GL Committee Hearing Transcript

REPRESENTATIVE STONE: Welcome to the General Law Committee meeting for Thursday, March 10^th, 2005. We have a big audience today and a lot of interest in a lot of the bills before us.

Before I give any further remarks, because of the size and the fire marshal's requirements, Ken, could you read the notice about exiting, in case of emergency, please?

KEN SCOTT: In the interests of safety, I ask you to note the location of access to the exits in this hearing room. The two doors through which you entered the room are the emergency exits and [inaudible] signs.

In the event of an emergency, please, walk quickly [inaudible - tape fades in and out] go to [inaudible - tape fades in and out] or follow the exit signs to one of the fire stairs.

Please, quickly exit the building and follow any instructions from the Capitol Police. Do not delay. Do not return unless and until you are advised that it is safe to do so.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Ken. Before I introduce or recognize my Senate Co-Chair, I just have a couple of reminders.

Again, we have a lot of people in the room. We would appreciate, as a Committee, that when someone is testifying or the Committee is asking questions that we try to maintain a certain decorum and be as quiet as we can, so we can hear the testimony, and so that all of you can hear the testimony, and get the same kind of respect that you're showing the person testifying.

Secondly, as is the Committee's policy, testimony will be limited to three minutes. You will hear a buzzer going off at the three-minute mark.

We would ask that when that happens, please, wrap up your testimony. We encourage you, if you have submitted written testimony, all the Committee members will have that and be able to read that.

We encourage you to speak off the written testimony and give us your comments rather than just reading your testimony.

We'll leave it up to you as to how you want to do it. We encourage you to consider that at least.

Our three-minute rule does not apply to questions and answers from Committee Members. So you will also have an opportunity at that point, if there are questions from Committee Members, to expand on your testimony.

Finally, many Committee Members have other meetings today, either public hearings or Committee meetings.

They also have office appointments. It doesn't mean they don't care about the bill that you are testifying on, nor does it mean they don't care about your testimony.

This is a transcribed hearing. They will be able to look at a transcript of the hearing, as well as copies of all the written testimony that is submitted.

In addition, each Representative and Senator has a close-captioned television in their offices, so they will be able to watch the proceedings at their office as well.

So you will see Members of the Committee coming in and out. It's not out of disrespect, really, because they have other meetings and other Committee responsibilities.

With that, for a few remarks from my Senate Co-Chair, I would like to recognize Tom Colapietro.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Senator Tom Colapietro. I was accused, falsely accused of [inaudible] this bill.

Whoever gave you the information gave it to you wrong. This bill was not done for my union and friends. It was not under the radar.

It was under the public hearing three years ago for businesses that felt that they needed an ongoing education.

At that time, we had the public hearing. There was one person who was opposed to the bill. When I asked why they were opposed to the bill, they said, because we're plumbers, and we're not in it.

I immediately put them in it. If it had been just for the information that a lot of you have been stayed up with to come down here for, we would not be here today.

Fortunately, a couple of good plumbers came over to me, explained some of their concerns. That is what we are here for. I did listen.

I did decide that we will have a public hearing on it today and hear what your concerns are.

We have a great Committee here on both sides of the aisle. They don't want to hear arguments. They don't want to hear fights. They don't want to hear accusations.

They don't even care where you got that information. All they care about is what concerns you in that industry. That is what we are here for.

So whatever you were told before by anyone that said that this was done for a certain group of people, whatever they are, that is totally not true.

It happened at a public hearing. The bill was submitted by industries, not my union friends. It was not under the radar.

It was done at a public hearing, announced, and put in the bulletin like it's supposed to be, according to the law.

With that said, I decided that there were going to be a lot of people here. I'm glad to see you all come down here because we did want to hear your concerns in the industry.

We do care about it. It's not whether it's our bill. It's your bill. It doesn't make any difference to any of us up here. None of us are plumbers or electricians.

So it doesn't matter. We just want to hear the truth from you. That is what we're here for today, to try to get and gather any more information that we may have missed somewhere or we haven't missed.

Try not to be rhetorical because we're just like you are. The more you keep hammering somebody on something over and over again, the more they are going to dig in and go against you or maybe say, I don't want to hear anymore, and kind of turn off.

It's just like kids do at school. They stop hearing you after a while. We want to hear what you have to say, but we don't want to have to hear it a hundred times.

So we're going to stick to this three-minute rule. We're going to try to get you out of here as fast as we can.

That is why you're number one on the list over here. I was told by the clerk that there was some confusion about pro or con for a bill.

We're not going to pay any attention to the pro or con. Just when you come up here for your speech or your talk, just say what bill you're concerned about, who you are, and what your interests are.

We'll appreciate that very much. With that, I'll turn it back over to my Co-Chair to start the meeting going.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Senator. I would just inform you that Legislative Management is looking for an overflow room, so that those of you who are standing will have an opportunity to have seating available to you.

There are some seats in front, if some of you can move forward and take these seats here. I want to point out that the agenda, there are two concepts or two issues that I feel have brought out most of the public today.

One of them has to do with the plumbing issue, which Senator Colapietro spoke about, which appears on items one, two, and three on the agenda.

The others are those relating to alcoholic liquor. Those appear as items eight and nine on the agenda.

So those of you who are hear on the liquor bills, they are later on the agenda. Until we get an overflow room, if you could allow some of the people on the plumber issue to use the seats.

We'll make sure that we don't start the last items on the liquor until you have an opportunity come in and take a seat at that point.

I'm also going to ask that those doors should be shut in the back. So either squeeze in, find a seat. Particularly if you are on the alcohol bills, again, they are later on the agenda.

We're not going to get to those for at least an hour or two. I ask your indulgence. I assure you we will not start the liquor items until such time as all interested parties on those two bills have an opportunity to come back into the room and sit down.

I appreciate your consideration for us and other members of the public who are here to testify in on the first couple bills.

Senator, did you have something else you wanted to add?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Yeah. I just wanted to remind everybody that these are not actual written bills.

They are for the purposes of you knowing what you're talking about or what you're talking on. These bills can be rewritten.

They can be written any way the Committee sees fit. So feel free to speak your mind on the bills. These are not the gospel. They are just bills, so you can know what you're talking about.

Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. With that, we're going to start the public officials portion of the public hearing. It will last no more than an hour.

Then we will go and alternate between public officials and the members of the public. With that, Representative Ed Jutila from the 37^th District.

Representative Jutila is a freshman this year. He is an early bird, and he signed up first on the public officials list. Congratulations.

REP. JUTILA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the first thing I have been congratulated for, at least today.

REP. STONE: There you go. Good to see you.

REP. JUTILA: Good to see you. Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the Committee, for the record, my name is Ed Jutila, State Representative from the 37^th District.

I am here today to provide testimony regarding the two plumber bills.

After meeting with local plumbers earlier this year, I introduced House Bill 5659 that would eliminate the continuing-education requirement for plumbers now included in Section 20-334d of the General Statutes, as a result of the bill that passed in 2002.

I introduced House Bill 5659 to give the plumbers an opportunity to express their views this year in a public hearing, an opportunity they feel they didn't have in 2002.

I place no blame or make no accusations against anybody. It's just the simple fact they were not aware of it.

They didn't get here and have the opportunity to testify. The Committee chose not to raise mine, but I am pleased that the Committee has raised two other bills that would relieve some of the burden on plumbers and eliminate it completely for current licensees.

Now, however, I would ask the Committee to give strong consideration to the arguments that you will hear today in support of outright repeals of the requirement.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this field. What I do know is that some trades and professions in Connecticut are required to receive periodic continuing education. Others are not.

I will leave it to the experts who are here today, the plumbers, to make the case for you that their continuing-education requirement is an undue burden that does not enhance their ability to do their jobs.

What I will say is that the plumbers in my district, many of whom I know personally, are good, honest, hardworking people.

Many are also small businesspeople, the backbone of our state and our nation. They have explained to me what a financial burden this would be and an imposition on their time that most think is unnecessary.

One told me that not only would he have to attend on a Saturday when he is normally working at his job, but he also would have to pay the course fees and purchase the materials for each of his employees to attend, as well as pay them a full-day's salary while they attend.

Certainly, to have to do this every year would be a substantial burden. Once again, I would like to voice my support for elimination of the requirement.

However, if after hearing the testimony of the plumbers here today, you are still not convinced, then reduce their burden by combining the concepts in House Bill 6857 and Senate Bill 1255.

These two bills would go at least a long way toward that end. I would like to thank the Committee, particularly the Chairs, for holding this hearing and giving some of the 8,000 licensed Connecticut plumbers a chance to be heard.

I would encourage you to save your questions for the experts. I will give it a shot, if you have any for me.

REP. STONE: Thank you for your testimony. For this Representative, you've spoken to me several times on this issue. I know it's important to you.

While we didn't raise your exact bill, I know that we had discussions about the bills that we were going to raise. Even the concepts that were contained in your proposed bill are always under consideration.

They may have language that we look to, regardless of what vehicle we use, to do something within the Committee.

So I thank you for that. I thank you for your work on this issue as well. Does anyone have any questions of Representative Jutila? We thank you. Thank you very much, Representative, for your time.

REP. JUTILA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Representative Steve Mikutel.

REP. MIKUTEL: Good morning, Representative Stone, Senator Colapietro, and distinguished Members of this Committee.

I think this is the first time in 12 years I have testified before your Committee. It is a privilege and an honor.

REP. STONE: It is a privilege to have you here, Steve.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah. We are overwhelmed.

REP. MIKUTEL: Now, listen, I am here to tell you that I am supporting two bills, House Bill 6856, which does allow for a narrow exemption of the smoking ban for a handful of entities, namely the two state dog tracks and the pari-mutuel facilities.

I represent the Town of Plainfield, in which is located the Plainfield Dog Track. The reason why I am here on behalf of the work is because of the workers of the Plainfield Dog Track.

There are 120 workers whose jobs are jeopardized by the smoking ban. The Plainfield Dog Track has lost $300,000 as a result of the smoking ban, a 20% drop in their handle.

I can honestly tell you that that Dog Track is in jeopardy of closing. If the smoking ban continues to be applied to the Plainfield Dog Track, it will close.

Then 100 workers will lose their jobs. I am here to speak on their behalf because these are older folks.

Many of them have been there 10, 20 years. They are in their late 50's, 60's. If they lose their jobs, where are they going to go?

As far as I'm concerned, they are going to be put on the unemployment line and pushed into poverty.

A lot of these people do not have a savings to fall back on. They don't have pensions to fall back on.

They need a job. Now, I understand that in the best of our worlds, we would be able to have the best work environment that we would want.

I've talked to these people. They want their jobs. Given the choice of a smoke-free environment or a job, they want their job.

I am asking you to move this bill forward. The state receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenues from the Dog Track.

The town receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Dog Track. For this facility to close, it will cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars. It will cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It will cost 100 jobs. I just want you to think about that, what that means. So you have my written testimony on that.

I'd like to also come out in support of House Bill 6857, which is the bill on the plumbers. I would like to echo the thoughts of Representative Jutila.

I would favor outright repeal of the law, but that is not before us. So we would urge you to grandfather the existing licensed plumbers.

These are professional people. They know their job. They don't need to be threatened with having their license revoked to do their job.

They take pride in their work. I don't think we need to put special exceptions on the grant, put a special burden on these people, licensed plumbers, when that burden is not put upon other licensed professionals. Thank you for your time.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Representative Mikutel. Senator Colapietro.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony. I just want you to know that I have 37 state-monitored licensures that do have, in fact, ongoing education.

Also, there are probably another 37 or more businesses that do that on their own as something that they feel they need every year.

So they are not alone. It is not a separate thing, the plumbers and electricians. Everybody really does it.

A lot of others really do it, policemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and who knows what else, maybe not lawyers, but doctors.

Doctors do it. I was told by doctors. Nurses do. I was told by nurses. So there are ongoing education things going on for certain people besides the plumbers and electricians.

So this is not about--

REP. MIKUTEL: I understand that. Thank you, Senator.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: --thank you.

REP. STONE: Does anyone else have any questions of Representative Mikutel? Representative, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate it.

REP. MIKUTEL: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Just an announcement, we have an overflow room, Room 1B. Now, I am making that announcement to people who are already in this room.

I'm not sure what benefit that is going to be. Cassie, if you could have them make an announcement in the building, in case someone is wandering around, the General Law overflow room is Room 1B. Thank you.

Representative Tymniak.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: More or less, we'll move them out. I just tell you what they tell me.

REP. STONE: Good morning, Representative.

REP. TYMNIAK: Good morning.

REP. STONE: I'm sorry. Good morning.

REP. TYMNIAK: I wasn't sure if you were ready or not. Good morning, Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone. I am Cathy Tymniak, for the record, representing the 133^rd District, Fairfield and Westport.

I am here this morning for House Bill 6855, AN ACT CONCERNING LIQUOR LICENSES, PERMITEES, AND PUB CRAWLS.

A pub crawl is an event that is an organized event by a group of participants, usually drinking-age students to visit a town or a city known for its bars and its pubs.

It is called a crawl because the participants are usually crawling from pub to pub, getting inebriated after a few rounds at a few pubs.

The purpose of the pub crawl is to wander from bar to bar, consume alcohol at as many possible bars on the call list in one single evening.

These events result in chaotic celebrations and behavior. Unfortunately, last year, Francis J. Marx, a Fairfield University senior, was tragically killed as a result of a pub crawl held in Newport, Rhode Island days before he was to deliver the valedictory address at Fairfield University.

Mr. Marx was not in Newport for a pub crawl. In response to this tragic event, Rhode Island passed an act relating to pub crawls in order to give towns and cities a way to stop pub crawls from happening.

The bill allows and authorizes cities and towns to enact ordinances banning the events. It prohibits holders of licenses to sell alcoholic beverages from allowing the use of their premises for organized pub crawls.

It is my hope that through this Committee's action, Connecticut will follow Rhode Island's lead and pass similar legislation.

While this law may not prevent another tragic accident from happening, it would prevent the environment that was a contributing factor.

It will give Connecticut a tool by which to combat this type of unruly event. I've also learned it will give universities a tool by which to combat this unruly event.

Thank you for hearing House Bill 6855. I wish to express my support of the bill and the Committee's favorable action.

I would also, at this time, like to read a brief statement. Father Alan from Fairfield University, unfortunately, was not able to be here today. They're in the middle of spring break.

The University has submitted testimony. In his closing paragraph, he said, in recent years, Fairfield University, like most other institutions in higher education, has filed many [inaudible] to limit excessive drinking on the part of the student body.

Partly through educational programs, partly through internal rules and regulations, and partly through the cooperation with local government agencies, the University has attempted to protect its student body in the dangers that come with the indiscriminate use of alcohol.

Pub crawls are a frightening thing. As at the University of Rhode Island, they are often organized by students who are able to act over the objection of the University's administration.

The assistance of the State of Connecticut for ending these pub crawls would be greatly appreciated on the part of Fairfield University.

I thank you very much for your time.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Representative Tymniak. Does anyone have any questions? Yes, Representative Greene.

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cathy, good morning.

REP. TYMNIAK: Good morning.

REP. GREENE: In your testimony, you mentioned how Rhode Island, they allow the individual cities or towns to impose it on their own.

According to what we have drafted here, it seems like this would apply to everybody. Would you prefer that local option?

REP. TYMNIAK: I would leave that to the Committee's discretion. If they feel that the local option would be in the best interests of the State of Connecticut, then, yes.

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Cathy.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Greene. Senator Stillman.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Catherine.

REP. TYMNIAK: Hi.

SEN. STILLMAN: You are under the light there. It's nice to see you. I've never heard of this. Do you know whether this is happening in Connecticut, number one?

Number two, I don't know why a municipality would even want the option. So could you just address those two?

REP. TYMNIAK: Well, yes, it evidently does happen in Connecticut. Newport is a favorite spot. Boston is a favorite spot.

Connecticut has many colleges and universities, New Haven, for example, Middletown, there are areas that have had pub crawls.

I gather it's becoming a more popular social event. Your second question was what?

SEN. STILLMAN: Well, I was just wondering why a municipality would want that option.

REP. TYMNIAK: Well, because they have bars in their municipality that they would like not to have pub crawls.

This can happen spontaneously from what I'm learning. I'm trying to do as much research as possible. In a single evening, you could have 500 plus students arriving in your town, sitting in the municipality for a pub crawl.

They rent buses or they come on their own. It's done very quickly on the Internet.

SEN. STILLMAN: Yeah. I am certainly aware of the networks that people do have today to find out about these events. It's rather disconcerting at times.

In terms of this activity taking place, I would assume that everybody that serves alcohol to these people that are participating in this type of event, number one, have to be carded.

Number two, the pub owners should know how to recognize that someone has had too much to drink.

REP. TYMNIAK: I would think so also. Unfortunately, as in the case of Rhode Island, this did not happen.

SEN. STILLMAN: You know, that is a concern that I have that leads to a bill that I raised that I'm still waiting for action on.

It has to do with training people how to recognize folks who have false ID's, number one, or recognizing them if they are inebriated.

You know, this sounds like something the state should get involved in. I thank you for bringing it to our attention. I wasn't even aware of it.

REP. TYMNIAK: You're welcome.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Senator. Anyone else have a question? Representative Tymniak, thank you for bringing this to the Committee's attention and for your testimony today.

Representative Diana Urban.

REP. URBAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

REP. STONE: Good morning, Representative.

REP. URBAN: For the record, I am Diana Urban, representing the 43^rd District. I am here this morning to testify in favor of House Bill 6857.

I would like to say, Representative Jutila's bill, House Bill 5659, I would be supportive of that, although I know we have not raised it today.

I'd like to kind of start with the idea of our small businesses. Certainly, we have been hearing over and over again about outsourcing, off-shoring, jobs leaving Connecticut.

What are we going to do about it, that kind of thing? If I look at my small businesses, I don't see small businesses reincorporating in Barbados or using labor out of India or Malaysia.

You see your small businesses staying here, forming the economic engine that we need to keep this state healthy and a safe and happy place for our families to live and grow.

About 90% of the jobs in the State of Connecticut or businesses employ 50 employees or less, so all small businesses.

Jobs, 75% of the jobs in this country are created by small businesses. So when we start to talk about educational requirements and keeping up to code, I think we have to be very careful as to whether we are putting roadblocks in the way of small businesses that are healthy and are really contributing to the economic development of the state.

We talked about this bill in a public hearing in 1992. There were not a lot of plumbers that showed up for that public hearing.

I will submit to you that that is a function of being a small business. When you are a small business [inaudible - tape fades out] they are a business where you're going to take a loss for having that day off.

So in this instance, they really didn't find out about this until it actually hit them at home.

The requirements were put in their face, and they realized that this was something that was going to be onerous.

So there are a lot of plumbers here that know a lot more about this issue as far as changes in codes and what would be appropriate for educational requirements.

I am sure they are going to testify to that in detail for you today. I would just like to say that I am very much in favor of House Bill 6857.

I hope that if we step back and take a look at what we are trying to do as far as promoting and sustaining our small businesses, it might be the time to really take a hard look at what we are asking the plumbers to do.

I thank you very much for your attention this morning.

REP. STONE: Thank you for your testimony. As I indicated to Representative Jutila, even though his exact bill wasn't raised, the concept is still out there.

If we do J.F. or R.F. a bill in Committee, it will be with an eye towards or after considering all testimony and all concepts, including an outright repeal of the education requirement, as proposed by you and Representative Jutila.

So it's still on the table, even though the number is not out there.

REP. URBAN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

REP. STONE: Does anyone else have any comments or questions of Representative Urban? Thank you very much for your testimony.

REP. URBAN: Thank you so much.

REP. STONE: Commissioner Rodriguez

COMMISSIONER ERWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the General Law Committee.

For the record, my name is Edwin Rodriguez. I am the Commissioner for the Department of Consumer Protection.

Also with me here is Richard Hurlburt. He is the Director of Application and Professional Licensing Division for the Department.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to come before you to testify concerning several bills that concern our Department and also the consumers of Connecticut.

Senate Bill 1255 is AN ACT CONCERNING CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A CERTAIN OCCUPATIONAL LICENSEES.

The Department of Consumer Protections supports continuing education as a matter of public policy.

When we issue a license, we are sending a message to the citizens of Connecticut that that person holds a certain level of competency in their occupation.

This is a matter of safety. We feel strongly that the public is better protected when licensees receive up-to-date information related to changes in building codes, OSHA rules, fire codes, and new building materials and techniques.

For the plumbing trade, the frequency of the classes is the main issue concern. We can address this issue as we as the actual content of the classes through changes in our regulations.

The Department has already the authority to issue final approval of curriculum and to qualify instructors to teach the classes.

No change in the statute is necessary to accomplish these changes. We would work with the industries, our boards, commissions, and members of the public to modify the continuing-education requirements to better suit the needs of the licensees.

We hope to provide more flexibility in the classes that are acceptable to the Department by including courses given the State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety, trade groups, and manufacturers of new equipment and materials.

We would be open to allowing a maximum number of hours of classes to be set by statute, given that the Department would have the flexibility to require additional hours of classes as special circumstances arose.

House bill 6269, AN ACT ESTABLISHING LICENSURE REQUIREMENETS FOR GAS HEARTH INSTALLERS, I just want to say the Department does not support this bill.

It would create a limited license in an area that is well-serviced by other licensees. My testimony has those licensees that also serve the public with these particular gas installers.

House Bill 6857, AN ACT EXEMPTING CURRENTLY LICENSED ELECTRICIANS AND PLUMBERS FROM CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS, as I said earlier, the Department of Consumer Protections supports continuing education as a matter of public policy.

Due to this fact, we cannot support House Bill 6857. The issuance of a license tells the citizens of Connecticut that a person is competent to perform their job. As stated in my comments to Senate Bill 1255, continuing education is a matter of safety.

The public is better protected when licensees receive up-to-date information relevant to their trade.

My Department has taken part in several discussions with individuals and groups interested in the topic of continuing education.

From these discussions and the volume of correspondence I have received, the overwhelming indication I have received as the Commissioner is that electricians and plumbers strongly favor continuing education classes.

Flexibility in our regulatory authority is an asset because important issues of public safety and health can arise in both of these occupations.

By way of example, there were recent concerns about the use of lead in plumbing, as well as many other changes in the newest electrical code.

As a Department, we need to make sure that our licensees and the public at large are protected from harm.

Keeping the licensees abreast of changes in their profession is essential to accomplishing this mission.

Due to the above reasons, we urge the Committee to not allow this bill forward.

House Bill 6858, AN ACT CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF ELECTRICIANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY LICENSED IN OTHER STATES OR A COMMONWEALTH OR TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES, this issue is already addressed in Connecticut General Statute 20-333a.

We wish to apply the testing and educational requirements equally to all persons engaged in the electrical trades in our state.

If an electrician's training and educational requirements were equal to or better than those of their Connecticut licensed counterparts, we would have no exception to issuance of a license to such a person.

As listed in Section 20-333a, license fees would be the same for reciprocal applicants.

Also, continuing-education requirements would have to be met to the satisfaction of the Department, regardless of the physical location of the licensee, as stated in Section 20-333a.

As such, the Department does not feel the need for this reciprocity bill. The only hindrance in the current statutory scheme is that the Commissioner receives the advice and consent of the appropriate board.

To date, none of our boards have provided the necessary consent, so the intent of Section 20-333a has not been implemented.

A minor change in the wording of this Section would provide for the reciprocity as contemplated in House Bill 6858.

We only ask for the removal of the words, and consent, from Section 20-333a.

That concludes my testimony. I am free to answer any questions the Committee may have.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Commissioner. I will pick up just on the last bill that you talked about. Then I want to ask you a question about the electrician and plumber bill.

On House Bill 6269, you indicated that right now, you can provide reciprocity, reciprocal licenses as contemplated in that proposed bill, but you lack the advice and consent of the Licensing Board.

Was that your testimony?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. That is correct. I want to refer to the Director, Richard Hurlburt who has been discussing this with different members of boards and commissions.

REP. STONE: My question to you, I'm sorry, Commissioner, have you asked for the consent, and they have refused to give it or they haven't acted upon your request?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We asked for consent.

REP. STONE: And they've done what?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Refused.

REP. STONE: And what was the basis for that refusal?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: I will defer to the Director on that.

REP. STONE: Sure.

RICHARD HURLBURT: I'm sorry. I have been with the Department for 20 years. I am Richard Hurlburt, Director of Occupational and Professional Licensing.

At one point, the Appointment Board was opposed to giving consent to reciprocity in other states and jurisdictions.

Therefore, no regulations were promulgated. There was a time when the Appointment Board membership changed due to a Governor change.

The State of New Hampshire sent a proposal down to the Appointment Board in Connecticut and asked to enter into a reciprocity agreement with the State of New Hampshire for plumbers.

The Appointment Board, after having a meeting, voted to agree to that, that the standards were similar in education, experience, and training and would agree to issuing a plumbing license to a person of New Hampshire, provided that New Hampshire issues a plumbing license to a person in Connecticut.

When we did return that proposal back to New Hampshire, New Hampshire had changed its mind and wrote us a thank-you letter for consideration.

That was the end of that.

REP. STONE: What were the criteria for the Licensing Board to determine whether to approve or not approve the reciprocity issue with New Hampshire?

RICHARD HURLBURT: Right. We would look at the apprenticeship, the training period, on-the-job training.

In Connecticut, the typical plumber who eventually acquires a P2 journeyperson license has to have four years of hands-on experience and 576 hours of school-related instruction.

We were looking at those two factors to make sure they were equivalent or equal. We also looked at the examination process that a person takes.

REP. STONE: And then once you look at those criteria, you send that request to the Board. What are the criteria that they look to in order to determine not only to give you their advice, but also their consent?

RICHARD HURLBURT: Well, in the case--

REP. STONE: In other words, is it an objective criterion or is it a subjective criterion?

RICHARD HURLBURT: --objective. You know, they felt, if it is necessary for someone who really needs to do plumbing work in Connecticut, then they should take a test to perform work there.

REP. STONE: Okay. All right. Does anyone else have any questions on that bill for the Commissioner or Mr. Hurlburt?

Okay. On the plumbing bill, Commissioner, the statute that presently exists doesn't spell out or specifically require the amount of training of either an electrician or a plumber for continuing ed.

Is that your understanding?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: The requirement is something that the Department would look at.

REP. STONE: Right. It empowers you to make regulations. The statute doesn't say--

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: The statute does not say--

REP. STONE: --annually, semi-annually, bi-annually.

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: --regulatory.

REP. STONE: It does say that you are to develop regulations with the advice and assistance of the Plumbing and Piping Work Board on this continuing-education issue.

Right now, as we sit here today, what is the continuing-education requirement for plumbers?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: I would like to refer to the Director on that.

RICHARD HURLBURT: Last year, we did promulgate regulations with the advice and assistance of the Plumbing Board.

Whatever the Plumbing Board had decided is exactly what the Department had promulgated for regulations.

REP. STONE: And that is what?

RICHARD HURLBURT: And that has been implemented.

REP. STONE: And what is that, Rich?

RICHARD HURLBURT: It is that a P1 license holder has to obtain nine hours of continuing education prior to the renewal in '05 this year.

The P2 person has to have six hours of continuing education. Limited contractor license holders have to have six hours.

There are 12 to 15 different types of plumbing licenses.

REP. STONE: You don't have to go through all of them.

RICHARD HURLBURT: And then the limited journeyperson license holders have to have three hours.

The courses that we have to give include Connecticut license and law, apprenticeship, OSHA, and also the specific plumbing code itself.

REP. STONE: Okay. Now, when you say on renewal, the licenses are renewed yearly.

RICHARD HURLBURT: Yearly, yes.

REP. STONE: So in other words, the continuing-education requirement is a yearly requirement.

RICHARD HURLBURT: The regulations that passed are required to be done yearly.

REP. STONE: Well, not the statute.

RICHARD HURLBURT: Not the statute itself.

REP. STONE: And do you have the advice and consent of the Plumbing and Piping Work Board? That, in effect, was their recommendation to you.

RICHARD HURLBURT: It was the Plumbing and Piping Board's advice and assistance only. Yes.

REP. STONE: Now, this may be either to you, Rich, or the Commissioner. There has been some talk that the plumbing codes don't really change that often, that significantly over a longer period of time than a year.

While it may have been the advice and recommendation of the Board that it be a yearly continuing-ed requirement, because the code doesn't change that often, perhaps unlike the electrical code, which some may argue changes more often or is subject to change more often, a yearly requirement may have been a little too burdensome.

Do you have any comment on that?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I would have to agree with your statement.

REP. STONE: Okay. That being said, and I appreciate your candor, but would you have any objection to a revision to the bill, which would provide for continuing-education requirements of a certain number of hours every three years?

Maybe we could build in an exception that if you find there are significant changes in the code, you may want to increase the amount of continuing education.

You would at least have a baseline of three years and have that be the standard rather than have the standard be one year.

Potentially, there may be no changes in the code for three to five years. Do you have any comment on that?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: That is being fair. I think, in hearing from what many of the plumbers in the industry through email and conversation have said, they are not against continuing ed.

They are against the frequency of it. They say, for example, the codes are not updated on an annual basis.

Having said that, it's important that the Department has the discretion to make changes. There are other factors that we need to look at other than the building code, OSHA rules.

There may be something the federal government may find that we need to educate our industry people about.

So as long as the Department has that flexibility, I don't oppose any standard, other than an annual education requirement.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you for that, Commissioner. Does anyone else have anything? Yes, Representative Mazurek.

REP. MAZUREK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Commissioner, thank you.

When this was recently put in place, it was amazing, I was amazed at how many plumbers reside in Wolcott.

I think that perhaps I heard from every one of them on these continuing-education requirements.

Let me just ask you a question. Since the statute does not dictate how often they have to receive continuing education or the scope of that education, if this Committee chose to do nothing, knowing what you know now, would your agency be agreeable to going forward in changing the frequency of the continuing education and also the scope of that education?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. We would be able to do that. For the record, given all the feedback I received from plumbers in the industry, it behooves me to go back and look at those regulations and try to accommodate some of their needs.

REP. MAZUREK: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you, Rich, for showing up. I appreciate that.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative. Yes, Senator Stillman will be followed by Representative Greene.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you. Good morning, Committee. We have two more minutes when it's still morning.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I think you have answered a lot of questions for folks that have been raised over the last month or so when this bill was put before us.

I am pleased that you are still interested in continuing education. That is certainly appropriate. I didn't expect you to say otherwise.

In terms of the previous question about us not doing anything, would you be willing to change and act on your comment about flexibility, would that have to go to Regulations and Review?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. There is a whole process. I'll go before Regulation and Review. There will be a public hearing to get input from the public.

SEN. STILLMAN: Okay. The reason I am asking is that I have to serve on Regulations and Review.

So if that were the Committee's decision to not change the statute, which doesn't actually say how much education, but just that there will be, is that correct?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Correct.

SEN. STILLMAN: As a member of the Regulations and Review Committee, I could look forward to knowing that you are having the public hearing.

Those regulations would come before the Committee based on the testimony from today's hearing.

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Yes.

SEN. STILLMAN: Thank you, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Senator. Representative Greene.

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, well, I guess it's still morning. I have a quick question.

Commissioner, I think you testified against House Bill 6269. That is the licensure requirements for gas and hearth installers.

I don't have your written testimony. So I kind of looked up to see why you didn't want that.

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: I am going to refer to the Director who is more technical in this field.

Again, as a Commission, when we look at new requirements for individuals that need licensing, one thing that I want to make sure is that there is no one in the industry that is already doing that work.

If it's a requirement for us to get an additional certification for something that is already being done, as a matter of public policy, I don't see a deficiency in those particular areas.

Therefore, to me, it doesn't make sense. I could defer to the Director on the technical piece of it.

RICHARD HURLBURT: Okay. It's been the scheme of the License and Law since 1965 that we don't come up with specific licenses for certain styles of apparatus or brand-name apparatus, etc.

What we do is we take a look at the device, may it be a heating or cooling device. We determine [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1A to 1B.]

--under the Heating and Cooling Licensing Board within the Department. We have, again, numerous types of heating and cooling licenses.

The licenses that we have, we have a G1 contractor, a limited-contractor license, a G2 limited journeyperson's license. That license is very narrow in scope.

It allows an individual to install gas piping, let it be LP or natural gas, and associated tanks, if needed, and to work on the burner apparatus, and the ventilation of such.

So any gas appliance or gas utilization equipment, a person whose work or business is within that limited scope area could obtain a G type license and be tested in that limited area.

At this point in time, I really don't see a distinction between a gas hearth being any different than what that current scope of license covers.

I know there are distinctions as far as installing different types of heating apparatus.

As far as the state building code is concerned, clearances, etc., sure. As far as the safety aspect, the gas-burner device itself, associated piping and tanks, I can't see a real distinction there.

If we made a distinction there, then we would have to create another license for someone who installs a Will McClain boiler. We would have to give a special license for someone who installs a Beckett burner or Carlin burner.

So right now, we have that category. We do have other limited and unlimited licenses in the heating field, also within those persons' scope of work, including gas burner work.

There is a multitude of license holders within various categories that can do gas burner work.

REP. GREENE: Obviously, we've had this bill before us over the last three, four years anyway.

What about a certification, as opposed to a license for this group that wants to do the installing?

Usually, they don't hook up gas, the gas to the unit. Usually, what they are doing is they are installing the unit.

They have to fine-tune it. They have to make sure it's burning correctly. You know, there is a national standard out there for these installers.

Of course, they have been trying to get licensure for quite a long time. What if we did a certification for them? Would that be something you might be more open to?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: A certification mirrors a license as far as some kind of testing requirement.

REP. GREENE: Right.

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: That itself will create another process or another, you know, addition of work on the limited resources we have.

If that goes forward, maybe a certificate, we would probably have to add a fiscal note to that bill.

I'm very frank with you. You know, our resources are very limited. Given the fact that we're going to be doing an additional job or process, it is an issue with me on that aspect of it.

REP. GREENE: But there is a standard out there already. I think it is NFI. It is the National Fireplace Installers. I think that is what it stands for.

So you already have the standard. All that we would want would maybe be a certification, so that these people are NFI certified. It is okay for them to install the unit.

You could exempt, you know, plumbers, electricians, anyone of the trade. They can still do it now because they are covered under their license.

This would allow this other group to set a standard, which is something I think they are trying to do.

I don't know how much cost that would be since you already have the standard. Would it just be a matter of certification, them sending a fee in, and then them being certified to do this?

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: My concern, again, you know, it's more like on a broader scope.

When we start to decide to certify certain individuals, that is going to open up the gate of other individuals in coming to us and asking for a certification or a niche of the market, what I call it.

Again, if we are going to be certifying a certain group, my concern is that we're going to have more requests for certifications. That is going to be the issue with resources.

REP. GREENE: Okay. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Greene. Does anyone else have any questions for the Commissioner or Mr. Hurlburt? It is good to see you again.

Thank you, Commissioner, for your testimony.

COMMISSIONER EDWIN R. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Thank you for your time.

REP. STONE: Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ: Good morning. Chairman Christopher Stone, Senator Thomas Colapietro, and Members of the General Law Committee, thank you for holding this public hearing and allowing the opportunity to address the Committee today.

I am here in support of House Bill 6858, AN ACT CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF ELECTRICIANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY LICENSED IN OTHER STATES OR A COMMONWEALTH OR TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

This bill would allow licensed electricians from other states and commonwealths that have licensing requirements equal to or more stringent than Connecticut to obtain their license in Connecticut.

For those states and commonwealths that have licensing requirements that do not exceed Connecticut, their Legislatures must introduce and pass changes in their requirements to meet or exceed Connecticut.

A reciprocal agreement with states and commonwealths for securing electricians' licenses will allow electricians to travel and, or relocate, and continue to practice their profession.

As an example, I have had many occasions where Connecticut licensed individuals wanted to return to Puerto Rico and found it very difficult to relocate.

I was asked if it would be possible to introduce legislation that would facilitate them transferring their licenses.

I do have other testimony. I know there are a lot of people here that already know what I'm looking for on this bill.

I am looking for the reciprocal agreement given to a commonwealth or territory by Connecticut.

REP. STONE: We do have your written testimony. I have read it. I appreciate the work that you've put into that.

I don't know if you have any other testimony or if you want us to ask questions.

REP. GONZALEZ: Yeah. I do want to say that right now, Connecticut requires 8,576 hours between an apprenticeship and [inaudible].

For Puerto Rico, right now, it is only required for 1,000. That is why Americans with [inaudible] in Puerto Rico. They would increase those hours.

Right now, only one year of an apprenticeship program and one year of a helper [inaudible] to two years of apprenticeship and two years as a helper.

So between those two programs, the apprenticeship and helper, Connecticut asks for 1,000 hours [inaudible] requirement.

So we will have 9,320 hours. So we will be over Connecticut by 744 hours.

REP. STONE: Thank you for your testimony. I know you and I have discussed this bill before. You heard the Commissioner's testimony that the scope of your bill may be too broad.

With one or two word changes in the existing statute rather than getting the advice and consent of the Licensing Board, just getting the advice without requiring the consent may solve the problem or may resolve the issue that you are trying to address.

Have you had the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the Commissioner or would you like the opportunity?

I'd be more than happy to meet with you and the Commissioner.

REP. GONZALEZ: I would be happy to. I'd like that.

REP. STONE: There may be some other way to get to the issue than what we have here. I don't know the answer, quite frankly. I'd be more than happy to sit down with you.

REP. GONZALEZ: I'd be happy to. I met with the Board of Electricity in Puerto Rico. Right now, they do have a lot of cases of Latinos who are electricians from Connecticut. They want to go back to the island.

They can't stay there because the license [inaudible] so they have to come back. Right now, if we get a chance to help this [inaudible] to go back to the island and work there--

REP. STONE: Well, this would affect the license that is obtained in another state, territory or commonwealth to be licensed here. Correct?

REP. GONZALEZ: --no.

REP. STONE: Right now, that is what we have jurisdiction over.

REP. GONZALEZ: Right now, the requirements are different. That is why I am looking at this, and it is difficult.

REP. STONE: Okay.

REP. GONZALEZ: They are not the same.

REP. STONE: I'd be more than happy to speak with the Commissioner, with you. We can set that up.

I'm not sure how we can affect what the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for example, whether they accept or don't accept a reciprocal license from Connecticut.

I don't know if we have jurisdiction to do that. It's an important issue to you, I know. I'd be more than willing to sit down and talk with the Commissioner about that.

REP. GONZALEZ: Years ago, I passed a bill making it reciprocal for hairdressers. We didn't [inaudible]. My opinion is that if we want to work together, I think that we can work together.

REP. STONE: Okay. We'd be willing to do that. Does anyone else have any questions of the Representative? Thank you, Ma'am, for your testimony. I appreciate it.

REP. GONZALEZ: Thank you.

REP. STONE: That ends the public official portion of the agenda. As you know, the Committee handles bills and hears bills in the order in which they are listed on the agenda.

I would note that items one and two are very similar. If you are testifying on both bills and you want to just testify once for both bills, that would be encouraged, given the number of people that are here testify on items one and two.

With that, I'm only going to call Senate Bill 1255. Again, if you want to testify also on House Bill 6857, you are welcome to.

So starting on that first bill, Mary Ellen Dombrowski. Mary Ellen, as I'll remind you and, hopefully, the balance of the audience will hear this as well, it is three minutes, please, on your testimony.

When you hear the buzzer go off, if you could wrap up, then we will open it up to questions. Thank you.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: Good morning, Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the General Law Committee.

I am Mary Ellen Dombrowski, Executive Director of the Independent Electrical Contractors of New England.

I am here to speak this morning in opposition to Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857, which would significantly reduce or repeal continuing education for electricians.

Ongoing education is a life-safety issue for workers and consumers. Legislators recognized this overwhelming in supporting legislation in 2002.

Also, twice now, the Electrical Licensing Board has unanimously approved continuing education for our trade.

If during this first cycle of continuing-education programming, it is repealed or reduced, it sends a negative message to consumers.

I believe that the Commissioner for Consumer Protection addressed that issue. Licensees really need to stay up to date on the electrical codes for a matter of safety for themselves and consumers.

Unfortunately, the State of Connecticut has an irregular adoption process for the National Electrical Code.

The 2002 code was adopted in September of 2004 last year. The 2005 code is now going to be adopted by the end of this year. The 1996 National Electrical Code was skipped entirely.

So people in our trade are being trained, tested, and the enforcement in the field may be on two different codebooks at any given time.

We need to have training for all electricians, so they are all on the same page and understand what code they are supposed to be working on in the field.

This is not a new trend for our industry. We are the last state in New England to adopt continuing education.

Of 37 states requiring electrical licensing, only 6 do not have continuing-education requirements as of today.

Most of the states that do have it have a seven-or-more-hour requirement annually. Typically, the continuing ed is also based on the licensing renewal cycle, which is really important for us because we don't adopt the code in a timely manner.

I'm involved with the industry on a daily basis. I've worked with electrical contractors for 15 years.

I've been getting phone calls. There are questions. Overwhelmingly, I would say that what we have heard is that this is being well-received and embraced by the industry.

They know that they need training. They know that they need to be brought up to speed on the codes.

I believe, in this instance, the Legislators that I've spoken to, many of you on this Committee have not heard overwhelmingly from electricians.

There really has not been a lot of fuss made by the electricians. I also want to address briefly that the fees are typically between $120 and $150 for the courses.

An employer pays for their employees, if that is their company policy. As far as working on taking a Saturday off, there is a whole year of Saturdays they can take off.

