From the transcript of the House of Representatives session of May 9, 2007 - debate on:
"Substitute for House Bill Number 5234, AN ACT BANNING PESTICIDE USE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS
. . ."REP. RUWET: (65th)
Okay. I'm done with my questions. I voted
against this in Education for a few reasons. There are many farms that actually
are buffer zones around schools, you know, and now going into the middle school
area, very serious concerns that people without the knowledge and education in
this area will react as legislators to the word pesticide.
And in fact, I do believe that, you know,
pesticides do good work, particular those professionals who actually apply
them, not necessarily homeowners who are probably the worst offenders.
But those professionals who actually use the
integrated pest management which does a preventative so we don't have our
fields that we all want to be safe and appropriate for our students to play on,
that we don't have grubs or infestations of insects that will, in fact, harm
more of our students than necessarily help.
So I've had concerns about this legislation,
but I do appreciate the work of Representative Roy and Representative Chapin to
come to some kind of agreement.
But I am concerned in the future where this
may go and how far it will expand, particularly if it goes into our high
schools and, you know, what the condition is of three or four years beyond
2009, if in fact, you know, the ban is a full ban and not using necessarily the
IPM program.
So through you, Mr. Speaker. Not through you, but thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill and I'm still learning myself to understand the full impact of the IPM program. But thank you."
There were two votes in the House of Representatives on different versions of this bill.
The vote on May 9 was as follows:
Total Number Voting 147
Necessary for Passage 74
Those voting Yea 145
Those voting Nay 2
Those absent
and not voting 4
The vote on June 4 was as follows:
Total Number Voting 149
Necessary for Passage 75
Those voting Yea 140
Those voting Nay 9
Those absent and not voting 2
On both days Representative Ruwet was one of the two legislators who voted against the bill.
____________________________________________________________________________
From the transcript of the House of Representatives session of June 4, 2007 - further debate on the bill to ban pesticides on school grounds:
"REP. RUWET: (56th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few
questions for the proponent of the Bill as amended.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Please proceed, Madam.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Now that the Bill is amended, and I still
actually, I was one of those dissenting votes on this particular Bill, I have a
few further questions to the proponent of the Bill.
As we look at, and I really, the Integrated
Pest Management Program that this Chamber before my time had supported, was in
fact a good way, actually, those who are really promoting the environment and
what alternatives could be used with the program, of which I think was agreed
upon to really look at, you know, having our fields, athletic fields in
particular, in our schools, protected, you know, our children protected.
That program, I don't think it's played its
full route out there, and through you, Mr. Speaker, with the date of 2009 as in
the intended Bill for a date for pesticides not to be used, do you in your
opinion feel that in fact that's enough time, that in fact we can be confident
that our fields are safe from pesticides?
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, we will
be getting the information, and if we do not feel that the information is
enough, we certainly will look to expand the time element. Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
There were a few amendments, which I wish
were called today, to actually go out to either 2010 or 2012 to allow, in fact,
the opportunity to have a further length of time for this study.
But through you, Mr. Speaker, I have more
specific questions in terms of athletic fields in particular, because many of
us, I don't know whether in your municipalities, but in mine, the boards of ed
have struggled against the Pay for Play.
Those are, actually been initiatives
throughout the State of Connecticut that in fact, you know, will require
parents to have their children in football, soccer and other areas to actually
pay for their play.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, what will happen to
the fields, in fact, you know, if nothing is used. What are some of the
alternative products that will be used, and what in fact will be those costs,
additional costs if in fact he has knowledge of that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know by name,
but there are a number of organic products out there. The IPM program that we
are allowing on the football fields has no restrictions.
The DEP will determine what is best to be
used. They will start with the lowest toxic pesticides possible to protect our
children. If needed, they will go up a point or two with the products that are
available now.
And the fiscal note on this is zero cost for
state or municipalities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
So we should have assurance, through you, Mr.
Speaker, that our boards of ed as they look from one budget year to the next,
that the products that would be used or considered to use on the athletic
fields in particular, since this is now going through high schools, are in
fact, what's the word I want, fiscal neutral for the boards of ed to consider.
And I am concerned about the Pay for Play.
That comes up every year as boards of ed want to cut their programs, and would
hate, in fact, for additional costs to be put on to families for their children
to have a public education, as well as the opportunity to play sports. Through
you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the question.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Nor did I, actually, Representative Roy.
Perhaps you could repeat your query, Madam.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
I got lost in that as well, but certainly
that there would be a fiscal neutral cost for the products that are currently
being used, those products that might be alternatives to maintain our athletic
fields. There is assurance from the proponent of the Bill? Through you, Mr.
