CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-29

Thank you. We ask that each day, we have the patience to understand those who disagree with us, the sensitivity to the needs of others, and the prudence to make decisions which work toward the common good. Amen.

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.

sn/rr 2 Thank you, Madam President and good afternoon. Madam President, before we get to our points of personal privilege and introductions in the chamber, just, see if we can adopt Senate Agenda Number 1, is there business on the clerk's desk?

Senator Duff.

So ordered, Sir. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

Thank you, Madam President. I believe Senator Looney, has an introduction. And, okay, we'll let Senator Martin do his introduction.

I certainly do. Good afternoon, Madam President. And it's my privilege and honor to introduce to the chamber here civics class from Thomaston High School. They are all seniors from what I understand. It's probably the largest civics class that I've seen come to the chamber from Thomaston. Usually there's probably half a dozen, but today we've got like 27, and they're taught by Mrs. France who has the sole responsibility or perhaps with one other teacher of instructing the American culture and history from 300 and something students. But they seem to be very engaged in school, but they got a little quiet here when they got here. And we did take a quick, sort of poll. Yesterday or a day before, we voted on the banning of sort of cell phones in schools. And I found out that the good representative for Thomaston voted no, and I voted yes. And all the students here favored the good representative and were very pleased with his vote, and I voted with the teachers and with the parents of banning it. So, Madam President, very pleased to introduce the Thomaston, senior class in civics here at the state.

There you go. sn/rr 6

--I have, one last picture right up there.

Yes. I do. Madam President, thank you very much. I am very pleased that some students from a school in my district are here today. I believe you may already have met with them downstairs, when they met with you and the governor, and they were visiting in the house of representatives with, representative Paolillo who is here with them and has given them a tour of the house, and they are all constituents of his and mine. They attend Nathan Hale School in New Haven. They are all active, on the student council at Nathan Hale. They're learning about government. They're here, because of their interest. They've already shown leadership roles within their school, and these are very promising young people for the future that we can be very confident in. They are accompanied by, Miss Badillo, their teacher and student council advisor. So they are here to see us at work today, learning a little bit about the operations of both the house and the senate, the executive branch and absorbing as much as they can in a single day visit, and also gets them out of school for the day too, which is also fun. So again, welcome to all of the students here from Nathan Hale School, which is one of the very best sn/rr 7 schools, in the City of New Haven, and these are the young people, and staff who make it so. So if we can give them all our warm traditional welcome. [clapping]

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to, for a point of introduction, please.

Trying to get out three different things at the same time. Madam President, we are excited today to have a visitor from the National Conference of State Legislatures. We have Tammy Hill, who is our Connecticut liaison to the organization. And Tammy's here today, for the day and willing and would love to meet with all of our Senators and our staff, because the National Conference of State Legislatures represents every single state legislator in the country and staff as well, partisan and nonpartisan. And she's here to make sure that any questions get answered or any kind of place she could be a resource. And as we know, NCSL does a really great job, representing legislators in a bipartisan way across our country. Madam President, I'm very excited to be the Vice President of the organization as an officer, and that is because of the support that I receive here. And I think that, many of us do really good work sn/rr 8 around the country, and I know that, many of us will be in the summit, this year in Chicago and to work with other legislators and work in a bipartisan way to solve some of the problems that we have. And as a matter of fact, we are working very hard on issues like AI, cyber security, privacy, housing, many, many different issues where legislators do come together in a bipartisan way to solve our country's problems. And while many times, people see politicians on TV, and I'm saying this to the benefit of the young people here in the room, they see legislators or politicians kind of arguing and fighting on TV, in legislatures across the country, 85% of the legislation that we pass, is passed in a bipartisan way, meaning that both Democrats and Republicans work together to pass legislation. And while we see our congress that isn't really--, that's stuck a little bit, and not moving along as we would like to, probably, state legislatures across this country have passed 20,000 pieces of legislation in the last year, again, 85% of that being in a bipartisan way. So those are great things in how our states are still working and passing laws, and functioning, and doing good things for their constituents. So, all that is to say thank you, Tammy, for being here today and thank you for the work that you do. It's a great organization. I would ask and encourage my colleagues to make sure that they are involved as well in the organization. And as I always like to say, get your head out of your dome and meet other legislators around the country. Staff members meet, other members around the dome as well because you learn new things and you're able to then take that information and bring it back and sn/rr 9 have an even better state. Thank you so much, Madam President. If we can give Tammy a warm welcome. [clapping]

I do indeed, and good afternoon, Madam President. I want to welcome the director general, which is an ambassadorial rank of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in New York. He also is head of the UN Affairs Task Force in New York City. And he is here today, celebrating the 27th anniversary of the Taiwan, Connecticut sister state relationship. It has been one that has been rooted in collaboration, exchanges of ideas in three major areas. First of which was the cultural, to be able to share the cultural and heritage that connects our two nation states in regards to what, and representing so many of the Chinese Americans that have contributed in the State of Connecticut. The second major contribution is academics. The collaboration in regards to academic exchange of ideas and aspirations is one that has been deeply rooted in the MOU's mutual understanding, to be able to share academic excellence and exchanges of ideas. The third, profoundly, is economics. It is one of the largest trading partner with the State of Connecticut. And in fact, their stock market just recently eclipsed, the Canadian stock market, in regards to economic vitality. sn/rr 10 One of the major contributors in the economic vitality is entrepreneurialism, innovation, but also something called AI and supercomputing. They are the world's largest producer. In fact, if not the predominant producer of super power microchips that power the AI industry as we articulated it. But most important of all, it is the sister state relationship to really engage in representing many of the aspiring Chinese Americans within Connecticut and in The United States. I want to thank the commissioner, the ambassador for being here today. They had food and delicacies that went way too fast. So I would ask this circle and all of our fantastic young people to be able to give a hand to the director general. [clapping] I want to thank the chamber, and the senate circle for accommodating and I wish the ambassador well. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we're just going to stand at ease for a moment to have a quick picture with our Nathan Hale kids. And then I know we have some other introductions with Senator Perillo, and then Senator Cicarella, and Senator Anwar as well. So just stand at ease for a moment.

I do, Madam President. Thank you very much. I would sn/rr 11 like to introduce my intern, Zach Trejo. His parents who have been so supportive of him during this process. And I just want to say about Zach. You know, it's very easy to come here and be an intern and do the bare minimum, and check the box and make it through, and Zach has not done that. He has gone above and beyond working from home, working closely with the team, and I hope it's been worth it. Certainly worth it for us, and I hope it's been worth it for Zach. We cannot thank you enough. You've been absolutely wonderful, and I would ask that the entire, circle give him a round of applause. [clapping]

Thank you, Madam President. And I'd be honored to introduce these young people, which are going to be our future leaders of our government. We have our kid governor and our cabinet here before us. So I wanted to make sure they had an opportunity to come see the Capitol and they were in the house earlier with Representative Yaccarino. And I'm having the privilege of introducing the Kid Governor and their cabinet because Tessa is a resident of North Haven. She goes to Greenacres Elementary School where my kids also attended elementary school, which is such a phenomenal school. We have so many great teachers not only in North Haven and Greenacres but across sn/rr 12 our state, and we're seeing the product of that right here before us. And we have Tessa from North Haven, who is our Kid Governor. And her cabinet, we have Ajla, we have Alyvia, we have Dylan, Myra, Nana, and Samuel. And Tessa's platform is about inclusion for students with disabilities, which is such a great topic and something that we need to address. And they all have great platforms and we have a couple of them working on things I think Senator Maroney would like dealing with AI and bullying online. And then we were just talking today about some of the legislation that we've worked on to try to address that. And then they're going to continue to work on that along with the Kid Governor and then in their future. So I just wanted to take a moment to recognize the Kid Governor and her cabinet here in this chamber, and I thank you for that privilege.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank Madam President, I too rise to recognize our, Kid Governor and also at least two of the cabinet members who I am honored to represent. Once you have taken the pictures, I would love for you to come over to this side if you can. sn/rr 13 Madam governor and your cabinet would love to have you guys over here. And two of the individuals is Dylan Ellis. Dylan is from the beautiful town of East Windsor who studies in South Windsor. So he's actually from the 3rd Senate District. So I wanted to recognize his work. His vision has been to make sure that in this cabinet, he's going to strengthen ways to make sure there's no racism in our state. So that is his passion and he's working hard to make sure that, he can teach us as a state, but also our leadership over here to make a difference. And we have Myra Ruparel. Myra is from the town of Ellington. She is working on inclusive society. That's her passion. That's what she's committed to. We are so excited that, you are here, and I wanted to thank you for your vision and also recognize that this vision is such a critical part of our state. So Madam President, thank you for allowing me to speak and then be able to thank our Kid Governor and also all of the cabinet for their vision because we need to embrace their vision collectively. Thank you. And Madam President, if you would allow to have a picture with us too.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. I do. I rise for a point of personal privilege. I would like to introduce four incredible students here, all from UConn, Claire Gallagher, India Patel, Olivia Gasparito, and Alex Lin. They're here learning about civic engagement and living the process. So they're going to be here for sn/rr 14 our session today to see the process unfold. Claire was also a student in the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights, and has been doing terrific work in Connecticut, and in engaging with students all throughout the country. So look forward to having them here and just wanted to acknowledge them. And if we can give them a warm welcome for the day, I would appreciate it.