REP. STONE: I'm going to ask you to wrap up, Mary Ellen. Thank you.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: Yeah. I would just urge you to oppose these two measures.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. You spoke on both bills.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: I did.

REP. STONE: It's very thoughtful of you. I'm sure the other members of the public appreciate you just taking the three minutes for the two bills. Certainly, the Committee appreciates it.

I have one question. Then I will open it up to the Committee Members. You talk about the electrical part of this proposal.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: Yes.

REP. STONE: You heard my discussion with the Commissioner about potential changes or suggestions on the plumbing side.

You don't have any stake in that race, do you?

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: I am just involved with the electricians.

REP. STONE: Okay, very good. Anyone else have any questions? Senator Colapietro followed by Representative Johnston.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: I don't know if you are aware of this. This is for everybody in the audience to.

The Commissioner has admitted that they have not been bringing the codes up as they are supposed to be brought up.

He's working on that, trying to get them up to date. They are three years behind, I believe, every time they approve these codes.

That is outright ridiculous. I mean, three or four years or whatever it is, he assured me and so did Rich Hurlburt assure me that they were going to try to bring those up to date, so that everybody will have up-to-date code to work with or whatever you call it.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: That would be helpful.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: It would.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Senator. Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You mentioned how you think that overwhelmingly or a majority of those in the electrical field understand the need for some continuing education.

If, in fact, we remove the requirement that they have continuing ed, what is available for them, if they realize that they want continuing ed on their own, whether as an individual electrician or with the firm?

Where would they go? What opportunities are out there without us mandating that they have to get that?

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: There are trade organizations such as ours that offer continuing education. Professional development is what we call it because it is not mandatory.

Honestly, the average person in the work field does not go back for education unless it is required. Typically, they do not.

REP. JOHNSTON: I appreciate that answer. I guess that kind of begs the question somewhat. If the majority seems to think that it's a good thing and that they need it, yet, it's available, it's optional.

They realize that it would probably make them better. They don't avail themselves of it. Then I guess I see sort of a conflict in that between what they say they believe versus what they actually do when they have the opportunity.

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: I would say, in the nonunion sector, the majority of the people do not belong to an organization.

They don't necessary know what they are missing out on. That is the majority of the contractors and electricians out there.

So they just work day to day, and don't realize, and don't think about it. I suggested, if you ask the average electrician or plumber in the field when the last time they opened the code book to look at something that they don't deal with day by day, they just haven't done it.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. Thank you, Representative Johnston. Anyone else? Mary Ellen, thank you very much for your testimony

MARY ELLEN DOMBROWSKI: Thank you.

REP. STONE: John Yusza. Again, John, both bills are interrelated. If you want to talk about both, that is up to you. I know you signed up for both bills.

JOHN W. JUSZA, JR.: Very good. It may be shorter than three minutes. I am just getting over laryngitis.

At this point, my name is John W. Yusza, Jr. I am President of Monitor Controls, a security indicator located in Wallingford, Connecticut.

We are predominately low voltage. Today, I am representing not only in my capacity as President of Monitor Controls, but also from the State Legislative Committee Chairman of the Connecticut Alarm Systems and Integrators Association.

It is a group of 160 alarm companies with over 2,000 licensed low-voltage electricians, of which they are predominately all small business.

For that reason, all 2,000 are not here today. By unanimous vote, our association chose to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857.

From that point, that is part of the written testimony. I would like to just point out that this is one of the codebooks we have to work with.

It's in small print. It's for life-safety code. This one is 2003. This is the National Fire Protection Code, 2002. This is the newest issue of the National Electrical Code, 2005.

Try to even do that in the number of hours that are proposed. It can't be done. There are certain requirements we can have. There are other books that are associated with, which are what we work under.

OSHA, for example, has safety to the workers, safety to the public. We're predominantly a fire alarm, intercom integrator industry, security systems.

This is a field that changes not only yearly, but it changes almost monthly. Without continuing education, certainly, at this point, it is a danger to the public.

There is not enough time to keep up with the changes, let alone the codes. The second education requirement that indicates it should be reduced would be a loss to the consumer and the general public's safety.

Unskilled tradespersons are both a threat to themselves and the public. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, John, for your testimony. John, I have a quick question. I know you have laryngitis. I just want this briefly.

You showed the last code, the NEC Code, 2005.

JOHN W. YUSZA, JR.: Yes. That is going to be coming.

REP. STONE: I am going to assume that there was a NEC Code for 2004.

JOHN W. YUSZA, JR.: 2002.

REP. STONE: 2002.

JOHN W. YUSZA, JR.: Every three years, these codes change. They change, not all in the same year.

REP. STONE: I got you.

JOHN W. YUSZA, JR.: So the idea is that one of these books will change yearly.

REP. STONE: I got it. I got it. There are significant changes between the 2002 code and the 2005 code, at least for the NEC, for an example.

JOHN W. YUSZA, JR.: These changes are actually earmarked within the codebook by the individual paragraphs and chapters.

So there may be a change of a simple word from the word, should, to, you will, meaning, shall.

REP. STONE: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Yusza? John, thank you very much for your testimony.

David Wilson. Good afternoon, Mr. Wilson. We will mark you down for both bills.

DAVID WILSON: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Colapietro. My name is David Wilson.

I am the Immediate Past President of the Connecticut Burglar and Fire Alarm Association, now known as CASIA, the Connecticut Alarm and Systems Integrators Association.

I am a National Training School instructor of for the National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association.

I am founder of and President of Berkshire Alarm, a low-voltage system contractor based in Litchfield, Connecticut.

I am here today to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857, which would repeal or reduce the effectiveness of continuing-education requirements for licensed electricians.

Continuing education for low-voltage alarms and system electricians is clearly a positive step for home and business consumers across Connecticut.

Our industry installs, services, and monitors life-safety systems as a normal course of business including nursing homes, elderly housing, schools, municipal buildings, and many environmentally sensitive areas.

Mandatory continuing requirements simply ensure that all electricians are kept up to date on the newest code adaptations, advances in technology, and job-safety issues.

These measure protect not only the public at large, but coworkers as well. The current requirement of seven hours per year is not too much to ask for public safety and consumer protection.

There are 37 states that require state-level licensing. Only six of them do not require continuing education. Continuing education is not a burden, nor a hardship for anyone to achieve.

It is a single day out of a possible 365 days to choose from. The classes are not expensive. In many cases, they are free, sponsored by a trade association.

I urge lawmakers to become familiar with the different trade associations in Connecticut to see just how easy it is to be in compliance with this extremely important consumer protection measure.

For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, David. Anyone have any questions for Mr. Wilson? Thank you very much for your testimony, David.

Did you submitted written testimony as well, David?

DAVID WILSON: Yes, I have.

REP STONE: Very good, thank you. Frank Wolferseder. How did I do, Frank?

FRANK X. WOLFERSEDER: You did excellent.

REP. STONE: Frank, you are on both bills as well.

FRANK X. WOLFERSEDER: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee. My name is Frank Wolferseder.

I am the President of Alarms by Precision in Monroe, Connecticut. I'm here today as an independent business owner and a representative of the Connecticut Alarm and System Integrators Association to present my views in support of continuing-education requirements.

I have an undergraduate degree from the University of Rhode Island, a Master's of Science degree from the University of New Haven.

I've been in business for more than 25 years. I am most proud to be the third generation of my family providing security services to individuals, their homes, and their businesses in surrounding communities.

Forty years ago, when I went to work in my father's store, security had a very different face. Wire was basically lamp cords. We protected property with tape that was glued to windows.

Control panels were made up of tubes and large lout relays. The idea of alarm zones was then cutting-edge technology.

Today, we deal with specific types of wire for each application, such as stranded or solid, twisted or non-twisted, shielded or plenum, and what gauge wire we should use.

The types of products that are available for use in protecting life and property are now so plentiful that distributors produce phone-book size catalogs for dealers to use in product selection.

Technology today has advanced to the use of addressable points and computer-sized control panels where laptop computers are required for programming and troubleshooting.

As we are all aware in our day-to-day lives, technology has changed significantly over 40 years.

Today, technology continues to change even more rapidly as we move forward.

I would like to focus on the people aspect of our business. As an industry, we are part of the frontlines of homeland security.

Our piece of homeland security focuses on the collection of data, the local notification of events, and the transmission of information to other individuals who can make appropriate decisions.

We are the people who install the surveillance systems, access-control systems, light-safety systems, and communication systems, to name a few, inside our public buildings that are used by civil-service employees such as you.

We are the same individuals that supply and install similar systems for private industry and private residence.

It is our collective responsibility to ensure that individuals who install this equipment are well-educated and knowledgeable about their trade.

The decisions that are made based on the information received, a direct result of the products and installations we install can potentially have heroic or catastrophic consequences.

I am also a very strong advocate of reciprocity of licensing between our neighboring states. Everything we do in our profession has human interest in mind.

It takes a long time to earn someone's trust and confidence. Once we have earned it, we must continue to work to keep that trust and confidence.

If an individual chooses to move their home or business across state lines, they should have the opportunity to continue to use the individuals they trust within this industry to continue to provide the service they have become accustomed to.

Whereas you do not need a different driver's license to drive across state lines, you must abide by the laws of the state within which you are driving. I submit the same should be true in our trade.

I urge and encourage you to work with our counterparts in other states to make this process easier and more beneficial to the end user.

To this end, we are all working for the protection and the rights of the end user. Laws and code requirements are all about people protecting people.

As the Administrative Branch of our government, we stand before you, asking for your support to keep the requirements of continuing education for individuals in the electronic industry.

Through the use of continuing-education requirements, we work to keep the standards and the integrity of what we do at the highest possible professional levels. Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Frank, for that thorough testimony. Does anyone have any comments or questions of Frank? Thank you very much.

FRANK X. WOLFERSEDER: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Next is Gordon Harvey followed by Michael Masselli.

GORDON HARVEY: Thank you. Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Gordon Harvey. I am the recent past President of the Connecticut Association of Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors.

Representing our membership are 110 plumbing contractors, 50 manufacturers, 13 major Connecticut plumbing supply houses.

The PHCC has served the plumbers and the people of Connecticut for the last 114 years. We have been involved in civic projects to better our communities, as well as to help the plumbing industry by setting the standards in technical education.

Our Association recently created CODE, Inc as a nonprofit school to answer the state's Mandatory Continuing Education Program.

Over 1,500 license holders have gone through the school already. Add another 500 to 600 from other facilitators, it represents almost 30% of the total license holders that have already been through the program in just the first four months of its existence.

That is a tribute to licensed plumbers. Our board of directors has instructed me to state their continued support for the current mandatory continuing education under Public Act 02-142 and to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857.

We believe that continuing education exists primarily for the benefit of the public. However, the license holder benefits as well.

We need continuing education in our state every year with a minimum of six hours for the unlimited journeyperson and three more hours for contractors to allow enough class time to cover the changes in code, review the interpretations, other trade issues such as health and safety, and the complex ever-changing business practices that the contractor must be aware of.

In a shrinking world that includes new threats of disease and sanitation problems as the populations grow, the role of the plumber has taken on an even more important role of protecting the health of the nation.

Although a new code gets accepted usually every three years, there is nowhere near enough time to cover three years of changes in one day.

Couple all that with the new regulations from the Departments of Public Safety, Environmental Protection, and Health, OSHA, and new state clarifications and regulations, the program is very full.

Technology is moving at a rapid pace. What has changed? You have to know what questions to ask.

What do I need to do differently? If there were no need for continuing education, then inspectors would not need to red flag certain jobs.

The Plumbing Board would not need to hear complaints by private citizens that have had problems with shoddy work.

By doing the work per the latest code regulations, plumbers might even save money by working more efficiently and by doing the job right the first time.

In addition, with CE classes each year, a forum is available for any immediate changes, updates or interpretations.

Some license holders strive to keep informed about their industry, but most do not. The continuing-education program will ensure that all the license holders in the state are exposed to changes and upgrades in the industry.

The classroom environment is also an excellent medium to explore the new codes and to clarify any details.

In closing, it is the responsibility of the Department of Consumer Protection, the duty of licensed professionals in the State of Connecticut, and the good conscience of the Legislature to ensure that in our state, the citizens are provided with the best possible service, maintained with a good continuing-education program.

Thank you for this time.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Gordon. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony.

Next is Michael Masselli followed by Larry Vallieres.

MICHAEL MASSELLI: Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Michael Masselli. I am from Portland. I am a third-generation owner of Masselli & Sons Plumbing & Heating.

I thank you for allowing me to speak about the very important issue before us. I would like to state that I am in full support of annual continuing education for Connecticut plumbing license holders and oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857.

As licensed professionals in our trade, I believe that it is imperative that we keep up with the continuing changes that affect our trade.

The fact that we are licensed by the State of Connecticut and by issuing the license, the State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection is telling our customers and the general public that we are capable and competent to do our work.

Therefore, it is necessary for the system to remain in place as is, so a minimum standard is set and the competency level is the same for all license holders.

Plumbers will now be keeping up with the constant changes in national and local codes, changes in OSHA standards, and general updates in our business.

Yes, this information can be found voluntarily through many different avenues by anyone looking to find it.

However, there is no way the state can guarantee that information has been sought out without this mandate.

Now, when the consumers of the state call a licensed plumber to their home, they can rest assured that we are keeping up to date with the standards that our industry is now demanding.

Just this winter, I was called to three customers' homes, all which had houses that were either less than one year old or fully renovated within a year.

When I asked these customers why they didn't have the plumber that performed the original work to come back, the answers ranged from, I don't want that contractor back in my house, to, they don't return any of my calls.

The problems I found were problems ranging from improperly hung pipes with screws rubbing and wearing holes in them to a brand-new shower valve where the whole inside plastic cartridge had melted due to excessive heat causing continuous leakage.

The problem is that if we have licensed plumbers in the field that are not following the basic principles of our trade so much so that the consumer is recognizing these problems, why would we think that they are keeping up with the other important changes that our trade is going through on their own?

Almost every professional occupation in this country, especially this state, has some sort of continuing education mandated.

For example, we would never think about obtaining prescription drugs from a pharmacist that isn't keeping up with the latest information on the effects of the drugs that they are filling.

I have been a member of the Portland Volunteer Fire Department for 20 years.

Whether you are a career firefighter or volunteer, there is a minimum amount of continuing education that we all must go through in order to remain on active status with the department.

Just think of what would happen if fire marshals, who are in charge of enforcing fire codes in buildings, were not keeping up with the constant changes in the fire codes and were inspecting buildings where life safety is in their hands.

In the State of Connecticut, even realtors and hairdressers are required to go through continuing education.

As of right now, in addition to Connecticut, 18 other states have passed laws requiring continuing education for plumbers.

I believe that if we are to consider ourselves as professionals in our field and eliminate the stereotype so often given to plumbers, continuing education is one of the many important and necessary steps to aid us in this progression.

The cost is a small price to pay for the benefits that we will receive by keeping up with the direction that our industry is going.

Members of the General Law Committee, I urge you to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Keep the law mandating annual continuing education in place as it is because it is the consumers that are the main benefactors of it. Our purpose is to serve them. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Mike. Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mike, thank you very much for your testimony. Do you have multiple plumbers working for your outfit?

MICHAEL MASSELLI: I do.

REP. JOHNSTON: And before this mandate, were you sending them to some form of continuing education?

MICHAEL MASSELLI: No, not at that point. I sent them to seminars. I have taken seminars myself. I guess that would be considered continuing education, of course.

REP. JOHNSTON: It just seems to me if there is an opportunity on your own, as an individual or as a small company, to get the continuing ed that seems to be so very valuable, I would think that more would have probably taken advantage of it.

Therefore, they would have somewhat of a competitive advantage against someone who has not received any continuing ed and has shoddy workmanship that hasn't kept up with code, that hasn't kept up with current practices.

I would almost think it would be a competitive advantage for those that have done it voluntarily, quite frankly, to get a bigger market share, to get better recommendations.

You've come in and cleaned up after what you would call or what someone would call a hacker or someone who hasn't really kept up.

So I understand how you feel. It's important for the whole industry. I guess I'm struggling with this.

If it's that important, I would assume that a lot of people would automatically do it on their own, just for the added benefit and for being probably better qualified to actually do more business.

I am just curious about your thoughts on that.

MICHAEL MASSELLI: My thoughts, you certainly would think so, but the simple fact is that that doesn't happen.

Because there are so many important changes that are happening on a yearly basis, in order to make sure that it is happening and that they are keeping up, the only way is to mandate.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Johnston. Anyone else? Thank you, Michael, for your testimony. Larry Vallieres is followed by Lake Coulson.

LARRY VALLIERES: Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee, my name is Larry Vallieres.

I am a resident of Manchester, Connecticut. I have been an electrical license holder in the State of Connecticut for nearly 40 years, as well as an electrical contractor in the Town of Glastonbury since 1972.

I am also the Chairman of the Electrical Work Examining Board for the State of Connecticut. I am here today in opposition of Senate Bill 1255 as well as in opposition of House Bill 6857.

Senate Bill 1255, as proposed, would require not more than seven hours of accredited continued education every three years as compared to the present regulation that requires seven hours of continuing education every year.

The requirements that were established in the regulations were given great thought, consideration, and detail, including the frequency and number of hours required, so as to be a reasonable and non-burdensome requirement.

The Electrical Work Examining Board unanimously supported and continues to support requirements for continuing education with the highest quality of programs only.

Because of the ever-changing technological advancements in the industry, which result in constant code changes, installation requirements, annually required continuing education for electricians is critical not only for the safety of the licensed electrician, but also for the public and for consumer safety.

An investment of 7 hours out of a 2,000-hour work year represents only approximately one-third of 1% of the work year invested in personal safety and consumer safety.

Any trade professional who fails to see the merit in this investment of their time is probably one person you should not have perform work on your family home or place of business.

They should probably not hold a license issued by the Department of Consumer Protection. The present requirements for continuing education that are in place have yet to cycle a complete year of performance.

Any reason to modify these requirements would be premature in nature and would be performed without the basis of facts.

The system needs to be given a chance to prove its worthiness and not be cut off at the knees prematurely.

Some of the other professions that require continued education are building officials and their assistants, which is 30 hours per year.

Insurance producers require 12 hours per year. Electrical and plumbing inspectors require ten hours per year. Shorthand reporters require ten hours a year.

Public accountants require 40 hours per year. Substance-abuse counselors require 20 hours per year. Even embalmers and funeral directors require six hours per year of continued education.

As compared to the requirements of continuing education for some of the other professions as I have stated, I believe that the present requirement of seven hours annually for electricians is conservative and reasonable.

It should remain unchanged. In regards to House Bill 6857, which would provide a waiver for continuing-education requirements for electricians licensed on or before the effective date of that bill, approval of this bill would severely compromise the need and intent of continuing education for licensed electricians and jeopardize consumer safety, as well as that of the licensed electrician.

I attend State Building Official meetings every month on a regular basis, as well as the work that I do at the State Electrical Examining Board.

We see some work and complaints that are horrendous, that are definite indications of the desperate need of continuing education.

People have not kept up with the codes. I think they don't keep up with the codes because they are not mandated to keep up with the codes.

It is human nature that if you don't have to do it, if it is not mandated, you won't do it. As such, I think that continuing education is extremely critical.

It needs to remain in effect and should remain in effect as it stands.

I respectfully request and urge you to oppose both Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Thank you for your time.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Larry, for your testimony. I just have a couple questions, if I might.

Larry, the bill, as proposed, refers to an entity called the Electrical Work Board. You referenced the Electrical Work Examining Board. Are they one in the same thing or are they two different things?

LARRY VALLIERES: It's the same thing, yes.

REP. STONE: And so you are a member of that Board, right?

LARRY VALLIERES: I'm the Chairman of that Licensing Board.

REP. STONE: Okay. Were you Chairman or at least a member of the Board, if not Chairman, when the requirement as we empowered the Commissioner to make, the requirement of seven hours of annual continuing ed?

LARRY VALLIERES: I was a member when the statute was passed. I was a Chairman at the time the regulations were promulgated.

REP. STONE: Okay. So it was your Board's advice and assistance, as it says presently in the statute, that that requirement came into being. Is that correct?

LARRY VALLIERES: That is correct.

REP. STONE: And one of the factors in your determination as a Board, you don't have to speak personally, but as a Board, in having annual continuing-education requirements, it was the frequency in which various codes, I think, John, you had indicated earlier that various codes had changed.

There are three basic codes on the electrical side or more than that.

LARRY VALLIERES: Well, there are actually more. The electrician as an electrical contractor, and the primary code for them is the National Electrical Code, as it stands today.

REP. STONE: Yep.

LARRY VALLIERES: The changes that are made in that code itself, okay, on a three-year basis, I believe Mr. Yusza may have had a book here.

It's about an inch thick. It modifies and changes for various reasons, safety or technical reasons, changes to the code.

That is the National Electrical Code. We are also required to follow the International Residential Code, which is another code of the State of Connecticut.

In addition to that, and that only applies to the residential market, one- or two-family houses, we also have model energy codes [inaudible] building code, life-safety codes, NFPA, the fire safety code.

Basically every code, we have some play with that industry.

REP. STONE: Would it be fair to say that in any given year, at least one of those codes is updated, changed or modified in some way?

LARRY VALLIERES: Yes.

REP. STONE: It can be more than one, but at least one.

LARRY VALLIERES: More than one, and those are just the codes. That doesn't address things such as OSHA.

Also, it is in our outlined curriculum required by the [inaudible] is also any statute changes.

REP. STONE: Okay. Now, the seven hours of training, getting off the frequency of the continuing education and more to the number of hours necessary or required, the seven hours, was that a recommendation from the Commissioner of the Department or was that a recommendation that you gave back to him?

LARRY VALLIERES: That is a recommendation that came back from the Licensing Board, the Electrical Examining Board.

Quite frankly, we had even entertained more hours than that because of the numerous changes and the seriousness of our industry.

We felt that, based on the fact that it was being done by regulation down in the future, if we felt there was a need to increase that or decrease it, then we could do that reasonably simply through regulation.

REP. STONE: Now, the regulations provide for a minimum number of hours.

LARRY VALLIERES: That is correct.

REP. STONE: Now, do you know anyone that would perhaps take advantage of more hours of continuing ed?

LARRY VALLIERES: I'm sorry. I didn't quite hear that.

REP. STONE: Have you heard of anyone having more than seven hours of continuing ed?

LARRY VALLIERES: In other states?

REP. STONE: Or in Connecticut, voluntarily.

LARRY VALLIERES: No. I've heard some other states require more than seven hours.

REP. STONE: Okay. I just have one last question, if I might. Have you attended any one of the classes that are being offered?

LARRY VALLIERES: I have personally not attended any of the classes just yet. Okay. There is a question as to how the Department may monitor those classes.

REP. STONE: Right. Right. That is what I'm getting at.

LARRY VALLIERES: So I have held back from attending any classes yet.

REP. STONE: Okay. All right. Have you heard from your colleagues about those classes?

Number one, are they available?

LARRY VALLIERES: I have heard from both sides of the industry, both the union side and the nonunion sectors.

I know on both [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 1B to 2A.]

REP. STONE: --the Examining Board. As a public service, we appreciate that. Does anyone have any comments or questions of Larry? Thank you very much for your testimony.

LARRY VALLIERES: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Next is, I believe it's Lake Coulson followed by Eddie Hollus.

LAKE COULSON: Thank you, Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone, and other Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Lake Coulson. I am a representative of the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors National Association.

Again, it is an honor to appear before you today. I just have a little bit about my organization.

We've been in existence for 123 years. Our Connecticut Association has been in existence for nearly that long at 100 years.

We know plumbing. Some have misrepresenting PHCC as a special-interest group representing a few companies.

Nothing is further from the truth. We represent the entire industry. We are the voice of the plumbing industry.

The foundation of our organization can be best described in our mission statement. We are dedicated to the promotion, advancement, education, and training of the industry for the protection of the environment, healthy, safety, and comfort of society.

We support continuing education. We oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857 or any weakening of the regulations that are currently implemented for continuing education.

We feel it's essential to ensure the continued safety of the American public. In this country, we tend to take plumbing systems for granted.

When we take things like this for granted, we tend to forget possible problems that may exist.

It is imperative for this state to protect its citizenry by licensing the profession and making sure those holding licenses are properly trained in the latest changes in the profession.

Just to show the ever-changing nature of this industry, plumbing contractors, on a national basis, are required to keep up with the three major plumbing codes, all of which are in existence.

To demonstrate the multitude of changes that are being considered before any Code Panel hearing, I have had the opportunity to hear from one.

We maintain a membership on the International Plumbing Code Council. At its recent meeting three weeks ago, 141 proposed code changes were considered.

Fifty-nine of those changes were approved. So you may sit there and ask why a representative from a national organization is here on essentially what is a state matter.

I respect that. What you are considering here in this legislation is something that is so fundamental. It strikes directly at the heart of our industry and our integrity.

Our industry participants take tremendous pride in their work. In fact, they have dedicated their lives to making this trade professional.

We are a progressive industry. Actually, think about why we are here today. The legislation that is before you would weaken education.

The requirements that have been put in place within the last two years, the legislation, you might as well say it was passed unanimously. There were only a few opponents to the legislation.

Within a few months, my comment here is that I think you just need to give it time to breathe. I think it is premature to be considering reducing any of the continuing-education requirements.

Consumers see the benefit of continuing education. They want the assurance that their plumbing system is being kept up to code and that plumbing contractors maintain inventories of the latest products and technologies.

Citizens of Connecticut should expect that the person they hire has the up-to-date technical knowledge to properly install their water heater, disposal, faucet or boiler unit.

The safety of your water supply is at risk. Water is our most precious resource. Remember that it has always been the licensed plumber that has been there to protect the health of this great country.

In conclusion, Committee Members, it is the citizens of Connecticut who will benefit from the continuing education for the plumbing profession.

We cannot afford to weaken the infrastructure that provides clean water and proper sewage. Continuing education is a key ingredient to strengthening that infrastructure.

Please, support continuing education for the plumbing profession in Connecticut. Oppose any weakening legislation to that effect. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify before this Committee.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Lake. Any questions of Mr. Coulson? Thank you very much for your testimony.

Eddie Hollus will be followed by Nancy Jones.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Hello. My name is Eddie Hollus. I am the Past National President of the Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractors.

Gentleman, I'm sorry. I'm going to apologize real quickly. You're never supposed to do that. You're supposed to come up with a prepared speech.

I had one prepared, but after I found out about uneducated people, I realized this has all blown up about not being educated.

I'm sorry. It's true. In 2002, you passed a law years ago. Without not even knowing, it took for the law to come into effect for it to hit them.

This is a nothing law. I'm from Pasadena, Texas. It's already hit us in Texas. Everybody keeps saying something.

They say it's not over a party or it's people who passed this to educate. You passed it to protect the public's health and safety.

We keep bringing up code changes. Code changes are the bare minimum of our laws. I heard one gentleman say he only puts sewer lines in on the outside of the house.

That doesn't affect me at all. I looked at him. I said, you're already under effect of federal law.

Oh, no. Well, yes, you are. OSHA standards say you have to have continuing education on trenching and shoring [inaudible] pathogens.

We ought to be training men on Hepatitis A, which you can see, Sawyer's virus, and Legionnaire's disease.

I'm hoping to have the chance, if he will give me the time to explain the question here. We keep hearing about things that really are not passing laws, so we can have continuing education.

This man should hear about the law coming down the pipe.

REP. STONE: We're going to talk about what you think about the bill rather than what you think about what someone else said--

EDDIE HOLLUS: I'm sorry.

REP. STONE: --not what you think that gentleman knew or should have known.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Okay.

REP. STONE: So let's talk about the bill.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Okay. Continuing education shows what's coming down the pipes. Right now, our codes are changed every three years.

I doubt if very many people in this room know that our codes go to 14 other countries, including Beijing, China, Vietnam, many other places.

We will be reciprocating plumbing codes and plumbing laws in men of the workforce across the United States. That is the big goal.

They are going to be coming from other borders. Right now, Guatemala is also teaching schools in our codes and the language.

They are not going to need that language in Guatemala. It is also in Mexico right now. If we better educate our men and women to be able to compete, well, education is expensive, but uneducated workers are a lot more expensive.

Believe me. It's not only in accidents and problems, but we can die in our industry. If you kill a man in your industry, and you can go to jail for it.

It just happened in Pearland, Texas. The owner of the company did not serve time. The licensed plumber on the job did. He is the man in charge. That is what OSHA got him for, third-degree manslaughter.

They let him go. Will the owner pay? Yes, out of his pocket. The accident should have never happened.

Getting on continuing education, why don't they do it on their own? Most plumbing contractors start out, such as I did, on their own.

They see so many jobs. They work. They really don't understand how important it is for the laws that will affect them down the pipe.

It puts them on the same playing field. It puts them in a new environment. New products are coming in.

There are ways to install them. I passed my test in 1974 to be a master plumber. In 1974, if I didn't have continuing education I took freely on my own or with the laws that were passed, I would not be speaking here today.

I would not know other countries. We'll be going into our trades. We better be the best of the best.

They say seven hours or six hours, that's too much. The State of Texas passed a law about 12 years ago with six hours.

We went back and said, you're right. Now, we want 24 hours over three consecutive years, enhancing that in medical gas endorsements.

Thirty-two hours over three years [inaudible] prevention. There is a lot of other stuff. We realized we also had this position when we first passed our law.

They said, we don't need six hours a year. We cannot go through any one of these books in six hours.

We hit the high points and hope they will study it on their own. If comes to helping safety, we go over those points well.

Codes are rarely mentioned because now, we have code schools on the local level to really bring it down home.

Hopefully, they give that. You would be surprised how many people don't do it, for their own reasons.

It's really sad. Laws do need to be passed to protect the citizens. When you issue that license, now, they have to keep that license up.

I heard a problem about already passing one, so they can come back and get it. That is not true. It has no effect on the license's bearing.

It does show, in a court of law, that he knew when he was doing wrong to an individual and possibly stole money.

REP. STONE: The bell went off. Could you just wrap it up? You don't have to leave. There may be questions. Just wrap up, if you would.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Yes, Sir. I really appreciate speaking here. I would hope you would keep the licensing laws enforced and your continuing education.

If there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them.

REP. STONE: What's the name of your organization?

EDDIE HOLLUS: National Association of Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors. I am Past President, PHCC.

REP. STONE: Does that association provide these training classes?

EDDIE HOLLUS: In some states. In our state, the PHCC is one of many. The way you all have it here, the PHCC Association did it to get on the forefront, so they can start training their people with one book.

Everybody will understand, so next year, it is a new topic.

REP. STONE: Do you provide--

EDDIE HOLLUS: --all over.

REP. STONE: --I'm sorry. I'm sorry for interrupting. Do you provide the--

EDDIE HOLLUS: --PHCC does provide it.

REP. STONE: --no. Do you provide the continuing-education classes in Connecticut?

EDDIE HOLLUS: The PHCC of Connecticut does provide classes.

REP. STONE: Okay. That is an affiliated organization of the National PHCC.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Yes. It is a federation. It is state, national, and local.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you. Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question. You talked about one of the advantages of continuing education as protecting the public and also protecting the contractor himself or herself--

EDDIE HOLLUS: Yes.

REP. JOHNSTON: --from hurting themselves. I'm curious. Do you know if any states or all states, would insurance companies ask a licensee if they keep up with continuing education or if they have had continuing education?

If so, would they offer a discounted rate for that or a higher premium for someone who hasn't done that?

It seems, if that is an advantage, then insurance companies would probably recognize that and either put down a penalty for not doing it or discount for doing that.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Actually, my company, Modern Plumbing Company, my brother and I own it. We recognize a lot of safety.

We have a safety in-house through PHCC and other chapters all the time. We ask for discounts and ask for bonuses. Actually, we have got some dividends reduced and some free gifts for helping us out.

It has helped us out. We keep going over the code issues. It is not a matter of code. It is a matter of law changes, federal, state, national.

Also, it's the state [inaudible] of the plumbing contractor, not to offend anybody. It's not pertaining to code.

Are there any other questions? I appreciate you all for your time. Thank you for letting me speak.

REP. STONE: Hold on. Hold on.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Oh.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you.

REP. STONE: We have other people interested in your testimony. Are you all set? He's all set. Never mind. Thank you.

EDDIE HOLLUS: [inaudible]

REP. STONE: Thank you very much.

EDDIE HOLLUS: And thank you for the hospitality.

SEN. CIOTTO: Spoken like a true Texan.

EDDIE HOLLUS: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Ed. Nancy Jones followed by Wayne Beaupre.

NANCY E. JONES: Thank you, Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone, Members of the Committee.

I am Nancy Jones, Executive Director of the Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractors of Texas, which is a state group of the group that Lake Coulson and Eddie spoke about, PHCC.

We represent contractors, technicians, suppliers, and manufacturers all across the state. I am here today to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857.

First of all, I would like to commend you and your Legislature for the passage in recent years of bills that protect the health and safety of your citizens.

Two examples of that would be your Medical Gas Certification and continuing education for plumbers.

I realize that your continuing-education program for plumbers is new. It is very good. I am proud to say that our Texas PHCC Chapter was instrumental in working with this Connecticut PHCC Chapter in developing this fine program.

I would really like to see it have a chance to grow, and develop, and become the kind of program that I know it will be.

You know, plumbers in Connecticut are not any different from plumbers in Texas. When there are new things, people are opposed to change.

Eleven years ago, when we started our plumbing continuing-education program in Texas, there were many, many complaints out there about the program.

Now, this program has become the model of the nation. We hear very few complaints anymore. Back then, we heard the same thing you are hearing now.

People didn't know about it. They don't have time for it. It's too expensive. They've been in business 30 years, that sort of thing. It was the same thing.

Now, we hear very few complaints about our program. In fact, what we get now are positive comments from the plumbers in our state.

They realize that this program provides skill and knowledge every year that plumbers must have to stay current in their field.

Eddie was showing you copies of our book. We publish a brand-new book every year. We have broadened the scope of that book as years go by.

Now, we not only cover technical subjects, but also business-management subjects and others. This year, we included a chapter on pride and professionalism.

We have been inundated by calls from plumbers who have thanked us for that. They are proud of their professions and the important job they do.

In closing, I would like to read a quote to you from a National Vice President of PHCC, Jo Wagner, who is the CTO and is a plumber from Texas.

If we are responsible for the health and welfare of the communities we serve, shouldn't we be well-educated and up to date on all the hazards that arise in these communities?

We just had a scare in our area over a contaminated water supply. It turned out that one house had contaminated the entire state water system because of a backflow-prevention device that had been improperly installed.

Many citizens became ill and never knew why. It is scary to think how many plumbers would never stay current with the new safeguards out there to keep people safe and healthy, if they were not required to take continuing-education courses each year.

Every day, our industry is learning about new products that would help us become better plumbers. We must stay current.

I am proud of our continuing-education program in Texas and look forward to the classes each year.

I urge you to recognize the importance of this program because I know Representative Johnston was asking if plumbers would take this kind of education, if it was not mandatory.

In all the years I have worked with contractors, air conditioning contractors, plumbing contractors, I am sorry to say that the average plumber would not.

We must provide a mandatory continuing-education program for our plumbers. I hope that you will continue to let this program develop.

Thank you so much for allowing me to be here today. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Nancy. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Once again, I just want to point out that you should forgive our members.

We have other meetings going on at the same time. They will be going in and out. What you see is what you get, I guess.

Let me see, we have Wayne Beaupre.

WAYNE BEAUPRE: Thank you. I wish my members were present, actually. It started off better. My name is Wayne Beaupre.

I am from Manchester, Connecticut. I represent all of the plumbers in the United States of America, but mostly I represent my community in Manchester and also the greater Hartford area.

I have been in this trade approximately 25 years. I don't know everything. I say that openly because I am all for continuing education.

I have always wanted to know more and more each day. By the way, does anybody know what OSHA stands for at that side?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would say most of us.

WAYNE BEAUPRE: Most of you do, OSHA.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: OSHA, Occupation Health and Safety Act.

WAYNE BEAUPRE: Administration.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Do we get to ask you a few questions about government?

WAYNE BEAUPRE: Anything you want.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: No. Just stick to the bill, and we will be fine.

WAYNE BEAUPRE: OSHA is, of course, safety and health. The plumber protects the health of the nation.

Plumbers install plumbing at private residences and General Assembly halls, such as this. We do places of assembly like dog tracks, where a lot of people congregate.

Continuing education is important. I took a day off today to represent my community. I am representing their interests.

I could be out working today doing plumbing. That is what I do for a living. I also have a background in public safety. I am a volunteer firefighter for my town. I like doing it.

I consider myself a licensed professional plumbing technician. I speak for all plumbers. I think I speak for all plumbers when I say the plumber protects the health of the nation, as I said before.

I oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I am all for continuing education.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.

Dean Soliday followed by Brian Phinney.

DEAN SOLIDAY: Good afternoon.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Good afternoon.

DEAN SOLIDAY: My name is Dean Soliday. I am from Norwich, Connecticut. I own Doc's Plumbing. I've only been in the plumbing business for about seven months.

I have only owned my own business for about seven months. I am here to offer my opinion on continuing education for plumbers.

I thank this forum and my peers that are allowing me to speak here today. I was raised in northern Indiana on a small farm.

I spent about eight years in the Navy as the ship's plumber. I was qualified as a plate and pipe welder in the Navy.

After the Navy, I worked at various job shops and then was hired by Northeast Utilities at the [inaudible] nuclear power station.

I started there as a helper. I left as a full-time supervisor in the unit-two maintenance department. I spent about 20 years.

At Millstone, the operations in the maintenance department, we spent about one-third of our time on some form of training.

To me, this was one of the best opportunities I have ever had. The training given to us in maintenance was to keep us at the hull of the industry, to help upgrade our knowledge base, and to help us understand best practices, as well as exchange ideas, and to help us remain current.

When I heard that the State of Connecticut was requiring plumbers to take continuing education, I thought, here is another great opportunity to help me remain current, to help me understand best practices, and to exchange ideas, as well as to help me upgrade my own knowledge base.

I take responsibility for the health and safety of every customer I give service to. The two classes I have taken to complete my Connecticut requirements were nine hours.

That was time spent upgrading my knowledge base and was time well-spent. I strongly support continuing the education as is.

In closing, I thank you all for your time. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions from the Committee? Thank you for your testimony. Brian Phinney followed by Don Hennessey.

BRIAN PHINNEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Brian Phinney [inaudible - microphone not on]

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Brian Phinney. I am the owner of BNS Plumbing and Heating in Centerbrook.

I am here in opposition of Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I have been a plumber for 19 years and have seen much change in our industry in those 19 years.

Continuing education can only better ourselves and our employees in keeping us up to date on ever-changing codes and products within our industry.

Continuing education betters ourselves and our industry as a whole and protects consumers' lives and safety by keeping plumbers up to date on changes in our industry.

Six hours of time per year for a journeyperson and nine hours a year for a contractor is not a long time to ask for when it comes to public safety and the well-being of the individual license holder.

Connecticut currently mandates education for at least 32 other occupations. For the safety of the public, it is not much to ask for of our plumbing license holders in our state.

Thank you very much.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. That was short and sweet. Any questions? Thank you very much. Don Hennessey followed by Walt Woycik.

DON HENNESSEY: Good afternoon, Senator Colapietro, the Committee. I am a plumbing contractor in Milford, Connecticut.

I am one of those famous one-man shops that we hear about. I am also a volunteer and a member of the National Association. I am on their Board of Directors.

As such, I serve as a Zone Director for the six New England states. As part of my duties, I have to go to the six New England conventions and trade shows, whatever.

So I do get a continuing amount of continuing education. I am rather disappointed that Representative Johnston is not here.

I wonder about something that has been bothering him. He keeps wondering why, if we are all so for continuing education, we don't do it on our own.

The answer to that, partially, is that a good number of us do, the ones that belong to the trade associations.

I belong to the PHCC, which, as we said, is the oldest trade association in America.

The ones that do belong go to trade shows, go to conventions, go to continuing-education programs [inaudible] exactly the same way there are guest speakers at dinner and whatever.

Unfortunately, a large number of plumbers in the State of Connecticut are not connected to a trade association.

In this situation here, they are really cut off from public information, upcoming changes in code, whatever.

The State of Connecticut does not send out newsletters to individual plumbers about changes in code and such.

That is our responsibility to find out what's current and what's new. I thank you for your time. I would be glad to answer any questions.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Are there any questions for the Committee? Thank you, Sir.

I just want to say this in defense of Shawn Johnston. He is a very, very conscientious Legislator. He is just asking questions, so he can learn. That is what we're here for.

DON HENNESSEY: Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Walt Woycik followed by Tony Martucci.

WALT WOYCIK: Chairman Colapietro, Chairman Stone, the rest of the Members of the Committee, my name is Walt Woycik.

I reside in Mystic, Connecticut. I oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I have been a plumbing contractor, started in the trade in 1970.

I spent 35 years in it. I've been in business for 26 years. The reason I am where I am today is because of all the knowledge that I had to receive on my own personal dollar.

The other reason I'm here today is to give you a view of how big these codebooks really are, just for the plumbing industry itself.

I know there have been some comments about the codes not changing every year. Well, if you want to know how much they really change, you probably should call the Codes and Standards Committee and the State Building Official, Christopher Laux.

I think you will get a better representation about how much the codes change. They do change every year.

If I could, may I just hold up the books to show you? Is that appropriate? This book right here is the one- and two-family cable, which we do not use anymore.

It has been discontinued from September 1^st, 2004. This is a new book for the residential code only. This was enacted on September 1^st, 2004.

This is our new book. This has the plumbing code, the electrical code, and the building code. This is for one and two families, up to three stories high, and townhouses.

