.
Will you remark?  Will you remark on the bill?
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I too want to rise in
favor of this legislation.  It was long overdue.  Many,
many people put a lot of time and effort into this
bill, and the underlying information and this will
improve the way the insurance is sold in the State of
Connecticut, and I urge adoption.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
bill?  Will you remark further on the bill?  If not,
staff and guests to the Well of the House.  Members,
please be seated.  The machine is open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted, and if your vote's
are properly recorded, the machine will be locked.
Clerk will take the tally.
    The Clerk will announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 280, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those Voting Yea               148
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      3
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, return to the Call of the
Calendar 335.
CLERK:
    On Page 15, Calendar 335, Substitute for House Bill
5410, AN ACT CONCERNING PRISON SENTENCES FOR SELLING OR
POSSESSING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES IN THE VICINITY OF DAY
CARE CENTERS.  Favorable Report of the Committee on
Human Services.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Jarjura.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I move
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and
passage of the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on acceptance and passage.  Will you
remark?
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.  Mr. Speaker, what
this bill does is extend the current 1500 feet
prohibition of selling controlled substances and drugs
around schools to day care centers.  At this time, Mr.
Speaker, I would request that I could yield to
Representative Lescoe.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Lescoe, do you accept the yield?
Proceed, sir.
REP. LESCOE:  (49th)
    Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I rise in favor of this bill.  This is a bill I
introduced earlier this year.  Two years ago we had an
identical bill that did pass here in the form of an
amendment by Representative Carter, and it passed
unanimously, but unfortunately it died in the Calendar
the last two days of the session in the Senate.
    This day care drug free zone bill will only apply
to day cares that are licensed for 12 or more children.
Day cares do not only include 3 to 5 year olds, but
most day cares today depend on preschool, before school
and after school programs.  Many of the day cares have
before school programs with children up the ages of 14
to 15 years old.
    Another point of information is that many YMCAs and
YWCAs throughout the State of Connecticut provide day
care, and these YMCAs and YWCAs are usually located in
downtown areas.  In fact the day care directors and
staff, as well as the YMCA and YWCA directors are very
much in favor of this bill.  Also I received
communications from the State Police from the Windham
Area that this bill would certainly help them with
their drug law enforcement.
    In Willimantic, our local YMCA that also serves as
a youth center, has a day care system.  Located across
the street is a hotel that is unfortunately is the
center of drug trade in our area.  Many of the
residents will not go down our main street, will not
shop on our main street.  We have positioned police
almost around the clock, 24 hours to patrol this area,
but unfortunately because of the economics we can't
afford to station police here at all times.
    With increased sentences for selling and possessing
of controlled substances in the vicinity of day cares
all of our towns will benefit and most important our
children.  I urge you to vote for this bill.  Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption.   Will you remark?
Representative Caron.  Excuse me, Representative
Jarjura, you still have the Floor.  That was a yield.
Forgive me, sir.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has
in his possession an amendment LCO No. 2099.  Will the
Clerk please call and may I be allowed to summarize?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The Clerk please call LCO2099, House "A".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 2099, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Jarjura, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentlemen has asked leave to summarize.
Hearing no objection, proceed, sir.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, what
this amendment would do is basically close a gaping
hole in our 1500 feet prohibition of selling or
distributing drugs around our schools and now our day
care centers if this bill is adopted, by eliminating
the drug dependent person defense.  Under the current
law as it reads, if somebody pleads that they are
a drug dependent person, then the minimum mandatory
three year prison term for selling drugs around our
schools and around our children cannot be imposed.
    I think it's a very good amendment.  It's a
timely amendment, and I think it should pass.  Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment?  Representative Hartley.
REP. HARTLEY:  (73rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of this amendment.  As was just summarized by
Representative Jarjura, several years ago we passed
what was known as the drug free zone legislation.  It
was our intention to carve out or designate a special
zone to give adequate protection to our children and
our student population.
    Well intentioned legislation indeed.  However, the
fact of the matter is and the experience bears out
these facts, that the drug free zone legislation has
not had the intended effect as we had hoped it would.
The simple reason being that mandatory minimum
sentences are not enforced when there is a conviction,
if the individual is a drug dependent individual.
    This amendment will address that problem, and it
will remedy the fact we will ultimately have drug free
zone legislation which will be enforceable.  I urge
passage.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on "A"?  Representative
Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment.  I
don't know that I would like to characterize this as
some great loophole in the drug free zone bill.  Let's
make it very clear.  People still get convicted of the
crime.  The only difference is whether or not a person
was drug dependent is in fact subject to a mandatory
minimum, whether or not the punishment could in fact be
a divergent, whether or not it could be a treatment.
    One of the problems with our statute currently
insures that people that have drug problems can get
treatment.  We certainly have I think generally
recognized the shortage of treatment beds we have, but
treatment is an integral part of law enforcement.  Most
law enforcement agencies have really in fact indicated
that treatment as may be better than just going into
jail for minimum mandatory period of time.
    I think it's clear, although it has been expressed
in the area where my good friends from Waterbury raised
that in presswise, that it says that there was some
loophole in the law, and there were no prosecutions.
That in fact was not true.  There were in fact
prosecutions, except that they were not under the
minimum mandatory.  I think it's wrong to start a
precedent here because what we will do is create more
problems that we solve, and we certainly will not be
doing something to get to the root causes of the
offense.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark?  Representative
Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of the
amendment, and I believe that the gentleman from the
74th District accurately characterized this as a
loophole, and here's how it works.  An individual
defendant says I'm drug dependent, and presents
evidence of drug dependency.
    At that point the state has an added burden in
terms of securing a conviction against one simply
because that person is drug dependent, doesn't mean
that the person was engaging in any sort of, doesn't
mitigate or excuse the conduct in any way, doesn't say
that the conduct is any more or any less reprehensible,
but simply says that the individual was in fact drug
dependent and gives the state another hurdle or another
burden in terms of proving a case, so, through you, Mr.
Speaker, if I might to Representative Jarjura.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    My understanding is that under existing law, if an
individual is drug dependent, there is a single
proceeding.  There have been attempts to have what
amounts to a bifurcated trial.  Does the gentleman have
a fiscal note on this amendment, and if so, would he
share with the Chamber?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Jarjura.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Through you, to Representative Radcliffe, the
fiscal note indicates that there is a potential
workload increase for the division of criminal justice,
public defenders service commission and the Judicial
Department, goes on to state that there was one offense
under this statute in 1993.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you, Representative
Jarjura.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    I've just been handed the fiscal note, and it seems
to indicate that there might be increased prosecutions
and that there might be an increased need for
incarceration.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, an area not
dealt with in the fiscal note, would this make the
burden of proof easier at the time of trial if the
issue of drug dependency were not an element?  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th):
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    I don't think it would make the burden of proof
easier.  You would still have to prove that the person
was within the 1500 feet, and distributing controlled
substances.  It would make the bifurcator or the second
inquiry about drug dependency as being not an element
in this crime.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  Thank you, Representative Jarjura.  As
I understand the existing law, you can have both issues
tried in the same proceeding, but if the individual is
going to say that that individual was in fact drug
dependent, the state would then have to prove that the
individual was not drug dependent in order to convict
under this particular statute, because an element right
now is that the person at the time of the offense was
not a drug dependent person, and that becomes an
element like any other element in a particular crime.
    One more question, if I may, through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    This does not eliminate the necessity for drug
dependencies in the other portion of the statute
simply in these limited cases around the protected
areas.  Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    And in light of that then and in the light of the
need to add enhanced penalties and increased protection
around these particular areas, I think the members of
this Chamber can feel comfortable supporting this,
realizing that there are not going to be an extensive
number of prosecutions and also feeling comfortable in
the knowledge that many of these cases where drug
dependency could be an issue in the larger context
would still have to be prosecuted in that way.  Thank
you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If not - Representative Jarjura.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    I would ask that when the vote be taken, it be
taken by roll call.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    All in favor of a roll call vote, signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    20% has not been met.  It will not be taken by
roll.  Will you remark further on House "A"?  Will you
remark?  Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON:  (92nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'm rising against the
amendment.  I'm sorry to do so because I don't think
it's a great time in the session to debate what our
substance abuse policy and what our criminal justice
policy should be in this state, but I have listened to
people in this Chamber that I would like, I hope are
acting in good faith, that I have a lot of respect for
in other areas, make a lot of pronouncements about our
criminal justice system during this session, and a lot
of posturing to show that someone is tougher than
someone else, and at this time we have about doubled
the number of people in prisons in this country, and
it's certain at one point we're going to have to sit
back and ask where is our money going and is this doing
any good?
    I will give you two examples from our own budget
deliberations.  The Office of Policy and Management
recommended to this General Assembly that we eliminate
a court liaison system which identified people who were
drug dependent in the courts because we have a 500 bed
waiting list.  Rather than provide the beds, they
recommended that we eliminate the liaison.  I would be
the first person to tell you that treatment is not 100%
effective, but putting people in jail is not either.
    This particular amendment is well intentioned, but
it can only make the present system worse, and it's not
really the point in this session to debate this issue.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further?  If not, let me try your
minds?  All those in favor of House "A", signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Those opposed, nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The ayes clearly have it.  The amendment is
adopted.  Will you remark further on the bill as
adopted?  Will you remark?  If not, staff and guests to
the Well of the House.  Members, please be seated.  The
machine's open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted and if what's on the
board reflects what you meant it to be, if all the
members have voted, the machine is locked.  The Clerk
will take the tally.
    The Clerk will announce that tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5410, as amended by House "A".
         Total Number Voting            143
         Necessary for Passage           72
         Those Voting Yea               120
         Those Voting Nay                23
         Those absent and not Voting      8
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, return to the Call of the
Calendar, 172.
CLERK:
    On Page 13, Calendar 172, Substitute for House Bill
5360, AN ACT CONCERNING REVIEW OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS
BY THE CONNECTICUT RIVER ASSEMBLY.  Favorable Report of
the Committee on Judiciary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Good afternoon, Representative Jefferson Davis.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of
the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of
the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on acceptance and passage.  Will
you remark?
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This bill extends the
Connecticut River Assembly's purview over land use
applications.  The Assembly which is a voluntary
association of towns from Middletown to the Mass.
border, reviews projects meeting certain thresholds
before member town land use commissions.
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO4532.  I
ask that he please call and I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Clerk, please call LCO4532, House Schedule "A".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4532, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Davis, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman has asked leave of the Chamber to
summarize.  Proceed.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This is a deceptively
simple amendment, the first section of which puts off
the next revision of the state of conservation and
development one year to 1998.  The second section
requires the Secretary of OPM to establish a process
for public participation, requires addressing the goals
of the Connecticut Progress Council, in coordination
with regional planning agencies.
    Section 3 requires the State Bond Commission
actions to be consistent with our state plan of
conservation development.  Section 4 requires regions
through their regional planning organizations to
recommend criteria for reviewing projects with major
regional impact and recommend areas of special concern
for special attention, and Mr. Speaker, the last
section requires state action be reviewed for
consistency with local and regional plans, and I move
adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark?
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    As I said, starting off, Mr. Speaker, this is a
deceptively simple amendment.  It does not require
anything of our municipalities.  It is not to be
confused with any previous land use bills that people
might have seen or heard comments on, but is the result
of hard work over the last three years by the task
force set up by the former chair of the Environment
Committee, Representative Mary Mushinsky, to look at
issues of land use development across our state.
    I would like to yield, Mr. Speaker, to
Representative Mushinsky, who will be bringing out this
amendment with me.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Mushinsky, do you accept the yield?
REP. MUSHINSKY: (85th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, Point of Order.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe, your Point.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is that this
amendment, having reviewed it, consistent with
yesterday's precedence in particular is not germane to
the file copy.  I would cite Mason's 402 for that
proposition, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  The Chamber will stand at ease.
    The Chamber will come to order.  Representative
Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, after some consultation I will
withdraw the request for Point of Order.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection to withdraw the Point of
Order, it is so withdrawn.  Representative Davis.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Mr. Speaker, reluctantly and confident of my
position, nonetheless, I would like to yield to the
Majority Leader.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    That was the strongest yield perhaps in 350 years
of democracy in Connecticut.  Representative Luby, can
you handle the yield?
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    With great regret, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Such a passionate moment, sir.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    If I may, I move that the amendment be withdrawn.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    You meant to say.  Let me do this one more time.
Representative Davis.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    I will ask the Clerk if he would please withdraw
the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Now I will yield to the Majority Leader, Mr.
Speaker, again reluctantly.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    With a reluctant confidence, Mr. Majority Leader.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    And with great regret, Mr. Speaker, I move that
this matter be passed temporarily.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hearing no objection, the matter is PT'd.  We'll
return to the Call of the Calendar, Calendar 349.
CLERK:
    On Page 2, Calendar 349, Substitute for House Bill
5747, AN ACT CONCERNING RECOVERY OF COURT COSTS IN
ACTIONS BY UNIT OWNERS.  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Judiciary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Garcia.
REP. GARCIA:  (128th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Question's on acceptance and passage.  Will you
remark?
REP. GARCIA:  (128th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  What this does is it will allow
the recovery of court costs in civil actions against
condominium associations.  I move adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark?
Will you remark?  Will you remark further on the bill?
If not, staff and guests to the Well of the House.
Members, please be seated.  The machine is open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber please.  The House is
voting by roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Have the members voted?  Are your votes properly
recorded?  If so, the machine is locked. The Clerk will
please take the tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5747.
         Total Number Voting            147
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               146
         Those Voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not Voting      4
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, return to the Call of the
Calendar, 498.
CLERK:
    On Page 7, Calendar 498, Substitute for Senate Bill
288, AN ACT CONCERNING CHARITABLE SOLICITATIONS.
Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Good afternoon, Representative Fox.
REP. FOX:  (144th)
    Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of
the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of
this bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on acceptance and passage.  Will you
remark?
REP. FOX:  (144th)
    Yes, sir.  This bill is one that was before the
General Law Committee.  It is an amendment to the
charitable solicitations statute.  In particular it
would prohibit a charitable organization from
representing itself as being associated with another
such charitable organization that has not acknowledged
and endorsed that in writing.
    We feel it's a needed and necessary addition to the
existing statute, and I would move for its passage.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Question's on passage.  Will you remark?  Will you
remark?  If not, staff and guests to the Well of the
House.  Members, please be seated.  The machine is
open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Stay close.  We're moving quickly.
    If the members have voted, and if your votes are
properly recorded, the machine will be locked.
    The Clerk will take the tally.  The Clerk will
announce that...  No.  Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    In the affirmative, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom, in the affirmative.
    The Clerk will announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 288, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Voting                   147
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               147
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      4
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, return to the Call of the
Calendar, 413.
CLERK:
    On Page 4, Calendar 413, Substitute for Senate Bill
260, AN ACT CONCERNING SUBSCRIBER SELECTION OF
COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION PROGRAMMING, as amended by
Senate Amendment Schedule "A".  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Energy and Public Utilities.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on acceptance and passage.  Will you
remark?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this bill adds two
criteria for consideration by the Department of Public
Utility Control at the time when an application for a
cable franchise to be extended beyond five or 10 years.
One would be whether or not the operator is making
available converters, traps and other devices for
blocking of programming that subscribers may not want
to come into their homes for their children or for
their own purposes, and second would be the provision
of services, audio, informational, electronic, etc.
concerning the proceedings of the Legislature and
legislative committees.
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO2959.
May he please call?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will the Clerk please call LCO2959, Senate "A"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 2959, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator DiBella, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman has asked leave to summarize.
Summarize, sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move rejection of the
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman moves for rejection of Senate "A".
Will you remark?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment would put an
undue burden on cable companies in terms of their
attempts to terminate subscribers who have not paid
their bill on time, and I don't think it's in the
interest of the cable companies or the subscribers to
do something as harsh as this.  I move rejection.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on the rejection of Senate
"A"?
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Ferrari.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    I'd like to concur with the honorable
Representative and Chairman of the Energy Committee
that we do indeed reject this amendment.  Thank you,
sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on the rejection of Senate
"A"?  If not, let me try your minds.  All those in
favor of rejecting Senate "A", signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Those opposed to the rejection of Senate "A",
signify by saying nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Senate "A" is rejected.  Will you remark further on
the bill without Senate "A"?  Representative Norton.
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    I would, one, like to endorse the bill, and say
that the two provisions being added to the criteria,
that a cable company must meet in order to achieve
renewal should be added, but the Clerk has an
amendment, Mr. Speaker, and would the Clerk please call
LCO No. 5218, and may I be allowed to summarize its
effect?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Clerk, please call LCO5218, House "A".
Representative Norton, we don't have your amendment.
Sir, if it's in your desk and not in the Clerk's
possession, we can't move forward.
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    The copies are all out.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Just a small detail of the rules, sir.  Will the
Clerk please call.
CLERK:
    LCO5218, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Norton, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Does the gentleman care to summarize?  Hearing no
objection, proceed.
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Under current law a
cable company is granted renewal by the DPUC for a
period of five to 10 years, and a list of criteria and
you'll see that on the second page of the amendment on
line 37 beginning a on down through l, a list of
criteria is considered by the Department to see whether
or not their franchise should be renewed and for how
long.
    The law also provides that if a cable company has
done a very good job, pleases the DPUC by all these
standards very much, they can have a renewal for in
excess of ten years and up to 15 years, so the statute
has a bonus.  If a cable company's done a very good
job, they can get an extra long period of renewal.
This amendment would provide that a very poorly
performing cable company, one that meets these criteria
miserably I'll say, can get the issued renewal period
of less than five years.
    In order to balance the law which gives them a
bonus if they perform well, we believe that they should
be allowed to receive a very short renewal period of
they've been doing very poorly.  Mr. Speaker, I move
adoption of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption. Will you remark?
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  If you'll note the names here,
you'll see we're three people from the Norwich area and
we're here to show you or to tell you that while most
people in this state, as I understand it, receive very
good cable service, they enjoy their selection of
programming.  They enjoy the reception.  They enjoy the
service and the communication and cooperation of the
cable company, as to the advisory councils.  We don't.
    We have a bad cable company, and the DPUC which has
tried to respond to the needs of our area, finds
nonetheless that it can only grant a renewal period of
at least five years, so while they can put all sorts of
probationary clauses or requests on better performance
in the renewal, they still have to give them a whole
five year renewal period, and the DPUC's hands are
tied.
    Now again, most cable companies in the state, the
vast majority, are very good actors, and would never
receive from the DPUC such a short term of renewal, but
in our case, the company deserved a very short renewal
period, and the DPUC couldn't do it.  The DPUC supports
this bill.  The DPUC, in fact, is the basic author of
this language.  They brought it to us earlier in the
session, but they brought it to us too late in the
Committee process in order for us to act.
    The Century Norwich Company of Eastern Connecticut
has done a very poor job. They're very uncooperative.
The people of Norwich feel very unsatisfied and I'm
being mild.  If I were to repeat the language many
people use, I would be called on a Point of Order for
using foul language.  The fact of the matter is the
DPUC should be allowed in this case and more
importantly should be allowed in any future case to
give a short period of renewal as a stick to make sure
that cable companies perform well, and some let me say
this, I don't want any other people in the State of
Connecticut to go through what the people in our
franchise have gone through.
    This would protect us, maybe.  This would protect
you certainly in the future, so that if you have a
cable company that rides roughshod over your views and
over your demands for better service, the DPUC can help
you enact.  I think it's a very good idea.  The DPUC as
I said strongly supports it.  I've spoken with the
Commissioner very recently, and I hope that the Chamber
will adopt the amendment.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption of "A"?  Will you
remark?  Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Luby blocks the view is the problem
here, sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    I am standing, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed, sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise to oppose this
amendment.  I sympathize with the proponent.  On some
days I may empathize with the proponent, but this
matter is a substantial and significant change in the
state policy as it addresses cable franchise.  It is
something that we have not had a public hearing on this
year, and while we do many things in this Chamber
without a public hearing, I think this is something
that would warrant it.
    We have for some time on the Energy and Public
Utilities Committee tried to address the concerns of
cable franchise holders regarding their ability to
obtain financing at an appropriate interest rate, and
that we've attempted to provide conditions which would
extend their franchise terms so they can obtain that
financing which we would presume would enure to the
benefit of the consumer.
    This kind of language through an amendment I think
could have a chilling effect on those efforts that
we've all endorsed over the last several years. I think
that the issue is one that needs studying.  We intend
to do that on the Energy Committee next year, but the
process is one that to do it by amendment, I think, is
not the best.
    Secondly, Mr. Speaker, in speaking in opposition,
this particular amendment, if it were to become law, in
the provisions of the amendment it is very doubtful and
I believe it would not affect the instant case that the
proponent spoke to, and for that reason, I do not
believe it cures his problem.  I do understand it.  I
am sympathetic, but I ask the Chamber to reject the
amendment.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    And thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment?  Representative Kolar.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, our own
Attorney General has come out and said that in Norwich
with the cable renewal, he needs help.  This
legislation will go a long ways towards that, helping
the Attorney General by allowing this cable franchise
to be put on probation if we act on this.  If we act
until next year, this cable system who's been running
roughshod over all the cable customers in eastern
Connecticut will be off the hook for five more years.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Kolar.  Will the Chamber come to
order please. Representative Kolar has the Floor.
Representative Kolar, proceed, sir.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    And for the Chairman to want to sit back and say,
well, we'll worry about this next year when he knows
our own Attorney General is looking for help.  My
fellow colleagues in southeastern Connecticut you know
what's going on.  It's been in the New London Day.
It's been in the Norwich Bulletin.  I move adoption.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Ladies and gentlemen, I think
it's fairly important to know the proposition here that
Representative Norton presents to us.  The only aspects
that we can control as a state over cable tv is who
gets what franchise.  We can't control the price by and
large.  We can't control service which we can with
other utilities such as the power companies and the
telephone companies because Congress has preempted us,
so the only thing we can say is if you do X, Y and X,
we'll give you this franchise.
    Well, it would seem to me that we ought to be able
to then say, if you are not performing up to
expectations that we want to go and shorten the amount
of time we are willing to give you.  In fact,
originally I would remind this Chamber a few years ago,
we used to grant ten year franchises, and it was
shortened, I believe now down to five and this would
give more discretion to the DPUC.
    Since this is the only form of control the state
can exercise, I think it's pretty vital that we adopt
this amendment.  I support it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  If I may, a question,
through you, to the Chair, Representative Fonfara,
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative
Fonfara, you stated in your opposition to the bill that
you feel that this amendment if adopted would have no
impact on the current situation.  Is that correct?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, and through you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative Fonfara, are you aware that the cable
advisory board for Century Norwich Cable upon learning
of the decision of DPUC voted to request that the DPUC
fully reconsider their decision?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't hear the last
part of the gentleman's question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Please repeat the last part of your question,
Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The cable advisory board
for Century Norwich upon learning of the DPUC's
decision voted to request that that decision be
withdrawn and be reconsidered.  Are you aware of that
affirmative vote by the cable advisory board which has
purview over the Century Norwich?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that.
However, I am aware that they have granted the
franchise an extension of five years, and will monitor
that on an annual basis, and to the extent that this
legislation could affect that decision and be
retroactive, I have been advised that it would not.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Okay.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Speaking on the
amendment, one objection that was raised was that this
did not have a public hearing.  I would submit as
others have stated that if there's not an issue in
eastern Connecticut that's not well known, it's this
one.  There has been more public comment on this issue
than any other in the last six months.
    Further, if you recall in this Chamber several
years ago, the municipality of Norwich came to you and
asked for permission to run its own cable franchise.
That was granted based on the fact that the
municipality owned and operated its own electric
company.  That's very limited because it doesn't apply
obviously to every municipality in the state.  The one
drawback on that request is coming up with a capital
investment in order to start such a program.  Thus,
we're left to deal with only the one individual company
that has that franchise area.
    While there has been much public comment, there has
not been a good faith effort on the part of the company
in my opinion to comply with the needs that the DPUC
have outlined even in their new five year renewal.  I
don't have cable in my home anymore.  I dropped them
several years ago.  I was personally fed up and didn't
feel that I was getting the service for the cost that
we were paying as a family.
    What followed after the DPUC decision recently is
what has always followed after someone has called them
on the carpet.  The higher rate or an increase in the
cost for service, less options available to the
customers, and that has been a repeated pattern of this
cable franchise.  The only leverage that we as a state
have is the license the state can be granted.
    Again that was pointed out earlier.  That's a
decision the feds made.  I ask for support on this
amendment and whether or not it can affect the current
franchise that was just granted, I think that remains
to be seen.  I don't know of any prohibition on the
DPUC upon doing a reopening on this decision unless the
Chairman of the Energy Committee can cite one for me,
and perhaps that would be a good question at this time,
if I may, through the Speaker, to Representative
Fonfara.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative Fonfara, is the DPUC, do they have it
within their statutory or regulatory power to reopen a
decision on a franchise granting upon receipt of the
advisory board reaffirming its original decision which
was to not grant a renewal?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I understand it would be
on their own motion, the Department's own motion.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    I'm sorry.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, I could not
here his comment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Would you repeat yourself, Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, as I
understand it, it would be through the Department's own
motion.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.  I did not here his
statement.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Hold on.  Maybe it's too noisy in the Chamber.
GAVEL
    Please talk outside.  Representative Fonfara,
proceed.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, as I
understand it would be through the Department's own
motion.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you.  Apparently they do have that authority
then.  Based on that, I would ask for support for this
amendment, and I would ask that when the vote is taken,
it be taken by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman has asked for a roll call vote.  All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The vote will be taken by roll.  Will you remark
further on House "A"?  Representative Norton.
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    Mr. Speaker, very quickly, the fact of the matter
is in conversations I had with the Commissioner just a
few days ago, he would not for the legal reasons of a
case before them, tell me whether this would affect the
Norwich case or not.  He felt he could not legally tell
me which way, so I don't know how Representative
Fonfara knows.
    I'm sorry that Representative Fonfara can't support
this.  I wish he had.  I happen to think that this is
the most powerful tool we have in trying to get a
handle on the cable companies.  This would be utilized
very, very rarely.  We could only hope that it would be
utilized in this single case.  The first documented
cable company in the state I think.  Congress doesn't
leave us with much ability to control things.
    We've already been nice to the cable industry if
that's what we want to do by rejecting Senate "A", and
I really hope that we can get the support of people to
help us as I said, maybe, because we don't know, but
certainly help out people, cable subscribers in the
future who may be faced with a company and if DPUC
won't want to take away the franchise entirely because
that leaves too much gray and a hiatus of service, but
they will want to get a short renewal period.
    Again, they support it.  I don't know why anyone
wouldn't support it unless you work for a cable
company, and I don't think anyone here does.  I hope
you'll support it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Ferrari.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to - I find another area
that I must disagree with the honorable Representative
Fonfara.  I think that this particular amendment allows
the DPUC a valuable tool, a valuable tool that can be
used to assure that Connecticut citizens are given good
cable services, and I would urge very much urge its
support.
    Thank you very much, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you very much, sir.  Representative Powers.
REP. POWERS:  (151st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of
Representative Norton's amendment.  It's his cable
company this year.  Last year southwestern
Connecticut's Cable Company was acting up.  We turned
to the Attorney General.  We turned every which way we
could to get relief.  We finally through a series of
brinksmenships, they agreed to put the Connecticut
programming back on our cable company.
    This solution would help.  It was my cable company
last year.  It's Andy's this year.  It could be yours
next year.  I strongly urge your support for this.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Mikutel.
REP. MIKUTEL:  (45th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.   Mr. Speaker, I rise
to support this amendment.  This is a simple case of
consumer justice.  I'm familiar with the situation down
in the Norwich area.  The Norwich Century Cable has a
long history of poor performance.  It's simply a case,
as Mr. Nystrom has said, of higher rates and poor
service.
    To allow the decision of the DPU to stand which
certainly was condemned as a very poor decision would
simply be to allow the bureaucrats at the DPUC to ride
roughshod over the constituents, so I would urge all my
colleagues on this side to support this amendment.
It's a simple case of consumer justice, and we should
stand up for our constituents.  I urge support of this
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Question's on "A".  Will you remark?  Will you
remark?  If not, staff and guests to the Well of the
House.  Members, please be seated.  The machine will be
open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber please.  The House is
voting by roll.  Members, to the Chamber.
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll.
Members, to the Chamber please.  Members, to the
Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted, and if your votes
are properly recorded, please vote.  The machine is
still open.
    The machine will be locked.  The Clerk will please
take the tally.
    The Clerk will please announce that tally.
CLERK:
         House "A" to Senate Bill 260.
         Total Number Voting            145
         Necessary for Adoption          73
         Those Voting Yea               112
         Those Voting Nay                33
         Those absent and not Voting      6
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The amendment passes.  Will you remark further on
the bill as amended?  Will you remark further on the
bill as amended by House "A"?  If not, staff and guests
to the Well of the House.  Members, please be seated.
The machine is opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber please.  The House of
Representatives is voting by roll call.  Members,
please report to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted, and if your votes
are properly recorded, please look at the board to make
sure that your votes are properly cast and recorded.
The machine is locked.  The Clerk will take a tally.
    The Clerk will announce that tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 260, as amended by House Amendment
Schedule "A".
         Total Number Voting            142
         Necessary for Passage           73
         Those Voting Yea               140
         Those Voting Nay                 2
         Those absent and not Voting      9
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill as amended passes.  Will the Clerk return
to the Call of the Calendar, 495.
CLERK:
    On Page 7, Calendar 495, Substitute for Senate Bill
344, AN ACT CONCERNING LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSES AND
OTHER ELECTRIC FACILITIES, as amended by Senate
Amendment Schedule "A".  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Appropriations.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's
Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence
with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on passage in concurrence with the
Senate.  Will you remark?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this bill requires
that applicants to the siting council for transmission
lines in their application submit a life-cycle analysis
for above ground transmission versus a below ground.
    In the application they must notice all customers
in the municipality that is affected and at least once
every five years there's a proceeding by the siting
council to determine life-cycle costs of overhead and
underground transmission lines.
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO4256.
May he please call and I be allowed to summarize?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will the Clerk please call LCO4256, Senate "A"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4256, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator Peters.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The gentleman has asked leave to summarize.
Proceed.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this
amendment would drop the requirement that notice to
customers include a map showing proposed route.  The
problem with that is that the size of the map and the
mailing packet would be inconsistent.  It also allows a
person who has been involved with the electric industry
within the past or has served as a consultant, if the
involvement was not for compensation or the activity
took place outside the state, it makes other minor
technical changes.  I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark?  Will
you remark?  If not, let me try your minds.  All those
in favor of the adoption of Senate "A", signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Opposed, nay.  The ayes have it.  "A" is adopted.
Will you remark further on the bill as amended?  Will
you remark?  If not, staff an guests to the Well of the
House.  Members, please be seated.  The machine is
open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber. The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If all the members have voted, and if your votes
are properly recorded, the machine will be locked.
Representative Ritter, for what reason do you rise,
sir?
REP. RITTER:  (2nd)
    In the affirmative, please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Ritter in the affirmative.
    The Clerk will take the tally.
    The Clerk will please announce that tally.
CLERK:
         Senate bill 344, as amended by Senate Amendment
"A", in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            145
         Necessary for Passage           73
         Those Voting Yea               144
         Those Voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not Voting      6
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The bill passes.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move we recess, to reconvene at the
Call of the Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Motion is to recess, any objections?  Hearing no
objection, the House stands in recess.
    The House recessed at 3:05 p.m., to reconvene at
the Call of the Chair.
    The House reconvened at 5:31 o'clock p.m., Speaker
Ritter in the Chair.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Chamber will please come to order. I know we've
had some long days and long nights and some anguish.
Usually we have the opportunity to have our UConn Husky
day in the middle of the session here. Actually it's
probably good that you came at the end, because just
like what you've done for the State of Connecticut, boy
do we need some brightening up here. Really, we welcome
you all here to begin with.
APPLAUSE
    After we begin each day, Representative Luby, the
Majority Leader.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It's my great privilege to
welcome two extraordinary teams to our Chamber.  Men
and women that have made all of Connecticut and our
nation proud with their Coaches Calhoun and Orijema.
You have exemplified the very best in college
athletics, the very best in Connecticut.
    You've worked hard.  You've shown discipline,
determination and you have succeeded.  It gives not
only all of us hope, but the children of Connecticut
hope as well, and to Donyell about those free throws, I
just want you to know based on what happened here last
night, I know exactly how you felt.
CHEERS AND APPLAUSE
    And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the
distinguished Minority Leader.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you, Mr. Majority
Leader.  I think that's called a stuff.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    No more.  That was last night.  We're starting anew
today.  On behalf of the he Republicans I certainly would
like to welcome you to the Chamber where we all know
the Republicans are the better basketball players.
Isn't that right, Mr. Speaker?
APPLAUSE AND BOOS
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Point of Order?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Seriously, it's wonderful to have you join us
today.  I want you to know during a very long and
horrible, in my opinion, winter, you, both of the teams
brought great joy to this state.  We're so very proud
of you.  We look forward to next year's activities with
both teams.  We look forward to doing even better next
year, and thank you so much for joining us today.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    And joining me at the podium there's some special
UConn basketball fans.  If Representative Denise
Merrill.  Denise.  Oh, right behind me, okay.
Representative Nancy Wyman, Representative Bill
Wollenberg who is a season ticket holder to the women's
basketball games
CHEERS
    Representative Bob Ward, who I go to many games
with, both men and women's.  We've been there together.
Where is the cranky Fred Gelsi.  You see this guy, Fred
Gelsi, not only is he is an ardent women's basketball
fan, he's the one who got you on TV.  He's the one who
personally got Channel 24 to cover the women's game,
and I would say it does more to help UConn athletics
than anybody in this building.
APPLAUSE
    Of course, because of Freddy we have no more bond
money for the rest of the State of Connecticut.  What
I'd like to do is introduce some of our sponsors.
Later on tonight, or afterwards, the reception
downstairs and the players are really very generous
with their time, in terms of if people want to have
conversations with them.  There's food downstairs and
photographers, but Fleet Bank has once again sponsored,
and Rick Cokelund is here from Fleet.  Dave Parmelee.
Mike Albers, Ann Taylor, Cathy McManus and John
Milligan.
APPLAUSE
    I know that UConn thanks you for your generosity as
do we.  Before we get into the introduction of the
ballplayers which will be done by other Legislators,
let me introduce people who are no strangers to these
hallways, first of all the President of UConn, Harry
Hartley.
APPLAUSE
    The athletic director, Lou Perkins.
APPLAUSE
    The assistant athletic director, Jeff Hathaway.  Is
Jeff here?
APPLAUSE
    And Howie Dickerman.
APPLAUSE
    I guess the rest of the coaches will be introduced
in a minute.  I'm off the script.  Excuse me. To do the
men's basketball team, what we'd like to do is have
everybody come up one at a time for recognition.  It
will be Denise Merrill and Bob Ward.
APPLAUSE
REP. MERRILL:  (54th)
    Thanks.  I just want to say as the rookie
Legislator here that it was certainly a great year to
representing UConn, which is the only part of my
district basically, and every year I guess I carry the
weight of higher education on my shoulders a little bit
I guess, but boy, what a great year to come in, because
every time I looked at the budget figures, I said, boy
I hope they make another basket.  It was great, so my
personal thanks to all of you.
    It's my pleasure today to introduce the players
from the men's basketball team, and we'll ask them I
guess to come up each one to get recognized.  The first
one is Ray Allen.
APPLAUSE
    We've got Jeff Calhoun, who must be a distant
relative of somebody else around here.
APPLAUSE
    Steve Emmett.
APPLAUSE
    Eric Hayward.
APPLAUSE
    Rusilen Inyackin.
APPLAUSE
    And Rudy Johnson.
APPLAUSE
    And Brian Farrer who could not be here.  Now I"m
going to have Bob Ward come up and introduce the rest
of the men's basketball team.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Denise.  Let me also say how much of a
thrill it is for me to be able to introduce you, what a
great season you've had.  If the General Assembly could
make as many of the citizens of Connecticut as happy as
you guys do, we'd be doing our job pretty well.
CHEERS
    And with that, let me introduce first Curt King.
APPLAUSE
    Travis Knight.
APPLAUSE
    I knew that comment was going to be made.  Donny
Marshall.
APPLAUSE
    Donyell Marshall.
APPLAUSE
    Kevin Ollie.
APPLAUSE
    Jerome Sheffer.
APPLAUSE
    Marcus Thomas.
APPLAUSE
    And Nantambo Willingham.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Representative Ward, and to introduce
the coaches, it's always her thrill, Representative
Nancy Wyman.
APPLAUSE
REP. WYMAN:  (53rd)
    I also want to extend my welcome.  They keep going
that way.  I'm used to going to my left.
CHEERS
    Bob Ward said he never noticed that.  I'd like to
take the opportunity of welcoming you all here to the
General Assembly and because I live right next door in
the Town of Tolland, I love the traffic, so you keep
playing well so that we keep having a lot of people
coming out to eastern Connecticut for those of you who
don't know where we are, but you've done a great job.
    You really have kept us up and functioning during
this season, and we thank you, and I have the
opportunity of introducing the coaches.  Joe Pitrella.
APPLAUSE
    He's not here.  Karen Ewall.
APPLAUSE
    Not here?  Okay, working backwards.  Cindy
Karaskila.
APPLAUSE
    Come on up.  Joe Sharp.
APPLAUSE
    Carl Hobbs.
APPLAUSE
    I'm going to call up a gentleman that I have a
feeling will be the last time up here with us, and my
last time, so we have something in common, Dave Latel.
Congratulations on your new position.
APPLAUSE
    The next gentleman gets two introductions because
the Speaker must like him also.  Howie Dickerman.
APPLAUSE
    The next gentleman that I'm very fortunate to
introduce to you.  His name is much more popular than
any of ours in the General Assembly, which doesn't say
much, Mr. Calhoun at all right now, but he man who has
really brought UConn to the front lights, and we
appreciate him a lot.  Welcome, Jim Calhoun to the
General Assembly again.