Yes, I do, Madam President, for purposes of an introduction. Madam President, we have with us today, Kate Fitzgerald, who was our Trinity, intern, during the session. She has done a superb job. She will be graduating from Trinity, in a few weeks and has really contributed a great deal, to our senate majority offices. Her writing skill is extraordinary. Her grasp of process has been exceptional. So, she continues in the great line of outstanding interns that we've had from Trinity, here throughout the year. She has an interest in government, interest in public policy. I'm sure that she will do well in whatever field she goes into. But, I think that her cast of mind, it really is, she's the sort of young person who should help us feel confident in our future and what the younger emerging generation will bring, to public life and public policy. So, I'd like to--, hope the chamber will give her a warm welcome, and want to present her with a citation honoring her service here, this session. Thank you, Madam President. [clapping] sn/rr 15

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would like to mark two items for go at the moment. We'll have--

--more of a full list later.

So ordered.

So ordered. sn/rr 16

And Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Senator Osten.

Let's just wait one second, Senator, till we have that item up on the board.

Thank you. Madam President, I move acceptance of the sn/rr 17 committee's favorable report and passage of this resolution.

Madam President, this resolution is proposing approval of a collective bargaining agreement between the University of Connecticut board of trustees and the Graduate Employee Union Local 6950, International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. This contract is between the University of Connecticut and graduate students and other such ancillary job classifications. It is paid for solely through the University of Connecticut. In fiscal '27, it's 3,000,000 and change. In fiscal '28, it's 6,000,000 and change. In fiscal '29, it's 9,000,000 and change. And in fiscal '30, it's 13,000,000 and change. While it says those numbers through the office of fiscal analysis, I would point out that because these are research assistants, this is all dependent on the number of research grants that the University of Connecticut would get. So it could be significantly less, than that. It's unlikely to be any more than that. I urge my colleagues to support, this agreement which does not have an impact on the state budget and is paid for through research grants, tuition funds, other fees, that are associated, with the University of Connecticut and not the block grants that are within the confines of the state budget. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam President. And I rise in opposition of this contract. You heard the good senator talk about the cost impact, and although, some of this may be offset by grants, there's no guarantee of any grants, so this actually, the numbers could be higher in the future. And what this is going to do is raise tuition for students at the University of Connecticut, and I urge rejection. Thank you.

Madam President, thank you. We talk about affordability a lot in this chamber and rightly so, we should, because it's a real issue here in Connecticut. But we hear over and over, when it comes to affordability, higher education is not affordable. And specifically, we hear from it. We hear about it from students seeking higher education from our own in state schools. But, it's easy to forget that sometimes, right. Because the kids aren't here all the time. We don't hear from them all the time. The unions are. And, I don't begrudge them that. They are going for their self-interest. I don't begrudge that at all. But, we can't in good conscience say tuition is too high, and then vote on this agreement which can raise tuition. Because this is just one, one of the many. sn/rr 19 And, even though it doesn't impact the state budget, it impacts the lives of our young people who want a better future, and they want it through higher education right here in the State of Connecticut. So we need to keep that in mind. I do not support the contract that's before us because I think we really need to put our students first, and if we want to make things affordable, we can't do it by supporting this agreement. Thank you, Madam President.

I'm just asking for a roll call vote, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Very quickly, Madam President, I know that in speaking with UConn, and I'm assuming these salaries here, are a part of the UConn system and graduates, or those that are being paid through the graduate program. One of the things that I hear from them is, that they wish they had the control of being able to bargain with the employees. That's difficult on their end that they have to come to the state legislature and then look for $50,000,000 and they're coming out with their hand up saying, hey, some things are out of our control and they would like to have that control. sn/rr 20 So, I'm going to be a no on this. I think I'd like to see us try to shift some of this responsibility that is in the governor's office of bargaining with some of these units, that belong to universities, shifted over to them so that they can better control their, salaries. So thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate my good colleagues' comments, but in this particular case, because it's directly with UConn, this contract is negotiated directly with UConn. I think that those comments may be more appropriate in the next resolution that we do and would point out that UConn actually sits at the table and does all the bargaining with the research, assistance. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. It's important that we have negotiating and unions to protect workers in our state and our economy, who have more dangerous, poor working conditions, who have maybe not as great an earning power into the future in order to ensure that they're protected. For graduate students at one of the nation's premier state universities who already have undergraduate degrees and are on the precipice of receiving graduate degrees with hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in earning power into the future, asking regular Connecticut residents and taxpayers sn/rr 21 to pay for 4.5% increases, when this state is so expensive and when our taxes are so high is not reasonable and is not fair. I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this resolution today. It's important that graduate assistants have a stipend. That it be reasonable. But 4.5% increases when Connecticut taxpayers and residents with much lower earning power into the future, than people on the precipice of getting a graduate degree from an excellent university, is just not fair, is just not, to borrow a term, equitable. And in a state where we're about to say to the public, who's getting squeezed by government and high taxes, that no, you cannot have a tax decrease this year. You're going to have to stick with, paying the third highest tax burden in the entire country, that we need to be increasing, graduate assistance pay by 4.5% guaranteed annually is just not reasonable. And I think the vast majority of Connecticut residents see that and understand that. This is no way to do business in Connecticut. It is not sustainable. It's doubling down on all the mistakes of the past. I don't understand how we can keep doing the same thing over and over again in Connecticut and expecting different results. Over the last eight years in this state, we've seen 11% lower economic growth than the country as a whole. We'd be 40% richer as a state. Our economy would be 40% bigger $40,000,000,000 bigger every year if we simply grow our economy at the same rate as the nation as a whole. But we keep increasing spending. We refuse to give tax relief to the middle class. We raise taxes on the middle class to the point we have the third highest taxes in the country, and I just don't understand how we can keep doing the same thing over sn/rr 22 and over again and expecting a different result. I urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution.

I yield. Senator.

Thank you, Madam President. And I just rise in support of this collective bargaining agreement that has been negotiated. I had the privilege of working with our graduate student employees, when they first organized and formed a union, and these are some of the most talented and bright individuals. This package will keep us competitive with other really high class universities, universities that are doing incredible research. We have a great opportunity at UConn to be one of the premier research institutions, and it's critical that we have these graduate students to do the bulk of that work. And so I'm really proud of the university and of the graduate employees because they are putting UConn at the top. And I appreciate the fact that a lot of these dollars are supplied by federal grants, but I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this contract. It's helping to make sure that we get the best and the brightest, and it keeps us competitive, and it's the right thing to do. So thank you very much. sn/rr 23

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise to raise the concerns that have been mentioned by some of my colleagues already, regarding this contract. A lot of the unions that I've seen over the years, have incredible members that work very, very hard. But many of them are trade related, blue collar jobs. And they're at the heart of what union membership should be. I often speak with my grandfather who is a proud union member in New York City, an MTA bus driver, blue collar workers coming together, to collectively bargain reasonable good deals, for their fellow members. I'm lost on graduate assistants. So these are individuals that are highly, highly educated, unbelievably talented. They are going to be making a lot more money than I could ever imagine making in their careers. And we're now asking the students who already pay higher tuition to begin with, and as a parent who's now trying to starting to collect money to hopefully send my son and daughter off to college someday. I understand firsthand how expensive it is. Now we're asking them to now pay more money to pay these very highly educated professionals that are going to be receiving a lot of money going into the future of their careers. And it comes down to priorities and when you speak with UConn and all the good things they're trying to do for their student body, they did not negotiate this deal, but they're going to have to somehow pay for it. And how they pay for it is through increased tuitions. sn/rr 24 So by voting for this today, we're voting to essentially increase tuitions, throughout our university systems, and increase those tuitions to pay a higher amount of money to graduate assistants who are going to go on to make a lot of money in whatever fields they're currently studying in now. I don't think, that is a logical way to approach this issue, particularly as I said, when student debt has gotten so high, and the tuition bills have gotten so high for your hardworking students throughout our state. So Madam President, I will be opposing this measure and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the senate. Voting on Senate Resolution Number 11. Resolution to propose approval of collect bargaining agreement between the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees and the Graduate--