Speaker.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Our goal is to keep it fiscally neutral.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess my, and
without any further, although I do have one other question, maybe two.
But in fact, you know, weeds are typically on
playing fields, and having had sons who played soccer and football, one year of
football, four years of soccer, through you, weeds are really a problem on our
athletic fields, and continue to be a challenge for our staff who actually do
the ground maintenance.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, how in fact will,
even through IPM, would those be addressed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the question. I
will attempt to answer it. We're using the IPM on the athletic fields now to
determine what works best with the products that are available.
We are hoping to wean all of our properties
off toxics if possible, but certainly that's not going to happen in the
foreseeable future until we know and get good data on that.
And with that, we'll be working with the good
Representative to keep this fiscally neutral and properly safe for both our
children and the public.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you. I look forward to working with the
good Representative as well. Mosquitoes and ticks continue to be, certainly in
the New England states, and particularly in Connecticut.
Many of our schools are around water areas,
woods, wooded areas, mosquitoes and ticks, and having also been a parent that
has been a soccer mom and being out there in the late evening.
Are there any products that you are aware of
that in fact would help protect our student athletes as well as those people
who are watching the games? Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER FRITZ:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
I don't know any products personally, but we
do have them out there if there is an infestation of ticks, if there is an
infestation of wasps.
If poison ivy's sprung up, we under this
proposal, and under current law, allow a toxic pesticide to be used to get rid
of that problem as quickly as possible. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, many
of the, you know, children that attend our schools, you know, are allergic to
bee stings.
Would that be considered, through you, Mr.
Speaker, an emergency? I know within the Bill it talks about emergency
application of pesticides for beehives and such, and in order to protect our
children, I would hope that that would fall under an emergency use of
pesticides. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If any child in the
school were allergic to bee stings, I think that we would take every possible
step to protect that child. That would be an emergency in my mind, Sir.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
I wish if he could further articulate whether
or not that would actually be considered emergency use of pesticides. Through
you, Representative Roy.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Roy.
REP. ROY: (119th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, that would be
considered an emergency. We could go after that nest and get rid of those bees.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER ALTOBELLO:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think I am done
with my questions. But my final statement, since I was two of the dissenting
votes, I am very concerned about the health of our children.
And certainly, you know, the Integrated Pest
Management Program I think has had great success in all areas, and I would
hope, I guess my hope was that the Amendment that we are considering would go
out further to 2010 or 2012 to further study it.
The University of Connecticut I think does a
great job in terms of their plant science. Their work and assistance with the
State of Connecticut and our local municipalities, I think would also have
helped us in providing more time to look at alternative products to certainly
address some of the needs, whether it be in our laws or in our athletic fields.
But this is, I mean, many of you, and I
included, are not that knowledgeable about pesticides. I look at the Integrated
Pest Management Program. If you're in the healthcare business it's a triage.
You look at what you can do first to address
the root of the problem, no pun intended, but you are looking at the root of
the problem on these issues, and in fact, you know, we automatically go to sort
of the horror stories of the use of pesticides.
DDT comes to people's minds as soon as you
say that, which it's certainly not a product that's used in our schools at this
point. It's a far less responsible, progressive way of addressing problems
early on.
So the reason for my opposition to this Bill,
even as amended, is in fact that I think that we're not giving it enough time.
We're being reactive instead of investing the
time, investing the knowledge that I think we can gain from our good University
of Connecticut as well as professionals throughout the State of Connecticut and
New England in terms of how to address these problems.
So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I have no
further questions but to conclude my comments. I will be opposing the Bill as
amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you."
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
From the transcript of the House of Representatives session of May 30, 2007 - debate on:"Senate Bill Number 1051, AN ACT CONCERNING THE INSPECTION AND EVALUATION OF AIR QUALITY IN STATE BUILDINGS
. . .
REP. RYAN: (139th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this Bill does,
as you know, is over the last few years we've had some issues with [inaudible]
state owned buildings where the air quality was at such a level that the
[inaudible] folks working in there were getting sick. This resulted in people
missing work, people using their workers' comp and creating additional expenses
for the state.
We found out that recently, recently we found
out that there are some buildings that are leased by the state where the same
type of problems occur, so this is an effort to try to remediate that issue.
. . .
REP. RYAN: (139th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What this Amendment
does is...requires the state to
conduct an indoor air quality inspection and evaluation of each state building,
whether it's owned or leased by the state.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I think, you
know, my concern is, that this is not, and I appreciate the intent of the Bill,
in terms of wanting to ensure that state employees are safe within their work
environment, but there are facilities within the State of
In fact, you know, Representative Belden had
mentioned group homes within the State of Connecticut, which in fact the air
quality of some of those homes I would have great concern that are currently
under the operation of the state.