CHEERS AND APPLAUSE
COACH JIM CALHOUN:
    I didn't realize that I was following Harry
Hartley.  I had to put the microphone up as usually.
Secondly, I had to remove the small box here, and third
I have tenure.
LAUGHTER
    Just a couple things from my players.  With all
those new coaches, I didn't check transactions today.
I just want to take this opportunity to relate three
things rather quickly and the way I speak it will be
rather quickly.  The first thing I want to say goodby
to David Latel publicly for what he's meant to UConn
basketball over the past eight years.  Harry, myself
and Dave came here May 15, 1986 together, and I think a
lot of good things have happened on the court, off the
court, and most importantly from what you're saying,
some very special things have happened because we've
been able to bring some very special young people to
our University.
    Dave Latel has been a part of that, has been the
heart and soul of that, and I really want to say
publicly to David, thank you.
APPLAUSE
    Secondly, I'd be remiss in this small opportunity
if I didn't say goodby to someone who's been very
special to UConn in a very short three years.  We
talked about various things and some people talked
about conclusions.  Some people look at life as a still
shot, an instant Polaroid.  I'm not so instant.  I'm
not a Polaroid.  I'm a moving picture.  See, I watched
for three years, and for a great basketball season what
this guy has meant to us, not only as a person, but as
a player, and I think all of you when you start taking
Polaroids and mention individual things you make a
mistake.
    You think of life being not a still shot, but a
motion picture, and the three year motion picture this
young man gave us, I just want to say thank him.  He's
making a great decision, and he's represented
Connecticut and you folks the way you want to be
represented, and I want to say publicly once again, a
goodby and now a different association with a wonderful
basketball player, but an equally better human being,
Donyell Marshall.
APPLAUSE AND CHEERS
DONYELL MARSHALL:
    I would like to thank the University of Connecticut
for giving me the chance to play in the State of
Connecticut.  It was a tough decision I had to make,
mainly because of my teammates and the coaches, and
when we first came we vowed that we weren't going to
leave each other, but it was a decision that I had to
make that I thought was best for me at this time.
    I appreciate all the support that you gave us this
year, especially after a lot of people had doubted us
earlier, and seeing how we came together, I just want
to say thank you.
APPLAUSE
COACH JIM CALHOUN:
    And where Donyell's going, he buys the dinners
from now on.  I just want to turn to you and say thank
you from the bottom of our hearts.  Very simply what we
try to do is do the best we can every single time out
on the court.  I know the women's team always does the
same, and I just think that if you understand that your
support starting eight years ago when Tom called me and
said would you like to come in after a 9 and 19
basketball season, and I stood up here and said if you
give us time, we'll get it done.
    We have got it done.  We got it done the right way
with great, great people, with a great university and a
president by Harry Hartley and an athletic director
like Lou Perkins, the assistant coaches I've had and
the players, coaching basketball at UConn and playing
basketball at UConn is a very special experience.
    I'm very fortunate to coach there, because I talk
to a lot of my fellow coaches throughout the country
who also coach at state universities.  They don't know
who their Governor is except by name, and they don't
have the opportunity to share a small moment like this
with some very special people, and I just want to say
thank you.  Your support means so much to us.  We
greatly appreciate it, and you're one of the great
reasons why UConn basketball and years in Connecticut
so special.  Thank you very, very much.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you very much, Coach, and let me just say
to the whole team, it's been a real joy and to Donyell
who provided so many great moments for us for him to
come here and say thank you for the opportunity.  It's
the other way around.  Thank you for the opportunity,
sir, and with that, let's lower the microphone again.
Representative Fred Gelsi.
APPLAUSE
REP. GELSI:  (58th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this great
Chamber and guests.  I've always been trying to figure
out a way that I could get Tom off his Dais, and I
guess this is the way to do it, but I'd like for all of
us to make a promise to the women Huskies, and I think
they've just given us a terrific season, great to
watch, great to be near, and they do just such a
wonderful job down there with the young children that
go to those games that will make each and every one of
us much better.
    The UConn radio station 91.7 is a great radio
station, does a great job, but it really doesn't go out
too far, and boy for your next season, we're going to
try to get you guys on the map so you can get the men
something to shoot for and really give the citizens of
the state something to go for, and I'd like to thank
you for the great job that all of you have done.
APPLAUSE
    And I'm sorry to report to you today that Kim
Betters and Tonya Boone and Pam Webber are back at
school doing what they're supposed to be doing, I guess
taking their exams.  Rebecca Lobo is doing one of the
two things that she does best.  She's out in Colorado
playing basketball, and the second thing of course is
the academic standards that her and most of the women
Huskies maintain which we should all be proud of.
    Carla Berube, if you'd come up.
APPLAUSE
    Jamal Elliot.
APPLAUSE
    Colleen Healy.
APPLAUSE
    The next player I'm going to ask to stick around
here a little bit and Shay Matlock, if she would come
up.
APPLAUSE
    Shay is from May's Landing, New Jersey, a community
that I know well, about 19 miles from where I was born
and brought up and my family are still there in
violence, so Shay, do a good job for us back there.
APPLAUSE
    Sue Mayo.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Freddy.  To continue the introductions,
another ardent zealot UConn women's basketball fan,
Representative Bill Wollenberg.
APPLAUSE
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Tom.  Everything I say here, ladies and
gentlemen of UConn, will be germane.
BOOS AND CHEERS
    It is a pleasure for me to take a more active part
in what we're doing here today than sitting there
watching the women of UConn as my family have all
year.  Let me just say that if you have a Sunday
afternoon and you see where they're playing, get there
early because these folks play to full houses most of
the time they've been playing toward the end of the
season.
    They play a real great schedule.  They play some
really great teams.  It's real great basketball.  If you
bring some of your younger children as Speaker Ritter
had his daughter there one day, and bring some
grandchildren and one of the things you look at when
you take a look at the roster of these ladies is their
athletic prowess is stated there, but also the academic
prowess.
    Most of them you see before you today are honor
students.  They do a wonderful job.
APPLAUSE
    This is certainly an inspiration to the younger
people we take up there when they look at that, and it
gives them a real goal.  These folks are really a great
team.  They've given some great entertainment to the
people of the State of Connecticut over the year
    Without adieu, Jen Risotti.
APPLAUSE
    We watched on national television as Jen took
herself up off the floor and continued that game
against South Carolina.  Great.
APPLAUSE
    And folks don't worry about what's coming.  Missy
Rose, a young player who's going to be here for a
while.
APPLAUSE
    As Fred said, Pam Webber is back studying or taking
tests.  Pam is one of the seniors on the team next
year, and then Carol Walters.
APPLAUSE
    Another freshman who combined with Lobo, I don't
think next year there will be any twosome in the
country that can take those two.
    Getting to the coaches, someone said Gino wasn't
here, but I did see him sneak in to my left.  Gino.
APPLAUSE
    Chris Daly.
APPLAUSE
    Megan Patterson.
APPLAUSE
    Wendy Davis.
APPLAUSE
    Todd McDonough.
APPLAUSE
    John Lucas.
APPLAUSE
    Jean Middad.  Thank you all very, very much.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    We'll just have a few words from Coach Orejema.
COACH OREJEMA:
    I think these things are just right.  I got here a
little bit late.  I got caught in a little bit of
traffic and a little emergency at home.  One of the
policemen was kind enough to drive me up here and show
me where to park, and I was told when I pulled up that
I missed our session with the Governor.  We usually go
in there and get our picture taken, but since his
time's about up, whoever's running here, I'd like to
get my picture taken with you guys.
CHEERS AND APPLAUSE
    Especially whoever the frontrunner is right now.
Who is that?  You all are, right?  I think Jim said it
best when he talked about the special opportunities
that our kids get when they come up to play at
Connecticut, and it's unlike any other place in the
country right now.  Basketball is very special.  It's
special because of the people that we have that allow
us to do the things that we do, and in most places
we're not, the women athletes are not given the
opportunity to perform at the level that these kids
have been allowed to perform at.
    No matter how hard we work and no matter what we
try to accomplish if we didn't have the backing of our
administration, if we didn't have the support of all
the people at the University, and if we didn't have the
support of the people in the state, I don't think we'd
be able to do some of the things that we're doing, so
from that end, I would like to really on behalf of our
team, on behalf of everyone associated with the women's
basketball program, I would like to thank all of you
for everything that you do, and I know today is getting
close to the end of the session for you all, and I
know.
CHEERS
    I was reading again in the paper this morning that
there's a football team out in Los Angeles that's
thinking about making a move, and I would just like to
say that for 250 million, I think could change our name
to the Connecticut Rams.
APPLAUSE
    Is that alright, Harry?  So I wanted to thank you
all for taking the time to have us out here.  We
appreciate coming out here.  Thank you for your
support.  I hope we can keep bringing you some of the
same assignment that we brought to you this season, and
hopefully you'll have us back out here again next year.
Thank you very much.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Well, once again, thank you all for brightening up
our last few days, because they really did need
brightening up, and thank you for all you have done for
this great state that we all love.  With that, we'll
get back to business.
APPLAUSE
    There is a reception downstairs and people should
feel free to go down there.  Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    For the purposes of an announcement, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, at the end of the
festivities here in the Chamber now, we are announcing
a Democratic caucus in Room 207A to start in a few
minutes.  If the members of our caucus wish to attend
the reception just very briefly, they're allowed to do
so.  We will be beginning our Democratic caucus in
approximately five minutes in Room 207A.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The 10:30 Republican
caucus is going to take place.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    A little bit early, sir.  It's only 3:30.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    I don't mean the night one.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    We'll probably have one then too, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    I hope not.  In Room 209 as soon as the recess
begins.
REP. KEELEY:  (125th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Keeley.
REP. KEELEY:  (125th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Point of Personal
Privilege?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Wait one second, please.  Representative Keeley.
REP. KEELEY:  (125th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'm very sorry Coach
Calhoun has left.  I have a real sleeper here in the
Chamber that I thought might be able to take the place
of Donyell Marshall.  He's a brilliant ball player.
He's a little injured right now.  He goes by the name
of Stan Simpson from the Hartford Courant, and
APPLAUSE
    I personally saw Stan go down that night, and I
think it was the Speaker's office that hurt him that
night, I think, but on behalf of the Speaker, the
honorable Thomas D. Ritter and the House of
Representatives I have an official citation that I
would like to read for Mr. Simpson, and maybe he could
take this citation to Coach Calhoun and do a little
number on him.  Maybe you can join the team next year,
Stan.
    The citation reads:  "Be it hereby known to all
that the Connecticut House hereby offers its sincerest
congratulations to Stan Simpson in recognition of his
quick, decisive action in knocking the capital press
corps team out of the Veterans Who Care basketball
tournament.  The entire membership extends its very
best wishes on this memorable occasion and expresses
the hope for continued success."
    And there's a little note at the bottom here, it
said that Tom Ritter will take Stan on one on one
anytime this week, but not a day thereafter.  Good
luck, Stan.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    That must be when you're back on your feet.  Yeah,
Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move that we recess subject to the
Call of the Chair.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Absolutely.  I can't take this much excitement.
    The House recessed at 3:38 o'clock p.m. to
reconvene at the Call of the Chair.
    The House reconvened at 5:30 o'clock p.m., Speaker
Ritter in the Chair.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is reconvening
immediately.  The House of Representatives is
reconvening immediately.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The House will reconvene.  Clerk, please continue
with Calendar 269.
CLERK:
    On Page 19, Calendar 269, House Bill 5069, AN ACT
CONCERNING JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, as amended by House
Amendment Schedule "A".  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Appropriations.  Senate rejected House
Amendment Schedule "A", LCO4274 on 5/2/94.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk has just indicated, the
Senate last night took up this bill and rejected House
"A" out of concerns about the system that would be put
in place.  In discussion with members of both sides of
the Aisle and others, it is my belief that House "A"
was a proper step for us to make or at least it serves
as the basis for further discussion with the Senate, so
I believe that we ought to readopt House "A", and
therefore, if the Clerk would call LCO4274, and I be
permitted to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO4274, previously designated House
"A".  If the Clerk may call and Representative Rapoport
would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO4274, previously designated House "A", offered by
Representative Rapoport, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, House "A" puts in place a system for
the Justices of the Peace which divides them into two
sections, one that will be named by the two highest
number of voting parties, one that will be sort of an
over counter system.
    I think this was a reasonable system.  There are
questions about how this treats ACP.  If we readopt -
what?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'm sorry.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Are there copies missing?  Mr. Speaker, if I may,
my understanding is in conversation with both House
counsel and LCO counsel that if we readopt House "A",
that will automatically send us to conference
committee, and that is the intent here, so I would move
adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption of House "A".  Will you
remark further on the adoption of House "A"?
Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I concur with
the Chairman of GAE.  I think we should readopt House
"A".  I think we should send this to a conference
committee.  I disagree wholeheartedly with what the
Senate did and I think we could work something out and
get a good bill out of this.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Will you remark further?
If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "A" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on this bill as amended?  If not, staff
and guests, please come to the Well of the House.  The
machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast, and if
it has.   If all the members have voted, the machine
will be locked.  Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5069, as amended by House "A".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               144
         Those Voting Nay                 2
         Those absent and not Voting      5
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.  At this time I'd say
this puts in a Conference Committee Disagreement Action
with the Senate.  The Chair would appoint
Representative Rapoport, Representative Beals and
Representative Prelli to the Conference Committee, and I
would encourage you to go out and do your job for the
State of Connecticut and resolve this issue please.
    Points of Personal Privilege or announcements or
any motions?  Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON:  (92nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  At this time in accordance
with Joint Rule 17, I move to transmit the following
items immediately to the Senate.  Calendar 313, House
Bill 5830, Calendar 349, House Bill 5747, Calendar 413,
Senate Bill 260, Calendar 489, Senate Bill 102,
Calendar 491, Senate Bill 373, Calendar 498, Senate
Bill 288, Calendar 501, Senate Bill 105, Calendar 521,
Senate Bill 264, Calendar 522, Senate Bill 385,
Calendar 473, Senate Bill 280, Calendar 487, Senate
Bill 378, Calendar 219, House Bill 5139, Calendar 226,
House Bill 5754, Calendar 337, House Bill 5386.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Is there any objection to any of those items?  It
will be so ordered.  Clerk, please continue with
Calendar 500.
CLERK:
    On Page 8, Calendar 500, Substitute for Senate Bill
207, AN ACT CONCERNING THE HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE
ACT.  Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
REP. MCCAVANAGH:  (12th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative McCavanagh.
REP. MCCAVANAGH:  (12th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move the Joint Committee's Favorable
Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the
Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.
REP. MCCAVANAGH:  (12th)
    Mr. Speaker, the state home mortgage disclosure act
prohibits redlining and requires lenders to report
geographic, racial and other data about their home
mortgages as required under federal law.  Last year
Public Act 93-186 narrowed the term mortgage loans,
meaning any secured by residential real property to
home purchase loans any home improvement loans to be
consistent with federal regulations
    This bill corrects a technical problem in that act
by reinstituting the original broader term mortgage
loans.  Only in the state anti-redlining provisions
which the federal law does not address.  This makes it
clear that lenders cannot redline on any kind of
residential mortgage loan, not just those for home
purchase or improvement.  I move for adoption, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Will you remark further?
If not, staff and guests come to the Well of the House.
The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If it has, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk
will please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 207, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those Voting Yea               148
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, please continue with
Calendar 515.
CLERK:
    On Page 10, Calendar 515, Substitute for Senate
Bill 333, AN ACT CONCERNING INCENTIVES FOR THE USE OF
ALTERNATIVE FUELS.  Favorable Report of the Committee
on Energy and Public Utilities.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The honorable Representative from the 121st, Town
of Stratford, succeeding the Majority Leader,
Representative Terry Backer.
REP. BACKER:  (121st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed, sir.
REP. BACKER:  (121st)
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.  This bill
establishes a series of two tax credits to help in the
conversion of motor vehicles for fleet vehicles with
over 10 vehicles.  It also creates a 50% tax incentive
for the building of alternative fuel filling stations,
also for fleet vehicles.  It is a great opportunity for
business to come on board and help us reach our clean
air non-attainment goals, and comply with the national
energy act, and in the out years will be a great
benefit to the State of Connecticut in protecting our
federal funding in terms of transportation.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on the bill?  If not, staff
and guests please come to the Well of the House.  The
machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If it has - it's still open.  Take your time.  The
machine will be locked.  Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 333, in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            149
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those Voting Yea               149
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      2
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, please continue with
Calendar 511.
CLERK:
    On Page 9, Calendar 511, Substitute for Senate Bill
364, AN ACT CONCERNING THEFT OF ELECTRIC, GAS, WATER
AND COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION SERVICE, as amended by
Senate Amendment Schedule "A".  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Energy and Public Utilities.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    In concurrence with the Senate.  Motion's on
acceptance and passage in concurrence with the Senate.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, Senate
Amendment, LCO5309.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk, please call LCO5309, to be designated Senate
"A".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5309, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator Jepsen.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Permission to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, this amendment adds steam and
telecommunication.  I'm going to ask that we reject
this amendment since telecommunication issues are going
to be taken up in another bill but steam should be
added and I will be submitting another amendment
shortly, so I move its rejection.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on rejection of Senate "A".  Will
you remark further?  If not, all in favor of rejecting
Senate "A" signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  Senate "A" is hereby rejected.  Will
you remark further?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    The Clerk has amendment LCO6808.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO6808, to be designated
House "A".  Representative Tulisano would like to
summarize after it's called.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6808, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us adds as I
indicated would steam to the kinds of utilities that
were taken care of.  For some reason most advocates
thought the word utility was too broad and they wanted
to name themselves, but steam was left off and it does
it.
    It also makes it clear, as I believe the Committee
intended when it JF'd the bill and it was discussed
that we continue to make this a bill dealing with
people who are stealing and obtaining these services
for profit or economic gain, that is professionals.  I
move its adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption of House "A".  Will you
remark further on House "A"?  If not, I'll try your
minds.  All in favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "A" is adopted.  Will you
remark further?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, as I indicated this does with the
amendment make it clear that this deals with
professional individuals trying to steal certain
utility services.  It also makes it a Class D felony
when you - it allows for civil remedy.  I'm sorry, when
one engages in these kinds of thievery, and expands
generally the kinds and describes the kinds of
tampering that are included to indicate a theft is
occurring.  I move its passage as amended.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
If not, staff and guests please come to the Well of the
House.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote's properly cast.  If it
has, the machine will be locked.  Clerk, please take
the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 364, as amended by House "A".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               146
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      5
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.  Clerk, please
continue with Calendar 170.
CLERK:
    On Page 13, Calendar 170, Substitute for House Bill
5569, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
GRIEVANCES OR DISPUTES BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF
MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION.  Favorable Report of the
Committee on Government Administration and Elections.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed, sir.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has LCO No.
5848.  I'd ask that the Clerk call and that I be
permitted to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk has amendment LCO5848, if he may call,
Representative Lawlor would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5848, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Chase, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment essentially
strikes the file copy and inserts a relatively short
section, specifying that any matter filed with the
State Board of Mediation and Arbitration prior to
January 1, 1977, on which the board has not rendered.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Lawlor, one second please.
GAVEL
    Okay.  Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just clarifying this
amendment strikes the file copy and indicates that any
matter filed with the State Board of Mediation and
Arbitration prior to January 1, 1977, on which the
board has not rendered a final decision on the
effective date of this act, shall be dismissed.
    It is effective on passage and I would urge
adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  The amendment's adopted.  House "A"
is adopted.  Will you remark further on this bill as
amended?  If not, staff and guests come to the Well of
the House.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is taking a
roll call vote.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.  If it
has, the machine will be locked.  Clerk, please take
the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5569, as amended by House "A".
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those Voting Yea               148
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.  Clerk, please
continue with Calendar 391.
CLERK:
    On Page 3, Calendar 391, Substitute for House Bill
5428, AN ACT CONCERNING DISCRETION REGARDING
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE COMPLAINTS.  Favorable Report
of the Committee on Judiciary.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed, sir.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us
allows the CHRO to close certain files without a full
investigation and it gives them discretion.  It makes a
much more efficient operation.
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO5383.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    LCO5838, sir?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO5383, if he may call,
Representative Tulisano would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5383, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Permission to summarize.  Mr. Speaker, this
amendment before us in the changes all, the word
closures to dismissed to make it clear we're talking
about cases that are dismissed subject to the same
appeal procedures that are usual in other CHRO cases.
It makes some clarifying language changes.  It makes it
applies to all complaints on or before January 1, 1995,
on line 34 of the file copy.  I move its adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Would Representative
Tulisano please explain what Sections 46A through 64C
or 46A through 81E on line 23 are please?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, 46A-64C is discriminatory
housing practices, and through 81E deals with state
agencies, job placement, basically state agency issues.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, madam.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you.  Does the Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities currently investigate these complaints?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I understand that all of
these citations are within the jurisdiction of the
Human Rights and Opportunities.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    I believe they do.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    And then, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Then I'm not sure why this language is before us
beginning in line 21 that on or before January 1, '95
the provisions of this section shall apply to all
complaints other than these.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would think that the
part carrying the state to a higher standard.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I understood
the answer.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think that CHRO's
intention is to maintain a higher degree of compliance
with the state and look at the state closer than it
might look at other individuals.
    For further explanation, Mr. Speaker, they're not
going to close the case very easily against the state.
The state has a higher duty, I gather and believe to
its citizens, and therefore it's going to investigate
claims against the state whenever they're made as they
do now for all cases, but give more discretion when
dealing with private employers.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further on this
amendment?  Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll reserve comment for the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay, anybody else on the amendment?
Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, then through
you, to Representative Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Then you're taking
out from the file copy 46A-64C through 46-81E.  Those
are the sexual preference sections, Representative
Tulisano?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Sexual orientation.  I'm sorry.  We changed that.
I'm sorry, Representative.  Taking out the sexual
orientation sections?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, 46A-81E includes sexual
orientation discrimination in housing, as I recall.  As
I indicated earlier it deals with housing matters as
well as state agencies.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to Representative
Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Then, Representative Tulisano, all the other civil
actions with regard to sexual orientation are still in
then?  81E is the only one that came out.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    This amendment says that in housing and when state
agencies are concerned, this matter of discretion is
not going to apply to the same degree.  They will have
discretion to dismiss in an easier way all the other
sexual orientation complaints.  I think that's what Mr.
Wollenberg is asking me.
    So effectively this bill will apply to all claims
dealing with sexual orientation except that in housing.
I think probably because it complies with some federal
housing act.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Representative Tulisano.  Through you,
Mr. Speaker, could you expand on that just a little
bit, Representative Tulisano.  Is it because it applies
to federal housing act?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that was my guess as to
why they did not keep housing matters.  There's a
federal housing act, and apply this discretion to them.
That's my impression of what's going on.  I have no
facts to back that up.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, to Representative
Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Wollenberg, please proceed.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Representative Tulisano, in answer to
Representative Rell's question as to whether or not
this applied to at the present time, you said they had
jurisdiction over those, but I don't think you answered
the question that yes, at this point CHRO does have
jurisdiction over these areas, and we're not changing
law in that regard.  Is that true?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.  The only changes
we're making is how they handle cases that are made
whether or not they're going to investigate them fully
or going to be subject to this new procedure where
they're going to have discretion and sort of dismiss
them sort of out of hand based on the complaint itself,
if they don't have there's any substance to it.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Representative Tulisano.  Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you.  Anybody else on the amendment?  If not,
I'll try your minds.  All in favor of House "A",
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "A" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on this bill as amended?  Representative
Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has another amendment
LCO2747.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO2747, if he may call,
Representative Tulisano.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 2747, designated House "B", offered by
Representative Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Permission to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Permission granted.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes appeals to
Superior Court for dismissals to the same as all other
appeals from CHRO dismissals which apply to the section
as already amended.  That is under Section 1 of the
file copy allows appeals when cases are dismissed to
the Superior Court.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  The question's on
adoption.  Will you remark further on House "B"?
Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Question to the proponent
of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    In the trial in Superior Court in the appeal, will
it be noted that the matter had been dismissed by the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities either for
failure to state a claim, for failure to state or for
failure to conduct a reasonable investigation or for
bringing the complaint without reasonable cause?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I gather according to the
exact procedure now and it's on the record so it will
be stated what happened in the final record.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, it is a trial de novo,
but through you, Mr. Speaker, would a defendant be able
to discover information contained in the file of the
Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities which
indicated that it had been dismissed essentially
because it was a frivolous claim and not adjudicated on
the merits?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I frankly do not know of
anything that would stop it from being discoverable.  I
don't know if it's anything positive, but I don't know
of anything that would stop it and I would think you
should be able to get that information if you were
seeking it.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Then, through you, Mr. Speaker, it is the intention
by granting this right to appeal for the trier of fact
to have access to all of the information that was before
the agency and that lead to the dismissal as
essentially frivolous or without reasonable cause.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly in case
there was some kind of abuse of discretion on behalf of
the agency, then the complaining party has some
recourse.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have any and to
know that you'd have to look at the actions that
occurred prior.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    So, through you, Mr. Speaker, we're contemplating
here a trial de novo, not a trial based upon the
hearing record.  Is that true?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the reference in the
current statutes refer to I believe the administrative
procedures act, and I just want to check it out before
I say that.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is Section 4-181,
the administrative procedure act?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, that is correct.  I'm just trying to
find my volume.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Then go back to my initial question.  Through you,
Mr. Speaker, if the provisions of 4-181 apply and it is
an administrative appeal, then clearly the record of
the hearing before the Commission which would include
the reason for the dismissal, the failure to state a
claim or failure to state reasonable cause, would be
before the court in any such appeal.
    I'm concerned, I guess, that an individual might
receive two bites of the apple, after having brought a
frivolous complaint or a complaint that had been found
frivolous before the commission, only then to have
another opportunity in court.  I think under those
circumstances a court should at least be aware of that,
and perhaps the suit should be subject to being
stricken, so through you, Mr. Speaker, would the court,
the trier of fact after the taking of an appeal, have
access to the evidence, have access to the findings,
have access to the reason why it was dismissed for
failure to state a claim rather than having been
adjudicated on the merits?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the
uniform administrative procedures act, agency's
findings, etc. and all of its basis for making that
decision goes up to the court if an appeal is taken by
an individual.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Fine.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "B"?  Will you
remark further?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All in
favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "B" is passed.  Will you remark
further?  Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has another amendment,
LCO4089.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk, please call LCO4089, and Representative
Tulisano has asked to summarize.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Wait, wait, wait, wait.  Let the Clerk please call
it.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4089, designated House "C", offered by
Representative Tulisano.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I don't know how this got dropped out
of the bill.  I think we saw it before and I thought we
had JF'd this section, but it makes it clear that it's
not illegal under the public accommodations act to have
separate bathrooms in locker rooms for men and women.
I move its adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  The gentleman has moved
for adoption of House "C"?  Will you remark further?
If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "C" is adopted.  Will you
remark further?
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we've discussed what
this bill is all about, with a series of amendments, it
really does in fact allow much more discretion in the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to get rid
of frivolous complaints when it feels it, but it also
protects the rights of people who are making those
complaints.
    I think it will be a benefit to our business
community and to the agency in that when we have heard
from many business people that they believe some cases
are brought against them that are inappropriate under
current procedure.  The agency investigates each and
every one of them even though on its face, it may not
look as if there's a good case, because they feel
they're obligated to do so.  That requires
interogatories and information to be received from the
individuals to whom the complaints are made, taking up
a lot of business time, a lot of effort.  It is
designed to strike a balance between the rights of the
complainant, but also those private businesses which
may be overburdened by excessive complaints.
    I move its passage as amended.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, Representative Tulisano is
right.  I think that he indeed has made the bill
somewhat better, but I think we can improve it a little
bit, and I'd like to have the Clerk call LCO No. 2288,
and may I have permission to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO2288, which shall be designated
House "D".  If he may call it, Representative Rell
would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 2288, designated House "D", offered by
Representative Rell.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  What this does is requires
the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to
inform a complainant of any findings, closure,
dismissal or other determination of proceedings
concerning the complaint filed, and I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.   Will you remark
further on House "D"?  Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Frankly, what this will do
is although the Commission says now that they currently
inform individuals when they have a closure on the
process, in fact many constituents complain that they
do not have any kind of information from the
Commission, and this will require them to do so.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there a fiscal note?
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do have a fiscal note.
There is a minimal cost for the Commission on Human
Rights associated with informing a complainant by
mail.  It may be absorbed.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, the only reason I ask if there was a
fiscal note because it is my understanding they already
do this, and I am surprised to hear that someone
reported that I guess they weren't and Representative
Rell.  I have no objection to this amendment because I
think they do it or are supposed to do it, and if they
don't, I guess we're telling them again.  Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "D"?  If not, I'll
try your minds.  All in favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "D" is adopted.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, I have another amendment
LCO No. 2748.  Would the Clerk please call and read?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO2748.  It's always Gary.
Could he read it please.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    It would appear that the Clerks are not in
possession of this amendment, although I don't know
why, but I will kindly not call the amendment then.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay.  Thank you very much, madam.  The amendment's
hereby not called.  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment
LCO4322. Could the Clerk please call and read?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO4322, if he may call and
read it please.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4322, designated House "E", offered by
Representative Belden.
    In line 30 after closed insert the following "and a
reasonable attorney's fee may be awarded to the
respondent"
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.  Question's on adoption.
Will you remark further, sir?
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Yes, very simply, Mr. Speaker, what this amendment
does in the case where a frivolous or a claim is made
that's deemed without any reasonable merit, that the
executive director could as a part of the final
resolution award reasonable attorney's fees to the
respondent.  I think that this is a kind of check and
balance to preclude or to perhaps diminish the number
of frivolous claims that are made.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment.
Frankly, we know that many individuals come in and
complain themselves and are not legally trained, and
perceive certain actions by employers, as an example,
and do not understand the nuances of the law, and are
particularly concerned about cases such as age
discrimination cases, especially in this time of
downsizing, some people will see and have the gut
feeling because of their age they've been discriminated
against, go out and make a complaint, and then they go
into the agency, and then the possibility of having
attorney awards apply against them for going to their
government and seeking redress, seems to me to be a bit
much.
    That's the same as if everybody who called up
consumer protection with a complaint about some store
or some garage or whoever they make complaints about
was going to be charged some fee or possible attorney's
fees after the investigation.  Mr. Speaker, I think
it's ill advised and I would hope the House would
reject it.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
amendment.  Representative Tulisano talks about going
to one's government.  Let's be very clear.  What's at
stake here is not the right to petition one's
government for redress of grievances.  What's at stake
here is an individual bringing a complaint against
another individual alleging a violation of his or her
civil rights.
    Now would an individual be able to get reasonable
attorney's fees in a case that was contested, where
there was perhaps a reasonable basis or rational basis
for bringing the claim and litigating the claim even if
they lost?  No.  The only time under this amendment
that an individual would be entitled to attorney's fees
would be if the claim were brought for frivolous
reasons.
    Now if we're going to provide in our laws we have
that an individual by way of giving that person the key
to the courthouse, by not disadvantaging that person in
the way that Representative Tulisano indicates, that we
are going to give an individual the right to recover
reasonable attorney's fees if a plaintiff prevails in a
case, we should at the very least give to an employer
the right to reasonable attorney's fees if the cause of
action is frivolous.
    If they're put to additional expense, if they're
put to additional cost, if they're put to additional
inconvenience, for what amounts to a frivolous action
brought without reasonable cause.  If you want to know
why the cost of doing business in Connecticut is
higher, if you want to know why businesses are finding
it difficult to remain in the State of Connecticut,
look at these type of laws which tilt the scales too
far in favor of the litigant.
    This is not to say that an individual would be
chilled, that an individual's right to go to the
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities to seek
redress, to petition their government, if you will, is
going to be chilled in any way, but what we are going
to say is you're going to have to have a reason for it.
    You're going to have to have some basis in fact.
You can't simply do this frivolously to be sad and to
harass an employer who otherwise has done nothing.  I
think it's a good amendment.  It ought to pass, and I'm
glad Representative Belden is so concerned about
attorneys getting paid for their services.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Kirkley-Bey.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    Mr. Speaker, I stand urging my colleagues to turn
this amendment down.  Once again I've listened to Mr.
Radcliffe go off on one of his tares, he who has
probably never been the victim of downsizing, he who
has never had the victim of being age discriminated,
someone who's probably been discriminated against
because of color, and a host of other things that go
on.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Wait.  For what reason do you rise.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    I think that this amendment is good.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Quiet.  Quiet, please.  For what reason do you
rise, Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, it is improper and against our rules
for a member to challenge the motivation of another
member of the Chamber, and I believe that the lady is
out of order with her remarks challenging the reasons
for Representative Radcliffe's comments.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    In all candor, I was talking to the Clerk, and what
I'll just say is I'll make a general statement to
everybody here that is what Representative Belden is
true. Again I was not aware of the conversation. I'm
sorry. I was preoccupied, but it is against the rules
of our Chamber to talk about anyone's impudiating
anyone's integrity or motivation in terms of doing
things.
    We all have a right. This is a democratic body.
This is a body that is here to deliberate, and we all
have ideas and we need to respect those ideas, and
Representative Kirkley-Bey, you have the Floor, madam.
REP. KIRKLEY-BEY:  (5th)
    Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this
amendment.  For people who have never been affected by
downsizing or discrimination, with Aetna that laid off
2600 people in 1991, that's going to lay off 4,000
people throughout this year, with all the people who
have lost their jobs at Pratt & Whitney, many, many,
many of those people feel that they have a right to
come into their government and say that they feel that
they have been discriminated on whatever the reason
might be, and I don't think in their judgment and in
their mind, they're being discriminated on for a
frivolous reason.
    And I do not believe that if you feel one, the loss
of the job is a traumatic experience, the loss of other
things that come with the loss of a job, is a
horrendous experience, these people who seek to be able
to be compensated or awarded an award for having been
discriminated against, are not doing it for frivolous
reasons.
    They're doing it because they truly believe that in
their own mind that they have been discriminated
against for some reason that is valid and a part of
this law, and I do not agree with my colleague, and so
I urge this House to not to pass this amendment.  Thank
you.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Question, through you, to
the proponent of the amendment please.  To my
distinguished friend, Representative Belden, who I
respect immensely in this Chamber not only to our work
here, but also to the Finance Committee I just would
like to frame a question, and that question is, in your
mind what would a frivolous complaint be.  Through you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, it's to
some degree defined in the file that it would be as I
recall frivolous upon investigation, fails to state a
claim and the amendment is not mandatory.  There's much
discretion and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
gentleman might yield to me.  I'm answering his
question now.  We can resolve this whole issue very
quickly.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'm sorry.  Representative Beamon.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    I would yield to the distinguished Minority Leader
at large.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    I accept the yield, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this
amendment was not put in to cause lengthy debate or
concerns of individuals and this issue can wait for
another time. It was essentially put in because there
are those out there who will tie up our system and can
figure out a way to justifiably whatever without any
basis, it creates a situation where the individual who
is a respondent has to defend himself or herself and
unfortunately those people do exist out there as well,
and this amendment was essentially going to be offered
so that there would be something in our books that will
allow at least a little deterrence to that, that if
people wanted to make these claims, that there should
be some reasonable basis for them. This would be at the
discretion of the Executive Director.
    Mr. Speaker, at this point I will ask that LCO4322
be withdrawn.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Is there any objection to the withdrawal?  Thank
you, sir for the courtesy.  Will you remark further on
this bill as amended.  If not, staff and guests, please
come to the Well of the House.  The machine will be
open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Everybody relax.  The machine will be open for a
while.  I know it's a sensitive time of the day.
    Have all Members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
    The machine will be locked.
    Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5428, as amended by House "A", "B",
"C" and "D".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those voting Yea               145
         Those voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not voting      5
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Bill passes.  Clerk, please continue with Calendar
516.
CLERK:
    On Page 10, Calendar 516, Substitute for Senate
Bill 239, AN ACT AUTHORIZING MUNICIPALITIES TO ASSESS
CIVIL PENALTIES FOR HOUSING DISCRIMINATION.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Tulisano.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    In concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed,
sir.
REP. TULISANO:  (29th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this authorizes
municipalities who have the equivalent of CHRO
agencies, etc. to assess penalties without having to
come to state agency.  It might reduce the number of
cases coming to a commission.  I move for its adoption
and passage.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further.  Will you remark further.
If not, staff and guests to the Well of the House.  The
machine will be open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.  The
machine will be locked.
    Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 239, in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            141
         Necessary for Passage           71
         Those voting Yea               139
         Those voting Nay                 2
         Those absent and not voting     10
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Bill passes.
    Clerk, please continue with Calendar 508.
CLERK:
    On Page 9, Calendar 508, Substitute for Senate Bill
369, AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAL WASTE.  As amended by
Senate Amendment Schedule "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Health.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Chair of Environment, Jessie
Stratton.  You have the Floor, Madam.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill, in concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion's on acceptance and passage, in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed, Madam.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment,
LCO4502, previously designated Senate "A".  Would he
call and I be allowed to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk has LCO4502.  If you may call.
Representative Stratton would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO4502, designated Senate "A" offered by Senator
Daily.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment tries to
both clarify some of the language in an underlying
bill, which is actually a very complicated issue, and
secondly, makes two changes to the substance of the
underlying file copy.  I will focus on those.
    The first is that when infectious waste is to be
disposed of as municipal solid waste, it is to be
rendered unrecognizable and secondly, it eliminates the
language in this which tried to deal with home,
self-care situations and the disposal of waste from
them differently than from statute.
    I would urge adoption of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of Senate "A".  Will
you remark further?  Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Unfortunately, the amendment does, in fact, add the
words "rendered unrecognizable" back into the proposed
bill.  That's unfortunate, because what we're dealing
with here is a way in which we can reduce the cost of
disposing medical waste, and rendering it
unrecognizable, I'm convinced, is not necessary from a
point of view of public health or from any other point
of view.
