CT House Floor Session — 2026-07-24

Chamber will come to order. Staff and guests, please rise and direct your attention to the dais where Deputy Chaplain Monts will lead us in prayer. Microphone's on, okay?

And will Representative Constantine lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance from the 42nd District? Good thing that right arm is still okay. (MEMBERS): I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Hello, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a moment of personal privilege.

All right. I just wanted to take a moment as the Connecticut General Assembly and remind everyone the Winter Olympics start today. And from Connecticut, we happen to have eight athletes who are going to be competing. That includes Kris Horn who will be competing in the bobsled, Maxim Naumov, figure skating, Olivia Giaccio, freestyle skiing, and Mac Forehand also freestyle skiing. Tage Thompson for hockey. Austin Florian for skeleton. Kristen Santos-Griswold for short track, and Emily Fischnaller for luge. I hope that all of us here in the general assembly can wish them luck, and go team USA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for sharing what you just did too.

I rise for purpose of an announcement.

I have a cousin that served in this great chamber, and he served in the 102nd District where Representative Comey is now. His name is Joseph Farricielli, and he just passed away this past October. And he was state Representative here for about 10 years. And it's something that, when I was elected, he was really happy about that. And anyway, he just passed away. So, very sad. We're missing him in our family. He was co-chair in Planning and Development. He was on the regs review and he was on Transportation. And he served along with -- he had the honor to serve along, all of us have the honor what we have to do. So, after his passing, his family presented me with something. And I hope you all don't get too offended now because this could be state property. I want to hold that up because my cousin gave me that. And I just wanted to share that with the chamber. And hopefully, (applause) hopefully there's no holes near your rug near where you're sitting. But I take it that the rugs were changed out at some point and refreshed. And, you know, he took a piece of the carpet because he was very proud of what he did here, as I am too. But I wanted to share that, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if we can have a moment of silence for my cousin, Joseph Farricielli.

Yes. I have communications from the Governor, Declaration of the Existence of Extraordinary Circumstances.

I have list of bills No. 2 dated 02/05/2026, I have Emergency Certification, and I have the Daily Calendar.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we waive the reading of the list of bills and that they be referred to the committees as indicated.

Emergency Certification Bill No 83, An Act Establishing the Federal Cuts Response Fund introduced by Senator Looney, Representative Ritter, Senator Duff, Representative Rojas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move passage of Emergency Certified Bill No. 83.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, this bill should look familiar to us because it is a version and related to a bill we passed in special session in November. What this bill does is take the emergency fund that we created in that legislation, and takes the balance remaining on that $500 million of excess volatile revenues, which is around $330 million, and transfers it into a Federal Cuts Response Fund. It is, again, as in the legislation we passed in November for the purpose of responding to the policy impacts of HR 1 or Public Law 119-21 and mitigating any action or inaction by the federal government that results in reduction or funding for any program in this state. It extends the fund through fiscal year June 30, 2027, and allows the Governor to propose expenditures that meet that description, again, with an approval by the leadership of House and Senate, and I urge passage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know it's a little confusing, Approps, Finance and that, but I'll be taking this bill out today. And I have to say this is quite a different change for us. Typically, you know, appropriations goes at the end of the session for the most part. And now we're going at the beginning, and I'd say it sure does smell like other people's money in the morning. So, I'm looking at this bill here, and I have some comments and some questions. When we were here for our special session, we talked specifically about creating a fund to handle an emergency situation. The government was shut down. Funding was frozen at that time, and there were sincere concerns that our residents would not have funding for food, for SNAP, and for LIHEAP, and for other things that people depend on. I would like to just kind of bring everybody up to speed, make sure everybody is aware. We are not in that situation any longer. Government is open. Government is fully funded until September. There is no declarative emergency any longer. When we brought that bill forward, I was an advocate for that bill. I think across the board, we need to be sure that the people who are reliant on benefits have them, right? There's a steady stream. And in many talks that I've had with leadership, with the Governor's office across the board, this was supplanted money that, you know, we would pay for SNAP while it was being held. And then when we got paid back, that money would go back in. And ultimately, there was not really supposed to be any disbursement above and beyond what we would expect to get from the federal government. We've seen several disbursements from this account, some of which I absolutely agree with and some of which I don't. And the reason that I don't with some of them is because I feel like once again, we're in the same position where the State of Connecticut is, it's like ARPA money all over again. It's one- time money to fund ongoing expenses. And I don't know what more I can do to try to get it through people's heads in this chamber. But, you know, if you get a bonus check for $1,000, you don't go out and buy $100,000 car that you're going to have to pay on for 10 years. You know, it is one-time money and ongoing expense. Like to me, this is like basic mathematics stuff. And there are things that I see that have definitely been spent here already that are for incurring long-term expenses. And funny enough, I don't necessarily see it in the Governor's budget proposal going forward. And I think that gets back to what people tried to tell naive me about the slippery slope of giving away this kind of power. By extending this fund out to 2027, we are then extending the ability to create a fund that will fund ongoing expenses without them being in the budget, without us taking responsibility for the things that we want to extend. And I find that problematic because it's just bad business. It's just bad financial business. Again, like I'll just keep coming back to the $1,000 bonus and, you know, $100,000 car. It doesn't make any sense to me. The things that I am concerned with in this bill, and I do have a few questions that I think hopefully we'll be able to go through. One of them is this $330 million is now being extended all the way through 2027. If we decide to employ any of these funds, it specifically says it's in response to HR 1 and to mitigate federal funding reductions. So, are the reductions -- well, I think we know what's happening with HR 1. That has definitely been decided upon by now. But the federal reductions, are they federal reductions, sir, in relation to state spending, or are we talking about any kind of reduction to, say, nonprofits or special interest groups that we like? Is this going to just be defined down to funding that the state government receives from the federal government in replacing those dollars, sir, through you?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple things. One, to answer the specific question of the good ranking member from Appropriations. And, yes, we're doing a cross pollination between Finance and Appropriations today. Specifically, this bill allows the fund to be utilized for, and I'm going to read the passage, for the purpose of responding to the policy impacts of HR 1 and mitigating any action or inaction by the federal government that results in a reduction in funding for any program in the state. So, I believe it allows us quite clearly to respond to funding challenges created by HR 1 and policies beyond HR 1 that may happen going forward that will affect state funding and create a reduction in funding that comes to the State of Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So, I just want to be sure. So, we're saying state programs, not programs at a local school system or nonprofits or special interest funding, some of which we have seen being backfilled with the money that we've seen here, not specifically state programs that are funded by the federal government. Is that correct, sir, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. I will clarify. So, again, it is the second half of this sentence in here. It's mitigating any action or inaction by the federal government that results in a reduction in funding for any program in the state. It does not specify it has to be a state program. It's anything that results in a shortfall of funding coming to the State of Connecticut from the federal government. I also want to just note that we are essentially in a very similar moment. We are in session, which is quite different. But in terms of what we are facing from the federal government, when we passed this in November, we were all -- the shutdown had been alleviated and the government was functioning. We are again in the same position. There is a recent shutdown. We are back functioning now. But we learned from experience the volatility happening here. And the purpose of this fund is to give us the ability to respond quickly in addition to the budget process, which we will all be going through with for the rest of this session, to the situation that we have seen happen multiple times in the federal government. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm actually looking at the bill language, and I'm wondering if you can please point to the line that it says that because I don't see where it says specifically reduction for state programs, sir, in the bill, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at section 3, lines 28 through 31.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Horn.

