From the transcript of the Connecticut Senate, May 31, 2007:

"SEN. GOMES:

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in opposition to this amendment. We're talking about the American dream. I heard a good Senator here talk about the American dream and prosperity. How dare you talk about making a profit or how dare you talk about us not having a healthy person on the job.

There is no adversarial arrangement here between a company and a worker. Being a former union rep, I always used to tell people, we need the company. Without a company, we don't have a job. Without a job, we don't have a means to make a good quality of life for your family.

But when we talk about a quality of life for the family, we talk about a person being injured on a job. I will say it again when I have said it before, you didn't get this injury down on the beach playing ball or on the ball field playing baseball or something.

You got it on the job, therefore, it becomes the responsibility of this company to deal in some measure with Workers' Comp, to make this person whole. Discretionary benefits are just what they say, discretionary at the discretion of a Workman's' Comp Commissioner to make some sort of arrangement that goes further than the award that you get for a body part, because of some complication that has come up for this person to try to make a living.

There are some times, when people cannot return to a job. I had a person, one time, who worked in a foundry and this sort of stuff, the silicon sand that they use, in order for them to make the molds, caused a disease. What it was is these particles of sand would get into your lungs and put perforation holes into your lungs.

Now this person, when he walked around, he looked pretty normal and everything, but he had to leave his job. He had to go work a job that he could not make the salary that he was making at that time, at a much less salary. There are complications in Workers' Comp that people don't account for.

Now I see that the amendment here, and if I understand this right, we're talking about costs to companies. Now you're talking about a supposed cost to a company. First of all, there has to be an injury. Somebody has to go before a Workers' Comp Commissioner and have this award made.

So now you're talking about the cost to the company. And this amendment here, this 20% you're talking about, we're not worried about it costing the taxpayer anything. We're worried about it costing the company. Therefore, you're not worried at all about the measure on discretionary benefits.

You're worrying about who you can pass it onto, so it becomes a good measure to pass it onto the taxpayer but not the company. We're not against a company making money. I hear the good Senator say, God forbid that you should make money. We want companies to make money.

We want them to make a profit. It's what keeps a company going. There are companies that make excessive profits and excessive demands on workers. I remember a few years ago, where an insurance company got rid of 5,000 workers, and that same year, they gave their CEO of the company a $ 93 million bonus. That is ludicrous.

That is so, I don't know what you would call that. For $ 93 million, you could have kept all 5,000 of those employees working, and it would have helped our economy much better. That was a good corporate move. It made money for the company, and it made money for all of the shareholders.

_____________________________________________________________________________

From the debate on a bill to allow children of immigrants who attend Connecticut high schools for four years and then graduate to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities - transcript of the Connecticut Senate - June 1, 2007:

"SEN. GOMES:

I rise to support this bill. I'm a son of an immigrant. My father came from the [inaudible] Islands. He had a green card. He's legal. If he didn't have a green card, he would still be my father. He raised me, and he raised me in the best manner he could.

Some of these people that you declare are undocumented, some say illegal, I call them undocumented citizens, have been here for years.

And some of their children aren't considered illegal to begin with because if they were born in this country, I think they are declared to be citizens of this country.

And we talk about should we not give them something as opposed to somebody from out of state who has to pay the full tuition. What makes them different? Probably what makes them different is they lived all their lives in this state.

Their parents lived all their lives in this state and people say while we should favor somebody else outside of this state because of the law or supposedly the law.

Why don't these children have the funds to do or to pay their tuition that others have the money to pay their tuition? Let's look at some of the reasons why we have these undocumented aliens or citizens in this country.

It's because of big business. They came into this country the best way they knew how to make the best lives they know how for their families. What you considered illegal, they considered the best way that they could support their families.

And in the instance of when they came here and they were looking to support their family, they took jobs. Menial jobs, which everybody says that American people don't even want to work.

Well, American people don't want to work those jobs for the simple reason that their jobs that they came to take violated every principal of the labor laws in this country.

You brought people in here that work for less than minimum wage under conditions that no person in the United States that claim to be legal people would even try to work.

They went through all sorts of hardships to raise their children. And after their children are grown, some of them have just peaked out of living all their lives. Never put anything away because they couldn't because of the jobs they worked. So now their children don't have the money to go to colleges like other people do.

As far as I'm concerned, they aren't illegal. They are citizens of this country, which we would call undocumented. Do you have to be a person of means in order to get an education? Or do we have to rub the law in people's faces that don't have the means of paying for tuition that others have come to them so easily?

These children are not taking spots that others deserve. The spots that they got they've earned. The only thing that's different from them and others is that they don't have the money to pay to continue after they have gotten these spots.

I keep hearing this word illegal breaking the law. None of these children broke the law. Maybe their parents according to what you said broke the law. Is this one of these things where the sins of the parents are visited upon the children?

You can't reverse the past. You can't tell these people well you have been here all this time as illegal citizens and say you children cannot benefit from the fact that you are legal citizens.

Business people had no problem at all in hiring these illegal citizens. As a matter of fact, they welcome them, they entice them to come across the border and work for these menial wages because I can't get anybody else to do that.

They made all kinds of money off of these so-called illegal citizens. And now that they're in this country and they sacrifice their lives, work for something that other people wouldn't want to work for, now they become second class citizens.

And on top of that you want to make their children second class citizens that have been here all their lives, that were born here in this country.