    I think it simply increases the cost.  However,
because of the lateness of the session, I don't want to
jeopardize the bill, so reluctantly, I will support the
amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on Senate
"A".  Now try your minds.  All in favor signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.
    Senate "A" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Very briefly, Mr. Speaker.  As I said, this is a
very complicated amendment.  What it seeks to do is
replace what, as Representative Farr accurately noted,
has become an incredibly expensive process of disposing
of medical waste.  Much of those regulations are a
result of the scare that occurred several years ago
when medical waste was suddenly seemingly washing up on
beaches everywhere.
    The underlying file copy here, as amended, tries to
institute regulations which both protect the public
from infectious or pathological waste, and also tries
to not unnecessary burden the producers of such waste
with disposal methods that far exceed any public health
or environmental justification.
    I would urge adoption of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark?  If not, staff and guests, to the
Well of the House.  The machine will be open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is taking a
roll call vote.  Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.  It
has.  The machine will be locked.
    Representative Sawyer.  It's still open.  You
voted.  The machine will be locked.
    Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 369, as amended by Senate "A", in
with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those voting Yea               148
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill as amended, passes.
    Clerk, please continue with Calendar 505.
CLERK:
    On Page 8, Calendar 505, Substitute for Senate Bill
269, AN ACT CONCERNING FREE FISHING LICENSES FOR
CLIENTS OF APPROVED DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT
FACILITIES.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Environment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Motion is on acceptance and passage in concurrence
with the Senate.  Please proceed, Madam.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  This is indeed, an extremely
simple bill.  It merely empowers the Commissioner of
Environmental Protection, in consultation with the
Director of CADAC, to establish a program whereby
patients or clients of CADAC could obtain free fishing
licenses as a part of their rehabilitation and
treatment.
    I would urge adoption of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else?  Representative Young.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I can't believe this.  Why would we
want to do this?  I was wondering if the people that
were being taxied from Hartford to Massachusetts,
because they don't like to ride in buses or what have
you, for methadone treatment, can stop on the way back
and fish!
    I really think when we're having trouble paying
for, finding money to give to pay for the fees for
doctors who are contributing their services for health
clinics, and a lot of other problems in the state, I
don't think that we need to spend money, which is
really taken away from the provision of the fish that
they're going to catch, to provide free license fees
for people who are under drug and alcohol abuse
treatment.
    I think somehow we could get that money elsewhere,
they could find it or something.  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further.  Representative Caron.
REP. CARON:  (44th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I must rise
to oppose this bill.  I can understand some of the
perhaps the underlying intention, you want to get
somebody who's in treatment somewhat distracted,
something a little bit more productive.
    But if I went back home and said I voted for a bill
of this nature, with all the fishermen and all the
hunters in my district, I think I might be hunted
myself.  I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose this
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further.  Representative Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, if I may,
through you, to the proponent?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I think Senator Daily's upstairs.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    How about the House proponent, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Stratton, is there any precedent for us
in waiving fees for any other constituency other than
the ones that are described in this bill?  Through you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that there
is an exception provided for handicapped.  Last year we
passed a bill that dealt with carefully defining who
that embraced.  And so, yes, that is.  We also have
provisions that treat senior citizens differently, with
regard to various license fees.
    If I may, in answer to your question say that your
question should be directed to Senator Fleming, rather
than Senator Daily.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I don't know if that helped, Madam.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that last
comment.  That's okay.  I owe him one.  He tanked one
of mine upstairs, so I might as well get him back.
    In the public hearing, through you, Mr. Speaker,
was there any overwhelming support for this or do we
have people coming down from Springfield in taxicabs
that were asking for this bill or any other special
people?  Through you, Mr. Speaker..
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I really do not recall
that there was significant comment on this bill when it
was up for public hearing, because it is a permissive
directive - not to contradict myself - because it is
permissive in terms of empowering the department, the
department did not testify against the bill as they
might have if it was a requirement.
    Certainly individuals who work with CADAC were the
proponents of it.  That's how the bill came to us and
just in conversations in the last 48 hours, I do know
that it is indeed important to the individuals who are
working with these clients.
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I noted that the fiscal
year in the file has a minimal cost to it.  Do we have
any kind of an idea how many people would take
advantage of such an opportunity?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many
people might take advantage of it.  The reason for the
minimal cost is that these are individuals who would
not be in a position in their current situation to
purchase fishing licenses, and hence, it is not a
reduction in income that the department would otherwise
anticipate from the sale of those licenses.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you,
Representative Stratton.  Given the timing of the bill
at the dinner hour, I think this is appropos and I will
reserve judgment and listen to the debate on the bill
and see if I have to return the good deed of the good
Senator from Simsbury.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Caruso.
REP. CARUSO:  (134th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I've heard a lot of
fish stories around here, but the idea that we're going
to give free fishing licenses to people in these
treatment centers, just strikes me as strange in that,
just before the UConn announcement came on, I had a
chance to talk with the Commissioner of DEP, telling me
the problems that they have in the funds to take care
of all the parks and the fishing breeding grounds and
all these other places and the need to increase fees
for hunting and fishing licenses.
    It just strikes me strange that we're going to be
establishing this program which could cost the state
money.  It's going to have a decline.  It seems to me
that if we're going to do this, let's just make sure
that that champagne in those prisons is chilled, maybe
give some caviar to help out all these different
concerns.
    It seems to me to be a little excessive, and I
would urge caution.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I could tell that so many of you don't have your
minds made up.  Representative Munns.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to Representative Stratton.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Representative Stratton, I know Senator Fleming
isn't here, but maybe he's watching.  If he's in the
gallery, maybe you can tell me.
    But why fishing licenses?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Stratton.
REP. STRATTON:  (17th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, because they asked for
them.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MUNNS:  (9th)
    Thank you and through you, Mr. Speaker, I take that
as some of the people who, some of the social services
that deal with these people, they felt that this was a
good idea.
    I saw her shake her head, Mr. Speaker.  I take that
as a yes.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a piece of
legislation whose time has not yet come.  I would move
that it be pass retained.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Is there any objection?  So ordered.
    Clerk, please continue with Calendar 509.
CLERK:
    On Page 9, Calendar 509, Senate Bill 311, AN ACT
REVISING TITLE 16 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES.  As amended
by Senate Amendment Schedules "A", "B" and "C".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Energy and
Public Utilities.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, may we pass this temporarily?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    This is at dinner hour.  We'll give him the benefit
of the doubt and we'll pass this temporarily without
objection.
    Clerk, please continue with 513.
CLERK:
    At the top of Page 10, Calendar 513, Substitute for
Senate Bill 362, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL RETARDATION.  As amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on
Appropriations.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative O'Sullivan.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move the joint committee's favorable
report and acceptance and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage, in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed, Madam.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This bill allows the
Department of Mental Retardation to provide subsidies
directly to the people with mental retardation in their
families, to purchase support services.
    At this time, I would like to ask the Clerk to call
LCO5900, Senate "A".
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk has amendment, LCO5900, previously designated
Senate "A".  Could the Clerk please call it?
CLERK:
    LCO5900, designated Senate "A" offered by Senator
Sullivan.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative O'Sullivan would like to summarize.
Please proceed, Madam.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment makes the
DMR responsible for planning, developing and
administering statewide services for persons with
medically diagnosed with Prader-Willi Syndrome.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you move adoption, Madam?
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  If not I'll try your minds.  All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.
    The amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
If not, staff and guests, please come to the Well of
the House.  The machine will be open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast?  It
has.
    Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 362, as amended by Senate "A", in
concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            147
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those voting Yea               146
         Those voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not voting      4
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill as amended passes.
    Representative Luby.  Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I would move that we suspend our rules
in order to permit the immediate . . . if I may, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    I move for the suspension of our rules in order to
allow the immediate reconsideration of the item just
acted upon.  I would note that it's not always for
everyone in the Chamber to rise and catch the eye of
the Chair at the appropriate time, and I would note
that both sides of the aisle are thoroughly endorsing
this motion.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Apparently I have trouble looking to the extreme
right and left and I apologize to Representative
McDonald.  If there's no objection to the suspension of
the rules, we will merely reconsider this item.  Any
objection to reconsideration?  If not, this item is
reconsidered.
    Clerk, please call Calendar 513.
CLERK:
    At the top of Page 10, Calendar 513, Substitute for
Senate Bill 362, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF
MENTAL RETARDATION.  As amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on
Appropriations.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Let me say for the record that it's usually a
custom on reconsidered bills to hold it for a day for
our members, but this was really something that I
inadvertently didn't see Representative McDonald.  As a
courtesy, both sides of the aisle have agreed to
reconsider this and with that, Representative
O'Sullivan, I'm sorry.  Let's do it again.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    You want me to make the entire motion?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Do the amendment, too, Madam.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move the Joint Committee's Favorable
Report and acceptance of the resolution in concurrence
with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage, in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please call your
amendment, now, again, Representative O'Sullivan.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    At this time, I would yield to Representative . . .
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Why don't you call your amendment again?
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Call my amendment again.  Mr. Speaker, could the
Clerk please call Amendment 5900?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk, please call Amendment LCO5900.
CLERK:
    LCO5900, previously designated Senate "A", offered
by Senator Sullivan.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative O'Sullivan.
REP. O'SULLIVAN:  (64th)
    Mr. Speaker, this would add diagnosis of
Prader-Willi Syndrome to the Department of Mental
Retardation and I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Those opposed, no.
    The LCO is adopted.
    Representative McDonald, how are you tonight?
REP. MCDONALD:  (148th)
    Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for reconsidering
this.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank your Body, thank the membership.  I was the
one who missed you.
REP. MCDONALD:  (148th)
    The Clerk has LCO5105.  Would the Clerk please call
and may I be allowed to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk has amendment LCO5105, to be designated House
"B".  Representative McDonald, would you like to
summarize after the Clerk calls it?
    I'm sorry, House "A".
CLERK:
    LCO5105, designated House "A", offered by
Representative McDonald.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative McDonald, you have the floor.
REP. MCDONALD:  (148th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment just adds,
at the end of line 40, the words "the recipient of such
subsidy shall provide a documented accounting of such
subsidy to the department."
    The reason I'm offering this amendment is this
account has about a million dollars in it, where
they're distributing it to people, and no place in the
bill does it say they have to give any accounting of
how it's spent.
    I'm not envisioning an audit type of account.  If
the Department was supposed to maybe give $150 or $200
to an individual to buy services on the outside and say
$20 of that is transportation, maybe they could put
that down.  But I think that we definitely have to have
accounting of public funds when we're distributing them
to individuals.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Would you move adoption, please?
REP. MCDONALD:  (148th)
    I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    We both forgot something.  The question's on
adoption.  Will you remark further?  Will you remark
further?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All those in
favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.
    House "A" is adopted.
    Anybody else care to comment?  If not, staff and
guests, come to the Well of the House.  The machine will
be open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call.  Relax.  Have all the members voted?  The machine
will be locked.
    Clerk, please take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 362, as amended by Senate "A" and
House Amendment Schedule "A".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those voting Yea               145
         Those voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not voting      5
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.
    Points of personal privilege.  Representative
Jarjura.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  For purposes of an
introduction.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Visiting with us here
today is one of my favorite constituents and in a
little bit of show of bipartisanship, Debbie Lewis is
also Congressman Franks' main assistant in Waterbury
and she's very much involved in minority issues and
woman issues.
    I wish the House would give Debbie Lewis, who's
right in the Well of the House, a warm welcome.
Debbie.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk, please continue with Calendar 509.
CLERK:
    On Page 9, Calendar 509, Senate Bill 311, AN ACT
REVISING TITLE 16 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES.  As amended
by Senate Amendment Schedules "A", "B" and "C".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Energy and
Public Utilities.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Representative from Hartford,
Representative John Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill, in concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage, in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed, sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this bill
makes technical revisions to Title 16 of the General
Statutes. I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed, sir.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has
an amendment, LCO952.  May he please call and may I be
allowed to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Before we do that, could you yield to
Representative Courtney for a second please?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    I will yield to Representative Courtney.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Mr. Speaker, for the possibility of a conflict of
interest, I want to excuse myself from the Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    With the envy of the Chamber.  The Clerk has
LCO952.  If he may call, Representative Fonfara would
like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO952, previously designated Senate "A", offered
by Senator Peters.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this
amendment would allow a municipality which maintains
one or more plants for manufacture or distribution of
gas or electricity to acquire the capital stock, assets
and liabilities of the Bozrah Light and Power Company.
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further on Senate "A"?  Will you remark further?
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of the
amendment.  As Representative Fonfara said, this will
allow a municipality that is in the utility business,
upon successfully negotiating a contract, to acquire
the facility.
    I urge the Chamber's adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Representative Winkler.  Will you remark
further on Senate "A"?
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'm sorry.  Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I too rise in
support of this amendment.  I did have a number of
misgivings, and of course, if this does pass, it is in
the nature of a special act and it would allow a
municipality to do that, although, of course, other
agencies or utilities might be interested in making
this purchase and certainly would not in any way want
to prejudice any ongoing negotiations, however, I do
feel it's important to put into the record that the
City of Groton has made some representations to me
regarding their intentions should they be successful in
making this purchase.
    In particular, they would be willing to allow the
towns that would be serviced by this to be part of the
board that actually sets the rates and they also have
said that they would be willing to continue to make
payment in lieu of the property taxes that Bosrah Light
& Power currently makes to the municipalities.
Therefore, I urge adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Nancy DeMarinis,
from the 40th District, you have the floor, madam.
REP. DEMARINIS:  (40th)
    I too rise in favor of the amendment.  This
amendment gives Groton utilities that ability to save
and create jobs if the suggested sale and acquisition
is completed.
    With its three major customers in transition, the
purchase enables Groton to expand to fill the gap while
continuing to provide good customer service and
excellent rates.  It really is a defensive
diversification and jobs amendment and I urge its
adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further on the
adoption of Senate "A"?  If not, let's try your minds.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    Senate "A" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill?
Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO No.
4728.  May he please call and I be allowed to
summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO4728.  If he may
call, Senate "B".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4728, designated Senate "B", offered by
Senator Peters.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, last year the
legislature adopted a bill which encourages the shared
use of telecommunications towers.  This amendment
allows an entity that agrees to share its tower to file
a request for approval with the Connecticut Siting
Council, which has jurisdictional over towers.  If the
council finds that the agreement meets the criteria
contained in the existing law, it must issue an order
approving the sharing.
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of Senate "B".  Will
you remark further?  Representative Lockton.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I was across the room on
the finance package asking questions, but if I caught
what I thought I heard I caught, we're talking about
towers now and if additional suppliers want to come and
put something on the tower and the build a little hut
to reinforce what's on the tower.  Is that correct,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    To the extent that I heard the question, through
you, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer it this way.  What we are
addressing are instances where private tower owners who
would not have been covered under the bill that was
passed last year wanted to voluntarily enter into an
agreement with an entity, they could so and after
filing the necessary information with the -- the
application with the Siting Council, that the Siting
Council would approve the agreement and approve the
sharing.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Lockton.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, does this mean that if
someone were to come on and share a tower with somebody
else, that they would not have to go through the local
Planning and Zoning Department in order to build any
auxiliary buildings around the base of that tower,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the
Siting Council would have jurisdiction over that
facility, then that would not be necessary, but to the
extent that it would not have jurisdiction, that it
would have to go to the local zoning authority.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Lockton.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  That does give me some
concerns that the local Planning and Zoning Department
will no longer be in control of the land surrounding
these towers and I therefore would vote against this
amendment.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further on
Senate "B"?  Will you remark further on Senate "B"?
If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Senate "B" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill?  Will you
remark further?  Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    You have the floor.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO6269.
May he please call and I be allowed to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO6269, previously
designated Senate "C".  Representative Fonfara would
like to have it called and summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6269, previously designated Senate "C",
offered by Senator Przybysz.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this
amendment would give jurisdiction to any town, city,
borough or person owning cattle to have standing before
the Department of Public Utility Control at which time
the cattle is suffering from conditions effected by
electrolysis or by reason of escape of electricity.
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of Senate "C".  Will
you remark further on this bill?  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, we have before us a statute that dealt
with owning pipes, conductors or other structures in or
above the ground, streets or highway, and then we added
cattle, and through you, to the proponent of the
amendment, how does cattle fit within the framework of
this statute?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that you
have other -- to the extent that cattle would be
affected by any of the factors that electricity of
electrolysis, then that would be the nexus.  Clearly
before we would be adding cattle, these are the other
conditions under the roadways, highways, that we would
be putting electric pipe or other conductors and
cattle, as I understand it, there are conditions that
have made this to be a similar situation where there is
a conduction of electricity affecting the cattle,
through you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, my kids have a couple of
pet goats.  Why is this restricted to cattle and not
to other animals like my kids' pet goats?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative --.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Mr. Speaker.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll yield to Representative Mordasky.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Ward, do you mind if Representative
Mordasky answers the question?
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, why don't I just yield to
Representative Mordasky, if he has an explanation?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay, thank you.  Representative Mordasky, do you
accept the yield, sir?
REP. MORDASKY:  (52nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I accept the yield.
Representative Ward, there is a dairy farmer by the
name of Larry Scanlon in Lebanon, Connecticut who is
having problems with his cows being shocked with the
result that they're not making very much milk because
they're uncomfortable cows.
    He has petition to the utility company trying to
find out what the reason why they're getting the shock
and they don't seem to be taking heed of his
objections.  The result is putting cattle under this --
in this amendment would give him an out to right and
have the DPUC kind of force the utilities to take him
into consideration.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I guess that I understand
that a particular person has a particular concern, but
if this statute is really for the protection of -- I'm
just wondering why it wouldn't be for other animals.
It seems to me -- let me ask this, Mr. Speaker, through
you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    One second, Representative Ward.  The Chamber
please come to order.  You have the floor, sir.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    You have the floor, sir.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative Mordasky,
I'm not trying to be funny about it.  I really was -- I
was initially joking, but in fact in all seriousness,
is it really based on one complaint?  I'm just
concerned will this open up a lot of other complaints.
There's an issue that's out there with regard to other
animals.  I know there are -- is it an isolated
incident that you think needs to be addressed or is
this a significant problem, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mordasky.
REP. MORDASKY:  (52nd)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative Ward, I
think this is an isolated instance, but in the same
taken, any animal would be affected.  If there was
horses that would come in contact or goats or pigs or
whatever animal, they would certainly show a reaction
to it.  It just happens to be an isolate case where
these cows are being affected and their milk production
is way down.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    I thank the gentleman for his answer.  It seems to
me that if we were going to say that owners of animals
ought to be able to make these claims, it would have
been better to write it that way, but I leave it to
those who are better experts at this than I am,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question to
Representative Fonfara, I think.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Representative Fonfara, let's assume someone who
owns cattle has one of these problems and brings a
complaint.  What remedy is being sought when they bring
these complaints?  Is it the complaints in the
procedures that are laid out in, for example 16-10a
where the franchise can be revoked or what happens
here, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the
amendment, existing law is fairly self-explanatory and
that the department may order what may be necessary to
prevent such injury or destruction as it would be
related to the leakage of the electricity.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I
understood, how are these cattle getting electrocuted
at this time?  I mean as I understood it, on many
farms, they have these electric fences around the
outside -- I mean what are these cattle doing that
they're getting electrocuted?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that
they're finding inordinate levels of --.  There is an
adverse impact, as I understand it, being recognized in
the cattle because of the excess electricity or voltage
being transferred in one manner or another.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, if I can ask this
question, who was there first, the farm or the electric
company, through you, Mr. Speaker?  In other words,
were the cattle there first or was the electric company
there first?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a generic --
the amendment is a generic amendment.  It's not
addressing a specific case.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, the example that
was given that this is an isolated case, so I know
we're writing the statute to try to fix a problem and
I'm concerned that we're creating more of a problem in
the future and while I'm very sympathetic to whoever
this person, I forgot their name, their concern, but in
this case, who was there first?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the
farm.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    The farm was there first?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, in favor of
the amendment, I would like to assure the Chamber that
stray voltage in dairy farms has a very extensive body
of scientific research to show the negative impact of
stray voltage on cattle, particularly on dairy cows.
The State of Wisconsin has a very progressive program
trying to address this problem and I would like to
assure the Chamber this is not necessarily an isolated
case, but in fact is a real problem and I think that
this amendment does seek to give fair readdress to the
impacted parties.
    I urge adoption.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on this great Senate
Amendment "C"?  If not, all those in favor signify by
--.  I'm sorry.  Representative Ferrari.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just a question to the
proponent.  Representative Fonfara, through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Has the power company investigated the complaint?
Have they been told of it?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Fonfara.
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the best of my
knowledge, they have.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    They have not?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    They have.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    They have?  Is there any reason to believe the
further input by the DPUC is going to cause any
different results then they've already found?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding
that the problem has not been resolved through the
normal course of action in working with the electric
company and that the cattle farmer is seeking
jurisdiction before the DPUC.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ferrari.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Madam Speaker, you changed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Quickly.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    May I ask another question?  Through you, Madam
Speaker, what do you think might be the results of an
investigation?  What do you think might occur if they
find that the power lines are causing the problem?
REP. FONFARA:  (6th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, I'm not a member of the
commission.  I'm not on the staff of the DPUC, but they
have the power to order whatever would be necessary to
prevent the injury or the condition from continuing
further.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Ferrari.
REP. FERRARI:  (62nd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Thank you,
Representative Fonfara.  Frankly, I see it as another
charge that our ratepayers are going to have to pay.
The people that pay the utility bills, and Connecticut
having some of the highest rates in the country, this
might be a very good definition of a frivolous
complaint that we were talking about earlier and I
don't think that there is concrete scientific proof
that cows are affected by these electrolysis.
    So I would oppose the amendment and urge its
rejection.  Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
Representative Mordasky.
REP. MORDASKY:  (52nd)
    Madam Speaker, I speak in favor of the amendment.
There's got to be leaking voltage somewhere for these
cows to react.  I understand when the farmer is trying
to milk the cows, he attaches the milkers, there's a
surge of power, they start kicking and if they're not
comfortable, they're not going to give milk.  It's a
simple deal.  Electricity is leaking somewhere and
until they find the leakage and ground it out, it's
going to keep happening and it's a matter of finding
where it is leaking and finding the source of a bare
wire or whatever it is and remedy the situation.  I
don't think it's frivolous and if I was milking those
cows, I would be very upset.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Representative Holbrook.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Now I hate to speak
against my good friend, Representative Mordasky,
because I usually like to vote with him and listen
intently to his debate on issues that are related to
farmers.  However, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to
have a hard time going back to my little district and
telling the people in my district that their electric
rates went up because a cow might get exposed to some
electromagnetic field and I think the Speaker and I at
one time had run a subcommittee on this in the
Environment Committee in my freshman and I don't think
that there's any definite information out there that
can create -- I think I'll pass at this point.  Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Representative Ryan.
REP. RYAN:  (139th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  I speak in favor of this
amendment because of the fact that when I go back to my
district, I do have to tell the people that I did take
care of their concerns since I come from a largely
rural area with a lot of cattle farms.
    Most of the farms do date back to the 1800s.  When
the modernized and connected this modern milking
equipment, it ran perfectly well for a number of years.
With recent changes in the gridwork and supply
electricity to the area, people -- farmers began to
realize that their milk production was for some reason
lacking.  They were able to trace it to the milking
equipment and thus brought this bill because the power
company would not cooperate with them in trying to
investigate what changes brought about the changes in
the milk production.
    So that's why we ask you to support this, so that
the farmers can continue to produce the milk in the way
and manner they have been for years.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment?
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Nystrom.
REP. NYSTROM:  (46th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  In support of the
amendment.  Everybody is somewhat concentrated on the
cattle and I would just simply try to recognize this as
another business, looking for a little cooperation and
assistance and we ought to support the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  If not, let me try your
minds.  All those in favor please signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
    Mooooo.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    All those opposed nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted.
APPLAUSE AND LAUGHTER
    Will you remark further on the bill as adopted?
Will you remark further on the bill as amended?  If
not, staff and guests please come to the well.  Members
take your seat.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members -- moooooo.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure that your vote is
properly recorded?  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    Representative Amann.
REP. AMANN:  (118th)
    Madam Speaker, in the affirmative.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Amann in the affirmative.
Representative Diamantis.
REP. DIAMANTIS:  (79th)
    In the affirmative, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Diamantis in the affirmative.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 311, as amended by Senate Amendment
Schedules "A", "B" and "C", in concurrence with the
Senate.
         Total Number Voting            149
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those voting Yea               149
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      2
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill as amended passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call of the
Calendar, Calendar 185.
CLERK:
    On Page 19, at the top, Calendar 185, Substitute
for House Bill No. 5804, AN ACT CONCERNING AN ADVISORY
BOARD FOR LONG LANE SCHOOL, as amended by House
Amendment Schedule "A" and Senate Amendment Schedule
"A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Education.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Concannon.
REP. CONCANNON:  (34th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the
bill as amended originally by House "A".
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. CONCANNON:  (34th)
    Yes, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment,
LCO No. 2585.  May the Clerk be directed to call and I
be permitted to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO2585, previously
designated Senate "A".  Would the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 2585, previously designated Senate "A",
offered by Senator Mustone.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Concannon.
REP. CONCANNON:  (34th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This amendment adds two
more citizens of Middletown to the Advisory Board for
Long Lane, one to be appointed by the President Pro Tem
of the Senate and one to be appointed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives.
    I move passage of the bill in concurrence with the
Senate, as amended.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption of
Senate "A".  Will you remark?  Will you remark on the
amendment that is before us?  If not, let me try your
minds.  All those in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further on the bill as amended?
Will you remark further on the bill as amended?  If not
-- Representative Concannon.
REP. CONCANNON:  (34th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, madam.  If not, will staff and guests
please come to the well.  Will members please take
their seats.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Have all the members voted and would the members
please check the board to make sure that their vote is
properly recorded?  If all the members have voted, the
machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    The Clerk will please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5804, as amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "A" and House Amendment Schedule "A", in
concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            150
         Necessary for Passage           76
         Those voting Yea               150
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      1
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The bill as amended passes.
    Will the Clerk please return to the Call of the
Calendar.  Calendar 527.
CLERK:
    On Page 12, Calendar 527, Substitute for Senate
Bill No. 224, AN ACT CLARIFYING THE TYPES OF MATTERS
APPEALABLE BY STATE EMPLOYEES TO THE EMPLOYEES' REVIEW
BOARD AND EXTENDING THE TIME FOR APPEALS TO THE BOARD,
as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on
Appropriations.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Madam Speaker, a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry
please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed, sir, Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I apologize.  I wasn't
really watching the Calendar and I would have called
you beforehand.  Calendar 527 appears on Page 12 of the
Calendar, but it appears as a no starred item.  And
Madam Speaker, for the Chamber to take up this item, I
think we would have to suspend our rules to do that.
So I'm wondering, Madam Speaker, if that's the case,
and if that is, then perhaps we could ask you to P-T
the bill for a moment and we'll take a look at it
because it's not an item that we thought would be taken
up today and perhaps we can get back to you, you know,
as quickly as possible, but anyway, I raise that as a
Point of Parliamentary Inquiry.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    We have raised a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry at
this point.  I believe that Representative Luby may
indeed wish to respond to that.  Am I correct?
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Madam Speaker, through you, just to indicate that I
am prepared to pass this matter temporarily.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  The question before the Chamber is
passing the bill temporarily.  Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
CLERK:
    On Page 5, Calendar 470, Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 419, AN ACT CONCERNING GROUND LEASES IN
CONDOMINIUMS, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule
"A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on acceptance
and passage.  Will you remark?
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will.  The Clerk has --
well, first of all, Madam Speaker, this bill is
intended to do something which the State of Florida has
seen fit to do several years ago, to protect the
interests of persons who purchase shares in a common
interest ownership community where the land was subject
to a long term lease.
    In the State of Florida several factors, in fact,
nine factors in all, were established by which the
court can evaluate what is in fact an unconscionable
land lease and included in this proposed legislation
are those nine factors and to clarify that each of the
nine factors must be met in order for the presumption
of unconscionability to attach.  The Clerk has LCO No.
5636, previously designated as Senate Amendment "A".
I'd ask the Clerk to call and I be permitted to
summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO5636, previously
designated Senate "A".  Would the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5636, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator Looney.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This amendment simply
makes it clear that each of the nine factors set out in
the file copy must be found by the court prior to the
presumption of unconscionability attaching.  I'd urge
adoption of the amendment, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark?  Will you remark on the amendment that
is before us?  Representative Caruso.
REP. CARUSO:  (134th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, may I --
due to a potential conflict of interest, I will be
abstaining from this vote.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Caruso wishes to abstain himself due
to a possible conflict of interest.  It will be so
noted, sir.  Will you remark further on the amendment
that is before us?  If not, let me try your minds.  All
those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Those opposed nay.
    The ayes have it.
    The amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further on the bill as amended?
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  The Clerk has LCO No.
5390.  Would the Clerk please call and I be permitted
to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The Clerk has in his possession LCO5390, which will
be designated House "A".  Will the Clerk please call.
The representative has asked leave to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5390, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Lawlor, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This amendment seeks to
allay the concerns of a number of people who reviewed
the legislation and expressed concerns about the
potential effect of this type of legislation.  First of
all, in line 38, it clarifies that this would only
apply to land leases entered into prior to January 1,
1984, which was the effective date of Connecticut's
Common Interest Community Ownership Act, which as many
members of the Chamber understand, to protect the
interests of persons buying a unit in a condominium
community.
    Second, in line 39, it adds the words, of a
residential common interest community to clarify that
this presumption of unconscionability, where all the
factors are found, would only apply in a residential
condominium and not in a commercial condominium.
    Next, in line 40 -- I'm sorry, Madam Speaker, next
it would add a Subparagraph E, which would clarify that
failure of a lease to contain all of the elements
enumerated, all the nine elements shall neither
preclude a determination of unconscionability nor raise
a presumption as to its conscionability.
    And finally, Subsection F, which would provide an
opportunity for innocent third parties to enter in as
parties to an action that might be pending and protect
their interests and express to the court, who might be
reforming such a lease, in the event it was found to be
presumptively unconscionable to present evidence
regarding the adverse impact upon the interests of
those third parties, including lenders, who in good
faith, relied upon the provisions of the original lease
in the court.
    Madam Speaker, I would urge adoption of this
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on adoption.
Will you remark on the amendment that is before us?
Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Madam Speaker, in looking at the amendment and the
file copy, the file copy appears to have nine specific
areas where a contract would be found unconscionable or
putting them into the statute, as I can see by way of
the file copy.  So through you, Madam Speaker, in
determining unconscionability in line 28 of the
amendment, is the court expected to apply the criteria
contained in lines 38 through 87 of the file copy,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, that in fact is
the case.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, I assume the elements
of unconscionability on lines 38 through 87 are not in
our existing law or it would not be necessary for us to
place them into the law on this bill.  Through you,
Madam Speaker, is that the case?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, yes, that
is the case.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Then I'm really confused.  If we don't have this
criteria right now, we are establishing the criteria
prospectively, how would any contract prior to the
effect date of this act be unconscionable at the time
that it was made, as indicated on line 28, through you,
Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  It may very well have
been unconscionable on the date is was made.  The
question is how if at all it should be enforced from
this point forward should a case be commenced at this
time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Well, through you, Madam Speaker, I think the
gentlemen is indicated that if a case were -- this act
became effective and a lawsuit were instituted,
claiming unconscionability in a particular action, that
this criteria would be applied, the criteria on lines
38 through 87 of the file copy.
    This criteria evidently did not exist at any time
prior to January 1, 1984, the date of the Condominium
Act, so through you, Madam Speaker, is the reason that
we have these remedies in line 38 through 85, because
there are no remedies at common law available for these
individuals, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  There may be remedies
available to any person seeking relief from a court
pursuant to 42-210 of the General Statutes.  This
legislation only adds criteria by which a lease entered
into prior to January 1, 1984 could be evaluated at the
moment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I understand the answer,
and frankly, if there was a lease entered into and that
lease contained various elements that were
unconscionable under existing law that were void as a
matter of public policy, certainly individuals would
have a right to bring an action.
    I know from the testimony at the hearing that we
are dealing with one specific condominium unit and I
understand Representative Lawlor's interest in this,
but through you, Madam Speaker, can Representative
Lawlor indicate whether or not the contract in the
absence of this legislation was in fact unconscionable
at the time that it was made, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Which contract is the
gentleman referring to?
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, the land lease.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Which land lease is the
gentleman referring to?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, the land lease
regarding the condominium unit in East Haven,
Connecticut with which the proponent of the bill, I
believe, is familiar, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I am not familiar with
all of the details of that land lease and I do not have
an opinion as to the legal -- whether or not that
contract is in fact unconscionable.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  Madam Speaker, if that's the case, then
I suggest that this would be more properly litigated in
a court of law, so I would ask if regarding that
particular instance in East Haven, is there any
litigation currently pending in any court of this state
regarding the land lease referred to, through you,
Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    And through you, Madam Speaker, is this bill
designed to affect that ongoing litigation, through
you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  This legislation was
suggested by the Florida legislation which appears to
be directly on point, responding to a similar concern
which arose in the State of Florida, where a court did
in fact evaluate a land lease, in fact, many land
leases, and apparently in Connecticut there are a
number of condominium communities which were developed
prior to the Common Interest Community Act, taking
effect in our state, where in effect it appears to any
lay person analyzing the circumstances, that the people
who were buying these units were taken to the cleaners.
    And if in fact that's the case in the Green Garden
Court example in East Haven, I would hope that a court
would essentially reform the contract to make it fairer
and just for the persons who were subject to it.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  If that were the case,
if someone were taken to the cleaners, as
Representative Lawlor indicates, or something had been
done illegally, if something had been done contrary to
law, if there was actual or constructive fraud in the
transaction or the sale of any of these units,
certainly all of us would hope that some action would
be taken in court and that a court of equity could
remedy that particular situation.
    Evidently, since Representative Lawlor indicates
that there is litigation now pending, the unit owners
in that particular instance have in fact attempted to
avail themselves of the applicable legal principles.
    So through you, Madam Speaker, what effect will
this particular bill, and specifically the definition
of unconscionability have on that ongoing litigation?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, this would
provide additional guidance to a court in determining
what the public policy of the State of Connecticut is
when evaluating a land lease in a residential
condominium, which predates the Common Interest
Ownership Act.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  So it is the intention
of the proponent of the bill to apply this criteria
retroactively to a transaction or a series of
transactions which occurred prior to January of 1984,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, no, it is
the intention to provide guidance to a court to
determine what the future enforceability of a contract
which was entered into prior to 1984 might be.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  But in this particular instance, the
legislation would be retroactive.  That would mean that
we would be giving a court guidance, as Representative
Lawlor indicates, to apply prospectively to a contract
that was entered into prior to January of 1984.
    I guess I would have to ask before the rather
extraordinary step is attempted, whether or not there
is any indication, and again, I don't know the
individual facts of this case.  It seems that what the
landlord did may have been not in the best interest of
the unit owners and may have been something that they
did not anticipate at the time or did not anticipate
prospectively, but through you, Madam Speaker, is there
any indication that the individual who holds the land
lease at the time that it was entered into, violated
any criminal statutes of the State of Connecticut,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, I am not
aware of any such evidence.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, and through you, Madam Speaker, the
litigation to which we referred to earlier that's
currently pending, how long has that been pending,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I do not know the answer
to that question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  Well, Madam Speaker, these were the
questions and I was hoping that we would have some
additional information presented this evening.  These
were the questions, frankly, that the Judiciary
Committee found extremely troubling and that
undoubtedly accounts for the close 17 to 14 vote at the
time that this matter was voted on by the Judiciary
Committee.
    It seems to me what we're attempting to do is to
say that an individual who entered into a transaction
prior to January of 1984, who evidently broke no
criminal laws, who evidently didn't do anything for
which a civil remedy lies, or if it does, there's
ongoing litigation, we're now going to step into the
role of mediator and advocate and say that we are going
to in effect penalize an individual for what amounts to
a good, perhaps a shrewd, but nonetheless, good and
profitable business decision, which was otherwise
perfectly legal at the time that it was entered into.
    Through you, Madam Speaker, does the gentleman
believe that this raises any questions regarding a
taking of property without due process of law, through
you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I'd simply point out
this is not -- depending on the circumstances, it's not
unusual for this Chamber to do such a thing.  In fact,
just a few moments ago in this very Chamber there was a
unanimous vote to retroactively deprive someone of
property interest in a pension and every member of this
Chamber voted unanimously on it.  And I'd point out
oftentimes, whether it's asbestosis, or DES, we have
occasion to reach back and to, as a matter of public
policy, to determine that outrageous conduct in the
past for which the Statute of Limitations may have run
has now arisen to such a level that we choose to take
it up and provide special relief to persons victimized
and that's no different here, and finally, I would
point out that the exact same thing was done in the
State of Florida, the exact same statute was enacted.
It was also retroactively applicable to leases
previously entered into and was upheld by the Florida
Supreme Court.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I rise to oppose the
bill as I did in the Judiciary Committee.  I see the
amendment.  Perhaps the amendment makes the bill a
little bit better and perhaps I should reserve some of
my comments for the bill, but I'm concerned about the
phrase, "was unconscionable at the time the contract
was made," on line 28 of the amendment.  What it seems
that we're saying is that these individuals, and I
don't know the facts, and Representative Lawlor hasn't
given us what I think we'd consider aggregious or
outrageous facts.  He's simply given us the broad
outlines of a situation in which there was a land lease
for a condominium unit and that it has worked to the
disadvantage, perhaps unjustly, but not illegally, to
the disadvantage of the current unit owners.