Representative Nuccio.

Representative Horn.

Representative Nuccio.

I'm sorry, I didn't catch the last part of that, Representative Nuccio.

Thank you. Representative Horn.

Representative Nuccio.

I'm not quite sure what the question is, Representative Nuccio. If it's a question of procedure, be happy to try and work with you.

Representative Horn isn't a presiding officer, so I'm just a little confused.

What is the procedure? If I decide I want to make changes to, say, HUSKY, right? Or I'm sorry, not HUSKY. I want to make changes to a program that the State of Connecticut administers and funds. What is the process that I have to do to do that? What do I have -- Do I have to bring that through a committee process? Do I have to raise a bill? Do I have to take it through any certain process in order to change our procedures in how we establish or fund a program in the State of Connecticut?

I appreciate that.

That absolutely does. I appreciate that.

Thank you, madam. The distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, Representative Polletta, who apparently isn't here. Then we will go to Representative Ackert.

5 through 6, sir, what you asked?

I suggest we direct that question to the Chairman of the Appropriation Committee, Toni Walker. Do you have any objection to that, Representative?

Representative Walker, would you care to respond?

Sure. Representative Ackert, could you kindly repeat the question?

Representative Walker? I'm a little confused. Representative Walker?

Much clear. Thank you. Representative Ackert.

Representative Walker.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Walker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to the good Chair. And I believe that might be my last question of the day for now. So, I started off with talking about the job that we are honored to do in this great state. I want to be part of these discussions. I want to be part of it. As I stated, I supported the bill in November because I thought we were in a position that people would be going without many substantial things that they needed. And I supported that legislation. I did not want to see people without their food benefits or any other benefit that was going to happen between November and the time that we get back to work, because it is cumbersome to bring us in, in a special session, from that time to now. But now that's not the issue. The issue is now, like we just -- we were supposed to come in and work on this bill on Wednesday afternoon. We changed that like that and said, "No, you're coming in on Thursday." We can do that in that short of a notice because we are in session. We are in the time to do our job, and this is our job. This is what my constituents asked me to come do. I am not shedding that responsibility on this vote today. I want to do my job. I ask you all to do the same. Let's have the dialogue. Let's look at the cuts in the State of Connecticut that it may, may happen, or in an inaction. Doesn't have to even be a cut. Could be just an inaction. And it might not even be a fund that is under the control of this legislature either. So, I will be a strong no on this legislation as it's presented before us because I want to do my job. I thank the good chairs for their responses. And I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