Illegal I think what we're attempting to do to them borders under illegal. As far as I'm concerned, if you live in this country, you work, you don't break the law, you try to further yourself, and capture part of this so-called American dream, then you should be treated as a citizen just like anybody else. Thank you.

SEN. GOMES:

Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to commend Senator Harris on his good work and bringing this bill forward, and I rise to support it.

Today, we have talked about children who have aspired and qualified themselves to further their education. Because their parents who refer to, we refer to as illegal aliens raised them and taught them that there is a better life waiting for them if they work hard and learn to be good citizens.

They are not lawbreakers. This is not by accident. They are taught not to be bad by the same people we have constantly referred to today as lawbreakers.

I wish these people, these children who have gone through the school system, have qualified themselves for these spots that we have talked so much about today, not spots that have just been granted to them. They have worked and qualified themselves for these spots.

The only thing that we were talking about that does not enhance their position is the fact that they do not have the money that others have to pay their tuition.

We talk about priorities. Everything we do in life has a priority. We have priorities here that pass certain laws that will benefit certain people. We have priorities here that pass laws that deprive certain people of certain things.

When we talk about priorities here, what we need to know, and I will close my conversation by saying this. The priorities are made by who, and who's priorities are we talking about?

Right now we have a priority. We have a priority to support these children who are trying to further their lives by granting them in-state tuition. Thank you."

"SEN. GOMES:

I rise in favor of this bill. I've sat here, and I've listened to many comments about the impact on the business world. Would this force people not to have many employees, death by 1,000 cuts, and what other states do, and what's the actual impact of this legislation will do?

I'd like to read a little something that we have here. We're talking about whether we're the first state. Senator Prague mentioned that they passed something similar to this in San Francisco. I have a report here from the rankings from The World Economic Forums Global Competitive Report 2000.

THE CHAIR:

[inaudible] Please proceed, Sir.

SEN. RORABACK:

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just trying to recall whether or not this body has a rule, which prohibits the reading of anything to the Chamber. I don't know if the Chair could rule on that. Maybe you need permission of the body to read from a book or a treatise?

THE CHAIR:

I believe it's in Mason's, but we can stand at ease while we look at that, or if Senator Gomes would just like to summarize what he was going to read, that might be appropriate also.

SEN. GOMES:

Well, we were dealing with a lot of misconceptions here, and I was just about to lay out some facts, according to this report. I didn't know it was against the rules to state a fact in the Chambers here.

THE CHAIR:

I believe there is a rule, Sir. If you want to rule on that, Chamber will stand at ease, and we'll be more happy to rule on it. Chamber will stand at ease.

[SENATE AT EASE]

THE CHAIR:

Come back to order. Senator Gomes, in absence of a Senate Rule, Mason's 112, I believe, says Members generally do not have the right to read books, papers, articles, speeches, etc. , during debate.

SEN. GOMES:

Don't have?

THE CHAIR:

Do not.

SEN. GOMES:

All right.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Looney.

SEN. LOONEY:

Citing Mason's 112, there is a matter of degree in Mason's 112, where it said that where Members generally do not have the right to read or have the Clerk read any extended matter or any electronic recording, however Mason's said this rule is never rigorously enforced, except where there is an intentional or gross abuse of the time and patience of the body.

It is customary, however, to allow Members to read printed extracts as part of their speeches, as long as they do not abuse the privilege.

I believe the intent, Mr. President, is to allow for extended filibustering or abuse of the privilege, but I think that Senator Gomes' use of a brief illustration or to quote for a material in support of the remarks he was making, rather than to have those remarks be, to have the quoted material be the entirety of the remarks he was making, is an entirely appropriate use of an illustration, rather than an abuse of this provisions in Mason's, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Yes, Sir, Senator Roraback.

SEN. RORABACK:

Mr. President, I will withdraw my Point of Order. Of course, none of us have the benefit of knowing the length of what Senator Gomes was wishing to read from. I guess, I'd reserve the right, should it go on to a degree that tests the patience of this body, to renew my Point of Order. For purposes of the current debate, I will withdraw my Point of Order. Thank you, Mr. President.

THE CHAIR:

Thanks, Senator Roraback. Senator Gomes, it took lots of patience.

SEN. GOMES:

I'll try not to tax the patience of some of the people in this Circle, as I've seen others do. Actually, what I wanted to read off is the report of the ten most competitive economies and who has sick days.

You have Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Singapore, and then the United States is sixth. Then you have Japan, Germany, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Out of all of those countries, each one of them supplies at least ten or more sick days. I'll just read this excerpt here. Now I'm allowed, right?

These countries, which are most economically competitive, are consistently more likely to guarantee paid sick leave days and leave for employee's own health, for the care of children's health, and to meet the health needs of all other adult family members.

It makes sense. If you are guaranteed paid sick days, you have healthier workers and a healthier next generation, both essential to competition. I told you where these facts came from.

When we sit here, and we talk about competitiveness, I've heard people talk about the actual impact it will have on these businesses and will we lose business.

I've heard every time that we bring up anything that attributes to a worker or something that will help him out, we always talk about losing jobs. I've never heard anybody give me any actual figures here of how many jobs we've lost because of some of the legislation that has been spoken here.

To have sick days is a good thing for any company, in order for them to be competitive, because it will have a continuing effect, where their employees will be at work and not have to worry about their families, taking off a day and losing time ion the job and so on and so forth.

I don't have much other to say than the fact that people here keep talking about loss of jobs, what's going to happen to companies that have sick days, but everybody that I've heard say this has not given anybody any concrete explanations as to how it is going to impact these jobs. Thank you."