    I accept that, but I don't know that we should
enact a statute which retroactively provides remedies
and retroactively takes the benefit of a bargain from
an individual who did something at the time was not
illegal, that was not unconscionable at the time and
was not contrary to law.  We're writing standards of
unconscionability into the law here in this bill,
standards of unscannability which did not apply at the
time, and no reasonable person could have assumed,
acting in 1984, that a General Assembly acting in 1994
was going to say that what he was doing was
subsequently unconscionable if in fact all of these
nine instances are proven.
    I don't think it should be our business where there
is ongoing litigation, to step into the middle of the
litigation on the side of one party or the other.
Perhaps that's true if the state is involved as a party
and then there are remedies through the Claims
Commissioner, but that doesn't seem to be the situation
in this case.
    The only testimony we had at the hearing regarded
the situation in East Haven.  I would ask, however,
through you, Madam Speaker, if Representative Lawlor is
aware of any other instances where this type of
allegedly unconscionable activity has occurred and
where are those places or locations, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Needless to say, I can't
respond with any specificity.  I know that there are
legislators who have approached me who indicate that
they may have condominium developments in their
districts which are similarly affected.
    Secondly, I'd like to point out that one other
case comes to mind where suggested legislation
attempted to intervene in a pending lawsuit.  I believe
the case was Sheff v. O'Neill and legislators have
presented legislation in an attempt to invalidate that
proceeding while it is pending, and finally, I'd point
out that one of the factors in here, as people evaluate
how this would affect what allegedly our legal
condominium developments at the time they're entered
into, factor -- one of the factors was that lease
provides for rent in the first year, and in this case,
in the East Haven case, a 99 year lease.  The first
year's rent equals 25 percent of the assessed value of
the property, 25 percent of the assessed value of the
property in the first year of a 99 year lease and that
annual payment escalates by the Consumer Price Index
every year.  That is the case in East Haven.
    It's up to the court to determine whether or not
the value of the rent due in the first year was more
than 25 percent of the value of the property in that
first year.  I don't know the answer to that question.
That is one of the nine factors that has to be met
before the presumption of unconscionability would
attach.  I would suggest to all the members of the
Chamber, if that's the case, this is definitely, in my
opinion, an unconscionable lease if all these other
factors are met.  I don't know whether it's the case or
not.  I assume that's one of the allegations in the
court case, but this suggests that legislation would
not simply affect one particular case.  I think anyone
in the State of Connecticut who is subjected to a lease
of more than 21 years where the first year's rent is
more than 25 percent of the assessed value of the land,
that's unconscionable.  That ought to be void as a
matter of public policy, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you.  Through you, Madam Speaker, since I'm
not familiar with the case and admitted as much at the
hearing on this, I should like to ask if the facts in
this case, the facts in the contract, the facts in the
lease, the 99 year lease, were in fact communicated to
the individual unit owners, or the alternative, does
the proponent of the bill have any reason to believe
that they were not fully informed at the time of the
initial transaction, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, in my
conversations with the residents of this particular
condo development in East Haven and based on my review
of a newspaper article reflecting their story, some of
them do claim that at the time of the closing, they
were not represented by an attorney.  In fact the only
attorney present representing a declarant or the condo
developer, that they did not receive a copy of the
lease until several weeks after the closing and were
shocked to find out 15 years after the closing that
their annual rental payment was going to grow by 15
years worth of growth of the Consumer Price Index, and
at the present time, according to these people, their
annual lease payment per unit is more than their common
fees, and in this particular case, they can't put any
money into the maintenance of the condo development and
I think it's -- from what I can see, it's an outrageous
situation.  It's up to the court to determine whether
the nine factors are met and in fact whether it's
unconscionable.  If it is, I hope the court reforms the
contract, but this provides some guidance.  It's
already been tested in another state.  It seems
perfectly reasonable to me.  Any lease that meets these
nine criteria, I think it's outrageous.  It probably
should be in a crime, but I'm not in the position to
make it a crime now.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Representative Lawlor
has essentially made an equitable argument.  I would
suggest that individuals perhaps do have some remedies
here.  They're seeking to enforce those remedies in
court and what we're attempting to do is to provide the
court with a basis on which it could find for
individuals, essentially, by telling an individual
who entered into an admittedly legal agreement at the
time that we are going to, in hindsight, with ten
years' hindsight or more than ten years' hindsight,
declare that particular agreement to be unconscionable.
    If it was unconscionable at the time, if the law
was known, if the individual entered into that contract
and there was a statute existing on the books at that
time, indicating these factors of unconscionability,
declaring that type of act unconscionable, then I
believe the individual would have been on notice and
the individuals would have had recourse, but that isn't
the case here.
    This is clearly stepping into an ongoing case.  The
analogy to Sheff v. O'Neill is clearly misplaced.  That
is a case seeking a declaratory judgment.  There was no
remedy sought in that case and the only legislation
that I've seen here had to do with a remedy and the
issue of remedy has never been presented before the
court in a declaratory judgment.  So I think that
particular analogy is decidedly misplaced.
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  I would oppose the bill.
Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately, because I hope
these individuals do receive some redress in the court,
if the situation is an unconscionable and as aggregious
as Representative Lawlor seems to indicate, but I don't
believe we should interfere, we should be judge and
jury in this case.  We ought to leave that to the
judicial process.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Kyle.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  A couple of questions,
through you, please, to the proponent.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please frame your question, sir.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Thank you.  Representative Lawlor, through you,
Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask you a couple of
questions about the items that are considered so
onerous as to determine a lease to be unconscionable.
Madam Speaker, I'm going to keep my remarks -- I'll
save my remarks until later until we get onto the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Representative
Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  A question to
Representative Lawlor, through you, madam.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please frame your question, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you.  Representative Lawlor, is this
amendment, you say it takes care of some questions that
people have had.  Can you tell me what those questions
are, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, I don't
believe I indicated there's any questions.  I said
certainly people had concerns.  Their concerns were
whether or not the interests of a third party, for
example, a lender, could be considered by a court in
fashioning a remedy following the finding of a
presumption of unconscionability and in fact those
concerns are taken care of.  And also, there were
concerns regardless -- relating to the effect of this.
After the passage of the Common Interest Ownership Act,
there were prospective buyers of condo units were
afforded many protections, but which were not available
previous to that and this limits the effect of this
legislation to those days prior to the Common Interest
Ownership Act, and finally, there was a concern that if
this were to also apply to commercial condominiums,
that perhaps those essentially buyers are more
sophisticated than residential purchases, so it was
felt that it would be appropriate to apply this
strictly to residential condo units, through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you.  Through you, Madam Speaker, to
Representative Lawlor.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Yes, thank you.  Representative Lawlor, yes, I
misspoke.  There were concerns.  I understand that.
Did you have an opportunity to see the letter from the
Connecticut Attorneys' Title Association with regard to
this bill, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, not only did I see the
letter, but I also spoke extensively with their
representatives by telephone and in person and their
concerns are incorporated in the amendment that's
before us.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, Representative Lawlor,
I understand the concerns regarding third parties.
You have attempted to take care of that.  In the letter
from Stewart Bowen, and that's the letter we're
discussion or you saw as well as I did, of Connecticut
Attorneys' Title, he talks about assuming that the
court would not hold the statute to be unconstitutional
to the extent that it would impair contractural
relations under leases already entered into.  Was there
any -- where did you take care of that concern in here,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Mr. Bowen's letter was
predicated on the file copy of the bill which did not
have the conjunctive "and" and the nine factors, so I
think that he was commenting that a lease could be
found unconscionable under the file copy if any one of
those nine factors were found.
    When the conjunctive "and" was added between factor
8 and 9, then his concerns were abated.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Well, through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative
Lawlor.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Yes, please proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Representative Lawlor, then you're saying because
he was -- you have to satisfy all nine of these
standards in the file copy, that Connecticut Attorneys'
Title said it's okay now because it's remote or why
would it be any more proper?  Because he goes on to
say, as you know, in his letter, that if they find it
unconscionable, then the declaration can be terminated
as well, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, no additional concerns
were expressed to me beyond those that were satisfied
by the language before us in this amendment.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    You have Stewart Bowen's letter, through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, I do.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Okay, and if I can -- through you, Madam Speaker,
if I can ask you to -- on Page 2 of that letter,
Paragraph 2, "if the court were to set aside the
underlying lease, the lease held condominium, the
condominium would automatically terminate under the
provisions of the statute and the declaration," chaos
would follow.  The Unit Owners Association would lose
its statutory powers of authority and would have no
authority to assess or collect the common expenses.
There would be no maintenance.  The insurance policies
would lapse for nonpayment of premiums.  Title to all
units would be rendered unmarketable and no title
insurance company would think of insuring titles to
units in such condominiums.
    Are you saying to me that with the inclusion of
this language, that concern went away, through you,
Madam Speaker?
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, yes, I
assume it did.  The court is not limited to simply
setting, assigning the lease.  It can reform it.  It
can keep the lease in effect, limits its duration,
limit the annual rental increase, and with the
inclusion of the concerns of interested third parties,
for example, the title company and others, they could
ask the court to take that into consideration at the
time it was reforming the lease, I'm sure.  If a court
is seeking to reform a lease to benefit or to do
justice for the tenants or the purchasers, then I'm
sure the last thing it would do would be to invalidate
the common interest community declaration.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, to Representative
Lawlor, Representative Lawlor when I asked if their
concerns were alleviated by this language, you respond
that I assume they were.  Were they or weren't they,
through you, Madam Speaker, and what makes you think
they were, through you?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Through you, their
concerns were expressed and suggested language was
provided that language appears in line 27 through 37 of
the amendment before us and they did not request any
further clarification.   They said that with this
amendment they would support this legislation or have
no opposition to it.  Therefore, the amendment is
presented before the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, have they been faxed a
copy of this, Representative Lawlor, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, according to the
representatives in this building, they have.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Madam Speaker -- through you, Madam
Speaker, to Representative Lawlor.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Then you don't know whether or not they've been
faxed a copy of this amendment, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, I received a fax with
this information.  I'm just looking for the origin
of the fax.  I believe it was Connecticut Title and I
will endeavor to find the heading on the fax, through
you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Madam Speaker, the reason I'm pursuing this, Madam
Speaker, is because this letter is very strong and it's
devastating in what it says and that's why it's so
important that the title company, who we all recognize
as having a great effect on title in the State of
Connecticut and being very knowledgeable in these
matters, when they say things like chaos would follow,
I think that's very strong and I think we must be
certain, and I'm not doubting that some representative
might have told Representative Lawlor that someone said
something, but --.  Through you, Madam Speaker, it's
been represented to me by Representative Lawlor that
everything is fine and I guess I'm not one to question,
when he says everything is fine, everyone is on board.
There is certainly some devastating language that is in
this letter.  Terminating condominiums and things of
that nature, I'm just not sure that the title company
spoke to all these things, but if Representative Lawlor
represents that all is well, then that's all I can ask.
Thank you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on the
amendment that is before us?  Will you remark?
Representative Fusco.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  A question to the
proponent, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Please frame your question, sir.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Representative Lawlor, to us laypeople in the
Chamber, when the discussions between the attorneys who
were debating this particular amendment referred to the
term "unconscionable," am I to determine that that
means what it normally means in law, that one party
took an unfair advantage over the other, through you,
Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Through you, Madam Speaker, the law often
countenances an unfair advantage.  This is an extremely
unfair advantage, unconscionable.  It means as a matter
of public policy a contract will not be enforced.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Fusco.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Well, through you, Madam Speaker, does
Representative Lawlor believe that the initial
landowner did take an unfair advantage over the people
residing in those condominiums, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  If the facts are true,
then yes, they did.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Fusco.
REP. FUSCO:  (81st)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, I don't
know why we are in the process of making assumptions
that unconscionability does exist, whether or not it
exists, but it boggles my mind why we would be
creating law to address it.  I mean if this is a civil
matter before the courts, then I would think that the
courts would decide.
    So I don't even know why we're entering into this
amendment unless we're attempting to make retroactive
law, which would affect a civil matter, which I don't
understand, Representative Lawlor, and I wish that,
through you, Madam Speaker, he could explain why we're
even going down this road.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Representative Lawlor, do you care to answer?
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Thank you, Madam Speaker.  Can I yield to the
Majority Leader?
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Luby, do you accept
the yield, sir?
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.  Madam Speaker, I would
pass this matter temporarily.
DEPUTY SPEAKER LYONS:
    The question before the Chamber is on passing this
matter temporarily.  Hearing no objection, it will be
so ordered.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk please call Calendar 488.
CLERK:
    On Page 6, Calendar 488, Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 277, AN ACT CREATING THE CONNECTICUT INSURANCE
REINVESTMENT FUND.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Chair of the Insurance Committee,
Representative Bob Gilligan, you have the floor, sir.
REP. GILLIGAN:  (28th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I move
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report
and passage of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed, sir.
REP. GILLIGAN:  (28th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Ladies and gentlemen of
the House, the bill before you creates a system and
establishes a system of tax credits for purposes of
attracting investment dollars into the creation of new
jobs within the insurance industry.
    The thrust of this bill was to capitalize on the
base of insurance jobs that exist in the state and to
make a more attractive climate for the establishment of
new insurance jobs which are defined in the bill, and
basically the thrust of that would be those jobs are
created by attracting insurance positions from other
states.
    There is a very lengthy -- there are some
definitional terms which are quite involved within the
bill, but basically the measure would allow for tax
credits on the income tax, the corporate tax and the
premium tax.
    There's a 10 percent or 20 percent credit for
various periods of years and we'd be delighted to
respond to any questions to the body.  Mr. Speaker, I
urge adoption of the measure and at this time would
like to yield to Representative Courtney.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney, do you accept the yield,
sir?
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    I do, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an
amendment, LCO No. 5846, which I'd ask that he call and
I be allowed to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO5846, if he would call,
and Representative Courtney would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5846, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Courtney, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment expands a
number of the small group market insurance, health
insurance reforms, which were enacted by the
legislature, starting in 1990, to a larger body of
employers in the state.
    The definition of small employer under present
statute is an employer with 25 employees or less.  The
amendment will expand that definition to 50 employees
or less and the effect of that will be to extend to a
larger number of business firms in the State of
Connecticut, the protections that we built into the
health insurance marketplace over the last three years.
    Specifically, it will extend the adjusted community
reforms which were enacted last year by the
legislature, the guaranteed issuance laws which were
enacted in 1990 and the restrictions on the use of
pre-existing conditions.  I move its adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further on adoption of House "A"?
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Mr. Speaker, the State of Connecticut has
distinguished itself over the last few years as one of
the pioneers of reforming its small group private
health insurance market.
    Recently at the legislature we had a joint public
hearing where a number of small insurance agents
testified at the capitol and described meetings that
they had with other agents in other parts of the
country and described problems of employers, small
employers who were being denied health insurance
coverage because employees with serious medical
conditions, huge rate increases because of employees
with terrible medical conditions and the
disqualification because of pre-existing conditions
for dependents of employees who work in firms.
    Those Connecticut agents said that they felt proud
to come from a state that had abolished many of those
practices in the marketplaces and which have
distinguished us, again, as a leader in the country in
terms of bringing those reforms to our insurance
market.
    And again, as we listen to the debate in Washington
regarding health insurance reform, many of these issues
that we've dealt with in the recent past are still
issues that affect many large parts of the country.
The effect of this amendment will be to extend those
reforms that we enacted in recent years to a larger
number of firms in the state.  It will benefit the
marketplaces.  It will stabilize the marketplace.  It
will ensure that workers who are employed in these
firms will not be subject to economic penalties or
out-of-pocket penalties for health conditions which
these laws would protect them from such consequences.
    The amendment has strong bipartisan support.  It
has no fiscal impact on the budget and I would strongly
urge the Chamber's support.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "A"?
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Andrews.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to the proponent, if I may please.  Representative
Courtney, the bottom line of the amendment, from what I
am reading, is that the percentage increase for small
groups will be capped at a certain percentage.  Is that
correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  The legislature in 1990
instituted rating bans and the amendment -- we
instituted rating bans and the law that we passed last
year would ensure that those rating bans would narrow
almost to zero, particularly on the issue of medical
experience.
    Starting in July 1, 1995, that adjusted community
rating would be extended to all firms, again, 50
employees or less.  During the next year, from July 1,
1994 to July 1, 1995, those firms will be exempted from
the rating bans because there are so many -- there are
a number of those firms that are outlyers.  They are so
far outside of the rating bans that it would probably
cause too great a rate shock to the system to institute
that all at once.
    But again, the amendment will phase in adjusted
community rating so that, again, if an employee
experienced some catastrophic medical condition during
the policy period, it would not cause the premium to
change at all.  That type of experience would be pulled
out of the rating system.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, what kind of an
impact would this have on insurers, for example, given
the fact that we're limiting the amount of a potential
increase that they can have to a certain percentage
that's in statute?  What type of impact is that going
to have on the group insurers, through you, Mr.
Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, again, we set up a pool,
a risk pool in 1990 to pool the cost of implementing
this type of reform.  So to the extent that there is an
impact in terms of the cost of claims, they are, again,
the cost of that is shared with the pool, that all
insurers have a book of business and the state must
contribute to.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker, then my understanding
of that legislation is that if there are employees that
have a higher experience due to a severe illness, etc.,
that these group insurers have an option then of
seeding those individuals, keeping them in the plan,
but seeding the actual underwriting and the cost into
the pool.  Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    So what we're doing then is we're expanding the
number of groups that would be included in this
legislation and then increasing the size of the pool
then, accordingly, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's a correct
statement.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    And it's your understanding, you know, I understand
this is where it's coming from.  Is it your
understanding that a bill that we may be acting on a
little bit later on would also have some kind of an
impact as far as -- what I'm trying to get at as far as
managed care, as far as some of the costs are concerned
on the downside, we've got a downside cap for
employers, but I want to make sure that we have a
downside cap for our insurers that are major employers
in the State of Connecticut and I don't know exactly
how to word that, but those are my concerns.  I know
where you're coming from and I supported the
legislation before and I'll support this.  I just want
to make sure that we're not doing something that's
going to be detrimental to the insurance industry in
the State of Connecticut, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the marketplace will
still be allowed to adjust price for a whole other
range of factors, which again, that's always been sort
of the bone of contention with the industry in the
state.  They are perfectly comfortable with, again,
taking medical experience out of the price mix, which I
think almost everyone from all across the spectrum
agree is a form of pricing that is extremely
aggregious, and again, with the support of the
Insurance Association, almost every other health
insurer of a large size in the state, I'm confident
that this is going to be a good change for the
marketplace and will stabilize the marketplace, which
is what I think is the true long term goal that
everyone seeks to attain.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    And just for clarification, my understanding is
that the groups that are covered under the legislation
or the law, as it stands today, are precluded from
eliminating coverage for people that may have a
pre-existing condition as long as there's no increase
in the benefit level, if they're changing from one
group to another group and this would then extend that
benefit to a larger pool, through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
REP. ANDREWS:  (87th)
    Thank you very much.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you.  Anybody else on House "A"?  If not,
I'll try your minds.  I'm sorry, Representative Prelli,
sir.  I'm sorry.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I notice that
the underlying bill is related to new insurance
facilities in the State of Connecticut.  This bill is
related to current health insurance policies in the
State of Connecticut, and just a Parliamentary Inquiry,
to you, Mr. Speaker.  Would those be consider in the
same line in the statutes before I --?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    In the same line?
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Well, maybe I should do it -- I guess, Mr. Speaker,
then I would -- I was wondering just as a Parliamentary
Inquiry if you thought this amendment was germane to
this bill before I thought about raising a point.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Actually, sir, when asked prospectively, I --
Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    I request the indulgence of the Chair to put us at
ease for just a moment or two.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Chamber please stand at ease please.
Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw my Parliamentary
Inquiry.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on House
"A"?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Those opposed nay.
    House "A" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House.
The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.  If it
has, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk please take
the tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 277, as amended by House Amendment
Schedule "A".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those voting Yea               146
         Those voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      5
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill as amended passes.
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move for immediate transmittal to
the Senate of items acted upon, including the last item
still requiring Senate Action.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Any objection?  So ordered.  The Clerk please
continue with Calendar 507.
CLERK:
    On Page 9, Calendar 507, Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 271, AN ACT ESTABLISHING ENTERPRISE CORRIDOR ZONES,
as amended by Senate Amendment Schedules "A", "B", and
"C".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Representative from the 11th District
in East Hartford, Representative Gary LeBeau, the Vice
Chair of the Commerce Committee.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I recommend
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report
and passage in concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, this bill promotes regional
cooperation in economic development and the location of
industrial development along major existing
transportation infrastructure.
    The Enterprise Corridor Zone bill will extend the
benefits and incentives of Enterprise Zones to
industrial districts in smaller towns with high rates
of poverty and unemployment.  In addition, the
legislation requires that such development occur on or
near an interested or limited access state highway.
The Commissioner of DED would be empowered to create a
minimum of two corridors which meet certain criteria.
    Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Clerk to call LCO No.
5917.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO5917, previously
designated as Senate "A".  If he may call,
Representative LeBeau would like to summarize.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    LCO No. 5917, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator Larson, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, this is a technical amendment which
just basically says that the Enterprise Corridor Zones
would be subject to the same conditions as Enterprise
Zones.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Would the gentleman would move adoption please?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further on the adoption of Senate "A"  If not, I'll try
your minds.  All in favor signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    Senate "A" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'd like the Clerk to call LCO No.
4132 and designate Senate Amendment "B".
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO4132, designated Senate
"B".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4132, designated Senate "B", offered by
Senator Mustone.d
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, another technical amendment which
allows private properties under common ownership
located outside of the census track in an Enterprise
Zone and contiguous to a railroad right-of-way, which
is a boundary to the census track to become part of the
Enterprise Zone.
    I move passage of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further on the adoption of Senate "B"?  Will you remark
further?  If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    Senate "B" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call LCO No. 4253, which
has previously been designated Senate "C".
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO4253, previously
designated Senate "C".  If he may call and
Representative LeBeau would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4253, designated Senate "C", offered by
Senator Crisco, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment, 4253, Senate Amendment
"C", is essentially the same bill as 221.  It allows
updated use of date for the Enterprise Zones that were
designated last year for base and plant closings.  It
changes the language for other zones created in 1993
and it allows federal legislation and designation of
Employment Zones to ensure that if Empowerment Zones
are designated in the State of Connecticut, they will
also become Enterprise Zones.  They'll work together on
that.  I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of Senate "C".  Will
you remark further?
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Maddox from the 66th.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, a question to
the proponent if I may.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Would the effect of this, through you, Mr. Speaker,
be to increase and add more Enterprise Zones, through
you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative, when you
say add, to you mean add from last year's legislation
or add from what we currently have?  Are you speaking
to the amendment?
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, on the amendment.  Would the effect of this
be to -- as we currently know, I believe there are -- I
lost count, I think 17 Enterprise Zones around the
state.  Would the effect of this amendment be to
increase that number, through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Then, through you, Mr. Speaker, what is the effect
of this amendment?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    The effect of the amendment, sir, is to clarify
some of the language that currently exists.  Basically
one of the problems that we had last year, with the
bill we passed last year was that some of the language
was unusable.  Data could not be gathered and this
clarifies some of that language, sir.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    So if I may, Mr. Speaker, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    If we do not pass this, does this mean the number
of Enterprise Zones would contract?  Is that correct,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, last year the correct
numbers are 11.  We had 11 previously, designated
Enterprise Zones and five more ready last year.  So a
total of 16.  If we do not clarify this language, DED
might be able to designate Enterprise Zones, given the
language of last year's bill.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, you mean the existing
five?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Yes.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Okay.  That's what I thought.  So the bottom line
is -- I'm done with questions.  The bottom line of this
amendment is it does increase the number of Enterprise
Zones and that brings up a policy concern here, ladies
and gentlemen.  Originally, Enterprise Zones were put
in place to drive the free market forces to help those
severely distressed municipalities.  They come to mind
like Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, etc.
    What has occurred along the way is these seem to be
the political goodies of the 1990s.  We'll just
designate it Enterprise Zone, here there and
everywheres.
    Under that, you weaken the economic impacts of
trying to revitalize these really core areas that I
think are in desperate need of revitalization.
Personally, if we want to do that, why don't we just
simply add an amendment to designate the entire State
of Connecticut an Enterprise Zone because basically
that's exactly what this does.  Sixteen Enterprise
Zones?  I myself would like to go and honestly believe
if properly done and held to a respectable number, 11
is probably enough, especially given the area that I
know where they're designated that I think need severe
economic development.
    I mean something is wrong with the Grand List of
the City of Bridgeport is less than some of its
neighboring towns.  That's a major problem and why in
the world would we want to start designating five
additional Enterprise Zones.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, a Point of Parliamentary Inquiry, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    And your point, sir.  A fresher member on my side
of the aisle, who is paying close attention to his Go
List.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    As is their want, sir.
LAUGHTER
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Just posed the question to me that I have not been
able to answer and perhaps you can, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I'm sure I can, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    They cannot locate this item on a Go List and I'm
wondering if it is located on a Go List or a
supplemental Go List or any kind of a Go List.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir, the Chamber will stand at ease.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, I can answer the Parliamentary
Inquiry.  The --.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I prefer it when someone can play both parts.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    It's the supplemental Go List No. 2, which was not
distributed, but it has just been distributed and
that's the reason why we couldn't find it.  For the
members' information, there is apparently a
supplemental List No. 3 as well floating around, so if
you're trying to keep track of the scorecard, you need
a regular Go List, Supplemental 1 and Supplemental 2
and now Supplemental 3.  You can't keep track of the
players without a scorecard.  Oh, and I see the
President of the Senate has his own scorecard.  Isn't
that nice.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir, can we proceed with the debate?
Representative Krawiecki, without objection, we'll
proceed with the debate.  Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to the proponent of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    On review of this, on review of the bill that we
had that was very similar to this in committee, the
criteria in this amendment is very similar, if not
exact to that bill.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, is that
correct?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, except for one minor
change.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    Which is?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    There was a statement about the nine largest cities
being included.  I think that statement has been
deleted.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    But the criteria is exactly the same?
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    The criteria is exactly the same.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    Okay.  Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    In committee debate the day that we had the bill
that this amendment parallels, the Senate Chairman
spoke of the fact that he wanted the City of Danbury
included in.  The criteria is the same.  If the
criteria is the same, then Danbury will qualify under
this amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's why I clarified
and I said that except for the one criteria, except for
that one criteria of the nine largest cities being
automatically included, the City of Danbury is not
included in this legislation.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    It is not included in the amendment, but it can
apply as an Enterprise Zone under the criteria in this
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, it could apply, but it
doesn't meet the criteria.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    And if this amendment passes, it will be rejected
if it applies, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    All the data that I have from DED, through you,
Mr. Speaker, all the data that I have DED would
indicate there is no possibility of Danbury becoming
one of the Enterprise Zones under these criteria that
are specified here, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Metsopoulos.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    If the criteria is the same, through you, Mr.
Speaker, you just said the criteria was the same,
through you, Mr. Speaker, except that the cities are
not named, through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the clarification is that
the criteria that was in that bill, Senate Bill 221,
included the nine largest cities automatically.  That
criteria is out.  Given that criteria being out,
Danbury is not included in this bill.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    So the nine largest cities could not apply for any
economic development under this amendment?  Is that how
I'm -- for legislative intent, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.
REP. METSOPOULOS:  (132nd)
    Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on "C"?  Will you remark?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question to the
proponent please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.  Proceed, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you.  Representative LeBeau, there's a change
in lines 165 through you 169, bracketing out some
language about a reduction of more than 50 percent of
the total employment, so on and so forth.  My
recollection was that that was included in the file
copy in committee with specificity.
    Now I'm wondering why suddenly that language is
coming out of this file copy, if you can answer please,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, to the distinguished Minority Leader,
I have to be very honest.  There's a mistake in the
drafting and I'm going to withdraw the amendment.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Representative LeBeau.  It was my
understanding that that was to be in the bill as well
and I didn't understand why it was being taken out.
I'll yield back to Representative LeBeau.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative LeBeau, would you care to -- I think
you already have actually, right.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    I move the bill as amended.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your withdrawing this Amendment "C".
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    I'd like to move passage as amended.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Well, first, actually hearing no objection, "C" is
withdrawn.  The Clerk will please show that on the
board.  We'll now remark on the bill, as amended.
Representative Belden, do you want the floor.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I believe the point is
well taken with regard to the drafting error and the
amendment that was withdrawn.  However, since it is an
amendment already passed by the Senate, we can't
withdraw it.  As a result, Mr. Speaker, I believe the
request to withdraw the amendment is a nullity and I
would move to pass the matter temporarily to allow us
to fix the amendment and do it right.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    I think the Majority Leader is absolutely right.
We can't withdraw their amendment and that matter,
without objection, is P-T'd.
    The House will please simmer down a bit.  The Clerk
return to the Call of the Calendar, 403.
CLERK:
    Page 20, Calendar 403, Substitute for House Bill
No. 5789, AN ACT CONCERNING A DNA DATA BANK AND THE
REGISTRATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS, as amended by House
Amendment Schedule "A" and Senate Amendment Schedule
"A".
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Safety.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Good evening, Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Good evening, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I move
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report
and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Will you remark?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, we
previously passed this bill with House Amendment "A".
The Senate adopted Senate Amendment "A", and
Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has in his possession, LCO4370,
which has been designated Senate Amendment "A".  Will
the Clerk please call and I be permitted to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Yes, will the Clerk please call LCO4370, Senate
"A".
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4370, designated Senate "A", offered by
Senator Jepsen.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar has asked leave of the
Chamber to summarize.  Hearing no objection, proceed,
madam.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this
amendment is what we previously sought in this Chamber
as the arrest record amendment on a different bill.
It is virtually the same as the amendment we considered
here except that an additional exemption has been added
for signed witness statements.
    I have worked with the chief state's attorney's
office and the state police on this bill and we have
agreed upon the language in this bill subject to an
additional amendment, which I will introduce after
adoption of this amendment.
    Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark?
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Yes, Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I rise to a Point of Order.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Good, and your point, sir?
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, the Point of Order is under Mason's
402, this amendment, Senate Amendment "A", is not
germane to the underlying file.  The underlying file,
in this case, dealing with a DNA bank and registration
of sex offenders.  The Senate Amendment "A" deals with
an entirely different subject matter, and therefore,
under Mason's 402, is not germane to the file and Rule
30.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Well, it's been some time, but will the Chamber
please stand at ease.
    The House will come to order.  Representative
Radcliffe, in response to your point, I agree that the
question of germaneness is the question whether
something is relevant, appropriate and natural in a
logical sequence to the subject matter of the original
proposal, and that's 4022, which I think you cited at
me, and the original bill, I think can cause Senate "A"
not be germane.  When coupled with House "A", it ties
in through the issue of the Freedom of Information Act.
    The underlying bill deals in part with criminal
conviction information and access to it.  Specifically,
the underlying bill includes the availability or
nonavailability of the sex offender information under
the Freedom of Information Act.
    The amendment likewise deals with the availability
and nonavailability of certain information under that
Freedom of Information Act.
    For that reason, I rule that it is germane and that
the debate on Senate "A" can continue.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I would appeal from the decision of
the Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Is there a second to the appeal of the decision to
the Chair.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll second his appeal
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    There's been an appeal made and a second.  The
Chair invites debate.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.  I could, again,
cite precedents going back to Speaker Stolberg, some of
which I cited the other evening, which I think are
definitely on point here.  I call the Chamber's
attention to Precedent 41, the area of germaneness.
However, I would prefer to go back to merely two
evenings ago when in two instances items which had a
nexus and a connection at least as logical as the
connection before us this evening were ruled
non-germane and thus were not permitted the opportunity
of debate.
    The underlying bill clearly deals with a DNA bank,
a DNA bank to maintained by the Department of Public
Safety.  There are no Freedom of Information issues in
the underlying file copy.  House "A" deals essentially
with registration of sex offenders.  The only
indication I can find in House "A" at all that it would
be in any way germane is that House "A" states that the
information, the registration information would itself
not be subject to disclosure under Section 1-18a of the
General Statutes, otherwise known as the Freedom of
Information Act, but that is simply a reference to the
confidentiality of the material under those
circumstances.
    This amendment, Senate Amendment "A", although
dealing with information under Section 1-19, really
deals with the contents of police reports and the
information which police are required to disclose.
Under neither the file copy nor House Amendment "A" are
we dealing with police reports, are we dealing with
information compiled by Police Departments or what
information those Police Departments must disclose in
the ordinary course of investigating a crime, so for
those reasons, I have appealed the decision of the
Chair.  I believe the precedent, particularly in light
of the precedent such a short time ago, and I realize
that you, Mr. Speaker, did not participate in those
precedents, but in light of those precedents, I feel
that this is definitely not germane, if we're going to
be consistent at least in the last days of this
session.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  In support of your ruling,
I would like to point out that both the underlying
bill and the amendment deal with the scope of the
Freedom of Information and in fact refer to the same
sections of the act.
    Whether or not we're speaking specifically about
police reports or not, we are talking about the scope
of Freedom of Information.  In addition, the amendments
to the Freedom of Information Act in the amendment are
not limited to police reports.  There are other aspects
of the Freedom of Information Act which are dealt with
and I think it is clearly germane.  Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further on the
appeal to my ruling?  If not, staff and guests to the
--.  I'm sorry.  Before we go a step further.  To vote
in favor of the Chair is affirmative and green.  To
oppose the Chair is negative, red.  To uphold the
Chair's ruling is green.  Staff and guests to the well
the House.  Members please be seated.  The machine is
opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  The House is
voting by roll.  Members to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Ladies and gentlemen, green is to support the
decision of the Chair.  Red is to oppose.  If all the
members have voted and if their votes are properly
cast, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk will take
a tally.
    The Clerk will please announce that tally.
CLERK:
         Motion to Appeal the Chair on House Bill 5789.
         Total Number Voting            141
         Necessary to Sustain
         Rule of the Chair               71
         Those voting Yea                85
         Those voting Nay                56
         Those absent and not Voting     10
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The ruling of the Chair is upheld.  We'll return to
the debate on the bill.  I believe Representative
Scalettar had the floor on Senate "A".
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move adoption of Senate
"A".
REPRESENTATIVES SHOUTING
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Is that disturbance unrelated?  The lady asked --.
The question is on the adoption of Senate "A".  Will
you remark?  Will you remark?  Will you remark on "A"?
Tell the crowd in front of you to move, sir.
Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to the proponent of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Has the chief state's attorney looked at this
revised wording, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the
proponent of the amendment?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, he has, and as I
indicated in my earlier remarks, we have agreed with
the chief state's attorney to offer Senate Amendment
"A" in combination with an amendment which I will
offer following Senate Amendment "A" and that is the
language that we have agreed upon with the chief
state's attorney's office and the State Police
Department, through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    And can the person explain -- I'm sorry, the state
representative explain what this does that changes what
we did the other day, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I
indicated, Senate Amendment "A" adds an additional
exemption in Section 119b-3 of the Freedom of
Information Act for signed witness statements, through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Could you explain that section please, through you,
Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, Section 119b-3 of the
Freedom of Information Act lists various exemptions
from the disclosure requirements of Freedom of
Information and this amendment adds an additional
exemption for signed witness statements, through you,
Mr. Speaker.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    And through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Could you explain what those exemptions are?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can read them, if
that's what Representative Mazzoccoli is interested in,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Just generally, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm just
trying to get a general idea of what the exemptions
are.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Actually, we're probably going to need to quiet
down a little bit if we're going to get through this
thing.  Would everyone please be quiet.  Actually, you
know, you don't have to be quiet, you can leave, and I
wish you would.  We really need to be able to hear this
debate.  Representative Mazzoccoli, sir.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Again, I'm just trying to get a general idea,
through you, Mr. Speaker, of what the exemptions are.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, specifically in Section
b-3, which is not all the exemptions, but the b-3
exemptions are records of law enforcement agencies not
otherwise available to the public which records were
compiled in connection with the detection or
investigation of crime.  If the disclosure of said
records would not be in the public interest because it
would result in the disclosure of (a) the identify of
informants not otherwise known or the identify of
witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be
endangered or who would be subject to threat or
intimidation if their identity was made known.  (b)
signed statements of witnesses.  (c) information to be
used in a prospective law enforcement action if
prejudicial to such action.  (d) investigatory
techniques not otherwise known to the general public.
(e) arrest records of a juvenile.  And it goes on from
there, Representative Mazzoccoli, through you, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further on Senate
"A"?  Will you remark?  If not, let me try your minds.
No, Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to Representative Scalettar.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative
Scalettar, did we see this amendment here before or a
bill here before, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my
opening remarks, this is almost identical to an
amendment which we saw on a different bill except that
Senate Amendment "A" adds an additional exemption under
119b-3 and that is the exemption for signed witness
statements which was not before us.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, can you tell me the line
that that's on, Representative Scalettar, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    In Senate Amendment "A", it is on lines 51 and 52.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, and that is the change
from what we voted on the other day, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    And can you refresh my recollection?  Through you,
Mr. Speaker, was there a roll call vote on that, madam,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, there was not a roll call
vote.  I recall very distinctly.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    I have no further questions at this time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you,
to Representative Scalettar.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Your question, madam.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you.  Representative Scalettar, it was
difficult to hear back here and I just want to be sure
I understand you correctly.  Do we have Senate
Amendment "A" before us and then you plan to bring out
another amendment to add to Senate "A"?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.  In
accordance with our discussions with the chief state's
attorney's office and the state police, we are offering
Senate "A" in combination with a following amendment to
effectuate the language upon which we have agreed,
through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    You're welcome, ma'am.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, while I know it's not exactly
appropriate protocol to debate an amendment that is not
before the Chamber, I'd like to just ask the lady if
she could inform the Chamber which LCO she does intend
to call that she's going to do in tandem with Senate
Amendment "A" since there are I think three different
amendments that I've found on this file.  Could she
just tell us which LCO she may call?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar, do you want to answer
that question?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Then please do.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    LCO4785.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    I'm sorry.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The hand it tipped.  She said LCO4785.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Will you remark further on Senate "A"?
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Radcliffe.