A few comments and possibly a few questions as we go through. I think Representative from the 8th spelled it out pretty clear. We all want to do our job. We thought we'd come in, start session, start looking at things that are happening throughout the country and worry about Connecticut. This special financing of the $500 million was due to expire on the 4th. Yesterday was the 4th. Today we're here to renew and to make it go forward. As we look at it and we want to talk, everybody's worried about what might happen. You hear LIHEAP might get cut. You hear SNAP might get cut. But if you look at things, this year we're in right now, LIHEAP was actually increased. Anybody know that? It was increased 3%. Folks, we got more money from the federal government. So, I don't want to hear that LIHEAP's going to be cut. We got more money. That might not be enough because of the weather we're having out there, and people are using a lot more, but that's an issue for Connecticut to figure out. We have to be careful. We do so many things with human services in conjunction with appropriations to try to make sure people's lives are good. I think some good things happened in the past few weeks where SNAP has moved out over, you know, eight days, and that's, one, to help get the money out there, two, to help the grocery stores. So, when you go to the grocery stores, there's a good selection there for you so they're not all hit on one day. We try to do some good things. But the bottom line, I hear it all the time, Connecticut is not affordable. What is this bill here in emergency certification that's going to make help Connecticut more affordable? Nothing. We're here today to try to cover up for something that we don't know what's going to happen. Where's the accountability? Where's the accountability where these funds are going to go? I saw some appropriations out of the first batch of this where I just really didn't agree with. I don't think it was an emergency. We send money to certain nonprofits who have huge bank accounts. I hope the Governor's office looks at that and make sure that when we're doling out money, we're giving it to people for the mission. We're giving it to people that need it. We have some crisis here in Connecticut. We're not affordable. Why is that? Because we did that. We raised the minimum wage. Now our small businesses, our nonprofits, can't afford the employees. We haven't even broached that issue in session yet in appropriations with human services because a lot of those nonprofits, we haven't increased their allocation to make up for the minimum wage increase. That's going to be a huge number. We're going to have to look at that. We need to make sure, because our non-profits, they move a lot of money around this state to make sure the most vulnerable are taken care of. And I know a lot of work goes into that, and I thank the chairwoman of appropriations because after many years, we hear a lot from our safety net people, and it pulls at your heartstrings. But now we have to put the money where that is. What's the emergency? We came in in November for another emergency, housing. Have we built any housing yet? It's been since November. No. But I'll tell you, there are some projects out there ready to go, and I have one of them in my district because the state has already spent $2.5 million for plans, the machines are ready, but the funding won't come through yet because somebody doesn't like it. The Governor spoke yesterday. He says, "We want to repurpose old buildings, buildings that are shut down. We want to get people into housing." This project is an old hospital. The plans are ready. The shovel's ready. We just need the money. It's exactly what he's asked for. That's an emergency. That's 40 units of housing for veterans that's not being taken care of, and it's shovel ready. Those are emergencies. I'm really concerned about the accountability on what monies we're going to dole out. We just saw one big impact in the Northwest Corner. One nonprofit bounced a $1.5 million check to Eversource. We would have never known that if Eversource didn't tell us, because the 990s don't come out for a year afterwards, so there's no accountability. What's the accountability to that nonprofit that used federal funds to pay operational expenses when it was supposed to go to LIHEAP? It was supposed to go to Energy, to Electric, to Eversource. Those are the things we need to be concerned about right now here in this chamber. Not maybes that might happen from the federal government. Not things that might happen. Connecticut's not affordable. There are so many issues going on right now with different nonprofits across this state. This state, not the country, this state. We need accountability. To shovel out more money just because there might be cuts, come on, folks, we're better than that. Let's get to work on the things that matter instead of worrying about what's going on out in Washington. We need to lower taxes here, lower fees, get rid of the minimum wage, back it down to where people can afford it. The second highest in the country? No wonder why businesses can't be here. As many people before me says, "We're here. We want to vote for our constituents." Our constituents aren't telling us to vote for an open checkbook for one branch of government. Accountability. And I'll tell you, when those monies go out, we are going to look at it. If they go out to something that has an issue, doesn't have the proper documentation as a filing, there's going to be some discussions. But it's going to be too late because the money is already out there. We've got more court cases in the State of Connecticut for things that have gone wrong, we should watch things before money goes out. And that's what this body's to do. We're in session as of February 4th, yesterday. Let's do our job. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to share a concern of some statements that were made. A lot of speakers have talked about what they think is enough for maybe things in their communities. But I want to just raise some facts for some of our communities or other communities because emergencies to some might not be emergencies to all. And I know in my district, some of my constituents ask, what are we doing to prepare for the fact that there is so much uncertainty in Washington DC? And I find the funding that has been set aside for us to have for the behaviors that are going on in Washington DC are urgent enough for us to set it aside so we have the availability for funding for things that our constituents are concerned about. Emergencies like food assistance, health care, homelessness prevention so residents aren't abruptly cut off from some of those basic needs. So, I understand what people are saying. But just because some districts might not need to have the surety that I think that our districts have a need for with this funding, I think that that's why it's so important for us to make sure that it's there. And again, I understand what some think. But that thought for your district is okay because it's not the same as many of our districts. So, I'm glad that the Governor is able to access that funding. And I'm glad that we're going to move forward today, pushing forward to continue because I think that we need it because we can't tell what Washington is doing half the time. So, having that funding available just in case. And hopefully, putting it back if we have to. When we don't use it is something that we need to start thinking about versus it just be in there. So, if we're going to worry about it, let's just make sure it goes back to where it came from if we need to put it back, instead of worrying about it just sitting there because we weren't spending it anyway. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Oh, that's no problem.

Thank you. I had a few comments and then some questions on the bill. I've heard it said in our first 24 hours here that the state's pension funds are in good shape. And predicated on that statement, we are making this appropriation outside of our constitution because we seem to have this erroneous view that the state is in good financial shape. Connecticut ranks number two in the country for pension debt per capita, second only to Illinois. We have the fifth worst funded ratio of pension plans in the 50 states. We've made progress since the guardrails were enacted. As of 2023, we paid down $11 billion of liabilities but increased our liabilities by 9. So, we've only made $2 billion of progress toward a $53 billion liability. We are only 4% of the way there. So, to declare victory seven minutes into a three-hour football game does not -- I don't think is appropriate. So, we can't premise financial decisions on the fact that Connecticut is in great shape because that's simply not true. I wanted to ask a few questions about this bill and its mechanics relative to our appropriation process. First of all, does the fund violate Connecticut's fiscal guardrails? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

No. No, ma'am. Sorry. Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. I just, the orange got to me. Sorry.

If the $331 million that we're appropriating into this fund were put in the budget, where in my opinion it should be, would that violate the spending cap and therefore the fiscal guardrails, through you, Mr. Speaker?

I got to think about that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today in the Appropriations Committee, we've reviewed the Governor's budget, which I'm sure you all have, this big book about tweaks to our, I mean, appropriate tweaks to our budget that we passed last year in light of new circumstances. And there are some appropriations that came out in today's meeting, and you can see in this budget book, that are in response to federal government funding changes. For example, there's $100 million in the Governor's budget to reimburse hospitals for changes in reimbursement rates as a result of HR 1. Why are those appropriations going through the Appropriations Committee, but the $331 million of these appropriations not, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Let me rephrase the question. What is it about the appropriations that are coming out of this special fund that make them appropriate for this special fund that we're voting on today? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry, could you repeat that again, because I was trying to get an understanding.

What is it about this appropriations, and then --

What is it about the appropriation of the $331 million that we're contemplating in this fund, what is it about those expenditures that justify taking them out of the regular appropriations process? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, nothing is taken out of the appropriations process. We are able to debate, discuss any of the issues. We can discuss SNAP. We can discuss any of the health care programs, any of the childcare, anything. Appropriations talks about the whole budget. The funds that we're talking about here are an emergency. If at that point in time where in the going through the regular process of appropriations, there is something that is extracted out of it that is going to cause a difference in there, that is when we start to talk about the funds that are under here. But it's a one-time situation if we needed it. When we needed money to address the SNAP distribution and covering food share and other things, those were things, monies that we injected into the system to address those immediate needs. But they are not going into the budget because they are only covering those immediate needs at that time. It is not fixing the problem. It is helping the people that receive those funds to be able to function and operate until we come up with a system that is going to be able to be solidified to help mitigate those impacts to the people of Connecticut.

Since we're all back in Hartford now, why wouldn't we reconvene this chamber when, for example, a $25 million SNAP cut hits to do an E-Cert for that time about that specific appropriation, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Let me think about that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some specifics of the fund. As we sit here today on February 5th, do we have a single specific number anywhere which has been identified for which this fund will be used, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.

