From the transcript of the Connecticut Senate, May 31, 2007 - debate on SB 1312, a bill to do a pilot study of Election Day Registration:
"SEN. RORABACK:
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you,
Senator Slossberg, for her answers. There are many sections to this bill, and
our focus is primarily on the Election Day registration component.
Mr. President, we live in the most amazing
country on the planet. I think that the opportunity that we have to vote should
be cherished, held dear.
And something doesn't seem right to me, Mr.
President, in our fast food nation, when the message that we send is you don't
have to care about your citizenry, it's not something to take responsibly, it's
not something that is deserving of your attention.
Mr. President, I think the reason perhaps
that participation in our democracy declines is because we have collectively
failed in cultivating in people of all ages, what it means to be a stakeholder
in our democracy.
And I'm not convinced, Mr. President, by
lessening the burden, and it's not a heavy burden, of realizing what it means
to be a citizen, and of having people think about voting in advance of the day
of the vote, that we are strengthening our democracy.
Mr. President, I just wonder as time goes on,
whether the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are being given their
due, and for that reason I'm reluctant to support the bill."
From the debate about a bill that would require that some employers give sick days to their workers - transcript of the Connecticut Senate, May 29, 2007:
"SEN. RORABACK:
Thank you, Mr. President. I don't think there
is anyone amongst us who doesn't believe that it is appropriate that employers
offer employees sick time, but I also think all of us can recognize the
importance of giving employers and employees flexibility to design benefit
packages which are appropriate to their needs.
Mr. President, sadly, people without jobs
don't have to worry much about sick days, and my fear is that we're going to be
signaling the business community, businesses now in Connecticut and businesses
thinking of coming to Connecticut, that we're going to be leaders in the nation
in prescribing what businesses have to do if they want to establish themselves
here.
Mr. President, the risk in doing that is that
there will be jobs, which might otherwise come here, which will never be
created. My fear is that in our zeal to do the right thing, the unintended
consequences to the people of
THE CHAIR:
Thank you, Senator Roraback. Senator Gomes.
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
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
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."
________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the transcript of the Connecticut Senate, June 5, 2007:
"SEN. RORABACK:
Thank you, Mr. President, good evening. Mr.
President, I rise as an individual who believes himself to be extraordinarily
fortunate, in the wake of Doc Gunther's retirement, to have been given the
opportunity to serve as Ranking Member of the Public Health Committee.
Mr. President, for me, and I think for most
Members of this Circle, healthcare was to be, and I hope still will be, the
signature accomplishment of this Legislative Session.
Mr. President, what I learned on the Public
Health Committee was that this state does not suffer from a dearth of great
ideas about how our healthcare system might be improved, how we might improve
access, how we might cover additional individuals.
So, Mr. President, before us, we have a dream
bill, in my view. And that's why I am so put in imbalance by having this dream
bill put before us with 26 hours to go in our Legislative Session and with
Members of my caucus having had minutes, not hours, to review the terms of the
bill, to understand how the bill might comport with the budget process, which
is underway.
And so that I might try to better understand some of the open questions that are in my mind, Mr. President, I was wondering if I could pose a few questions, through you, perhaps first to Senator Harp.
. . .
SEN. RORABACK:
Thank you, Mr. President. And I think that
that is a lesson sometimes hard learned by those of us who have endeavored to
do that. But, Mr. President, for me, I'm being asked to pass a vote in a
sequence which is illogical and impractical.
As I said, I don't think there's a single
Member of this Circle for whom healthcare access, improving insurance coverage,
increasing rates for our providers, has not been a priority.
But, Mr. President, for us to do this, while,
in another room, people are negotiating a budget, which may not square with
what this bill does, I think, puts us all in an untenable circumstance.
Let's do this bill as the first bill after
the budget, not the first bill before the budget. I urge rejection. Thank you,
Mr. President."