Total number voting 36 Total voting Aye 25 sn/rr 25 Total voting Nay 11 Absent, not voting 0

Yes. Indeed, Madam President, and it's, good to see you there as we start this day. I have a very interesting and special appointment announcement that I want to share with, my colleagues in the circle. So Ava, Ava Del Vescovo is from Trinity College, and she comes to us in a real serendipitous way, because it wasn't through the traditional internship program. As you know, we have stood up a number of trade commissions here in the Connecticut General Assembly, and, one of the first being the Irish Trade Commission, which was brought to us by President Looney and Majority Leader Duff. And as we begun the work on the trade commission, it was very apparent that, there was much to do, and our administrators have been our clerks. And I want to also tip my hat here to Tricia Kramer, who has been so facile in taking on these tasks. But long story short, we called the Trinity internship office well past their traditional application deadline times. And Stefanie Chambers there who heads up the internship program was very interested in the work of the trade commission and was very helpful, in helping us to advertise and get an intern for this session. sn/rr 26 And so it wasn't the traditional internship program, but it was through the career placement office. And we were so happy to get Ava, and she became the COG in the wheel very quickly in running the trade commission, setting up a website, dealing with all of the members, and helping to do the scheduling, run the meetings, but also the outreach, which was, really a yeoman's job. Ava herself is a student athlete, at Trinity, and she is pursuing a degree in public policy and law, so it fit perfectly with this work on the trade commission. She is a member of the cross country teams and also the track team at Trinity. And she's very interested in pursuing work, and plans to attend law school. So this all kind of came together, to be here at the general assembly to understand the legislative process and for her to use all of her personal skills. She herself also serves on the executive board of the Kappa Gamma, as the risk prevention director, and she hails from Villanova, Pennsylvania. But she has really been a standout, on running the trade commission. In all candor, Ava, I don't know what we're going to do without you, but you have set the bar very high, and we hope to continue the relationship with the internship program and running, the important work of the Connecticut Irish Trade Commission. And if you would join me in recognizing Tricia Kramer as the clerk and administrator heading this up, and Ava, who was so central in getting our website done and really getting this first year of the Irish Trade Commission off to such a resounding start. Thank you, Madam President.

I do, Madam President. Thank you so much for recognizing me. I rise for a point of personal privilege to acknowledge and to praise the work of the interns that have been helping in the Labor Committee and specifically helping me to get all the work done. And we have here today two amazing young women who are students from--, Sharmel Rivera is a student from Gateway Community College, and Tanny Larson is, the Yale School of Public Health. And both of these individuals have been so instrumental in the work of the Labor Committee doing the JF reports and, doing some of the research, preparing, talking points after reviewing the debates that we've had in the Labor Committee. They really are so essential to the work that we get done here at the legislature, and it's important to recognize them. But I also want to talk about the character of these two young women, who have been really involved in everything we're doing. They're bright, they are engaged, they care about the world, they care about the work of the legislature, and that's just been so essential and so inspiring, particularly at this time, when we all are looking for the next generation to stand up and to really take over. And both of these young women are really products of what we're able to do here in higher education, inspiring young people. And so it's been my real delight and pleasure to work, with both Sharmel and with Tanny. sn/rr 28 It also, it's just incredible in the atmosphere that we have in the office and how everybody gets much more, we get happier when you guys are around because you do a great job of keeping us focused, keeping us on target. I know for me, I really appreciate it when, I see the notes that Sharmel put into the file about the debates that took place in the Labor Committee. Sharmel and sometimes Tanny writes up these incredible, notes for me about what was important in our discussion. So I think that the intern program is incredibly important to the legislature, and I think that we all really benefit from it. I know these young women, they're not going to stop here. They're going to go on to serve, provide public service, in many different ways, and so this is what inspires me, to see the young people step up and be so engaged. So I would ask that if you would all, give me one more second to say one more thing, and I was hoping he would get here, but there is a young man I also wanted to acknowledge. His name is Ian Hendry. We'll put it in the official record. He was over at the LOB when we started talking about this. But Ian has not been serving the Labor Committee and has not worked as an intern under me, but I have seen Ian's work in Danbury because he's a student at Westcon, and he is an amazing student leader there. He's been interning also for one of the house representatives, and I wanted to acknowledge how he too plays a role in what we're looking for in the future of our young people, recognizing how important it is to have them engaged in the work of the legislature, and taking real consideration of what's happening in the world and how they can contribute. sn/rr 29 So Ian's not able to get here in time from the LOB, but we will let him know that we put it on the official record. And I would ask that everyone join me in thanking, these incredible interns that have served the Labor Committee and served, in our state. Thank you.

Page 63, Calendar Number 463, Senate Resolution Number 12, resolution proposing approval of an agreement between the State of Connecticut and the state employees bargaining agent coalition. CBAC.

Well, it's afternoon, Madam President. Good afternoon. We're letting some pictures happen at the same time. So, while we're doing that, Madam President, I move acceptance of the committee's favorable report and passage of this resolution.

Yes. Madam President. Madam President, this is a resolution proposing approval of a tentative agreement between the State of Connecticut and the state employees bargaining agent coalition. sn/rr 30 It has appropriated costs that date back to July 1st, of 2025. And those costs in that year were $119,536,122 for non-appropriated costs, which consists of our constituent units of higher education, $66,789,912 for various agencies and non- appropriated costs, $15,918,914. And each one of the next three years the costs are increasing as they move through this. This is an agreement that goes until June 30th, of 2029. It covers approximately 42,000 state employees across various agencies. And, it covers general wage increase of 2.5% in annual increments in '26, '27, and '28, and general wage increases only on those three years, also. Certain unions and job classifications receive other salary increases and either forego an annual increment or have their FY '28, annual incremental delayed until FY '29. Increases in cost between the year, increase begins and the following year are due to the annualization of the increases provided in the year before. The estimate in FY '29 represents the cost of all general wage increases in AI's, Annual Increments, in the contracts once they are fully annualized. The contract includes a wage reopener provision, which allows for the negotiation of a general wage increase in annual increment in FY '29. In instances where the annual increment is delayed, to FY '29, that union is ineligible for an annual increment as part of the wage reopener. The agreement includes a variety of other changes that impact the salary and wages of employees beyond the general wage increase in annual increment. The table, that includes all of this is a summary of other salary changes, that includes pay plan adjustments, workload changes, stipend increases, differential pay, increase in lump sums, increased sn/rr 31 overtime where applicable, and job skill premium pay. This covers hazardous duty and nonhazardous duty employees. It does not cover the state police who bargained separately, and it is retroactive. There are the unions that this represents are NP-3, the administrative clerical unit. NP-4, which is the correctional officers and other correctional job classifications. NP-5, which is protective services. NP-6, which is NP-1, which is the professional and paraprofessional healthcare unit. NP-8, which is the correctional supervisors union, which was the union that I both initiated, started, and bargained for. NP-9 state police lieutenants and captains who were allowed to collectively bargain based on a rule change, a statutory change that I worked with people before I was ever a legislator to do. P-2, which is social and human services. P-3A, which is education. P---3B is education B. P4 is engineer science and technology. P5 is administration residual. P-6, P-7, the assistant attorney general and assistant AGs, department heads. PA DCF program supervisors, Judicial Local 749, Judicial Local 2001, supervising judicial marshals. Judicial Local 731, which is judicial marshals. Judicial AFT, Criminal Justice Local 749, criminal justice prosecutors, Criminal Justice Local 2001, inspectors, CTECS, A-F-S-A, CTECS, S-V-F-T, public defenders, B-O-R-H-E-S-U-O-A-F Local 2836. The four C's which is the Congress of Community Colleges, B-O-R-H-E, that stands for Board of Regents Higher Education, A-A-U-P. B-O-R-H-E, Local 2480. B-O-R-H-E, Charter Oak, Local 1214. UConn A-A- U-P, UConn UCPEA, U-C-P-E-A, UConn Health Center A- A-U-P, UConn Health Center U-H-P. sn/rr 32 Now as you can see, we have many job classes in the State of Connecticut. Almost every person working for the State of Connecticut has either accreted into one of these bargaining units or started their own bargaining unit. This is so that their wages, hours, and working conditions can be collectively bargained. I urge my colleagues to support, this contract. All of the general fund units are covered in what we call the reserve for salary accounts. So each year, we budget a certain amount of money for the reserve for salary accounts and it carries over automatically. The reserve for salary accounts, has enough money in it to cover, actually has more than we need to cover the general fund. The non-appropriated funds, the block grants for higher education are in part covered by the block grant. They saw an increase of 3%, but as I had said before, the annual increment and the general wage increase is 4.5% It does not cover that last 1.5%. What I talked about with the previous bill that we had in front of us, is that those are covered by other streams of revenue that higher education has, either tuition fees, and fines that happen within the confines of that organization. And, I seek my colleague's approval of this collective bargaining agreement, bringing our state workforce to a level of professional pay that we should see. There's baked into this contract about $30,000,000 in savings, through medical agreement that is a part of this. I stand ready for questions and comments. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise for one particular question, if I could through you, Madam President. There is a section concerning fertility services point solution, and it is providing additional wrap around services, supports, and holistic information with improved results, and it reduces multiple births and NICU stays and improves maternal health. And I'm very interested, through you, Madam President, if the good senator could answer exactly what is that and how is that going to save money.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Anytime we can decrease NICU stays, is going to decrease the cost of that particular pregnancy, and any time that we can help women, carry to term, a baby, will decrease the ultimate costs, medical costs of that pregnancy. This is one of those things that, is within that $30,000,000 in order to provide better health care for women either pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, or postpartum delivery. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I understand the program. I'm just wanting to know how this is going to work, through you, Madam President. Do we have any indication that this is actually going to work? It seems there's no details to it at all. So it sn/rr 34 appears that the savings is sort of a guesstimate that this is what we think we will save. And because of the description saying reduced multiple births and NICU stays, is that, these additional wrap around services that are supposed to be able to have better maternal outcomes, which we all want and we all support. I'm just trying to get to exactly how this is supposed to work. Through you, Madam President.