And in fact, you know, those employees who
will continue to work day to day, as well as the residents of significant needs
in those facilities are not necessarily covered within this legislation.
So I am concerned as we move forward, that
this legislation since it takes effect July 1, 2007, and to assume that the
Department of Public Works is not, in fact, concerned or caring for, after
particularly the episode with
That certainly came to light. I thought there
were steps and protocols put in place to rectify, and certainly to address the
concerns of our employees.
And I think those are really just comments at this point, but I think since this Bill in terms of its drafting, and of course, Mr. Speaker, you're cautiously one to look at the drafting of all bills, but you know, it's poorly drafted, not to be inclusive, and certainly broad enough to protect all of our state employees, so I will be opposing this Senate Bill Amendment, which becomes the Bill for those reasons. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
The vote on this bill was as follows:
Total Number Voting 150
Necessary for Passage 76
Those voting Yea 127
Those voting Nay 23
Those absent and not voting 1
Representative Ruwet was one of the 23 legislators who voted against the bill.
From the transcript of the House of Representatives session of May 30, 2007 - debate on the estate (inheritance) tax:
"REP. STAPLES: (96th)
Yes, through you, Mr. Speaker. House
Amendment “A” that we adopted eliminates the cliff and by doing so eliminates
the effect that Representative Hetherington referenced, which is that if you
have an estate at just over $ 2 million, under present law you pay tax back to
dollar one.
Under the Amendment that we have already
adopted you would pay no tax on the first $ 2 million of your estate and the
tax that would be levied would only be levied on the estate value above $ 2
million.
So the Bill now has a marginal rate for the
estate tax, so an estate of $ 3 million, you would only pay a tax on the $ 1
million above the $ 2 million exemption.
However, to pay for that $ 30 million cost of
exempting the first $ 2 million, we did increase the rates progressively on the
estate tax. And the effect of that is that for small estates, $ 6 million, a
little more than $ 6 million and less, the estate tax is less under our Bill
than under current law, because the first $ 2 million is exempt.
As estates get larger the effect of the rate
changes increase their tax marginally as the estates grow in size.
SPEAKER AMANN:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That explanation is
helpful. I am concerned. You know, within our district we don't have too many
estates with a value of $ 6 million or more in our neck of the woods, but we
certainly have families who have worked their entire life, they are not wealthy
families but certainly the property which they own is their only asset.
And, in fact, their only hope is to allow it to have some inheritance for their children. And through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Staples for his explanation. I'm still having my concerns about the underlying-- "
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
From the transcript of the House of Representatives session of June 4, 2007 - debate on:
"Substitute for Senate Bill Number 938, AN ACT CONCERNING A STUDY OF LIMITING THE PURCHASE OF HANDGUNS TO ONE PER MONTH
. . .
REP. LAWLOR: (99th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill amends the
existing statute regarding reporting theft of an assault weapon to include
firearms.
The existing law requires the report to be
made with 72 hours of when the person discovered, or should have discovered,
the loss or theft, and as I indicated, this an existing statute to which we're
adding all firearms.
The penalties provided for failure to report
for a first violation of this law, that would be an infraction. And for a
subsequent violation, it would be a Class D felony. Those are the lowest of the
felonies.
And if it is an intentional failure to
report, that would be the next higher penalty, which would be that of a Class C
felony.
The Bill also makes it clear that if someone
has applied for a permit to carry, if that application is granted, a person
applying for a permit to carry a pistol or revolver or handgun should be, must
be issued instructions relating to the responsibilities which would be required
by this Bill, if it is actually passed.
And then in the third and final section,
establishes a new crime for firearms trafficking. If it can be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that a particular person, knowingly and intentionally,
directly or indirectly causes one or more firearms that that person owns to
come into the possession of someone who that person knows is prohibited from
owning that firearm, that would be a Class C felony.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bill itself
is relatively simple. I think it's very important to note that concerns that
some Legislators had with the language that was debated here last year have
been resolved by using the language in the existing law regarding the discovery
of the lost or stolen firearm, rather than the newer should have known standard
that had been debated last year.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to
point out a couple of things about the current law. The current law already has
some obligations for individuals who are required to do certain things under
certain circumstances.
For example, there is an existing statute,
which requires the owner of an automobile or someone in possession of an
automobile, if that is stolen to report that immediately to the police.
And there are many other examples of similar
types of duties, which are imposed upon individuals where normally no such duty
exists. For example, the other day we debated the mandated reporter's statute,
which says if you are in a particular category, teacher, police officer,
physician, whatever.