That is a pretty substantial book. The other thing I want to say is that there is a plumbing chapter in here. There is a mechanical chapter.

The plumbing chapter refers you back to chapters two, three, four. It also refers you back to the administration section, which is very important.

That is where all your legal laws are in there with the Connecticut General Statutes. That is what this book is amended with. All the tags in there are the amendments that the state has done.

To go along with this book, there is a commentary, which is volume one and will get you up to chapter 13, I believe. We also have volume two, which has the other side of this book.

All these three books go together. That is just the residential side. Now, if I may, I'll show you the commercial side. Here is the commercial book.

This is how far back we are, which is sad, but it's 1997. This is the book that is in effect in the State of Connecticut right now.

And to go along with that, we have the 1997 commentary. That explains it in layman's terms, what all the legal issues are in here, the references.

Also, both the international and the plumbing code, the commercial code, they also reference you back to the International Conservation Code, which will tell you how much pipe insulation you need on pipes in unconditioned spaces and, or ductwork.

That is another book these books will reference you to. There is one other book that nobody has even talked about. It's the ADA book, it's for handicapped people.

This is for bathrooms, ramps. This is another book that all of these books will reference you to.

So I just wanted to give you an idea of how much literature that we have to go through to be on top of our game.

I am going to leave this up to you. You may have to make this decision. If you can see that cutting the hours down is appropriate, then that is your decision, obviously.

Considering the size of these books, you know, I would hope to think that you would take consideration in that.

Also, I may be wrong on this. I don't think I am. I believe that the Codes and Standards Committee and the State Building Officials are the ones that make the building codes.

I don't think that Consumer Protection has anything to do with that. You know, just to verify that.

Again, a source for that would the State Building Official, Christopher Laux. Thank you very much.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Sir. Any questions? Thank you. Tony Martucci followed by Chris Kerfus.

TONY MARTUCCI: Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Tony Martucci. I reside in Waterford, Connecticut.

That is where my business is. I own Assertive Solutions, Inc. I have been in the trade since 1986.

I am here to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I have already taken the continuing-education class.

I think it is a great class. I have learned in both aspects of the business law part and the continuing education on the code.

I personally, right now, have been in business for the last three years. The last two years, I spent $12,000 to $15,000 of my own money to continue an education through my technicians and my apprentices.

I believe in continuing education in the field you are in. It's only one Saturday a year. It does give us a break from working out in the field on Saturdays.

That is one positive way to look at it. If you are tired of working out in the field on Saturdays, then you can sit in class and get a break.

If you are having a problem affording it, the only suggestion I have is to maybe raise your rates.

Again, I have been in the trade for 19 years. I am all for continuing education.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Sir. Questions? Thank you for your testimony.

TONY MARTUCCI: Thank you for your time.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Chris Kerfus will be followed by what it looks like is Jack Cauly.

CHRIS KERFUS: Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Kerfus. I reside in Mystic.

I've been a business owner for over seven and one-half years. I am self-started in the plumbing trade in 1986.

I am one of the people that do attend education on my own. I go to INTI probably once every two, two and one-half years.

That is a two-day crash course from 7:00 in the morning until 5:00 at night. It is just on the code.

I do this because I can't tell you how many times I walk into a house that was built 20 years ago, 10 years ago, and 2 years ago where I have to question how this guy got a license.

People ask me, why do we have these problems? What do I tell them? It was installed wrong. The guy who put it in did not know, basically, what he was doing.

It will work. As far as inspectors are concerned, it is not the inspectors' jobs to babysit our trade.

I call inspectors all the time when I have questions for information, so I do it right and don't have to waste time and money because an inspectors shows up on my job and says, I`m sorry, but that is incorrect.

Now, I have downtime. I don't look good. It's not professional. I am opposed to Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857.

Education, defined in the dictionary, is defined as, the act of learning or being educated.

You have seen the size of these books. New codes come out every year. You could spend an hour on it. You could spend a week on the codes that have already been printed and established that we need to know and stay on top of.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Thank you, Sir. Jack Cauly followed by Andy Hall.

JACK CAULY: Good afternoon, Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Jack Cauly. I am a plumbing contractor from Stonington.

I am speaking here because I am opposed to both of the plumbing bills that have been brought before you.

I would like to see the continuing education stand as it is now. I am a former instructor for the State of Connecticut apprentice classes.

I am currently an instructor for the code school, which is run by the PHCC. At this point, we have probably done about half a dozen classes.

I bet some of the members here are in my classes. I have to say, being a past instructor, I was very impressed with the curriculum and the work plan that was put together by the school.

I know a lot of guys have come into the class not knowing what to expect. Along with changes in the code, we've also found, in the classes I've been in, that we've pointed out some things about our existing code regulations that a lot of us, for one reason or another, are not aware of.

We also cover first aid, safety issues. There is quite a bit of material. To be honest with you, we are not able to cover all that we originally planned to because of the way the classes are set up.

There is a lot of open discussion among members in the class. That has turned out to be really beneficial because we are all plumbers in the classes that we are in.

I don't necessarily know any more than the guys who are sitting in my class. I've learned quite a bit myself.

I know Representative Johnston has brought this issue up a couple times. If the education is available, why don't you go get it anyway?

I can tell you, looking in this room, I have friends on both sides of this issue. The people that are here today are the plumbing contractors who are concerned with the industry, whether they are opposed to the law or for it.

These are the people who have gone out and gotten their own education. There are successful. That is why they are here.

My concern isn't so much for the people that are doing their own work on this side. I am concerned with people who are not going to get continuing education unless it is mandatory.

My overall outlook, I would like to see the industry just get better all the time. I feel that continuing education makes that a little bit easier because you are going to get people that normally wouldn't looking for education.

They are now going to be required to. I think that is all I have to say. Do you have any questions?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Andy Hall followed by Bob Macca.

ANDY HALL: Good day, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Andy Hall. I live in Columbia.

I am the owner of Rapid Service. I am plumbing, electrical, heating contracting service company.

I am here to oppose House Bill 6857 and Senate Bill 1255. I worked very hard with state officials, spent hours here at the Legislature, met with industry leaders, manufacturers, wholesalers and tradesmen to bring about mandatory continuing education for my industry.

This happened not over a period of weeks or months, but took years. People knew this was coming. There is no excuse to come back here three years later and have this meeting again.

I hope you never experience a contractor who is not getting continuing education because they feel they already know enough. Good enough usually never is.

Let me reiterate this. Chairman Rodriguez already has the ability to control our industry, the amount of hours we spend in education, with the existing legislation that we have in place now.

There is no need to change the legislation with these new bills. I urge you to vote against these bills and thank you. Good day.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Sir. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. We have Bob Macca followed by George Mulvaney.

SEN. CIOTTO: Mr. Chairman, let me welcome him. This happens to be my plumber. I call him Doctor Pipes. That is how I remember. He was a doctor. He gave it up to become a plumber.

BOB MACCA: Good thing, isn't it? Thank you very much.

SEN. CIOTTO: [inaudible]

BOB MACCA: They are doing very well.

SEN. CIOTTO: Give them my best.

BOB MACCA: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that.

SEN. CIOTTO: [inaudible]

BOB MACCA: Thank you, Bill.

SEN. CIOTTO: Good to see you.

BOB MACCA: Good to see you too. Chairman Colapietro, Members of the General Law Committee. My name is Bob Macca, as Senator Ciotto likes to say.

I hold a P1 license. I am opposed to House Bill 6857 and Senate Bill 1255. When the Legislature passed Public Act 02-240, they did something rare.

They passed a bill that was a win for everyone. It was a win for contractors and journeymen. Before continuing education, there was virtually no means of communication about code changes.

Many of us learned about code changes when an inspector went around the job and told us the job wasn't done properly and that we would have to change it.

That costs the contractor money. It frustrates the homeowner. It slows down the job. It is a win for municipalities who have to go back and re-inspect the job. Again, it costs the municipalities money and wastes their time.

Most importantly, it affects your constituents. It's a win for them. They will be assured that the work is being done not only by a licensed plumber, but a professional who cares enough about his trade to keep up with the latest changes and innovations in his field.

Nine hours for contractor and six hours annually for a journeyman are not too much to ask of a professional.

Even the most experienced tradesperson will benefit from continuing education. I was out to take a class with my dad who has held a P1 license for over 40 years.

He is old school. At first, he was kind of against it. Then when we talked about it, he said, okay, well, let's go.

He was very impressed afterwards. He's not an easy guy to impress. In Connecticut, we pride ourselves on having a very educated workforce.

It seems like it's sweeping the country now. There is more continuing education going on in the trade. I don't want to see Connecticut lag behind.

I want to see us be a leader in continuing education. Thank you very much for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the Committee? Thank you, Sir. George Mulvaney.

GEORGE MULVANEY: My name is George Mulvaney. I am President of Mulvaney Mechanical of Danbury, Connecticut.

I am here to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I am a former President of the Mechanical Contractors Association of Connecticut.

I am also a member of the PHCC, Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling Contractors. There are continuous changes, both major and minor, in our industry.

Even without those changes, an overview of general information is valuable for all plumbers in things we talked about, codes, life safety, energy considerations, and changing products.

Besides that, for contractors, there are additional changes in laws, general business practices, and insurance.

In a profession, if the education and the experience that is required for it is important enough to require a license, it goes without saying that the continuation of that education is necessary.

If it isn't necessary to keep up to date with changes in your profession, along with the changes in laws, regulations, codes or whatever that applies, does that profession need to be licensed?

Industry changes are coming at an ever-increasing pace. Therefore, things cannot be done this way just because they have always been done that way.

I hold licenses in seven different jurisdictions, from Florida throughout New England.

Continuing education is a requirement, as people have spoken before, in many of the others.

Continuing education works very well in keeping people up to date and informed on a variety of changing topics, not just codes.

It is my experience, the continuing education is very important. Why would a professional not want someone to put together a concise program of important changes in the industry of which they can avail themselves?

It defies logic to consider yourself a professional and not want to be kept up to date in your profession.

For those that oppose the education, they feel that they already know everything there is to know about their profession.

Somehow, perhaps by osmosis, they will learn of any and all changes to it. Most of us, me included, don't like government imposing additional rule son our lives.

The Legislature, on the other hand, is entrusted with the responsibility to protect the general public.

The most basic way to do that is to require any profession that could pose a risk to that public to be licensed.

It is a very small and logical step to the next item, requiring them to be up to date on that profession.

Most often, the less someone knows about something, the more they think they know, vice versa.

I am also a professional plumber. I do take many more courses than the average plumber. I look forward to taking the required continuing education courses for my various licenses.

Even though it is inconvenient at times, I always learn something. Therefore, I have come to realize how much there is still to learn about my profession.

Continuing education is so basic and essential, I [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 2A to 2B.]

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you very much for your testimony.

GEORGE MULVANEY: You're welcome.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thomas Gartrell followed by James Brown. Is he going to sing a song for us, James Brown? Nope.

THOMAS GARTRELL: Good afternoon, Chairman, Senators, Members of the Committee. My name is Thomas Gartrell, owner of Sunburst Plumbing and Heating in Litchfield, Connecticut.

Thank you for letting me speak here today. I've been in business for over 20 years. I've been in the trade for over 28.

I am opposing Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. I see no burden on any plumber or contractors. I believe that it is our duty to keep up on the latest codes and employment laws.

Education does not stop when you acquire your license. It continues all through your career. I tell my children every day is a learning experience for new knowledge when they go to school.

That doesn't stop when you get your high school diploma. It goes through college, and it keeps going.

Just to think that you can stop learning, to me, that is not reality. I am happy to be educated to help service my customers and make my trade more professional.

When I tell my customers what it takes to acquire and maintain a plumbing license, they look at us with more respect.

They feel more secure with whom they have hired. I think six hours a year is not too much to ask, another three for a contractor.

To be a contractor and to run your business properly, there are new laws, new changes you have to keep up with.

Sales tax is a huge thing. You could spend days on that. I've heard that continuing education could be monitored by the individuals.

That is not true. I have helped run many educational seminars to find out that only the ones who really want to help themselves will show up. Most will be too busy to show up.

Small businesses like mine need to hire educated people to keep them in touch with the latest laws and codes, backhoe ventilation, venting, approved materials, low-flush toilets, septic system changes, wail casing, and many more code changes that affect the health of our nation.

To keep pride in our industry, I hope you oppose the two bills. Thank you very much.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony, Sir. Any questions? Thank you. Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is James Brown.

JAMES BROWN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is James Brown. I am a plumbing and heating contractor in this great State of Connecticut.

My company is located in Preston. I would like to voice my opposition to House Bill 6857 and Senate Bill 1255, concerning mandatory continuing education for plumbers.

I have been in the plumbing industry for 21 years. I started my business 12 years ago. I believe that education is my most important tool for my clients, my employees, and my business.

My number-one priority is my clients' safety. Yes, I have attended workshops, seminars in different areas of my own business concerning public safety.

I just really do believe that continuing education is needed by the industry to make it a better industry on the whole for the consumer, the plumber, everybody who is involved.

Everybody is touched by plumbing, regardless. We use it every day. I just believe in continuing education. That is pretty much it for today. If anyone has any questions, feel free.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, James.

JAMES BROWN: Thank you very much.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Any questions from the Committee? Thank you for your testimony. William Lussier followed by Paul Currie.

WILLIAM LUSSIER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is William Lussier of Wallingford, Connecticut.

I have come before you this afternoon to voice my opposition to Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857 concerning continuing education.

For the past ten years, I've been a plumbing and mechanical inspector for the City of Meridian.

As a plumbing inspector, I see every day the mistakes made by licensed plumbers. Up to 50% of the jobs I inspect have at least one code-related error.

The reasons for these errors are not always clear. I expect that at least part of the reason is that plumbers are not properly keeping up with the changes in the trade and the code.

It is not uncommon to find plumbers that do not have any codebook or even know what codebook the state is currently using.

Misunderstandings of the functions of consumer protection and the Department of Public Safety are all too common.

I constantly remind plumbers that the proper installation of a plumbing system is the responsibility of the licensed installer.

I am regularly asked questions concerning code issues that are clearly covered in the codebooks.

I believe that continuing education for plumbers is essential. It is my firm belief that a plumber who is well-informed in all aspects of his trade is an asset to the health and safety of this state and its citizens.

The idea of continuing education in a trade is not a new one and is long overdue in Connecticut. The few hours of continuing education required at this time are barely enough.

The people of the State of Connecticut deserve to have responsible, well-informed, safe plumbers working in their houses, hospitals, factories, and other buildings throughout the state.

Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions from the Committee? Thank you, Sir. I appreciate it.

Paul Currie, I believe it is. Did I say that right?

PAUL CURRIE: Yeah.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: He will be followed by Brian Balavender.

PAUL CURRIE: Hi, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Currie. I am from Oakdale, Connecticut.

I own and operate Currie's Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling. I am an S1, P1 license holder. I have been working in the industry for 35 years.

I have owned my own business for the last 17. I have employed up to ten people at times. I have learned that the more knowledge I can obtain, the better off my business progresses.

Running a PHCC business requires endless hours and constant thinking of daily operations. Sometimes I forget about that, and I need constant updating.

When I attended the code course, it reminded me of something I always used to do for my company and had failed to do in recent years.

After requests, I went down to the local granger's store and purchased two dozen safety glasses, resuscitators, and emergency equipment for my trucks that I used to have all the time.

Just because of being a business and things going so hard as they are all the time, I forgot. By taking this course, it just turned the light on.

Had I not gone to this course, you know, that might not have happened. My men would have had less for it.

If I learn something new every day, then I much stronger than my competitor. My public customers are served that much better.

I want to say that I oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Thank you, Sir. Brian Balavender. Bill Dufford. Richard Weiss.

RICHARD WEISS: Senator Colapietro, Members of the Committee, for the record, my name is Richard Weiss.

I am an L5 electrical license holder here in the State of Connecticut. I have been in the trade for more than 20 years.

I am also the current President of CASIA, which is the Connecticut Alarm and System Integrators Association.

I am here today to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Continuing education for our industry comes down to life safety. It is much more than just the codebooks.

Our industry designs, installs, and services residential and commercial life safety, security, and other low-voltage systems.

Every day, we work in schools, hospitals, residences, elderly housing. Improper installations in any of these locations could certainly have dire consequences.

Because of this, our Association has long promoted continuing education for its members. Mandatory continuing-education requirements ensure that everyone in the field is up to date, not only on code changes and safety and health requirements, but also advances in technology.

This industry, as you can imagine, is changing on a daily basis. Low-voltage electronics, new products are coming out almost on a daily basis.

It is very difficult to keep up. Our Association makes it easy for its members to obtain continuing-education credits.

We have a meeting every month. Out of approximately 12 of the meetings, we have 10 of those with the ability to give continuing education at little or no cost.

So there is an opportunity for at least 20 continuing-education hours for our members. We also make them available to nonmembers.

Please, keep in mind that our trade only requires seven continuing-education hours. We also do provide a super Saturday, so that our members and nonmembers as well can get their continuing education in one shot.

So for these reasons, I would urge you to oppose Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, Sir. Let's see. Aaron Lentz followed by Bob Cassidy. The Sundance Kid is right after that, right?

AARON LENTZ: How are you doing? Thanks for having us here today. My name is Aaron Lentz, the owner of Lentz Plumbing in Waterford.

I am not in favor of continuing education for plumbers as in law. I believe it is not necessary.

This state operated for several years on a residential code that was written in 1995. In September, we adopted the International Residence Code, 2003.

Comparing book to book, there are very few changes that we, as plumbers, have to adapt to. I make this point because the basis of continuing ed for plumbers is the change in code.

The changes are paltry compared to the ever-changing electrical code. That was the purpose of the original bill, wasn't it? It was continuing education for electricians.

Our professions do not run the risk of life-threatening results, if poor workmanship is done. Unfortunately, there will always be poor workmanship.

I pride myself in knowing the plumbing code. I believe it is our responsibility to know it, not by a law pushed through this Committee by special-interest groups with no input from me or the 8,000 other plumbers in this state.

You guys were lied to and mislead by the testimony of two individuals of special-interest groups who stand to profit from continuing education.

They represent only a small fraction of the 8,000 plumbers in the state. I am not against continuing education as a whole. I have spent a lot of money and time educating myself without any laws making me do it.

I also believe that if continuing education is mandatory, then homeowners, by law, should not be allowed to perform plumbing work in their own homes.

They will not be aware of the codes or standard trade practices to perform said job. I also believe if continuing education is mandatory, then it should be state run, not privately run.

Right now, we pay an education fee on our permits. The money is collected from us and goes to educating building officials at no cost to towns or the state.

When a building official receives continuing education, he or she is paid for the time they spend getting educated.

It's a win-win situation for them. If you find, in your deliberations, that continuing education is necessary, maybe the education percentage in building permits should be raised and the plumbers of this state be compensated for spending their time being educated.

See, it is a lose-lose situation for plumbers. The continuing-education classes cost $216, plus we have to lose a day's pay to attend these classes.

Then if you are a contractor, you have to attend a night class to have somebody tell you how to run your business.

I am a three-trade license holder. Does that mean if these special-interest groups get their way, I will potentially be spending $648 a year on continuing education, another $225 on licenses?

That is $873 out of my pocket. I consider this to be an extreme burden. We, as a state, need to embrace the trades and encourage people to become licensed tradesman, not turn them away because of the burden of continuing education. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. Hold on. Hold on. Someone might have a question? Does anyone have a question of this young man? Thank you very much for your testimony.

Bill Dufford. Bill, do you want to come up with Brian? Do you want to come up together or separately?

BILL DUFFORD: Brian is going to help.

REP. STONE: Okay. Come on up. Mr. Dufford is the owner and operator of one of my favorite construction companies in Glastonbury.

I want you all to speak to him with respect and kindness as he testifies here today. Good afternoon, Mr. Dufford.

BILL DUFFORD: Good afternoon. I am pleased to be here. I am opposed to this bill. The problem we have in the excavation business is that we get a plan like this.

It tells us everything on it, what we have to do. It gives us the grade, the size of the pipes, what pitch it's got to be, whatever goes on.

We take it from there. We normally have an inspector there checking with us. We really don't need the education afterwards.

The way our business works. If you'll take this client, we're normally sliding pipes together. Some of them are glued, which is this one.

We have a little bottle of glue. We go in, rub the glue in there, slide the pipe together. That is our joint.

Then there are some of the other pipes. These are some of the smaller pipes. Some of them have an O-ring in them, which is a slip joint.

We just put a lubricant on it, slide the pipe together. That is a four-inch pipe. We go six, and it keeps going up and up. With the sanitary soil, storm drain or water main, it is all basically the same thing.

If we had to go in and spend seven hours taking a refresher course to do something like that, we don't think it is necessary.

REP. STONE: In the bills that are before us, they would either eliminate or drastically reduce the amount of continuing education required for this type of work or other types of plumbing work.

So you're in favor of those bills.

BILL DUFFORD: No. We are not in favor. We want them to be reduced or not at all.

REP. STONE: Okay. So you want to even go further than these bills are proposed.

BILL DUFFORD: In our particular business, we aren't plumbers. We aren't electricians.

REP. STONE: Bill, hold on. Do you have to be a licensed plumber in order to do the work you just described?

BILL DUFFORD: Some places we do and some places, we don't. If we are working for the NDC, we don't have to be licensed at all.

Sometimes, there have been electrical lines that I will pull through. There are telephone lines or cable TV.

REP. STONE: Does the state require that you be a licensed plumber in order to do the work you are describing here?

BILL DUFFORD: No.

REP. STONE: I think, and I may be wrong, I'll have to ask our [inaudible] attorney to research this.

If you are not required to get a license under Sections 20-330-20-331, then this statute wouldn't even apply to you or that part of your excavating job.

You wouldn't have to comply.

BILL DUFFORD: But there are certain towns that require it.

REP. STONE: Really?

BILL DUFFORD: We did a job at Bristol High School when we had to have a licensed electrician watch us put this pipe in the ground.

REP. STONE: Okay.

BILL DUFFORD: We're trained in the OSHA excavation standards and all that. We don't want to be working inside the buildings or any of that stuff.

REP. STONE: Well, I'm not sure what we can do to affect what a local requirement may be for having a licensed plumber or electrician supervise or watch you do that type of work.

Let us look into whether the statute that we have in front of us or the proposed bill that we have affecting that statute, whether that would apply to you in a first instance.

Then let me know how to get a hold of you, so I can get back to you at that one. Brian, did you have anything you wanted to add?

BRIAN BALAVENDER: My name is Brian Balavender.

REP. STONE: You can sit down, if you want.

BRIAN BALAVENDER: I don't know if this is on.

REP. STONE: If the light is on, it's on.

BRIAN BALAVENDER: Okay. I am the President of B & J Construction, former three-time President of Connecticut Utility Contractors.

My testimony is going to be a little bit different from Bill. I think Bill misunderstood what we were saying.

We support the exemption. We're looking for it. We would like to really see it amended for the P6 and P7 licensees.

The P6 and the P7 licensees, as you know, are the underground contractors, which Bill has referred to, the plumbing and piping.

We are the guys that dig outside the building. As you know, I'm just going to paraphrase something I wrote.

REP. STONE: Brian, why don't you sit down?

BRIAN BALAVENDER: Okay. It shut me off. I'm going to kind of speak about something I looked up prior to coming here.

A plumber, plumbing, that is the work of the practice of installing in-buildings, the pipes, fixtures, and other apparatus required to connect water supplies and remove waste.

A pipe layer, which is a P6 and P7 license, a pipe layer is a person skilled in laying and joining, in a trench, pipe of glazed clay, concrete, PBC, iron, and steel.

What we are looking for is an amendment to the exemption for P6 and P7 licenses. Basically, over the years, our business has evolved from clay tile to PBC, which Bill showed you.

Our business really doesn't have a lot to do with the changes in code. A lot of our work is done by plans and specifications, as Bill showed you.

We are given a set of plans. We bid on them according to the specifications. We have a site engineer, a site inspector.

We follow the guidelines required by the MDC or the town or municipality we're working for or even a water utility company.

What we really should be concentrating on, believe it or not, the license we have should almost be changed out of the plumbing. It falls under the same category as an underground contractor's license.

We have to follow OSHA guidelines, trench excavation guidelines. I'm sure a lot of plumbers inside the building have their own set of guidelines. Ours are unique and different.

We have to deal with a lot of different soil conditions. Every job, basically, has its own little quirk to it.

Basically, that is all I have to say about this. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you, Brian, for that testimony. Does anyone have any questions of Brian? We will look into that P6 and P7 issue and get back to you or Mr. Dufford.

BRIAN BALAVENDER: Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Now, you are hiding in the back, Bill. Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Dufford? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Bill, for your testimony. Thank you, Brian, for your testimony as well.

Have we heard from Richard Weiss? Okay. Have we heard from Aaron Lentz? Okay. Bob Cassidy. Bob, do you want to come up with Tom or do you want to come up separately?

BOB CASSIDY: Whatever he wants to go.

TOM CASSIDY: I will come up separate.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you. Bob, go ahead.

BOB CASSIDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for allowing us to be heard in regards to repeal of Senate Bill 501, AN ACT CONCERNING PUBLIC EDUCATION OF ELECTRICIANS.

My name is Bob Cassidy. I am an unlimited license holder for plumbing and heating in the State of Connecticut.

I am here today to ask your support for House Bill 5659 that was proposed by Ed Jutila, AN ACT REMOVING PLUMBERS FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF CONTINUING EDUCATION.

I would like to make the following points. Senate Bill 501 was silently passed by special-interest groups.

Three thousand out of eight thousand plumbers does not make a majority. With all due respect, Members of this Committee were confused to pass Senate Bill 501 on March, 2002.

In that hearing, Mr. Hupplesburg is quoted as saying, I can't speak for others, but I can speak for plumbing and heating.

I never requested Mr. Hupplesburg to speak for me. Also from the minutes of that hearing, Mr. Andrew Hall of Rapid Service, Inc., a plumbing, heating, and electrical business is quoted as saying in regards to his electricians being ridiculed for going to school while plumbers do not have to, ha, ha.

You don't have to go to continuing ed. We don't. What kind of reasoning is that? The building code just changes every three years. They changes are usually implemented the year after.

Why must we comply with going to school every year in order to renew our license? We already answer to building code officials for code changes.

Don't you think that, as contractors and successful business people, it would be in our best interest and our employees' best interest to make it our business to inform employees of code changes?

We do not want to have to pay for installations performed twice and neither do our valued customers.

Nonunion plumbing apprentices are required to perform 8,000 on-the-job hours and 567 hours of schooling.

Instructors from tech schools are required to note building codes and train apprentices as such, so that when the apprentice is eligible to test of their journeyman's licenses, they are informed of code changes.

I would like to further propose that owners and, or officers of continuing-education schools have no affiliation with professional trade organizations.

Licensure is down dramatically from March of 2002 to January of 2004, according from the minutes of the State Examining Board meeting of February 19, 2004.

There is a severe demand for plumbing journeymen. There is also a shortage of apprentices entering apprenticeship programs.

By continuing the education program, we could deepen this demand, thus driving rates through the roof in the foreseeable future.

A possibility could exist where ex-licensed plumbers could perform permit work under the guise of homeowners' permits or no permit at all.

Part of municipal permit fees are allocated to the continuing education of building code officials.

If permit fees should decline, it would raise permit fees for future construction, thus driving up cost to the general public or forcing the burden on the State of Connecticut to continue to educate inspectors.

As we know, the state cannot afford that. I fully intend, as a responsible and ethical employer, to pay for the fees of my employees and future employees.

Should Senate Bill 501 remain in effect, I would incur those costs. This also means that I will have to include these costs into our hourly rate, thus meaning the general public will incur these costs as well.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to speak to the General Law Committee and implore the Committee to support Ed Jutila's Proposed House Bill 5659. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Bob. Any questions for Mr. Cassidy? Thank you very much for your testimony. Did you submit written testimony as well?

BOB CASSIDY: Yes, I did.

REP. STONE: Okay, very good. Tom Cassidy will be followed by Andrew Sema. Hi, Tom.

TOM CASSIDY: Good afternoon.

REP. STONE: Good afternoon.

TOM CASSIDY: How are you doing?

REP. STONE: Good.

TOM CASSIDY: My name is Tom Cassidy. I live in Danbury, Connecticut. I am a member of Local 777 Plumbers and Pipe Fitters.

I've been in the United Association of Pipe Fitters since 1983, of which I am very proud.

I am here today, missing a day's pay, to voice my angered and frustrated opinion on this continuing education act known as Senate Bill 501.

I guess that was the first one. I am not in favor of it. As you enter the State of Connecticut, heading east from New York State, the Connecticut State welcome sign says, welcome to Connecticut. We are full of surprises.

Well, here is another negative and disturbing surprise for the plumbers of Connecticut who hold the state plumbing license.

This state is extremely costly to live in, one of the highest taxed states in the nation. Each year, we currently pay a fee to renew our licenses.

To obtain this license in the first place, we had to endure five years of apprenticeship training and pay a fee to take a test to acquire the license in the first place.

Now, there is the added cost of taking this class and taking a day off to take this class, which has taken money and time away from our families and food off our tables.

The plumbing industry and codes have been around for over 70 years. These codes have changed many, many times before.

We have adapted and learned these new codes without any problems or difficulties by way of new codebooks, hands-on training, and even word of mouth.

Instead of hurting us and our families with more time and money out of our hard-earned pockets, you should be trying to help us do business in this state.

I offer these simple suggestions as a way to help us and help keep the health of the State of Connecticut intact.

Mail a flyer with our license-renewal forms each year, specifying the changes that have occurred. You could simply post these changes on the Internet, making it easy and accessible to print out as needed throughout the year.

These are just a few simple cost-effective ways to get the word out to the plumbing industry without hurting it and us in the process.

As I stated in the beginning, I am not in favor of Senate Bill 501. Thank you very much for your time.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Tom. Does anyone have any questions of Tom Cassidy? Thank you, Tom, for your testimony. We appreciate it. Andrew Sema.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left.

REP. STONE: Harold Burr. Thank you for that. Harold Burr will be followed by Eaton Burr. Do you want to do this together or separately?

HAROLD BURR: We'll go separately.

REP. STONE: Okay.

HAROLD BURR: Mr. Chairman, my name is Harold Burr. I am with Burr Plumbing and Heating in Waterford, Connecticut.

I am here to support the repeal of the mandatory education for the plumbers. Also, I would like to ask you to support House Bill 6857 that is being proposed by Ed Jutila.

I am not opposed to continuing education. I have a New Hampshire license that I hold now. I go to continuing education in New Hampshire.

It is a three-hour course. It is $30. It is at night, after work. I have been going there for ten years. I am not opposed to it.

I think when we are locked into a nine-hour course and only four education places in the State of Connecticut, I think it would be a much better thing if it were put on the Internet or if it were extended to any course that I choose to go to that I may need work in.

I could use that as a CE course, get the credits that way. I could perhaps stretch it out over three years. That wouldn't be a bad thing either.

That would give you plenty of time to do things and direct my education towards learning what I feel I need to know in furthering my education.

So that is where I am in support of this.

REP. STONE: Very good. Thank you for that testimony. Harold, you had to get licensed separately in New Hampshire. There wasn't any reciprocity.

HAROLD BURR: No. I have a separate license.

REP. STONE: In New Hampshire, okay. In New Hampshire, they require three hours or they don't require anything?

HAROLD BURR: Three hours. The last time I went to a course up there, they gave you information. We were there about an hour and 45 minutes. They let the class go.

REP. STONE: Is it essentially the same material that you would get in Connecticut?

HAROLD BURR: Basically, I think it is. I haven't been to the course in Connecticut yet.

REP. STONE: All right. Any other questions of Harold? Thank you very much for sticking around.

HAROLD BURR: One other thing, I am a member of PHCC, by the way.

REP. STONE: Well, that is good. Are you part of the Connecticut Chapter?

HAROLD BURR: [inaudible - microphone not on]

REP. STONE: Do they fly you down to Texas to testify?

HAROLD BURR: [inaudible - microphone not on]

REP. STONE: It is good to see you, Harold. Eaton Burr, please.

EATON BURR: Yes.

REP. STONE: Is it Eaton?

EATON BURR: Yes. Good afternoon. I am in favor of continuing education, but I think we support House Bill 6857. That is it.

REP. STONE: You get the gold star today, by the way. Does anyone have any questions of Eaton? Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

James Renshaw followed by Paul Leduc.

JAMES RENSHAW: Thank you very much. My name is James Renshaw. I am a licensed plumber in the State of Connecticut.

I support the repeal of mandatory education for plumbers. I guess one of my biggest reasons is the continuing education, there are different products that come out differently.

So I must go to training to even be able to buy some of these products at the supply house or to have the warranty in effect.

There is a first-aid course I attend every year on my own. None of this qualifies for the continuing education. It is only through the school that they run that qualifies.

I don't think that is fair either. I don't think it is fair that we cannot do it online or in the mail, on our own time.

It has to be on a Saturday or during working hours. I oppose that as a hardship on all of the plumbers. That is it. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Jim, your business is where?

JAMES RENSHAW: New London, Connecticut.

REP. STONE: New London. Do they offer a training course in that area in New London?

JAMES RENSHAW: I believe so. I don't want to speak for that.

REP. STONE: All right. Does anyone have any questions for Jim? Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

JIM RENSHAW: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Paul Leduc followed by William Lamphere. I know that is not right.

WILLIAM R. LAMPHERE: That is right.

REP. STONE: It is right. Thanks, Bill.

PAUL LEDUC: Mr. Chairman, Members of the General Law Committee, I have submitted a copy of my statement.

I would just like to say another thing off the record. I think Commissioner Rodriguez has the right idea with the continuing education and the flexibility of the seminars and workshops, the amount of hours that we should attend.

Another thing, I was a member of the PHCC years ago. When I was a member, we used to be able to get funding from different manufacturers, manufacturers' reps, supply houses.

They would help us put on workshops and seminars. I think the Association should take this on and see if they could continue doing this for the industry at no cost.

I think the manufacturers and the supply houses would be very happy to help. That is all I have to say.

REP. STONE: Well, that is an interesting spin on it. It is an interesting approach to an issue. We might be able to provide what all of you considered, at least everyone who testified thus far, the importance of continuing education, the importance of safety and keeping up to date on the codes.

I don't think any person has said that those goals are not laudable. Perhaps having the industry police itself rather than have the state do it, that is an interesting concept.

Does anyone have any questions? Did you want to add something, Sir?

PAUL LEDUC: Yeah, just one quick comment. I think everybody here, most of us, we are all for the education.

It's just how we're going to get it.

REP. STONE: No. I understand that. I am hearing that loud and clear. Thank you for that testimony. Next is Bill, William Lamphere.

WILLIAM R. LAMPHERE, JR.: Thank you, Sir. I want to address Senator Colapietro and the Committee. My name is William R. Lamphere, Jr.

I am the President of Lamphere Plumbing and Heating in Ledyard, Connecticut. I have been in business 43 years.

I don't know how I got that far being so unprofessional. I have never been cited by the Consumer Protections. I have always paid my taxes.

I have employed many taxpaying citizens of Connecticut. A few months ago, I received a colorful brochure in the mail from a school stating that I had to attend a class to perfect my professionalism or lose my license.

I have nothing against education. Using education as a form of oppression, that feels unconstitutional.

I have already completed my education. I have proven my knowledge of plumbing when I sat and took my licensing exam.

I passed, according to the state standards. This is the same scenario, I am probably out of line, but it is.

If I were to tell you or send you a brochure that you had to go to school to hold on to your driver's license and certify it every year to the tune of $250 or so, there would be a hell a lot more deaths with the automobile on the state roads.

I haven't read about anyone drowning in their toilet or having to get a boat to get out of their basement.

I think plumbers take a lot of pride in their work. I think they're forgetting the fact that building and plumbing inspectors in the State of Connecticut have to go to school.

They keep us in line. I think you are forgetting the fact that the state's tech school has put out some damn good people.

I am for repealing this Senate Bill 501. I just don't think it's fair.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, William. Hold on, William. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony?

Jack Cutillo followed by Chris Samuelson. Not even close, am I, Chris?

JACK CUTILLO: My name is Jack Cutillo. Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the Committee, I represent [inaudible].

I have been in business for 44 years. My statement is very brief. I support the repeal of the mandatory education for plumbers.

The key word for me is mandatory, not education. Please, support House Bill 6857. One more thing, I believe the gentleman from Texas kind of hit the nail on the head.

He said when they first adopted their program in Texas, it was for a six-hour period. Then, all of a sudden, it went to 12. Then it went to 24. Then it went to 32.

I hold four licenses. To me, that is 120 some hours a year. I can't do it.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Jack. Hold on. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much.

JACK CUTILLO: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Chris Samuelson.

CHRIS SAMUELSON: I write like a doctor.

REP. STONE: He will be followed by William Neff.

CHRIS SAMUELSON: I am Chris Samuelson. I am totally in support of House Bill 6857. I think the guys I'm with said it all.

I don't want to waste your time.

REP. STONE: Okay. Hold on. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much, Chris, for your testimony.

Next is William Neff. Before William testifies, you can just come up and sit down. I just have an announcement.

In the bulletin, there was a scheduled Committee meeting for today. That meeting has been canceled. Our next Committee meeting will be next Tuesday to consider some bills.

Go ahead, Bill.

WILLIAM NEFF: Good afternoon, Committee. I am a licensed plumber. I am just here to support House Bill 6857. That is it.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Bill. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you. He gets the next gold star. Yeah.

Kevin Plourde. Is Kevin still around? Okay. Peter Arborio. Are you Kevin? Oh, come on up, Kevin. I didn't see you. Kevin will be followed by Peter Arborio.

KEVIN PLOURDE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee. I am Kevin Plourde, a project manager for D & G Contractors out of Plainville, Connecticut.

I hold a P6 license. I am here to support an amendment or an exemption for P6 and P7 license holders for taking the continuing education.

I took the continuing-education class last fall. In the three hours the class was held, everything was for plumbers. Nothing pertained to P6 or P7 utility installers.

I just felt as though it was more for P1, P2 plumbers. You know, there was nothing in the class that really had anything for P6 holders.

I am just here to support an amendment for P6 and P7 license holders.

REP. STONE: How long was the class that you took?

KEVIN PLOURDE: It was three hours.

REP. STONE: I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt.

KEVIN PLOURDE: That is pretty much it.

REP. STONE: Okay. Now, the class that you took, that was pursuant to this statute and this part of your continuing ed.

KEVIN PLOURDE: Yeah. It was House Bill 6857. I'm sorry.

REP. STONE: That is all right. So you took the three-hour course.

KEVIN PLOURDE: Yes.

REP. STONE: Is there more to the three-hour course or are you done?

KEVIN PLOURDE: Well, for P7 holders, there are two courses. There are two three-hour courses for P7 holders. For P6, what I am, there is only one course.

REP. STONE: The course that you took, this three-hour course, was it designed for P6's or P7's or anybody with a plumber's license?

KEVIN PLOURDE: From what I saw, it was designed for plumbers, not, in a sense, for utility contractors like us.

Everything was inside the building, nothing I've ever heard of before. I'm not licensed for that kind of work.

REP. STONE: So nothing in the course related to the work you would do as a P6 or a P7.

KEVIN PLOURDE: They reviewed clearances between outside utilities. They changed the distance in some kind of codebook.

So it was literally 30 seconds of knowledge that I picked up in that three-hour course.

REP. STONE: Okay. So there was one change in the code that they alerted you to.

KEVIN PLOURDE: Yeah, variable code. Some of it was covered by [inaudible]. So it didn't seem to have much relevance, not enough to take a class for.

REP. STONE: Okay. Does anyone else have a question? Yes, Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kevin, where was the class held?

KEVIN PLOURDE: It was held at St. Joseph's College in West Hartford.

REP. JOHNSTON: And where do you work out of?

KEVIN PLOURDE: I work in Plainville, D & G Contractors. We are a site development utility contractor.

REP. JOHNSTON: And you paid how much for the class?

KEVIN PLOURDE: I don't remember the exact amount. I am an employee of the company. They paid the amount. It was my father and I who went.

REP. JOHNSTON: And did you have to take a whole day off from your regular job to do it? That day, were you able to get in a part day, half of a day?

KEVIN PLOURDE: I had to go at night. It was from 6:00 to 9:00 at night.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Johnston. Anyone else? Thank you very much for your testimony, Kevin. Is Peter Arborio here? Okay, Peter. Peter will be followed by John Vasel.

PETER ARBORIO: Good afternoon, Gentlemen. I am here to testify to amend the laws to exempt P6 and P7 licenses through continuing-education requirements.

My brothers and I are fourth generation in our family construction business. Personally, I have been active in the business for over 27 years.

We perform utility work and heavy civil Construction. That means we excavate and lay anything from drain pipe, sewers, water mains to constructing roads and bridges.

I know from my experience, these bills hold little value for us as utility contractors. I'm really not sure how much value they are to a plumber.

Let me walk you through a few things that might clarify this issue. Plumbers work primarily inside a building.

They are trained to follow the building code. This creates certain efficiencies. The first is on the design side whether the design professional doesn't need to specify or lay out minute detail, all the plumbing details.

He can state that certain facts must meet the building codes and certain facets of the system must comply.

He will know that that system will function as expected. On the construction side, this allows the plumber to employ his years of experience and technical creativity to choose materials and pipe locations that will provide the building owner the most value for his construction dollar.

This is really a performance-based situation. Outside the building, it is a little bit of a different story where we work. Conditions are different. Our work is engineered.

The materials are specified by type and size. We have no choice in what we can use. We need to place our pipe in a location that is engineered both horizontally and vertically to meet the demands of the building and to meet the utility out in the street that we are going to connect to.