Alright. Thank you very much, Madam President. Through more comprehensive, obstetrics, and care for women in their years of ability to bear children, just doing that will in and of itself create better outcomes. And through the process at our Health Care Cost Containment Committee. This is one of the things that they have been discussing, to provide more comprehensive care, and that comprehensive care leads to better outcomes. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I, wish that I believed that, that was going to be the case, that it was going to save us dollars and provide better outcomes. I guess time will tell. That's all the question I really had concerning, the agreement. sn/rr 35 We've all had an opportunity to look at it. We've looked at it in appropriations. And I just had a couple comments, on this process. Just time is flying, so I'm going to say a couple weeks ago. It may have been longer than that. We voted in March, an agreement, that included, excuse me, service, maintenance, repair, delivery, cleaning, and cooking at hospitals, campuses, airports, roads, bridges, and parks across the state. It was a bargaining agreement that we passed 30 to two out of this circle here, which provided, an increase for particular union employees, as part of an NP-2 bargaining unit, and many of us supported that because these were folks that we felt were the first line, they were showing up to work everyday, they were on the side of our road, DOT workers, etcetera. So we did look at that, and I know that there has been bipartisan support on our state police contracts in the past. This contract is a little bit overwhelming and a little bit different, and I have to rise in opposition to this agreement, not because we oppose our state employees, but because this is asking tax payers between this and the UConn agreement to spend $2,000,000,000 very quickly, with very little scrutiny. None of us are part of the negotiation team. We're handed the contract, and it is very frustrating for myself and others that these are not looked at individually, that they are all grouped together. So we are looking at 42,000 state employees with one lens. Everybody gets the same thing. There are some nuances within the agreements but, overall we're looking at it as one huge package. I think you would have a different outcome if we could look at this individually. We had an sn/rr 36 opportunity to go through each individual contract, and were part of the negotiations or at least had a seat at the table listening. When I was a mayor, one of the things that I insisted on doing, even though I didn't have any power, was to sit in on the board of education negotiations, with the teachers union. And it was enlightening, and it was very valuable to be able to go back to get something passed when you had the ins and the outs and you knew exactly how the negotiation went, what was asked, what was given, what was decided upon, and what was negotiated, and ultimately, how the agreement came to be. We do not have that luxury here at all. And so I said, this agreement covers roughly about 42,000 employees across a wide range of responsibilities and roles, everything from DCF inspectors, to people working for the Department of Energy and Environment, all grouped together, evaluated as a sweeping one package. And I think that's a problem. Different sectors of workforces have different needs, different market pressures, and different staffing challenges. A single up or down vote denies the chamber the ability to evaluate these differences appropriately and responsibly, and we should be voting on major segments separately, not treating them as one sweeping bill. But that's not what we have, but that's what we really should have. So as I said, the cost to the taxpayer of Connecticut who is funding this is $2,000,000,000, 2,000,000,000 with a B, over four years. And that's not just a marginal adjustment. That's a major long term fiscal commitment. And that's why these things are revisited for increases. Every dollar that we commit here is a dollar that sn/rr 37 cannot be used elsewhere, for nonprofits, for community providers, for services that many of our most vulnerable residents depend on. And there's organizations right outside this building today who need funding, who need critical work force, enhancement, they do far more work with far less resources and far less compensation, and they can stretch a dollar better than we can here under this gold dome. And if we could apply some of the increases that we're seeing here today to those individuals, we would see, I believe, our dollar be stretched much further, much more competitively, and in many times with better outcomes. So Connecticut state employees are already among the best compensated in the country. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I just think we need to keep our perspective here. The average salary in the State of Connecticut for a state employee is $101,000 compared to a national average of $87,000. Now granted it's more expensive to live in Connecticut. Part of that is the policies that we all pass here, making Connecticut an unaffordable place to live. So that's roughly about 15% higher than the national average, and that makes us the second highest in the nation only behind California. What a shock. And yet this agreement doesn't just maintain that position, it accelerates that at a very, quick pace. With a 2.5% general wage increase, plus step increases of about 2%, employees will receive at least 4.5% raises annually, and those raises compound year, after year, after year. Over time, the results in nine straight years of increases at or above that level and more than a 50% total wage increase since 2019. sn/rr 38 And even as inflation has come down, these increases continue to stack up on top of an already top tier compensation. Stacking up on the second highest compensated workforce in the nation. But this is not about fairness, and this is where we're leading. This is about whether taxpayers of Connecticut that are already stretched to the breaking point with excessive property taxes, with the second or now maybe it's the first largest electric bills in the nation, with car tax every year, with the cost of living being extraordinarily high. Now we're coming back to that trough, and we're asking them to fund this type of salary increase, on the second most highly compensated workforce in the nation. And this is about whether taxpayers can, again, sustain this compounded growth on this type of salary that we're providing. And I'm not saying we should not pay our state employees well. We should, but we also have to make sure that those that are paying the bill can afford to pay the bill for our state employees. And I believe that these numbers far outpace what most taxpayers that I talk to, even if they are not in my district, can afford. The people funding this agreement have experienced their own income inequality and have seen that their income is going less and less far every single day. And we've heard that this increase is a justification in response to what we're seeing for inflation. But inflation has been declining from peaks of about 8% in 2022, you can look it up, down to 3% currently. So, yes, we've had increases in inflation, but not since 2022 where we're at the height of 8%. Inflation is declining. sn/rr 39 We're locking in a multiyear increase at these levels even as inflation is moderating, and the risks are overshooting the actual economic conditions that Connecticut and, actually, our nation will be facing. So if costs are rising this dramatically without meaningful offsets, the pressures will inevitably fall on students, on families, on our future state budgets, and on the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut. We're told that there is a potential health care savings of about $21,500,000 initially and 31,200,000 annually thereafter. But when we measure that against a $2,000,000,000 increase agreement, those savings are almost nonexistent. They don't fundamentally change anything or the overall fiscal picture. And these additions reinforce the concern that this agreement has grown beyond what is fiscally prudent for the taxpayers and the citizens of Connecticut. And at the end of the day, this is about balance. We all value our state workforce, but we also have a responsibility to taxpayers, to nonprofits, to students, and to future budgets, and the future generation of the State of Connecticut. When you look at young people that are struggling to afford a house in the State of Connecticut that are leaving this state, you see it happening in Boston, and now it's starting to happen here. They're going south because they have a better chance at a life and a future, in a different state where the costs are not as extraordinarily high as they are here in the State of Connecticut. This agreement, in my opinion, asked too much, provides too little structural balance, and limits this legislator's ability to exercise proper sn/rr 40 oversight. And with that, Madam President, I urge rejection. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I just want to make sure that we're having a roll call vote on the contracts for 42,000, state employees who are also taxpayers.