REP. RADCLIFFE:  (123rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and having examined the
amendment and the information which is going to be
called or the LCO that undoubtedly will be called after
this amendment if in fact the Chamber chooses to
reverse its decision of the other day, I can say that
the change in language would really amount to a
distinction without a difference.
    Under current law, under existing law, under the
Gifford case that we discussed the other day in some
detail, the police are under an obligation to give
certain information at the time of an arrest.  They
must give the name and the address of the person
arrested, the date, time and place of the arrest and
must state the offense with which the person is
charged.
    That information, which is required by the Freedom
of Information Act is a floor.  It is not a ceiling.
If the Police Department chooses to give information
over and above that information which they are required
to give, which is fairly extensive, name, location of
the incident, arrest, charge, time of the incident, if
they wish to give additional information, they can.
There is nothing prohibiting that.  This is simply a
floor.
    Senate "A", like the LCO rejected by this Chamber
the other day and like the amendment, will require the
release of the arrest report and the incident report.
Now the arrest report and the incident report, as I
think we heard the other day from various individuals
in this Chamber, could contain information that would
be very damaging to a police investigation, could
contain information as to individuals providing
information.  The arrest report and the incident report
could contain information which the officer indicates
that the time that the report is filed at the end of
the shift, but on reflection might be information that
they would not wish to be disseminated publicly and
this is not a decision when making out an arrest report
that an officer should make at the close of a tour of
duty.  That information remains unchanged.
    The only new information that I see is a news
release or other similar report of the arrest of the
person.  Now, obviously, if the Police Department is
going to make a news release that they've arrested a
person, they're going to draft a press release, and by
definition, they are going to give it to members of the
press.  I don't think that's anything they can't do
now.  That maybe something that is in fact done now,
but to require them in addition to the information
required by Gifford to give the name, date and place of
the incident, to give a copy of the arrest report, the
incident report or other similar report of the arrest,
which could involve notes of the arresting officer or
anything like that and we're going to leave it to
others to decide what specific information is necessary
if we adopt this, I believe would be a serious mistake.
    I talked to the chief state's attorney earlier
today and he was extremely concerned, I can tell you,
about this language and about this bill.  He's also
extremely concerned about the underlying bill about
obtaining the DNA legislation which his office has
pushed, and he supports fully the House Amendment "A",
which is the amendment regarding registration of sex
offenders, but he was very concerned about this and had
he not been forced to make a decision between getting
the other two pieces of information and perhaps
accepting something which is called a compromise, but
really changes little or nothing.  I am confident,
based on my conversations with the chief state's
attorney, that he would prefer nothing in this area.
He would prefer that Senate "A" be defeated as his
office lobbied to defeat the amendment before the House
the other day.
    Several of our colleagues, one of whom is a
uniformed officer, spoke rather eloquently the other
day when this identical matter was before us about what
a police officer does, how these reports are generated
and after they're generated, what occurs.
    I, frankly, believe that the public's right to know
is protected by giving this particular information.
There is no constitutional right that requires a police
captain to give a full report and a full narrative to
members of the Fourth Estate.  Yes, there are certain
instances where giving the name, the date, the place of
the offense, the offense charge, where that might
require some additional investigative reporting, but
that's the obligation of the Fourth Estate, not the
obligation of every local Police Department in this
state or of the state police.
    This is also not a question of the first amendment.
This has nothing to do with freedom of the press.  This
has to do with what information is to be disclosed.  If
this were a first amendment question, we wouldn't need
the Freedom of Information Act to allow public access
to this information.  So clearly, it's not information
that there is a right to under the first amendment.
That's why we have a Freedom of Information Act.  A
Freedom of Information Act that many in this Chamber,
including this representative, feel is essential to the
public's right to know.
    The Gifford case strikes the appropriate balance.
This amendment tips the scale too far in favor of
disclosure of information that could affect, not in all
cases it will, but could affect police investigations
and compromise our local and state police departments.
I therefore urge rejection.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Yes, a question, through you, to Representative
Scalettar.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Frame your question, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you.  Representative Scalettar, I admit
there's been a lot of discussion on this bill and we've
chatted a lot about this in the last few days.
Included in those discussions, was the chief state's
attorney Jack Bailey.  When asked if John Bailey agreed
with this language, you said yes, and I was wondering
-- I now we talked around the language.  I had not
seend the language of the second amendment until just a
few moments ago.  It was my understanding that Jack
Bailey had to go to Enfield, and I'm not certain that
he saw the new language either.  Am I mistaken?  Did he
see the new language, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, he did not see it in the
printed LCO form.  He saw it in note form, as did Jack
Cronin, who is here to review it, and I have gone over
the language with Jack Cronin, through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, to
Representative Scalettar.  Representative Scalettar,
just before this bill was called, I asked you if I
could look at the language and you said -- you started
to walk away and you came back and we had -- it was
three or four minutes before the bill was called, but I
had never seen the language.
    Now you and I talked with Jack Bailey just before
he left for Enfield.  Is that not so, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    And did we not talk about the language of the
second amendment, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    And do you recall the gist of that discussion was
that the second amendment, we were concerned -- I'm
talking about the second amendment because I think it
has a direct bearing on what we're doing here and what
Mr. Baily said.  Jack Bailey said, I agree with
language that adds "news release" in the alternative.
Is that not so, Representative Scalettar?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my recollection that
he said news release, followed by the word "or" rather
than "and".
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure he
said followed by the word "or".  I think he said with
"or" in there.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's a
difference, through you, Mr. Speaker.  Is that your
recollection?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, he did say "or".  He said
"news release or", yes.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Now did he -- he and I discussed, as you were
standing there, that it would be in the option of the
police which document they gave you, is that not so,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct.  In fact,
we all agreed upon that.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, I
believe that this discussion is more appropriate in
connection with the second amendment, but I do agree
with Representative Wollenberg's characterization of
the intent of the second amendment, which is not before
us at this time.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that,
but it's been represented that if we pass the first
amendment, a second amendment will follow which will
basically gut the first amendment and that's why I'm
asking these questions.  Now, through you, to
Representative Scalettar.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Well, Representative Wollenberg, you agree, we
should try to stay on the amendment.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, the representation
has been made here through debate that we are going to
put the first amendment on and then we're going to put
on a second amendment which will basically take off the
first amendment.
    So before we do that, I will probably, if the
second amendment is proper, I will agree to put the
first amendment on and then put the second amendment
on.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Sir, I've overstepped my bounds.  I did not mean to
invite a debate between us, sir.  I ask us to stay on
the amendment.  Is your question complete of
Representative Scalettar?
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    No, it's not.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Please continue, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to Representative
Scalettar.  Representative Scalettar, and I must refer
to the second amendment.  If the second amendment gave
the option to the police as to which document they gave
to the newspaper, as you and Jack Bailey and I
discussed, and as I recall, he said that's my
understanding.  I would have no objection to what we're
doing, but the second amendment does not say that.  Do
you agree that the second amendment does not give that
option to the police, through you, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, no, I don't agree to that
and I also don't agree with Representative Wollenberg's
characterization that the second amendment guts the
first amendment.  I think Representative Wollenberg
misunderstands the relationship between the two
amendments.  The first amendment adds an exemption to
119b-3, which remains despite the second amendment and
I don't think anyone is arguing that it should be
gutting.
    In addition, the wording of the second amendment
does strike one paragraph in the first amendment, but
it does not gut it.  It simply adds different wording
and I will agree with Representative Wollenberg about
the intent of the second amendment, which is to provide
various documents which will meet the requirements.  I
understand that Representative Wollenberg is perhaps
thinking he may read it differently, but I don't agree
with his characterization and it is limited to the
second amendment.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Proceed, sir.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Thank you.  Representative Scalettar.  Then, and we
can end this.  My question is -- does -- do the police
have an option over whether in the second amendment
they give an arrest report, an incident report, a news
release or other similar report of the arrest of the
person.  Can they give one of those and satisfy this
bill, through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative Scalettar,
and you believe that's what that says?
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Do you care to respond, madam?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, we're still discussing
the second amendment, but that is how I read the second
amendment, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Okay, well, then, Mr. Speaker, that's my problem
because that's why I asked to see the amendment before
we got into this and we're taking up all this time.  If
the intent that the second amendment give the option as
to what they give, I have no objection to it, but I
think any plain reading of that does not indicate that,
and as you get on in the law on this subject, record of
arrest is what the police are required to give to the
public and record of arrest means all these things if
anyone chooses and I think we can straighten this out
by just saying "at the option of" and it's done.  And I
think our debate is done and this bill is done.  If it
is not, I will go back to debating the first amendment
which we debated for a couple of hours the other night.
I think it will generate that kind of debate.
    If that is what is desired by this Chamber, then
that's what we'll do.  I think what I'm asking is if
this can be P-T'd and we can get together and see that
that language is made optional, I think this all goes
away and that's what I asked to do before the bill was
ever drawn, Mr. Speaker.
    If that is possible, I think we can do it.  If not,
I will start debating the first amendment.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    Thank you, sir.  One minute please.
    Will you remark on Senate "A"?  If not, let me try
your minds.  We are voting only on Senate "A".  It is a
voice vote.  I will request a little quiet in the
Chamber so that I can hear the results of this voice
vote.  All those in favor of Senate "A", signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    All those opposed nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The Chair is in doubt.  The Chair remains in doubt.
The vote will be taken by roll.  Staff and guests to
the well of the House.  Members please be seated.  The
machine is opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll.
Members to the Chamber.  The House is taking a roll
call vote.  Members to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    If the members have voted and if their votes are
properly recorded, please make sure you have voted.
The machine will be locked.  The Clerk will take the
tally.
    The Clerk will announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Amendment "A" to House Bill 5789.
         Total Number Voting            145
         Necessary for Adoption           73
         Those voting Yea                82
         Those voting Nay                63
         Those absent and not Voting      6
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    The amendment is adopted.
    Representative Schiessl.
REP. SCHIESSL:  (60th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  An an example of the
spirit of honest bipartisanship and cooperation between
the two parties, I would move that this item be Passed
Temporarily.
DEPUTY SPEAKER PUDLIN:
    In spite of rhetoric that sounds like sleep
deprivation to me --.
LAUGHTER
    Hearing no objection, the item is P-T'd.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk please call Calendar 258.
CLERK:
    On Page 14, Calendar 258, Substitute for House Bill
No. 5268, AN ACT EXEMPTING PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY
NONPROFIT AMBULANCE COMPANIES FROM THE PROPERTY TAX.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Davis.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed.
REP. DAVIS:  (50th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  What this does is at
the option of municipalities, allow them to exempt
properties owned by certain nonprofit ambulance
companies.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  If not, staff and guests
please come to the well --.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'm sorry, Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of the
legislation.  Due to lack of municipal support, our
local nonprofit ambulance was forced to charge their
patients for service.  As a result, the status of the
ambulance has changed and is no longer exempt from
property taxes.
    This amendment will allow the town to exempt them
from personal and real property taxes.  This particular
issue could affect all similar nonprofit, volunteer
ambulances in the state and I would urge the Chamber to
support the legislation.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark?
REP. DEMARINIS:  (40th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative DeMarinis.
REP. DEMARINIS:  (40th)
    I rise also in support of the bill.  Representative
Winkler, as well, described the circumstances requiring
that we're requesting the bill for.  I urge passage.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else?  Staff and guests please come to the
well of the House.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representative is voting by roll call.
Members to the Chamber.  The House is taking a roll
call vote.  Members to the Chamber please.
REPRESENTATIVES MAKING AMBULANCE SIREN SOUNDS
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
And if it has, the machine will be locked and the Clerk
will please take the tally.  The Clerk please announce
the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5268.
         Total Number Voting            143
         Necessary for Passage           72
         Those voting Yea               142
         Those voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not Voting      8
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill passes.
    The Clerk please call Calendar 193.
    The Chamber please come to order.  We're now going
from ambulances to taxes and I think this might be of
interest to people, so I would encourage the Chamber to
please, especially to Mary, I would appreciate if the
Chamber would come to order.  The Clerk please call
Calendar 193.
CLERK:
    On Page 1, Calendar 193, Substitute for Senate Bill
No. 119, AN ACT ELIMINATING THE MOVING EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT AS A MODIFICATION IN COMPUTING
CONNECTICUT ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
    House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO2172, designated
on April 7th.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Chair of the Finance Committee,
Representative Richard Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Please proceed, sir.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Despite the fact that my motion said so, I really
don't want to pass this bill in concurrence with the
Senate.  I'd rather add an amendment and see if we can
do things a little better than what this bill did
previously.
    So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Clerk to
call LCO No. 6500 and I be given an opportunity to
summarize it.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Excuse me, first, Representative Mulready, we have
already -- excuse me.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I may have to withdraw a Senate
Amendment first.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Right.  No, no, it's a House Amendment, sir.  Wait
a second.  Hold on for one second, sir.  If I may, I
think Representative Belden probably is going to do a
Point of Inquiry.  We had called House "A", which was
LCO2172.  For our records, did we bring that -- was
that your amendment, Representative Belden?
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  I had a notation that it was
called and the matter was P-T'd.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay.  I guess the first matter before us is the
resolution of this amendment.  I guess would the
sponsor of this consider making a motion to withdraw
that amendment?  Why don't we check and see who brought
the amendment out?  Let must set the record straight.
We had previously designated LCO2172, House "A" and
then we P-T'd the bill.  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask that LCO2172,
previously designated House Amendment Schedule "A", be
withdrawn.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Without objection, so ordered.
Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I would now like to ask
the Clerk to call LCO No. 6500, and I would like to ask
that I be given an opportunity to summarize it.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO6500, which will be
designated House "B".  Representative Mulready would
like to summarize after the Clerk calls it.  Summarize
please.  Yes, please call it.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6500, designated House Amendment Schedule
"B", offered by Representative Mulready.
Representative Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this bill has
some 80 some odd sections, 89 sections, I think, so I
would just like to hit the highlights in my
summarization.  There's a bill that the Finance
Committee passed out which most of the members which we
have in file and most of the members of this Chamber
have taken a look at it one time or another,
particularly those members of the Finance Committee,
that bill had a whole series of sales tax exemptions in
it that dealt with outlying years.
    This bill, or this amendment, rather, that we are
offering, has certain tax changes in various areas, in
the sales tax area, in the personal income tax area,
insurance and premiums are, corporation tax, admissions
tax, public service corporation tax and others.
    In the sales tax area, Mr. Speaker, we are
clarifying the law with regard to certain items, health
clubs, compensation for general partners and certain
magazines.  We're also attempting to exempt aircraft
trade-ins and auctioneer services as well as reduce the
interest rate on underpayments of the sales tax to 12
percent from what is now the 15 or 20 percent.  We're
also phasing out the tax on computer and data
processing services.
    Under the personal income tax, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to do a significant amount of repair in the sense
that we are going to fix the cliffs in a rather
significant way and we are going to make the Social
Security adjustment that is necessary in order for us
to undue the effect of the federal budget change last
year.  We're also going to straighten out the
Connecticut alternative minimum tax and also straighten
out the, again, from last year's federal Budget Act,
the treatment of reimbursed moving expenses.
    Under the insurance premium sections, Mr. Speaker,
we were going to do several things.  One, there is one
particular insurer that has a specific problem in terms
of a long lead time -- a long lag time, rather, in
terms of claims and we are going to allow them to grow
to a certain point where they will not be taxed on
items which later will be paid out for claims.
    We're also going to reduce the tax rate on the
insurance premiums tax, which we think can have a
significant economic benefit and a potentially
significant job growth benefit for the insurers in the
State of Connecticut.
    We are going to make sure that the municipal risk
pools, that it is clear in the law that they are not
subject to TAXATION and we are going to institute a
tax on HMOs, which I'll explain in a little more detail
later.
    On the corporation tax side, Mr. Speaker, we're
going to allow corporations to take a property tax
credit against their corporate tax and certain other
types of taxes if the corporation tax is not large
enough to absorb it.
    We're also going to reduce the interest rate on
underpayments and change the interest rate on
overpayments.  We're going to put a tax credit in place
to allow primarily those companies in Fairfield County
that get involved in certain shared ridership programs
to take a credit against their corporate tax for
helping us comply with the Clean Air Act, and we're
going to create some incentive in a couple of areas for
the conversion of motor vehicles and filling stations
to alternative fuels.
    There's a minor changes in the admissions tax.  We
are going to do two things for private water companies
as opposed to municipal water companies that will make
them more competitive with municipal companies and give
their customers a little better break on their rates.
    We're going to correct an anomaly in the petroleum
company's gross earnings tax by making sure that those
those companies that serve some our interstate -- those
gas stations that serve some of our interstate highways
in fact are taxed similarly to all other gas stations
in the State of Connecticut.
    And in terms of the General Fund, we are also going
to institute a taxpayer's bill of rights with some
procedures set forward for contesting tax assessments.
We are going to provide taxpayers with the ability to
post a cash bond when they want to appeal an
assessment, a tax assessment rather than just have to
pay the tax and then fight it out.  And those are the
key items, Mr. Speaker.
    Under other funds, we're going to institute a one
percent gross earnings tax on dry cleaning services in
order to create an Environmental Cleanup Fund for those
types of institutions.  We are going to straighten out
a little anomaly, another anomaly in the Transportation
Fund where railroads pay at the pump for motor fuels
tax, the motor fuels tax and then have to seek a refund
later.  Under one section of our law it says they pay
it.  Under another, it says they get a refund for it.
And I guess that's about it, Mr. Speaker, in terms of
the major elements of the bill.  With that, Mr.
Speaker, I would move adoption -- of the amendment,
rather.   I'd move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of House "B".  Through
you on House "B"?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  In addition to those changes
each of which, almost all of which have a fiscal
impact, there are a variety of other smaller changes
throughout the bill.  For example, we are going to
allow the Division of Special Revenue to have a pilot
program we're going to compel them actually to have
a pilot program for the sale of product advertising on
lottery tickets which could raise the state a couple of
million dollars.  We are going to clarifying some
sections of the aircraft registration fee bill and
there is another significant section of this bill,
Mr. Speaker, that has to do with statewide property
revaluation.  This bill has a provision in it to start
the process of statewide property revaluation with a
target date of 10/1/97 year.
    With that explanation, Mr. Speaker, I think I will
just urge all members to support the amendment and then
we'll have some other amendments to talk about in this
bill.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Representative Young.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, a couple of technical
questions.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    In line 362 through 374, you discuss the taxing of
gasoline sold on interstate parkways, interstate
highways, and I believe for legislative intent that we
should probably add that we consider the Merritt
Parkway, whose gas stations are similar to those on the
interstate and run by the same organization as if they
were on an interstate parkway, interstate highway while
in fact they are probably are technically not, through
you, Mr. Speaker, is that correct?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is the clear intent.
The clear intent is to have all gas stations taxed
similar throughout the state wherever located.
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    And thank you, Mr. Speaker, through you, and I'm
sure you're going to be glad that I asked you this
question, would you explain on lines 552, no, excuse
me, lines 362 through 374, which alludes to the
taxation of partnerships and nonpartnerships and
affiliates and something or other.  I'm sure you're
going to be glad I asked this, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, there is a
clarification there.  For legislative intent, I think
that I should probably get it into the record, and that
is that nothing in this amended language of 12-407a, I
guess it is, should be construed to prevent a general
partner from rendering services to its own partnership
even though an affiliate of the general partner is
rendering services to another partnership in which it
is the general partner.  Does that answer your
question, Representative Young?
REP. YOUNG:  (143rd)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.  For the moment,
that's all.  Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else care to remark on this bill?
Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A few days ago,
Mr. Speaker, I raised the question about an adjustment
to the Connecticut adjusted gross income.  Was there an
effort in this bill, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
correct that double taxation issue that I raised the
other day?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, there was a research
effort done and the research effort revealed the
following.  The question that was raised dealt with the
"Other Income" line under the federal tax return.  It
turns out that that other income line, as I recall the
numbers, amounts to about $100 million with no
breakdown as to what the elements making up that very
large sum amount to.
    I think you had a specific problem in mind and we
had no way of determining whether that, whether the
impact on state -- the state tax revenue was large or
small.  It was indeterminate, and we just had no way of
putting a handle on that.  We did do a legitimate
effort to research that.  We had no way of finding, of
reaching a reasonable conclusion on that.  Therefore,
we did not put that requested fix in this because we
just aren't able to feel comfortable with that fix.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I guess just a general
comment.  I do support many of the changes that are
being made and it is unfortunate that we continue to
allow a circumstance where there is double taxation on
income.  I mean it's just basically unfair.  I would
hope that we would direct the department to make some
effort this year to look at this issue to see if they
can tag it, so we can make an assessment of it next
year, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you very much, sir.  Anybody else care to --?
Representative Belden, Ranking Member of the Finance
Committee from the 113th District, you have the floor,
sir.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, members on
this sides of the aisle have been working with members
on the other side of the aisle to try to come up with a
piece of legislation here that addresses the needs of
many of our citizens and also are not that
controversial that we can't get it hopefully passed
through this legislature this year.
    Two of the task forces, I guess you'd call them, I
served on during the last interim, the User-friendly
Task Force in the Tax Department and the Small and
Medium Business Task Force.  A number of those
suggestions that came up in the reviews that we made
during the interim are included in the file before us.
    There is a taxpayer bill of rights in here that
will hopefully set the guidelines for the interaction
between our citizens and the Connecticut State Tax
Department, however, nothing is perfect, Mr. Speaker,
and therefore, I have an amendment --.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    We're on the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden, we're still on House
Amendment "B".
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    That's true.  Mr. Speaker, so I don't believe that
House Amendment "B" is totally perfect, so later on I
will have a subsequent amendment to offer, but,
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is an effort to try to
address those issues that really should be addressed
this year, even though we're in an interim year of the
two year budget cycle.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Be ready to address House "B".
Representative Kolar.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  On line 473, could you
explain that for me?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think he asked you to
explain it to him.
LAUGHTER
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    As I always do, I always defer to the wonderful
Chair of the Finance Committee.  Representative
Mulready, will you accept my yield?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I just wanted to make sure
who he wanted to explain it.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    He wants the right answer, sir.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, in line 473, well,
it deals with taxation on puzzle magazines.  For some
reason, magazines are not taxed in this case.
Magazines sold by subscription are not taxed.  For
some reason, the Department of Revenue Service has made
one exception for that and that one exception appears
to be puzzle magazines.  The committee talked about
this.  The Finance Committee talked about this and
decided that there is nothing in particular to
distinguish those types of magazines from any other
type of magazine and thought that we should clarify
this fact in this act.  It's a minor part of the act,
but there are many parts of this act that are minor
parts that should be clarified.  This just happens to
be one of them.  That's the reasons.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Kolar.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent, if I
purchase a newspaper at a convenience store, I've got
to pay the six percent sales tax still, through you,
correct?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Correct, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Kolar.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Okay, thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Anybody else on House "B"?
Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
to the proponent of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Representative Mulready, if a person doesn't buy a
puzzle book or have an airplane or any of these other
things that are so carefully outlined in here, how much
would the average taxpayer in the State of Connecticut
have his taxes reduced by this bill, through you,
Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have no specific
information on that.  It would depend upon the
taxpayers' use of various items and I just have no
information on that.  However, I can point out a couple
of areas where some specific consumers in Connecticut
will benefit.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    In the section that deals with the social security
adjustment, there are a number of senior who would have
had 85% of their social security income subject to tax
as opposed to the current 50%.  For those individuals
that 35% difference which could amount to, in some
cases, about $4,000 or $4,500 of new taxable income.
Four and one-half percent of that is $150 or $200 a
year.  Not an insignificant amount to some seniors.
    The cliff affect, I am told this larger cliff
affect can have an impact on 300,000 people.  In those
cases, it can mean as much as $100 to $300 in some
extremes, for those individuals.  Not for all 300,000,
but for some of those individuals.  Including
apparently, Representative Maddox in his case.
Although this was not put in for the benefit of
Representative Maddox, specifically.
    So, it is impossible to say what individuals have
what circumstances, but there are certain types of
consumers, the elderly among them and those people who
just happen to just cross a certain income line in
terms of for the lack of a better term, falling off a
cliff, that can have a very dramatic impact on this
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    The fiscal impact statement, does it have a loss or
a plus for the first year and the same for the second
and third year of this implementation of the bill?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker.  The net amount in the
first year, according to the fiscal note here, is $10.5
million.  That would be corrected because there is one
mistake in the drafting of the bill that has to do with
in the drafting of this amendment, rather that has to
do with the date that the cliff change will take place.
That will be 1/1/95, not 1/1/94.  That will drop it to
the first year to about $4.5 million.
    The second year will be $5.5 million in total net
then it raises rather significantly.  Fifty million
dollars in the year three, and up to $107 million in
the year six.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, when I put
the $5 million through my calculator, there was a
decimal point and a lot of zeros before I got to the
number two or three.  So we are talking about something
less than one percent being returned to the taxpayers
for all these programs in this bill.  Is that correct?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    In the first year of the tax?  I think that is
essentially true, but if you want to take the first six
years of the tax, Mr. Speaker, we have $200, $300, $360
million which is not an insignificant amount and to
some individuals, it is a very significant amount.  In
addition to that, we think that some of these items in
this tax bill are very strong economic development
incentives, particularly that of data processing
components and the premium tax reduction component and
we think, that given that, that there could be
considerable job creation, job retention first and job
creation in the financial services industry,
particularly.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, I didn't
quite get the number. How many years?  Three years, you
said the total.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    In the first three years, Mr. Speaker, it is
approximately $60 million.  In the first five years,
six years rather, it is approximately $350 million for
six years on average.  That is $60 million a year.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  And $60 million is what
percentage of $8.2 billion?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Well, let me see, Mr. Speaker.  $8.2 billion - 10%
would be $820 million.  One percent would be $82
million. Six percent would be about seventy five
hundredths of one percent.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I am sure the taxpayers
will be happy with this tax reduction bill.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Anybody else want to rise?
Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
to Representative Mulready.  Section 40 of the bill, I
found interesting.  This creates, as I understand it a
new tax on paid solicitors for nonprofit organizations.
Am I reading that correctly that what this now does is
take -- if a paid solicitor gets an amount greater for
his work, his or her work, greater than the amount that
the charity got that the tax is 100% of that
difference?
    Through you, Mr. Speaker to Representative
Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  I think this is a good
time to point out that there are a couple of errors in
this amendment which will be covered by a later
amendment sort of a cleanup amendment.
    This is one of those items, Mr. Speaker.  This
portion of the bill says that 100% of everything above
what they turn over to a charity is taxed.  Therefore,
there will be no paid solicitors because they will get
no pay.
    The intent was to say that there would be some
limit on their fee so they couldn't, for instance, keep
80% of the amount that they collected and only turn
over, say a 20% of what they collected to the charity
in question.
    Excuse me for one second.  In any event, our intent
is to minimize that so abuses in the system are not -
abuses in this type of program are not continued.  And
as I recall, I don't happen to have that fix here in
front of me, it is being worked on, but I think it was
all of everything above 50% of the amount collected
would, in fact, be done as a tax so at least a
significant portion goes to the charity itself.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Thank you.  And the other question I had was there
is a new section on the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights,
which I believe is Section 59.  Through you, Mr.
Speaker, to Representative Mulready, it enumerates
numerous rights that a taxpayer has.  I assume this
probably parallels rights that taxpayers have under
federal law.  But my question to you is how are those
rights enforced?  Through you, Mr. Speaker to
Representative Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  I can only make a
general statement since there is no specific penalty
and no specific enforcement language in here that I can
see in my quick scanning of this section.  I guess I
would have to make a general statement, that they would
be enforced as any other rights that a citizen has
under the laws of the State of Connecticut where there
is not a specific enforcement provision included.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    I guess, through you.  It was not for legislative
intent.  This was not intended to be defenses that an
individual could raise to the collection of taxes?
Through you, Mr. Speaker to Representative Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Is that correct?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  Did I understand the
correction that this was not intended to be defenses
that a taxpayer could use?
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Yes.  In other words, these were not defenses that
a taxpayer could use in an effort by the State to
collect taxes.  In other words, if  the Commissioner of
Revenue Services brought an action to collect taxes
from an individual, could he then, he or she turn
around and say that one of his rights under this was
violated and therefore, the tax is not due?
    Through you, Mr. Speaker to Representative
Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  Representative Farr is
correct.  They are not intended as defenses.  They are
intended as rights of the taxpayers to proceed in this
manner and have this opportunity to collect information
or whatever the particular right may be, as enumerated
here.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Thank you, very much.  Just one comment.  I guess,
I am a little concerned about Section 40 in the bill
because as I read Section 40, it really isn't a revenue
section of this bill.  It is a new concept which is
really a cap on how much private solicitors are going
to be able to raise, to charge for a charitable
organization.
    And while it maybe a good idea and it maybe
ultimated well drafted, when we get through with it, I
think it is unfortunate that it's passed in this
fashion with a bill that hasn't gone through the normal
committee process and really is just tuck into a part
of a revenue package.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Sir.  Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  A question, through you to
Representative Mulready, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, Madam.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you.  Representative Mulready, in section 43,
line 1638 and on, we talk about, actually the language
here is to implement the recommendations of the
Property Tax Reform Commission enacted during the 1995
session and I guess I would ask you if that is not just
a little bit presumptuous on part that the 1995 session
will be enacting such reform.  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    I would say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I would
prefer to refer to is as an assumption, rather than a
presumption.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    I thank the gentleman for his answer.  Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Madam.  Anybody else care to respond?
Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment.  I
don't have any questions for Representative Mulready,
but I want to make a couple of points, based on the
fiscal note, to the members of the chamber.
    I was, I am a member of the Finance Committee.
During the discussions and the debates in the Finance
Committee, we looked through a large number of options
for how we could provide tax relief to citizens of the
state.  Representative Belden said earlier in this
debate that this is an amendment.  It was a bill. Now
it is an amendment that provides to the citizens of the
state, a number of pieces of relief that they need and
I agree with that.  But I think it is important to look
at how the benefits of this particular amendment are
distributed because I think there will be amendments,
either on this, or on other bills forthcoming that
will, in my view, compliment this and therefore, it is
important.
    I did a quick, little analysis of which of the tax
reductions contained here are for corporations, which
are for individuals.  I think the results are fairly
interesting.
    In the year 2000 when this is fully phased in, the
changes in the personal income tax constitute
reductions of $19.5 million.  The changes to the
corporation tax or the insurance premium tax or sales
taxes that would be mostly paid by corporations, total
$93.1 million.
    Many of you may remember that during the
discussions of the Finance Committee, the Finance
Committee's bill that was reported out had a very
different composition of benefits.  A lot more
individual tax relief, particularly property tax
relief.  And most of this corporate tax relief was
included.  But the percentages were very much
different.
    I happen to think that there is some merit in the
data processing decrease that is contained here to
phase those in.  I think there is some merit in some of
these other things.  But I think what is completely
missing in this particular amendment is any real
attempt at easing the property tax burden of
individual residents of the state.
    Many, many of us have campaigned, have talked
about, have discussed, the need for property tax
relief.  I think when people talk about property tax
relief, they are talking about relief for overburdened
homeowners, overburdened tenants whose property tax
burden, particularly in areas where there is a high mil
rate like the cities of our state, are out of whack
with their income and constitute a tremendously high
burden for them to pay.
    That's what I think most people when they hear the
word, property tax relief, mean that we, as a General
Assembly, the Governor, are going to address the issue
of the high property tax burden on individuals.  That
is not addressed in this amendment.  That is not a
criticism of the amendment, but I think it is an
important point to bear in mind as we look at other
things as we go ahead.
    So, I am rising in support of this amendment, but I
hope that my colleagues will look and keep this
amendment in mind in our attempt to find a balanced way
of providing actually, not only for corporations who
have done quite well over the last couple of years,
through the General Assembly and through this
administration, but also the hard pressed property
taxpayers in our major cities and in our high tax rated
suburbs, as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "B"?
Representative Jarjura.
REP. JARJURA:  (74th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  I will be brief because I
understand the lateness of the hour.
    Over the last several days, I have received
numerous phone calls from many of the senior citizens
in my area who are very concerned about the changes
with regard to social security in the federal law and
we recognized that that would have been a windfall for
Connecticut, in terms of revenue.
    So, I would like to commend the Finance Committee
and the Chamber for correcting this situation and that
we would not be receiving that windfall in protecting
our senior citizens for the State of Connecticut.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "B"?  Will you
remark further?  Representative Lockton.
REP. LOCKTON: (149th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you,
Representative Mulready, could you give us a brief,
quick, easy explanation of the alternate minimum tax
and how that has been addressed in this amendment.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  No.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anyone else care to remark on House "B"?  If not, I
will try your minds.  All in favor -- Representative
Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON: (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One more question, through
you, to the proponent of the amendment, please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. BOUGHTON: (109th)
    Thank you, Representative Mulready.  We worked so
hard a few days ago to spend $154 million in here on
the appropriations bill. If that had been returned to
the taxpayer and I believe that somewhere around $2.6
billion is what we have taken in on revenue from
personal income tax, we could have reduced their bill
by 5% by just returning that to the taxpayer and that
would have been meaningful tax reform.  Would it not?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  I am sure it would have
been, but to create Jose Himinez, "that's not my job".
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "B"?  If not,
--Representative Tercyak.
REP. TERCYAK:  (26th)
    Mr. Speaker, a very short question also.  Mr.
Speaker, a question, through you to Representative
Mulready.  Representative has any consideration given
the only allied health profession which is taxed in
Connecticut that is hyprochology?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is not covered in
this amendment.  The question was whether hyprochology,
whether the sales tax on that was eliminated in this
amendment?
REP. TERCYAK: (26th)
    Yes.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    No, it is not.  There were -- in bill 398, the bill
came out of the Finance Committee, there were probably
8 or 10 sales tax reductions that started to kick in in
fiscal year 1997 and then were phased in over three or
four years.  Virtually all of them were eliminated in
this bill after negotiations among or discussions
between this side of the aisle and the other side of
the aisle and the Governor's office and others.
    We would like to do that.  We will take a look at
it again next year, perhaps.  But -- and there were
some who might have stayed if it had some greater
support than others, we didn't think it would be quite
fair to keep some in and take others out.
REP. TERCYAK:  (26th)
    Thank you.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else?  Representative Hess.
REP. HESS:  (150th)
    I just wanted to say for the record since
Representative Mulready didn't answer the question
about alternative minimum tax that it is within the
amendment and it is section 60-65, I believe.  Is that
true?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready, is that true?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.  It is certainly in the
amendment.  I thought the question was could I give a
simple and easy explanation for what happened with the
alternative tax and my answer to that was no, I could
not.  But I didn't realize she had asked whether that
was covered in here because it certainly is covered in
the amendment.
REP. HESS:  (150th)
    Thank you.  That's all I want to make clear for the
record.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you very much, Madam.  Representative Thorp.
REP. THORP:  (89th)
    I would like to call the Chamber's attention to
section 41.  It says each health care center is defined
in section dada, dada of the General Statutes shall pay
a tax to the Commissioner of Revenue and so forth.
That the rate of 1-3/4% of the total net direct
subscriber charges received on any new or renewal
contract.  And what that basically boils down to is a
tax on HMO's.  I would j just sort of like to review the
HMO a little bit with the body before we vote on it.
    Here we are talking about a bottom line where there
is a tax reduction and yet part of our tax reduction is
being paid for, as I understand it, a $23 million tax
increase on our health maintenance organizations.
    The whole idea of the HMO was originally conceived
in 1928, long before any Blue Cross health insurance
was invented.  It was the people who were involved with
the health maintenance organization were sort of like
joining a club.  You had subscriber fees.  You did not
pay premiums.
    I understand that our premium taxes have been going
down so it was thought to be a nice way to make more
things more equitable and provide a level playing field
for HMO's versus indemnity plans by whacking them with
a tax.  Here we are with President Clinton and all
advocating some sort of universal health care plan.
Here we are trying to reduce medical costs and here we
are, late at night when nobody can watch us buried in a
rather archaic bill whacking the sick people of the
state with a $23 million tax.
    I don't think it is fair.  I don't think it is in
the spirit of the times where we are trying to reduce
the cost of health care, where we are trying to reduce
the cost of the State.  For heaven's sake, the State is
paying subscriber fees to the HMO's.  The state itself
is going to be helping to pay higher subscriber fees.
    I don't think it is in the spirit of the new
emphasis for access for all people and particularly in
the service where the individual subscriber is making a
fair amount of sacrifice by giving up a certain amount
of choice in physician and services and location and
getting back sort of a one stop shop as far as the
medical services are concerned which I will confess,
for myself, as a member for the past 35 years of Kaiser
Permanente, I felt it has been a good bargain.
    But nevertheless, here we are in one of the really
shining examples of health care costs control, managed
care and all. They are doing a good job.  They are
reducing the costs and also oh, oh, right in the middle
of our tax bill, we will give them another hoop to jump
through, jack up their costs a little bit and maybe
they won't be so competitive after all.
    It just doesn't make sense to me and I cannot
support the package here as it stands.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Anybody else on House "B"?
Anybody else on House "B"?  If not, I will try your
minds -- I am sorry.  Representative Mushinsky.
REP. MUSHINSKY: (85th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just in case anybody
didn't see it there is a very important feature in this
bill that -- this feature alone is worth support of
this amendment.  And that is section 74 which increases
the wage rate for the appropriations tax credit for
apprenticeships from $2.50 an hour to $4.00.
    This idea has come up.  Some of you have attended
with me the National Conference of State Legislatures.
This idea comes up repeatedly as a key proposal which
really works to link students to jobs.  An idea they
already do in Germany and some of our other economic
competitor countries and one of the best features of
the bill so I hope you will all support the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, Madam?  Anybody else on House "B"?  If
not, I will try your minds.  All in favor signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  House "B" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on this bill, as amended?  Will you
remark further?  Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to
do the clean up amendment on House "B" by calling
another LCO, LCO6696.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO6696, designated as House "C".
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    And I would like an opportunity to summarize,
please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Clerk, may call it.
PAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready, I am not sure - I don't
think we have it, Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.  If they can't find it at the moment,
maybe I could -- I know there is another amendment on
the other side of the aisle.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay.  So why don't we -- we will do your clean up
amendment later. Will you remark further on this bill,
as amended?  We have not found the amendment.  There is
no House "C". We don't have the original.  Okay?
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    What is the status of the amendment asked to call?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready asked for LCO6696.  We
could not find the original file with the Clerk.  So I
ruled there is no amendment before us and what we will
do is now, to expedite matters, I understand you have
an amendment.  I will call on you for House "C" and
then we will go back to Representative Mulready in
hopes that we can find that original.  Okay?
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden, sir.
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO6817.
Would the Clerk please call and I be given permission
to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO6817 which will now be designated
as House "C".  He may call it and Representative Belden
would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO6817, designated House "C" offered by
Representative Krawiecki, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, in summarization, the amendment
deletes section 39 of the House Amendment "B" which is
now the file before us.  That is the section that
requires the 1997 statewide real estate revaluation
to be done on a statewide basis.
    Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption of House "C".  Will you
remark further, sir.  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  This is probably the most
controversial section of the file before us at this
time.  There are a lot of members that feel that
statewide revaluation is not the proper way to go at
this time and so I believe this amendment would be an
opportunity for the entire membership to vote whether
or not they want to, at this point in time, the 1994
session of the General Assembly, mandate something that
happened in 1977.
    I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we did pass a
bonding bill a little bit earlier in this session.  I
think it is still sitting on the Senate Calendar that I
believe authorizes some $7 million to start the process
of procurement of necessary hardware and software to be
used in the revaluation process.
    Even that were to proceed, and be passed in the
Senate, that bonding bill, those monies could be
controlled through the Bond Commission process and also
the plan is to use those funds for hardware that could
be used whether or not statewide revaluation
occurred.
    Mr. Speaker, this is probably important enough that
I would ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by
roll call.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    All those in favor of a roll call, signify by
saying Aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Since the 20% has been ruled, it will be taken by
roll.
REP. BELDEN: (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I believe I will sit down
and allow the amendment to be debated.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else care to comment on House Amendment
"C"?  Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Ladies and gentlemen of
the Chamber, I know many of you have received recently
phone calls on what I would call regionalization
efforts and some of the were directed towards land use
issues.
    Let us not walk away from what I would call the
financial regionalization proposals that have also been
placed before us.  This statewide revaluation is the
first step, as I would see it, in a homogenization of
the mil rate throughout Connecticut.  Whether it be on
personal property or whether it be on personal and real
property.  Just this morning, I happened to be in
Bethlehem Town Hall for a referendum and the assessor
runs up to me and say, "you are not doing that
revaluation stuff, are you?"  Here in the Town of
Bethlehem we went through it.  We did it on the local
level.  We believed more efficiently than the State
could do it.
    Recognized the estimated costs of doing this are
somewhere in excess of $100 million.  A few minutes
ago, Representative Rapoport proceeded to encourage us
to provide property tax relief to the citizens of
Connecticut.  I agree with Representative Rapoport.  I
think we need to do something to address the high
property taxes in this state.  But I can't see spending
$100 million of providing and greeting a gigantic
bureaucracy here in Hartford is providing tax relief to
anybody.  I think it is important that we go forward
with this and I think we would be pulling a deception
on those folks out there who legitimately want tax
reform of making a promise that we might do something
down the road.
    I think this is the wrong path to enter down.  And
it is an important amendment that we adopt.  I would
hope the membership would concur.  Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise to
oppose the amendment.  I understand the concerns that
Representative Maddox and others have expressed,
however, I would point out that the issue before us is
not the homogenization of mil rates, but the
possibility of establishing a statewide system of
revaluation of the property tax values.  And I do
believe that a statewide system of revaluation does have
some merit and I think that we should spend a little
bit of time, at least, discussing the merits of doing
that and perhaps some of the weaknesses.
    I would also say that the State does spend millions
of dollars every year in programs such as the
educational cost sharing formula which does in affect,
change the mil rates in various towns because of the
fact that certain towns get a lot more money than
others.  And one of the reasons for doing this, in my
opinion, is that some of the towns that receive the
most help from the State in formulas such as that, have
shown that they are not always the most responsible as
far as following the State statutes that currently
apply regarding the proper revaluation and the
implementation of the revaluation to insure that the
property taxpayers in those communities are treated
fairly within the municipality.
    Putting aside for a moment the issue of fairness
between different municipalities, but within the
municipalities that are receiving the most aid from the
State, the tax dollars, the income tax dollars, from
the taxpayers from districts like mine that go to
cities and in those cities, the taxpayers in those
cities that are receiving that money, some of those
taxpayers are being treated unfairly because of the
fact that some of them have not had the proper
revaluations for perhaps 13 years or more.
    Representative Belden has said that perhaps we
should wait and I understand that it seems perhaps
premature to enact something in 1994 that will not go
into effect until the grand list for October of 1997.
However, if we think about how long it takes some of
our municipalities to prepare for the revaluations that
they know are coming every ten years, it takes years of
planning just for a local municipality to do a
revaluation.
    I was on the Town Council in Coventry when we went
through revaluation.  It was something we planned three
or four years in advance.  The process itself took a
couple of years and to think that we are going to do a
statewide revaluation, quite honestly, I would perhaps
even if we do pass this, that we may have to come back
next year or so and ask for an extension.  But if we
don't pass this, we are going to come back next year to
maybe put it in in 1998 and even that may be too
ambitious.
    If this is something that we think has merit, then
we should do it now and get the process moving.
    Why have a statewide revaluation system?  It
guarantees or at least attempts to guarantee uniform
treatment for all of the property taxpayers within the
State of Connecticut.  I understand that many of us
come from municipalities, certainly my own, where I
have a great deal of faith in my assessor.  I have a
great deal of faith in the town meeting process that
sets our annual budget.  But I also believe that I have
a responsibility to taxpayers, property taxpayers in
municipalities that may not have quite the same level of
sense of responsibility, to use a phrase, as the people
in my municipality.  And again, I use as evidence of
that, the fact that some of the very municipalities,
some municipalities have not done what that law says
they have to do which is revaluate every ten years.
    I think that that is unfair to certain taxpayers in
those towns.  This is a way to help those
municipalities and all municipalities achieve fairness.
    The property tax system and the revaluation, I
know, is one with a great deal of suspicion and fear
and distrust.  I knew that as a local elected official.
When we went through revaluation, people didn't
understand it.  They didn't like it and they were
suspicious that it was being done as a way to rip them
off or to raise their taxes in an unfair way.
    When in fact, of course, the purpose of revaluation
is to try to restore fairness to a system that has gone
out of whack due to fluctuations in the property real
estate market.  The system that we are operating now, I
believe, is obsolete.  It was invented before there
were computers.  It was invented long before the types
of dramatic real estate swings in the real estate
prices that we saw in the '80's and then of course, the
collapse of real estate prices in the '90's which have
created a great disparity in many of our municipalities
in what the proper property tax rate should be and what
people are actually paying.
    The system that is being proposed has a very
significant and proper role for assessors in our local
municipalities.  It allows for a change in the way the
revaluations are done to bring it up to code with the
more modern methods of revaluations and assessments.
Inspections, which still have to be done once every ten
years, do not have to be done all at once within a
town, so when an assessor could actually set up a
schedule and inspect one-tenth of all of the properties
in the town every year so that they could meet the
requirement of inspecting every property every ten
years would not have to go on this once every ten year
crusade to try to inspect all of the properties within
one year which actually will save money for the towns.
    I just believe that this is a way that we can bring
some sanity and some fairness into a system that I
believe has gotten out of control in many of our
municipalities and I believe that it serves to protect
the taxpayers in our towns who are sending their income
tax and sales tax dollars to the State to have them
redistributed through formulas such as the education
cost sharing formula which are based on a net equalized
grand list which maybe based on data that is not as
accurate as it could be and not as fair as it should
be.
    I ask for rejection of the amendment.  Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Samowitz.
REP. SAMOWITZ:  (129th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I also rise to oppose the
amendment.  To those that have any fear that this has
something to do with land use, I can tell you one
thing, I wish it would, but it doesn't.
    What this is dealing with is this is just something
that has -- makes a lot of business sense.  You have to
understand something.  When it costs all the towns
across the state, millions of millions of dollars, when
the State does it, once your does it, there is an
economy of scale.  Certainly, there are things that
have to be looked at that -- so we can have some sense
into our property tax system which deals with more than
half the cost of anyone's taxes.
    So it is a very important element.  What this can
do is put us all in the same page, but this is nothing
to do with the land use that people maybe concerned
about.  Land use that I was concerned about, it was a
regional thing.  This is not regional.   This is
statewide.  It has nothing to do with it.  But this is
still very -- the bill itself -- and to oppose the
amendment it is very important because it is the only
rational way that we could have a rational approach to
the problem which all your constituents are talking
about and that is property tax.  It is a way of
measuring it.  It is a way of doing it cheaply.  It is
a way for it to be done in an organized fashion.
    Therefore, I would urge rejection of this
amendment.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you.  Will you remark further on House "C"?
Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I rise in support of the
amendment.  I have been a Mayor of a city and went
through revaluation and I know what it is about.  What
it is about is if you raise the taxes, the mil rate
goes up.  If your grand list goes up, and you don't
raise the taxes, or you don't spend more, your mil rate
stays the same or it goes down.  It is not the problem
with that that I have.  The problem I have is the State
conducting this revaluation and the fear that in years
to come, the State will be collecting the taxes, also.
Then we will be leveling the taxes for the whole State
of Connecticut, urban and suburb together and the
suburbs will be paying for the urban sections.
    This had come up in Planning and Development as
just that sort of a plan by one of our Representatives.
So, I urge rejection of this amendment.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Anybody else on House Amendment "C"?
Representative Ward.   I am sorry.  Representative San
Angelo.
REP. SAN ANGELO:  (131st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I received
many calls from my local assessors.  Not one of them
was in favor of the state taking over revaluation.  My
local assessors felt pretty strongly that the local
assessors could do a much better job, more cost
efficient than what the state could do.  They were very
concerned with what they believe would be an eventual
increase in taxes for some of the suburbs in the state.
    I strongly support this amendment and would hope
that my colleagues would do the same.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I was going to call Representative Ward next and
then Representative Mulready.  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I also rise
to support the amendment.  I would point out that in
the file in a section not stricken is a study. One of
the things the study is supposed to do is to look at
whether we ought to do this and how we do it.  So, it
seems very odd that we would authorize it and demand to
go forward with it in one section and study it in
another section.
    But more fundamentally, I oppose it because I think
it assumes that many or most towns can't properly
handle revaluation.  Well, there maybe a few towns that
can't, but frankly, I think most towns do it properly.
If people have objections on how they are revalued,
they can go to the local property tax review board.
    I don't want to see those things shifted over to a
major state agency.  I like the idea that if someone
thinks the valuation or the revaluation is done
improperly locally, that he can go to a local board and
deal with it locally.
    Property tax is some that concerns all the local
citizens and I think this is a first step to the state
really taking over that system.
    It maybe that some think it is just to collect the
data better and get the information better and equalize
it and sort of make it fairer.  I suspect, some the
definition of fair, will eventually lead us to control
of how much each town taxes and not only using the
income tax to redistribute wealth and income, but using
the property tax to redistribute, as well.
     I think that is fundamentally wrong.  We shouldn't
take this first step towards that redistribution.  We
should adopt the amendment and get out of this state
revaluation system.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a lot of
unjustified fear of a statewide revaluation system that
is being expressed.  I think it is interesting to note
that a lot of people who have spoken in favor of this
amendment have talked about conversations with their
local assessors.  Well, one of the things that you
might keep in mind is that a lot of local assessors are
concerned about their jobs.  Perhaps rightly.  Perhaps
wrongly.
    But there is a certain amount of job protection
here.  I should tell you, I have had 10, 12, 15 mayors
or first selectmen come up and speak in support of this
system.  So I don't know who you want to listen to,
whether you want to listen to your local assessor or
whether you want to listen to your first selectman or
mayor, but all I would ask you to keep in mind when you
revaluate the input of your assessors, that there maybe
a bit of a job protection concern in their comments.
There maybe other valid considerations that they
pointed out to you as well, but that is certainly one
of them.
    One of the other comments that has been made is
that this is the first step towards a statewide
takeover of the -- sort of the local budgets and maybe
this would lead to homogenization of the mil rates
throughout the State of Connecticut.
    Mr. Speaker, I think this is a first step in a good
data collection effort.  It is true that there are some
towns that haven't revalued 13 year, 17 years, I think.
Waterbury is working on 17 years now and we shouldn't
necessarily pass a law to take care of those towns who
violate a previous law or to whom we have given year
after year your extensions in this matter.  That would
be, as I see it, a side benefit of passing this bill,
that they would no longer be able keep going forever in
terms of passing, going forward in terms of missing
some of the revaluation dates that they should have
met, but only a side benefit.
    Another benefit would be to the extent that there
are statistical revaluations every two years, as
contemplated under this bill, is the fact that it would
keep -- it would minimize the shifts between property
types that currently exist with ten year revaluations
in each property.
    Part of the problem now and part of the reason why
we, historically, year after year after year, allow
certain towns to pass over a given revaluation year and
go for another year or two is the fact that they've
looked at changes in the Grand List and realize that
there's going to be a significant shift.  To the extent
that we go to two year revaluation cycles on a
statistical basis, that won't be a similar, that won't
be an ongoing problem.
    So I think, also, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that
we can get better, consistent statewide data, that will
have some impact on our formulas.  Now the Office of
Policy and Management has to do a pretty detailed
equalization analysis to figure out, you know, to go
back ten years in some towns and see what adjustments
they need to make to the Grand List and back nine years
and others and eight years and so on, is a pretty
significant burden.
    Mr. Speaker, before the worst fears of the
proponents of this amendment are realized, namely some
state -- some Machiavellian state taker of all these
city and town budgets, that would be an awfully big
number of steps that would have to be taken.  For
example, even for this revaluation plan to go into
effect, we first have to do considerably more bonding
in a whole number of years.  We have to do a fair
amount of appropriating for the Office of Policy and
Management to add staff and so forth to do this on an
ongoing basis year after year after year and a lot of
other enabling legislation.
    So I think it's very unlikely.  I think there is an
undue fear here that the state is taking over all of
these municipalities.  Well, I guess I'd start by
saying that the home rule tradition in the State of
Connecticut makes that extremely unlikely.  There would
be 1,000 hoops to jump through if in fact any of us
thought that was a good idea, and so I think that we
should not vote our fears in this particular case,
Mr. Speaker, that we should vote for much better data
collection and a property assessment system and reject
the amendment.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Honorable Representatives Jones of the 141st,
you have the floor, sir.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, I have some
questions for Representative Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    On the amendment, sir?  On House Amendment "C"?
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Yes.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Okay, please proceed.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Not only on the amendment, but on the philosophies
he just expressed.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
Representative Mulready, you say that there is some
fear of greater state involvement in property tax bill
calculations that is completely unwarranted.  You don't
see any homogenization.  How would you describe the
governor's proposal for the State of Connecticut to
collect through some revenue system taxes on
automobiles and return the revenue to the towns,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, my reference was to real
property taxes and not the personal property taxes.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Jones.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I don't think the fear is
confined just to personal property, sir.  I think there
is a reason.  It may be shadows, but I don't think that
anyone can say that some people aren't concerned about
preserving our historic local control.
    Now what I have a fear of is something that has not
yet been explained.  So through you, Mr. Speaker, if we
might, Representative Mulready, could you explain how
statewide revaluation would be undertaken?  For
example, typical data sources, the collection
procedures, their computer systems and their probable
costs and the amount of data that would be processed
every year, through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  I will attempt to do exactly
that.  Once -- well, there are several parts to
implement the system.  The first step, which is why the
implementation date has been put out to 1/1/97,
involves building a system.  That system has several
parts to it and the keystones of the system are a
computer-assisted mass appraisal system.  It not only
involves standardized hardware throughout each of the
towns, but computer software to implement the various
programs.
    So that program, as I understand it, the training,
hardware, software, and all the other pieces, including
GIS system, has a total price tag that I'm aware of,
essentially a bonding price tag of in the neighborhood
of $75 million or $80 million, the first $7 million of
which is in this year's bond package that the House has
passed.
    Now once the system has been put in place, the
distinction in the roles of the various parties, the
definition of the roles of various parties is pretty
much as follows.
    The local assessor or his agent, the local town,
could hire a third party firm, as many of them do, to
do physical inspections, but the town must do physical
revaluations -- physical inspections every ten years.
Any town that has done it from 1988 and on would not
have to do it until 1988 and beyond on the ten year
cycle.  Any town that hadn't done it since 1988 or
since 1987 would have to do it before the 1997 date.
    The state contractor -- so the physical data would
be inputed by the towns, by the local assessor, much
the way it is done now.  One difference in terms of
ongoing -- you know, it's a rather lengthy explanation,
if you want me to continue on.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Yes, excuse me, I think it might be a little more
productive if you and I could have exchanges as we go
along, because I understood, Mr. Speaker, that there
would be no local tax assessors under this system.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is entirely
inaccurate.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, could you give me an idea
then in the typical city or town what staff would be
laid off when we go into the statewide system to create
part of the savings here?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the big part of the
savings comes from the fact that the state would be
doing more often than the towns do the statistical
appraisals every two years, the key role of the local
assessor.
    So when a town goes out, the City of Hartford, for
example, might spend $1.5 million to do its
revaluation, which I understand it's planning on going
forward and doing this year despite this bill and the
freeze possibility and at least they are considering
going forward with it, depending upon the outcome of
this bill.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Yes, but excuse me, sir, but what you've described
to date, I believe that $1.5 million would still have
to be spent.  You'd have to hire a firm to come in and
inspect properties.  They have to describe the
properties, changes, new construction additions.
Wouldn't that all be in the data feed to the computer
system?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    All of that $1.5 million, in fact a greater part of
that $1.5 million is not spent on the physical
inspections.  The greater part of the $1.5 million is
spent on collecting and massaging the data which would
now be done at the state level through the data
collected and created through the CAMA system.  And
it was analysis of data rather than the collection of
data.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, then, what you're
representing is the majority of the cost is running the
data through a computer system?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Well, I think it perhaps a bit more complicated
than that, Mr. Speaker, but I am representing that the
majority of the cost is not in the physical inspections
and in fact it would be the role of the local assessor
to do the physical inspections.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Jones.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    I don't think we need to carry this a lot further
and I respect Representative Mulready's view of this,
but a $75 million computer system should be enough to
frighten us all in this state where when we budgeted a
$12 million system, it came out at $30 million and much
of our data processing has been characterized by
difficulties of control, data management and so forth.
    One alternative we might see down the road is to
hire a competent private contractor or to who could be
a service bureau to process the same data for whatever
towns choose to use it and as far as the input data and
the updating of sales for calculation of sales
assessment ratios, I'm not sure the $75 million is
going to do anything for us.
    And so I would suggest, in all humility, that
Representative Ward has made a good point.  This is an
area that needs more study and we should not jump on
the idea that this system is adequately designed in
concept to go forward.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'd like to speak in favor
of the amendment and there are several reasons for it.
I've heard a lot of conversation about people
distrusting a statewide revaluation.  I happen to think
that's a very legitimate concern.  I would just suggest
to you that every time you remove government from the
local level, it tends to get less and less efficient
and that seems to be the observation that many people,
at least that live in my city, seem to think about the
way government works.  The farther away from them it
gets, the less control they have of it and the less
they like it, and I think a lot of people in our
community don't like this idea of revaluation being
removed and going to the state level, issue one.
    Issue two, I think it is very dangerous for us to
expanding government bureaucracy, again at the state
level.  There was a nice dialogue a moment ago about a
$75 million computer system and when we have reports
coming back to us about how our data processing system
does not work in this state, how computers have a very
difficult time speaking with one another, even though
we've made some quantum leap forward, I'm very much
concerned that that process will continue.
    But let me give you the reason why I support this
amendment more than anything.  There are some cities in
this state that do the job right, do it on time, do it
under cost and do it the way they're supposed to do it
and I happen to have one of the cities in the state
that has done that.
    In the first year they're supposed to do the
revaluation.  They've done it in a timely fashion.  The
people, you know, pull out the money that's appropriate
for doing their job and they live by the statute and I
happen to think that maybe we ought to be out there
arresting people if they don't follow the law.  Maybe
we ought to be out there forcing them to do the job and
when we hear stories about people not doing it for 17
and 18 years, I've got to tell you, there's some local
elected officials that aren't doing their job, and with
all due respect to those people who might represent
communities like that, I have the eighth largest city
in the state so I certainly share some of the concerns
that many of you that have even larger cities have, so
I'm not talking about a little town in a little, you
know, place in our state that we call Connecticut.
    I do have the very same kinds of problems, but we
do our job on time, the way you're supposed to do it
and under cost.  So it's not an impossibility and
that's the reason why I think this amendment ought to
be adopted and not for the other reasons, but I think
there are some valid concerns by individuals that have
mentioned those things as well and that's the reason
why I think the amendment ought to be adopted.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
Representative Wasserman.
REP. WASSERMAN:  (106th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I would like to make very
few short comments.  Of all the things that people in
towns are very concerned about and sensitive to,
property revaluation is probably at the top of the
list.
    I know, having been on the legislative council for
ten years, we had our own committees working with the
assessors.  I know what kind of jobs they do.  I'm not
interested in the issue of fear.  I don't think that's
the way to operate.  I have to know what functions and
functions well for a town.
    To make a change, I think one has to have a very
good reason and there may be a good reason in some
towns, but what I have observed over the years has been
a very positive thing where assessors have gone out,
they've gotten the training, they're up-to-date, many
towns now have computers on board, and above all, the
citizens come with with great concerns about their
property taxes.  They can walk into the offices, have
dialogue with the people who actually do the work and
even have their appeals.
    Also, the element of having the revaluation done
every two years is of great concern to me.  As I
mentioned, property revaluation is very important for
many people and they know that roughly every ten years
they have to expect some change.  They become very
apprehensive about it, but I think they accept that
there will be some changes in the assessment as well as
the resulting mill rate.
    So I'm very loathe to recommend a change and I
definitely support the amendment.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "C"?
Representative Flaherty.
REP. FLAHERTY:  (8th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the second time on the
amendment and I'll be very brief.  First of all, I
would say that Representative Jones is right.  Hiring
a consultant is -- contracting this out is a great idea
and I know that is part of the plan.  Secondly, I would
say that although most of the assessors in our state do
do their job properly, they do do it correct, properly
does not necessarily mean that they do it the same in
every town and I think that there are advantages to
having equality between the towns and standardization.
    And finally, I think that even in the towns where
it's being done properly and correctly, there is an
advantage in this program to the elimination of the
periodic tax shock that Representative Mulready alluded
to that I do believe deserves some consideration,
again, particularly by those who believe their
assessors are doing an excellent job.
    Finally, I would just say that I do honestly
believe that even the people who live in the towns
where it is being done right are being hurt by the fact
that there are people in our state who are living in
towns where it is not being done right.  Representative
Krawiecki has offered one possible remedy to this
problem, which is a program of enforcement that I think
might be very difficult to impose on a municipality.
    Rejection of the amendment offers another option
that I do believe deserves our consideration.  Even if
this goes forward, it is not the final word.  We're
talking about something that would not go into effect
until 1997.  There would be plenty of opportunities to
change that next year or so and I urge rejection of the
amendment.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on this bill, on this
amendment?  If not, staff and guests please come to the
well of the House.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please -- okay.  If
all the members have voted, please check the roll call
machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.  If it
has, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk please take
a tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
Representative Mazzoccoli.  Hold on.  For what reason
do you rise?
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    I'd like to change my vote to the negative please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I already asked for the Clerk to announce the
tally, sir.  Why don't we -- we'll just make a notation
in the Journal, okay, sir?
    Go ahead, Penn.
CLERK:
         House Amendment "C" to Senate Bill 119.
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Adoption          75
         Those voting Yea                99
         Those voting Nay                49
         Those absent and not Voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    House "C" fails.
    Representative Mulready.
    Excuse me.  House "C" passes.
    I apologize.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I thought you said it right the first
time.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    No, no, no, House "C" passes overwhelmingly.
Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has LCO No.
6696.  This is the cleanup amendment I referred to
earlier that the Clerk has now presumably found since
I signed it.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO6696, to be designated
House "D".
CLERK:
    LCO6696, House "D", offered by Representative
Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.  Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment does
several things all of which essentially involve a
cleanup.  Several of them correct errors, including a
couple of errors of omission, Mr. Speaker.  For
example, the first item, lines 1074 and 1075, conform
what is now in front of us, the adopted House "B" and
"C", yes, "B" and "C", to make sure that the interest
rate is 12 percent that I described earlier.
    The next section, line 1627, makes sure that the
Finance Committee provides some support for this task
force.
    The next section strikes an amendment that we put
in -- a section that we put in for Representative Rell,
which she has agreed after some discussions with DRS is
no longer necessary.  Although I will say, for
legislative intent, that DRS has told her and told me
that this is the way they interpret the law now and
that is why this not necessary.
    Section 72 adds in something that was inadvertently
left out, which has to do with some sales tax on water
company, the private water company charges.  By the
way, that has a fiscal note of $3 million in fiscal
1997.  It also -- this latest section -- the other
sections of this change, as I said would happen
earlier, when I discussed House "B", changes the
implementation of the cliff language, the cliff effect
to 1/1/95.  Social Security will still stay a 1/1/94,
but the cliffs will stay at 1/1/95, which drops the
revenue loss from $9.5 million to $4 million in the
upcoming fiscal year and then there's just some cleanup
language on the alternative minimum tax to make sure
that that works right.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    So, Mr. Speaker, I think all of those are -- I'd
like to think all of those are acceptable cleanup
items, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further on the adoption of House "D"?  Representative
Lockton.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, for a long
and lengthy explanation please.  On line 25, could you
explain this in great detail to me, please, sir,
Representative Mulready, through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    What was the question, through you, Mr. Speaker?
On line 25.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Yes, sir, on line 25.  Could you please explain in
detail?  I don't understand what we're doing with this,
the new section?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Okay, the new section deals with a sales tax that
private water companies pay that municipal water
companies do not pay.  We are attempting to equalize
some of the taxes of private water companies with
municipal water companies in House "B", which was
adopted.  We took care of the public service
corporation tax.  In this, we're taking care of the
sales tax.  We also provide in the bill, as currently
amended, that the DPUC will take these tax cuts into
account in terms of private water company customer
water rates.
REP. LOCKTON:  (149th)
    Thank you very much.  I appreciate that long and
lengthy explanation.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    You may.  Thank you.  Will you remark further on
House "D"?  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment, just as the gentleman
indicated, it straighten out some little problems that
did occur in an 88 page amendment and I also concur
that it's not causing any damage.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'll try your minds on House "D".  All in favor
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    House "D" passes.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Representative Farr a little
earlier today raised a question about Section 40, that
tax on solicitors.  It was the drafting of that
amendment was not as I expected it to be drafted.  I
did not have an opportunity to go back through and
provide for LCO the appropriate background for drafting
it properly, therefore, I think the appropriate step at
this point is to take Representative Farr's
recommendation and delete it.  Therefore, I'd like to
call LCO6821, which does exactly that.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has LCO6821, if he may call it and
Representative Mulready would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO6821, House "E", offered by Representative
Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, this, as I just mentioned a moment
ago, this deletes that reference to the paid
solicitors, the tax on paid solicitors, and I move
adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  If not, we'll try your minds.  All in favor
signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    House "E" is adopted.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Representative Piscopo.
REP. PISCOPO:  (76th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has
an amendment, LCO No. 5853.  Will the Clerk please call
and read please?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO -- what's the
number?
REP. PISCOPO:  (76th)
    5853.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    5853, and may the Clerk call and read it please.
CLERK:
    LCO5853, House "F", strike Section 21 in its
entirety and renumber the remaining sections and
internal references accordingly.
REP. PISCOPO:  (76th)
    I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further, sir?
REP. PISCOPO:  (76th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, in my
district I have some big metalizing industry.  They've
been paying a surcharge.  On top of all the other taxes
they pay, they pay a surcharge.  This surcharge goes
into the Emergency Spill Response Fund and they were
promised a sunset and we just keep moving the sunset
year after year.  I got up and argued this last year on
the tax package and they just keep moving it.
    It was started -- the Emergency Spill Respond Fund
was started in 1983.  The sunset was in 1985.  Now they
paid this until 1985.  In 1985 it was moved to 1990.
The metalizers kept paying and not only metalizers, but
large industry kept paying until 1990.  1990 comes
along, the sun doesn't set.  They move the sunset to
1992 and then I mentioned last year, in last year's tax
package, we moved the sunset once again from 1992 to
1994 and now the sun is not setting either on the
legislature.  I see they move the sunset up another
year, and Mr. Speaker, I just feel that we should honor
this sunset.  They've been paying in good faith all
these years, our metal finishers and other large
industry.  I mentioned I have two in my district, but
they're all over the state.  They're in Meriden.
They're in Willimantic.  They're in Bridgeport, many
metalizers in Bridgeport.  I don't think there's any in
West Hartford, but many of the people that own these
industries live in West Hartford.  So, Mr. Speaker,
it's time we honor one sunset.
    I will thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee
for giving this proper scrutiny.  I notice that he got
rid of one of the other dedicated fees that did sunset
and I thank him for that.  He promised me he would take
a look at this and I do thank him for doing that, but
please, help me pass this amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you for those kind words, Representative
Piscopo, but it's not going to work.  It is tough to
argue against tax decreases because no one can really
say that a tax cut is a bad idea.  I mean it's very
difficult to say.  So what I would say, it's probably a
good idea whose time has not yet come, and therefore,
reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this amendment.
Reluctantly, but firmly.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "A"?  If not, I'll
try your minds.  All in favor --.  Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    A roll call, sir.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    All in favor of a roll call signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Just barely it will be a roll call vote.  Will you
remark further on House "E" or House "F"?  If not,
staff and guests come to the well of the House.  The
machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll.
Members to the Chamber please.  Members to the
Chamber please.  The House is voting by roll.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If it has, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk
please take the tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Amendment "F" to Senate Bill 119.
         Total Number Voting            149
         Necessary for Adoption          75
         Those voting Yea                63
         Those voting Nay                86
         Those absent and not Voting      2
SPEAKER RITTER:
    House "F" does indeed fail.
    Will you remark further on this bill as amended?
Will you remark further?  Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I had another
amendment I was going to offer and I decided not to,
but it has to deal --.
COMMOTION IN THE CHAMBER
    If you'd like, I will, but I don't think anybody is
going --.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Come on, we've got to get through tonight.  It
looks like we hopefully won't be here too late tonight.
Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Yes, it has to deal with Section 41, which
Representative Thorp talked about earlier.  The
unfortunate thing about this bill is it raises taxes.
It puts a new tax on HMOs.  The net effect of what
we're doing here is putting a tax on medical services
of $22 million and then cutting the income tax by
$19 million.  Now it doesn't take a lot of arithmetic
to figure out the average consumer is actually going to
see a small increase in taxes with this instead of a
reduction.
    The only reason I'm not going to offer the
amendment is that I recognize that if that amendment
were to pass, I suspect this particular version of the
tax bill is going to go nowhere and we're not going to
straighten out the cliffs or deal with the Social
Security issue.
    So for those reasons, I will not offer the
amendment now.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Will you remark further?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    I borrowed Representative Farr's time, Mr. Speaker,
because I'm going to offer an amendment.  Mr. Speaker,
I think this is not a bad tax reduction at this stage.
Could it be better?  Certainly.  Perhaps if there were
better communications with our friends in the Senate on
occasion, you know, with them giving us some
information.
COMMOTION FROM THE CHAMBER
    No, no, no, this is not a knock on this Chamber.
It's a knock on that Chamber.
APPLAUSE AND CHEERS
    Perhaps we could have done some work a little
earlier, but there is a Section 59 of this bill that's
before you dealing with a Connecticut taxpayers' bill
of rights and it is a taxpayer bill of rights that
lists some of the things that occur in safeguarding,
when there's audits and things like that, it just seems
to me that there are certain aspects of the bill that
ought to be dealt with as it affects you and I.  So
therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call an
amendment.  It's LCO4788.  Would he please call and I
be allowed to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO4788, if he may call
and Representative Krawiecki would like to summarize.
The Clerk please call it.
CLERK:
    LCO4788, House "G", offered by Representative
Krawiecki.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'll just wait a moment while they
distribute it.  I thought it had already been
distributed.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Should we go under the assumption it will be read
or just distributed?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    No, I just wanted to make sure everybody got it in
ample, in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, sir.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I'll tell you, I like today a heck of a lot better.
Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Members of the House, this
is an amendment that is meant to ensure that the
taxpayers of the State of Connecticut are protected
from the enactment of any new taxes and expansion by
doing several things.  Number one, it prohibits any
increase in the rate of an existing tax or enacting any
new tax unless a corresponding reduction in state
expenditures equal the 50 percent of that increase is
built in.
    Number two, it prohibits this General Assembly from
acting on any bill that increases taxes unless an
economic impact statement, which includes information
on jobs affected is included in the file of such bill.
Number three, it would require a 60 percent majority of
the General Assembly to enact that tax increase.  And
number four, it would prohibit us from acting on any
tax bill if more than 20 percent of such bill affects
certain groups rather than the population as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I would move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further, sir?
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Yes, members of the House.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I still have that ambulance in my ear.  Let's --
the House please come to order.  Put a brake on it.
Representative Krawiecki, you have the floor, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Members of the House, let me explain why we drafted
this amendment the way we did, and it wasn't done in a
--.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    One second sir.  (Gavel)  We're involved in one of
the most important pieces of legislation that we'll be
dealing with all session and I would appreciate if the
Chamber not only come to order for deliberation, but
also out of respect for the Minority Leader.
Representative Krawiecki, you have the floor, sir.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Members of the House, this
amendment wasn't drafted without some thought,
including why and how certain aspects of our debate
throughout the entire legislative session have gone on.
As we have discussed bills throughout this session, it
struck me, as we were, frankly, arguing about the
constitutional cap on spending, that there was a useful
exercise at work and that useful exercise was that it
forced legislators to communicate with one another,
those who had different philosophies about what the
state ought to be doing and what made us have those
communications.  What made us have those communications
was the fact that there was a requirement for a super
majority to do certain things.  That's the reason why
the three-fifths was included in this amendment.
    It seems to me that perhaps we have gone about as
far as we can as a General Assembly and just trying to
run roughshod over each other sometimes and it seemed
appropriate that dialogue ought to occur as to how to
build a tax structure to make sense, balancing
everybody's interests, and there's only one way to do
that and that one way is to build in a super majority,
alien to some people, probably repugnant to some people
to even consider that, but that's the reason for the
inclusion of that proposal.
    Number two, we talked about jobs on just about
every kind of piece of legislation that we could
imagine and we all recognize the fact that we have had
job loss in this state basically because of our public
policies.  Our public policies have not exactly been
the best and we have been worried about some of those
policies as we try to create more and more jobs in this
state and at least preserve those that we have.  That's
the reason for the inclusion of that piece of this
proposal.
    Number three, there was a dialogue about how do you
reduce government spending when you offset it with tax
increases and I thought that it made sense to offer as
part of the proposal that when we are going to increase
taxes for some reason, that there ought to be at least
some exercise in the offset and the saving of some
wasteful dollars in our state budget, which now is in
excess of $9 billion.  It's no longer a $1.9 billion
document that it was when I first came here 16 years
ago.  It's grown and it continues to grow by
exponentially large numbers, each and every year.  It's
no longer just a little increase.  It gets larger by
great, great leaps.
    So we thought that it made some sense to offer just
50 percent of the reduction that you might be talking
about in tax increases on the spending side, and then
lastly, one of the things that has bothered me about
all of our conversations about taxes during the last
four years, in particular, has been that there has been
an interest by some people to, in my opinion, unfairly
whack at certain groups in this state at any given
moment in time.  It varied, depending on which
individual was standing up to argue the point of view
that they were arguing, but it says in this bill that
you have to consider when more than 20 percent of such
bill affects certain groups rather than the population
as a whole and that was the dialogue that was going on
in 1991 when we tried to figure out what the right tax
structure was for this state, when we were trying to
deal with a deficit of humongous proportion is.
    So the four pieces of this amendment weren't just
some thing that we cooked up in a back room.  We
listened to the dialogue during the course of the year,
knew we were going to ultimately have some bill dealing
with taxes in this legislature and we wanted to put
something forward that made some sense that required
dialogue between both sides of the aisle.  Now I'm not
living under any illusions.  This is not going to pass
tonight, I suspect, but I think it's something that we
ought to really seriously consider.
    I think it makes a lot of sense for us to adopt
this kind of a proposal.  It shows some foresight.  It
does show the public some cooperation.  It shows the
public some long term cooperation, something that I
don't think we have done a real sterling job of showing
the public in the last couple of weeks and it's
something that I think would go on for the next
legislature to say, look, this is a way to step off as
we go and we bring in new people next year, a new
governor, a new administration.  Who knows what the
process is going to be like.  It just sets the stage
for dialogue and it does absolutely no harm, zero harm
to the proposal that's before you.  It doesn't do a
darn thing to it.  And that proposal was put together,
I must say, with some interesting bipartisan
cooperation between the majority and the minority
party.
    So, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good amendment.  I
think it's one that we ought to adopt and I would urge
the Chamber to consider that.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Norton.
REP. NORTON:  (48th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  There's just a couple of
points I wanted to make.  In Pennsylvania, they have a
constitutional amendment which says that their income
tax cannot be differential, which is to say that if the
income tax is two percent or three percent and in a
given year you want to say that we're going to raise
the income tax, you've got to bite it, which is to say
everyone here has to recognize that their constitutions
are going to get hit too and you can't play any games
where you say, well, we're just going to tax the very
rich.