Do we have the name of any program, even one program, which has been identified for which this fund will be used, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.

I am going to be a no on this today. Not because I think that the people of this state should be protected by the state government if there are changes in federal funding which justify those protections. But I'm going to be a no today because of the mechanism that we are using here. Based on the questions I just asked, what I heard is that we are voting to divert $500 million of taxpayer money into a side fund outside the budget process. We are voting today to make up for cuts in federal funding and yet not one single such cut or dollar number has been identified. That is a blank check. What we're proposing here today is a fund to cover deficits in federal programs when not a single federal program has been identified for which the fund is being used. We have no mechanism in this bill whatsoever to review how the funds are being spent. There's no oversight as there would be in the appropriations process. There's no coming back to the Appropriations Committee in a year to say how the funds were spent. There is absolutely no oversight whatsoever. In fact, what we're doing here with this fund is moving the purse strings of the State of Connecticut from the legislature to the Governor. And that is quite radical, in my opinion. I must say I am a freshman legislator here, and I am shocked that this is the way our state government is conducting itself here today. My constituents will find it very hard to believe when I explain the provisions of this bill to them. So, I've already decided that I will email out the full text of the bill so that they can see for themselves. I believe that what we're doing today is eroding the public's trust in our state government, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Thank you.

Yes. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I've heard from a minority of my colleagues here in the chamber today something which surprises me quite frankly, which is that "the emergency is over". And this sentiment surprises me because I know for our families here in our state that are experiencing these unprecedented federal cuts, their emergencies are not over. But their emergencies are only made worse with each and every cut that is made at the federal level. So, Mr. Speaker, I contend that for those who have already lost or face losing their SNAP benefits and cannot feed themselves or their children and have to choose, their emergency is not over. For those who have to now rely on food banks to feed their families, their emergency is not over. For those whose health insurance premiums will now increase by thousands of dollars each and every month due to these federal cuts, not only is their emergency not over, but in fact, it's just beginning. For those seniors who relied on HUD vouchers to keep themselves housed and are now facing homelessness, their emergency is not over. For those who will or already have lost their Medicaid coverage and their SNAP benefits due to malicious changes from the federal government in eligibility requirements, their emergency is not over. For those students and for their parents who rely on school-based mental health services and wrap around services, their emergency is not over. And for all of those who have nowhere else to turn and dial 211 for help as a last resort, the emergency is not over. So, I very much support these funds here in our state to be set aside because all of those emergencies that I have cited, which are supposed to be funded by the federal government, it is now our duty and our responsibility as a State of Connecticut to respond and replace and protect our families in our state against their emergencies. So, for the emergency that is created in the next month, in the next week, in the next day, or maybe even in the next hour by this current president and his federal administration, we need these funds to be able to be used immediately to keep our families and our children here in Connecticut whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon to you.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a few brief comments on this proposed legislation. I'd like to begin with -- just to speak to a few or most of us that voted for the creation of this fund a few months ago. As the Speaker before me noted, there certainly was some uncertainty back in November when the looming federal shutdown was before us. I think it was both sides of the aisle that voted to continue to shut the government down in Washington DC. And because of the inaction of the federal government, we were forced, on a bipartisan basis, to create a fund that deposited some of our revenues, of which we have seen extraordinary revenues, thanks to our bipartisan budget here in Connecticut from 2017, to deposit some of those revenues into a fund to get us to the start of this legislative session. Now, this legislative session where we all come together with our family and friends at the beginning, the reason why we're here for the next 13 weeks is to work. We get paid to work. That means that we are here because our constituents, the voters, elected us to work, to perform a job. And should there be a fiscal crisis or a looming federal cut or some other, you know, loss of funding that is unforeseen to us at this very moment, we are here for the next 13 weeks to tackle those problems, to get together in a room on both sides of the aisle like we did four months ago or whatnot and work. Instead, what we're doing today is basically saying we don't want to work, we want to take the taxpayers' money and throw it into a fund and let one individual decide how it is spent. And by the way, broaden the scope. So, we are no longer talking about just federal cuts. This money could be spent on other things. That is concerning. As someone who was here during a time of permanent fiscal crisis, those words were uttered by the previous administration, permanent fiscal crisis. Connecticut was in a state of permanent fiscal crisis. We had to enact a budget that got us out of that permanent fiscal crisis. And thanks to legislators on both sides of the aisle, we have enjoyed some decent years since 2017. It took us six months to pass a budget because we were in a permanent fiscal crisis. We raised taxes on everything from cell phones to plastic bags to high earners to a mileage tax. You name it, it was taxed. Per capita, we are still one of the most indebted states in the nation. So, when politicians entrust someone with $500 million, if we're not here, it's totally understandable. We're not here, and there was a looming shutdown. By the way, I believe when we voted on the fund, the government opened that night. But there was a looming federal shutdown. People were concerned. I was concerned. I voted for the fund. But you fast forward to yesterday, we gaveled in all the pomp and circumstance. We are here to perform a job. I don't see the need to extend this fund, not even to the end of the legislative session or the end of the summer, we're talking about the end of next fiscal year. That is extremely concerning. There are people in Connecticut that are struggling right now that might be able to use that money and not have it sit in a fund for a potential federal cut that we still do not even know will exist. We don't know. We did have some uncertainty over the summer, no doubt about it. We sat through the meetings last year when we were told Connecticut would be cut back $1 billion, $500 million, $250 million. Well, we found out that this fund, and I applaud this administration for using the funds only to backfill federal cuts. I think it was like $130 million. The rest of the money is still sitting there. There was not a $500 million cut from the federal government from when this bill was enacted until today. Those are facts. Math does not lie. The fact is this money was put aside for an emergency. That emergency no longer exists. That emergency is over. As a matter of fact, if you pick up your smartphone, which we all have, you can see that the government also voted yesterday to reopen itself through the end of the year. So, one suggestion I might have is to come back and do work in the special session at the end of the year, and maybe we have to reappropriate a fund if that happens. But we are on hearsay and hearsay only, and hundreds of millions of dollars are in flux. That is not fair. That's not the way to do business here in the State of Connecticut. It's unfair to the people that were overtaxed, that were charged, now being told we may need to use this money, but we may not need to use this money. Where is it going to be used? No one can answer the question. Not a single person can answer the question. That is concerning. So, why not provide real relief for Connecticut taxpayers? Why not look at this fund, since we are here to do a job, and let people know, especially those underprivileged, those that are working many long hours, and send a message to them that help is on the way. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO No. 742. And I ask that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment, and that the Clerk please read the amendment. Thank you.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 742, offered by Representative Candelora, Representative O'Dea, et al.

Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that. So, what this amendment does is very simple, okay? The federal government, in HR 1, passed a very laudable, and in my opinion, beneficial law to exempt individuals from paying taxes on their tips and on overtime. Now, who does that affect? Well, I would argue it's going to affect probably 60 to 70% of this chamber. It's going to affect the single mom that is a nurse or a frontline worker that is working overtime. It's going to affect the busser or the server in your local restaurant or your diner that's working a second or third job to pay for basic costs here in the State of Connecticut. It's going to impact many of your children in this chamber that could take advantage of this laudable proposal that came out of DC. I know it's hard to say because sometimes DC doesn't have many laudable proposals. This was one great proposal that came out of Washington DC. It is a tax break. It is money in the pockets of individuals that are struggling that could use it today. And a vote of support for this amendment, which I will talk about in a second, a vote of support will send a message to your constituents that you actually want to make life more affordable for them here in the State of Connecticut. What this amendment does is it changes the name of the fund. It transfers not all, this is where I think people are going to like this, not all but only $128 million to the general fund to cover the benefit loss for no tax on tips or overtime. It provides the benefit to all those hardworking individuals in Connecticut. It leaves the rest of the money in the fund, but requires legislative approval on how it is spent. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

And I do ask that when this vote be taken by roll.

Taken by roll. Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the good gentleman for his amendment, but I want to say very clearly that I cannot support this amendment. Thank you.

That is fine by me. I'll defer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand this afternoon in a very strong support of the amendment before us, LCO 742. You know, Mr. Speaker, as much as I love our state and how much potential we have, so much untapped potential and how we can utilize that, I think we need to start stepping away from the attitude that our future is so bright, we need to wear shades. We need to do more than that. We actually need to take the initiative. We need to get on parity with the other states. You know, there's an estimation that our administration in Washington has secured $7 trillion in new investment coming into our country from other countries, from businesses that are already here, industries that are already here. $7 trillion, you think about what that's going to require as far as a workforce investment, right? Now, if you're a company and you're going to set up shop in the United States of America, are you going to go to a state where they're going to tax the overtime on our workers, they're going to tax tipped employees, or are you going to go to a state that's on parity with what the federal government has done and has excluded those taxes? Of course, where are you going to get the biggest pool of workers? Where are the workers going to be most incentivized to work overtime, where they won't get penalized by wanting to be industrious and putting in more time, more hours? Are you going to go to a state again that is tax friendly, state like New Hampshire where there is no state income tax, or are you going to go to a state like Connecticut that continues to have the tax on tips, the tax on overtime as we get and more innovation coming into our country? I read recently an article a few years ago that we've seen out of Boston. There was a lot of new innovation, a lot of new invention that has come out of the MIT graduates. But one of their limitations is they can't manufacture. They can't produce because of the red zone, you know, being a crowded city. They ended up going to the State of New Hampshire where they're starting to manufacture up in New Hampshire. We should be getting that here in Connecticut. My district, we're in between the two major interstates, 95 and 395. We've got the land. We've got a lot of former factory sites, a lot of the former wire wine property and some others. I absolutely ideal for some of this new commitment, these new investments that's going to come to our country. But again, if you're a business, if you're an industry that's going to come here and you need to hit the ground running, are you going to go to a state where they're going to follow suit with the federal government and not tax tips, not tax overtime, or are you going to go to the land of steady habits where they're going to continue to tax this overtime work? If you're a worker, where do you want to work? Where are you going to be prone to put in the most hours, work the most hours that you want to, be the most industrious it possibly can be? A state that don't tax their overtime or a state that does? And that's the question. This amendment takes care of that. This amendment is common sense. This amendment represents opportunity. This represents a way where we can really get the economy steaming and thriving like we've never seen before. This is a great opportunity. I fully, with all the enthusiasm in the world, support this amendment. I ask all my colleagues to follow suit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of comments, if I may.

Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, the real crisis in the State of Connecticut is very simple. It is a crisis of affordability. That is the emergency in this state. It's an emergency that has existed for years. It is an emergency that this state has failed to adequately address. And this simple amendment gets to the heart of that. This simple amendment would help working families. It would help middle class families. It would help everybody in your district that works overtime or works in service and earns tips. Very simply. If you have a district where you have a lot of people like that and a lot of families, you should be voting for this bill because if you're not supporting, sorry, this amendment, what you're saying is you don't want to make this state more affordable for working families. You're saying you don't want to make it easier for those people to not just get by but get ahead. This is an easy yes vote. This is a vote to put more dollars into the pockets of your constituents immediately to help them address the affordability crisis that this state, for some reason, doesn't really want to do anything about. I absolutely support people not having to pay taxes on their overtime and taxes on their tips here in Connecticut, and I hope you do. I support this amendment. You should too. Thank you.

Not the amendment.

Okay. Representative Dan, House "A". No. Representative Zullo, you're on the board again. Are you not seeking the floor, Representative Zullo?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will comment on the amendment. And I do appreciate the good Representative who just spoke, and I listened to the exchange with the Appropriations chair and others. What this does is the amendment incentivizes people to be controlled of their own destiny without going to the government. You're actually giving people incentive to go out and earn more money because you're taking away that penalty of taxation. So, let's give the people of Connecticut. It's such an expensive place to live, as the last Representative just made clear, and we all know. Between electric rates, insurance rates, and rent, we need to give people the incentive to work harder without turning to the government. And this will empower people to do just that. It's a good amendment. It's a simple amendment that should be universally supported in this chamber. So, I'm just rising in support of this amendment. Thank you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask one question to the proponent of the bill?

Okay. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill. I would like to ask, is there a fiscal note on this bill?

Representative Walker?

Representative Polletta.

Representative Walker.

Representative Polletta.

That would be the fiscal note, sir. Do you have the fiscal note?