This is called meeting line and grade. We are excavators. We create the space and place the pipe according to that line and grade designated on the plans in a safe and controlled fashion.

These are the skills that we bring to the job. We have little, if any, flexibility that would be code related. It's more effective for us to spend our limited resources on education and training our people in the risks that we face in excavating and the challenges we encounter in laying the pipe. [Changing from Tape 2B to 3A.]

--on the street or down below, where we try to fit the pipes in. Please, support an exemption for continuing education for P-6 and P-7 licenses. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Peter. I am familiar with your company, and I certainly appreciate the good work that you do.

PETER ARBORIO: Thank you. Have you got any questions for me?

REP. STONE: I don't know yet. I will find out in a minute. We are all set, Peter. Thank you very much for your testimony.

PETER ARBORIO: I have a rhetorical one, Gentlemen. What is going to motivate me to train my people?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: I don't know. I don't know what the answer is. We are here to hear you, not you to hear us.

REP. STONE: I am sure there will be hearings. Joyce will keep you posted on the workers compensation hearings throughout the building this session. I am sure she will keep you posted. Thank you very much, Peter.

Next is John Vasel, followed by Robin, is it Robin Jennings? Rorin Jennings. Okay. Thank you.

JOHN VASEL: My name is John Vasel, [inaudible] Construction, Rocky Hill, Connecticut. I have been in business for 21 years. I am a P-7 holder. I am an active member of the UCAC, for which I am currently Treasurer also.

I am in support of this bill for the exemption of the P-6 and the P-7 licensing.

REP. STONE: We know that you are the P-6.

JOHN VASEL: Yeah, I currently own a P-7.

REP. STONE: You want the exemption for the P-7 licenses. I am sorry for that interruption. I apologize. Do you have anything else you would like to add to that?

JOHN VASEL: Basically, the gentleman that went before me capped everything.

REP. STONE: Is there a code for the work that you do? Is there a separate code for excavation work, piping work, drain laying, etc?

JOHN VASEL: I don't recall.

REP. STONE: It is all part of the plumbing code?

JOHN VASEL: We do utility work outside of the building.

REP. STONE: Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you very much, John, for your testimony. I appreciate it. Rorin Jennings followed by Jim Juliano.

RORIN JENNINGS: Good afternoon. Rorin Jennings, Jennings General Contracting, out of Newington, Connecticut.

I support the exemption of the House Bill 6857 for the P-6 and P-7. Most of us go to work every day.

We are trying to figure out how to compensate for cost of fuel, cost of rising insurance. If we take a day off of work or time off of work to go for these classes and stuff, we lose thousands of dollars, not just $150.

The best training is hands-on. If you want us to teach our people how to do stuff, they have to have so many hours of things, on-the-job training, before they can go down and take tests for licenses and stuff like that.

If we already hold licenses, and we are being re-tested for things that don't even pertain to part of our active duty, I don't understand how that effects us.

We are underground utility contractors working out in the street. We are being dictated by the MBC, public utilities.

They come out, they tell us where things are going, they tell us where the mark outs are for our connections and where we have to come in, just like Peter Arborio said ahead of me. I support the House Bill 6857.

REP. STONE: I know that for some municipalities, if not most, and certainly for the MBC, they have certain plans and specifications that are standard, and you have to follow for laying sewer pipe, and water mains, etc.

They also have an inspector on site to make sure the work that you are doing is in accordance with those specifications.

RORIN JENNINGS: Hooked up and installed correctly to their specifications. The MDC has a set of plans, for instance, for a water main, a sewer main, or things of that nature.

It has to go before the review board for utility services and stuff to be allowed to go in those positions and those locations.

That is where they put it on the engineer plans, and we have nothing to do with that.

We are told, here are the plans, you hook up from point A, you bring it to Point B, and you stub it off. A plumber takes it inside the house and continues.

REP. STONE: It would be fair to say there is very little, if any, discretion on the part of the P-6, P-7 license holder in how to go from point A to point A. It is shown on the plans, my understanding is, in a high level of detail.

RORIN JENNINGS: The only alteration or change may be in height, side-to-side a little bit. If you hit rock, you go around the rock a little bit.

If you hit a water condition, you excavate a little more, you put in a little more stone, you put in a little more material to stabilize the pipe.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you, Rorin, for that. Rorin, hold on. I just want to make sure. Anyone have any questions, quick? Thank you, Rorin. Jim Juliano?

UNKNOWN PERSON: Not here.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. Does anyone else want to speak? I know we have the other bill, and I will go through that in a minute, but we have completed the public portion of Senate Bill 1255.

UNKNOWN PERSON: Excuse me. I waited in line for quite some time to speak.

REP. STONE: Why don't you come up.

UNKNOWN PERSON: There must be a whole sheet missing.

REP. STONE: Hold on. Let's one at a time. The gentleman who spoke first, just come up to the front. While you do that, I am going to ask Ken, is there another page on Senate Bill 1255?

UNKNOWN PERSON: It happened when we changed locations. We were sitting over here, and then they had a public hearing, and they moved us outside.

REP. STONE: Okay. Come on up. We have the other bill. Some people may have signed up for one bill and not the other, so I am going to go through the names on that list as well.

And if you haven't been called, we will get you up here. What is your name, Sir?

MURRAY RENSHAW: My name is Murray Renshaw.

REP. STONE: Okay. I do have you on the list on the House bill 6857. I did not have you on the list for the Senate Bill 1255.

MURRAY RENSHAW: Do you want me to wait?

REP. STONE: No, go ahead. You are up there. Go ahead. I know you will be brief, in due deference to the time.

MURRAY RENSHAW: I will be brief. First of all, Mr. Chairman and the Members of the General Law Committee, I want to thank you for allowing this hearing to discuss continuing education diplomas.

I have been in business for 25 years. I am 58 years old. I started my apprenticeship when I was 19 years old. You served a 5-year apprenticeship in Local 305, Plumbers and Steamfitters of Connecticut.

I was president of the local union, and I have worked on large jobs, small jobs, installing plumbing, and heating, and sprinkler systems.

I am here today to represent the 3,240 signatures we have to repeal this bill. These petitions were posted throughout the State of Connecticut.

I have grappled with a continuing education law, and I support full repeal of a law that I consider nothing more than an unfunded mandate and another layer of bureaucracy.

The need for a six-to-nine-hour class every year has simply not been established. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find out what the State of Connecticut wants us to learn.

To date, I have not been able to get a straight answer from anyone. Presently, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection supervises 180 licenses, according to the Commissioner, whom we met with the other day.

CEU's are required for home inspectors, landscape architects, real estate appraisers, real estate brokers, shorthand reporters, pharmacists, and now plumbers.

Would you believe that attorneys and doctors are not required to attend CEU's? I am going to assume that none of the Members of the General Law Committee are plumbers, and you are all professional people.

Professional people love the sound of CEU's, continuing education. I think we all like that.

But the fact of the matter is plumbers already have a continuing education program in place. Most of us learn something new every day.

There is always a new problem to solve or a new product to install or a new material to use. That is the nature of our business. That is what makes it such a wonderful business.

By the way, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I have loved my job, and never had a day I didn't want to go to work.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That old adage describes exactly and perfectly the problem we are facing today.

First and foremost, when we are doing a job, we obtain a plumbing permit from our local building department.

When the installation is complete, the inspector visits a job, inspects our work, and the installation either passes or fails.

State statutes require local building inspectors and plumbing inspectors to attend mandatory classes every year. We pay for those via the permits we take out for the jobs.

They are very well-versed and very educated. The system in place works well without adding more burden to the industry.

REP. STONE: Just wrap up, Murray, if you would.

MURRAY RENSHAW: Plumbers and steamfitters are constantly updating and educating themselves.

Larger jobs have blueprints and specifications, which outline and specify exactly the installation that is required.

I want to just mention, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your consideration, the retirees. This thing is a slap in the face to every retired plumber in the State of Connecticut.

These are the men and women who have been the backbone of our industry, and yet you are requiring these people who are proud to be a plumber, to attend these classes.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Murray, for your testimony. Senator Colapietro, did you have something?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Yes I did. I just wanted to briefly talk about your petition. I appreciate your opinion on the bill. That is what you are here for, to tell us what you think.

The petition, I did talk to some of the plumbers on the petition, who told me they were told that I slipped this bill under the radar for my union friends. That wasn't true.

And I am not so sure that those people would have signed the petition knowing that I am trying to keep an open mind here and help the plumbers here as well.

I think we can, but I just want it clear that there was a lot of misinformation out there about me. I am a little upset about it, and I am still going to be upset about it for a while.

I am still going to keep an open mind. We are going to take care of our business here, and we do appreciate what you are saying.

But as far as the petition is concerned, people from that petition told me they were told that I did this for my union friends. I did not.

MURRAY RENSHAW: Senator, may I respond?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Sure.

MURRAY RENSHAW: With all due respect, you were misinformed once again. I never, ever made the statement that you pushed this thing through to go against anybody.

You are misinformed. We have had the utmost respect for your work. We did say that the plumbers and the steamfitters are the 8,000 people in the State of Connecticut that did not know anything about this bill.

That is true. And the reason for that is because originally at your public hearing on March 5, 2002, that hearing was scheduled to hear a bill proposed for electricians.

Two guys walk into that meeting, and, all of the sudden, 8,000 plumbers are involved. Accept my apologies for anything that somebody said that I did say, but I didn't say it quite frankly.

I hope that clears it up. If you visit our website, everything is very well-documented and reported.

The information we took out is from this documented testimony from March 5, 2002, which is a public record.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: I do appreciate that. Testimony is opinion. It is your opinion, it is someone else's opinion, it is all of your opinions. We appreciate that.

But I did take offence, and I was told that. I was told that also by a Legislator who got a call from a constituent that that is what happened.

MURRAY RENSHAW: I wish you would supply me with those names. I will straighten it out. It is an outright lie. I never said. Nobody representing our people ever said that.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Let me just go back to what you said about the public hearing because I did hold that public hearing.

Not one, only one person testified against the bill at that time. It was proposed by business, not by unions or anybody else.

We did have a public hearing. One person testified, said I don't like the bill, I don't appreciate it. I said why not?

They said because we represent plumbers, and we are not in it. So I said no problem, you are in it. We didn't hear a word for two years. Not a word for two years.

That is the truth, the God's honest truth. Nobody pushed this bill. Nobody hammered anybody up here.

Nobody insisted that I did it for my union people except for a couple of guys who were told that.

MURRAY RENSHAW: It was never mentioned. Anything that was mentioned came right out of that transcript verbatim, in quotations.

I never said that, and I want to know the person who told you that because they are a damn liar.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Murray, for your testimony. Thank you very much. Peter Langley? Is Peter still here? Richard Spargo?

RICHARD SPARGO: Thank you for hearing me today, Senator Colapietro.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Let me just say one thing, quickly, this is a constituent of mine. He is the plumber that caused this public hearing today.

He made sense to me. He talked to me. He didn't accuse me of anything. He didn't accuse me of slipping this in.

He honestly came to me with some legitimate complaints. I did appreciate that. Please, continue.

RICHARD SPARGO: Okay. I need to amend one thing in my written testimony. For the hours for the apprenticeship, it should have read, for the schooling of the apprenticeship, should have read 567 hours. It was misprinted.

I support the repeal for the plumbing for the continuing education. What I support is information. I learn every day on the job.

I did my class work when I did my apprenticeship years ago. I have been in business for 30 years.

I am in ongoing education all the time with the materials that we use and talking with the inspectors and the State to get clarification on the codebook.

I read the codebook. The code changes every three to six years. The changes are not that dramatic to where we need to go to school every year for that.

I have taken a lot of classes for continuing education at the manufacturers for troubleshooting problem with boilers, which doesn't pertain to plumbing.

That is heating, but we also have factory rep's that come to certify us for products that you can't buy over the counter, like at Home Depot or anything like that because it is only for professionals.

This is all the new stuff, [inaudible] gas piping. We have to be certified to buy it and then install it according to their specifications.

They want to teach us. That is something that this code for continuing education can't teach us because this is what manufacturers teach.

I am not against education, but there is a better, faster way to get information to plumbers, directly from the plumbing board, the Department of Consumer Protection, the State Building Department, the email, electronic bulletins, postings on approved internet sites, faxes.

The State knows who we are and where we are. Getting the word out is not that difficult.

I talked to one of my suppliers that was in support of the plumbers continuing education.

I asked him why do you support that? He said to me, it was a marketing tool. I said, what do you mean a marketing tool? He said it was a marketing tool. So what does that tell you?

Another thing is that my license was chopped up. I had an unlimited license, P-1. All of the sudden, it got chopped up, protection was taken out of it for sprinklers.

Now, I have two licenses for plumbing. Then heating came along. I have a heating license too, contractors license.

Then they added a SM, a sheet metal license, so I had to get that too. Now, I have four licenses, and if this continuing education continues, it might continue for the four licenses.

Now, it is four Saturdays, four Thursday nights a year. I would be learning the same stuff in the contractor's portion.

I would be learning the same stuff four times, over and over. I don't think that that is acceptable.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Richard. Does anyone have any questions of Richard? I want to thank you for bringing this to my Co-Chair's attention.

I am sure your colleagues, who are on your side of this issue, thank you as well. Did you have anything you wanted to add, Richard, or are you all set?

RICHARD SPARGO: That should be it.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciated that. Donald Maddox followed by George Sima.

DONALD MADDOX: Hello. My name is Don Maddox. I am a resident of Farmington. It appears to me that I am the one footing the bill for all of this.

I am the consumer. I am not a plumber. I am not an electrician. A friend of mine is a plumber. He started to talk about it. I did some research.

I am in support of House Bill 6857 that completely repeals continuing education for plumbers.

Statements were heard here today about damage to plastic parts inside of fittings. I don't understand what in a classroom in going to fix that.

If you had shoddy workmanship, you are not going to learn how to resolder a pipe in a classroom.

Someone else mentioned about electrical codes. Well, I can see how that is complicated, but, once again, if you are talking about updating codes, you can learn that outside of a classroom. You don't have to be there in a classroom.

I looked at the State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection's website. They described what is required for their courses.

One of the things is they do not allow correspondence courses. If most of the information is code, and I am assuming it is, and the things that are mechanical can't be taught in a classroom, then it would appear to me that they could just get a different way to get the information out to the individuals.

One of the processes for the Department of Consumer Education is that each course provider has to submit their course, and it has to be approved.

Well, if you have ten different people submitting courses, you have ten different approval processes going on. Nothing can change.

If something happens during the year, the course has to be mandated again, to be submitted and changed again by the Department of Consumer Protection.

If you are going to have a process with the Department of Consumer Protection approving everything that is taught, why don't you just keep the plan in house?

Let the Department of Consumer Protection dictate what is required and what the plumbers need to know.

I would like, if it is at all possible, and this is a little bit off subject, I would like to see the Department of Consumer Protection require proof of insurance by contractors for both liability and workers compensation.

I don't want to get sued by a worker who is at my house who trips and falls on something. If something goes bad, the liability would at least be a resource that I could dip into.

Anyway, I would like to repeat that I am in support of the House Bill 6857 that repeals the certificate of continuing education for plumbers. I am not against education. It is just a matter of how it is going to happen.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, George. Anybody else have any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it.

Mark from Mark's Plumbing and Heating. What is? Did we hear from George Sima already? Come on, George. I am sorry. Thank you, Dennis. I am sorry, George, I crossed you out when I shouldn't have.

GEORGE SIMA: I am here to oppose two bills--

REP. STONE: By the way, I apologize to the last gentleman. I called him George.

GEORGE SIMA: --House Bill 1255 and Senate Bill 6857, as they are written. I sit on the, I am Chairman of the Plumbing and Piping Board of the State.

We review all classes that come in front for continuing ed. What we need is more input from the different categories out there to review what needs to be done.

This is not set in stone right now. Right now, we are in the process of redesigning because of some of the plumbing contractors that sit on the board have taken the classes and said, hey, we need to redesign.

All I am asking is to just give the Board and Department of Consumer Protection a chance to review what is out there and make the changes. I feel everything will flow easily in the coming years.

REP. STONE: George, do you think there should be, and this may be what you are getting at, but a different educational protocol for different classes of licenses?

For example, we have had testimony from the P-6 and P-7 licenses that, you know, for a three-hour class they might have dealt with that discipline for maybe a minute or two.

GEORGE SIMA: That is one thing we are starting to look at right now. One of the plumbing contractors went and took the nine-hour class.

He came back and personally said that some of the material he had in that nine hours did not have any effect to what he does in the plumbing industry.

Like I said, it was a put together, I don't want to say in a rush or anything, over the years.

There are different classifications, the P-6, the P-7's. I hold a W-1 contractors license for a water well contractor in the State.

Right now, we are in the process of putting together our own continuing ed that we want to have the State endorse eventually.

It has to be broken down, more or less, into different classifications in the license.

REP. STONE: This whole issue is a, I won't say learn as you go, but there is a learning curve.

This is my first year on the Committee, so it is somewhat new to me, but as we work our way through this, one of the reasons why we have public hearing and proposals like you see in front of you is if we can do things better, this is the opportunity to try to get testimony.

GEORGE SIMA: Like Commissioner Rodriguez said, there is work that has to be done on it. It is just a matter of giving us the time to put it together and get it working right.

REP. STONE: Does anyone have any questions? Representative Johnston?

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. George, how do you go about changing the course material, and who approves the course material and what is taught?

It seems like you are saying that maybe now, in hindsight, you would structure it a little differently. How would you structure it different, and who do you need approval from in the future to do that?

GEORGE SIMA: Well, the Board would look over the material that is being put in front of us. The members on the Board would review it, either approve the change, and then it would go to the Commissioner's office with our recommendations.

REP. JOHNSTON: And you think that is a pretty workable process, that if you get some good input that you want to make some substantive changes in it, you feel there is a good shot that would happen?

GEORGE SIMA: I don't know. I really can't say. It is a Board consisting of, I think, nine members and how each member wants to address each issue. There are nine different opinions on it.

REP. JOHNSTON: The only reason I asked that is because I know in environmental protection, we set up years ago a class that people have to go through that have a motor on any kind of a boat.

I can't remember how many hours. I think it is a nine-hour course. I remember many people in my district who had electric motors that they strictly put on a canoe or a rowboat, on a non-ocean, on a small lake, and yet they have to take the same class as everyone else.

About half of the class deals with ocean current, and large boats, and rights of way. And, you know what, we are eight years later, and that hasn't changed a bit.

So I guess I am fearful, and I want some sense that this would be a process that, as we seek changes, it is available to change the structure of the program, so we are not locked into something, whether it is working or not working.

My experience shows me that often, as a State, we are rigid once we set something in place. That is why I was asking that question.

GEORGE SIMA: Already we are putting together a program for 2006 licenses, but it is not going to be constantly OSHA or whatever the agenda is set up right now. I don't have the schedule in front of me. It fluctuates from year to year.

REP. STONE: If I could just respond to that. That was one of the Commissioner's comments.

While we may decide to extend the time frame from every year to every three years, that he would still want the discretion for circumstances that you just pointed out to increase the frequency of the class, if there is a change in the industry or a change in the trade or a change in the code that is substantial, that he would still want that discretion.

I think that was brought home loud and clear by the Commissioner. That may not just be the hours and the time, but maybe the discipline. And a P-6 or P-7 may require something more or less than a P-1 or P-2. I think that discretion is important.

GEORGE SIMA: All the licensing, P-6, P-7, P-1, P-2, J1, J3, whatever licenses that are regulated by the Consumer Protection Agency is under the--

REP. STONE: That is for getting a license, but I am talking in terms of developing an educational protocol.

The Commissioner's representatives are here, but the Commissioner is not here. We just keep creating more and more work for the Department of Consumer Protection.

We can do that when he is not here. Thank you very much, George. It is good to see you. Thank you for your testimony.

Is Mark Fornador here? Mark, did I get that right? Mark, I wasn't even close.

MARK FORNADOR: It is not the first time. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today.

My name is Mark Fornador from Mystic, Connecticut. I run a small plumbing firm.

I would like to voice my opposition to Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857 concerning continuing education for plumbers.

I entered the plumbing trade in 1986, and began learning as much as I could at that time. To this date, I haven't stopped learning.

As a tradesman working for the public in the plumbing trade, I help protect the health and safety of the community. I don't think that is to be taken lightly.

I am very much in support of continuing education as it helps provide the public with the smartest contractor when they choose a licensed contractor.

I have yet to hear a building official say that plumbers are overeducated. Continuing education can only strengthen our industry by bettering those involved with it.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Mark, for that testimony. Anyone have any questions? Thank you, Mr. Fornador.

Next on the list is John Elberino. Is Andrew Sima here? John is not here. We have heard from Murray.

Andrew MacMahon? Andrew will be followed by James Ceil. Same company, Andrew?

ANDREW MACMAHON: Not yet.

REP. STONE: Is James Ceil here?

ANDREW MACMAHON: That is who I work with.

REP. STONE: Do you want to talk together or do you want to do separately?

ANDREW MACMAHON: Separately is fine.

REP. STONE: Okay. You can make your way up, and then when he is done you can step up.

ANDREW MACMAHON: I am just here to show my support for House Bill 6857. I have been in business with Jim for about 10 years. Every day, we are learning together.

We are a member of the Better Business Bureau, and would never do anything to put in danger our customers. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you. Hold on a second. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. Jim?

JAMES CEIL: Hi. I am Jim Ceil from Ceil Plumbing and Heating. I am in support of House Bill 6857.

I am not against continuing education. I just don't think they have worked it out to where it is going to benefit and give us the information that we need.

I do mind paying for school for myself and employees to absorb information that we already know or is useless to us. If the class is based strictly on code, you shouldn't need to take a code class.

The book is out there every three years, however often it comes out. You should be able to buy it and read it.

No matter how much you send us to school, at some point you need to be responsible for your own intake of that information.

That comes from within yourself. You can't jam that down somebody's throat. I am in support of the bill.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Jim, for your testimony. Any questions? Yes, Representative Johnston?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON: Real quickly, Mr. Chairman. When the new book comes out every three years, are there changes highlighted or in some fashion become noticeable, so you don't search for them.

REP. STONE: That is an interesting question. The book itself, if there is a change, whether it is highlighted in the body of it or is an amendment?

JAMES CEIL: Yes.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. Mr. Lamphere, I can't read your first name, Mr. Lamphere?

WILLIAM LAMPHERE: Good afternoon. I am William Lamphere III, Representative Stone, Senator Colapietro. I am in support of House Bill 6857.

I have been in the plumbing trade ever since I was born, approximately about 33 years. I believe that this continuing education is not needed.

I believe that the education I received, and the experience of myself and the men around me, and the actual competitive nature of the trade is an experience and education in its own right.

What is comes down to is anyone can know the codebook. You can buy the code book and get the code updates, but what they cannot school and they cannot teach you is how to be a craftsman, how to be a professional.

That comes with time. That comes with your mentors. That comes with the competitive nature of the trade. That comes from word of mouth.

I don't think that this continuing education, as it stands now, can teach me any of that.

I don't believe that this continuing education, as it stands now and being administered by this private enterprise, can teach me how to be professional, teach me to take pride in my work, teach me to be a good craftsman.

If the Legislature indeed feels as though we need a continuing education process, I propose two things.

We have 17 vocational technical schools in this State. We have state certified teachers who teach plumbing in this State.

I was, myself, an apprenticeship program teacher in Grasso Tech for a period of three years. It was one of the hardest jobs I have ever done in my entire career, standing up in front of a continuing education apprenticeship program for three hours.

I was tested on a continuous basis, more so than my students were. I feel as though if we need to spend the money, the Legislature feels we need to have this continuing education, it shouldn't be taught by a private enterprise.

It should be taught by the State because my license is issued by the State and by a State certified teacher. I appreciate the time to speak to this Legislature. Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Thank you. And thank you, all, quite frankly, for waiting to testify. I appreciate your patience.

Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much. Next is Paul McGuire, followed by Howard Worst.

PAUL MCGUIRE: Good afternoon. My name is Paul McGuire from McGuire Plumbing and Heating in Voluntown, Connecticut.

I come here today to protest the recently passed bill to require plumbers to have continuing education.

I support House Bill 6857, although I strongly feel it should be amended to include all plumbers, not just the ones who currently hold licenses.

Should the bill not pass, I have to be in favor of Senate Bill 1225, that cuts back on the amount of educational hours.

I feel passing House Bill 6857, as it stands, puts currently licensed plumbers in the position of being gangplank pullers.

A gangplank puller is one who is already on the boat, so he pulls on the gangplank, so no one else can get on.

I feel it's not right to let Legislators put anyone's career on the line over an issue like continuing education.

They have clearly overstepped their bounds in this area and many others as well.

Having been working in the trade for some 33 years, including trade school, I find many things the State has done to tradesman appalling.

When I served my apprenticeship, plumbers could install septic systems. But before I got my license, the State took that privilege away, allowing only licensed plumbers who grandfather in on a separate septic license.

Then I took my Journeyman's test, and I was told that I failed. I protested and reviewed the test, only to find out that I passed with flying colors.

A man from the State told me someone much have put the paper into the computer backwards. I am not sure if my information is valid or not, but I heard years later the State was failing new coming journeymen on purpose, at that time, because they felt there were too many plumbers in the State.

Next, I received notice from the State that they took away my fire protection privilege, which I had earned on my license and required me to grandfather in on a separate sprinkler license.

But the most appalling thing they did to me was this, they sent me yet another notice that took away my privilege to install plumbing in buildings over a certain size or to have over a certain amount of men on one job.

I hold a P-1. It is a supposedly unlimited license. A mechanical contractor license is now needed for this, which is not grand fathered in.

You must take a separate test, and like the rest of the privileges that the State took away, you need to pay a separate fee for this license.

This is a privilege that I had earned once, and someone from the State had the audacity to take away from me without any notification, so that I could protest what is going on.

Just like the bill for continuing education was passed without notification to me, so I could protest this latest form of abuse to my career and way of life.

Tell me what gives these people this kind of power to play with my hard earned living and career as freely as they do?

Do these same people have someone playing with their livelihood like they do with mine? I think not or they wouldn't dream of doing the things they have done to me.

If we the plumbers do not stand up and fight for all these things, the next thing you know, someone from the State will be telling us what time to start work in the morning and when to close shop at night.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Paul, for wrapping up. If I may, hold on, we thank you for your testimony.

And without diminishing the seriousness of your testimony, obviously, I have learned something new today amongst other things, and that is what a gangplank puller is. That is the first time I have heard that phrase.

PAUL MCGUIRE: I don't want to be one.

REP. STONE: Does anyone have any questions of Paul? Thank you very much, Paul. Next is Howard Worst, followed by Charles Senic.

HOWARD WORST: Hello. My name is Howard Worst. I am a professional plumber. I came here today to show my support of House Bill 6857. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. No questions? Thank you. Charles Senic? Ed Grunzian followed by Mike Doran. Is Ed here? Okay, come on, Mike. Thank you for your patience, Mike.

MIKE DORAN: Thank you. My name is Mike Doran. I am a plumbing contractor from Trumbull, Connecticut. I am here to, hopefully, get the continuing education repealed.

Although I am in favor of continuing education, I just don't believe that mandatory education is the way to go.

All the supply houses that I deal with offer classes at night and for substantially less than what the classes are going to be charged.

I don't know why, but people are taking advantage of it. The last class that I attended, it was standing room only, so people are being educated.

If you weren't, you would fall out of the business. All of our work is checked by the plumbing inspectors, so we have to do it right or it doesn't get passed, you have to re-do it.

I would also like to speak for a lot of the guys with P-2's who aren't here right now, whose bosses aren't going to pay for this class.

A lot of people said it isn't going to be a financial burden, but to take $500 out of your pocket a year, when you are just on salary, added up over 20 or 30 years, put that into an IRA, and that could be your retirement.

It just seems like, you know, I didn't know about this. That is why I didn't come up last time. I don't think anybody knew about it.

I don't think that the people sitting in your position knew about it actually. One man came in and spoke for 8,000.

And I think you dismissed Murray's 3,500 signatures pretty quick. That is 3,500 plumbers out of the 8,000. He put that together in a couple of weeks.

REP. STONE: We will take that into account. I don't think that was dismissed out of hand. I think--

MIKE DORAN: The people I know who took the class didn't speak highly of it.

REP. STONE: Ed, hold on a second.

MIKE DORAN: It is Mike.

REP. STONE: Ed is not here. I am sorry. Mike Doran, I am sorry.

Mike, when you take these manufacturer courses, are the manufacturers teaching you strictly how to use or install their product or are they teaching you about changes in the code similar to the way that schools would teach you changes in the code?

MIKE DORAN: They are trying to sell your product, just like the PHCC is trying to sell their product.

They do touch on other areas, you know. They say use our product, but they teach you the code and how to install it. But they, obviously, have an ulterior motive.

REP. STONE: I understand because you had suggested why not have that manufacturer course be a substitute for the courses that are presently in place.

I just want to make sure and get at what is the breadth of those manufacturer courses.

If it is just to show you how to install your product, you understand that is limited and that probably wouldn't be an adequate substitute.

MIKE DORAN: What I am trying to suggest is if you don't, most people keep themselves educated and do a good job.

I see some bad work, but the majority of the work out there is good. I am not a professional lobbyist or anything, I am just a workingman.

REP. STONE: You are a professional plumber.

MIKE DORAN: I came here to defend the workingman.

REP. STONE: Michael, thank you for that. Any questions of Mike? Thanks, Mike. Bill Eannotti followed by Vincent Artese.

BILL EANNOTTI: I would just like to ask a question. I am not too sure if I have all the facts straight, but a home improvement guy, like right now, I could know absolutely nothing about home improvement, fill out an application, give it to that State, pay them my money.

I am now a licensed remodeler and contractor out there. I can go and do a 5,000 square foot house, not knowing nothing.

And then you are trying to tell me that I need education on my plumbing license that it takes me four years to do, in schooling, and hours, and everything else. How does that happen?

REP. STONE: Well, we will consider that a rhetorical question, but if you would like an answer to that, speak to me after, and we can try to get you an answer to that.

Do you have anything else you would like to add, Bill?

BILL EANNOTTI: No.

REP. STONE: Bill, thank you for that testimony. Does anyone have any questions of Bill? I am sorry. Thank you, Bill. Vincent Artese followed by George Brower.

VINCENT ARTESE: Representative Stone, fellow Members of the Board, my name is Vincent Artese.

I have been a plumbing and heating contractor for 20 years. When my father started in the plumbing business 50 years ago, he couldn't even buy a toilet at the plumbing supply without showing a plumbing license.

Nowadays, we have plumbing licenses given to any homeowner or anybody who would like to buy a boiler or hot water heater at Home Depot without showing any [Gap in Testimony. Changing from Tape 3A to Tape 3B]

--contractors out there. I served 8,000 hours of schooling before I was able to take my P-2 plumbing test.

In order to go on and get my contractors license, I had to work for a licensed contractor for another two years. Then I had to take another State test to get my State contractors license.

And we had to do this for plumbing, as well as heating. As far as continuing education, working on the job every day is the best form of continuing education there is.

Like many of my brothers had said, State Inspectors inspect all of our work anyway. So if we do not pass the work, we have to redo it, and it is constant on-the-job training.

The PHCC, as well as Commissioner Rodriguez mentioned the fact that they were concerned more about safety.

But in order to be concerned about safety, you would have to take the ability from homeowners, who are unlicensed and untrained, and from unlicensed contractors, who are out there doing work on the side, such as retired men who have done other trades in the past.

You would have to police the jobs. When my father started in the plumbing business, the inspector showed up on the job to see licenses.

You were only allowed to work on a job, if you were licensed. No inspector has ever come to our job prior to the inspection period of the job.

Back in those days, you were allowed one contractor with one journeyman. If you did not have a license or a registration to work towards a license, you were tossed from the job.

I would like to say that I am in favor of repealing House Bill 6857 as it is stated.

I would make one suggestion, and that is before we have any such meetings such as this, I would notify the 8,000 plumbers that we have in this State, so that everybody would be aware of these meetings that directly affect our careers.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Mr. Artese. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Thank you for your patience. George Brower?

GEORGE BROWER: Thank you, Gentlemen, for allowing me to come and speak to you this day. I am a little bit at a disadvantage. I just found our about this yesterday.

My name is George Brower. I am a licensed contractor for plumbing and heating. I have been working the trade since 1976 in Connecticut.

I just want to say that over the past 27 or 28 years that I have been in this trade the code has changed many times, usually not in large ways, but in subtle ways.

In 1983, the code changed. We had to put either anti-scald valves in for shower valves or some sort of temperature control.

Things like that they changed a lot 10 or 12 years ago, to go from lead soldier to lead-free soldier. Things like that change.

It is up to us, it was always up to us to maintain these changes, and keep up with the codes, and get the various changes every three to five, three to six years when they came out.

I don't think we need to have special classes to do this. I have been doing this for 27 years. You can't, like was previously said, you can't get things passed, if you aren't doing things correctly.

Somewhere along the line, they changed the code to bring in purple primer along with the glue, things like that.

The basic way of doing plumbing, venting, drainage, piping, that hasn't really changed much.

But the new products would come out, they would allow us [inaudible], they would change certain types of materials. It was our job to keep up with these changes.

I think that the industry takes care of itself. I do find, however, that there is a communication problem, a large one, between the State and the licensed plumbers.

The State has never, ever notified me of any of these changes. They have never called me. They didn't even tell me about this. I found out about this through word of mouth.

So I think if there is any room for improvement, that would be an area to start. Maybe have the State be in better contact with the licensed people.

I can't speak for the electricians because it is a much different technical aspect than what plumbing is, but just to blatantly say we need to go out and have so many hours of education when it is really not necessary.

If we had the codebook, the changes are usually highlighted. We know what they are. If we have any questions, at least I have in the past, I have discussed it with the local building inspectors, and they have clarified things for us.

So really I think these special interest groups or lobbyists who want to have all these classes because they are making money at it. They are affecting our lives adversely because it is going to cost us time and money.

And those of us who have employees are going to have to pay quite a bit more. That is, basically, where I am at. I appreciate your time.

REP. STONE: That is not a problem. Thank you for waiting most of the day and for your patience today. Does anyone have any questions of George?

Thank you very much, George. I appreciate it. Next, is there someone from Salecon or Silicon LLC? What is the name, the name I can't?

JOE BALAVENDER: Joe.

REP. STONE: Joe. Is your last name Joe? What is your last name?

JOE BALAVENDER: Joe Balavender.

REP. STONE: Okay. It doesn't say it on here, but that is okay. Go ahead, Joe.

JOE BALAVENDER: I am a licensed holder of the P-7 for about 30 years. I am against the continuing education per se, but not against education in general, if we were learning something new.

I have taken the course, and it is not relevant to my trade. They teach all about faucets, everything inside a house, and I do outside plumbing.

I can't see how they are going to teach you a trade that you have to learn by doing it.

REP. STONE: When did you take the course, Joe?

JOE BALAVENDER: Connecticut College recently. And last night, I took the other three hours, which was management.

REP. STONE: Okay. Was anything in the other course, either the three-hour course last night or the course you took at Connecticut College, how much of that had to do with a P-6 or P-7 license?

JOE BALAVENDER: Very little, very little. And some of the things, you asked the instructor, like the one about a sleeve in a wall, a two-inch sleeve bigger than whatever pipe.

You were putting a four-inch pipe into a house, they wanted a sleeve two inches bigger. You can't put a sleeve the same size anyway. It has to be bigger. There is no five-inch, you have to put in six-inch.

REP. STONE: In terms of the changes in the code or the--

JOE BALAVENDER: Very little. Very little.

REP. STONE: Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Yes, Representative Sherer?

REP. SHERER: Thank you, Joe. I have heard from you and a few other people something that has struck a chord with me.

It seems that you are not opposed to education, but you don't like the way it is being formulated, if I could say that, I am not sure you would totally agree with that.

But if you had the opportunity to have a choice in what you took, something that was more relevant or another way of doing it, not a mandated program.

I know in my own field, I have to have continuing education, a certain amount, but it can be any way that I want to take it. So if I do a certain kind of law, I don't have to take a general course.

I can take continuing education in adoption law. That counts, and I even get a discount on my malpractice insurance.

I was wondering, if you had the ability, if the law was written in such a way or the Consumer Affairs Protection Department gave you the opportunity to take a correspondence course of relevance or you could go to a trade school and take a relevant course or there was the manufacturers offered a course that was suitable or something in that nature where you had a diversity of choices.

Do you think that you and your colleagues would be so upset about the mandatory nature of the education?

JOE BALAVENDER: Mandatory would probably be aligned with getting your license first.

REP. SHERER: I am talking about this part with continuing ed.

JOE BALAVENDER: That would just be updates. If something changed that was major, they would send you an update, but there is hardly anything that could change in the outside plumbing.

And then, it goes through all the codes and the test, you know what I mean? We are basically told, then we are inspected on top of that.

Originally, when you got your license, it was more hands-on learning at that point. If you are 17 years, you got your license, you have to get hands-on learning, you have to take the time.

Continuing education is not going to help because you can't put a teacher that is going to teach me after 30 years to do an excavation and put pipe in a trench who never put pipe in a trench in his life to teach me how to put pipe in a trench. Does that make sense?

REP. STONE: Thank you for that Representative Sherer. Thank you, Joe, for your testimony. I appreciate it. Carl Spiegel?

CARL SPIEGEL: Good afternoon. I am glad I can still say it is afternoon rather than evening.

My name is Carl Spiegel. I am from ASP Security Systems in Waterford, Connecticut. I am here opposed to Senate Bill 1255 in regards to electricians.

I know you have heard a lot of testimony about this already, so I won't repeat things, but I just want to remind you of two things.

One is that the license is issued by the Department of Consumer Protection, and it comes under those guidelines for a reason.

The National Electrical Code is actually constructed and written by the National Fire Protection Association and, as such, it is a life safety code.

It is interesting to note that the beginning of this session, there was an announcement as to what to do in case of an emergency or a fire or something.

And everybody would hope that the fire alarm systems in the building would work. And people like myself are responsible for the proper installation, and maintenance, and service of fire alarm systems.

So I will not repeat what many others have said. I am simply opposed to eliminating any education requirements as it relates to electricians. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Carl. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you, Carl, for that testimony. Tom Johnston?

TOM JOHNSTON: Good afternoon, Chairman Stone and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your time. I am from [inaudible] Company, [inaudible], Connecticut.

I am a P-1 license holder, and I have attended the courses. I would say that people on both sides of this are correct.

I think the most complete education that we can have is the formal education of continuing ed and the informal education that everyone of us picks up in our own way.

I would suggest that we try this out, give it a couple of years. So every P-1 and P-2, and I think it is mainly for P-1 and P-2, the P-6's is not so much for them.

Try it out for a couple of years. You went to all the effort to get this passed. Try it out. We tried all these years without a formal education, continuing education.

Now, let's try it with the formal education, and then come back after a couple of years and have a hearing. And make sure everybody knows about it, so people can't say they weren't informed. That is all, Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Tom, for your testimony. Anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for that. We are going to move on.

I know that there are two lobbyists who signed up for those two bills. They are not here right now. We will call them when they come back.

We are going to move on the House Bill 6269, AN ACT ESTABLISHING LICENSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR GAS HEARTH INSTALLERS.

One of the people who was signed up to testify has to catch a plane very shortly, so we are going to beg the indulgence of the Members and call up Jack Goldman from the Hearth Education Foundation.

I want to, come on up, Jack. For the plumbers and the electricians that were here, on behalf of myself, and the Senator, and the Committee, thank you for your testimony today and coming down and spending a good part of your day waiting and testifying before us.

Your testimony was enlightening and educational, and we appreciate you spending the day with us. With that, Jack, if you may. Introduce yourself, and tell us about what you want to.

JACK GOLDMAN: Thanks very much. Good afternoon, Senator Colapietro, and Representative Stone and Members of the Committee. My name is Jack Goldman. I am General Counsel and Director of Government Affairs for the Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association, representing the HEARTH Education Foundation.

REP. STONE: Let's let the gentlemen leave because I want to hear what you have to say.

JACK GOLDMAN: Is it something I said?

REP. STONE: No, not at all. It could have been something I said, Jack. Who knows?

JACK GOLDMAN: I am representing the HEARTH Education Foundation at the request of Connecticut professionals.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide HEARTH's proposal on licensure requirements for gas hearth installers and information about the National Fireplace Institute's certification program.

We urge the Committee to establish licensure requirements for gas hearth installers.

Hearth products include fireplaces, fireplace inserts, stoves, and log sets that are fueled by natural gas, and propane, and simulate the flame of a solid fuel fire.

According to the most recent data from HPBA, nationally 59% of the new home market had a hearth product installed. Our position is based on public safety, which is our main concern.

Hearth products involve flame, heat, and the venting of combustion products in the home. Specialized knowledge is needed for the proper planning and installation of the appliance and it's venting.

At the present time, individuals in Connecticut who are registered as home improvement contractors can install hearth products without any specialized training or licensure.

To improve public safety, we recommend the following. One, create a new limited hearth technicians license for the installation of gas hearth products beyond the gas hook up.

Two, require 1,000 hours of on-the-job training and certification as an NFI gas specialist to qualify for licensure.

Three, continuing education requirements to maintain licensure. Further, four, any licensed individuals currently qualified to install hearth products can continue working in this area.

This includes, but is not limited to, those holding the following licenses, G-1, G-2, P-1, P-2, and S-1 through S-4. This approach is a sound and safe approach for the citizens of Connecticut.