    The best political thing to do would be to tax
people who make over $150,000 and you can get a
majority to do that.  And the next year tax people
making over $130,000.  The people making over $150,000
will say, good, go get them.  The people making under
$130,000 will figure they're pretty safe.  As you start
moving down the line, some people might start to notice
the progression, but nonetheless, you are not allowed
to raise the tax and then just pick on one group and
say they're the ones who are going to pay it any more
than any other and that type of ethic, which I think is
a good one, is spoken to here.
    Also, I mean one of the reasons we have a spending
cap, which is tied to the growth in the economy is that
we think if it grows at that rate only, it grows and
stays affordable.  If in fact we want to raise taxes
beyond a certain rate, beyond affordability, then we've
really violated the spirit of the spending cap.
    Now the spending cap cannot be violated without
three-fifths, so it seems to me if we want to raise
taxes, which theoretically we shouldn't have to do if
the spending cap is keeping pace with economic growth,
if we do want to raise taxes, then again, we need
three-fifths.  So this is very much in line with the
spending cap mechanisms of three-fifths, which I think
most people here support or at least they did on one
wild night a few years ago.
    The economic impact statement I think is a very
good idea because while we, when we read a bill, look
at the municipal impact statement and the state impact
statement, that's all we care about is our own house,
and to some extent the town's, but I think we should
also care to what extent it hurts businessmen, whether
it's pizza parlours or giant insurance companies and I
think that's a very good idea.
    And the idea of cutting spending if you're going to
raise taxes is -- well, certainly it's politically
popular, but guess what, it also happens to be that
magical of things, politically popular and right, and
that is to say -- now if you needed to raise
$100 million in taxes, you could certainly raise
$200 million and cut another $100 million in spending,
but it would make you, every once in a while, look at
your budget and cut it back, which I think, with
$9 billion of spending, and we've been not very
reflective in all the programs we've adopted in the
last 25 years, it would be a very good idea.  So I
think each one of these four points speaks to good
political philosophy and good politics and good
government and I think it should be supported.  Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.  First, before comment on the
amendment, perhaps I should comment that it appears
that Representative Norton, given the relative young
age of 31 seems to get his second wind around 11:30 or
12:00 at night when the rest of us are --.  I'm not
sure if I admire that or not.  It depends on what he's
talking about, but anyhow, to the amendment, Mr.
Speaker, there certainly are some interesting concepts
in here.  For example, number two, that we would be
prohibited from acting any bill that increases taxes
unless an economic impact statement, which includes
information of jobs affected is included in the file of
such bill is an interesting concept that I think
perhaps ought to be considered by the Finance Committee
next year.
    On the other hand, I think there's some troublesome
problems items to just in the drafting in the
amendment if not with the concepts themselves.  For
instance, I think the three-fifths one, you know, we've
seen what difficulty we're having getting three-fifths
on the agreement on any sort of spending cap.  I'm not
so sure I'd want to put that on taxes, but even in item
four where it talks about prohibiting -- from acting on
any tax bill if more than 20 percent of such bill
affects certain groups rather the population as a whole
I think is a little vague.
    Does that mean that we have a tax cut that only
affected 20 percent of the group that we couldn't do
that either, as well as a tax increase?  So given --
but as I say, there are some interesting concepts, but
I think they are not only interesting, but also so
broad in their implications that I would have to
oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker, and in doing so,
looking around the room and the number of people on the
other side I guess I'd like to ask for a roll call
vote, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    All in favor of a roll call signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    There will be a roll call.  Representative Kolar.
REP. KOLAR:  (47th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  For two sessions I've put
in bills to have a super majority for raising any taxes
in the State of Connecticut.  Both times they didn't
quite make it through the process, but I keep trying.
I tried again this year.  I did a little bit of
research on this.  This proposed amendment here is
actually -- it doesn't have much teeth, and I'll
explain what I mean by not having much teeth.  There
are 14 states in this country right now that there's a
constitutional amendment to raise taxes in those
states.
    In 1991 there was only 11 states.  So in the last
three years there's been one state per year, they've
been responding the will of the people to actually put
this in their constitution.
    Some of these states are 60 percent.  Other states
are two-thirds and there's even a couple of states
where it takes three-quarters of the members of either
one house or both house to raise any state taxes.
    Finally, I'd like to say that in the great state of
Arkansas, they've had this super majority requirement
since 1938.  So you can make the analogy anyway you
want from that, but I'm in favor of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  If not, staff and guests
please come to the well of the House.  The machine will
be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll.
Members please report to the Chamber.  The House of
Representatives is voting by roll call.  Members to the
Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If it has, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk
please take the tally.
    Representative Andrews, how do you vote, sir?
Representative Andrews in the affirmative.  Anybody
else?
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Amendment "G" to Senate Bill 119.
         Total Number Voting            147
         Necessary for Adoption          74
         Those voting Yea                63
         Those voting Nay                84
         Those absent and not Voting      4
SPEAKER RITTER:
    House "G" fails.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has
an amendment, LCO6512.  Would the Clerk please call and
read.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO6512, if he may call and
read it.  The Clerk will shortly have Amendment 6512.
6512, sir?
CLERK:
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Hot off the press.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Call it and read it.
CLERK:
    LCO6512, House Amendment "H", offered by
Representative Krawiecki.  In line 2525, after the
period insert "All payments received by the state
pursuant to such memorandum shall be used to provide
municipal property tax relief."
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Sir, can you read it again please, slower?
CLERK:
    In line 2525, after the period, insert "All
payments received by the state pursuant to such
memorandum shall be used to provide municipal property
tax relief."
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I move
adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Mr. Speaker and members of the Assembly, what this
will really do is simply require that any money we
receive pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding
with any Indian tribe will be used to provide for
property tax relief.  And let me just point out to you
just for a second, if I may give you just a short
history lesson, you know, when we started this session
this year, the governor addressed the General Assembly
and the number one issue, and I don't think any of us
dispute it, is the fact that we need some form of
property tax relief.  We talk about it every day in
this General Assembly.  We talk about the need to do
something and I think that we have an ample opportunity
to do so.
    You know, in the 1970s when the instant lottery
ticket was instituted in this state, it was sold to the
General Assembly as a way to raise money to put it in
towards education funding and it was just in places a
little less than two years and that money was rolled
over to the General Fund, simply lost, never to be used
again, but simply earmarked as a General Fund revenue
item.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Rell, you're absolutely correct.
(Gavel) The Chamber please come to order.  The
Chamber please come to order.  The distinguished Deputy
Minority Leader is offering an amendment.  Why don't we
take our conversations outside.  Why don't we please
take our conversations outside.  There's about ten
different congregations of people having conversations
and collectively they all make it hard for us to hear.
Representative Rell.
REP. RELL:  (107th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  As I started to say, I was
talking about the lottery fund and how that money, when
it was first instituted as part of the instant lottery
ticket.  That money was sold or the lottery ticket was
sold to the General Assembly at that time as a way to
fund education and it lasted just two short years and
the money was rolled over to the General Fund, simply
to be used as a General Fund expenditure.
    You know, prior to the enactment of the income tax,
one of the things that we heard from many people is
that we needed some form of tax relief and in fact most
people believed that enactment of the state income tax
was going to provide some relief.  The tax is the we
increased the state tax burden roughly 20 percent and
we had a zero percent property tax reduction.
    Well, now we have a new source of funding of
revenue in this state and it's from the Indian gaming,
and you know, when Governor Weicker signed the original
Pequot pact, all of the money that came from the Pequot
Fund was supposed to be used for property tax relief.
This year we have $115 million that we're receiving
from the Pequot Fund and only $85 million of that is
being distributed to municipalities in the form of
property tax relief and now we have another change with
the new compact being signed or having been signed by
Governor Weicker and the Mohegans and one only has to
wonder where that money will go if we don't make a
commitment as a General Assembly to earmark it for
property tax relief.
    This amendment makes sense.  It's good for your
municipalities.  You can go back and you can tell them
that, yes, indeed, if we are going to have an Indian
gaming compact anywhere signed in this state, then all
of the money that we get should be used for property
tax relief.
    I think it makes good sense.  It's good public
policy and I urge adoption.  And Mr. Speaker, I think
it's such a good amendment that I would ask that when
the vote is taken, it be taken by roll.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    All those in favor of a roll call signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Apparently it is.  It will be a roll call.  Will
you remark further on this amendment?  Representative
Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I think that it's kind of an
interesting idea.  I suspect that when that money comes
in it'll probably go for that purpose, but I don't
think we necessarily want to predetermine what that
money will go for at this point in time, so therefore,
Mr. Speaker, I would urge rejection of the amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  If not, staff and guests
come to the well of the House.  The machine will be
opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber please.  The House is
voting by roll call.  Members please report to the
Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    If all the members have voted, please check the
roll call machine to make sure your vote is properly
cast.  If so, the machine will be locked.  The Clerk
please take the tally.
    The Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Amendment "H" to Senate Bill 119.
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Adoption          75
         Those voting Yea                64
         Those voting Nay                84
         Those absent and not Voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    House "H" fails?
    Will you remark further?
    Representative Maddox.  Can you put on
Representative Maddox's machine please?  Penn.
Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just very briefly, in
support of the bill as amended.
APPLAUSE AND CHEERS
    All that I will add, Mr. Speaker, is earlier you
had mentioned you thought this was one of the most
important pieces of legislation that we had taken up.
I would respectfully disagree.  Unless things change in
the next 24 hours, it's the only important piece of
legislation we seem to have taken up and passed in a
bipartisan manner.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    (Gavel)  The Chamber please come to order.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, just to the members of the House.  I
want you to know that the Republican Caucus has taken
up a collection and we are sending Representative
Maddox to the Dale Carnegie Course as soon as the
session is over.
APPLAUSE
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Where is that course, sir?  Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, this
particular bill as amended before us now does a number
of things that I think we probably all could agree on.
We've looked at some industries that we have in the
state and very large industries and regardless of the
fact that we have some concerns about what chief
executives get paid, we want to keep those hundreds of
thousands of jobs in Connecticut, so we've looked at
how we treat our insurance companies and we've made
some adjustments.
    We've looked at the insurance premiums and we have
adjusted those taxes to have even parity for all types
of insurance premiums.  We've looked at the high tech
industries that we have in Connecticut and we have said
we want you to stay high tech and because of that we're
going to offer some tax incentives for you to buy the
necessary computer hardware that you need.
    We've looked at small and medium business and we've
included some legislation to enhance their ability to
deal with our Tax Department in the State of
Connecticut.  We've looked at the Apprentice Program
and we've enhanced that to encourage these programs to
continue in the State of Connecticut, so we have a well
trained and viable workforce.
    We've looked at how we treat our single and our
single head of household taxpayers and we've made some
adjustments there.  We've looked at the laws that we
have with regard to retaining our farmland as farmland
and we've made some adjustments there so that
succession of ownership of property within the family
can be handled without the mandating of a selling of a
piece of that property in order to pay taxes.
    We've taken the state revaluation out of the bill,
but we left in the task force that should look at this
particular issue in significant depth and then if it's
judged to be worthwhile, to move forward in an
organized, planned manner with participation by all
involved.
    We had the wrong approach here.  We wanted to tell
them we're going to do it and then, yes, we'll have a
committee and you can come in.  The way to have a
successful plan is to have the players develop the
plan and I think we have a bill, Mr. Speaker, that we
can send up to the Senate and they can't hardly refuse
not to take up because I think there's nothing in this
bill that would give anybody a whole lot of ajida and I
give them a challenge up there, regardless of what they
say, regardless of the other legislation they have on
the table up there, that they ought to take this
particular piece of legislation up and do something for
the taxpayers of this state during this session.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Kyle.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Just a quick question, for
legislative intent, to the proponent of the bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Thank you.  Representative Mulready, this applies
to Section 59, the Connecticut taxpayers' bill of
rights, and specifically, on Page 61, Subparagraph 4,
talking about the right to obtain simple, non-technical
statements which explain the procedures and so forth
and so on, including, but not limited to the rights
pursuant to this taxpayers' bill of rights and the
right to be provided with a narrative description which
explains the basis of audit changes, proposed
assessments, assessments and denials of refunds and
then goes on to talk about the -- identifies any amount
of tax, interest, penalty due, so forth and so on.
    My specific question to you, sir, is when a
taxpayer is to be provided with that narrative
description explaining the basis of audit changes,
proposed assessments and denials of refunds, would that
particular statement carry with it the force of law
which would be, in other words, a taxpayer would be
guaranteed that the DRS could not go back retroactively
and change the rules established in that statement,
through you, Mr. Speaker?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Well, I would say, Mr. Speaker, since it is the
law, it would carry the force of law.  Since we're
about to make this law, it would carry the force of
whatever there is behind this law and I would say that
the Department of Revenue Services may have the ability
from time to time to change their procedures and change
their rules and so forth, but under any circumstances,
this says that the taxpayers are entitled to a
description of what those rules are, and as we change
tax law and as the department goes through the Regs
Review process as conditions change, the taxpayer, new
taxpayer, whether another taxpayer who is affected by
those changes, has the right to have that all explained
to them in writing in a clear and concise manner.
REP. KYLE:  (36th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, one more question.  I
would hope that to be the case because I know there
have been several cases, so that's the reason I'm
asking, just for legislative intent.  Cases in the past
where there has been a past audit and then had a
subsequent audit, they go back and look at the rules
and they say, well, that audit was not done directly
and we're changing the rules on you retroactively.  I'd
just like to make sure that probably would not happen
under this case, according to your answer.  I thank
you, sir.  I'm proud to support this bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  If not, staff and guests
please come to the well of the House.  The machine will
be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote is properly cast.
If all the members have voted, the machine will be
locked.  The Clerk please take the tally.
Representative Hartley, you can still vote.
Representative Hartley.
REP. HARTLEY:  (73rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  In the affirmative.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    In the affirmative.  Anybody else?  The Clerk
please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 119, as amended by House Amendment
Schedules "B", "C", "D" and "E".
         Total Number Voting            148
         Necessary for Passage           75
         Those voting Yea               146
         Those voting Nay                 2
         Those absent and not Voting      3
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill as amended passes.
APPLAUSE
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, it's time to send this rocket right up
to the Senate.  I move for immediate transmittal of
this and all items recently acted upon that require
additional Senate action.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Any objection?  If not, so ordered.  Also, the
Chair would note that there needs to be a Committee on
Conference for House Bill 5496, Calendar 159, since we
have disagreeing action with our friends up in the
Senate and I would hereby appoint Representative
Fonfara, Representative Tonucci and Representative
Norton and I'm sure it'll be a very engaging Conference
Committee.  Calendar No. 159, House Bill 5496.
    The Clerk please call Calendar 387.
CLERK:
    On Page 3, Calendar 387, Substitute for House Bill
No. 5864, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVISOR'S TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS TO THE GENERAL STATUTES UNDER CERTAIN
PUBLIC AND SPECIAL ACTS.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, we need the tax technical revisor's
bill, not Representative Tulisano's revisor's bill.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I would move to pass the item up on
the board.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Absolutely.  I called the wrong number and when it
gets close to midnight, you know, we get Richard
Tulisano geared up, but it was the wrong midnight.
Yes.  Who sang "After Midnight"?  Who sang that song?
    The motion is to P-T this.  Without objection, this
item will be P-T'd.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    I was about to say, Mr. Speaker, I'd take a crack
at Representative Tulisano's bill if he's getting lazy,
you know.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk please call Calendar 435.
CLERK:
    On Page 5, Calendar 435, Substitute for House Bill
No. 5651, AN ACT MAKING TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE TAX
STATUTES.
    Favorable Report of the Committee on Finance,
Revenue and Bonding.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I move acceptance of the
Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
bill.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion is on acceptance and passage.  Please
proceed.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, this is in fact a technical revisor's
bill.  It does a number of things, all technical in
nature, few of which I can explain in any detail, and
therefore, choose not to.  However, there are a couple
of other technical things that need to be done and
there are a couple of amendments that need to be added
in this bill in order to cover some other technical
problems in tax law, and with that, I'd like to yield
to Representative Courtney for the first such
amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney, do you accept the yield,
sir?
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    I do, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment, LCO
No. 6806, which I'd ask that he call and I be allowed
to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO6806.  If the Clerk may
call it, Representative Courtney would like to
summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6806, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Courtney, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes some
clarifications which was enacted as part of the
emergency certified bill earlier this session to
terminate the Uncompensated Care Pool and create a new
system of disproportionate share payments to hospitals.
All it simply does is it moves the exemption for
Medicare and Medicaid Services that was in the E-Cert
bill to a separate section in the statutes and that
separate section is in lines 373 through 378 and it
brackets out the prior exemption, which was in a
specific section of the sales tax code.
    It also clarifies that services purchased by
nonprofit institutions are tax exempt and that appears
in line 351, and it also just conforms the definition
of patient services that are taxable on 365 to the
present system that exists right now.
    These are changes that came to us from the
Department of Revenue Services after they had a chance
to review the bill, which again, was put together in
haste as a result of the court order.  I would move its
adoption and urge the Chamber's support.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  Representative Ward.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    Mr. Speaker, through you, to the gentlemen, could
you share with us the fiscal note on the amendment?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Courtney.
REP. COURTNEY:  (56th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the fiscal note is none.
REP. WARD:  (86th)
    I thank the gentleman for his answer.  Thank you,
sir.  Anybody else?  Anybody else care to comment?  If
not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    The amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further?  Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I have another amendment.  It's
LCO4187.  I'd ask the Clerk to call and I be given an
opportunity to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has an amendment, LCO4187, will be
designated House "B".  IF he may call it and
Representative Mulready would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4187, designated House "B", offered by
Representative Mulready.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment does three
things.  First of all, it has no state impact.  It has
no fiscal note in terms of state impact or municipal
impact.  It cleans up three things.  There's an
incorrect citation to ADA in one section.  There's a
minor DRS cleanup in the second section and then in the
third section there was something that Representative
Cleary wanted us to do and I'm trying to remember what
that was.  I think it has something to do with
Southington and, Representative Cleary, do you want to
-- excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I would yield to
Representative Cleary for the third section of this
bill, having to do with Southington.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Cleary, do you accept the yield,
sir?
REP. CLEARY:  (80th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This was to amend
some technical problems in the committee bill to allow
Southington to continue to be eligible for an
Enterprise Zone.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on this amendment?  If not,
I'll try your minds.  All in favor signify by saying
aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed no.
    The amendment is adopted.
    Will you remark further?
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO4734,
if he would please call and I be allowed to summarize.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has Amendment LCO4734.  It will be
designated House "C".  If he may call, Representative
Maddox would like to summarized.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4734, designated House "C", offered by
Representative Maddox.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Maddox, you have the floor, sir.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, what the change is, is in line 35
of the amendment.  This would change the penalty for
filing a fraudulent tax return to five years nor less
than one and I would move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question is on adoption.  Will you remark
further?
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  It has recently come to my
attention what occurred is a change in the tax code in
1988, changed this section in the statute.  The effect
of that was to lower to one year the time frame that
Revenue Services could prosecute someone for filing a
fraudulent tax return.
    In many instances, they do not discover this until
after the one year time has lapsed and then they are
unable to prosecute someone on a criminal statute of
filing fraudulent tax returns.  So I would move its
passage.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "C"?  Will you
remark further?  If not, I'll try your minds --.
Representative, hold on.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Through you to Representative Maddox, as this was
explained, you indicated this would lengthen the
statute of limitations for prosecuting somebody for
fraudulent tax returns.  The language before us says
that it increases the sentencing up to five years, the
penalty up to five years.  Am I correct in assuming
that the net effect of that would be to increase the
statute of limitations because we've now made it a
felony instead of a misdemeanor.  Through you, Mr.
Speaker to Representative Maddox.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Maddox.
REP. MADDOX:  (66th)
    Yes.  Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is the effect.
This used to be the language prior to 1988 and it took
a while to get this straightened out.  I have spoken
with special agents over at revenue services and it is
a real major problem because they are unable to go
after individuals.  Another statute, as Representative
Farr correctly pointed out is what takes precedent by
moving it up to the felony level, the statute of
limitations then is increased up to three years, and I
think if we want to go after these individuals then it
is an important change.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I would oppose the amendment for two
reasons.  One, I would send it to Judiciary.  Second,
the concern that Representative Maddox expressed I
think is covered in Item 6 of the bill we just adopted,
and sent to the Senate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House Amendment "C"?  If
not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The amendment is rejected.  Will you remark further
on this bill?  Will you remark further?  Representative
Esposito.
REP. ESPOSITO:  (116th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Would the Clerk please
call LCO5375?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Would the Clerk please call Amendment LCO5375?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5375, designated House "D", offered by
Representative Esposito.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Esposito.
REP. ESPOSITO:  (116th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, what this
does is.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Hold on one second.  For what reason do you rise?
Will the Chamber stand at ease.  Apparently both sides
are having difficulty.  Let's stand at ease until the
amendment is distributed.
    The Chamber will come back to order.
Representative Winkler, for what reason do you rise?
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    I have an amendment, sir.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Wait a second.  We still have Representative
Esposito before us.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    I'm sorry.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Esposito, could I suggest that you
withdraw the amendment and call Representative Winkler.
Then hopefully we can find your amendment and I'll call
on you again, sir.
REP. ESPOSITO:  (116th)
    Alright, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw my amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Without objection, so ordered. Representative
Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an
amendment, LCO6660.  Would the Clerk please call and I
be allowed to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO6660, which will be
designated House "E".  If he may call and
Representative Winkler would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6660, designated House "E", offered by
Representative Winkler.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment allows the
board of tax review determined by a majority vote to
hear appeals of members of its own board.  If the board
elects not to hear appeals from its own members, then
such persons can take their appeals to neighboring
towns sharing a common border with the town where the
property is located.
    Any and all costs incurred by the neighboring town
will be born by the town where the property is located,
and I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House Amendment "E"?
Will you remark further?
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Yes.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Town of Groton was
faced with a problem during the revaluation process
this last year.  Three board members on the tax board
of review all had problems with their assessments.
They each, they did not vote on their own assessment,
but their board did vote to lower each of their
assessments.
    It appeared that there was an ethical problem. This
would certainly solve the problem, and it's not
mandated, but it would allow the board to go to a
neighboring board of tax review and I urge the
Chamber's support.  Thank you.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further on House "E"?  Will you
remark further?  If not - Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I just have sort of a general concern.
I'm not quite sure what to say about this when you say
that certain parties even though they're on the board
of tax appeal go to the next town to have those people
decide what the taxes should be in the first town.
It's sort of interesting concept.  I guess it only
applies to members of the board of tax appeal as I read
it who, if such board decides not to hear those
appeals.  It's sort of a unique concept for one town to
be hearing the appeals of another town.
    It can only apply I suppose to the property of
however many members of the board of tax appeal there
happen to be in a given town.  I don't know if that's
uniform throughout the state, whether that's always
three, but given that, Mr. Speaker, I sort of
reluctantly oppose the amendment.  I don't know the
way around this little dilemma is, but that sounds like
a real problem from one town to the next town.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Yes, thank you.  I can appreciate the uncertainty
that Representative Mulready has.  However, we are
discussing assessments not setting the tax rate.  We're
discussing assessments, and basically it would only be
at the request of one town who would have a working
agreement with a contiguous town.  If the other town
didn't agree to take part, obviously it wouldn't be
necessary, and it wouldn't be valid.
    We are all going to be faced with this problem, and
with a revaluation that hasn't been done in a number of
years, we're going to see substantial increases, and I
think it's got some merit, and I think we ought to try
it.  It certainly would alleviate the problem in our
town for the three members that subsequently have
resigned and it's very difficult to get volunteers, and
it certainly would, if they know they had an avenue to
pursue their appeals, I think it would help.  Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, madam.  Will you remark further?
Representative DiMeo.
REP. DIMEO:  (103rd)
    Mr. Speaker, while it may appear to be an unusual
problem, it really isn't.  There might be a serious
appearance of conflict of interest if appeal board
members heard appeals from fellow board members.  The
appeal is legitimate.  Why should that tax board member
lose his right to be able to appeal?
    And as we all know, the process is such that you
must exhaust all administrative means before you go to
court, and that person may be at a disadvantage by not
wishing to appear to be in conflict by having brother
members hear his appeal.  Tax officers in the next
community are sworn officials.  They are experienced
officials, and they have no tie to that tax officer.
It is a good way to resolve the problem at an arm's
length and not destroy the necessary appearance and
actuality of dignity and integrity of that office
because as you well know, there's nothing dearer to our
citizens' hearts than their tax bill, and we must be
extremely careful when we deal with it at the local
level that the people feel that they are being treated
fairly, and if a tax official has a problem with his
assessment which again is arm's length, he should be
able to have it administratively adjudicated at arm's
length so that he does not lose any of his rights.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Gyle.
REP. GYLE:  (108th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'd just like to remind
the Chamber that this is enabling legislation, and it
doesn't cost a thing, so I don't see why anyone would
have any objection to it if both towns agree to this
type of regional cooperation.  I think it sounds very
good.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further, Representative Knopp?
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, through you, a couple of
questions to the proponent.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative
Winkler, Norwalk is a town that is surrounded by
several communities, so it borders Westport, Wilton,
New Canaan and Darien.  Suppose that the members of the
board of tax review decided they would each go to a
separate town.  Would that be permitted by your
amendment?  So one member would go to Westport.  A
different member would go to Wilton.  A different
member would go to New Canaan, and a different member
would go to Darien.  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I did have another
amendment that was being drafted.  I didn't expect this
bill to come up so quickly which would have put some
legislative oversight with the legislative body which
to me would have helped, but how often do all three
people have a problem with their assessment?  I think
it was a unique situation that we were faced with in
Groton, and I think given the scenario with what has
happened in our town, I think the three people would
band together willingly and choose one town, and it
would have to be a town that was willing to
participate.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    But, through you, Mr. Speaker, it could be that
they could go under your amendment to separate towns if
they wanted to.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I'm sorry.  I didn't hear
you, Representative Knopp.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Knopp.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, but it could be that
under your language, each of the members of the
board could go to a separate town if they wanted to.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, sir, it depends the way you want to
read into this.  I guess you can interpret anything
any way you want to interpret something, Representative
Knopp.  If you would be willing to stand at ease for
two minutes, the amendment's being run, which probably
would answer and alleviate your concern with putting
some oversight to with the legislative body of the
town.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Would you like to withdraw your amendment, madam?
Is that what?
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Yes, sir.  Thank you.  I will withdraw the
amendment.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Is there any objection to withdrawing the
amendment?  Without objection, so ordered?
Representative Esposito's - do you have copies of his
amendment yet?  Okay, Representative Esposito.
REP. ESPOSITO:  (116th)
    Mr. Speaker, if the Clerk will recall LCO5375,
previously designated House "D".
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Well, actually it never became designated because
we didn't have copies, so we'll do, will the Clerk
please call LCO5375.  Representative Esposito would
like to summarize.
    That's right.  It was withdrawn previously and now
he's calling it again, LCO5375.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5375, designated House "D", offered by
Representative Esposito.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Esposito.
REP. ESPOSITO:  (116th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, what this
does, it clarifies between Section 12-20a and 12-94b
the definition of municipality for the Office of OPM
when they're determining pilot money payments.  Right
now they're using two definitions and it just clarifies
when they make the determinations of counting monies
for the municipality, using the same definition and
including the word district in 12-94b as well as 12-28,
and I move the adoption, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further?  Will you remark further?  If not, I'll try
your minds.  All in favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  The amendment is adopted.  Will you
remark further on this bill as amended?  Why don't we
stand at ease for a minute.  The two minutes is also
up, but we'll give her the benefit of the doubt.
    Do you have it, Representative Winkler?
Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment
LCO6036.  Would the Clerk please call and may I be
allowed to summarize?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO6036, if the Clerk can
call.  Representative Winkler would like to summarize.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6036, designated House "F", offered by
Representative Winkler, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The legislative body in
each town or the board of selectmen in the case of a
municipality in which the legislative body is a town
meeting shall by majority vote determine whether the
board of tax review may hear appeals on any property
owned or leased in accordance with provisions of
subsection a by any person who is a member of such
board of tax review.
    If the legislative body decides not to authorize
the board to hear such appeals, any such person
claiming to be aggrieved by the doings of the assessors
of such towns shall bring his appeal to the board of
tax review of any town contiguous to the town in which
such property is located.  All costs incurred by the
town receiving the appeal shall be born by the town in
which the property is located, and I move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further?
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Knopp.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Thank you.  Through you, a question to
Representative Winkler.  Representative Winkler, is the
contiguous town require to accept the appeal.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.  It's a working
agreement.  It is not mandated.  It's permissive.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, what happens then if the
legislative body of a town votes that the board shall
not be able to hear an appeal of one of its own
members, but the contiguous town does not agree to
accept the appeal?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Winkler.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, sir, the town where the board member
resides would be required to hear the appeal.  It would
not be allowed to go to a contiguous town if a town
doesn't agree to take part.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Knopp.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    So, through you, Mr. Speaker, even though the
legislative body could vote that its own board could
not hear an appeal, and the contiguous town could
decide not to accept the appeal, then that would undo
what the legislative body had done, and require that
board in that town to hear that appeal?  Through you,
Mr. Speaker.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, obviously they would need
the permission of the legislative body to go forward,
and I think that has tightened the amendment up.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I guess the question is
if the legislative body says that the board of tax
appeal cannot hear an appeal of its own member, and if
the contiguous town is not required to accept it, what
happens in the situation where the local board can't
hear it and the adjoining board won't hear it?  Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. WINKLER:  (41st)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, it would probably fall
right back into the situation that we found in the Town
of Groton.  There was no vote of the legislative body
because there was no such process in place.  They heard
their own case, did not take part in the vote, yet each
assessment was lowered considerably.  As a result, it
did not appear to be appropriate action taken by the
board of tax review.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Will you remark further?
If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor, signify by
saying aye.  I'm sorry, sorry.  Representative
Mazzoccoli.  Excuse me.  Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    I'm sorry.  I rise in support of this for a couple
reasons.  If we think about what this body has been
trying to do with respect to regionalization, this
provides for an opportunity for towns to cooperate I
think on an important issue, and those of you who
believe in bringing to the fore the concept of ethics
in government, local ethics boards, the perception
that's created by an appeals board hearing appeals of
its own members is not good.
    Providing the option to go out of town contains a
consistency of the board and the membership of the
board who may have heard many appeals already, by
changing membership of a board could change the hearing
process in a consistent fashion.  I think this provides
a reasonable opportunity to resolve a conflict which
would otherwise result, I think, in a conflict of
interest, and it fulfills a goal of regionalization.
    I therefore support the amendment.  Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Thank you, sir.  Anybody else?  If not, I'll try
your minds.  All in favor, signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The nos have it.  Clerk, please continue.  Will you
remark further?  Will you remark further?  If not,
staff and guests come to the Well of the House.  The
machine will be open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all the members voted?  Please check the roll
call machine to make sure your vote's properly cast.
If it has, the machine will be locked.  Clerk, please
take the tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5651, as amended by House Amendments
"A", "B" and "D".
         Total Number Voting            147
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               147
         Those Voting Nay                 0
         Those absent and not Voting      4
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill passes.  Clerk, please continue with
Calendar 507.
CLERK:
    Calendar 507, on Page 9, Substitute for Senate Bill
271, AN ACT ESTABLISHING ENTERPRISE CORRIDOR ZONES, as
amended by Senate Amendment Schedules "A", "B" and "C".
Excuse me, Senate "C" has been withdrawn.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move adoption as amended.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Motion is for acceptance and passage of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report, sir.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Clerk to call
LCO4253.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The Clerk has amendment LCO4253, if he may call and
Representative LeBeau would like to summarize it,
Senate "C".
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, after a thorough review.  Excuse me,
Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Wait a second.  Hold on.  Let the Clerk please call
it, sir.  LCO4253.
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4253, designated Senate "C", offered by
Senator Crisco, et al.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  After a thorough
discussion of this amendment, I think Representative
Cleary will attest that this was indeed pretty much the
file copy that came out of the Finance Committee, and I
move adoption.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The question's on adoption.  Will you remark
further on Senate "C"?  Will you remark further?  If
not, I'll try your minds.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, about two bills ago, we adopted -
actually it was the last bill.  We adopted an act
making technical revisions to the tax statutes.
Section 23 of that bill had an amendment and the
language that was in the amendment is identical or
virtually identical to the language that we now find in
lines 163 through 169, except that the language in the
amendment before us reads in line 164, July 1, 1996 and
exceeds or is expected to exceed a total of 2,000
persons.
    The language in the bill that we adopted a moment
ago reads, and July 1, 1996 and exceeds 2,000 persons,
so through you, Mr. Speaker, while it's a small
difference, I'm wondering what the actual intent is.
Which language do we mean to have, and then I'm going
to ask a Parliamentary Inquiry depending on which bill
makes it to the Governor's desk first, what is the
status of that section of the law.
    So, through you, Mr. Speaker, if the Representative
could explain.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, I interpret this as it were passed,
and I don't know how they would do that.  Mr. Speaker,
I would like to add that this bill, if we get this out
of here, this bill has been adopted by the Senate.  If
we get all three of these amendments on here, it would
be in concurrence with the Senate, and I expect this
will make it to the Governor's desk first.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    That's all well and good, Mr. Speaker.  However, it
doesn't answer the question.  If both of these bills
get to the Governor's desk, does the statute read July
1, 1996, and exceeds 2,000 persons?  Or does it read
July 1, 1996, and exceeds or is expected to exceed a
total of 2,000?  There is a difference in this statute,
and there will be an impact on which communities are
going to be allowed to participate in the program based
on whether and is expected to exceed versus and
exceeds, and while all of our good intentions are that
we would like to speed this thing right straight
through here and get it resolved, there's a conflict in
the two statutes, and my guess is they're both going to
end up on the Governor's desk and they're both going to
be signed into law, and they're both going to be
sitting there, and I don't think LCO or anybody else
can rectify the problem, so my suggestion is that this
bill be passed temporarily, make an amendment that
takes care of the problem one way or the other.
    I don't think anybody wants to hurt the bill, but
at least come back tomorrow morning first thing with a
corrected amendment that goes whichever way you want to
go, but that would be my suggestion at this point,
rather than trying to ram the thing through and ending
up with a problem at the back end.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative LeBeau.
REP. LEBEAU:  (11th)
    Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that whatever
the Governor signs last would be the prevailing law.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Krawiecki.
REP. KRAWIECKI:  (78th)
    Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that's accurate.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Cleary.
REP. CLEARY:  (80th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It's my understanding that
Senate "C" is the correct version, that the tech
reviser had an error in the language that could be
corrected because that's on its way to the Senate, in
a Senate tech reviser amendment.  If we were to adopt
Senate "C", that bill would not have to go to the
Senate provided we could get agreement to correct the
technical revisers in the Senate which is going to send
it back here tomorrow.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    That sounds like a very good explanation.
    Will you remark further?  Will you remark further?
If not, I'll try your minds.  All in favor, signify by
saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Opposed, no.  Senate "C" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on this bill as amended?  If not, staff
and guests to the Well of the House.  The machine will
be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the board to
see if your vote is properly recorded.  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 271, as amended by Senate "A", "B"
and "C", in concurrence with the Senate.
         Total Number Voting            142
         Necessary for Adoption          72
         Those Voting Yea               141
         Those Voting Nay                 1
         Those absent and not Voting      9
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The bill, as amended, is passed.  Would the Clerk
please continue with the Call of the Calendar, Calendar
403.
CLERK:
    On Page 20, Calendar 403, Substitute for House Bill
5789, AN ACT CONCERNING A DNA DATA BANK AND THE
REGISTRATION OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS, as amended by House
Amendment Schedule "A" and Senate Amendment Schedule
"A".  Favorable Report of the Committee on Public
Safety.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, we had
adopted Senate Amendment "A", and the Clerk now has in
his possession LCO6909 - Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance
of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage
of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The question is acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Will you remark?
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  We had previously this
evening adopted Senate Amendment "A", and at this time
the Clerk has in his possession LCO6909.  Will he call
and I be permitted to summarize please, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO6909, designated
House "B"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6909, designated House "B", offered by
Representative Scalettar, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Without objection, please proceed, Representative
Scalettar.
REP. SCALETTAR:  (114th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  This amendment makes two
changes in Senate Amendment "A".  It deletes Sections
16 and 17, thereby restoring the division of criminal
justice exception to a separate section.  This does not
change current law by deleting these two sections.
    We have also changed the definition of record of
arrest so that it now includes news releases in
addition to the information that had been included
before, and it makes explicit that the law enforcement
agency can designate which of the reports it releases,
and it may release any number of the reports, but at
least one of them.
    This is intended to clarify the statute, and the
requirement that something more than the minimal
information be given that some narrative be provided at
the time of the arrest.  I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The question is adoption of House "B".  Will you
remark further?  Will you remark further on House "B"?
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Wollenberg.
REP. WOLLENBERG:  (21st)
    Mr. Speaker, after toiling long on hard with the
group named on the amendment here, we have brought
forth an amendment that we all can live with and I
don't expect the FOI award this year.  Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Thank you, Representative Wollenberg.  Will you
remark further?  If not, the Chair will try your minds.
All those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    All opposed, say nay.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The ayes have it.  House "B" is adopted.  Will you
remark further on the bill as amended?   If not, would
staff and guests please come to the Well of the House.
Members, please be seated.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call. Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Members, please check the board to determine that
your vote is properly recorded.  If all members have
voted, the machine will be locked.  Will the Clerk
please take a tally?
    Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         House Bill 5789, as amended by House Amendment
"A" and "B" and Senate Amendment "A".
         Total Number Voting            146
         Necessary for Passage           74
         Those Voting Yea               144
         Those Voting Nay                 2
         Those absent and not Voting      5
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The bill, as amended, is passed.
    I don't suppose there'd be any announcements or
Points of Personal Privilege.  Anyone?  Representative
Beamon.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Beamon.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    I'll do this very slowly.  For a transcript
notation, sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Would the transcript please note that the honorable
Representative Thomas Conway of the 75th District,
along with Representative Steve Dargan of the 115th
District and Representative Esposito of the 116th
District all missed votes today due to legislative
business in their districts.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The transcript will so note.  Representative
Collins.