Thank you, Madam President. We need to have fair and good compensation for our state employees to both recruit talented workers to our state workforce, and retain those workers as well. We also need fair and sustainable pay for those workers, so that taxpayers can afford to pay their tax bill, and our economy can afford to grow in this state. If, we significantly underpaid our state workforce, we would see people fleeing state jobs. We would see a precipitous decline in the quality of the candidates applying for our state work, and tax payers ultimately would be failed because even if they are paying lower taxes in the short run, they would ultimately be left with a low quality of service, and a bad return on what they're paying to the state. On the other hand, if we overpay or overcompensate or over hire in our state government workforce, we're going to be left as a state with high taxes, a stagnant economy, high cost of living, without an sn/rr 41 adequate quality of service. And so we should consider that balance when we debate resolutions, contracts like this, and other legislation. We need to take perspective in order to ensure that we can deliver a high quality of service, that we can recruit and retain high caliber candidates to our state workforce while also limiting the tax burden on middle class and working class families in Connecticut and ensuring that there can be economic growth, that there can be opportunity and investment in our state in the long run. So those are the questions we need to answer, and that's the balance I think we should all across party lines be willing to measure, and accept when discussing a contract or resolution of billions of dollars extraordinarily magnitude like this one. According to the last few comprehensive studies and analysis of state employee compensation. It appears that similar state government employees, to their private sector peers are receiving anywhere from a 28% to 42% pay premium compared to the private sector workers of similar backgrounds who are footing the tax bill. The most recent of those studies from the Yankee Institute in 2020 showed a roughly 28% pay premium for public sector workers with similar backgrounds and qualifications as private sector workers in Connecticut. Other studies from 2015 by the American Enterprise Institute in 2010 by the state government's office of legislative research showed even higher premiums in excess of 30%, for state government employees compared to similar private sector employees with similar backgrounds. That's what the numbers say. That's what the facts seem to suggest. A recent study, pretty simple measurement from the US Census found that sn/rr 42 Connecticut state employees had salaries that ranked second highest in the entire country, as Senator Somers said after only California. A study out of Georgetown University found that other post-employment benefits in Connecticut for state employees were tied for the highest in the country with only California. California is not necessarily a good state for us to be measuring ourselves against. With the out migration of hundreds of thousands of residents, some of the highest taxes in the nation, and the highest poverty rate in the nation. It's not a good standard for us to measure ourselves up against. The columnist in Connecticut, Red Jahncke, a constituent of mine, said in his recent column, Don't Californify my Connecticut. Maybe I would borrow from the old TV show and say, Don't Californicate my Connecticut. Margaret Thatcher famously said that the problem with big government, to paraphrase, is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Should be no surprise given those statistics that Connecticut has the third highest tax burden of any state in the country. People are hurting. They can't afford to pay their income taxes, to pay their sales tax, to pay their property tax, and still have money left over for a rainy day. And there has been no progress at reducing that tax burden in recent years. It should be no surprise. It should be no surprise based on the decisions that we are making and have made in recent history like the decision we're about to make today. To increase spending in state government by billions of dollars above what we're currently spending, funded by middle class and working class tax payers who are sn/rr 43 making less on average, than the average public sector employee in our state. Where is the outrage from progressives? From so called defenders of the working class in our state, that they want to see guaranteed pay increase, after pay increase for people making more than the average taxpayer in the private sector in our state. Who doesn't have the job protection, who doesn't have the other post-employment benefits, who doesn't have the defined pension benefits. In the long run, sustainable and fair compensation is to the benefit of everybody, taxpayers and public sector employees alike. Eventually, this top heavy state economy with fewer and fewer people paying the taxes for more and more, is going to tip over. And then we won't have the resources to support the public sector employees and the state programs that we actually need. Likewise, if we underpaid, we wouldn't be able to deliver the services that our state needs, and our state economy would in fact suffer in the long run. This is a balance we can all accept and embrace no matter what side of the so called negotiating table we're supposed to be on. And remember, everyone in this circle is supposed to be on the side of the taxpayer. This is my sixth year in the state senate, and you notice every single day when the house or the senate is in session, there's many activist groups, there are many lobbyists defending the interests of any number of groups exercising their first amendment rights. The one group that I've never seen with an activist in this building, with a lobbyist in this building, is the taxpayer of this state. They are the forgotten men and women of Connecticut. They have sn/rr 44 been undermined. They have been taken advantage of for decades on end. And today in this state government, we're doubling down on all the mistakes of the past that have made this state completely unaffordable, that has chased people to greener economic pastures, that has resulted in a state with the third highest tax burden in the entire country. Who is going to speak up for them? It's supposed to be us in this circle. It's supposed to be the elected officials in the house, and the senate, and in the governor's office. They are supposed to be the voices, of the millions of taxpayers in this state who go to work, who follow the rules, who aren't guaranteed pay increases for 10 years on end, but they have been failed by the elected leadership of this state, and they continue to be failed. You don't have the third highest taxes in the country, and much lower economic growth than the rest of the country, if the people in leadership are defending taxpayers and are defending the public interest. You are what your record says you are. Connecticut's record over the last eight years is that we've experienced 11% lower economic growth in that time. We would be $40,000,000,000 richer as a state, every year in terms of income if we just grew our state economy at the same rate as the nation as a whole. You must tax what you spend. We have a spending problem in this state, and yet we're raising spending by billions of dollars more today. At the end of this contract, the state employees covered in it, over an eight year period will receive in excess of a 50% pay increase, guaranteed with strong job protections, without even considering the pension and other post-employment benefits and health benefits included? sn/rr 45 How many private sector workers get that guarantee over an eight or nine year period of time? This will not end well. This will not end well for public sector employees or private sector employees. There needs to be a balance. We need to be able to have an economy that grows, that creates jobs and opportunities for middle class and working class people, in order to support the services and programs that we need in state government. But we are becoming such a top heavy economy, with fewer and fewer taxpayers supporting more and more government, that inevitably it's going to tip over. And people who expected, were counting on state government, will be left short changed. This state will not be able to meet its promises if it does not reform the way it's doing business here today. This is not a difficult vote. All the analysis, all the evidence suggests a deep unfairness to taxpayers, the people who don't have an opportunity to lobby, to advocate day after day in this building, who are forgotten every single day by the leadership of this state government. Over eight years, this contract will result in north of a 50% pay increase with guarantees. And already, state government employees were receiving a roughly 28% pay premium over similar private sector workers. We can fairly and generously compensate our state and local workforce, and we should. We can also design state programs and state government to be responsive and responsible with taxpayer dollars. Reduce our tax burden, make our economy grow, so everybody can benefit in the long run and have confidence in Connecticut. If we continue doubling down on the mistakes of the past as we are doing today, this story for our state will end very, very badly. There is opportunity for sn/rr 46 change. I hope eventually we will change course as a state, make Connecticut affordable for all, and create opportunity again. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I just have a couple of quick questions and then a few comments. So through you, Madam President, we have approximately 30 plus bargaining units that are wrapped into this one vote. If the good senator, could just let me know, out of all of these bargaining units, which employees are considered, hazardous duty or possibly essential employees? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, essential employees are different than hazardous duty employees. So hazardous duty employees cover our gamut of different job classifications. Not all of them are incorporated into this. The state police are considered hazardous duty. They are not in this because they bargained separately. The Department of Corrections, most anybody working for the Department of Corrections, which encompasses job classifications in several one of the bargaining units, are considered hazardous duty based on the fact that they work inside the confines of the walls of our prison system. sn/rr 47 I believe you worked there also, and you know the number of people that, work within the confines of our prison system. They might be in the ranks of correctional officer. They're all correctional counselors, correctional maintenance, food service, all fit into the confines of hazardous duty. Now state police, regular troopers are not in this but, correctional state police supervisors are within the confines, of this. Some judicial marshals are considered, hazardous duty and some, they've looked at the emergency spill folks as hazardous duty. So there does--, just a whole host of different, job classifications. And I know as soon as I start mentioning one, I am going to forget one of the others. It's going to quickly remind me that I forgot that they also were hazardous duty. Now essential employees, that group, generally that group and a host of other job classifications like the Department of Transportation. Department of Transportation, not all, but most of the people that work for the Department of Transportation and Labor, laborers, those that, plow our highways. They're considered essential employees. But so are those that have different job classifications in the Department of Children and Families. So, I would say, probably about 30% of our state employees are considered hazardous duty, and probably about 50 to 60% of our state employees are considered essential. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to the senator for answering my questions. And I do know sn/rr 48 that this is a very large list. It's over probably 40,000 employees that would be lumped into this. And the good senator mentioned bargaining separately. And I know that just earlier this year, we voted for the state police and DOT. And I do believe that bargaining separately and voting on them separately is much easier. Someone said that this is an easy vote, whatever way they were going to be voting. But somebody said that. And I find that not to be completely accurate because, there are certain positions and jobs, that will be lumped into this one vote that are more than--, they need more. Some of the positions in here, in my opinion, they need more of a raise. Like, we need to work on recruitment and retention for certain first responders. We see DOT workers that are going out in snowstorms, leaving their family at all hours of the night to respond to incidents. And these are tough jobs. A lot of people don't want to do them. And I think certain positions need more than others. And I see this as just one vote, for a lot of different positions. And that's where I'm troubled, because I'm really not sure what I'm going to be doing here, with this vote, because I do believe that there are a lot of great state employees, not just in hazardous duty, not just in essential. There is a lot of people that go to work every day, and they work very hard, and do their job. And maybe they might be entitled to a raise or, are deserving of a raise. So I don't want to make comments that people would think that, oh, if you're not in law enforcement, you're not going on the roadway and have a dangerous job, that you are not entitled to a raise, you don't deserve a raise, or you're not doing a good job. sn/rr 49 So I just wanted to make sure I got that out on the record. But I do think that based upon the job that you do, and how you're doing that job, that's how someone should be graded on the raise that they would get. But by what they're doing, and what kind of a value that has to our Connecticut residents that ultimately end up paying the bill. And I apologize. I do have a couple more questions, but I just want to try to get that out there before I ask these questions. Through you, Madam President. We did talk about essential and hazardous duty, and thank you to the good senator for explaining the difference. Do we know how many of these employees are still working from home? Through you Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I would go back to the list of employees that I talked about relative to essential and relative to hazardous duty. Obviously, if you're a hazardous duty employee, you are not working from home. I haven't yet seen how you can be a correctional officer or correctional lieutenant and work from home. You obviously have to go in to work. You and I both worked in that environment. You and I both know that. There are jobs that are done primarily, relative to computers. I don't have the numbers of those people that are relative to working from home, but there are in all three branches of the government, whether it's judicial, executive, or legislative who do work from sn/rr 50 home, and conduct business very easily from home if they are someone that is doing meetings. And, both of us have had meetings, on Zoom or Teams. By the way, I prefer Zoom to Teams. So anybody who's calling me for one of those meetings, I prefer Zoom to Teams. Just saying. Very clearly because Teams always gets me confused and which may say something more about my computer skills than anybody else. But, my understanding is the discussion on those who are working from home, is in the next round of negotiations, which will talk about pension and health care and the confines, the discussion on those working from home was decided by an arbitration award, and a court award that the administration tried to change and was unable to change. And so, that is where we are. And I would say, probably, a good 25% of the people spend one day a week working from home or more. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to the good senator for answering the question. I guess my last question would be, we talked about, earlier that the state police and maybe DOT, they were separated from this group or this vote. Is there a reason why so many bargaining units are in this one vote? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. To my knowledge, the only one sn/rr 51 that is separated from this vote is, NP-1. NP-1 took a vote of their members and opted out of the CBAC agreement. Although they are covered by whatever happens with CBAC, on pension and health care. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the senator for answering my questions. I just have a couple of comments. So when we're making decisions here, I tried to fully take into all the possibilities, impacts, weigh everything out. And when you have one vote with a lot of separate areas, it does make it very challenging, in my opinion. And I'm sure even certain people that work for maybe corrections or even the judicial marshals have a pretty tough job. And maybe some of the other professions, that work within the State of Connecticut would say, wow, I'm getting the same raise, as maybe someone that's working from home, or might not have such a challenging job. So I'm sure maybe they have concerns about that as well. I believe I would. I think that, everybody shouldn't get a trophy. I think that people should be recognized for the work they do, at the time they put in, and the results of that work. And when I field phone calls, and my office fields phone calls from my constituents, something I've been hearing a lot lately is I've called this department or this agency, and I'm not getting a callback. Or I'll email, and then I get an email at like 10 o'clock at night. What's going on? sn/rr 52 And I started to kind of investigate a little bit. Try to really understand, is this a work from home thing? Is this a lack of oversight thing? And my comments are not directed towards one agency, or saying that one agency has all bad employees. I am not saying that, but it did raise some of my concerns. And I realized that, each agency does things differently. Maybe they have different policies or procedures, but, I'm not sure there's checks and balances, or a way to gauge the amount of work that one employee is doing over another. And that does leave me with some concerns. I'm honestly torn of what I will do here, because we do have correction. We have judicial. We have a bunch of other individuals that are, in my opinion, essential hazardous duty. Just have a tough job, and we need them to continue to come back to work every day. We need to let them know that the State of Connecticut and the residents appreciate what they do, and that, is partially with respect, or being kind, or compensation, whether it's in the way of better health benefits, better pension, more money. But the fact that we have, one vote, and we're voting on so many different areas, It just, it really, really does, frustrate me that we do that. And we do it often, not just when it comes to raises for state employees, jumble so many bills into one vote, and then a constituent comes up to me and says, why didn't you vote for this bill? And I'm like, well, I like that part of it, and I agree with you there. But there was two other parts that I just thought that those definitely did--, they had negative impacts on our community and our district that far outweighed the good of the part that I did like. So I have to gauge that. sn/rr 53 And that's kind of where I'm struggling here, because, I would like to give our first responders, our law enforcement, our correctional officers, the people that are out on the roads when we're home sleeping more in bed more. I would. It's not my money to do that, but I think we would be able to balance, giving maybe those individuals and professionals maybe a little bit more and maybe certain people that don't have such a strenuous job or the luxury of working from home maybe a little bit less. It'd be good to do that and have that flexibility. But when we're voting like this, it's really, really challenging, really challenging for me. And I'm not sure how I'm going to vote today, and I'll listen to the rest of the conversation and possible debate. But I will say if I was the deciding vote, that if this was going to fail and our correction officers and judicial staff and certain other essential employees that keep our community safe, I probably would vote yes. I know I would vote yes. If I was that deciding factor, I would, because I think it's that important that we make sure we're taking care of our correctional staff, our marshals, and the people that do have tough jobs. Transportation's in there, a few others. We have, so many great people that go to work every day, and do so much good, and I firmly believe they need to be compensated. But I am challenged, on the decision that I have before me because I do believe that the cost of living in Connecticut is outrageous, and this contributes to that. We're going to be giving everyone a blanket raise across the board, and I am not sure which one, outweighs the other. But again, if I was the deciding vote, I would vote for it just to make sure that the brave men and women that have to miss sn/rr 54 holidays, and birthdays, and all these special events and get held over were compensated for the great work that they do to know that we appreciate them, I would vote yes. But I do have to see the rest of the debate, and see what happens here further. I just hope that in the future, we have the ability to parse this out and really analyze the different agencies, different bargaining units separately, so we could make an educated and weighted decision, and then I could justify my decision to my constituents. God bless you. I could justify my decisions to my constituents, which I think is so important. I want to thank the good senator for answering my questions, and thank you, Madam President.