It's on the system. So, if you just click on the right -- oh, there you go.

Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in reviewing this, our proposal calls for the $128 million and not the $256 million. So, what the good ranking is reading is what I have, but that's not what this proposal would do, through you.

It does not. This is revenue. It does not violate the spending cap, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe that when reading the fiscal note, it said that it does affect the spending cap. The budget, it says November special session in the bill. This would result in FY '26 budget being over the spending cap. It's in the first paragraph, last sentence.

Let me be clear. This is OFA's?

OFA's analysis, Office of Fiscal Analysis.

So, this is not a question of partisan disagreement.

But the fiscal note remains. Thank you, sir. Representative Walker, anything else?

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else on House "A"? I've got several people on the board. I know some of them have said they want to talk about the bill after its amendment. If not, then the question before the House is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Members and guests, please, members take your seats. Guests, please come to the well of the House, and staff come to the well of the House. The machine will be open.

Representative Zullo now. If we could clear this aisle, please. First clear the aisle, please. Clear the aisle, please.

I need to be able to have a line of sight. I'm sorry. Representative Polletta, of course, you still have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Polletta. Now Representative Zullo, finally.

You know, everywhere we look here in the State of Connecticut, our residents are getting nickel and dimed by a tax, right? It's a surcharge. It's a tax on a bill. Something that's making it harder for them to get ahead. I get calls all the time. They say, "Joey," because I'm a small town. So, it's, "Joey, I'm getting crushed by my electric bill. Help me." That's the emergency. I got an email the other day. My minor child needs home care services and they're qualified for funding. I can't get a review for 6 to 12 months. That's an emergency. That's a crisis. My adult education program got cut 12% this year by the state. That's a diversionary program that helps young people who can't traditionally school to graduate. Helps people get citizenship, helps people learn English. That's a crisis. That's an emergency. The real crisis here, the real emergency, is we're diluting what it means to be an emergency. The real crisis is that this chamber is peddling out fear, trying to justify everything with fear. Fear of whatever monstrosity they think exists in Washington, fear of the unknown. Let me tell you the only thing that is more powerful than fear, it is hope. And I am very hopeful about the acumen that's in this chamber. As I look across the aisle to my colleagues, there are some incredibly bright, creative minds. And as I look over here, I know there are people here that want to do good by the people of Connecticut. And I am incredibly hopeful that this chamber can do that. We don't need to give up our power, to stop doing our jobs, to let the Governor do that for us. We can do it. I know we can do it, and the people elected us to do it. This bill is wrong for so many reasons, but it's wrong because it pedals fear. And that's not how we govern here in Connecticut. That's not how we justify policy here in Connecticut. We don't do it by telling our constituents they have to be afraid of everything. We do it by saying you can confide in us. You can come to us. We're here to protect you. We're here to enact laws to make it easier for you to live. You could be hopeful that we're going to do our jobs because we do our jobs. You should vote no on this bill, and we should stay in here, as my good Representative and my good colleague said, and do your jobs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me a second time. I want to address something that was said on the floor. For those of you that know me, this is my sixth year here, and y'all know I don't play in fields of rhetoric very well. As far as I'm concerned, what I said was the bill that we had last time addressed the emergency federal shutdown. We no longer have an emergency federal shutdown. The federal government is funded through September. So, if we're going to play with my words, I'm going to play back. If we want to talk about HUD vouchers, the final federal spending package of 2026 that just passed provides enough funding to renew existing contracts, averting the mass loss of vouchers that was feared, feared to be under the skinny budget practice, proposal. Emergency housing vouchers, there is sufficient funding in the final bill that just passed at the federal level that fully funds the emergency housing vouchers that were created during the pandemic. As a matter of fact, HUD received $11.3 billion more in this new federal spending package than they did before. Let's talk SNAP. I just had a meeting with DSS, along with the chairs of Appropriations and other committees. Year over year, 1,500 people have lost SNAP benefits in the State of Connecticut. They did not lose SNAP benefits due to any changes in the bills. They did not file for those benefits. You can take that and assume whatever you want with it. Maybe they don't need the benefits anymore, maybe they do. The thing is is they can't tell you why they didn't do it, but 1,500 people, not 36,000. And when I asked the commissioner, "Do we have final numbers? Do we know?" She said, "No. These are all we think. We think." ACA subsidies. I don't know about anybody in here, but if you've done any research on the ACA subsidies, we had $354 million that we had getting from the federal government to subsidize the ACA. Does anybody question why the Governor is only spending $70 million to backfill those ACA subsidies? Well, if you haven't, let me tell you why. Because the actual base subsidy for the ACA from the federal government has increased significantly to the point that we do not have to fund any subsidies for anybody making 200 FPL or lower. Why? Because the base subsidy has increased with spending. The $70 million handles mainly the people that make over 400% of the FPL, which by the way, is $160,000. Okay. So, let's talk about that one. Now, let's go into Medicaid. None of the Medicaid cuts happen until 2027. None of them have. And the 80 hours that everybody likes to talk about is 80 hours at the federal minimum wage, not at Connecticut's nearly $17 minimum wage, which equates to less than 32 hours a month that you would have to work, volunteer or go to school. If you can't work 8 hours a week, let me tell you, there are an entire slew of exemptions for people who may not cover through the able-bodied, let me get to it here, through the able-bodied work requirements. Those requirements, those exemptions include anybody under the age of 18 or over the age of 65, anybody who lives with a child under the age of 14, anybody who has a physical or mental health issue preventing them from working, which a doctor just needs to certify. If you are pregnant, if you've already met the work requirements for TFA, if you take care of a child younger than the age of six or someone, just someone, who needs help taking care of themselves. That could be a parent. If you are in a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program, if you have applied for or are getting unemployment benefits. If you go to school or a training program at least half time, or you meet other student rules. If you are a member or a descendant of a federally recognized, state recognized, or terminated native American tribe. My problem is we all get up there or we all get out here and we start talking about bringing down the rhetoric, right? We start talking about having fact-based conversations and not feeding into the rhetoric. And then we get people who run to a microphone to do nothing but talk about rhetoric. All we do is throw out information that is not factual. So, I have absolutely, positively not a single problem standing behind what I say because what I say is dot backed up by our commissioners and by the actual bills that are being talked about, debated, and passed at a federal level. So, instead of playing at fields of rhetoric, let's talk fact. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, just a comment in regards to just response, we'll just say. It just seems like people are deciding for the people and other constituents that we have. They're deciding that there is no fair. But I have to talk back on that because I believe there is fair. People are uneasy because of federal decisions that have become unpredictable. People are unsure and fearful because the federal decisions are fast moving. Funding that states rely on for basics like basic food assistance, funding that we rely on for health care, housing, education, and energies are delayed or frozen because of some of the decisions that they make in Washington. That is fearful to a lot of people. So, that fund that some are talking about, that is why we need -- that's what we need for our constituents. The uncertainty creates real anxiety because these programs aren't abstract. They pay for groceries. They pay for prescriptions. They pay for heating bills. They pay for care for our seniors and people with disability. And I heard my colleague across the aisle talk about a program that he had that helps with people in his community. Well, these are the basic things that we're worried about Washington DC cutting money for that we might need to supplement. And what this funding does is it supplements some of those possibilities. So, that's why that is so important. There's also concern that some federal actions are being driven more by politics than stability. And we all know how that works. Using funds as leverage because we decide to do something that the administration does not want us to do, so they threaten to take things. That is an uncertainty that I think is very important for us to have that funding set aside for. That's why I believe it is important for us to pass this. So, having the state fund to back up federal uncertainty is a stability and a responsibility of us. So, for those that think that we're not being responsible, for those that think that we want to stay home and not work, we are working. Both sides are working, because it takes not only our leadership on this side, but it takes the leadership on the other side to make sure that things are done like they're supposed to and agreed upon. So, to pull back, I think, is the wrong way to go. So, I'm going to just ask colleagues to support what's on the board because it is good for Connecticut. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A couple of comments and then a few questions, if I may, through you. And I just want to follow up my good colleague from the 39th. I don't think we disagree a whole lot on the needs of our different communities are different. And certainly, I could not speak on the needs of my good colleague from the 39th. But one thing that was just said that I agree with 100%, we want to go through and do our jobs and make sure -- in the minority, I think what was meant was that part of our job is to make sure we go through the process. And one of the things you've been hearing about on this side of the aisle is the process. And that's where I'm going to drill down to and try and get a handle on some of these numbers real quick in the process. And through you, Mr. Speaker, a question to good proponent, if I may.