REP. COLLINS:  (117th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I would like to move to
adjourn.  However, would the transcript please note
that Representatives Belden, Representative Young,
Representative Winkler and Representative Jones missed
votes today being out of the Chamber on legislative
business.  Also Representative Barth and Representative
Amann, out of the Chamber on legislative business, and
would the Journal please note that Representative
Gavin has missed votes due to illness and
Representative Metsopoulos has missed votes due to
illness in the family.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The transcript will so note.  The Journal will note
with respect to Representative Gavin and Representative
Metsopoulos.
    Any further announcements or Points of Personal
Privilege?  If not, will the Clerk please return to the
Call of the Calendar.
CLERK:
    On Page 20, Calendar 411, Substitute for Senate
Bill 112, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE SERVICES CONSENT TO TRANSFERS
TO SURVIVING SPOUSES, as amended by Senate Amendment
Schedule "B".  Favorable Report of the Committee on
Judiciary.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint
Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in
concurrence with the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The motion is for acceptance and passage in
concurrence with the Senate.  Will you remark further?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, the Senate passed
with their last action an amendment called Senate "B".
It's LCO No. 5914.  I would like the Clerk to call and
I be given an opportunity to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will the Clerk please call LCO5914, previously
designated Senate "B"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 5914, previously designated Senate "B",
offered by Senator Larson, et al.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to move for rejection of
this amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The motion is rejection of Senate "B".
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Since by way of explanation, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    We are going to take care of that in the amendment,
what was covered in Senate "B" in the amendment that
I'm going to offer as soon as we reject this little
one.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will you remark further on the motion to reject
Senate "B"?  Will you remark further?  If not, the
Chair will try your minds.  All those in favor of the
rejection of Senate "B", please indicate by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    All opposed, say nay.  The ayes have it.  Senate
"B" is rejected.  Will you remark further?
Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk now has or is about to
have - in seconds, as soon as the Majority Leader signs
it - LCO No. 6825.  The Clerk now has it.  I think it's
been distributed to members on the other side.  I would
ask the Clerk to call it, and I be given an opportunity
to summarize it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Would the clerk please call LCO6825, designated
House "A"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 6825, designated House "A", offered by
Representative Mulready.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Without objection to summarization, please proceed,
Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, this amendment essentially takes
a piece of what was 398, the tax bill passed by the
Finance Committee some time ago that has to do with the
property tax credit against the income tax which we
took out of earlier drafts of the bill that we passed
earlier with various tax cuts, and added it to the
file.
    More specifically, Mr. Speaker, it says that any
person who pays their state income tax and for whom 5%
of adjusted gross income exceeds the tax that they pay,
exceeds the property taxes they pay (a) on a principle
residence and (b) on their first automobile, will be
entitled to a tax credit in the amount of $100 in 1996,
up to a maximum of $200 in 1997, and $300 in 1999.
    It also provides in other sections the ability for
certain individuals for renters for example to take 20%
of their rent paid and treat that in a similar manner
along with a car tax payment, treat 20% of their rent
payment as an assumed property tax payment.
    It also provides for essentially a circuit breaker
arrangement for those people who did not file a
Connecticut income tax, but have high property taxes to
essentially get a rebate from the state in a similar
manner, and finally, Mr. Speaker, it gets back to the
actual file itself and it adds some language that was
suggested to solve a problem noted by Representative
Radcliffe on the file when we first saw it a few weeks
ago, which says that with regard to the matter of
estates, Section 1 of the bill is applicable to the
estates of persons dying or transfers made on or after
the date of the person's death.
    Mr. Speaker, having, that's my summary.  I move
adoption.  I'd like to comment on the bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The question is adoption of House "A".  Please
proceed, Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Yes, Mr. Speaker.  In commenting on another tax
bill a few days ago, I noted that the biggest single
problem we seem to have in terms of taxes in the State
of Connecticut is in fact property taxes.  This bill
makes I guess what any of us who would consider to be a
modest first attempt at ameliorating the property tax
payments of many people in the State of Connecticut.
    It does that by providing a credit underneath the
income tax for tax credit for property tax payments in
excess of 5% of income with a 5% adjusted gross income
with a cap on it.  I think it sends an important
message to the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut
about this General Assembly's desire to begin to
recognize the property tax problem in the State of
Connecticut.
    It had very strong support at least from the
Democratic members of the Finance Committee.  We
couldn't quite tell whether it had strong support from
the Republican members of the Finance Committee because
398 unfortunately had some other unattractive features
to it, and therefore we never got a vote on this
particular matter alone, but I imagine we will find out
what Republican members of the Finance Committee and
Republican non-members of the Finance Committee have to
say about it through comments as soon as I have
finished, which is now.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will you remark further on House "A"?
Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I heard
Representative Mulready's explanation, and I understand
that this favorable tax cut is not going to be given
for a number of years out.  Through you, to
Representative Mulready, Representative Mulready,
what's the first year that a tax cut will be given?
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, it will be for the individual's tax
year 1996.  Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the percentage again,
Representative Mulready?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, the percentage is based
upon, the calculation is based upon 5% of a taxpayer's
adjusted gross income and that 5% figure is compared
with the real property tax payment that individual
makes combined with the property tax payment which that
individual makes on their first automobile, so in other
words it's primary residence, plus first car.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, Mr. Speaker,
to Representative Mulready, do you have a fiscal note
on this, and could you give me what the costs would be
the first year?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.  I just have
to dig it out.
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.  Through you, the fiscal
note in fiscal 1997 is $60 million and fiscal '98 is
$135 million and fiscal '99 is $170 million, and in
fiscal 2000, it's $200 million.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to
Representative Mulready, is the $200 million where it's
finally peaked or reached it's peak of full
depreciation?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.  I didn't hear the whole
question.  Could I have.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Maybe I'll try to rephrase
it.  I'm not sure I asked it quite correctly.  You gave
the year of tax year 2000.  You have them an amount of
$200,000.  Is that the full?  Is that when it reaches
the maximum deduction?  Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is in fact the year
of maximum expenditure.  I should tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that I have to add to the comment that I made
on the fiscal note.  Those numbers I gave you are in
fact the revenue loss figures.  In addition to that,
because of the circuit breaker portion of it, in the
year 2000 just to use on the numbers, you'd have to add
an expenditure since it would be a state check written
for those who pay no income tax of $24 million in that
year, so the total would be $224 million in fiscal
2000.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Thank you, Representative
Mulready.  Just one more question, through you, Mr.
Speaker.  Through you to Representative Mulready, how
do you think we will make up this loss on the expense
side or the appropriation side?  Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    On the assumption that the question only dealt with
the expenditure side, that would have to be budgeted at
that time for that fiscal year.  On the revenue side,
OFA projections show that there is expected to be a
surplus in that year, as I recall, in excess of $400
million.  We used 107 million earlier tonight in a bill
we sent up.  This uses 224.  We still have 60 or 70
million at a minimum left over.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Prelli.
REP. PRELLI:  (63rd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  That does complete all my
questions.  Mr. Speaker, if we were talking about a tax
cut this year, I think this vote would be appropriate
tonight.  It's a little difficult to talk about a tax
cut out into the future because we all know that we
could be back next year and easily change this law or
not give the tax cut.  We can modify it any time in the
future.
    I think if we're going to vote on a tax cut, we
should vote on the tax cut the year we're going to give
the tax cut, so we know it's there, and I think this is
just a way of looking at a tax cut in the future and
saying, see what we're doing for you.  We're not
guaranteeing anything, and so I'll listen to the rest
of the discussion, but I have a feeling that I won't be
supporting this figure.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Holbrook.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Through you, a question to
the proponent of the amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Please frame your question.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you.  Through you, Representative Mulready,
what was the rational behind including motor vehicle
taxes and rent as property tax?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, we wanted to take into
account the totality of property taxes paid by an
individual, not just the real property, but we wanted
to look at both real and personal property taxes paid.
That was the reason for including the motor vehicles.
    In terms of the rent, clearly a taxpayer who is
renting rather than owning a unit part of his rent
payment going to the landlord is used for property
taxes on a property on which that person is involved.
We wanted to spread this property tax credit among as
many taxpayers as we possibly could, since typically,
and we also wanted to push as much as it down as we
could to moderate and middle income taxpayers, and in
order to do that we felt we needed to include renters
in the calculation.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you must have
done a run not including rent and motor vehicle taxes
and just applying this towards real property taxes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, interpreting the question
as being what would it be if we didn't have if we
didn't have renters?  What would it be for homeowners
if we didn't have renters involved in the program?  I
don't remember the hard numbers, but I think the
estimate was that in terms instead of a maximum of $300
per taxpayer in the 1998 calendar year, my recollection
would be that if it were homeowners only then the number
would between 400 and $450.  I'm not absolutely certain
that that's the number, but I think that's the order of
magnitude.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Holbrook.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I applaud the effort, but
when you stated that this was somewhat of a modest
giving or modest tax relief, I think that it's not
modest.  It's what I consider to be somewhat chum
change.  To tell somebody that we're giving them tax
relief or property tax relief, and we're talking about
$100 in 1996.  That's two years away.  I think we are
acting somewhat, we are somewhat deceiving people of
the state, and then extending that out to 1999 it's
$300.
    As one of those that's sponsored a bill that would
allow this kind of tax relief, real property tax
relief, I don't think that we are really accomplishing
that which we set out to do, and I for one believe that
I will somewhat reluctantly have to oppose this
amendment because I do believe that we are misleading
the public.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative DePino.
REP. DEPINO:  (97th)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, the hour is late.  I'll
try to be as brief as possible.  I am the other half of
the Holbrook-DePino sponsors of this piece of
legislation or similar legislation that didn't see the
light of day, but my first question, through you, to
the proponent of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, if I may.
Just a question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Please proceed.
REP. DEPINO:  (97th)
    Representative Mulready, in just two simple words,
what happened?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, Representative DePino,
what happened to what?
REP. DEPINO:  (97th)
    When we had the public hearing, through you, Mr.
Speaker, when we had the public hearing my Mayor was
there, and there's a new revolution coming for those in
the Chamber who don't know what's happening out there
in the real world sometimes, there's another revolution
coming.
    It's the secession revolution.  Three-fifths of my
District, Mr. Speaker, wants to secede, and what I
found on the day we had the public hearing over
property tax relief was the people in my district that
want to completely separate from the City of New Haven,
and the Mayor of New Haven sitting at the same table
talking to the distinguished chairman asking for
property tax relief and property tax reform now, the
word now was consistently heard over and over again,
and my question, through the Chair is Representative
Mulready, what happened?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for a basic course
in economics, and I'll keep it short.  Property taxes
in the State of Connecticut are $4 1/2 billion.  That's
approximately what we collect in the sales tax and
income tax combined.  In order to get significant
property tax relief you have one of three choices.
    One, cut expenses at the local level dramatically,
and most towns think they are cutting them to the bone
now.  Two, get involved in some sort of regional
cooperation so that shared costs can be cut down.  This
Chamber has no will to do that, or three, raise some
other tax, presumably the income tax dramatically in
order to provide additional dollars to go back to the
cities and towns or I'll add a fourth.  Give the cities
and towns some other form of revenue raising.  There
are no other choices.  This body does not have the will
to do any of those items, so therefore, Mr. Speaker,
there will be no significant property tax relief until
one of those things happen.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative DePino.
REP. DEPINO:  (97th)
    Thank you, and thank you for your candid answer,
and I appreciate it very much, and I think that is the
point.  I think the point is that we have to vote on
legislation that we can deliver, and the distinguished
chairman has said we cannot deliver, and while I agree
with the intent of the legislation that it may start a
process where we might be able to deliver at some
future date some meager form of tax relief to the
overburdened property taxpayers in the state, we are
clearly not going to deliver that.
    We are giving our citizens with the passage of this
amendment an IOU.  We're saying that maybe in 1996 we
may give you $2 a week in property tax relief, and in
1997, we may up it to $4 or $5 a week, and we may cap
it out at $6 a week in 1998, and that's the problem,
that it's an enormous responsibility being up here in
the State Legislature, but part of that responsibility
is that we have to be able to either say we can or we
can't, and my problem with this amendment as someone
who comes from a very, very poor urban area in terms of
property taxes.  New Haven's property taxes are
astronomical.  The taxes on my home are $3,500 a year
on my modest $125,000 house, but can you imagine, can
you imagine my going back to my constituents and
telling them that I voted for $2 tax break for them in
1996.
    That is not what we are about.  I think we have to
be able to begin the process of overhauling this
enormous burden of property taxes in this state.  I
agree with my friends on the other side of the Aisle,
but I think it's incumbent upon us to be able to say to
our constituents eyeball to eyeball that we work to
deliver, and if we couldn't, we couldn't, but to give
them a promise to appear at a certain date for such a
small amount, will not be seen, I don't believe for the
people that I represent as genuine.
    It will be received as a token.  It will be
received as just something that we can hold out to keep
our constituents quiet, and I don't support that.  I
think the tough reform in this building has to take
place on property taxes. I agree with my friends on the
other side of the Aisle, and I think you're on the
right track with that because in the urban centers, we
pay enormous amounts of property taxes that go to fuel
all kinds of social services that our friends in the
suburbs do not contribute one iota to in a lot of
respects, but we have to begin that process here, and
we have to be able to deliver on those kinds of things,
but to take a bill of this nature back to my district
and tell my constituents that I voted for property tax
relief in the year 1996 that's going to amount to $2 a
week to each property owner in my district, it's just
not the message I can bring back, and I have the utmost
respect for my friends on the other side of the Aisle,
and you worked your heart out this year.
    You did, and you took a lot of criticism for it,
but this isn't the way to go.  You are going to be
severely criticized for passing a bill like this.
You'll be seen as something of a placating assembly.
Just enough to get the public off your back, but not
enough to deliver to them, and that's the wrong message
we should be sending.  We need to be forceful, and I
ask you reluctantly to oppose the amendment.  Thank
you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you.  I rise in support of the
amendment, and I want to start by making a couple
comments directly in response to what my colleague,
Representative DePino has said.  I think that the most
direct response is something that has been quoted
elsewhere in the future, and that is a journey of a
thousand miles begins with one step.
    This is the first step towards real property tax
reform in this state.  I don't think, I don't believe
that by refusing to take the first step, we're bringing
ourselves any closer to real relief.  That's a theory
that will do nothing until we can do everything that I
don't think you can make legislation that way.  That's
point number one.
    Point number two, I point out to Representative
DePino and others that the bill that we passed earlier
by an overwhelming margin which gave corporate tax
relief, if you remember my remarks to the tune of $93
million a year, also has no relief on the property tax
credit for corporations in fiscal '95 or in fiscal '96.
It begins according to the fiscal note in 1997.
    I didn't hear from my colleagues on the other side
that this is a sham, that this is do nothingism
masquerading as real reform.  We are putting in place a
policy through that piece of legislation that will have
its impact on those recipients of the tax benefit a
couple years out and that's what the parallel is going
in this.  Why?  Where did it go?  Representative DePino
asks.  Obviously this is based on those projections of
the state's fiscal situation this year, next year, and
in future years, and the combination of the spending
cap and the end of the economic recovery fund payments
provides us with the opportunity to direct some
property tax to direct some tax relief in out years.
    The question is whether we're going to put a
program in place now.  I would say to my colleagues, to
me this bill, is an indispensable companion piece to
the bill that we passed earlier.  I don't see how this
General Assembly, how we as a House of Representatives
who have said that we are in favor of property tax
reform, who have said that when we mean property tax
reform, we're talking about the hard pressed homeowners
in New Haven, in Hartford, in communities around the
state, and we couldn't get up our nerve to pass a bill
that would begin to provide that relief.
    We were perfectly able to say, we're giving $60
million in tax relief to corporations for data
processing.  No problem with giving away that money.
No problem with enacting that tax.  If we say now that
we don't have the money or we don't have the will, or
we don't think it's appropriate public policy to give
that same kind of relief to low and moderate income
property taxpayers and renters - I think that's an
absolutely appropriate companion - then I think we're
doing a major, major disservice to the people who pay
property taxes in the state.
    I wish, Representative DePino, through you, Mr.
Speaker, that we could give a larger amount of property
tax relief to homeowners and to tenants, and I wish
that we could do it sooner, but I don't think that
that's a reason not to start.  I urge the General
Assembly to take the first step.  What we are doing
here is putting in place the structure of real
property tax relief to which we can add in future
years, and I think it's an important amendment, and
since it is such an important amendment, Mr. Speaker, I
certainly believe that the members of the General
Assembly ought to do this by roll.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The request is for a roll call vote.  All those in
favor, please indicate by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll.
Representative Jones.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  It's late in the evening,
and I oppose the amendment, but I think we need a
little more economics lesson, and I would suggest, I
know there will be disagreement - corporations are just
legal entities.  We're not giving corporations tax
relief, and I think Representative Rapoport if he
thinks about it, will realize that whatever tax relief
flows to the corporate entity is intended to create and
keep jobs in Connecticut which is what the people want,
too.
    Number two, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
Representative Mulready, are you aware of how much
income tax the people of Connecticut pay?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, Mr. Speaker, a projected
$2,782,000,000 for next year, the State of Connecticut.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    That's to the State of Connecticut.  The total
income tax paid by Connecticut citizens approaches $15
billion, almost four times their property tax.  Now
let's talk for a moment about the small step this
Chinese proverb - a small step of property tax relief.
Well, what's the 42% of the entire budget of the City
of Hartford that state taxpayers now send to Hartford?
Would you not classify that as property tax relief?
    I believe that there is already significant
property tax relief and I would suggest to my friend,
Representative DePino, that the uncompensated care pool
for municipal overburden in hospitals is funded by
people who are paying insurance premiums and private
bills for their hospital services, so let's get the
record straight.  Then we know whether a hundred dollar
credit really is significant when we're talking about a
growing amount toward 2 billion of aid to cities.
    We're not talking about a small Chinese step.
We're talking about a picayune addition to what we're
already giving in property tax relief, and we're not
talking about property taxes being the largest tax of
citizens in Connecticut.  The largest tax is the income
taxes, and the last thing in the world we should talk
about in this Chamber is what we're giving to business.
    What we're giving is for jobs, for more competitive
prices, to keep the back offices of the big insurance
companies in Connecticut, so maybe you don't have this
view of economics, and maybe you don't like it, but it
certainly is worth at least debating.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Metz.
REP. METZ:  (101st)
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.  I see Representative Mulready's name on it,
but I know it didn't originate there.  It's been a
bogus suggestion since it was made, and it's bogus
still.  I object to it for the reasons that have been
stated already, but most of all I object to it because
this is not property tax relief in any form.  This is
income tax relief.  It's an insignificant credit
against the income tax of a small part of the
population of this state.  It's not a lowering of
anyone's real property taxes.
    If you want to lower real property taxes, there's a
much simpler and more effective and more honest way of
doing it, and that is to take the $200 million that we
supposedly will have as a surplus in the year that
you're going to do this obscure thing, and simply
return it to the towns in the form of the pilot
program, the form of low sit funds, the form of
education money that we promised them for years and
years and have never given them.
    If we do that, the local governments that are run
far more efficiently that we are will lower property
taxes, and you'll have real property tax relief.
That's what I suggest we do.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Thank you, Representative Metz.  Representative
Farr.
REP. FARR:  (19th)
    Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I guess for the first
time I can ever remember I'm going to disagree with
Representative Jones on this one.  I think that while
I agree with the comments that have been made on this
side of the Aisle that this is a pittance somewhat of a
fraud of the time it's doing it, there is one
significant thing that ought not to be overlooked.  In
the past when we've talked about property tax relief,
what we've done is we've done exactly what
Representative Metz has suggested.
    We've given aid to cities. We've poured in large
amounts of money into the City of Hartford and called
it property tax relief. And what happened to that
money? Well we saw it go out as fast as it went in.  We
saw people in the City of Hartford retire at pensions
at higher salaries than when they were working.  Giving
money to local politicians doesn't in any way guarantee
property tax relief.
    Now I understand that many of us on this side of
the Aisle and probably most of us in the Chamber like
to think that our municipalities are well run, but I'm
afraid that the experience of what we've done with
so-called property tax relief in the past has been
given out money for local politicians to escalate
spending.
    It hasn't resulted in a reduction in taxes, and the
only good thing about this, and I guess the reason I'm
going to end up voting for it, the only good thing
about this is it does recognize that if we're going to
give out $200 million, that $200 million is actually
going to be $200 million in lower taxes to somebody,
and that's something unique, because in the past when
we gave $200 million in property tax relief, nobody's
tax went down.  Everybody's tax went up.  Estate
taxpayers made more.  The city spent more, and nobody
cut their taxes, so I do think that's important and
while this probably is very much a sham in the sense
that it's off in a distance.  We'll probably repeal it
before we ever get there if it ever goes into effect, I
do think it does start an important precedent,
establish an important precedent, and I will support it
for that reason.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Holbrook.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  For a second time.
Representative Rapoport said that this was the first
step in a long journey.  I would like to sometimes
thing it's the first roll of the wheel, but ladies and
gentlemen, this isn't the first step or the first roll
of the wheel.  This is the planning of the trip,
because we're talking about something once again that
is off in the future, and another thing I think
that you ought to consider is that whatever we do as
far as this piece of legislation is concerned, the next
session of the General Assembly can override it and
overturn it.
    I think that Representative Metz's point was well
made also, that this is not property tax relief.  This
is income tax relief, because you've included motor
vehicle taxes, and you've included what renters pay.
This is not real property tax relief.  I believe and I
think it was somewhat brought out by the request for
the roll call that this is being used as a political
move, a move so that some people can go back to their
districts and say, I voted for property tax relief and
those other people, they didn't do it.
    People aren't going to buy that.  They're just not
going to buy that, and I think Representative DePino
made that case very clear.  I know the people in my
district won't buy it.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Rapoport.
REP. RAPOPORT:  (18th)
    Mr. Speaker, Point of Order please.  I don't
believe that it's fair to characterize a request for a
roll call as being motivated by political motives.
Roll calls are requested on almost every bill in this
Chamber.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    May I continue please, Mr. Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The Chair is going to rule the Point of Order not
well taken, but I would observe that I think the debate
has gone in an orderly fashion to this point.  I would
request of the membership to speak to the merits or
demerits of the amendment or the bill, and to stay
away from as much as possible political rhetoric or
attacking the motives of another member.
Representative Holbrook, you have the Floor.
REP. HOLBROOK:  (35th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  In concluding, Mr.
Speaker, I would just say that this is a very important
issue, and I know that everybody in this Chamber feels
it's an important issue, but let's do it the right way.
Let's not do something just for the sake of saying we
did something.  Let's defeat this amendment and do it
the right way next year and do something meaningful for
the people of this state.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Knopp, to be followed by
Representative Belden.
REP. KNOPP:  (137th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the amendment, and in doing so would like to
make a comment about the criticisms of the amendment
that have been made by some members of the other side
that because it deals with tax relief that is off
in the future it is somehow a sham or not authentic.
    A point I would like to make is this.  The reason
why we are able to do long range tax planning now for
the first time is that we have a spending cap in the
state.  In past years if there had been a projected
surplus, the funds in the surplus could have been
handled either by the Appropriations Committee or by
the Finance Committee, and the Finance Committee could
never know from year to year whether any particular
surplus would result in a tax cut or whether the
Appropriations Committee would somehow get access to
it.
    It's the existence of a spending cap which creates
the possibility for the Finance Committee to do long
range tax planning as is embodied in this amendment.
The spending cap has changed not just the role of the
Appropriations Committee.  The spending cap has changed
the role of the Finance Committee, and the tax relief
in this bill is based on the surplus projected above
the amount permitted to be spent by the spending cap,
so I think rather than saying it's off in the future
and therefore is a sham, I think what we're doing
tonight is harvesting some of the first fruit of the
existence of a spending cap in Connecticut which would
not allow the state to spend all of their revenue that
its tax system is collecting.
    I think that's a very big change.  I think it's a
very positive change, and I think we ought to focus on
whether this is the right long range tax planning which
I happen to think it is, rather than merely that it's
off in the future and somehow constitutes just a plan.
    We have the ability to plan now because we have a
spending cap, and I think that's why this amendment
represents really the first page in a whole new chapter
of how we can deal with our fiscal affairs on a stable
and long range basis.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Belden.
REP. BELDEN:  (113th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and I would before I get
into that discussion just to correct the record, and I
think the gentleman from West Hartford meant to say
what I'm about to say.  I believe he indicated that $60
million of tax cuts went to business for computers
earlier in the debate, and the first part of that I
believe is correct.  It's a $60 million adjustment, but
part of it went for the Social Security correction for
our seniors and part of it went for a number of other
things that were directly related to taxpayers and not
the business.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe in that other previous
action of this General Assembly in the House this
evening, we tried to send a message with some of the
other items that affected the grand list of 1994, even
though they went into effect a little later.  We had to
take some actions in those areas now.
    This particular item before us right now, as
Representative Knopp has indicated, we now have a
little more visibility, but forecasting is a kind of a
mixture.  It's not certain there's some art in it, some
science in it, but it's not certain.  I've spent a
number of years of my life trying to do forecasting,
and we had many options that can occur between now and
1996 and 1997.  First of all, I think the election
campaign that goes on this state this fall should have
some bearing on the direction future expenditures in
this state should take.
    The various candidates who put their programs
forward, the next General Assembly, whomever they are,
the next Governor, whoever that is will be elected
based on some policies that they put forward.  I don't
think that we should prejudge at this time where these
monies ought to be allocated in those out years.  I
believe that should be the prerogative of the new
General Assembly, and I think that we can go home today
or tomorrow, either way, I suppose we could go home and
pass this and say, guess what?  We've got a property
tax cut for you, but I think we ought to go home and
say, we have left the options open.  Guess what?  If in
1997, we have a $60 million surplus, we might even be
able to pay off a little debt.
    Another option.  I don't think we ought to close
the door on any option in 1997 when we're dealing with
the future where we don't really know exactly where
we're going to end up.  We passed some legislation.  We
ate up a portion of that.  We ate up $100 million by
the year 2000 that we're not sure is going to be there.
To add another $200 million to that tonight, I don't
believe is the right direction.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Jones.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Mr. Speaker, thank you.  I think this is a very
good debate, and I would compliment Representative
Knopp for pointing out some things that perhaps a
future Legislature here should address.
    I was reminded when Representative Mulready was
talking about the options available to reduce property
tax.  As I recall he said nothing about reducing
spending.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    No.  Yes, I did.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Oh, you did.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    I'm sorry.
REP. JONES:  (141st)
    Not state spending, yes.  The other point that Mr.
Knopp brought out was the relationship of spending to
tax policy, and it made me realize that maybe what
we're pointing at here is a merger of two committees,
because in reality anything done in a Finance Committee
has an echo effect in Appropriations Committee and vice
versa, and so maybe if the future Legislature were to
consider that we could find more tax relief than this
Assembly can find by reducing spending significantly on
a number of state programs which have never been
evaluated as to productivity.
    So I think this debate has been very good.  For my
part the reason I would oppose this amendment is simply
that as Mr. Belden said, really future tax cuts, I will
be willing to leave to a future General Assembly who
will then have the accountability to answer to the
constituents, so I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we
move right on, reject this and get on with whatever
other business you plan for this morning.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mazzoccoli.
REP. MAZZOCCOLI:  (27th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I would have to say that
my perspective of what we've done is redefine how well
we play the shell game, and I'd like to use the example
that a person who finds out that he's going to get a
$200 raise in a year, and then goes out and buys a
$10,000 car that costs him a thousand dollars in debt
payments a year, and unless we forget here folks that
we doubled the personal debt of every individual from
1,000 to $2,000 per capita in the four years as I
recall in the discussions that we've had, that you can
play any shell game you want, but if you don't look at
all sides of the ledger, you're just fooling yourself,
and to say to people that you're offering them a $200
tax cut when in fact we've been increasing their per
capita bonded debt in multiples of thousand dollars,
just doesn't make sense, doesn't add up, and you're not
going to convince the people that you've done anything
for them.
    I can easily support this amendment, go back home
and tell my constituents, hey, folks, I've done great
things for you, but that's not what I've done, and it
has no comparison to what we've done with the spending
cap because some of the same people that made those
statements were voting in favor of changing the
definition of our spending cap.  We don't have spending
under control.  To bind future Legislatures is
a totally ridiculous assumption that isn't going to
happen, but maybe I'll vote for this, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will you remark further?  Representative Caruso.
REP. CARUSO:  (126th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  I hadn't planned to speak
this evening, but I think being the Representative of
one of the poorest communities if not the poorest
community in the State of Connecticut, a fact that I
don't relish, but nonetheless it's a fact that the
State of Connecticut needs to recognize and maybe times
I have to get up to remind it that we're not 169
separate states.  We're one in the same. We're not 169
states at all.
    But I would take any amount of money in property
tax relief because you see I differ than many people in
this Chamber.  As a Representative, I represent one of
the only communities in the State of Connecticut that
pays the highest percentage of property tax in
comparison to any other community in this state.  Not
only in property itself, but in automobile property.
We also have an annually declining grand list in the
City of Bridgeport, shrinking every year while our
suburban communities are increasing.
    We have the least pilot amounts that are coming
into our city because we have the least state
facilities and institutions.  You do give us a jail
though.  I will mark that out, and we're even expanding
the jails, so you have given us something.  We'll also
state that we pay double, almost double the national
average of housing costs and costs of living in that
region, and yet we're in one of the wealthiest regions
in the country.
    We have the highest insurance rates than anywhere
in the State of Connecticut and we're even higher in
some cases double the suburban communities that
surround us.  You see it's a beginning.  When we talk
about land use and we talk about state revaluation, few
are really willing to get up to the plate and begin the
process of making change, and yet as a region
Bridgeport handles of 140,000, we handle the regional
burden for social and poor of a region of 350,000, so I
stand in support of this amendment because it's a
beginning of looking at property tax relief, and I
speak differently.  I guess our diversity is probably
somewhat our strength in this Chamber, but I speak in a
different perspective.
    I speak as the community of the citizens that are
paying the highest percentage of property tax in the
State of Connecticut, so any beginning is a positive   d
for my community and the people I represent, and I woul
ask the members of this Chamber to support this
amendment.  Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will you remark further on House "A"?  If not, the
question before the Chamber is House Amendment Schedule
"A".  A roll call vote was ordered.  Would staff and
guests please come to the Well?  Members, please be
seated.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber. The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will members please check the board to see that
your vote is properly recorded?  If all members have
voted, the machine will be locked.  The Chair would ask
the Clerk to take a tally.
    Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
         House "A" to Senate Bill 112.
         Total Number Voting            140
         Necessary for Adoption          71
         Those Voting Yea                85
         Those Voting Nay                55
         Those absent and not Voting     11
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    House "A" is adopted.  Will you remark further on
the bill as amended?  Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The Clerk has an amendment
LCO No. 4415.  I would ask that the Clerk please call
the amendment and may I be allowed to summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Would the Clerk please call LCO4415, designated
House "B"?
CLERK:
    LCO No. 4415, designated House "B", offered by
Representative Varese, et al.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Without objection, you may proceed with
summarization, Representative Boughton.
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  The amendment is a very
simple amendment.  It provides a deduction for any
amount of personal exemption and any itemized deduction
allowed under federal law to the state income tax and
the effective date would be 1/1/96, and I move for
adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The question is adoption of House "B".  Will you
remark further?
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been speaking all night of
tax relief for our citizens, property tax, another bill
that went through that I voted against that gave you
relief if you bought a crossword puzzle book.  This is
real tax relief here.  This would put $620 million back
into the economy in the budget year 95/96 and $890
million back into the budget of 96/97, and think that
this is the type of tax relief that taxpayers want in
the State of Connecticut, but a penny at a time, but
something that will increase the money in their pocket,
and I request a roll call vote on this.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    The request is for a roll call vote.  All those in
favor, please indicate by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
    Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    In the opinion of the Chair, the requisite 20% has
been met.  When the vote is taken, it will be taken by
roll.  Will you remark further on House "B"?
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Through you, did I hear 620 million is the fiscal
note on this?
REP. BOUGHTON:  (109th)
    That's for the budget year 95/96.  Correct.
Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Representative Mulready.
REP. MULREADY:  (20th)
    Well, Mr. Speaker, despite Representative Maddox's
assertion that John Rowland will come up with the money
for that, I guess - never mind.  I don't want to start
a whole other debate on that.  I'll try to bite my
tongue and just say, I don't think that we could prove
that the money's there to do this, Mr. Speaker, so no
matter how attractive it may, we need to vote this
amendment down.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Will you remark further?  If not, would staff and
guests please come to the Well.  Members, please be
seated.  The machine will be opened.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber.
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    Have all the members voted?  Have all the members
voted, and is your vote properly recorded?  If all the
members have voted, the machine will be locked.  Will
the Clerk please take a tally?
    Will the Clerk please announce the tally?
CLERK:
         House Amendment Schedule "B" to Senate Bill
112.
         Total Number Voting            138
         Necessary for Adoption          70
         Those Voting Yea                24
         Those Voting Nay               114
         Those absent and not Voting     13
DEPUTY SPEAKER COLEMAN:
    House "B" is rejected.   Will you remark further on
the bill as amended?  If not, would staff and guests
please come to the Well.  Members, please be seated.
The machine is open.
CLERK:
    The House of Representatives is voting by roll
call.  Members, to the Chamber.  The House is voting by
roll call.  Members, to the Chamber please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Have all members voted?  Please check the roll call
machine.  Of course, we have plenty of members still
coming in.  Have all the members voted?  Please check
the roll call machine to make sure your vote is
properly cast.  If it has been the machine will be
locked and the Clerk will take a tally.
    Clerk, please announce the tally.
CLERK:
         Senate Bill 112, as amended by House "A".
         Total Number Voting            140
         Necessary for Passage           71
         Those Voting Yea                85
         Those Voting Nay                55
         Those absent and not Voting     11
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The bill, as amended, passes.  At this time the
Chair would ask for Points of Personal Privilege or
announcements.  Representative Beamon.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  For transcript notation,
please.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    Thank you.  Would the transcript please note that
Representative Eberle of the 15th missed votes today
due to legislative business in her district.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    So noted.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    And would the transcript also note that
Representative LeBeau of the 11th missed votes due to
legislative business outside of the Chamber, and will
the Journal please note that Representative Tonucci of
the 104th missed votes due to an illness within the
family.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    I hope he's okay for that arduous conference
committee he's going to be on.
REP. BEAMON:  (72nd)
    And would the transcript please note that
Representative Coleman of the 1st and Representative
Kirkley-Bey of the 5th missed votes today due to
legislative business.  Representative Coleman, outside
of the Chamber in the District, and Representative
Kirkley-Bey outside the Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    It will be so noted.  Any other Points of Personal
Privilege?  Representative Knierim.
REP. KNIERIM:  (16th)
    Mr. Speaker, would the transcript please note that
Representative Flaherty may have missed some votes
today due to legislative business outside the Chamber.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Absolutely, sir.  Anybody else?  Representative
Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move that all items acted upon today
needing additional Senate action be transmitted
immediately.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    We have all items transmitted to Senate that need
it.  It will be so ordered, without objection.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, I move that all doubles
starred items not acted upon today be passed to retain
their place on the Calendar.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Without objection, so ordered.  Is there any
business on the Clerk's desk.
CLERK:
    Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has list of Favorable
Reports on Senate bills that should be tabled for the
Calendar.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, I move that they be tabled for the
Calendar.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    So ordered.  Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of an announcement.
It's our intention to adjourn shortly.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Representative Luby.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Thank you.  Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of an
announcement.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Please proceed, sir.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    It is our intention to recess shortly to permit us
to receive additional business from the Senate.
However, we will be adjourning thereafter and commence
our next regular session later today at 10:00 a.m.  I
would ask everyone to please drive safely, open the
windows, turn on the radio, and don't fall asleep.
SPEAKER RITTER:
    Without objection.
REP. LUBY:  (82nd)
    Will we recess subject to the Call of the Chair?
SPEAKER RITTER:
    The motion was to recess.  Without objection, we'll
be recessed.
    The House recessed at 2:20 o'clock a.m. to
reconvene at the Call of the Chair.
    The House reconvened at 2:46 o'clock a.m.,
Representative Godfrey of the 110th in the Chair.
    The House reconvened at 2:46 o'clock a.m.,
Representative Godfrey of the 110th District in the
Chair.
ACTING SPEAKER REP. GODFREY:  (110th)
    Mr. Clerk, is there any business on your desk?
CLERK:
    Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of
Senate Bill 421, AN ACT CONCERNING THE SALE, TRANSFER
AND POSSESSION OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS.
    Also, Mr. Speaker, Business from the Senate,
Favorable Reports of Joint Standing Committees on
Senate Bills to be tabled for the Calendar.  Substitute
for Senate Bill 38, AN ACT CONCERNING THE EDUCATION
AND TRAINING OF SERVERS OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be tabled for
the Calendar.
ACTING SPEAKER REP. GODFREY:  (110th)
    Without objection, so ordered.
CLERK:
    Substitute for Senate Bill 221, AN ACT CONCERNING
ENTERPRISE ZONES AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Mr. Speaker, I move this be tabled for the
Calendar.
ACTING SPEAKER REP. GODFREY:  (110th)
    Without objection, so ordered.
CLERK:
    Mr. Speaker, there is no further business on the
Clerk's desk.
ACTING SPEAKER REP. GODFREY:  (110th)
    Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR:  (99th)
    Mr. Speaker, there being no further business on the
Clerk's desk, I move that we adjourn to meet again on
Wednesday, May 4, 1994 at 10:00 o'clock a.m.
ACTING SPEAKER REP. GODFREY:  (110th)
    Hearing no objection, the House stands adjourned.
    The House adjourned at 2:50 o'clock a.m., to meet
again on Wednesday, May 4, 1994 at 10:00 o'clock a.m.