If you become aware that a child has been
abused, you have an obligation to report that and failure to report it carries
with it a fine and other potential penalties. So this is in that category.
We are imposing a duty on a class of people,
in this case, owners of firearms, a duty to report the theft or loss of a
firearm to the local police department within 72 hours.
And accommodation is made in the Bill for
situations where it may not be intentional, accidental so to speak. Or where
someone may not be aware that they have this responsibility, so for a first
violation, the maximum penalty would be an infraction, which is a fine and no
possible criminal penalties.
And a subsequent violation, however, would
carry the normal criminal penalties for failure to abide by the handgun or
firearm regulations.
So I think that's an important point to keep
in mind. And in anticipation of other questions dealing with the issue of an
intentional violation of this law, there is a very clear definition in our
criminal statutes for intentional conduct.
So by incorporating a reference to
intentional violations, it would require for someone to be prosecuted for that,
that they were aware the law imposed the duty.
They were aware the handgun actually had been
lost or stolen, not simply a case where they hadn't discovered it yet, but they
were aware that it had been lost or stolen and made a conscious decision not to
report it knowing that they had an obligation to do so under those
circumstances. So that's the situation, which would trigger the Class C felony.
Mr. Speaker, I think it's worth noting that
this has been a request of our law enforcement community for the past couple of
years.
The reason they have asked for it is because
they have encountered situations where they have been able to trace back a
firearm from a crime scene to the most recent lawful owner of that firearm and
when they ask that owner where the firearm was, they were met with the
response, well, it must have been lost or it must have been stolen and in some
cases, months earlier.
Because there's no legal obligation to do
anything under those circumstances, there is nothing at that point the police
can do.
With the passage of this law, the police will
be able to hold people accountable if they thought that they were trying to
traffic guns into the hands of people who subsequently would use them in
crimes.
And finally I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I
think this is very important to keep in mind. Like most of you, I am personal
friends with quite a few law-abiding gun owners and without exception, each of
them have said that they would not hesitate, they absolutely would report to
the police the loss or theft of one of their own firearms.
Law-abiding gun owners have no problem with
this requirement. This is what they believe their responsibility already is.
This just imposes that responsibility on the irresponsible gun owners so that they can be held accountable. So, Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I urge passage of the Bill.
. . .
REP. RUWET: (65th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In no way am I
knowledgeable about gun ownership. I've never owned a gun. Been tempted.
Certainly have shot a gun. Shot a rifle in my life, but never have been a gun
owner.
So I speak with very little knowledge on that
level. But in fact the question continues to be asked, but I don't hear the
answer to it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
If I can confirm the answer that I heard from
the previous speaker, is that there really are no numbers that you can share
with us in terms of how many guns have been reported stolen from those that are
responsible gun owners?
And I say responsible meaning those that have
permits to have those guns. Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no number? I
hear aggregate, but I don't hear numbers.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Lawlor.
REP. LAWLOR: (99th)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know the
number, but I'm relatively certain that if the question is how many guns are
reported stolen every year to the State Police and to local police departments,
I would imagine that's not a difficult number to get. I don't happen to have
that number. But I'm sure that one exists. Through you, Mr. Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GODFREY:
Representative Ruwet.
REP. RUWET: (65th)
And that's where I struggle. And I do
appreciate the Judiciary Committee's work on this Amendment to try and make the
Bill better.
I appreciate the full intent of this
legislation to certainly try and protect the citizens of Connecticut in terms
of having illegal guns, you know, that are out there that, you know, are
causing crimes against the citizens of Connecticut.
But I'm urged to support the responsible gun
owner. And I look at those people. I have brothers who are gun owners. A
brother who served in the Viet Nam War who prompts me to consider what this
might be. I heard the Good Representative from Thomaston mention that this
might be a slippery slope.
Will this open the door to opportunities to
further control the right to bear arms? And as little as I know about the
importance of having a gun, there are people who feel it is important and it is
a constitutional right.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'm still struggling. I know
that there are several Amendments on the Bill. But I thank the gentleman from
the Judiciary Committee for his answer.
Unfortunately, there are no numbers out there
and aggregate seems a bit confusing to me. But I thank you for this
opportunity. I encourage other Legislators of my gender to speak on this
legislation as well.
I notice previous to my speaking that all of
the Representatives speaking on this Bill were not one of the female
Legislators. So although we may not have knowledge on this, I'm sure we have
opinions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."
Representative
Ruwet voted against the amendment (LCO #7891) under discussion at this
point in the transcript, and against the final bill as amended.