Is that to Representative Walker or Representative Horn?

Who would like to answer that? Raise your hand. Representative Walker.

Representative O'Dea.

Through you --

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Walker.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Walker.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Walker.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Walker.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, sir. Representative Bolinsky.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My microphone is working much better today. So, it's good to see you up there.

You know, this argument is one where there's a lot of folks tripping over details and it's a pretty circular argument. But what it comes down to is not at all dissimilar to some of our fiscal behavior during the pandemic. Under the cover of an emergency, we essentially gave emergency powers to the Governor over an account that had a half a billion dollars in it. It was designed and passed as emergency legislation, actually for pretty good reason because in the closing days of the 2025 session, the state's constitutionally required branch, the legislative branch, which is the branch that allocates, appropriates money, was going to be on summer recess. So, it made perfectly good sense to leave the Governor in charge of this emergency fund. And from this emergency fund, in his entire summer of overseeing it, there was a need to use $170 million of the 500, leaving $330 million, which is what we're talking about here today. And now, with that fund set to expire -- actually, that fund has expired. It did yesterday on our opening day of '26 session. We're here as the body that's supposed to do public process, hold public hearings, and appropriate money that we have in a responsible way to take care of the most vulnerable people in our state. We're here to act upon that in the Appropriations Committee, in the Human Services Committee. Where that money is needed, we can do it and we can do it pretty darn fast and include public process, public hearings, and have a vote of the legislature because that's what we do and that's why we're here. And we're back in session and this emergency bill expired yesterday. So, considering that the emergency for the $500 billion was never fully materialized, thank goodness, and we're here to act upon it, I just don't understand why we need to create a new slush fund that can be spent at the discretion of one person without a vote of the legislature when the legislature is in charge of allocating money. This is a suspension of not just the rules and not just the expiration of a piece of legislation, but this is actually a constitutional violation. We have the means to react relatively quickly here in this chamber. And it's not like anything that happens on the federal level as far as cuts comes as a huge surprise. It never is effective the moment we hear about it. We have time to negotiate our way through it. And what we're doing in the process here is also sort of contradictory to the oath of office that we take, which is upholding the constitution. And there's not a person in this chamber that can tell me otherwise, that the Governor's office is designed to spend all the money. That's why we have actually three branches of government. We all have our purpose. And to write the legislature out of this particular piece when every single human being that's living in this room right now, and those that are remote, is a compassionate soul. We all understand the needs of our community's most vulnerable people. And that's why this fund was created. This $500 million, one-half a billion dollars, was set aside so that in our absence, we could trust the Governor to administer it as needed. Thank goodness it wasn't all needed. So, I'm going to conclude very quickly by just saying I think back to some of the things that happened during the pandemic and, you know, things that were prioritized and things that were not. But what really sticks in my brain is we're fresh off of this disaster that we call the PURA mess, or at least I call it the PURA mess, where we had hundreds of millions of dollars of ARPA money accrued to pay back our utilities for their lost revenue that occurred solely because we had executive orders that said that people that couldn't pay their electric bills didn't have to. And that money somewhere along the way disappeared from the PURA money. Where it was used, nobody knows. But behind closed doors, without a vote of the legislature, also PURA, presumably under the direction of the executive branch, was told that they should just put it into consumers' electric bills. And if you recall that, and if you recall August of 2024 when you opened your bill on July 1st, you were expecting to see an electric bill that was similar to the one from June 1st. And if you were used to paying $300 a month for your electricity, because it was hot out, maybe you were going to pay $350. And you got a $650 bill because of decisions made at PURA to not spread the payments. All of that work was done on purpose, and it was all done under the cover of emergencies and executive privilege. And that's what we're about to open the door to do, except we're not all home and not in session. I think this is a terrible idea. Where does it stop? So, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, it is tremendously important to our work and to our integrity to run incredibly important policy like this. Money that will actually take away from our pension contributions, which is something that was fixed by this legislature in the bipartisan budget and has been aggressively upheld by Governor Lamont in building seven years of great surpluses and operating a government that was responsible. This one, and returning to that kind of policy, in my humblest of opinion, is a very slippery slope, and it's one that we should think long and hard about if we need the Governor's consult. We, as a legislature, I'm never shy about asking for it. So, I have to be a no on this bill, not because I'm not a compassionate individual. I, and most of my colleagues, voted yay to create the fund in the first place, and we would do so again. But the emergency circumstances that existed then, when you didn't have a legislature to do something, which is actually their job to mitigate the suspicion of an emergency, is just not good public process. I think that our constituents expect much more from us. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I felt compelled to stand in opposition and to explain my 180-degree turn from three months ago where we came together to support a designated fund to deal with federal cuts. I think, frankly, when I attended the press conference that the Governor was holding to give $5 million to Foodshare, I think I was the first person to say that we needed to supplant the potential federal cuts coming to SNAP. And I was actually met with opposition from the Commissioner and the Governor and individuals that said we can't do that. It's not possible. We'll get penalized. And we pushed the issue, and we saw that other states, even red states, were - - actually, the red states led the charge of backfilling potentially any SNAP cuts that we got. And that is why this side of the aisle stepped to the table to support a $500 million emergency fund. Why? Because we were not in session, and we were facing a looming federal shutdown that had no end in sight. Those two scenarios led us to believe that we should be delegating authority to the Governor to fund any shortfalls that may have happened because of a government shutdown. And that fund, we decided we would have it expire on February 4th, in part because there was potentially going to be another government shutdown for January 31st. And what had happened from there to now is that many of the state programs ended up becoming funded. Now, I don't disagree with the argument that anything could happen over the next year that could cause us to lose federal funding that we may want to supplant. But what we're doing here today is we're going to punt all of that decision making to the Governor rather than letting this body have a voice. So, we are not saying that there's not potentially an emergency. What we are saying is we shouldn't be delegating our authority to the Governor. And I just want to point out the irony of this because back in 2021, we had Special Act 21-1. That was when we were going into COVID. Government was completely shut down at every level. We had businesses closed. People didn't know how they were going to put food on their tables, keep their businesses operating. When you talk about fear and uncertainty, I don't think there was a greater level of fear and uncertainty than when we were hit with COVID. But despite that fear and uncertainty, what did the legislature do? The federal government gave us roughly $2 billion to try to address emergencies arising out of COVID. And they delegated the authority to the executive branch to administer that $2 billion. And what did we do on a unanimous basis in this chamber? We said no. We said we as a legislature, as a coequal branch of government, we are going to step into the void, and we are going to ask for a report, a recommendation from the Governor. It's going to come to the legislature. We're going to have a public hearing on it, and we are going to put our stamp on it and make sure that the decisions being made are coming from the legislative branch and the Governor's office as a coequal branch of government. That was under a government shutdown under COVID. I couldn't imagine more uncertainty, and it was $2 billion. And we stepped in and took control of that money. I don't understand why we're doing the reverse here. I don't understand why we're taking $330 million while we're in session. We could do the same thing that we did under COVID. At the very least, have the Governor report it back to us so we could get a vote. And unfortunately, that was the amendment that everyone just voted down. So, that's the issue I have with this. It's not about supplanting any programs. We are not heartless. As we heard from Representative Nuccio, she has pointed out accurately where the real cuts are, which is very little so far that we could point out. So, now, today, what we are all doing with this vote is we are voting to give the Governor $330 million to act on hyperbole, fear, indecision, and put money where he believes it should go under some guise of federal cuts. So, you may, in the end, object to the way he spends that money. But your vote today is going to give him that ability, that sole ability to make the decisions on his own. And to me, the veto power that's in this bill is not enough to change my mind and say this is a good idea. So, with that, I'm voting no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

Yeah. No. Absolutely. But you're not wrong either. But no. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. You know, we've been talking a lot about what we have been doing here and the decision we made last year to empower the Governor who is a partner to this body more than any kind of opposition in ensuring that we, as a state, can respond. And we're making an affirmative decision by having a bill and having a debate and taking a vote to make a decision on working with the Governor to ensure that we can respond to emergencies that are in fact very real. At least, that's what I receive from people who live in my district, who are living in fear. And yesterday, I talked about uncertainty. And we're not in a pandemic. And I've never seen so many people feel uncertain about where they are and what government means to them, right? We've seen over the past year where we have a president who is impounding congressionally directed funds. We have a president who's ignoring a Congress of his own party. We see a Congress -- if there's anybody that's ceded their authority to anybody, it's actually the United States Congress who's allowing a president who is a bully to engage in the kind of poor decision making that is impacting people who live here in the State of Connecticut, people who we all took an oath to represent. We've seen over the last month that the president is going to target blue states. He didn't say blue states, but it seems the only place he's taking actions are blue states. Connecticut apparently is one of those blue states. That's not an emergency today. It could be an emergency tomorrow. It could be an emergency two months from now. And what we're trying to do here is ensuring that we can react as quickly as possible to meet the needs of the people that we represent so they are not impacted by the draconian decisions that are being made by this president with a Congress that has ceded their authority to him. And that's what we're doing today. The process has worked. The veto that is included in this is a simple majority of six people who can vote remotely to disagree with a decision that is made by the Governor. And the Governor doesn't make his decisions without actually consulting with the legislature, with the leaders of the legislature. So, it's not that he's acting of his own volition to make decisions about what he wants to do. He is seeking consent from us. We are working with him by passing legislation to ensure that he can really respond to the need of the people that we represent, and that's why I believe we should adopt this bill today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

Wait, wait, wait. Yeah.

Emergency Certification No. 83. Total number voting 145 Necessary for passage 91 Those voting Yea 97 Those voting Nay 48 Absent not voting 6

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move we immediately transmit Senate Bill 83 to the Governor.

Mr. Speaker, members missed votes as noted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Higher Education Committee had a meeting scheduled for 2:30 today. A moment after you gavel us out, the Senate co-chair will begin that meeting and recess it for 15 minutes to give members an opportunity to get over to Room 1B and vote on our agenda. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk will be in possession of members who were absent and why. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate everybody's work today. I move we adjourn, subject to the Call of the Chair.