A growing number of manufacturers of hearth products, 20 at latest count, are suggesting in their manual that certified NFI Gas Specialists install their products.

NFI is an independent, nonprofit, certification agency that conducts nationwide testing of hearth system planners and technicians.

Only those people who pass a rigorous examination that covers important topics like safety and placement, venting requirements, and installation guidelines can receive NFI Professional Certification.

That process involved an investment of hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of work, with participation and support from the industry. The basis of the process is job analysis.

A formal procedure that insures that the certification exam represents the job performed is technically accurate, fair to participants, and consistently determines whether participants demonstrate knowledge to plan and install hearth products.

The results of this process culminated in 2001 with training manuals and certification exams for gas, woodburning, and pellet specialists that meet national testing standards.

A number of states, local jurisdictions, and cities now recognize NFI certification. Other states are currently considering recognition.

For all these jurisdictions and for Connecticut, the appropriate exam for hearth products credentials is in place without the considerable expense of exam development. Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Jack, for that testimony. You have submitted written testimony to the Committee?

JACK GOLDMAN: Yes, I have. I am happy to answer questions.

REP. STONE: Sure. Representative Greene, thank you.

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hi, Jack, good afternoon. Thank you for waiting so long. A couple of quick questions for you.

First of all, right now, if I were to purchase one of these, say a pellet stove. Who would install that?

JACK GOLDMAN: Right now?

REP. GREENE: Say I went to Home Depot, you could buy one or something. Who would install that?

JACK GOLDMAN: Well, now, you just have to be a home improvement contractor. You don't need specialized training, and you could be a plumber. You don't have to have specialized training.

REP. GREENE: So if I go to, I use Home Depot a lot, let's say I go to a dealer, somebody who has a stove shop or something, and I ask them to install it.

Would they hire somebody who is a home improvement contractor or do they have to have their own special license?

JACK GOLDMAN: They would either have to have that license or they would have to hire someone who does, if they don't.

REP. GREENE: So--

JACK GOLDMAN: And in the Home Depot example, you would have to find your own person or Home Depot would have to recommend somebody.

REP. GREENE: So what we are looking at here, is really to come up with a standard, a safety standard for the industry, so that the plumbers or everybody with these occupational licenses that you listed in your testimony can do it.

But what you are saying is you want a higher standard, you want a more professional individual because the units themselves require a lot more technical skills than someone just putting a burner in, like someone who would assemble your gas grill.

JACK GOLDMAN: Right. The best example I can give is we took a look at the, in a different state, I think this is a great example.

The hearth exam for gas, for example, is a two-hour exam. And all the questions deal with hearth products.

In Ohio, the HVAC exam is a three-hour exam. There are exactly four questions dealing with hearth products.

It is very clear I would rather have someone who spent two hours and studied for that exam install my hearth product, than someone in Ohio who has taken the HVAC exam.

REP. GREENE: I think, as a homeowner, I would too. I am saying that only because thinking I purchased one of these units and have the dealer, let's say, have someone over to install it.

I am thinking of having someone with these credentials do this. I am finding out that we don't have that.

I did ask, I don't know if you were here earlier when I asked the Commissioner about licensing, and he was dead set against it.

Then I asked about certification, and he was hesitant about doing something like that. I am trying to think of a way of working this out.

I know this is something we have dealt with the last three or four years on this Committee. I am trying to come up with a solution here.

I think the Commissioner's biggest objection was the fact that it was going to be a cost to the department and that they would probably have to hire additional employees.

I am not sure he is totally accurate with that statement, but I am just wondering how you feel about the certification end of it, as opposed to a license?

JACK GOLDMAN: Well, if it is certification, certainly that would take away from some of the administrative costs, I guess. I am not sure I have a position on the difference.

We would prefer a license or a sub-license. I am not sure I have a position on certification. Maybe some of the other witnesses might instead who follow me.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Greene. Does anyone else have anything for Mr. Goldman? Jack, thank you very much, and have a safe trip back.

JACK GOLDMAN: Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Okay. And if we have any questions we will know how to get in touch with you. Thank you for those who were signed up in front of Jack.

I am sure he appreciates you allowing him to go first, so he can catch his flight. Next is Chuck Appleby. Is Chuck here? Timing is everything, Chuck.

CHUCK APPLEBY: Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Representative Greene, my name is Chuck Appleby. I own Appleby Plumbing and Heating Company of Old Lyme. We are a third generation business.

I am currently the President of the Connecticut Plumbing and Heating Association, PHCC.

I hold six occupational trade licenses in the State of Connecticut, all the way from unlimited plumbing license to unlimited heating license to medical gas piping license to sheet metal license to home improvement contractor registration certificates to well extension casing contractor.

We are opposed to House Bill 6269, AN ACT CONCERNING GAS HEARTH INSTALLERS. The G-1 and G-2 license category already exists at the Department of Consumer Protection that covers all areas of this work.

There is no need to create another license to cover this area. Thank you for your time to discuss this important view.

These are the books that we use in Connecticut to take an occupational licensing exams right here for that particular category.

It is the International Mechanical Code 2000 at this time. Also in here is the NFPA 31, standard installation of an oil burning, but just in case there is any similarity.

This is the fuel gas code that we have in Connecticut right in there, on the new [inaudible] and stuff.

REP. STONE: You indicated that the G-1 and the G-2 license would cover the installation of all that would be otherwise required, if we created a license for gas hearth installers.

Is there anything that you know of in our law or regulation that would require only a G-1 or G-2 license person install this type of equipment or can anyone install this type of equipment?

CHUCK APPLEBY: No, Sir. This is actually a heating appliance, and that is why it is under the heating jurisdiction, this particular product itself.

The piping itself is, obviously, in the plumbing areas, but the actual heating appliance, so someone has to make the attachment of that unit.

And what we are concerned about is there is a regulating valve for the fuel coming in. If someone installs that unit, and there is a different pressure regulator, depending if it is a natural gas or propane product, the plumber put the pipe in.

He had to. He had to get it tested. He had to get a permit for that. What happens now is you have a pressure out there from the street or from the propane tank, and you don't know what that regulator is on.

What we are concerned about is if someone puts in that particular product, they are not aware of those particular pressures. We don't want them touching that device.

REP. STONE: Right now, there is no restriction on who can.

CHUCK APPLEBY: By law, I believe, it has to be a licensed contractor carrying any one of these.

REP. STONE: The G-2 or G-1 license?

CHUCK APPLEBY: All the way up to my S-1, Sir, correct.

REP. STONE: Okay. On the license versus certification, you indicated in the list of license that you presently have that there was some certification. You mentioned a certification.

CHUCK APPLEBY: Well, you have a vocational training, Sir, that we have to take to undergo all these particular licenses that I carry.

Whether or not they, like the sheet metal came out a few years ago. The well extension you probable remember from a couple of years back.

These are all licenses that we took advantage of because we knew we needed them in the industry to protect the sanitary health of the public in that particular area.

REP. STONE: I bring it up because Representative Greene was talking about the distinction, possible distinction, between a license versus a certification.

If not a license in this particular area, what, if anything, would a certification provide in terms of additional safety for the consumer? Can you comment on that as one who has both a license and a certification?

CHUCK APPLEBY: We have for many years. I don't know the dates exactly, but we have vocational training in night school and day programs throughout Connecticut for these particular areas.

There are classes available for the G-1, G-2 that anybody can take, night school or day school.

I am not sure on the day school, but I know in the evenings, people can get the accreditations throughout Connecticut, depending on the schools.

REP. STONE: What are your thoughts about creating a certification for this type of work, even if it is within a G-1 or G-2 license? Do you have any thoughts on that?

CHUCK APPLEBY: I just feel--

REP. STONE: Not a separate license.

CHUCK APPLEBY: I feel the training should be done with the Department of Education here in Connecticut, and the program should be approved by that program.

REP. STONE: It seems to me from your testimony and the testimony of Mr. Goldman that, while you may disagree on how to get there, you both agree on what might need to be done, in terms of having the training and the education to install this type of equipment.

Whether it is through a license, a separate license, or through a certification or sub-license within the present licensing structure, somehow, perhaps, the State needs to regulate and issue those certifications, to insure that those people who are installing this type of equipment, which you admit there are some tricks to it, so to speak.

CHUCK APPLEBY: Absolutely, Sir.

REP. STONE: Maybe they should have the proper certification or licenses. I am not suggesting that you don't.

What I am suggesting is maybe a sub-license or certification would insure that those who don't have your qualifications are qualified to put in that type of equipment.

CHUCK APPLEBY: The key is vocational training, approved by the State of Connecticut.

REP. STONE: I understand. I guess the endgame though, is at some point you go through that vocational training.

What do you have to show, not only to yourself, but to the public generally, that you are trained, other than a diploma?

CHUCK APPLEBY: As long as that training meets the State of Connecticut safety rules that we already have implemented for that particular area or category, I think it is--

REP. STONE: Okay. Do you have written testimony today, Chuck?

CHUCK APPLEBY: I just wrote up something myself and signed it.

REP. STONE: Can you leave your card with one of the clerks because if there is other stuff, we may want to get a hold of you.

CHUCK APPLEBY: Thank you very much.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Chuck. Does anyone else have any questions?

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real quick, are you familiar with that NFI standard, the group that wants to get licensed, if you will, is advocating?

CHUCK APPLEBY: Yes. I haven't seen it this year, but I have seen it a year ago, when we were up here before.

REP. GREENE: What do you think of that as a standard? It goes a little above what we have here already.

CHUCK APPLEBY: I personally can't say that because I don't know the in-depth. Again, I am not a professional to take what they have said or got written or their documents.

I think that someone at the State level, whether it is public safety or Department of Education, should look into that and see what is involved there.

REP. GREENE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Greene. Chuck, thank you, again, for your testimony. I appreciate that.

Again, if you could leave your card with the clerk, I would appreciate that. Nick Jager. I almost said Mick Jager.

NICK JAGER: It is Nick Jager.

REP. STONE: It is Nick Jager. Thank you, Nick.

NICK JAGER: My name is Nick Jager, and I am the owner of Jager Professional Gas Services in Essex, Connecticut. I am a G-1 license.

We work in Connecticut and Massachusetts in all types of propane and natural gas systems and equipment. We service, sell, install all types of gas fired equipment.

We provide troubleshooting, design, consultation, and remediation services. We are members of the CAPHCC, Middlesex Chamber of Commerce, and affiliated with the Propane Council for Consumer Safety Groups.

I speak for myself and for the following individuals who either carry a G-2 or G-1 license and could not attend today's hearing.

And I have some substantiation to that. Leo Martin, Service Manager, Suburban Propane and Gas in Uncasville. That is a national propane company. Cris Coates, Ben Guardio, and Phil Cogar of the Amerigas District, another national propane company.

Del Craig, Jay Magneson, serviceman Allgas Hartford, local company. President David Pollick, Allgas, Hartford, Connecticut. Dave Roberts, one of my employees.

Jonathon Melozzy, Vice President of Quality Propane. Our technology is in continual development and it is becoming very, very complex.

I have had my G-1 license since 1985 or 1986, and I have seen all sorts of changes in the industry. But at the last five or seven years, it has picked up at an increasing rate.

Some of the new equipment is heat rated, which means that the manufacturers are certifying it to a CSA or the old AGA standard, and that sort of falls under the old heating contractor license.

Gas fireplaces, the log sets, many of them now are listed as heating or supplemental heating devices. It is not longer just decorative.

Unfortunately, I sort of followed a format that I thought you fellows might have in your hand that was to have been prepared, and I had my statement sort of prepared in that fashion.

So I am not sure if I should read the whole thing or just. Numerous educational avenues do exist at the State level. We have the technical schools. We have the apprenticeship programs.

Factory level, they exist. Equipment wholesalers have schooling. Technical schools are available, state and private, New Britain for one.

My experience with NSPI, CTEP, and NFI, from what I have gleaned over the last few years, is that they have come about, CTEP in particular came about because the State of Maine did not have any formal licensing structure.

And CTEP, which is continuing education training more for the propane industry, although they also include the hearth products, sort of starting pushing their effort I have seen over the years.

I have to apologize to NFI because I just found out about your website and what you do about two weeks ago, so I am sort of on a learning curve with that.

Let's see. I think, right now, at this time, to allow a specialty group the ability to deliver licensing requirements or circumvent them with a less useful license is neither prudent or necessary and, further, confuses the public.

I would like to offer, I went to their website, and, right now, in the State of Connecticut, I have some exhibits, NFI has approximately 14 what they call gas specialists in Connecticut.

As a consumer and a businessman, my first question is what exactly does that mean? I am sort of clueless and hopefully someone can clarify that for me later.

So I am a little concerned that the cart is ahead of the horse on this issue. I guess another question for this is that can these people pull permits like I am required to do as a G-1 license holder?

Are they currently doing work in this State, circumventing our permit system? What states currently accept NFI certificates? Who designed and wrote their curriculum?

If this license is such a good idea, why haven't they contacted the Connecticut Propane and Natural Gas Suppliers, our local and state inspectors, our fire marshals and asked them for their input on this matter or the Connecticut State Education Council?

To sum it up, right now, the way the bill is written, I oppose it, and the people I mentioned earlier also oppose it. Connecticut already possesses a sound practical licensing structure.

NFI's program should be looked at, and, perhaps, added as an adjunct to continuing education.

We urge you to not pass this legislation until NFI's program has been properly evaluated by these agencies, The Connecticut State Education, our licensing board, the propane and natural gas suppliers, local and state inspectors and fire marshals.

We urge you to not pass this bill. Connecticut should lead, not follow.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: You are Nick Jager, right?

NICK JAGER: Yes.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Nick. Any questions? Lenny, go ahead.

SEN. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing? I listened to your testimony, and one of the things that bothers me is that a home improvement contractor can come in and do this without any kind of certification.

You would probably come in afterwards and hook up the gas line. I had one installed in my house, and I had to have the gas company come out.

Of course, I had to get a tank and everything, and they had to pipe it. The contractor installed the unit, and then, a week later, I think, I could get the gas company out there, they hooked the pipe up and lit it up.

Nothing else was done to it. I think it was burning right, I don't know. But, again, I was only the homeowner. I think what we are trying to look at here is to have a standard.

And your idea about maybe having continuing education or using this standard, I think you are on the same page, it is just how are we going to go about getting there.

NICK JAGER: I agree with you about that, but to backtrack a little bit, if I might. You had asked Chuck what he thought about these homeowners and such hooking up all this stuff or people who aren't properly licensed.

I am in sort of a niche market, we don't actually sell propane, but we provide a lot of service to propane companies.

We do contract warranty work for a half dozen manufacturers. Two of them are hearth manufacturers. I have sort of become a policing agency.

The propane companies hate me because when they hear my name they say, okay, what did Nick find this time? Half the time, it is not their fault.

On warranty issues, we are finding that 60% of the problems are related to venting. You just can't stick a vent-free appliance or a hearth product in a home anymore.

We all have fairly tight homes, and that causes a lot of problems. You turn on a mechanical fan in another room, you may actually cause that flame to move into the living space, and, now, someone may get sick.

So these people who are installing this stuff, the absolute minimum requirement, at least with the jobs is, to go out and do a complete assessment, which is what we do.

I think there is some merit to what they have. Again, I only did download some stuff on the Internet with their program, and it is interesting.

I would like to see their program, and I offer my services to the Committee to help sort through this.

REP. GREENE: Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Representative Greene. Any further questions? Thank you for your testimony. Andy Hull? Hull, I think it says Hull. Gabriel Stein for Preston Trading Post.

GABRIEL STEIN: How are you doing today, Gentlemen? Good afternoon, Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Gabriel Stein. I am a National Fireplace Institute NFI certified Gas Hearth Specialist, and I work as a department head at the Preston Trading Post in Preston, Connecticut.

We are a major hearth products retailer. I am here in support of House Bill 6269, with proposed substitute language I have attached.

I want to say, at the outset, that we do not have the intention of limiting the ability of any of the other licensed plumbers, gas technicians from continuing to perform this work.

We need them and recognize their skills. Their work is essential to our installation, but we need to be able to perform special tasks, for which we have specialized training.

Specifically, we need to be authorized to work on the equipment, such as set-up, venting, and do repairs and adjustments that require specific knowledge outside the training of the professional focus of other trades.

We also want to address the fact that, currently, home improvement contractor registrants are doing much of this work without certification that they have the knowledge to do it correctly.

This bill would attend to this. There has been an evolution of natural gas and LP fired hearth products in the last two decades, which has led to a specialized and rapidly growing body of knowledge.

Our industry is focused on safety and education, which is why I became certified. I, as well as other technicians in our industry, have witnessed the growing complexity of design, from the simple early gas products to the use of fire as art in today's latest models.

The technical demands of the hearth product design revolve around the delicate balancing necessary to produce a realistic yellow flame emulating real wood fire.

Technical advances require constant training and updating in this narrow field. Strict adherence to installation instructions and specific knowledge of the appliance and related venting are prerequisites to safe system design, installation, and operation.

Safety is paramount. I encounter many installation errors as part of my work, and these can lead to very serious problems.

It only makes sense that the most qualified installers of such equipment are the people who have been trained by the manufactures or the industry and understand the appliances that are being installed.

In my job, I live and work with the appliances, talk with technical departments of manufacturers, and direct installers, many of whom do not work for our company and troubleshoot on a daily basis.

My NFI training has been instrumental in my work. Simply put, NFI certification identifies people who demonstrate specific knowledge necessary for this work.

It requires continuing education, and it is a professional credential that the hearth product industry recognizes.

An every increasing number of manufacturers now advocate NFI and include a recommendation in their owner's manual that their products be installed by NFI certified specialists.

Recognizing NFI certification for hearth products work is a progressive step, one that will provide safety and benefit for Connecticut hearth products and users. Thank you very much.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Gabriel. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony today, Sir.

TOM GIANNOTTI: Good afternoon, Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Tom Giannotti, and I am an Account Executive for [inaudible]. We are manufacturers of [inaudible] content of fireplaces.

I am also a sales and technical trainer for all the dealers and distributors in my territory, which covers the States of New England, New York, and New Jersey, as well as being a resident of Connecticut.

I am here to endorse the National Fireplace Institute's Hearth Products Training and Certification Program as part of House Bill 6269.

Being a manufacturer of gas and wood burning hearth products, we are all too familiar with the types of problems that are experienced by the different types of gas fireplaces, when they have been installed by untrained personal.

Licensed gas fitters and plumbers that are experienced with other types of gas appliances will often encounter difficulties, as they do not yet possess the knowledge necessary to work with the unique dynamics that are employed by the hearth product in its decorative setting.

The current curriculum for gas fitters and plumbers offers some training regarding gas and woodburning fireplaces, but these products are not their focus, and there is not always a sufficient amount of training for these specific products.

This is why the National Fireplace Institute program provides such a unique service to the hearth industry, as it addresses a very obvious need to help educate those specialists on the successful and effective, excuse me, apply their trade to these types of appliances.

An additional benefit to the NFI program is the rigid criteria that is not only illustrated by the rigorous exam that the students must past, but, just as importantly, is supported by re-certification requirements that insure that certificate holders continue to have up-to-date training.

The level of education achieved by those NFI certified certificate holders is second to none.

I recommend that any person who holds such a certificate be recognized and acknowledged of possessing the highest level of technical understanding available for the installation and service of wood, gas, and pellet burning fireplaces.

I recommend that it becomes a requirement for all hearth product installers, service personal for NFI certified, as the best method for insuring the safe and effective installation of any hearth products in the [inaudible] area. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Lenny, did you say [inaudible]?

REP. GREENE: Yeah, I did. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tom, thanks for coming.

I just want to, I know you and I had talked before the meeting, but I though maybe you could share with the Committee just some of the stories that you have experienced going out and troubleshooting some problems that you found out there.

TOM GIANNOTTI: There is a lot of, our products are a very unique and dynamic product. It takes a lot of tweaking and knowledge and ability to actually perform this job on a safe basis.

As an account executive, I have a wide territory, and I go out and service calls often, normally after three or four times of the contractor going up and doing service calls.

Some of the things that I do see, as the gentleman from the plumbing board also said, is the venting. A lot of it has to do with venting and the knowledge of venting these products.

The knowledge of venting hearth products is greater, I believe, personally, is greater than venting a furnace, so to say.

If they are vented incorrectly, simply, they won't burn. That is how touchy these fireplaces are.

That is why being a NFI certified technician is a necessity to know and understand these kinds of products.

REP. GREENE: Now, you do this as what, part of your warranty work for your units?

TOM GIANNOTTI: I am sorry.

REP. GREENE: Your service calls are part of your warranty work?

TOM GIANNOTTI: It is kind of my job. Basically, I am a sales and technical trainer for my area. So, yes, to go out on a job, I usually go out after the fact, after they could not figure out what is wrong with it.

REP. GREENE: Okay. Thanks, Tom. Thanks for coming.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, Representative Greene. And thank you for your testimony.

TOM GIANNOTTI: Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Bob Phelps.

ROBERT PHELPS: My name is Robert Phelps. I am the President of Phelps and Sons of Vernon, Connecticut. I have been in the hearth business for the past [Gap in Testimony. Changing from Tape 3A to 3B.]

--installation of the gas appliances can become complex because of different manufacturer installation guidelines and also venting issues.

The venting may be horizontal or vertical, have a particular configuration of elbows, will have a specific clearance for combustibles, will have termination requirements and so on.

The home improvement license is not enough to make a homeowner or building official feel the job will be done safely.

Experience and education will establish a high level of confidence that the person working on an appliance knows what he or she is doing.

Homeowner safety is a major concern to me. By being educated, by NFI and working in the field for a period of time, you develop a lot more knowledge.

Consequently, I recognize that there is a need to be certified to install the appliance, the venting and do repairs. I will pursue the NFI gas certification for my company.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. I have one question. Who does the hearth installations now for you?

ROBERT PHELPS: We do our own. That is, we would take the unit out, put it in place, do the venting, then the licensed plumber for natural gas or propane or propane contractor would hook up the appropriate gas to the unit.

Then we would go back, light the unit up, put the embers in place, check the gas pressures, take the voltage readings off the gas valve to make sure they're correct, make sure the appliance is running correctly for the homeowner.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: So if we, as a Committee, and I'm just asking, that's not what I'm thinking, I'm not thinking anything, but if we decide to give a special license to hearth installers, is it possible the price would go up?

So now you're going to a specialty person rather than a plumber, or whoever puts it in? I mean if you came to me and now you can't install it.

If we give a license to hearth people, to certain people who pass the test and become a licensed hearth installer, would I say to you, well you used to pay me $50 but now I'm licensed so you've got to pay me $60?

ROBERT PHELPS: I'm sure that could possibly happen.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: That's what I'm just wondering, and you would pass that on to the consumer, because you're not going to take it out of your pocket. Okay, thank you. Are there further questions? Thank you for your testimony. Tom Swan?

TOM GIANNOTTI: He's not available. He's a police officer and he had to go on duty at three o'clock.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Had to give somebody a ticket or something. Not me. Dale Martin?

DALE MARTIN: How are you doing, Senator and the rest of the Committee? Pretty much I'm here because I do just gas. I'm a G one in Connecticut, a G two in Long Island.

I went to Tank Clearance Institute and graduated top student in the class. I've been to all CTEP classes, the Propane Gas Association and Trane Venting.

I've worked with these guys here at [inaudible] Trading Post and [inaudible] Gas, Propane Gas Service out of South Windsor and do most of their installs, except for propane installs in South Windsor.

But I find that these guys with this course, the NFI, know quite a bit about these venting and their units that they sell.

It's a growing field, that's why I got into it. I did mostly commercial before. The NFI exams, I talk to [inaudible] all the time on the phone, that's where I got most of my information.

I just feel that these guys are good enough. They're not asking to do plumbing, I'm not a plumber, I'm a G one gas, I've been doing it for 20 years.

They're not asking to run water or do plumbing, they just want to install the box, maybe set up the logs.

They're not talking about running any gas lines, and that's pretty much basically what they're trying to do.

I'll tell you, I think they know more about their stuff that they sell everyday, service, get calls about, that's why I'm here.

I mean, these guys know what they're doing when they do that NFI course. That's what I found.

I mean, they're retailers, that's what they do. They eat, sleep and drink these things. Any questions you have, they sell them, they know about them.

I'm sure Mr. Jager knows everything about his equipment he sells. I do most of his gas installs, they know all about their stuff they sell.

Like I said, that's all they're trying to do, be able to maybe vent the box, they've been to school for it.

I actually went to all the venting courses from Trane and they never touched about direct vents like these, the hearthstones have. I learned most of it through doing it and from these guys.

So I just wanted to let you guys know that I think they should be able to. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Going on to House Bill 6856, AN ACT CONCERNING SMOKING AT PARI-MUTUEL FACILITIES, and the first person is Rick Pullman.

RICK PULLMAN: Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today in support of House Bill 6856, AN ACT CONCERNING SMOKING AT PARI-MUTUEL FACILITIES.

As President of Autotote Enterprises, the owner and operator of Connecticut's Off Track Betting system, I'm providing this testimony to provide you with a firsthand report about the impact the smoking ban has had on our business and associates over the past 11 months.

In addition to the negative effects for Autotote and two of the other simulcast operators in the state, the Shoreline Dog Track and Simulcast facility, and the Plainfield Dog Track and Simulcast facility, there are related tax revenue implications for the state and respective towns that benefit from our business presence.

While House Bill 6856 deals with a complete restoration of smoking at pari-mutuel facilities, my company fully understands the General Assembly's concern with respect to public health issues surrounding the current smoking ban.

Our request is for a compromise to amend the existing Legislation that bans smoking in our facilities, which is not based purely on profitability, but is also related to fairness and common sense.

We fully appreciate the rights of non-smokers and we support the need for elimination of second hand smoke contamination.

However we also believe that establishments catering to the general public should have the option of accommodating smokers in a manner that would in no way infringe upon the environment of non-smokers.

We recognize that not all establishments will be in a financial and strategic position to integrate both non-smoking and self-contained smoking areas within their existing facilities.

But the focus of our effort is to provide the legal ability to meet this challenge. An individual has to look no further than our neighbors in Pennsylvania, Maine and Rhode Island for more reasonable approaches to smoking in wagering facilities.

Maine and Pennsylvania have created effective segregated smoking areas in teach of their OTB facilities, and Rhode Island has exempted their two wagering facilities from their smoking ban altogether.

Unlike Rhode Island, to protect non-smoking patrons, we favor a self-contained, environmentally controlled approach, with full segregation for non-smokers.

As a result of the smoking ban implemented on April 1, 2004, we have experienced an approximate 15% reduction in overall live wagering at our OTB branches.

Based on industry statistics, 70% of all Connecticut OTB patrons are smokers. On an annual basis, the loss of a significant portion of their patronage equates to a $30 million reduction in wagering alone.

This results in at least $1 million in reduced tax revenues to Connecticut's state and town coffers and the loss of several job positions across the firm.

There is also collateral impact on local food establishments, transportation revenues and other related business segments.

In a double-edged sword scenario, a significant portion of this lost wagering has migrated to the casinos in Connecticut, where patrons are not subject to the smoking ban and the state does not participate in their usual share of OTB wagering proceeds.

We firmly believe citizens and businesses alike will benefit from effective Legislation that would help to restore business to pre-April 1, 2004 levels, and put us back on a growth track as opposed to minimizing our losses.

It is through accommodation and compromise that lawmakers will demonstrate common sense, fairness of representation across all constituencies, and a focus of what is really best for the general public.

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to voice our concerns.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. The reason I skipped to this bill, and Joyce you're up after the next gentleman. There are only two people testifying on this bill so I wanted to get them out of the way. You guys get paid for that anyway.

Any questions for the [inaudible] Lenny, you want to talk to this guy?

REP. GREENE: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. How are you doing? You mentioned that your business is down, like 15%?

RICK PULLMAN: Correct.

REP. GREENE: At that rate, how quick do you think something like this has to be done? I know the bill says from passage, but how long can you hang on, I guess is what I'm trying to say.

RICK PULLMAN: We can hang on, but the bottom line is that eventually that amount of patronage that has disappeared from our facilities and has migrated to the casinos, over time that will become a permanent loss, as habits change for folks.

And of course the state will continue to lose their participation in those tax revenues.

REP. GREENE: Have your customers, your patrons of the business, have they complained about this?

RICK PULLMAN: Absolutely. With horse racing customers averaging 70% smokers, any time you visit our facilities, you'll see a substantial number of people standing outside in bad weather, in good weather, smoking away, and of course, they'd rather be inside.

REP. GREENE: Have you had to lay anybody off or anything?

RICK PULLMAN: Yes, we've lost about 10 full time positions because of the ban.

REP. GREENE: So obviously, I've been fighting the ban in the bars, and the restaurants, and the bowling alleys, and it's obviously impacting your business as well in a very negative fashion.

I just hope we can work together and get something to help everyone out.

RICK PULLMAN: Well I think that the first attempt at the ban was to appease certain constituents.

And if you look again at Rhode Island and Maine and Pennsylvania, they've actually taken a very common sense approach to creating a segregated area, just as though there's a segregated smoking room within this building as well.

I think that that is the direction. In no way would this impact non-smokers, and it kind of gives everyone a level playing ground.

REP. GREENE: What would your smoking area be like, I mean, what are you suggesting?

RICK PULLMAN: We'd actually take an area and enclose it in [inaudible] sight so that our players could still view all of the other video content within our facilities.

We would put in air exchangers that would rotate the volume of that air on a very frequent basis, so in fact, even within those smoking areas, the presence of smoke would be minimal.

REP. GREENE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you, and thank you, Rick. Are there any further questions? Steve Alford?

STEVE ALFORD: Senator Colapietro, Members of the General Law Committee, I thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Steve Alford. I'm the General Manager at Shoreline Star Greyhound Park, and I'm here to support and discuss House Bill 6856, AN ACT CONCERNING SMOKING AT PARA-MUTUAL FACILITIES.

More specifically, this proposal would allow smoking in the paramutual facilities that have less than seven percent of their total revenue derived from food and beverage.

During the last 11 months since the inception of the smoking ban, the handle at Shoreline Star has declined almost three million dollars.

As a result, the money paid to the state and the City of Bridgeport has decreased by $85,000.

More importantly, the substantial decrease in handle has brought into question the viability of the Bridgeport facility.

Over 200 jobs, millions of dollars in goods and services, and annual state and city revenue of $1.6 million are at stake.

The facility has struggled to survive since the introduction of the two Native American casinos in Connecticut.

Both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have race books which offer simulcasting. They are beautiful, state-of-the-art facilities that have proven to be very difficult to compete with.

On April first of last year when the smoking ban took effect for Shoreline Star, and not for these two facilities, it created an unfair advantage that we may not be able to overcome.

It should also be noted that the state does not receive any revenue from the handle generated on simulcasting at these two facilities.

Finally, although Shoreline Star does serve food and drinks, it is first and foremost a gambling facility.

The majority of our patrons our smokers, and they come to our facility to wager.

The food and beverage department has always been little more than a convenience, evident in the fact that it not only loses money, but makes up only a very small percentage of our gross revenue.

For these reasons, Shoreline Star is in support of the House Bill 6856, that would create a level playing field, allowing our business of 29 years to continue into the future, while maintaining valuable jobs and a substantial revenue stream to the State of Connecticut and the City of Bridgeport. Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any questions? Lenny?

REP. GREENE: Quickly. Thanks for coming. One quick question. I'm reading some testimony, of course you have the American Lung Association and the Match Coalition, and those groups of course are opposing any changes.

But again, they cite safety of the workers. Do you have any idea how many of your workers might smoke?

STEVE ALFORD: Probably around half, half the workers at least, smoke.

REP. GREENE: So I assume that you would probably allow your employees who want to work in the smoke free area to do that?

STEVE ALFORD: Yeah, we've always had, our facility has pretty much traditionally been divided into a smoking, non-smoking section, so it has always kind of been the case.

Quite honestly, that seemed to work pretty well at the time.

REP. GREENE: I'm hearing the same thing from the bars, and most of their employees smoke, and they're saying it's ridiculous that they can't, at their own choice, smoke in their establishment.

The bartenders are going outside to have a cigarette, and the patrons are sitting there by themselves.

STEVE ALFORD: It's been especially difficult because, once again, our competition has smoking at the facility.

Whereas maybe before, some of our patrons weren't willing to drive the 60 or 70 miles up to the casinos, now that smoking is an issue, we just find that more and more they are doing that.

REP. GREENE: Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Let me ask you just one question quickly. Would you be acceptable to a separate room, just for your facilities?

I'll tell you why, just from experience. If we expand it from you, then somebody else is going to want it, and probably the whole thing would die.

If you're in trouble with, the Indians have a smoking room, and you don't, would you be acceptable to a room for just you?

STEVE ALFORD: Well I think it depends on the extent of the room. As I said our setup previously had been similar to the way it is at the Indian casinos.

You have a smoking section, you have a non-smoking section. Our facility is not really designed for us to take a piece out and remodel and actually make, I think in my mind it's like a room at an airport.

Our facility is not really set up for that.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: That's pretty much the problem for the small restaurants and small breakfast places, and small places.

If we expand it, those people are saying to me already, and we've gone through this a few times already, I can't afford another room, and I can't afford a $3,000 unit.

That's what they're saying. Now what we're saying here, you have to do it like the pari-mutuels do, they're still saying that I can't afford it. I have to get a bigger place.

I don't want to force anybody out of their small place into a bigger place. I'm just trying to look for an alternative.

And the other alternative would be, if you want to just carve out yourself, could put a wall up or a separate room, or something like that, that might be acceptable to the groups that are opposed to it too.

STEVE ALFORD: We've contemplated actually eliminating our food and beverage department.

We do so little on food and beverage, we've thrown around the idea of just putting in vending machines, but it's really not part of the experience that we're really looking to offer.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you very much. Joyce, you got two bills here, Joyce Wojtas, you can go ahead and testify for both of them if you want to, unless you want to sit down and come back.

JOYCE WOJTAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. Good afternoon, Members of the General Law Committee.

My name is Joyce Wojtas, I'm Director of Government Affairs for Connecticut Construction Industries Association, and I am also the Executive Director of the Utility Contractors Association of Connecticut.

I would like to comment on Senate Bill 1255 and House Bill 6857 regarding the continuing education program for plumbers and electricians.

I request your support for an amendment or an exemption from the continuing education program for the P6 and P7 licensees.

P6 and P7 licensees are limited to sewer, storm and water work, and that is from the point of utility responsibility to a point immediately inside the structure, and only when the journeyperson is working, he has to be working for a P7 contractor on the job.

To take you back in history, prior to 1975 there was an exemption in statute for this work.

And the exemption read that employees of any contractor, while said contractor is performing work for or subject to inspection by any federal, state or municipal agency or corporation, other than a municipal building department, or for any public service company.

Now in 1975 Public Act 75-464 changed that and it removed the exemption and this work became the property of, or under the jurisdiction of the Plumbing Board.

The problem at that time was that the testing that was being given, which was created by the Plumbing Board, had no relation to the work that was being performed.

Our people, after a number of tries were able to pass the examinations.

We've worked over the years with the Department of Consumer Protection and we finally have an examination that is somewhat more appropriate to the trade, which is outside, underground excavation and pipe laying work.

However when the continuing ed program passed, if you look at the criteria that the Plumbing Board established for all limited and unlimited licensees, the requirements are that plumbing code is an hour and a half of the education, public safety ruling is a half hour, occupational licensing and enforcement, another half hour.

People are already licensed, I don't know what that's about, and the OSHA trade related highlights call before you dig, a quarter of an hour and review of cross connections or backflow are a quarter of an hour.

Unfortunately this isn't even applicable to the trade that our underground utility contractors and their pipe layer employees perform.

And as you heard one of the people here earlier, attended the course and got nothing out of it.

In our trade, the types of things that we teach, and I going to leave this with you, these are some of the films that we have, OSHA Trench and Excavation Safety are Important, Heavy Equipment Operation, A Confined Space Entry, Trench Shoring, they're all things that are appropriate to this trade.

The trade has never been plumbing, will never be plumbing, and we don't even classify under workers' compensation classifications these people as plumbers. They are laborers and excavators.

We've worked closely with call before you dig and the utility companies to try to get compliance with the various laws.

Remember when the people, each public utility has control over the different pipe, and each town, if they're in control of the utility, is dictating how the pipe has to be installed and what permits have to be given.

I spoke about this earlier and I've talked about the need for a utility contractor's board that can control, if we're going to do anything in the future, it seems as though you'd want to make certain that the people aren't just spinning their wheels out there, sitting in classrooms paying money for nothing.

I don't know what can be done about it except to ask that you give us an exemption and maybe have us come back with a proposal.

We're educating our people. We're teaching them trench and excavation safety. That's the big one out in the field.

I'm going to leave you also these Utility Contractors Excavating Reports that we've worked with the utility companies on for call before you dig. That's another important feature of the trade.

It just is kind of, as Edith Prague would say, unconscionable that pipe layers, utility pipe layers, have to sit in plumbing courses.

And I started to put together a course for our people, and with the established criteria, two hours of plumbing code is ridiculous. It's absolutely ridiculous.

There's probably about three paragraphs in the whole plumbing code that apply, and then the actual laborer doesn't even have to know that. He has to know what to do when he's in a trench.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Joyce. I'm not sure creating the language for the exemption is terribly complicated, but if you have proposed language that would accomplish the exemption goal that you're talking about, you can submit it to either Brad or Dan, we'll look at that.

Does anyone have any questions of Joyce? Joyce, thank you very much for your testimony, appreciate it. Cam? Yeah, Cam Champlin, you'll speak to both of them Cam, is that all right?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the Committee, my name is Cameron Champlin, I represent Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 777.

I'm here today to speak on three bills. I put down two, but I'm going to make it brief.

Just for the sake of brevity, I will concur with the testimony of the previous speakers who spoke in favor of House Bill 6857.

I will say I would be in favor of Senate Bill 1255 if there has to be some type of continuing education.

A couple of things that I think have to be ironed out before, and I know it's already in effect because there are people having to go this year to take these courses.

And you heard a lot of testimony this afternoon from a lot of, mainly contractors, that said they're in favor of it.

I agree, because I am certainly not opposed to continuing education.

As you know, in the organized sector, we have our own training departments, we pay for our own education. It comes out of our dues deductions.

I want you to understand that I'm not opposed to that, but I just think the way it's set up right now is not fair to a lot of people.

One of the things I will tell you, there are a lot of retired members, not just members, but retired plumbers and pipe fitters, whether they're from the organized section or the non-organized section, that are very proud of what they've done over the years, and they want to hold onto their licenses.

But some of these people may be retired and they're in Florida or Arizona. They certainly aren't going to fly back here and have to go through a course.

For instance, in our union I think it's going to cost approximately $35 for somebody to go through the course. That's for the cost of the book, the code book.

There's no reason for these people to have to that. I think something has to be worked out where there's some type of a license for people that are retired.

Also I think the Department of Consumer Protection is going to lose some money because a lot of people are not going to keep up their licenses if they're from out of state.

There are other people that have been working in the State of Connecticut who've moved away, or maybe came here for a big job and went back, and they won't be able to fly here, take that course, and go back.

I'm not against it, but I just don't think the way it is right now is the way it should be. It's going to impose a hardship on a lot of people.

The other thing is, you did hear from a lot of people here from the unorganized section that said they're in favor of it, contractors.

Who is going to pay for their journeymen to take this course? Does the journeyman have to pick up, he's paying $60 a year for a license, which is not that expensive, but now he's got to come up with $100 and change to take this course. I don't think that's fair to those people.

The other bill I'm going to just say I'm against is House Bill 6858, and that's on reciprocals for electrical licenses.

I'm not an electrician, but I do sit on a heating and cooling board, and I'm afraid it's going to spill over.

It's very hard and very cumbersome on the State of Connecticut to go to another state and compare their laws to our laws, and their apprenticeships to our apprenticeships to see if the education in another state is equal to what we call for, for our licensing.

With that, I will say I am against that, and I do have a flyer here from one of the institutions that does do the courses for the upgrade for the continuing education.

The courses run from a P6, which is $60, up to, for a P1 is $150. As I'm saying, that's just one, and it's a reputable organization.

I'm just saying that's what it will cost somebody to go to these courses if they don't have someplace to go as the organized people do.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Cam for your testimony. The training that you presently provide to members of the organized plumbers, how many hours a year is that training?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: That training right now, let me go into it a little deeper.

REP. STONE: I know it's all encompassing, but what's the total number of hours, then I'm going to ask you how many of those hours relate to code update or code compliance?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: To be honest with you, I can't tell you what it is for, because what we have is journeymen upgrade classes, and I don't know how many hours we do.

But I will tell you this, when you talk about education, the non-union sectors, their apprentices go through a state run apprentice school, they go through 144 classroom hours a year.

In the organized sector, for the plumbers and pipe fitters, it's 216 hours per year. So perhaps they should look at upgrading that system.

One other thing they do--

REP. STONE: I don't think that bill's in front of us.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Right, but that's something for another day. One other thing they do is if an apprentice comes to them from a tech school, he's gone four years for whatever trade he is.

When he goes to become an apprentice, he doesn't have to go to classes during his apprenticeship. He just has to OJT.

I don't know about you, but when I was in high school, I wasn't worried about putting pipe in.

There was a couple things I was interested in, but it wasn't putting pipe in anywhere.

REP. STONE: We don't have that bill in front of us either, Cam.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: I'm just saying, I think that's something that could help educate the apprentices so they would become better journeymen.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Cam, for that, and Senator Colapietro?

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Yes, I just have one question. I know the answer to it but I want to hear you say it on the record.