Madam President.

Madam President.

Madam President, I'll speak [01:48:06 inaudible]. sn/rr 55

That's okay.

Thank you, Senator Harding. Senator Flexer.

Thank you, Senator Flexer. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk announce the vote.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally if you would, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. sn/rr 63

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 66

Senator McCrory. Let's get the microphone working, sir.

There we go. We can hear you loud and clear.

I am fantastic.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO Number 4641, Senate Amendment A.

Yes. Madam President, Madam President, I would like to discuss this amendment. It is a strike-all amendment, and it actually includes a couple of pieces of legislation that we put together. Now this year, we try to be a little fair and not put a whole bunch of bills together to make an aircraft carrier. So I wouldn't call this an aircraft carrier. Let's just call it a helicopter. Okay? So this includes Senate Bill 220, 221, 223, and 321. It simply says, and I will go section by section to explain this piece of legislation. Section 1 and 2 is originally from the underlying bill, SB 220, that requires the state department of education to develop guidelines, what we call our MTSS, which is our multi-tier systems of support, or our RTI, which is our response to literacy. Basically, this is a program that we are working on to make sure we put supports in place for children who are not reading on appropriate grade level by grade three. We want to make sure this piece of legislation qualifies the requirement that school boards administer reading assessments at least three times per year. This is something that all our school districts are doing, and it also gives them opportunity to use assessments that are not necessarily teaching to the test, but actually do a thorough investigation on why our children are not reading on grade level by grade three. sn/rr 68 Sections 3 and 4 are originally from our inspiring educator Bill, SB 221. This bill expand eligibility within the existing teacher diversity scholarship program to form subgroups that are underrepresented in our teaching profession. I will give you a little more insight to that. Currently, what we had in our original bill from a couple years ago, This aspiring educators opportunity only existed in school districts that were in alliance. Now this opportunity is opened up to all school districts in the state of Connecticut so that all these young people who are inspiring to become an educator will have the opportunity to pursue this scholarship program. And I will have more on this in a minute. Sections 5 and 6 is originally from our Senate Bill 312. This establishes a working group which will be developed a ASL curriculum for our recommending for teachers who want to be certified and guidance on our ASL curriculum. And our ASL stands for our American Sign Language curriculum. So the SDE will create a working group to work with individuals around curriculum, guidance, and teacher prep programs in that capacity. And finally, Section 7 speaks to our original paraeducator health subsidy bill, which was SB 223. It makes permanent and existing paraeducator health subsidy program and ensures all our public school systems, all the individuals in our school systems who are working in our public school system have access to this subsidy. That concludes the sections of the bill, and I did want to go a little further just to give some people a little history in regards to why we have this expiring educators bill, the part that I'm really, really excited about. I'm really excited about all sn/rr 69 sections of the bill, but I want to get some context to why we need aspiring educators. If you've been following legislation committee, you often hear the term that I use, and many people in the committee use that, you can't be what you don't see. And representation is extremely important in all contexts, especially when it comes to education, because we always say the most important person in a child's educational system is the person who is standing in front of that classroom. And more importantly, all the research shows that all our children win. Every child in this state, in this country, win when they are educated by a diverse teaching population. Now, what does that mean, basically? Well, if you put a diverse population of teachers in a child's life, their education outcomes are uplifted. All of them. Don't matter if you're poor. Don't matter if you're wealthy. Don't matter if you're white, black, brown, yellow, green. Your academic levels increase. The data shows that. Representation is extremely important. Now I'm going to give you an example, a historic example, about representation and why it's important. Some of you might remember a show that came on TV back in the mid-1960s. It was called Star Trek. And some of you might be familiar with it. I was too young when it came out because I was born in '66, and I was too young to really understand and comprehend the show called Star Trek. But let me tell you something about a little Star Trek and what representation mean in that show. There was a woman on that show called -- her real name was Nichelle Nichols. She played the role of Niota Uhara. She was the black woman that was the communication officer, and her job was handling systems on that show, on Star Trek. I forgot the name of the sn/rr 70 enterprise. She was in charge of systems on enterprise, and she spoke multiple languages. This was very unusual at this time on television because many roles for African American women, they were pretty much viewed as domestics, very subservient, mammy-type roles, but this show a black woman in a position of authority and responsibility. Now, one of the things I must point out to you is, fast forward, the reason why our American space program ended up with a cast of astronauts that don't look like the same is because of her role and what she did in that role. Let me tell you. In 1966, the role came out. After the first year, she was disappointed in her lines. Her lines were being cut. She didn't feel like she was being appreciated on the show. She wasn't receiving too much fan mail, things that we used to do back then. Back then, people used to write and tell you how they felt about you on a show. She didn't really enjoy her first experience. She didn't think it was hitting or anything. She didn't realize it was important. And she went to producer of the show, the guy name was Gene Rottenberry, and she said, I don't think I want to come back for season two. This is a true story. She said, I don't think I want to come back for season two. And he said, wait. Just think about it over the weekend, and then let's come back to money and let's discuss it. So during that weekend, what happened to her, Nichelle went to an event. It was an NAACP event. And someone came up to her and said, hey, there's a fan that want to meet you. He'd been watching you on his show, and he said he's going to meet you. She turned around, and the person that wanted to meet her was Dr. Martin Luther King Junior. And he told her that, you know what? I like your role on sn/rr 71 that show. Matter of fact, I allow my children to stay up late so they can watch you on this show. Because this is the first time that they see someone that looks like you in a role that is intelligent, that's in authority, and not subsidiary. And she said to him, Dr. King, I don't think I want to go back. Matter of fact, I got an opportunity to go on Broadway and perform. I got a role to sing or dance. He said, please don't do that. Because if you do that, children will not see themselves in the future. Because Star Trek was about what was going to happen in the future. He said that role will go away. Imagine this, 10 years later, after that show was over, NASA was recruiting for the space program, the space shuttle. They're going out and recruit people to be a part of our new space program. And what NASA did was go to Nichelle Nichols and ask her to help recruit for NASA. Because at that time, when NASA were recruiting, they only had 1,500 applicants for the space program. And of those 1,500 applicants, less than 100 were women, and less than 35 were people of color. And Nichelle Nichols said, you know what? I will go out and recruit for NASA. However, I'm going to do the best I can, and I'm going to make sure I bring you qualified individuals that can take part in NASA, in our space program. And she told them, and if you do not treat these people fairly, I will tell the world that I brought qualified individuals to you, and you didn't treat them fairly. They said, I'm with you. After four months of recruiting all over the country, after four months, that application pool went from 1,500 people to 8,000 individuals of which 1,000 of them were women, of which, I'm sorry, 1,500 of them were women and 1,000 were people of color. sn/rr 72 This was in the mid-70s. Fast forward, NASA out of all those 8,000 individuals NASA selected 35 individuals to be part of the program. Of those 35 individuals that NASA selected, they got the first woman, her name was Sally Ride, be the first woman to go in space. They also recruited Ellison Onizuka, who was the first Asian American to go in space. They also recruited Guion Bluford, who was the first African American male to go in space out of that 35. They also recruited a man named Ronald McNair, who's the second African American to go into space. And he has a connection to a great fraternity called Omega Psi Phi fraternity, but more so to a connection to Connecticut because his uncle lived right here in Hartford. And Ron McNair used to visit his uncle in the summertime right here in the state of Connecticut. They also recruited Frederick Gregory, who became the first African American male to command a shuttle mission. And not only that, representation is so important, there's a young lady that you might be familiar with named Mae Jemison. Mae Jemison was the first black woman to go in space. And when they interviewed Mae Jemison, she said that the reason why she applied to NASA was because she saw Nichelle Nichols on Star Trek when she was a child. And that inspired her to become an astronaut. And the last part of the story is this, Mae Jemison actually wind up appearing on the episode of Star Trek as the first true astronaut on that show. I say all that to say representation is important, and everyone's win when we're taught by a diverse teaching population. All the boats rides, and what I just told you was a facts. So at this point, I can't say Madam President, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks. sn/rr 73

I move acceptance.

Yes. Mr. President, good to see you up there today. And, thank you for recognizing me. Mr. President, I do rise in support of the moved amendment. I guess we'll just talk about it as the moved amendment, even though we haven't voted on it yet. I thank the good chair for sharing the story. I was a big Star Trek fan, and I don't know that, and the good Senator and I are about the same age. I think he's actually a year and a couple of days older than me. I'll never catch up to that. But that was a great show. Great piece of Americana, if you will, in history that many of us in this circle grew up watching. And it certainly spoke wildly to diversity, with not only Aurora on there, but also represented the Asian communities, and just a very, very, interesting show for that point in time in our history. Regarding Senate Bill 220 and the amendment on the floor, I'm very proud to share that much of the content of this document is something that I had the pleasure of working with the House chair of the education committee, Representative Leeper, and with [Konkan to Kraft]. And that is specific not to the sn/rr 74 aspiring educators piece, which I'm glad is in here, as well, but more to the actual title of the bill, which is An Act Concerning Student Literacy. And what we recognized in the creation of some of this language, this policy that's before us for consideration, is that when we passed all of the right to read legislation a couple years ago, which met with some opposition both here in the Senate and in the House. There were concerns, and maybe a few of those concerns are still valid today and still on the table. But for the most part, I think most of our schools across Connecticut have learned to live with the right to read legislation and the new curriculum. But one of the things we recognized, again, with the help of Konkan, we were missing some of the supports necessary to help our educators be as successful as possible with this new curriculum. And, again, for some districts, there was -- as I'm sure the good chair of the education committee will recall as well, there were concerns about us taking away curriculum they were using successfully with good results and, quote, unquote, forcing them to do something different. So we felt it was incumbent, as we came into this next year of right to read being in place, to carefully examine what was missing, what we need to do to ensure that right to read with our youngest learners, kindergarten through third grade, was actually working. And that's a lot of what we see in the first few sections of this bill. So, Mr. President, I do have a few questions that I'd like to go back and forth with the good chair on, if I may.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, through you, I know we went through a quick explanation of sections, but maybe the good Senator could take a moment just to talk a little bit more about Section 1 and, actually, specifically, the testing piece in Section 1 Subsection B. And just tell us why is this necessary? Why are we doing this? Through you.