Haven't the unions done this before the bill passed two years ago, on their own?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: They certainly have.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Thank you.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: But it's not accredited through the state. Now the state is going to say this is what you have to do.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: But it's the same thing, right?

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: Oh, yeah. It's not going to really affect us that much. I just think there's got to be some things, because of especially the retirees.

REP. STONE: Sure, okay. Thank you, Cam for that, thank you for sticking around. I'll talk to you later on that other matter, okay.

CAMERON CHAMPLIN: I'll see you tomorrow.

REP. STONE: That's right. Next we're going to move on to Senate Bill 1256, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF CHAIN STORE FOR PURPOSES OF CERTAIN CIGARETTE TAX STATUTES.

Gary Montano, and Gary you want to come up with someone else, I believe?

KEN UPDIKE: Good afternoon, Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity.

My name is Ken Updike of Auburn Merchandise Distributors, a licensed cigarette distributor, Taftville, Connecticut, along with Gary Montano, of Montano Cigarette in Milford, Connecticut.

We're also here as representation for the Northeast Association of Wholesale Distributors, which is a collection of distributors throughout the Northeast states that do supply convenience products to many of these stores.

There are 14 members of this Association that do business in the State of Connecticut, and 10 of them that actually are in the State of Connecticut and do business.

You have before you testimony from Bob Shepherd, who is the Executive Director of our Association.

He explains the workings of the current law as it's written and the problems we have with it, as it relates to the national chains, and a lot of the issues that are involved there.

As it relates to these national chains that are serviced by large, out of state wholesalers, such as McLain, which is formerly a division of Wal-Mart, to come in and, it leaves us a choice with these customers, do you lose the customer or break the law the way the law is set up for pricing?

We've lost customers, and we don't feel that's fair. We're local companies and we're just trying to do the right thing.

The law, the way it's written in certain sections, is very ambiguous and the DOR is also confused as to the enforcement and the fairness, and it needs to be changed.

As far as the independent retailers are concerned, the current law is equally unfair to them also.

Why should a person who owns only one store pay more for a major product than his competitor down the street, who also owns one store but was lucky enough to have a franchise with Mobil Sunoco or 7-11?

So changes in Senate Bill 1256 will allow true chain stores to receive true chain store pricing.

It will also level the playing field for distributors and cigarette dealers, and will also allow the Department of Revenue to properly administer licensing and enforcement.

REP. STONE: Thank you for that testimony. Gary, did you want to add anything to that?

GARY MONTANO: Yes, Sir. Senator, Representative, Committee Members, my company, based on Milford, Connecticut, employs 51 people.

Over the past six or seven months, McLain Distributors has become very aggressive in this state.

For example 7-11 stores, Mobile on the Runs, the Amoco stations, well there isn't anymore, have been approached and have been given wholesale pricing.

The DRS officials have had their hands tied due to the fact that there's a lot of ambiguity in the statement of the description of the wholesale.

They term the franchise word being very disruptive. It is our attempt today, to hopefully clarify that.

We've been law abiding. My father and I have had a license here in this state for over 50 years with the DRS.

We go by the law. We go by the license that is on the gentleman's wall, with his sales tax, and if he pays $25, he gets one pricing.

If he has the chain pricing, he gets another, but what Ken has said, that these people in these individual stores are getting chain pricing at the retail level license.

The licenses cost $250, we're paying $25. We've gone by the letter of the law. We can price whatever the law says, but we go by the license.

We need help and definition on the subject.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Gary, for that testimony. Does anyone have any questions? Lou?

REP. ESPOSITO: Gary, has this been cutting into business, as a wholesaler?

GARY MONTANO: Yes it has, Sir. We've lost quite a few 7-11s and Mobil on the Runs due to the fact that the two dollars and eight cent disparity between my pricing and McLain's has made the gasoline station move elsewhere.

REP. ESPOSITO: All right, so what they're doing is using franchise law--

GARY MONTANO: They're trying to go under the shell of the franchise where the law, the way DRS has written it, has to be five stores of common ownership and control.

REP. ESPOSITO: If this bill gets passed out of our Committee, this will, it's not going to hurt any of the retailers, it's just puts them all on a level playing, I hate that word, but I'll use it today again.

It puts them all on level asphalt to sell cigarettes rather than at the chain store.

Actually I think they should all be held at the same standard, whether they're a chain store or just a mom and pop, but that's my feeling. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Esposito. I think you hit on a good point.

What really would happen here is, rather than having highs and lows on cigarette prices, there'd be some sort of steadying the market.

Would that be a fair assumption?

GARY MONTANO: Yes, Sir.

REP. STONE: You wouldn't have a large fluctuation between--

GARY MONTANO: There isn't much money that the state receives in terms of licensing. Twenty-five dollars versus--

REP. STONE: I'm talking about the price to the consumer, Gary.

GARY MONTANO: No, I'm talking about the retail store. If one were to go on a level service, there wouldn't be much revenue lost by DRS.

REP. STONE: No, and I understand. But some cigarette prices at outlets may increase, some at other outlets may decrease.

We'd basically have a leveling of the market, the way I see it but I could be wrong.

GARY MONTANO: Correct.

REP. STONE: Anyone else have any questions? Thank you, guys for your testimony. Thank you for sticking around and being patient with us today. Appreciate it.

House Bill 6854, AN ACT CONCERNING INFORMATION RELATING TO PATIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND DISCOUNT DRUG CARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, first to testify is Anita Schepker.

ANITA SCHEPKER: Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, and distinguished Members of the General Law Committee, my name is Anita Schepker.

I'm here today as counsel representing the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America to strongly support the concept behind House Bill 6854, AN ACT CONCERNING INFORMATION RELATING TO PATIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AND DISCOUNT DRUG CARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES.

PhRMA represents over 90 research based pharmaceutical companies that all do business in this state.

Additionally many of the companies that you are familiar with have facilities in Connecticut, including Bayer Healthcare in West Haven, Pfizer in New London and Groton, Bristol-Myers Squibb in Wallingford, Boehringer-Ingleheim in Danbury and Purdue Pharma in Stamford.

All of our other members companies do business in this state and employ sales personnel who live in Connecticut.

We've all heard a lot lately about patients who are in need of medication and who do not have the insurance coverage or the money to pay for the medications.

For many years, our member companies have had programs that target these very patients, your constituents.

I'm here today to tell you that PhRMA and its member companies have always had a deep commitment to ensuring that all patients have access to medication.

In fact, since 1960, PhRMA member companies have participating in patient assistance programs, offering free medications for the uninsured.

But the term patient assistance program has changed over the past 40 plus years. No longer does this term simply refer to programs offering free medications.

As the landscape of healthcare has changed, so to have the amount and type of patient assistance programs that are offered by our member companies.

There are programs offered by our member companies that offer deeply discounted, at or below prices offered in countries such as Canada, for example, medications to the elderly.

There are also discount programs that offer those same types of discounts to families and individuals and uninsured individuals.

The problem with some of these programs is not their effectiveness, but the sheer number of individual programs, and or the cumbersome process in which an individual must go through in order to try and determine which one of these programs, or which combination of programs they should enroll in to obtain their medications.

The proposal before you today offers the solution to those obstacles.

With a proven track record in our neighboring states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and in other states around this country, we know that a one stop coordinated effort to both qualify and enroll patients in programs, can and is being done with the help of both the industry and state government.

Simply put, this proposal would use the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy students in enrolling patients in the proper program or programs in order to obtain medication.

With computers that have unique software programs, the students can ask the patient questions and fill out one form, and quality the patient for some type of patient assistance program.

The program could also be tied to state programs, such as the ConnPACE Program. This coordination of pharmaceutical benefits is not a new concept.

It has, as I have mentioned, a proven track record in many states, and in two that border us.

It provides the most vulnerable population not only with information, but with the necessary medications that they need at free or reduced costs.

We also have committed to help the state with educational outreach programs and enrollment meetings.

We thank the Committee for its commitment to ensuring that patients in Connecticut finally have access to quality and safe medications in the state. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Anita. Thank you for your work on this and to PhRMA on their support for this program.

This is, as I see it and as I talked about earlier today, this is a win win for Connecticut, and those in Connecticut who might need this type of assistance.

I also want to thank in particular, my Co-Chair, Senator Colapietro, and Ranking Member on the House side, Len Greene for their support on this as well.

Hopefully it'll take off and it'll be a success I'm sure. I have every confidence that it will be. Does anyone have any questions of Anita?

Anita, thank you again very much and we'll be in touch on this one. Alan Wiernasz? Alan, I apologize if I'm mispronounced your name.

ALEN WIERNASZ: Good afternoon, Representative Stone, Senator Colapietro, and Members of the General Law Committee.

I testified here a year ago in a different Committee regarding the PAP Programs. I was here to promote and support them a year ago, and I was coming at it from a perspective as a non-profit company, trying to basically access the PAP Program.

So what you just heard in front of you, is a fantastic culmination of an effort that has kept this as the most wonderful secret available.

I'm here today to basically, without written, which I have submitted, I'd like to amend it because of the announcement today.

The reason I'm here is basically to say that the program is so good, it's too good. And the reason it's too good is because it sounds too good to be true, most people don't believe it.

That you could actually access low cost, or even free, and the involvement we had as a non-profit was basically to help facilitate people who cannot access even the information.

So if you have an 800 number, which is a wonderful idea, you need much more than volunteers. You need much more than software.

Because if you think about it in the first place, what has been missing in the testimony so far is that it's not just the uninsured, it's by income.

Every one of the participating companies has an income qualification, and that income today, because of inflation or adjustments for the federal poverty level, has taken it for the individual up into the 20s and depending on dependants, may be as high as $30,000.

Now if you think about anybody trying to get by today on $30,000 and providing for a family, it is not going to be one sitting there with an Internet to access all this information.

So once again, the program sits there and it needs someone to help facilitate it. Now I think the pharmacy is working fine, it's a great idea.

But we worked with the School of Pharmacy up in Massachusetts, and they have the Prescription Advantage Program, which was primarily for the seniors, much like ConnPACE is here.

Now the problem they have in Boston is it's a limited time period for signing up. So if you're not signed up in that period, then you go to the 800 line, which is called Mass Medlines.

And again, it's a wonderful program, except if you want to get in to be interviewed by Mass Medlines, you have to fill out an eight-page questionnaire so they can adequately service you, when most of the time what they want to do is fill a prescription that has been provided by their doctor.

So the key really isn't just the information and the access, it's the income, and it's the paperwork.

So what I have submitted in the testimony is, we have done the research to try and take all those forms and the preceding speaker just said it, as a one page.

But the problem therein lies is the patient doctor relationship. So no matter what the 800 number does, it still the patient having to secure the data from the doctor.

So they have to have a prescription, they have to have the prescription filled out properly and it has to be the way each company requires it.

You can't make a copy, you've got to have an original. If you require two or three prescriptions, you have to have a separate prescription with each application to go to each pharmaceutical company.

Again, I'm here to applaud the merits of PhRMA. PhRMA by the way, represents 48 or 49 of the total maybe 148 to 150, so what happens is, the programs change every month.

And if you don't keep up with the software, which I firmly believe the college can do, then people who were given one piece of information today, may have it different next week.

And the other key thing to keep in mind is, this is not a panacea. It is really intended for the needy, so the need is really based on income.

But the other thing is there are a lot of programs that need to be buzzed off, and what happens is the other programs could require a second effort by an advocate to write a letter.

So some of these things are just not, pick up the [Gap in Testimony. Changing from Tape 4A to Tape 4B].

--and in a tight budget, what we were trying to do is recommend that you put this into a non-profit, it has a one time, and a small fee will sustain it, as opposed to grants or time schedules.

So there's many wonderful things about it but there are a lot of pitfalls because of the involvement of this program.

It's wonderful that they finally brought it to the state, now if you can effectively reach everybody who needs it.

REP. STONE: Well this is a, and I appreciate your testimony and your constructive observations of where the program is now and where we'd like to take it going forward.

There are many things, many issues that you brought out that I'm sure were intended to make it a better program, rather than to stop the program altogether from being instituted.

As we've discussed this morning, and again during Ms. Schepker's testimony, this is to access information as part of determining eligibility for accessing discounted or no cost prescriptions.

It is not a panacea, it's part of a bigger problem, part of a bigger equation to try to extend prescription drug coverage and health care to those most in need.

I don't want, I'm sure you don't, nor anyone in the public to think this is the solution to all of our health care problems in the State of Connecticut.

But it's a place to start, or a place to continue addressing the needs of the people of the State of Connecticut.

And I'd like to, certainly appreciate your involvement and we'd like to sit down with you and Anita and the other advocates on this and work out some of the kinks you've brought out.

None of what you said, while constructive, is going to stop me or any of the other advocates quite frankly, from moving forward on this bill to make sure that we have a result, we have a result that works, and we may have a better result.

But we're going to go forward, at least from my perspective, and I'm not speaking for the Committee because we haven't voted on this thing yet.

But from my perspective, I intend to ask the Committee to move forward on this and to make this concept a reality.

We know that PhRMA and the drug companies that you alluded to already have this program in place, and it's been in place for about 50 years from what they tell me, and there have been kinks along the way that they've had to work out.

We need to get this information, or the availability of this program out to the customer, to those in need as you I think agree, in the most effective way, the most efficient way, as you also indicated, possible so that they can access those things that are readily available if they qualify.

I think that's a big if, if they qualify. I apologize for making a statement, that's not a question. Anyone else have any questions or statements for this gentleman?

Thank you. Do you have written testimony and can you leave your card with the clerk so I can get a hold of you more readily?

ALAN WIERNASZ: The literature, and the number is on there and I look forward to it.

REP. STONE: Okay, great. Thank you again for your input, I appreciate it.

The next bill, we had asked when we first started the meeting, it was an overflow room and we had, as you know, the plumbers and electricians were here first and they testified.

And we asked those who were interested in the alcohol related issues to step out and come back.

I know there's not a unified group here, but I'm going to assume that anyone that's interested in the next bill is here to talk about it.

If not, if anyone knows otherwise, we'll take a brief recess and we can round up people, but are we okay with who's here?

Has anyone checked the overflow room, is that, we're all set with the overflow room, Room 1B.

Maybe you could have Jason, if you could just check that. If anyone's down there, we're going to start the next bill which is on alcohol, they can come on up.

With that we're going to go to House Bill 6608, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF A CASE OF WINE AND A CASE OF BEER FOR QUANTITY DISCOUNTS.

I would indicate to the public and to the Committee that in addition to the bill that you have before you in your blue books, and that was available to the public some time ago, we're also going to be working off of and taking testimony on the revised working draft that has been made available.

I guess fortune has it that that draft was available this morning and I apologize for that, but you've had about six hours to look at it, and I also apologize for that.

But feel free to comment either on the original Proposed Bill, or on the draft that was made available, on either one, and any issue within either one of those bills.

This is a learning process for many of the Members of the Committee, including myself, and we'd love to hear your testimony on each of the different aspects of that Proposed Bill.

With that, David Heller from A.S. Goodman. And, again, testimony limited to three minutes, there will be questions I'm sure of some of the Committee Members.

If you've submitted written testimony, you're more than welcome to read that testimony, however we can also read that on our own.

So we encourage you if you'd like to go off written testimony, you're welcome to do that as well.

David, welcome, and thank you for your patience, my friend.

DAVID HELLER: My pleasure. Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, and Members of the General Law Committee, my name is Dave Heller, and I'm the President Allan Goodman and Rogo Distributors.

We sell wine, liquor, beer and soft drinks, we've been in business since 1933. We sell and service about half the State of Connecticut out of our two East Hartford locations.

We have about 200 employees and call on over 3,000 retail customers in the Eastern five counties of Connecticut.

I'm opposed to House Bill 6608 regarding quantity discounts and I'm here to tell you why.

On the surface, quantity discounts sound like a good idea, they'd be good for the consumer. But in regard to beverage alcohol, it's not that simple and here's some background.

Under Connecticut laws, all retail customers can buy wine, liquor and beer at a posted price that is the same for every customer, regardless of their size.

This is a great system where everybody has the same pricing, it's fair to all involved. That means that each customer only has to buy one case at a time to get what would be the current price, and is often a current discounted price.

Quantity discounts, as proposed, would exclude those businesses that don't have the financial means or the storage space to buy extra inventory.

Quantity discounts would put all but a few of our package at a competitive disadvantage, and it would disadvantage almost all of the restaurants.

A few large suppliers would like to gain their own competitive advantage by lobbying for quantity discounts, but this would be at the expense of all of the other brands in the marketplace.

Quite frankly, this is why a few large manufacturers or suppliers are currently going after this quantity discount issue.

We think this would be a harmful change that will be detrimental to many of our retail customers, and in the end will hurt consumers.

If an individual supplier or wholesaler wants to lower prices, they have that ability. They can lower the price on every case sold to all customers.

If I were forced to compete in a market that has quantity discounts, I basically have two options to fund those discounts.

Number one, I'd find a way to cut my distribution costs, and that basically means I need to cut bodies, I need to reduce my headcount to reduce my costs.

I'll have one of my employees who is a Teamster member, who is going to testify that this would put good jobs at risk.

The other option I have to pay for quantity discounts is to raise the case one price, which means that most of the retailers who buy most of the products in small quantities, will be paying more to fund the discounts that will support the largest brands.

These higher costs will be passed on to the consumers, and my question to you is, is this really what Connecticut wants? To end up with higher retail prices for most of the products out there and perhaps lower prices on a very small number of products available for sale.

In neighboring states such as Massachusetts and New York, case one pricing is almost always higher than it is in Connecticut, and it's only when they implement a quantity discount that they're able to get to a price that can be competitive.

Quantity discounting would change the balance of power to a few large suppliers and big box retailers that will ultimately hurt local business owners, reduce local jobs, and increase most prices to our consumers.

I ask you to please oppose House Bill 6608. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, David. Thank you for your testimony. David, do you know if they have a quantity discount system in New York?

DAVID HELLER: They do in New York, they have it in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

REP. STONE: Do you know what affect, if any it had on the number of retail outlets for alcohol?

DAVID HELLER: I tried to do some research, I could not get you a good answer on that.

REP. STONE: Okay, and how about, that was neither New York nor Massachusetts?

DAVID HELLER: In New York, quantity discounts have been in place for quite some time, same for Massachusetts.

I can tell you that the number of package stores in Connecticut per capita, is about one store for every 2,400 people.

In Massachusetts it's about one store for I think, every 3,900 people.

REP. STONE: Okay, and I ask that because part of your testimony was the affect that quantity discounts might have on, I believe the number of retail outlets for alcohol.

I know that other states have quantity discounts and I'm just wondering what the affect might have been on those states.

I don't know the answer quite frankly. Now there's other parts of the bill that, first of all, have you had an opportunity to review the working draft that contains other parts of other issues regarding alcohol?

DAVID HELLER: I gave a cursory review, and there are many, many proposed changes that really turn the existing laws upside down, and I think it warrants lots of discussion.

I think some of the changes proposed would be tremendously detrimental to our industry as a whole, and would truly change the balance of power to give the largest out of state suppliers control of our marketplace, and control of our pricing.

REP. STONE: There is a provision in this bill for channel pricing. Are you familiar with that concept?

DAVID HELLER: I'm familiar with the concept.

REP. STONE: Are you in favor of or opposed to channel pricing?

DAVID HELLER: I'm opposed to channel pricing. I think it would put our restaurant customers at a disadvantage.

REP. STONE: And, there's a provision in this bill for multiple postings.

DAVID HELLER: I'm opposed to multiple postings as well. I think it creates a complex environment for pricing.

REP. STONE: Complex to whom?

DAVID HELLER: Complex for the wholesaler and the retailer, where you're basically, instead of posting one price for a one month period, you could be posting perhaps 48 different prices throughout the year.

It creates a very disruptive marketplace. The prices would always be changing, and you don't know what, if the price isn't posted, you don't know what the price is.

It's a moving target, and in the end I think it will confuse the customers and it will lead to increases in prices, which I think goes against everything that everybody in this room wants.

REP. STONE: How would multiple postings lead to increases in prices?

DAVID HELLER: I think it would create enough confusion out there that, actually I don't have a good answer for that. Under further review I will get back to you.

REP. STONE: Okay, and another part of this bill would provide for a cost of acquisition price for alcohol.

You'd have a posted bottle price and then you'd have a posted case price, and oftentimes the posted bottle price per unit might be a little higher than the per unit cost of an individual bottle within a case.

What this bill proposes is that the retailer would be able to charge something less than the posted single bottle price, and that would be their cost of acquisition. What do you think about that?

DAVID HELLER: On the surface I'm opposed to it, but I didn't read that part closely enough to give you a good answer.

REP. STONE: All right, and by the way Dave, you're welcome to get, on any of this stuff if you have other comments, as you have an opportunity to look at this in more detail, please provide them to me or to the clerk of the Committee.

We're interested in everyone's opinion, and I apologize for you getting this this morning.

DAVID HELLER: We'll sift through this and certainly come back with comments.

REP. STONE: Great. Okay, and then the other thing was the, there is a provision in here for, on your postings, when you post a price you have the opportunity within a certain period of time thereafter, I think it's three days, to revise your posted price to meet a competitor's price.

Are you familiar with that?

DAVID HELLER: Yes I am.

REP. STONE: All right. And this bill proposes that you not be able to do that.

That once you post your price, that's the price you stay with and not have what I consider to be a look back, or a look into what others might charge. What do you think about that?

DAVID HELLER: I think it's a bad idea. What happens, we'll negotiate with one of our suppliers, they'll suggest some pricing, we'll come up with pricing structures and there will be a pricing pattern.

If we were to make a mistake, if we were misinformed and we put a price in the book and a competitor had a higher or lower price because the supplier didn't communicate what they had asked us to do correctly, or we just made a mistake, we couldn't correct and perhaps we'd be selling at a higher price and would be disadvantaged.

And our customers wouldn't be able to take advantage of the lower price that they would have been able to.

REP. STONE: Okay, so your concern with that is if you had made a clerical error or mistake, rather than its effect on the competitive market?

DAVID HELLER: That's one concern, yes.

REP. STONE: Are you allowed, within that time period, that you can change your price, are you allowed to increase your posted price or just decrease your posted price?

DAVID HELLER: No, only decrease.

REP. STONE: That's what I thought, okay. And then finally, there's a provision in this proposal where a wholesaler, which you're a wholesaler, right?

DAVID HELLER: Correct.

REP. STONE: Can add a delivery charge of five percent on the case price orders of beer, of less than five cases. Did you take a look at that?

DAVID HELLER: I didn't look closely, but on the surface I'm opposed.

REP. STONE: And do you have a, well, you can get back to me as to why.

That was geared towards spreading out the deliveries within a month rather than having limited deliveries during one part of the month and then loading up at the end of the month with deliveries. That's why that was in there.

DAVID HELLER: It would be nice to smooth out our business, but we can operate. We have the employees and we can operate in this environment.

REP. STONE: And that was proposed, as I recall, by the Package Store Association, in an effort to spread out the deliveries to--

DAVID HELLER: You know what, there might be some better mechanisms to smooth the deliveries out that wouldn't be quite as disruptive. We'll come back with some suggestions.

REP. STONE: Okay, that'd be great, and I thank you for your patience, David. You're the first one to testify on these bills so you're kind of the guinea pig for my questions.

I appreciate your patience, and your candor in responding.

DAVID HELLER: It's my pleasure.

REP. STONE: Does anyone else have any questions? Thank you very much, David. It's good to see you. Next is Fred Ciaburro.

FRED CIABURRO: Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Fred Ciaburro, Jr. I work for Brescome Barton Liquor Distributors in North Haven, Connecticut.

I've been an employee there for 30 years. I'm opposed to this House Bill 6608. If this bill goes through the House, it definitely will hurt small business, liquor stores in the state.

Our big package stores will get all the business. They can't compete with the larger stores, simply because they don't have the money and the room to store the product.

In turn, that affects workers at Brescome and Barton. We have 84 teamster workers there who work day crew, night warehouse and drivers.

If this bill is passed, we have a split room that puts out between 15,000 and 30,000 bottles a night.

If this bill goes through, we won't need that split room anymore. It'll cut that drastically down. We would probably put out maybe 5,000, 6,000.

We have 12 or 13 men working in that split room. It'll drop it down to four or five men. Right there we lose seven or eight jobs.

Drivers will be cut because there won't be as many liquor stores out there. Warehouse will be cut because there's not that many places to bring product.

Something has to be done here. We can't afford to keep on losing jobs in Connecticut.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Fred. Does anyone have any questions of, is it Ciaburro?

FRED CIABURRO: Yes.

REP. STONE: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much, Fred for your testimony, appreciate it, and thank you for your patience in waiting around today.

FRED CIABURRO: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Robert Taiman?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Good evening. I was going to say good afternoon. My name is Robert Taiman.

I'm employed by the wholesaler Brescome Barton and have been selling wine and spirits in the Greater Danbury and Richfield area for the past 15 years.

I service a wide variety of businesses, small mom and pop package stores, boutique wine shops, and medium and larger discount operations.

I also service a large variety of restaurants in the area, small neighborhood grills and lounges, larger chain accounts, and hotels and catering facilities.

Many are owned by working families who have invested their life savings into these businesses.

They employ single moms, retirees, parents working a second job to make ends meet, and students paying tuition.

These businesses, and the many spin off businesses that service them for a variety of needs, are a vibrant part of the local economy.

I am strongly against exclusionary discounting by wholesalers that service these accounts.

Not just because it's what's best for me and the long term health of my industry, but because it's what's best for the survival of these businesses and what's right for the consumer making the final purchase.

Currently these businesses enjoy a deep discount on a single case of product. Wholesalers would be forced to raise their single case price to offset the difference on a multiple case sale.

This would give very large retailers an advantage and put hundreds of smaller retailers out of business, who do not have the space or capital to purchase in large quantities.

This would also raise prices to restaurants that mostly buy in small quantities, and cannot handle any more financial strain. But the repercussions go much deeper than that.

Even large retailers making these purchases would be forced to eliminate brands within categories because they would be investing more space and money into a handful of the more popular brands, to hit competitive price points.

It is this elimination of brands within categories that would result in fewer choices for the consumer in the end.

Less choices means less competition among brands over the long haul. It is the fierce competition within categories that keeps consumer prices down while still giving them multiple choices.

Let me give you a few examples out of hundreds of these categories, and how competition within each of these categories keeps prices low, not only for the businesses, but also for the consumer.

Examples include Australian chardonnay, California merlot, imported gins, domestic vodka. All these categories have representation from dozens of wholesalers in the state who must react to the marketplace and discount their products heavily on a single case in order to stay competitive in the market in that individual category.

The result is that business benefiting from a low one case purchase and also the consumer enjoying a low price at the point of purchase, while still enjoying a tremendous variety of products.

Multiple case discounts would squeeze out many brands, resulting in a few brands controlling each category, and in the end, the price to the consumer.

This would also force consumers to purchase brands that may no longer be available in the surrounding states.

I'm sure you can see how a single change in the law would have a large scale negative affect on all levels of this business, and the workers and families that depend on it. Thank you for your support.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. The last part of your testimony, by the way, did you submit written testimony as well, Bob?

ROBERT TAIMAN: I will.

REP. STONE: Okay. The last part of your testimony, I thought you indicated when you were talking about spirits, that you sell spirits by the case at a discounted price, is that right?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Correct, on the one case purchase.

REP. STONE: Right, and somehow that savings is passed on to the consumer?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Correct.

REP. STONE: If the retailer cannot charge less than the per bottle posted price, how is that savings passed on to the consumer?

ROBERT TAIMAN: The products competing in a single category, the prices are forced down to compete against each other.

So if you take a category like domestic vodka, there are lots of brands. There is Popov and Majorsk and all these different brands that compete, there are several of them.

So they're all competing against each other to have a lower price that we offer to the retailer, which then would pass that price along to the consumer.

REP. STONE: If we were to allow the retailer to charge their actual acquisition price, instead of the per bottle price, wouldn't that create even more savings or more competitiveness within the market, and have more savings to the consumer?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Well, in the very short term, perhaps, but over the long term, with the elimination of brands, then those few brands would control that category and then could raise their prices.

And that would also put many stores out of business in the process.

REP. STONE: I'm not suggesting we eliminate the brands. Their margins may be the same, there still may be a $2 markup, but it's a $2 markup on a lower base so the profit margins are still there.

With the liquor, there wouldn't be the quantity discounts, it would be case price and--

ROBERT TAIMAN: Right.

REP. STONE: Okay. There's other parts of this bill that is front of us, and I'd just ask you to comment.

I asked Dave Heller from A.S. Goodman to respond, and if you happen to have a response for me I'd appreciate it.

One is on channel pricing, you're familiar with that concept?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Actually I'm opposed to the entire, all the proposals in the bill, including channel pricing.

I am a sales rep in the field, I am not a principle in the company making decisions on pricing.

Channel pricing would give, would not be fair to the restaurants, offering them a different price, if that's what channel pricing is.

REP. STONE: And that would be just on beer.

ROBERT TAIMAN: We're not a beer wholesaler, so I'm not prepared--

REP. STONE: Okay, so you're not in a position to comment on the beer part of it.

Are you familiar with the Eder Brothers decision that the DCP level, that's now on appeal in the Superior Court, are you familiar with that case?

ROBERT TAIMAN: No, I'm not.

REP. STONE: All right. That's a case in which the Department of Consumer Protection determined that bundling or creating this jumbo case of wine was permitted under our current statute.

And I believe there is at least one wholesaler, and others have done it and I think have stopped doing it.

But at least one wholesaler that's continuing to do that, creating these jumbo cases, not just in one size, a pallet for example, but in several different sizes and offering what in effect is, a per unit discounted price based upon the size of the case that you're buying.

Which in effect, is another way of calling it a quantity discount.

ROBERT TAIMAN: Sure.

REP. STONE: And that case is presently pending in the Superior Court, but at least at the administrative level, the Department has determined that that is perfectly legal within our present statutory structure.

If it turns out that the Department is correct, and understanding that the bill that is before us creates a relatively modest threshold, low threshold, for the definition of a case, at wine of 75 liters and beer of 125 liters.

But if we don't do anything, if we don't provide some definition, some maximum definition of a case, and either decision is affirmed by the Court, what would happen to the industry then, where you would potentially unlimited jumbo cases, whether it be for wine or beer, going forward?

ROBERT TAIMAN: Sure, that would be the same as I stated, it's equivalent of quantity discounting.

It's essentially a loophole to allow quantity discounts, and that would reduce competition within categories.

It's the competition within categories that keeps prices down for the consumer and gives them tremendous choices.

REP. STONE: I asked the question, I'm sorry Bob for interrupting, but I asked the question because of some people's concern that if we do nothing in this area, that it may be worse than doing something that's akin to what's proposed in this bill.

I don't know the answer to that yet, but that's why we're having the public hearing. I'd just as you to give that some thought as well.

If you have other comments about the working draft, please feel free to submit it to the Committee through the clerk. Yes, Representative Johnston?

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Over the time that we've discussed the concept of quantity discounting in the last year, and the jumbo pack discussion, it's always been talked about that the end result will be less consumer choice.

That eventually retailers will carry less brands, more volume of those brands, but less brands.

Does the industry have any statistic on states that have quantity discount, that that's indeed what has happened?

And that in stores in New York and in Massachusetts that have quantity discounting that you see much less brands, and if you do, I'd be interested in looking at that.

I just keep hearing it anecdotally, but I don't know if you've got anything to back that up, and if you did, it would be interesting to take a look at that.

ROBERT TAIMAN: Sure, I'm sure I don't have that information, as I'm a sales rep on the road.

But logic only states that if an account has, let's say, a white zinfandel section, and they have to buy a large quantity to hit a certain price point, a low price point for the consumer, then they're no longer going to carry several other white zinfandels at a competitive price.

Where right now they can purchase probably hundreds of different white zinfandels at a low one case price, and they can offer all those to the consumer.

And each one of those brands are competing individually against all the other ones, where if they were just to make one large purchase of, let's say, 50 cases or whatever, as opposed to 50 individual case purchases, there would be less choices for the consumer.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Any further questions? Thank you for your testimony, Sir. Tim Clarke, followed by Neil Briskan. This guy's name is Tim Clarke, right? Tim Clarke, right?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, Sir. Hi, Senator Colapietro and distinguished Members of the Commission. My name is Tim Clarke.

I'm the President of Johnson Brothers Wine Merchants of Connecticut, who is a local distributor, who services the state.

And I'm here today to tell you that we are in favor of the portion of the proposed bill in front of us that allows us to continue to offer our customers a lower price on a larger quantity of wine.

We feel that House Bill 6608, in the regard of volume discounting on wine is all about the consumer and our customers.

We are, as a company, all about wanting the ability to offer legitimately, legally and openly, lower pricing to our customers, and we feel that it is our right as a business to be able to price compete.

And I want to share a few boards, you guys have sat through a lot of presentations today, and if nothing else, it will liven it up a little bit for you.

But also these illustrations indicate that we're still feeling pressure from border states around us that are advertising in our papers, their lower prices.

And some of the prices are as much as $12 to $20 a case than some of our customers can acquire product for.

In addition to that, our customers don't have the ability to get the same acquisition price that retailers and restaurateurs do in markets around us.

Our customers are disadvantaged in terms of their buying ability here compared to other states.

For instance, in Massachusetts by as much as $20 a case on some of the leading selling prices of wines, and we've cited a few examples here, and there's several more.

Make no mistake about it, the information's accurate, I'm putting it on record. We're comparing our pricing to pricing in our state versus other states, and we are not competitive and we're not even close.

And we have a broken system here and we're losing business to out of state neighbors, plain and simple.

So one of the things that we looked at in addition to being at a price disadvantage is, maybe it's the tax.

Maybe our tax isn't competitive. That's not the case. We've looked at our tax and our tax in Connecticut, compared to Massachusetts is almost identical.

The Governor has approached several Committees looking for revenue for the state. The answer isn't raising the tax on wine or spirits or beer, it's to keep the customers shopping here.

So about two years ago we were given the opportunity to ship, along with a lot of our competitors, a larger format of wine and have successfully done so.

And we've offered our customers the ability to buy a larger format of wine and get a better price, and at the same time we have lowered the selling price that we file each month so that our customer, at their choice, can pass the price on to the consumer.

The results have been actually staggering. The main reason for these boards is I wanted to show all of you exactly what's happened.

Here we are, as a distributor we've offered only three percent of our SKUs, not necessarily our largest selling brands, and we've surveyed the customers that have purchased the jumbo cases from us.

The results have been that the consumer in Connecticut has benefited by almost a quarter of a million dollars.

The boards that you see before you are almost a third of our customers who have purchased jumbo cases from us in two different sized formats. A lot of them have repeated.

A lot of them are restaurants, a lot of them are smaller stores, but the message I'm here to give all of you today, everybody can't leave their business and come up here, and all of these customers couldn't even fit in this room, but we're approaching a third of our customers who have now bought jumbo cases.

So people do like a value and the only thing that I can say is we hope that we're continued the opportunity to offer a competitive price environment to our customers.

And that's what we're seeking and I think that today's bill, in regard to a 75 liter cap in wine makes it a little bit easier I guess, for everybody to participate, and it kind of removes the doubt and the fear from some of the stores and the restaurants about how big it will get.

I think the cap is good. We agreed to the cap last year, that was 135 liters on Senator Colapietro's bill last year. I think I've exceeded my time.

REP. STONE: Do you have anything you want to add? I know you've got two of you up there, but is that all?

TIM CLARKE: No [inaudible]

REP. STONE: Thank you for the graphic stuff, and you have this in a smaller form I hope?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, it's in your folders.

REP. STONE: Does anyone have any questions?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

REP. STONE: You can get copies of that.

TIM CLARKE: Actually I hesitate leaving them for reasons you mentioned earlier.

REP. STONE: I don't want you to leave these large things, but if you can have them reduced into an eight and a half by 11 for each of the Committee Members, they may be interested in seeing those.

I think we have copies as Chairs. We'll make copies for you and get copies to you.

TIM CLARKE: I didn't bring copies of lists of our customers for confidentiality. I didn't put how much they bought or when they bought it.

I hate to share that information quite frankly, but I brought it along. By the way, if you want to come to our distributor, I'd be happy, under a little bit more of a closed environment, show you all the invoices.

REP. STONE: Okay. Does anyone have any questions of, yes Lou?

REP. ESPOSITO: Thank you. [inaudible - microphone not on] 1.75 liters, how many bottles [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: Six to a case, Sir.

REP. ESPOSITO: I'm just curious because I've got two conflicting numbers here. In one of them we have [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: There's a savings of $4 a bottle to the consumer, it's six per case, so it's $24. I think is says $24.06, but it's $24.00 advantage. Six times four.

REP. ESPOSITO: [inaudible - microphone not on]

Manufacturer's advertised price of $2.21 as opposed to Connecticut charging $1.91. Even at the $1.91, compared to $1.97 [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: I appreciate that. I'll tell you what. I will get you a copy of the ad and sent it directly to your office.

REP. ESPOSITO: [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: My price is accurate. It's a published ad. Either you could access it via the Internet or out of the Hartford Current, but I'll be happy to get you a copy.

I can't speak to Mr. Lewinski's exhibit, but--

REP. ESPOSITO: I'm using your published ad. [inaudible - microphone not on] $197.88 and your Connecticut price is $191 so I'm just curious, where is the savings [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: Not to be difficult or argumentative, but the price--

REP. ESPOSITO: [inaudible - microphone not on]

TIM CLARKE: No, I wouldn't do it, but the price on Bacardi at $17.99, the advertised price from a Massachusetts retailer, is two dollars a bottle below our ad price, our minimum bottle.

So there's six to a case, the savings is $12 to a case for a consumer. I'm not sure about multiplying them out but these are the ad prices.

They're $17.99 on Bacardi and Dewars was $32.98, that's the price in the paper.

REP. ESPOSITO: Yes, that's the price I'm working off of, Sir. And again, I'm not going to argue with you.

I'm saying that if I take your numbers, times six, on one of them comes out to be $197.88 and the Connecticut retailer today is paying $191.46, I don't know what, I don't have the Connecticut selling prices in front of me.

STEVE LANCOR: It's $36.99 for Dewars 175s.

REP. ESPOSITO: And that's according to your price?

TIM CLARKE: According to the beverage journal, the Connecticut State Beverage Journal, that's the posted price.

The illustration, the purpose of the exhibit is to show that the consumer who reads the Hartford Current, will see an ad from a Massachusetts retailer and will be able to save $24 on a case of Dewars scotch.

That's all I was trying to indicate, and it's because of the acquisition costs for the retailer, because the wholesale prices here are higher. That's why they can sell for less--

REP. ESPOSITO: Here again, not to be argumentative with you, but the wholesale prices that I'm being quoted are less than what you're telling me they are.

In your other, I believe this is cut out from, must be an ad from someone?

TIM CLARKE: Those are exhibits.

Those are pricing exhibits from the Connecticut Beverage Journal to illustrate that in addition to us shipping jumbo cases, there's other products that are shipped in the state currently in exaggerated forms.

For instance--

REP. ESPOSITO: Okay, but just to break it down, this is a control number I guess, 182782, that's a product number?

TIM CLARKE: Yeah.

REP. ESPOSITO: And the 750 is the size of it?

TIM CLARKE: Right.

REP. ESPOSITO: It's 399? I presume, it doesn't break it down, but I'm trying to--

TIM CLARKE: The purpose of that illustration is to show that there is other brands being distributed by most of the distributors that are the same product sold at two different prices, same size.

That was the purpose of that illustration, not so much whether it's a lower price than a border state, but the fact is that there's bonus packs being offered by not all of the distributors, but many of them today.

REP. ESPOSITO: But if you're going by the Connecticut Beverage Journal, is that what everyone is supposed to be selling for or what they're taking as an average selling price?

If the retailer is buying it for less, but not marking it down, he's increasing his profit, is what you're telling me.

So it's not even a matter of case pricing, but it's a matter of how much profit he wants to make.

TIM CLARKE: True. The only thing in the Connecticut Beverage Journal, relative to what a retailer sells for, is the minimum he can sell it for, but a lot of customers don't sell at minimum prices.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Any further questions? I'm sorry, Lou, were you done?

For further questions, I just have one. We always hear these things every year after year, after year, and talk about the consumer.

Is there any, have you got any ideas how we can guarantee the consumer's going to get this break?

TIM CLARKE: Well I can do my part as a distributor and give my customers a competitive price compared to what the border stores are paying for their products.

Right now we're not in that scenario. I can do that.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: You can reduce your prices now if you want to without state law?

TIM CLARKE: We've been given the right to be able to reduce our price via these jumbo cases, which has been a big help.

A wholesaler doesn't assume the entire burden of lowering price. The supplier participates and also the increased number of cases on the truck, reduce your delivery price.

It's a simple theory. You put eight cases on the truck versus one, you lower your cost of deliveries, you pass along the savings to your customer.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Well I know, you're going to hear some people testify here probably the opposite of that.

TIM CLARKE: Well listen, they're all behind me, the whole group.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: I, as a Committee Member, have yet to see a guaranteed break that we give to certain businesses go to the consumer.

And I'm concerned about the consumer because, first of all, rarely are you going to see somebody drive to Massachusetts at two dollars a gallon of gas to save a couple of bucks on a case of scotch.

I just don't believe that's going to happen. They come in here all the time, talk about the borders, I just don't buy that, because I'm an average drinker.

I'm not going to Massachusetts at $1.95 a gallon of gas. I could drink the gas cheaper than I could buy the booze.

I'm just saying that I don't see this going down as a break for the consumer, at least not some kind of a, I get a lot of, yeah I'm going to give everybody a break, but I don't see how we can guarantee that the consumer's going to get this break.

TIM CLARKE: I guess there's no guarantee on anything but the thing that we can guarantee, is that we've lowered our wholesale prices to our customers [Gap in Testimony. Changing from Tape 4B to Tape 5A]

SEN. COLAPIETRO: --rather than a plumber?

TIM CLARKE: [inaudible] buying from us today. We've lowered the selling price on the product because we've reduced the minimum bottle selling price in conjunction with the program.

And we surveyed stores and saved the consumer almost a quarter of a million dollars, that we can guarantee, because I've quantified it because we've gone out and surveyed the stores.

So I know that much, and the other think I know, is I've only offered three percent of my products, and I've got a lot of brands that sell much better than the brands that we've offered.

And quite frankly, we've got a lot of tricks up our sleeve to give customers what they want. They appreciate this. I didn't make these up, I have invoices to support this long list of customers that are buying from us.

And by the way, in terms of restaurants, it's amazing how many of our customers in restaurants are buying 48 bottle cases. They like them. We've sold 130 restaurants.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tim, there's other parts of the amended bill, what I've tried to do, or what we've tried to do is, anyone that had an idea we put it in the bill.

And part of the public vetting process is to get comments from people to see where they are on certain aspects of the bill.

There's a provision in here for channel pricing, are you familiar with that concept?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, Sir.

REP. STONE: By the way, you may have testified to it, so I apologize if--

TIM CLARKE: No, I appreciate you asking.

REP. STONE: What's your position on channel pricing?

TIM CLARKE: Our position is that, I think channel pricing is unfair, and that if you're going to offer something, then we make it available to everybody consistently.

And that's why I like the cap of 75 liters on wine, because the biggest quantity that the store or restaurateur could buy is eight cases, a nine liter case, eight cases.

So it does protect everyone's worries because we have relationships with customers, we want to see people do well and the eight case cap is a pretty effective target to hit, and I think it reaches most customers.

REP. STONE: There is also a provision in there for multiple postings during a particular month. Do you have any position on that?

TIM CLARKE: In order to, in other words, post a different price every week?

REP. STONE: Or at whatever interval you choose.

TIM CLARKE: I think that would be confusing. That issue is confusing.

REP. STONE: Who would that be confusing to?

TIM CLARKE: It would be a lot to administer, and I think our customers, if they had a different price on the same product, during the same posting period during the month, I think if somebody was on vacation and they didn't get the order in and the price goes up.

It wouldn't be a detriment to me as a distributor as much as I think it would be to our customers.

REP. STONE: There's a provision here right now when you post a price you have an opportunity to look back at or review that price within a certain period of time to reduce that price to meet or go below a competitor's price.

This bill says you post your price, that's the price and there's no look back. What are your thoughts on that?

TIM CLARKE: We favor competition in pricing. To be able to peek and amend eliminates competition.

REP. STONE: And so it would seem to you then that not being able to look back, just post the price, you're going to give it your best, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You give it your best shot at the lowest price and--

TIM CLARKE: It's business. It promotes competition, yeah.

REP. STONE: And the acquisition costs, you heard the discussion earlier on spirits. Right now the minimum price you have to charge is the per bottle posting price.

This bill provides that you can charge either that if you buy per bottle, or at your per unit price when you buy in a case, your actual acquisition costs. What are your thoughts on that?

TIM CLARKE: My instincts when I saw that were that it puts the total burden on the retailer, and I don't think that's right.

There's no participation from the wholesale channel or the supplier level, and you're asking the retailers to sell off of their normal acquisition price, and burden the whole part of lowering their price.

REP. STONE: Well if they were to sell at the, if they couldn't sell below the per bottle cost, but purchase at a lower per bottle cost on a case by case basis, why wouldn't you want that savings passed on, at least in part, to the consumer?

TIM CLARKE: I think that there's an opportunity to get participation from the distributors and the suppliers in conjunction with what's been proposed, to help share some of the burden so that you can protect the retailer markups.

By the way, their businesses, they're like our business, we have margins that we need, and you want to give people an opportunity, a fresh approach to be able to compete and still make a reasonable margin for them to make a living.

REP. STONE: How would you suggest that the wholesaler and supplier share in whatever burden it might--

TIM CLARKE: Maybe in some sort of limited cap like we have on wine and on beer that's in the bill.

REP. STONE: On a quantity discount for spirits?

TIM CLARKE: Maybe.

REP. STONE: Okay. And then finally, you're familiar with the Eder Brothers case that is presently pending in Superior Court?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, the case is pending against our company.

REP. STONE: Okay, well I guess you're very familiar with it. It's late. It's late, you know. Well I know you're a party to a litigation, I won't put you on the spot.

I have a feeling as to where you might be on that particular issue, so I won't pursue that. Anyone else have any, yes, Representative Greene?

TIM CLARKE: Sir, how are you doing?

REP. GREENE: How are you doing, Tim?

TIM CLARKE: Good.

REP. GREENE: I've been to your place, it's very nice.

TIM CLARKE: Thank you.

REP. GREENE: I appreciate the tour.

TIM CLARKE: Thanks for giving us your time.

REP. GREENE: Just one quick question. I know you talked about the cap being 75 liters, I think it was eight cases was what you said.

Is there anything stopping multiple purchases of that eight cases in a particular month?

TIM CLARKE: No, [inaudible] if we have a 30-day posting. That's a good question. Somebody could buy it repeatedly and accumulate the cases.

REP. GREENE: The impression is is that that's all you're ever going to get, and I think one of the concerns that some of the establishments have is that, like your customers might have, or some of the other customers out there.

They don't want to be subjected to putting all their money in one product, inventory wise and just carrying a smaller amount of, well, selection of different types of vodkas or wine.

So I just wondered, this cap at 75 is one thing, but they could double that or they could triple that if somebody wanted to, if someone was big enough, they could.

Should you limit it to just one shot?

TIM CLARKE: I think it would be a nuisance for somebody to take in eight cases every two days a week or every day or that type of thing.

And also, we've got to remember, and I've worked in several markets, everything comes down with the market will support and bear.

You may not have, just because there's an eight case cap on a nine liter case, I would venture to say that a third or maybe even more, maybe 40% or 50% of the items would be two case levels, three case levels, because not everybody's buying in eight case levels.

We've experienced that with these jumbo cases. Really we just kind of had our toe in the water with this. We hadn't really reached out with a lot of multiple products and we just run two programs a month.

One of them is 48 bottles and the other one was two layers on a pallet basically, and so the participation I think would pick up if you were able to accommodate what the market is willing to bear and what they buy.

And it always comes down to what customers are buying. If nobody's buying your deal, you have the wrong program in place. It won't work.

So I guess the answer to your question is, if there was a 75 liter cap, I can't imagine, we've taken the care to, I think last year one of the distributor's saw it as becoming a tractor trailer truckload with cardboard around it.

We're now down to 75 liters, we were at 135 liters with the Senator's proposed bill on the floor last year that got nixed.

We're now down 75 liters and to think that somebody may get an edge because they're going to buy it every day of the week, is over managing in my opinion.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative, and I would point out that the 75 liter discount, for lack of a better term, under the bill as proposed, you don't get a greater discount if you buy five 75 liter pallets--

TIM CLARKE: Correct. That's correct. Same price.

REP. STONE: --the same discount for each.

TIM CLARKE: And I also am under the impression that, we had mentioned that it would be available to ship loose.

REP. STONE: Right.

TIM CLARKE: Which would really aid a lot of the other distributors if they wanted to participate. It's a little more cumbersome, handling the big--

REP. STONE: I don't think the bill tells you how you have to package that 75 liters. Just one last thing, I lost my train of thought here.

TIM CLARKE: It's been a long day. You guys have had a lot of presentations.

REP. STONE: I'll get back to it. Does anyone else have any comments or questions based upon that?

Lou's going to save me by asking you a question.

REP. ESPOSITO: While he's thinking, I'll just--

TIM CLARKE: I'm getting my calculator out.

REP. ESPOSITO: I hope it's better than mine because I got a rusty mind, I'm getting old. It's difficult to think.

The way you answered Representative Greene, I was kind of confused with your answer, when we're at the 75-liter cap.

You said you'll have to buy two cases and two cases, are you saying they could buy two cases a week, and when they reach eight cases, then they would get the discounted price?

TIM CLARKE: No we're not suggesting that. I'm saying that the maximum cap of 75 liters is a maximum, but I suspect there'll be a lot of products that are offered at a lot lower quantities than that.

Because they just don't sell fast enough. Certain items don't sell as fast for somebody to be able to buy eight cases.

REP. ESPOSITO: And on that same train of thought, is there any wiggle room in the 75-liter cap?

I know we came down from 135 to 75, is everything etched in stone here, or do you guys feel that it's got to be 75 liters for it to work for you?

There seems to be a lot of opposition to the so-called jumbo case.

TIM CLARKE: It's a good question. We started out at a tractor-trailer truck and went to 135 liters. It's an unusual way to define a quantity with a distributor, talking about liters to begin with.

Normally we just talk about cases, and it could be five cases, or eight cases. Somehow we ended up with liters. I'm not sure where that came from.

Keep in mind that the maximum, 75 liters, is eight, nine-liter cases. That's two of the biggest sizes, a 750 and a 1.5 liter.

But when you get into a, you know the five liter boxes with the taps on them?

REP. ESPOSITO: Yes.

TIM CLARKE: Those are enormous brands. There's a few brands that do a lot of business. Those are 20-liter cases.

So if you have a cap of 75 liters, a distributor, if they chose to offer a lower price, and sell that size, you'd only be able to put three cases out, and stay within the proposed law.

And so the benefit of having a quantity, getting back to my comment to the Senator earlier, about, you lower your delivery cost and you pass on your savings.

The larger jug brands, will be the maximum, [inaudible] 75 liters will be four cases, three cases. These are going to be very small quantities.

So I think 75 is as low as it could go, and I think that, again, I'm one person, I'm making my suggestion, otherwise we should undefine it.

REP. ESPOSITO: Not as low as it can go, as low as you would like to see it go.

TIM CLARKE: Yes, Sir.

REP. ESPOSITO: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Lou. Representative Johnston?

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome back to our Committee.

TIM CLARKE: Thank you, it's nice to see you.

REP. JOHNSTON: It's good to see you. The greatest amount of savings that you have, that then you therefore pass along with your quantity discount, and I'm not going to say jumbo packs because the bill before us is about quantity discount.

It's no longer really about jumbo packs. Is it in delivery charges, is that where primarily the bulk of your savings comes that you can pass along?

TIM CLARKE: There are so many pieces to it. If we have quantity discounting, now a supplier comes in to our building and says listen, you guys are going to promote Turning Leaf. We've got some programming money.

In other words, the supplier shares the cost with us so that we can lower our cost to the trade.

The guy in the warehouse is going to a one pick location to pull chardonnay, can take six or eight cases instead of one, and having to go to another location. That's a savings.

Loading the trucks, taking it off the trucks, speeding up your deliveries, paying an hourly driver, that's a savings.

I believe, and I've got opposition, mostly from my competitors by the way, not my customers, but I believe firmly that if we get a quantity discounting bill, and I would even say that you may want to consider sun setting it or studying it for a few years to see what the effects are.

But I believe, Senator, that we can all be more competitive in this business, trying to work together so that we're doing things that help all of us.

You're right. I've seen it in your meetings before and have heard you make a statement, you guys can't get together. You're right.

This is an unbelievable state and an unbelievable industry, and very challenging for you as lawmakers to change, because you've got so much opposition.

And it's either bully tactics on our part or somebody's part, and nobody seems to be happy, and I feel like there's common ground that could be had so that we could grow our industry.

There is business leaking out of the state, and I know you don't want to hear it and I'm not trying to be a smart guy, but if you do drive to border stores on Saturdays, it's all our license plates in the parking lot.

It's unbelievable. If it wasn't worth the fight, I wouldn't put up with all this aggravation for two years.

New Hampshire studied their own business. Four percent of their business comes from Connecticut.

We just want to be able to, as a distributor, to grab our suppliers, get in the game a little bit, give our customers a value, customer can buy it right.

They may pass on some of the deals. A lot of stores don't buy all the items that we sell now. That's all. Just want to have the ability to fairly and openly compete.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Tim.

REP. JOHNSTON: If I could have a follow up question, you're quite a showman with the long answer, I appreciate it though.

TIM CLARKE: Thanks for the time.

REP. JOHNSTON: Would you support cumulative posting, because Massachusetts does have cumulative posting.

And they also have posting where if you buy a minimum amount at the beginning of the month, then you can get the full discount, even on single bottles, cumulatively over the course of that month.

And I guess I'm asking that because I keep looking at our prices compared to Massachusetts with the assumption that if we go in this direction, we're going to be directly competitive.

But they have that cumulative post thing, which I think is reflected in lower prices, and we're not proposing that here.

So I don't know how much of this savings is actually going to end up on the consumer's price, because we are going to still be very different from Massachusetts.

TIM CLARKE: Good question. I worked in Washington, D.C. where you have cumulatives, and the quantities went up much higher.

In most of the other markets that I've been to, you set the price on a reasonable level for people, and as I said before, and I know as lawmakers you're trying to govern where that level should be, to do the right thing for all of us.

But believe me, the trade will really dictate where it all ends up. Because if nobody's buying your deals, you have to lower your quantities. Correct?

REP. JOHNSTON: Correct. Would you support cumulative posting?

TIM CLARKE: I don't think it would benefit us because it would drive up the quantities. It would play into the bigger stores, in my opinion.

REP. JOHNSTON: You would think it would play into the bigger stores--

TIM CLARKE: Yeah.

REP. JOHNSTON: --versus given the smaller stores that could initially buy three cases and then buy individual bottles that would accumulate to cases, that that wouldn't benefit them moreso, so they wouldn't have to buy that ten case lot?

TIM CLARKE: Cumulative deals, in the markets that I'm familiar with, it always presses up the quantities.

There's 25s and 50s and bigger quantities than I think people would care to get into here, my personal opinion.

REP. JOHNSTON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Johnston. I did remember the questions that I had. You offer a quantity discount now--

TIM CLARKE: Well we're offering a larger case--

REP. STONE: --a jumbo case.

TIM CLARKE: --the lower unit cost, but we can't offer quantity discounts.

REP. STONE: Do you offer different sizes of jumbo cases?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, Sir.

REP. STONE: At a lower per unit cost? So if I buy a jumbo case that is, let's say, 250 liters of alcohol, will I get more of a per unit discount than if I buy a jumbo case that's 100 liters of alcohol?

TIM CLARKE: I'll try to explain it so it's not confusing. Two different products are higher volume items--

REP. STONE: Why?

TIM CLARKE: Pardon me?

REP. STONE: Why?

TIM CLARKE: Because they're higher volume items, we ship those in 336 bottle cases. And the higher priced, lower volume items, we put those out in 48 bottle cases.

REP. STONE: You offer the same item at different sizes?

TIM CLARKE: In terms of jumbo cases, well we do because we offer Turning Leaf this month, it's available in a 336 bottle case and a 12 bottle case.

REP. STONE: Well that's the question. So is my per unit cost, if I were to buy--

TIM CLARKE: The 336 unit bottle case?

REP. STONE: You're going to have to let me finish the question. I know you think you know, and maybe you do know what the question is, but just let me, for the record, let me ask the question first.

In your Turning Leaf example, you said you had a 36-bottle case, or a 32-bottle case? What did you say?

TIM CLARKE: It's 336 bottles.

REP. STONE: You have a 336-bottle case and a 12-bottle case?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, Sir.

REP. STONE: Is my per unit cost on the 12 bottle case higher or lower than my per unit cost on the 360 bottle case?

TIM CLARKE: Higher.

REP. STONE: Is there any other size cases in between the 12-bottle case and the 360-bottle case?

TIM CLARKE: Not on that item.

REP. STONE: Let's take another item then. Is there another item, same item, in which you have different sizes of discounted cases?

TIM CLARKE: Yes, for instance Fry Brothers.

REP. STONE: Okay, let's take Fry Brothers. What's your smallest case?

TIM CLARKE: Twelve bottles.

REP. STONE: And what's your next largest case?

TIM CLARKE: Forty-eight bottles.

REP. STONE: And what's your next largest case?

TIM CLARKE: That's the largest.

REP. STONE: Okay, so you only have, is there any single product that you sell where you have more than two size cases?

TIM CLARKE: No.

REP. STONE: Okay. Another else have any other questions?

REP. ESPOSITO: You mentioned earlier that we should try and study it and maybe sunset it. Does that mean that you're also open to the idea of maybe target areas, trying it in a target area rather than statewide?

If you're saying our sales are being lost on the border states, maybe we should try it in Enfield and up on the Rhode Island border to see if it's going to work out.

Would that be something that could be handled without disrupting the rest of the supply chain?

TIM CLARKE: I think it would move the border. In other words, if Stonington is competing with Rhode Island, and we made quantity discounts available to them, then the people on Groton would be at a disadvantage to Stonington.

It just would move things further into our state. I don't think it would be totally fair, no.

REP. ESPOSITO: Well that's similar to what we said earlier, that the price breaks would only affect the border towns anyway.

Someone living in New Haven isn't going to drive to Massachusetts to save two or three dollars a bottle on whiskey, when the price of gasoline is so exorbitant now, it doesn't pay.

I guess I'm trying to find out where the industry wants to go, other than just knock it down, or set it up with all job locations.

Just trying different ideas so we could see when we get back into Committee what to do with it.

TIM CLARKE: Yeah, I appreciate that.

REP. ESPOSITO: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Representative Esposito. Anyone else? Tim, thank you for your testimony.

TIM CLARKE: Thanks for all your time, you guys, thanks.

REP. STONE: And while Tim is clearing the display area, Neil Briskan. Is Neil still here?

NEIL BRISKAN: Yeah, I'm here. I have no slides so I'm just going to state that right now.

Senator Colapietro and Representative Stone, just before they start my timer, I just want to comment on a couple things Tim said, and people said previously.

When I came to the state in 1990, there were 1,478 retail stores. Fourteen years later, there's 1,050 retail stores.

So I'm just letting you know that attrition is something that's happening in this industry, and this was before jumbo cases, this was before quantity discounts.

REP. STONE: Do you have an opinion as to why that happened?

NEIL BRISKAN: In all honesty, there are more large stores in this industry than there were in the past. People are more aggressive, using beer which you can sell at cost.

It's a more competitive market. We probably had more retail stores than we needed in the State of Connecticut, in all honesty.

I also would like to comment on one other thing. If the rest of these distributors are so concerned about protecting retailers, then why isn't every case on sale every month?

Why is it on sale one month, off the next month, on the next month and off the next month?

Okay, and why is it in many instances the key brand's on sale and it doesn't return at that best price for another 90 days?

And one other thing, we're offering volume discounts to our customers because we have many items that we buy in multiple sizes, a 750 bottle, a liter bottle, a 1.75.

Customers can walk into my store and make a value judgment on what size they want to buy, and by buying the larger size, they're getting a quantity discount. It's their choice if they want to spend $10.99 for a fifth or $19.99 for a mag.

We're offering the same situation right here. If a retailer wants to buy one case, he pays one price. If he thinks his usage is going to be higher, he buys eight cases, or four cases, and saves money. Okay, that came off of Tim's time.

REP. STONE: Neil, I'm sorry, who do you represent?

NEIL BRISKAN: I'm sorry. I own Wine and Liquor Outlet, it's in Orange, Connecticut on the Post Road. I've owned it for well over eight years. I'm a good-sized retail store.

REP. STONE: Are you in favor or against quantity discounts, Neil?

NEIL BRISKAN: I am in favor of quantity discounts.

REP. STONE: Thank you.

NEIL BRISKAN: I'm going to try to summarize this real quickly. If competition wasn't here in Connecticut, I'm probably the poster boy for being bombed by competition.

In the last year, a Costco a quarter of a mile away reissued their license. Anybody who doesn't know Costco, they're the largest retailer of beverage alcohol in the country.

And the town that I have my business in removed its distances, so 500 feet away, a 7,300-foot store opened up.

So the last thing I should want is more competition, because I've had two big retailers open up, and I'm in favor of quantity discounts and I'll tell you why.

I don't want anybody else to run my business. I don't want all these guys sitting behind me to run my business.

I want to be able to make a decision as to what I buy, and if I buy at bigger quantities and want to pass the savings along, I should be allowed to do this.

These distributors should not be dictating if I can pass savings on to my customers. Okay? It's wrong to have them run the business.

We're big boys. If I can invest my life savings in a business, I should be able to pick and choose what I want to buy.

Maybe it's an eight case program, maybe it's a four case program, maybe it's a two case program, maybe it's one. We can't buy them all.

These jumbo cases have been offered. I don't buy them all. My name's on that chart, I pass on them left and right. I pass on the four case ones.

Sometimes I pass on the 336 bottle ones, because I don't think they're right for my business.

But the bottom line is I should be the one who decides that. When I came into this state, I remember the Burlington [inaudible] was a shopping mecca.

And I remember there was a Rickles and a Heckingers, and everywhere you turned there were big hardware stores, Grossman's as a matter of fact.

And Home Depot came in and everybody said oh my God, another hardware store. And you know what, Rickles went out of business and Heckinger went out of business and Grossman went out of business.

And you think, great, now Home Depot is just going to raise prices and dominate the business. Well what happened, Lowe's came into the state. Sears Hardware came into the state.

It's good competition. If you go to Home Depot, they have low prices on everything with a price guarantee, that they'll match Lowe's, who will match them, who will match Sears.

The bottom line is competition is good. Yes their big box stores, but the bottom line is the hardware stores that went out of business were replaced by big box stores that offer more things at better prices. To me, that's not wrong.

REP. STONE: How big is your store, Neil?

NEIL BRISKAN: About 7,800 square feet. Let the distributors sell quantity. Let the retailers decide what they want to buy, and the consumers are going to save.

Because when those jumbo cases are offered, the minimum bottle is reduced. I advertise those products. I feature those products. I use them to bring people into my store.

I've been in this state now since 1990, and the only law that's changed affected liquor has been one hour has been added on to the day.

Think of what's gone on in this business over that period of time. Businesses have changed in so many different ways, and we're still in what I consider an antiquated business.

And here somebody comes up with a reasonable program to make it so that we can be more competitive.

If distributors don't want to offer quantities, tell them not to. If they don't want to offer eight cases, tell them they don't have to.

It's not their business, the point is there's a distributor that wants to give us an opportunity to buy, we should.

When an item that's deep posted, it's at its lowest point, I may buy 100 cases of it. So it doesn't matter if there's an eight case program, if I need 100 cases, I've got to buy 100 cases. There's no deal on that.

The point is it's at the best price it's going to be. Where is that saving the small guy? I have to buy a 90-day supply of Bacardi rum.

That's more than some small stores might be able to fit into their store.

I don't see you guys going, hey, you know what, let's protect the small guy. We're not going to give you a 90-day buy, we're going to let you buy it all the time.

So the bottom line is, who's going to win if we're able to offer these, in all honesty, who's going to win?

Lower prices to me mean lower prices to my customers. If our customers get lower prices, they're happier and they're going to buy more products here in Connecticut.

Are they going to consume more? That's not what we're asking for.

Consuming alcohol, which is clearly a different subject than bottled water, or food or other things, it's something that you just don't want people to suddenly increase their consumption 15%.

But if we're more competitive in Connecticut and we don't bleed out to the borders, and there's no number.

None of these guys here are going to give you a number and tell you how much business is being done in Massachusetts and New York, etc.

But what I can honestly tell you is that why would all those stores, you saw those newspaper ads, why would they possibly advertise here in Connecticut if they did not think they could draw Connecticut customers into Massachusetts?

Why would the Hartford Current be running huge ads to move people to that market? Obviously, Massachusetts people don't buy the Hartford Current. Connecticut people do.

The beauty is we can increase the state's business without increasing hours, without increasing days.

And the bottom line is, our Governor has suggested increasing the tax on alcohol.

If there's anything that will drive more business to surrounding states, try increasing the tax on alcohol and make it less competitive than it is now.

All we're trying to do is protect Connecticut's business and maybe grow the business and add a little dynamics to this industry.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Neil, for your testimony. Did you submit written testimony as well, Neil?

NEIL BRISKAN: Say that again?

REP. STONE: Did you submit any written testimony?

NEIL BRISKAN: No, nobody could read this but me.

REP. STONE: You did a great job without it, I just, in terms of your presentation. I just had a question for you.

There's other parts of this bill that we've talked about and I don't know if you've had a chance to look at them, but one of those is what some might consider, right now, at least in the spirits side of things, we have in effect what some might consider to be a quantity discount, although limited.

If you buy by the case at a lower price, but you sell at the higher price per bottle.

What this bill proposes is that retails would be allowed to charge no less than their acquisition cost, and you're more familiar than I am.

Whether it be at the per bottle acquisition cost or the per unit acquisition cost in a case. Do you have any thoughts on that?

NEIL BRISKAN: By the way, would I favor it, yeah. I would favor cost of acquisition, because when you go to other states, you can't sell everything at zero cost.

What retailers do in other states, if you look at it is, they pick a couple brands and they feature those brands, maybe it's Absolute and Smirnoff or maybe it's Bacardi and some other brand, or maybe it's some wine brands.

You can't take everything you have and sell it at zero cost and pay the rent, and pay for the utilities, and pay the employees.

Would I favor it? Basically it's removing the minimum bottle. Would I favor that? Yes.

Do I think it's the same issue as this? It could be related, it could not be related, but do I think it would open up the market? Yeah, I think it would.

REP. STONE: And the other thing was, and I guess this wouldn't affect you, but I'll ask you anyway, on the look back, where they post a price and then they have three days to amend.

There's been some testimony, some people are against that proposal, some people indicated that that may be like more competition because you don't have the opportunity to look back and you've got to give your best price up front.

At least that's what some have opined. What are your thoughts on that?

NEIL BRISKAN: Well my thoughts are if you let them all peek and amend down to the low price, it's a price fixed market.

You're allowing all these distributors to price fix because they're all going to amend down to the lower price.

What do I think would be best? If you didn't allow them to amend down and they posted the higher price, guess what?

Thirty days later when they post it again, they'd be sure to make up for it. It would make them all more competitive with each other.

I mean, let's face it. When Lowe's puts out a circular, they put out a price. If they beat Home Depot's price, now Home Depot has to react to that particular price.

Do I think they should be able to look at each other's ads and have the two guys side by side and go, hey let's make sure all John Deere tractors go out at the same price? I don't think so.

I think that would be price fixing, that would be collusion.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Neil. Does anyone else have any questions of Neil? Neil, thank you very much for your testimony. We appreciate your waiting and sticking around. Gary Roundsville? Is Gary still here? John Blesse?

Hi John, good evening and thank you for your patience.

JOHN BLESSE: Good evening, my name is John Blesse and I'm here today representing as a winery owner and also Vice President of Sales for what would be deemed a small wine company.

I'm a resident here in Connecticut. We have offices here as well as on the West Coast.

Earlier there was question brought up, first of all I'm here in support of the quantity discounting that's at hand.

I bring that up because earlier it was talked about that the only benefit from a quantity discounting perspective would be to larger wineries.

And based on the idea that this is limited to an eight case quantity, but could be as low as two, as a small winery owner and operator and a resident in Connecticut, the benefit also would serve me and the brands that I have within our portfolio.

I wanted to start by talking about quantity discounting, which is already in the state. I'm also a former restaurant owner here in the State of Connecticut, had a restaurant in New Canaan, Connecticut.

For years we've had the opportunity to either buy a 12 bottle or a 6 bottle unit, or to buy it by the single bottle.

My wine list had some 400 wines on the wine list in New Canaan, and there was items that may move three bottles a month, that I would buy one bottle and then mark up and have it based on a single bottle price.

Or an item that would be by the glass, and I would buy that by the case, thus getting the savings on a 12 bottle or a 6 bottle unit versus a 1 bottle individual cost.

So there's already the opportunity to buy a single bottle, or to buy 12, thus there's already a volume discount in play.

The confusion for me as a supplier in the state is, I'm not sure what the difference between a 12 bottle or being able to buy 24 bottles, if I still have the opportunity to buy one, or to buy six, or to buy three, whatever the demand is as a restaurant owner or a retailer.

Because the cost of inventory in this business, whether it be at the supplier level, whether it be at the wholesaler level, whether it be at the account level, one of the greatest costs all of us have is the cost of inventory.

In addition to that I would add that in reference to the channel pricing issue, as a former restaurant owner, to be for or against channel pricing, I think based on the idea that I can buy a bottle, 12 bottles, 24, 36 or 48 bottles, the idea of channel pricing already exists in the marketplace.

That's been in place, whether it be a single bottle, or a 12 bottle unit.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

JOHN BLESSE: I'm sorry?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

JOHN BLESSE: Yeah, I guess my point being is, if I'm back to my 400 item wine list, if I have an item that's only going to sell three bottles in a week, I already have the choice to buy those three bottles and to mark that bottle up accordingly.

No one's dictating to me as a restaurant owner or as a retailer, how far I can mark that product up.

So it's my decision as an owner, to Neil's point. In the same light though, I guess the additional piece, as a former restaurant owner and now as a winery owner, the idea of the minimum bottle.

I today represent our company in 43 states across the country, and the idea that we set a price point by which a retailer cannot go below, is like, I likened it earlier to, if you owned a house, should we then dictate that the house costs $25,000 to build but you can't sell it below $50,000?

And I understand there's a difference between alcohol and a house, but I guess the thought is as I travel these states, and you try to explain to a retailer where you're from, and they say that's the state with the minimum bottle law, right?

And then you try to explain that we dictate to a retailer what they're going to pay for a product, and then we turn around to that same retailer, who's in business to draw more business, to grow their business, small, medium or large.

We then say beyond that, as a supplier and as a distributor, we're going to also dictate to you where you can sell that product at from a cost perspective, thus dictating profitability or lack of.

Where if we say you buy it for $8.91 and you can sell it for $8.00, there's nothing that keeps me from selling it for $11.99 if my consumer will bear that $11.99 price.

The only other thing that I really want to touch on was in the bill from a perspective of the amending of the pricing.

I think that's an interesting quandary as an owner of a company. Today we allow two distributors with similar products, a dual market where two distributors, three distributors, five distributors can have a product.

We're giving them the opportunity to amend their pricing.

I would suggest that in the State of Connecticut, if we're going to allow a distributor to amend to another distributor's pricing, then I should have the right, as a Washington state wine owner, to see all the Washington state wine pricing on another brand?

I own a brand called [inaudible] Light. I would like the distributor that has Columbia Crest on the market to allow me to look at Columbia Crest pricing so that Columbia Crest can't have an advantage over me that particular month.

I'm challenging on what the difference between those two examples are. If I have a product from Spain, and I do, I should be able to see every like product in Connecticut, review it for three days, and determine if I want to amend my pricing.

It would seem to me as a Connecticut business owner, because our business is as much here as it is in Washington state, that that should be a right that I would have as a supplier who lives here locally, would be able to review the competitive pricing of other wineries.

I think it's the same example. The only other thing that I would bring up is, I heard the conversation earlier where we were comparing the Massachusetts pricing to the Connecticut pricing, I believe it was on Dewars?

It would seem that we need to take a look at that because I do go to both markets, and I would challenge that the pricing we talked about earlier, one was comparing the distributor price here in the State of Connecticut to the retail price in Massachusetts.

To the point of quantity discounting, I think we're looking at a distributor's wholesalers book here on what the cost of acquisition is?

What the price of Dewars is here, and saying do the math in Massachusetts for six bottles, which was actually the retail pricing.

To the point of quantity discounting, the wholesale price in Connecticut in that example was actually greater than what six bottles could be purchased for in Massachusetts.

So I would just ask that we look at that math again because that's, as we were listening to that math, I would challenge that that was probably a retail example versus a wholesale price example between the two markets.

Only because I think the cost would have been $32.99 a bottle wholesale, which is not the correct answer.

We were looking at two different pieces of information there, and that's sort of, as we were listening to the argument in the back.

REP. STONE: Thank you, John, for your testimony. I don't know if you had anything you wanted to finish up with or wrap up with?

JOHN BLESSE: No, that'll do it.

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you, and I don't mean to cut you off but I know that we're running, your three minutes is up.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: I just had, probably a comment. One of the things you said kind of expresses how I feel. You said if I want to go to $11.00 a bottle, I can.

That's basically my problem here because, how many consumers are in this room? There's a few. You don't buy your opponents product though, you know what I'm talking about.

I know you're not going to come over here and buy somebody else's wine, but the problem is is right up here, right now, there's businesses that are here and rightfully so, probably.

But I am concerned and I have been concerned for years now, where am I going to guarantee that the cost savings that we give out to all you folks are going to go to the consumer?

You said it, and it happens in the gas industry as well. How come you charge so much over here? Because I can. That's what bothers me.

JOHN BLESSE: If I could comment to that, the comment today that I would have is, today the choice doesn't belong to the consumer nor to the retailer.

The decision on what a bottle of wine or a bottle of spirits in this state is going to cost, is dictated by suppliers and distributors, due to the setting of a minimum bottle.

Buy it for $8.00, you have to buy it for $11.99, you can't buy it for less.

One thing's for sure today, we know the consumer cannot get a bargain based on minimum bottle law.

REP. STONE: Thank you, John. Anyone else? Thank you very much, John, for your testimony. Gail Powell, followed by Michael Stein. Is Gail still here? She's probably on her way to the UConn game.

Michael Stein? Is it Stier or Stein? Stein, I'm sorry Mike. I didn't want that mention of the UConn game to affect the length or the breadth of your testimony.

SEN. COLAPIETRO: Let's make it two minutes now instead of three.

REP. STONE: Go ahead, Mike.

MIKE STEIN: No problem from my perspective. I only wanted to address really one point, but let me say first that I'm co-owner of a mid-sized store in Naugatuck, Connecticut.

I also live in Danbury, I mention that because we have a Member who's not here today, and I've been in the business for 10 and a half years in Naugatuck.

I'm opposed to House Bill 6608 and I feel that it's kind of a rouse to favor the larger stores and suppliers, and the reason I say that is because I believe that we actually have quantity discounts today.

And as an example, I brought with me a recent what we call a buy in sheet.

At the end of the month each of our suppliers tells us what the prices are this month, the stuff that's on sale, and what they're going to be over the next three or four months.

And what this buy in does is, true that the price of case one is the price on case 10, but it's up to me to decide whether I want to buy one case or three cases or 20 cases, and I think that's a point that Neil made also.

That he can buy 100 cases or he can buy eight, and to me that's quantity discounts, because I'm going to buy the goods that's going to last me until the next deep post off, which might be those numbers.

And it's going to be for three months most of the time. I can do that and buy 100 cases, my competitor down the street might buy 200 cases or they might buy one case, whatever is right for his business.

But we're all playing on the same field. There's no advantage other than the business that I do.

I just wrote down a few examples of key items that were on sale this past month, the end of February, and these all are familiar names.

Seagram's VO in February, there was a sale off $24 a case, off of the case. If I was to buy it in March, it would be six dollars off, in April $20, and it's not until June that it comes back to that price again.

So I bought whatever number of cases it takes me to get there.

Captain Morgan, another popular item, $24 off in February, zero in March, $13 in April, now for me if I only bought to get to April, I wouldn't make enough money to keep the lights on, so I bought enough to get to June which again, was $24.

Now it's not just liquor. One of the biggest brands in our store is Kendall Jackson. It's mostly chardonnay. I purchased a fair bit of that at a $27 sale price to get me to June, where again it's $27 off.

REP. STONE: Let me ask you to wrap up [inaudible - microphone not on]

MICHAEL STEIN: Sure. To me, that is volume discounts.

REP. STONE: Thank you for that testimony. I appreciate that. Any Members of the Committee? Thank you very much, Mike, and thanks for sticking around and your patience today. Appreciate it. Alan Wilensky, followed by Rod Johnson.

ALAN WILENSKY: Good evening Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone, Members of the Committee, my name is Alan Wilensky, I'm here representing the Connecticut Package Stores Association. I also own a liquor store in East Lyme.

You have my written testimony specifically addressing all of the aspects of House Bill 6608. We are against House Bill 6608.

You also have the pricing matrix that I provided that Representative Esposito referred to earlier.

What I also brought with me today is this particular book, which is the Massachusetts Beverage Journal, and I can tell you that the prices that are shown in my pricing matrix are accurate and true.

What I will reference on the pricing matrix is the first three items that I gave you on that sheet, are Gallo products, and just to go over a couple of things, the Carlo Rossi price on four liter, which I believe I have a typo on, it says 1.5 in my matrix.

The one case price in Massachusetts is $36 [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 5A to Tape 5B]

--is exactly true. It's 68 cases in Massachusetts to get me to the one case price in Connecticut.

But what I would like to also reiterate is that House Bill 6608 is anti-consumer and anti-business.

The consumer is the hugest loser in this bill, as are the retailers right behind them, and when the retailers lose and are forced to increase inventory and handling costs, it is a detriment to the consumer and their price and selection.

My most notable concern right now is the sudden arrival of the working draft that was presented at 10:30 this morning.

I assume that it's designed to be a substitute language bill to House Bill 6608 and it scares me to death.

AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF A CASE OF WINE AND A CASE OF BEER FOR QUANTITY DISCOUNTS is the title of the bill, but that's not anywhere near what this bill does to this industry.

We also have never seen, in my time up at the Legislature, a situation such as this where a new draft bill of this magnitude of change has been presented at the last minute, which would have such a devastating effect on our industry.

I had an opportunity to work through some of the items through it, some of them are underlined as new, some of them are entirely new paragraphs.

We have a new split case definition. The new definition of the larger cases. Multiple and varied wholesale pricing within the same month, volume discounting, which is what I covered in the House Bill 6608 testimony.

The variation and elimination of minimum bottle as we know it now, a drastic increase in single bottle pricing, delivery surcharges, channel pricing and depletion allowances, which has been a bill up here for the last few years, which has failed in Committee for the last three or four years as I remember.

All of which drastically hurt all of the retailers in Connecticut. This even newer bill is even more anti-retailer to the extreme benefit of the manufacturer and the wholesaler.

At no time were we, the retailers, consulted as this anti-retailer bill was constructed.

At no time in history has the CPSA unilaterally written a bill against the wholesaler manufacturers, yet this seems to be what's happened today.

This is a bait and switch maneuver, although both the bait and the switch is bad for our business.

The bill is convoluted, contradictory and horrendously one-sided. This bill is a deception and I don't know who wrote it, but it certainly didn't have a retailer in the room.

I would also, if given the opportunity, would like to respond to a number of things--

REP. STONE: I'd ask you to finish up.

ALAN WILENSKY: That's all I have. I would again refer to the written testimony that I've provided.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much. We've had several meetings over the past several weeks and your lobbyist has been part of those meetings.

Does anyone have any questions of this gentleman? Yes, Representative Johnston.

REP. JOHNSTON: Just a quick question. Alan, would you be able to provide, at least myself, a copy of the most current Massachusetts and Connecticut Beverage Journal?

Because what I'm afraid I'm looking at is, I can take a snapshot of 20 products, I would assume at any point in time, and compare any state to Connecticut and make it look like Connecticut is tremendously underneath them and vice versa.

I'm sure I could jump in that Journal and find 20 products in any given month, that Connecticut is entirely much better off than another state.

So if it's available, I would appreciate to have both of those so that I can just unilaterally go through it and pick a dozen things at total random and that way it would give me a better snapshot of where we're at.

ALAN WILENSKY: I'd be happy to provide that to you. I got a delivery of the, I believe this is the January Beverage Journal from Massachusetts.

What I will tell you is that the Massachusetts Beverage Journal does not have an index as Connecticut's does, so you have to flip through it page by page to find the items that you want. I don't know how they do business up there.

REP. JOHNSTON: I'll navigate it. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Representative Johnston. Anyone else have any questions of this gentleman?

If you would like to submit written testimony in response to the working draft, you're more than welcome to do that.

We have received information from your lobbyist over the course, as I said, several weeks, so you can supplement that if you like.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next is Rod Johnson.

ROD JOHNSON: Good evening.

REP. STONE: Hi, Rod.

ROD JOHNSON: My name is Rod Johnson. I am an employee at Allan S. Goodman, it's a wine and liquor wholesaler out of East Hartford.

I'm also the shop steward over there and member of the Local 671 Teamsters. I've worked at Allan S. Goodman for 26 years. I'm opposed to this bill and I'll tell you why.

On a typical day, I take out between 250 to 350 cases, probably about 40 [inaudible]. Probably on an average stop I deliver anywhere between five to 10 cases, dirty bottles, all different items, all different product.

As I understand this bill, the customer that can buy more wine is getting the better discount, is getting the better price.

I truly believe that this is going to hurt the small stores. They just don't have the room to store the stuff, it's just going to benefit the bigger stores.

If this thing is passed, I think it's going to be less accounts that we have to deliver to, which is going to trickle down to my job, to Teamster jobs.

If our company has to reduce costs, there isn't too many companies I know that start cutting jobs at the top. They start cutting them at our level.

And it's not just Teamster jobs, it can be, it starts with us maybe and then it goes into sales or the office or whatever.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Rod, for that testimony.

ROD JOHNSON: All right. Thank you.

REP. STONE: Does anyone have any questions of Rod? Thank you very much, Rod. Now Rod, are you speaking on behalf of the Teamsters organization or just yourself?

ROD JOHNSON: Teamsters.

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you. Clem Sayers.

CLEM SAYERS: Good evening. Senator Colapietro, Representative Stone and Members of the Committee, my name is Clem Sayers and I am the General Manager of Rogo Distributors in East Hartford.

I run the business that Dave Heller and his family own. I've done that for a few years, 25 plus, and have seen a lot of changes in the industry, all to the good.

I am opposed to quantity discounts. I think I'm for increased consumption though, somebody said something about that before, I think I'm for that.

I'm opposed to this bill, and you've heard a lot of reasons why. I'd like to cite one example and I'll be very brief and explain to you why I think the system that we have now works and works well and provides our consumers with the best prices out there, and I speak for beer.

In Western Massachusetts, and I'm going to use a Coors Light 30 pack as an example, in Western Massachusetts the case one price for a Coors Light 30 pack is $19.89. In our market it's $18.99.

They have quantity discounts there. In order to get their best price you have to buy 95 cases. When you buy 95, you pay $18.49 per case.

You can buy Coors Light 30 packs in our market from case one at $17.49, eight months out of the year.

So I really don't see how quantity discounts will help the retailer or the consumer in this area.

REP. STONE: Thank you very much, Clem. Does anyone have any questions? Thank you very much for your testimony, Clem, and thanks for sticking around. Jeff Johnson?

JEFF JOHNSON: Thank you for your time tonight. I'm a distributor, I'm a wholesale distributor for Brescome Barton Distributing. I'm in sales, and the key word to my company name is distributors.

I distribute goods and services to a certain number of accounts within the state, that's my territory, my route.

Why do I oppose quantity discounting? The bulk of my accounts are small to medium sized. I don't have multi-million dollar grossing stores.

Family owned business, mom and pop shops, grassroots stores, restaurants, bars, for them, any one of these accounts to outlay for these jumbo cases, that's a tremendous amount of their financial resources in one particular brand.

By allocating those resources to one brand, all of a sudden, their variety shrinks dramatically.

A shrunken market means customers coming and looking for certain brands will divert to different stores, different towns, different areas, okay?

There's really no other way to put it. The barrier entries for new supply companies coming in, the prices that they'll have to charge at case one, it won't be right because the trial size packages on pricing, if somebody would want to try a brand, won't be able to because it would be too expensive to try it.

So the entry bidder coming in for any new brands will be extremely limited also, and that's another reason by I oppose it.

I think the ultimate judge should be the consumer on what brands come and what brands go.

It shouldn't be based on supply companies dominating more market share because they're throwing up these barriers to limit who comes in and who goes out.

REP. STONE: Very good. Thank you, Jeff, for your testimony, and I know you and I have spoken about this in the past, and I appreciate your input on this. Representative Johnston?

REP. JOHNSTON: I had a quick question. What volume of your sales happen the first week of the month and the last week of the month, which I've got to assume is the biggest volume because people like taking advantage of the post off on either end of the month.

JEFF JOHNSON: At any level of, and I guess store size, post offs are important. First and last weeks of the month are by far my busiest weeks, by far.

End of the month of course bigger than the beginning because you have all month to buy in on a posted item. People look for the pricing.

REP. JOHNSTON: I'm trying to understand the concept of the multiple post off two or three times a month or more.

How would that, would that spread out business and everyone keeps saying what problems it would create, and I'm just trying, from someone who sells directly with small stores--

JEFF JOHNSON: That's under the working draft. I haven't had a chance to look at that at all.

REP. JOHNSTON: Okay, and if I ask it now, if any other speaker comes up maybe that's in the same capacity as you that could speak to that, that would be--

JEFF JOHNSON: I think a lot of the retail trade, it's a Pavlovian fixture, they're already assumed that their pricing will come at the first of March and then a new post off [inaudible] will occur on April first.

So they're forecasting in there, in their software packages that they have on their computers what to buy and how much to buy based on previous sales.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Representative Johnston. I know that without referring to the specific language in the draft, do you have an opinion on multiple posting throughout the month?

And whether that's good, bad, or whether it spreads out the deliveries during the course of a month or not?

JEFF JOHNSON: As far as my company, we're very service oriented. We deliver four, sometimes five days a week to begin with, to everywhere in the state.

I think as far as pricing goes, that's if say, account XYZ forecast 20 cases to be sold during the course of the month and all of a sudden he's already sold his 20 by the second week and he's out.

If there happens to be a post off in that time period, I don't know enough about it to really venture an opinion.

REP. STONE: That's all right. No, that's all right. Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate your testimony. Jerry Rosenburg and Richard Weis.

RICHARD WEIS: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Richard Weis. I'm Executive Vice President of Eder Brothers, we're a wine and liquor distributor in West Haven, Connecticut.

We service New Haven, Fairfield and [inaudible] County. We are opposed to this bill. When I came here this morning, I thought I'd be discussing quantity discounts, the original bill.

Obviously, there's been a working draft which includes a great number of different items involving both the distributor and the retailer business operations.

For the most part, what's in this bill favors the very large brands, the very large suppliers, and certainly is skewed towards the largest stores.

Our top 20 stores in our marketplace represent 20% of our store business. We service in southern Connecticut approximately 600 stores.

So three percent of our stores, representing 20% of our business. The other 97% of our stores would not benefit from what's in the working draft.

One of the questions I've heard several times this evening is with respect to multiple price postings during the course of the month.

A store would have thousands, maybe 10 thousand different items. We carry close to 3,000 different items.

To keep track of that number of items on a basis more frequently than once a month for your pricing, for your computer work, for your advertising, your advertisements both in the window, for newspaper advertising, it's a huge job currently.

To do it in weekly slices, only the very largest stores would have the programmers to handle the computer work for this.

There are a large number of medium sized stores that are computerized, but it's based upon a business operation which is far simpler than what this provides.

It would be a nightmare. It would be a nightmare for the distributors as well.

JERRY ROSENBURG: My name is Jerry Rosenburg. I'm the Vice President of Hartley and Parker Limited Inc. We're a statewide wholesaler of wine and spirit in the State of Connecticut since 1941.

Since 1968 I've been the Vice President working with my father. I'm opposed to House Bill 6608, as well as the draft that's been presented to us only today for our perusal.

As Richard says, this draft, as well as the original bill, is geared for large retailers as well as large suppliers.

And I have submitted to you, pricing between Connecticut and Massachusetts which I hope is before you now, and if it's not I have copies here for you.

You'll notice that I've given you two basic sets of prices. One is a no discount price and one is the lowest discount price.

These prices represent the Beverage Journal of February and March of Massachusetts and Connecticut and Representative, I have copies of the pages and can get you copies of the Journals if need be, that I'll be glad to leave with you.

You'll see that in every case, Connecticut's single case price is lower than Massachusetts, and in every case the maximum discount in Massachusetts cannot compete with the single case discount in Connecticut.

And I think when you take a two-month sampling of February and March combined, it's a fair analysis because the standard discount may run six times a year.

And if you look at two months contiguously, you're going to pretty much handle what's discounted in that marketplace, especially when you look at March which precedes the Easter vacation.

You'll also notice that I picked very prominent items in order to display. It was done randomly by me just a couple of nights ago, with the Beverage Journals in my kitchen.

And without exception, you'll see that in some cases you have to buy 50 cases of Bacardi to pay $113.94. It's $107.46 in the State of Connecticut. Do we need quantity discounts?

Woodbridge Chardonnay, 1.5s in the month of March, $52.44 in the State of Connecticut for case one, $65 in Massachusetts if you buy 25.

Do we need quantity discounts?

It seems to me that we're offering the State of Connecticut fantastic pricing to the case one buyer. Do we need quantity discounts?

Do we want the kind of pricing that Massachusetts is showing us here? I think not.

And I think we don't want to force the retailer to have to buy 50 cases in order to do it. There are many national retailers today who are not prominent in the State of Connecticut because they can't use their influence and their power.

If we go to quantity discounts, and believe me, this 75 liters to me is a foot in the door. I don't really believe this is where the camel ends, that's just a head in the tent and then we'll be sleeping with a camel just years from now.

If we give them the ability to buy on a quantity discount basis and use their influence and power, first of all they carry very few SKUs, very few items, and they sell them a little bit above cost.

They're happy making single digit profit. Why? They sell memberships. They also sell other items other than wines and spirits.

That's not what subsidizes their income. It's the memberships and all the other things that they sell beyond wines and spirits.

How is my customer base going to compete against that? They'll be the spoilers in this state and they'll cherry pick the items that are national brands only.

They only carry between 100 and maybe 200 items at best. I sell 6,000 items. Gallo sells in the hundreds of items, and they sell them by the case.

In fact, I believe they have a five case minimum requirement for you to even purchase. The rest of my competition doesn't have such restriction.

Most of their cases are national brands. A quantity discount lends itself to their environment because they sell by the case, they're national brands and they don't have all the 6,000 items that so many of us sell in the State of Connecticut that we have to deal with.

REP. STONE: I'm going to ask you to just wrap up, Jerry, if you could.

JERRY ROSENBURG: Let me answer a couple of things about this draft. Amendments? Whoever wrote that was never in the business before.

Let me tell you something, I used to do the purchasing at Hartley and Parker and I used to talk to people that purchased around this country, in different states that had no amendment.

In a dual market where there's two distributors, the fellow who did the purchasing would find out in the middle of the preceding month that he had the best price in the state.

He couldn't get the goods. He had the best price, and yet the goods had to come from Italy, from France, from California.

He couldn't supply his customers with their needs because he didn't know he was going to have the best price until the last minute.

Let me say something else about amendments. Very often there's preferred distributors in the state where a supplier talks to one, doesn't talk to the other.

Well very often the pricing in Connecticut is an amalgamation of discussion between wholesaler and supplier as to what the discounts ought to be.

Well if he talks to one wholesaler and he doesn't talk to the other, it seems to me that's discriminatory, and he's not forced to do that.

Now one distributor would be at a marked disadvantage if he told one distributor to discount a certain price, didn't tell the other, the other one would simply be floundering and not know what to do.

This is reality. As far as multiple postings, may I say one thing about that? We now give the retailers the ability to buy the entire month, the best discount of that month.

If we go to multiple postings, I know what it takes, and some of the salesmen who sit behind me know what it takes for the retailer to create that month end purchase.

By the way, the Liquor Control Commission allows us as distributors, if we can't get all the goods out the last day of the month, they allow us a day grace in order to ship at last month's price, on the first day of the month.

We've been doing this for decades. We shouldn't be here for you to try to solve every problem that we have in the industry. That's not why we should be before you now.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Jerry. Does anyone have any questions of either Jerry or Mr. Weis? Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your testimony, appreciate it.

RICHARD WEIS: Thank you.

JERRY ROSENBURG: Thank you.

REP. STONE: Mike Scalise.

MIKE SCALISE: Hello, my name is Michael Scalise. I own a mid sized store in Colchester. Late last year I stopped my business relationship with Wine Merchants of Connecticut.

I originally signed the petition that was in favor of the jumbo case issue early on. I'm unfortunately new in this business and I didn't see the complexity of quantity discounts.

Four out of the five stores in my hometown, and you can check with Wine Merchants, and Mr. Clarke, as far as it goes, has stopped doing business with Wine Merchants of Connecticut in protest of this bill.

I know there's a lot of things added and I'm just familiar with the previous issues, but Mr. Clarke actually came out to my store to speak with me about the situation in Colchester.

We spoke on his views, basically what he mentioned today and I think I'd be repetitive if I just spoke of the same things that obviously the CPSA and others have spoke on about the fact I would not be able to afford this idea.

I think it comes down to just having enough cash. There's only an initial investment in business, and these quantities that they want us to purchase in, storage wise would seem impossible for me.

I have nowhere to store these products and most of the mid sized stores and small stores in the state that I've spoken to, really are very fearful of this bill to pass.

I'd just like to be, if possible, if you have any questions.

REP. STONE: Well thank you, Mike, for your testimony. Mike, how big is your store?

MIKE SCALISE: My store's about 2,000 square feet.

REP. STONE: And how much of that, does that include storage area?

MIKE SCALISE: No, no, no. I have storage in a basement, probably another 2,000 square feet.

REP. STONE: And the quantity discount proposal is 75 liters of wine, 125 liters of beer, which rough calculation is about eight cases of wine and about 15 to 16 cases of beer.

Do those two numbers pose a storage problem?

MIKE SCALISE: It does when it applies to a vast amount of items. That's where the fact that, many have mentioned too today that the selection in the stores would slim down.

I can't afford to basically expand the volume of my store that much. I can't put 10 times of every case that I have in there.

So there is going to be less selection, there's no doubt about that.

REP. STONE: Okay, and you're store's in Colchester?

MIKE SCALISE: Colchester, yes.

REP. STONE: I certainly understand that you received the working draft, I understand you haven't had an opportunity to go through each and every detail.

But if you'd like to submit written testimony or through your association would like to submit written testimony, we'd be more than happy to receive that after today.

We're not voting on this today. It won't be for a week, if not more, if we do anything, so feel free to submit additional information to the Committee if you'd like, okay?

MIKE SCALISE: All right.

REP. STONE: Does anyone have any questions of Michael? Michael, thanks for your patience and for sticking around, appreciate it. Stephen Downes.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Thank you, Chairman Colapietro and Representative Stone. I'm Stephen Downes. I'm the President of the Connecticut Package Store Association.

We represent most of the stores in the state, big, large and the medium size store, and we oppose this bill, House Bill 6608.

I think quantity discounts is not that consumer friendly to the State of Connecticut.

I think what will happen with quantity discounts is the big market areas, which I have a store, you'll end up with cheaper prices because we can afford to buy the quantities.

But the smaller markets and the Windham Counties and the other counties, they're smaller with the smaller stores, those people aren't going to be able to buy the deals.

So consequently they're going to have higher prices in the state, in the counties that have small populations, so it's not a totally consumer friendly bill.

We also oppose any of the multiple pricing and we also oppose any of change in the minimum bottle or the single case.

Right now the minimum bottle brings organization to our industry.

Every retailer can read in the Beverage Journal or in the beer journals, what the minimum bottle price is, and we know, and for the point of advertising, we know what we can advertise.

If you eliminate that, it's just going to create chaos in our industry right now. Right now, they talk about minimum bottle, but right now the minimum bottle could be zero.

With beer, when we buy something, a lot of times we're just selling it for cost, and you can actually have a minimum bottle on any product that is set down to cost.

So you can discounts that way. We oppose these bills, and thank you. If you have any questions.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Steve. Steve, would the minimum bottle provision in the bill allow you to, if you bought spirits by the case, allow you to offer that same bottle to the consumer at a lower price?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Well if they could lower the price on the minimum bottle by posting the bottle in the case and they could drop the price that way. That's what can be done right now.

REP. STONE: Well that can be done now, but would you agree or disagree with, there's delivery costs with a single bottle, there's other costs with a single bottle.

And wouldn't the cost to deliver, the cost of doing business be more for a single bottle than

selling it--

STEPHEN DOWNES: Well we get charged more for a single bottle right now. Sometimes it could be up to three, five dollars more.

REP. STONE: Right, you can charge more.

STEPHEN DOWNES: No, we get charged sometimes by a wholesaler that much right now.

REP. STONE: Right, but that same price that you charge more for the single bottle, also applies to the bottle that you would buy as part of a case, even though your per unit cost is less.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Not totally understanding.

REP. STONE: You have a minimum bottle price.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yes.

REP. STONE: And that's your cost to purchase that bottle, right? Your cost to purchase say, a six bottle case, your per unit cost for each of those bottles within that case may be less than what your single bottle price is. Would that be true or not true?

STEPHEN DOWNES: If it's like a $30 post and a $6 post, is that what you're--

REP. STONE: No, no. You've got to help me with how you do this posting. You've got a single bottle price, let's say it's ABC vodka, which if you bought as a single bottle would cost you six dollars, okay?

And that's the minimum bottle price. Now if you bought that same bottle as part of a 12 bottle case, let's say, the per unit cost for each bottle in the case may be five dollars per bottle.

Because you pay $60 for the case instead of $72 for that case. What is the minimum price that you can charge the consumer under that scenario?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Under that scenario, the minimum bottle is what I'd get--

REP. STONE: Would be six dollars, right?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yes.

REP. STONE: No less than six dollars?

STEPHEN DOWNES: No less.

REP. STONE: Even though your cost of acquisition if you bought the case would be five dollars?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yes.

REP. STONE: So I guess my question is, I need your help on this because you're in the industry and we've talked about this in the past.

If you were able to charge your actual acquisition cost, then you'd be able to offer the consumer that same ABC vodka at something less than six dollars.

Now obviously you may charge more than five in order to see some profit, but you could charge less than six, would that be--

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yeah, that's similar to beer though. Right now when you're buying beer it's a the single case and it's actual cost. A lot of times I'm just selling beer at cost.

REP. STONE: I understand, but help me, because I just want to talk about spirits for the moment.

If your per unit cost on that 12 bottle case is five dollars a bottle, under current law, but the posted per bottle price is six dollars a bottle, you can't charge anything less than six dollars a bottle?

STEPHEN DOWNES: No, my minimum price is six dollars.

REP. STONE: Okay. The language in the bill as proposed, and just considered, it is in fact a working draft.

But what's proposed in the language here is that by eliminating the minimum bottle provision and allowing you to sell at your acquisition cost, that you could pass on some of that savings, between six dollars a bottle and your actual cost of five dollars a bottle on this case, pass that on to the consumer.

If that's not true, you've got to help me out.

STEPHEN DOWNES: You can pass that on, but what happens is, nobody will know the cost of acquisition, it'll get confusing on advertising and what price is what.

Right now the way things work, everybody knows the prices of stuff, but most of the time, everybody thinks we have this big built in markup.

We're making sometimes a dollar, you know.

REP. STONE: I'm not suggesting that you have a big built in markup.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Some of the wholesalers can actually, some of the vodkas, there's no minimum, say it's eight dollars, eight dollars to the case, eight dollars to the bottle and we're selling to the bottle.

Certain amount of pricing right now, you get some wholesalers that are pushing products and the retailer will buy it because there's a minimum bottle and they're making money, and then there's some things that there aren't.

REP. STONE: I'm not suggesting that you have to reduce your price to five dollars a bottle or five fifty a bottle, but at least, wouldn't that give you the opportunity to reduce your price, if you should so choose and to be competitive?

Now we're not talking about jumbo cases on spirits. We're just talking about the case that you probably buy now.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yeah, but then the person who's buying that single bottle is going to end up paying more.

The bigger stores like myself might do better on that situation, but--

REP. STONE: They're paying the same that they're paying now.

STEPHEN DOWNES: No, because if the smaller store's buying one minimum bottle price, he's going to pay six dollars for the bottle, I'm selling it for five, that's going to hurt the smaller store.

REP. STONE: They can still buy the case though.

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yeah they could, but a lot of small stores still buy by the bottle. There's a lot of items like that that are small volume.

You know, we're a large store, there's a lot of small stores, a lot of medium size stores.

REP. STONE: Now Steve, your organization is, you're part of a larger group, right?

STEPHEN DOWNES: No, I own Connecticut Beverage Mart in Wallingford and Newington.

REP. STONE: Are you part of the Package Store Association?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Yes, I'm the President of the Package Store Association.

REP. STONE: And how many members are in that?

STEPHEN DOWNES: We have, well different levels of membership from--

REP. STONE: How many package stores are a part of that?

STEPHEN DOWNES: Right now we probably have about 300, and then we have part-time members, so up to 600 people, they donate money to our organization.

REP. STONE: I understand. I understand. I appreciate that, and I appreciate your willingness to enter into that dialogue, because we've talked before about this issue and other issues such as channel pricing and obviously the quantity discount issue, and you've been involved in those discussions.

You've been very candid with us in the past and particularly with the Chairs when we've discussed this as part of that working group that we've had discussing these issues.

But if you should have other response or other written testimony, or would like to speak about the working draft in more detail, you can see me or Senator Colapietro and submit written material as well if you have a comment.

Again, we're not going to be considering this for a little while anyway, so feel free to--

STEPHEN DOWNES: Well thank you for your time.

REP. STONE: Okay, okay, Steve. Thank you for your testimony. Does anyone else have any questions? All set? Thank you, Steve. Thanks for sticking around. Ken Kirsch.

KEN KIRSCH: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, my name is Ken Kirsch, I own Discount Wine and Spirit Shop in Hamden, Connecticut.

I'm a store of about 3,000 square feet with 3,000 square feet of storage. We talk about quantity discounts, I'm against it.

I've been in business for 21 years. We talked earlier, [inaudible] showed displays up here. My name was not on that.

I have 3,000 different items in my store. You talk quantity discount, and if you talk 3,000 items, there's no way that I can afford it, there's no way you can afford it, to buy all those items for quantity discount.

You couldn't afford to buy them and now I've got to take 3,000 items, reduce it to maybe 1,500 items, if that. We can't do it. It's not feasible.

We have a system right now where we all can make a decent living. What you're going to do with the consumer is saving money, by changing posted bottle around, you're confusing me, you're going to confuse the consumer.

We're here to help the consumer also, and by changing the laws and having quantity discount, the consumer's going to pay more.

We're going to pay more in the long run, so is the consumer. And not to repeat what everybody else has said, but I'm just not for the bill.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thanks, Ken. I appreciate your testimony and I appreciate your waiting around and your patience, and your consideration to everyone else who has testified.

Does anyone have any questions of Ken? Thank you, Ken for sticking around. By the way, the fact that we may not have any questions isn't because we don't value your testimony.

It's just because it's been a long day and much of what we may ask has already been answered, and we don't want to waste your time either, so thank you very much for sticking around and for testifying.

Frank Raffa? Is Frank still here?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He left for work.

REP. STONE: Thank you. Is that Raffa's in East Hartford?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

REP. STONE: Okay, I'll stop by and talk to Frank. Sharon Flannigan? Jen Kamins?

By the way, each of the sign up sheets, just so everyone knows, has an indication of, oh, you guys all signed up so, has an indication of pro or con so the Committee will certainly take note of that.

Curt Hopkins? Curt, you didn't convince Jen and Sharon and Frank to leave early did you?

CURT HOPKINS: No, I didn't.

REP. STONE: Okay. Thanks for sticking in with us, Curt, and thank you for testifying.

CURT HOPKINS: Members of the Committee, my name is Curt Hopkins. I own Stop and Save Liquors in Newtown. My wife and I are the owners there.

I guess you could call us one of the small, mom and pop type stores.

We built our business on a large amount of customer service, offering a wide variation of products, and also we feel competitive pricing, our customers seem to feel that way also.

I'm opposed to the bill. Many new provisions seem to have been added, I'm opposed to those also.

My biggest concern here, and I tend to believe, and I agree with most of the people who said they would not benefit the consumer.

If it doesn't benefit the consumer, I certainly believe that it would not benefit me in my business in any particular area.

Then I have to wonder who it's really going to benefit. We've got a system that seems to work, I don't hear a major clamor out there from the consumer that there's an issue that needs to be solved.

So therefore we've got a system that seems to work. I know it's a cliché, but what are we trying to fix?

REP. STONE: Thank you, Curt, for your testimony. Just if you can, I know you haven't had a lot of time to look at the draft, and it really was a work in progress and it was taking information from a lot of different sources.

So I apologize to you for not getting it our earlier, but as soon as the draft was completed, that's when it went public, it was just this morning.

If you do have comments on the draft or any particular provision of that draft, feel free to share those with myself or Senator Colapietro, either call or you can submit a letter if you like, that's up to you.

But we won't be hearing this as a Committee, or considering this as a Committee for at least a week or so, so there's still some time.

Does anyone have any questions of Curt? Curt, it's seven o'clock, thanks for sticking around, we appreciate it, and have a safe drive back to Newtown.

Gail Gordon? Is Gail still here? Brett Margroff?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: [inaudible]

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you. He's not from East Hartford too is he?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Gales Ferry.

REP. STONE: I won't be visiting Brett. Is anyone here from Gales Ferry on the Committee? Maybe we can have someone visit.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm from Groton, does that count?

REP. STONE: Yeah, you can do that. He's indicated opposition to this as well. Is it Chuck Bowe? You all set? Are you Chuck? Oh, you're next, Chuck.

CHUCK BOWE: I'm Chuck Bowe. I currently own two liquor stores in Groton, Connecticut, Grand Spirit Shops one and two.

I am opposed to the quantity discount bill and this whole draft that came about this morning, which I haven't even seen yet.

I'd love to know where I can get a copy of it. I will produce some remarks and send them off to your office here.

My wife's uncle owns a store in Massachusetts who does participate in quantity discounts and in his opinion, it has raised prices over the past few years.

So I can only imagine that if we begin something like that, it's only the beginning of the end.

As far as the minimum bottle and my perception of the minimum bottle, and I'm new at this game, I've been on the wholesale side in the beer industry for a long time. I'm new at the retail game.

My opinion of that minimum bottle, if you're a small store, which my two stores are not, they're both about 4,000 square feet and we do a sizeable amount of business.

If I'm a small store and I buy by the bottle and I wish to compete with a larger store, I know that I can because that larger store cannot sell below that point.

So if Dewars mags are $36.99 as a minimum, I know at least I can buy it and sell it, and compete with the larger store.

So taking that out of the equation would only put all those little stores at a disadvantage.

And maybe that's what we're trying to do here. Maybe we're trying to eliminate some smaller stores and just have some big ones.

REP. STONE: In fact what we're trying to do is get all the issues out and give everyone an opportunity to talk about them, or submit testimony on them.

We haven't decided, I haven't anyway, and I'm sure the Committee hasn't--

CHUCK BOWE: No, I'm sure you haven't but I just don't know where some of these things would come into play.

I'm sure no retailer had anything to do with writing this draft, so I'm not sure if it was a large company like Diaego, or if it was wholesaler like Wine Merchants, or a combination of all of them.

But I can only imagine that this will not be good for our business overall, and I'm opposed to all if it.

REP. STONE: All right. Thanks, Chuck, and by the way, we just handed you a draft. That didn't mean that you have to read it right now and respond, but take that with you--

CHUCK BOWE: I'm a speed-reader. It'll take me about three minutes.

REP. STONE: But take that with you and if you do have comments, please feel free to share them with us.

CHUCK BOWE: Thank you, and I appreciate you staying late and hearing us.

REP. STONE: Well, you guys stayed late too, and we were busy while we were staying late, and I don't know what you had, you missed a day from work, we appreciate your coming out.

CHUCK BOWE: I'll work twice as hard tomorrow.

REP. STONE: Okay, thanks. Paul Agranovitch?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He also had to return to work.

REP. STONE: Thank you. Now that ends the, before I go to the lobbyists, is anyone else from the public, Richard Weis already spoke. He spoke with Mr. Rosenburg, they were the two.

Does anyone else from the public want to speak that either didn't sign up by accident, or didn't sign up and now changed their mind?

Moving on to the lobbyist portion on this bill, David Boomer?

DAVID BOOMER: Thank you, Chairman Stone, Chairman Colapietro, Members of the Committee. My name is David Boomer. I'm a registered lobbyist with the Kowalski Group.

I'm here today on behalf of one of our clients, the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States.

They support strongly House Bill 6608 and as an aside, just on behalf of DSCUS, we want to thank you for moving the process along and having a working draft today, circulating a lot of these ideas that we'll be responding to you later, or even if I can answer questions, but moving the process along, we appreciate that very much.

I've submitted earlier testimony from David Wojnar, DSCUS Vice President for State Government Relations.

Now, it's a long day and I'll stand on that. The basic message is modernizing Connecticut's alcohol laws. We support QDs and also the acquisition issue.

REP. STONE: Very good, thank you, David. Does anyone have any questions? David, thank you for sticking around and for your testimony. Peter Berdon?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He had to leave.

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you. Carroll Hughes?

CARROLL HUGHES: Thank you, Chairman Stone.

REP. STONE: Before you start, Carroll, I just want to state for the record, from my perspective I want to thank you for working with us and your input on a lot of these issues.

Being here a little longer than I have in terms of an advocate or a lobbyist before the General Law Committee, your insight has been very helpful to me, so thank you.

CARROLL HUGHES: I can't find anything in there that I suggested. There's 10 new items in this particular rough draft.

REP. STONE: I hope I didn't mislead anyone. I didn't say there was anything that you suggested.

CARROLL HUGHES: No, I didn't suggest anything, but it was said before that I was suggesting multiple postings of beer?

REP. STONE: No, if I might, what I said was that you had been part of various discussions throughout the last several weeks in which many of these issues, perhaps not all, but many of these issues were discussed.

I guess there was one thing in there that you had suggested or your office had suggested [Gap in testimony. Changing from Tape 5B to Tape 6A]

--at certain times.

CARROLL HUGHES: Well some things here were in combination with other things. This particular bill, let me take two items, two or three items here because I think they're the most important.

Split case bottle charge, we're a split case state, period. Everybody buys split cases. The bars buy them, the clubs buy them, the package stores buy them.

They may buy cases, and maybe at Easter they might buy a few cases, they might buy it the white goods in the summer and they buy cases maybe in December.

Mostly, even the larger stores are buying bottles. Anybody can get any bottle they want in a package store today.

They may order two or three bottles, but if you change the split case charge, let me tell you, what is designed here by the manufacturers is to drive havoc into the market where cases are purchased.

Where you no longer buy split case bottles and the choice to the consumer, let me give you a good example because it's St. Patrick's Day coming up next week.

You can find in most good stores, you'll find two to three, sometimes four, you go into Steve's store, you'll find four different Irish whiskeys there.

He buys them by the bottles. He has four facings or five facings, whatever you happen to do. It's a great store, people come in, they have their select item.

No longer if you pass this split case bottle where you have to sell at that price and everybody's going to be selling for less.

You won't even know. It's the cheapest price that will drive the other stuff out of business, that's essentially what happens here.

If you follow me on that, it's the lower price, the same thing is true with the multiple pricings of beer, another item to drive havoc into the marketplace.

Because I will get three different deliveries, one on the tenth, one on the eighteenth and one on the twenty-third. The prices will range from $14 to $12 to $16.

Everybody else is doing the same thing. What do you think that case of beer is going to sell for? It's going to sell for $12, the lowest price, or you're not going to sell it.

You cannot continue to sell at cost and survive in any store, in any kind of business, and package stores are no exception.

To some people it's a letting of the market here and they don't care what really happens to the stores, because they're interested more in volume, they're interested in just selling major cases.

But the wholesalers, they have nothing in this bill also, the wine and spirit wholesalers. Their concerned because they feel, you heard the person speak before, tonight they're filling 30,000 bottles at Brescome.

That's one distributor. One distributor is 30,000 a night, this is not even a busy week.

In the summer, it's huge. Christmastime, [inaudible] it's 50,000, 60,000, maybe 70,000 split cases. That's why you get the variety in Connecticut.

This is designed to drive others out of the marketplace. Manufacturers, by the big companies as well as driving package stores out of business.

You change this fine tuned market and you're going to have undesirable consequences that are going to affect the consumer and going to affect the retail stores, there's no doubt about it.

The channel pricing, give me a break on that. We're going to charge the VFW, the Irish Club and all the other places more money to give the retail package store a discount, or the food stores.

Grace doesn't support that I don't think, and I don't support that. It's a nice trick if you can get it, but it's not the way to do things.

I think you'd have a major equal protection issue there also with the commerce clause and with the fourteenth. But I think that's the problem we've got here.

People have thrown everything in there to design, to throw and shake everything up and create chaos in this marketplace, and effectively, it would do it.

People would not know what to charge, unfortunately.

REP. STONE: Thank you, Carroll, for that testimony. There are some things that you were kind enough to share with us, some suggestions on language which we have incorporated into the bill.

One of them appears, I don't know if you have a copy of the bill in front of you, but page tree of 10, lines 87 through 97, we did receive something from your office in which you wanted to eliminate the look back posting, I call it.

Where once you post, you're posted forever. You know, you don't get to look back and look at a competitor's price. Do you remember that?

CARROLL HUGHES: Oh, yeah, okay.

REP. STONE: That was something your office suggested that we did include in the bill. I'm not suggesting it's going to stay or not stay.

CARROLL HUGHES: It's becoming less and less of an issue. The pressure is on the wholesalers by Diageo and others to consolidate brands in one house.

So the marketplace is doing things that you have no control over at this point.

So the squeezing of the market by the major manufacturers is a factor there that makes that not as important as it once used to be.

REP. STONE: You gave it to us on February 18^th, and so since that time it's less important?

CARROLL HUGHES: No, I'm just saying it's less important period because of consolidation, that's all.

REP. STONE: I didn't know if something had happened between then and now.

CARROLL HUGHES: You guys didn't give us an opportunity to elaborate on too many of these things.

REP. STONE: No, I just want to go through what's in there that you had suggested, that's all. I want to make sure if you have a different position than those, I'd like to hear that.

The other thing that you had suggested was the, appears on lines 275 to 277, it talks about the wholesaler being able to add a delivery charge of five percent on all orders of beer of less than five cases.

Is that still the position?

CARROLL HUGHES: Actually what we had suggested wasn't, it came out to five percent. We suggested that it was a handling charge. They have the ability to do that now and it's now five percent.

REP. STONE: In your transmittal to us of February eighteenth, it said there's an addition to Section 30-64a of our statutes, and provides, except that, I'll quote from your document.

Except that a wholesaler shall add a delivery charge of five percent of the case to all orders of beer less than five cases.

So we've added that, and I just wanted to make sure that that's still the position of--

CARROLL HUGHES: No, everything was tied to something that was in there originally, and there's new items in here, and we're now opposed to that, as I am to channel pricing.

REP. STONE: No, I understand that, but even if you take the original bill. Let's take off the working draft for example.

The original bill, which just had to do with the definition of a case, the 75 liters for wine, the 125 for beer, you had asked us to add certain things.

One of the things you wanted us to add was the elimination of the look back, of the three-day period in which you can lower your price.

The second thing you asked us to add was this delivery charge of five percent of the case to all orders of beer less than five cases.

And I understood that to be a position of the CPSA. Is that still--

CARROLL HUGHES: It was tied together with the other items that were being discussed at the time.

REP. STONE: Right, and that was, I understand that, but that was part of the QD analysis.

CARROLL HUGHES: There were no multiple postings in the bill originally. There were no items of that type that were in there. Channel pricing was just being spoken about.

Like I said, everything is related to everything else here.

REP. STONE: No, I understand that, but you started your comments with there's nothing in the bill that we've asked for.

CARROLL HUGHES: No, there's nothing in the bill that helps us, I can say that.

REP. STONE: Well, that's not what you said, but that's okay. It doesn't matter. I just really want to get the position of the CPSA.

CARROLL HUGHES: We are both opposed to any and all of that now. It's not turned out the right way here.

REP. STONE: All right. It is your language. The last thing that you asked us to provide for in your proposal to us was, the ability to provide for a one percent discount to be provided by the wholesaler for payment received within a certain period of time.

CARROLL HUGHES: Yeah, cash discount on certain size orders of whatever type--

REP. STONE: Do you want to keep that? Is that something you're still--

CARROLL HUGHES: Well I think originally when we were talking all about this, everybody was kind of together with regard to things, but that situation has changed dramatically as of this morning at 10:30 when we received this draft.

REP. STONE: Well when you say all together on these things, let's assume, by the way, this is a work in progress and there may be some things, we may do nothing.

We may go back to the original proposal, the original bill, which wouldn't contain channel pricing or multiple posting or cost of acquisition, and just deal with the quantity discount issue.

And I think that's what, in fairness to you, Carroll, that's what this memo to us was in response to.

CARROLL HUGHES: It was in response to everything.

REP. STONE: If you're going to do that, let's do this. So if all we do is what was in the original bill, which House Bill 6608, if that's all we do--

CARROLL HUGHES: Well we've always been opposed to quantity discounts, so I don't understand what you--

REP. STONE: I understand that. You gave us language, in part, in response, and I thought that it was language that if we did House Bill 6608, as originally drafted, you wanted to add these provisions.

Is that accurate or not or not accurate?

CARROLL HUGHES: It's accurate with a number of other provisions that were being discussed at the time, in that meeting we had with you.

REP. STONE: Okay, what were those?

CARROLL HUGHES: There were, let me see, of your 10 items in this bill, there was channel pricing, you were going to charge different prices to on premise as opposed to off premise, that was one of the issues that you were going to deal with.

And I can say most importantly of anything, split case bottle was never, ever in that particular bill.

REP. STONE: I know it wasn't in the bill.

CARROLL HUGHES: That came in through you.

REP. STONE: I know it wasn't in the bill. You don't know where it came from.

CARROLL HUGHES: It came from you, you suggested it, I don't know where it came from other than you. Am I wrong?

REP. STONE: No, let's get to, you've made suggestions to the Committee, you've taken the time to provide the Committee with revisions to our existing laws.

You've asked on behalf of your client that you be given the opportunity to testify and to provide us written material.

You provided us written material, and I'm asking you, and you gave this to us on February 18, 2005, and that was prior to the working draft being distributed, so I concede that.

Are those proposals that you gave to us on behalf of the Connecticut Package Store Association--

CARROLL HUGHES: How can I answer those? You'd have to tell me what's going to be left in here. An issue, you've got elimination of wholesale territories in there also, another item you have.

REP. STONE: Yes, it is.

CARROLL HUGHES: I don't know what's staying together here. It's like you ask me to give mine up, and the way it looks in here, my election's what's being eaten here--

REP. STONE: I'm not asking you to give anything up.

Quite to the contrary, I'm asking you, and we could talk about this privately but, I'm asking you, assuming we take all that other stuff out.

We don't do the territory, we don't do channel pricing, we don't do split cases, we don't do acquisition, all that's gone.

And all we have left is House Bill 6608, as originally drafted, all right?

In which I understood this proposals, you asked to be made part of House Bill 6608 if we were going to do anything.

CARROLL HUGHES: If you were going to do anything collectively with other items that you had mentioned during the meeting, and also at the same time, items that we had mentioned, or that were mentioned there.

I think we mentioned affirmation also with the manufacturers, the beer manufacturers, with the surrounding states. That's not in there.

That was tied together with other things that were in there.

REP. STONE: So when we asked you to get us language, you just got us language on part of what you wanted, but not the whole of what you wanted.

CARROLL HUGHES: We were hard pressed to know what you were going to put into that draft document and hand out this morning.

REP. STONE: This has nothing to do with the handout this morning.

CARROLL HUGHES: It sure does.

REP. STONE: Nothing to do with the handout this morning.

CARROLL HUGHES: It sure does.

REP. STONE: You and I can talk about this. Does anyone have any other questions of Mr. Hughes?

Thank you for your testimony. Joe Luppino? Hi, Joe.

JOE LUPPINO: Hello. Thank you all for your patience with the hour being what it is. I did have some written testimony. I will be sure to submit it to the Committee.

But I did frankly just want to take a couple of minutes and speak to a couple of things that have been said during the course of the last couple hours' testimony.

I think it's important to clear a couple of things up, but again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to do so.

One thing I think is important to acknowledge on my end of the equation, with the exception of one other gentleman who's also in the supplier side of the business, I'm one of two people in the room on these issues today that's actually involved in this business anywhere outside the State of Connecticut.

In some ways we should probably care the least about what happens here, and frankly what we sell and whether we sell it here or we sell it in New York or Massachusetts or Rhode Island.

But we are interested because we want to keep Connecticut's wholesale and retail business whole. That's what we're trying to do.

We're not going to make any more money if House Bill 6608 passes in its original form, in its amended form, or in any other form.

We'll make the same money that we're making now, because we'll make the sale in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York or Connecticut, wherever that sale is going to be made.

I wanted to speak to a couple of things that were raised by some of the other folks that testified, I think it's important at least to give another perspective on that, for the benefit of the people on the Committee.

One gentleman, who is a package store owner spoke about Seagram VO and Captain Morgan being on deal. Those are two of our brands, so I can speak very comfortably to them.

He spoke about saving $24 a case. He said he bought out until April and June, I'll say respectively on those brands, because we were reducing our price to retail.

The problem there is that consumers are going to see none of those savings. That's why we want cost of acquisition.

Because he's buying out four months and the consumers aren't seeing any of the benefit of the $24 per case saving that he was able to save.

He also spoke about the fact that he was a small retailer, and he's buying those kinds of volumes, and I'd just like to know where he's putting them.

If he's talking about the fact that they can't store the stuff, that they need to try to buy if we're going to do quantity discounts or anything else.

Another gentleman spoke about the loss of choice, or the lack of choice if you go to quantity discounts or case one or anything else.

And I have one page out of the February Connecticut Beverage Journal in my folder, and it's not even easy to read so I'm not even going to give you a copy of it.

But I just looked at it real quick because it is just one page, but it's a pretty interesting representative sample if you think about the lack of choice that you're going to talk about.

In February, vodka brands on special in Connecticut, Blue Lightening, Boston Reba, Burnett's, Fleischman's, Gordon's, Comcatcha, Majestic Royal, Popov, Rikolov, Romanoff, Schendly, Seagram, Smirnoff, that's one of ours, Cirac, Armondale, Carmel, Finglandia, Gray Goose, Kettle One, all on special.

One page of the vodkas, that many of them are on special last month. So let's not talk about the fact that if you have quantity discounting that there's not going to be selection.

REP. STONE: Could I ask you to wrap up, Joe? The buzzer went off so--

JOE LUPPINO: I have other things I will share them with the Committee.

REP. STONE: Okay, thank you, Joe. Does anyone have any questions of Joe? Thank you very much, Joe for your testimony. Joe, do you have written testimony that you've submitted?

JOE LUPPINO: [inaudible]

REP. STONE: For fear of an affirmative answer, does anyone out there, lobbyist or otherwise have anything else they'd like on this issue?

Going once, anyone come back from work that needs to--

Thank you very much for your testimony, for your patience, and the Committee will certainly take all your comments into consideration. Thank you.

[Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.]