Yes. So what we're actually trying to do here is identify the struggling students and offer them targeted personalized instruction to meet their needs with services that will increase intensity, for example, in fluency and duration, and students that are high needs. So what we really want to do is see if we realize a child is not performing at the level they need to, we want to put intense instruction in at a very early age, before third grade, because after third grade, the reality is kids don't learn how to read, they read to learn. And if you don't have the skill sets to learn how to read, you can't learn to read after third grade. So we put intense, individualized instruction for kids who are in K to three. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I just want to be sure and thank you for the answer from the good Senator. I'm looking at LCO 4641, and I'm questioning lines 31 through 38 in the actual LCO document because I -- that was a great answer to a different question, but not the -- So let me just call it out, and so in case the good Senator doesn't have it in front of him. This section talks about, in the school year commencing in July this year, we will be administering testing. Okay? And we'll be administering this testing at least three times during the school year, and for the purpose of identifying students who are below grade level in reading and are not in need of additional supports. So, I think we're on the same page now, perhaps. I think I have the underlying bill as well. But at any rate, through you, Mr. President, why are we doing this?

Yeah. Through you, Mr. President, we're just codified. This is what's already required in our schools, and we're just codifying it through this piece of legislation. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you. So, essentially, I guess the answer that I'm trying to flesh out here is that we realized sn/rr 77 with some of the prior curriculum that was being used in some school systems, there was testing that was going on, but it wasn't necessarily identifying that we had students that were truly below reading level. And that was as we understood the need for right to read, and we debated it and argued back and forth that the -- we weren't properly assessing students to understand where they were at. And this unfortunately produced some horrific results across Connecticut. We had the majority of our school systems, regardless of where they were, in what dirt they were in, or any of that, where we had school systems that were routinely underperforming across the board. And we have that terrible example from Hartford public schools with a student that came to us and couldn't read or write and had graduated. So, that's part of what I think is so important about what we're doing in this bill is that we are being very deliberate in our actions here and policy to make sure that if this curriculum is going to work and if we believe in it and if we support it and if we required every public school system in Connecticut to adopt it, which is all things that we believe and all things that we've done, then we have to ensure that it's working. And we did not necessarily have that under our old system. And that's critically important. Some people have questioned that in my district, I'm very fortunate to have, have constituents who actually look at this stuff that we're doing here in the chamber, and they question things, which is wonderful. And they said, you reduce the amount of testing that we're doing. You took away testing, and we oppose that. And here you are now, you're doing three times a year, testing reading capability. sn/rr 78 I have the good fortune, Mr. President, on occasion when my schedule allows, to teach at the freshman college level. And it never ceases to amaze me, how many students come in and they can read and write, but they don't really do it well at all. And it doesn't matter what they look like. It doesn't matter where they've come from. They're all in a college freshman English class. And I just think it's so incredibly important for us to make sure that what we're doing is working. Okay. So in that same vein, Mr. President, through you to the good chair, Section 2 at lines 70 through 75 inclusive, talk about the guidance to local and regional boards of education. I don't remember what we were intending to do here. And I'm wondering if maybe the good chair can help explain what will that guidance look like and why will this be helpful? Through you.

Yeah. That's what I was referring to with our multi- tiered guidance approach. And it gives us a better assessment of where our children are and putting the supports in place when we find out that they might need extra support. And that's where we can individualize the instruction they need for individual students. And I also want to add back to what you said in your last comment, which you're absolutely right. If you recall when you were younger, when you were working at my age, this concept was called the science of reading. And many times, you might remember when your teacher asked you to read a word, and you couldn't figure it sn/rr 79 out, she told you, or he told you to what? Sound it out. That's what they said do. And we grew up doing that, and it was very good. Unfortunately, years later, we got away from the basics of reteaching how to read, and we came up with this concept called whole language approach. And the whole language approach didn't work for everyone. The home language approach assume that you had new specific things and new stuff that will come natural to you, and we found out many kids do not have the basic skill sets. So we wanted to make sure with this multi-tiered system approach, we wanted to use -- yes. Hold language can be useful, but we got to get back to the basics of sounding out words and know structures to text and things of that matter too. So this is what we're doing with our RTI approach and our MTSS approach. Through you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, for the good Senator, for the answer and the additional commentary. I couldn't agree more. And I do remember sounding it out. Phonics, I think, is what we called that, Doug. That was the old language. So, I want to talk more. Again, I thank the Senator for the great example, earlier, regarding the need for diversity within our public schools. 50 years ago, Star Trek was on TV, and Connecticut has changed substantially. The makeup of our citizenry has changed substantially. Certainly, I can say that I have proudly supported in the 12 years that I've been under this gold dome, many, many pieces of legislation to make us fix the sn/rr 80 problem of not having the right representation in our classrooms. Minority teacher recruitment legislation, Senator McCrory and I worked on for many different years here, and successfully passed. And we realized that, over time, that wasn't necessarily working despite the best efforts of the state department of education and our conversations and debates here in the Senate and down in the House. So, the aspiring educator scholarship program will hopefully finally get us to a better point in time with diversifying our teacher population across Connecticut. I guess even though we had a really great explanation, Mr. President, through you, if the good chair of the education committee might just explain a little bit of how, besides the name change, how has the program changed from what it was prior to what it is right now, and what it will be after passage of this bill. And what I'm looking at specifically is how the parameters for being accepted for a scholarship through the aspiring educators scholarship program has now changed. Through you.

So, basically, how it changed first of all, when we first started -- first of all, I want to thank you for the support over the years for the MTR change. The difference in the program now is before when we first initially started, it was only for students who were graduating from Alliance District Schools. That was our mostly low-achieving schools, about 25, 30 school districts across the state of Connecticut. sn/rr 81 And we thought that we'll do a great job of recruiting kids from those communities becoming to a field of education. What we realized that we have children in all school districts across the state of Connecticut that can benefit from opportunity of -- earning this scholarship opportunity. So we expand the opportunities beyond the state of Connecticut. Another thing that we didn't do before we put money into this program to advertise it because so many individuals did not know that this scholarship actually exists. And one of the things I also want to add is the fact that we have a teacher shortage all over the state of -- not just in the state of Connecticut, but we have it all over our country. So, therefore, if we think that we're going to go out and recruit kids from other states to come to Connecticut, that's just not going to happen. We have to grow our own. So this program actually pour a little more water and fertilize the children in our own state to actually get them, encourage them to go in the field of education so they can come back and stay in the state of Connecticut and teach. So we can grow our own and get the results that we know we can get when we have a diverse teaching population. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I really appreciate the additional explanation. It's exactly what I believe to be what we're doing here. The additional language here includes a discussion. I'm just trying to find it in my notes regarding an unrepresented population subgroup. sn/rr 82 Unrepresented population subgroup, which I believe is right around Section E in the amendment. I'm just wondering if we could take -- just for the purpose of intent and clarification, if the good chair of the education committee, Mr. President, would help us to understand what is an unrepresented population subgroup. And I guess he'll probably add to this if I know him at all, why it is so important. Through you.

So underrepresented subgroup could include anyone based on race, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic status, or disability. So, again, when we say underrepresented, an underrepresented subgroup can be in the field of education, a male teaching elementary school. We don't see that. Very rarely does it exist. Matter of fact, diverse males -- let me see how I get this right. In state of Connecticut, less than 2% of our teachers are men of color. That's the underrepresented subgroup. If you want to be very frank about it, just walk into any school in the state of Connecticut and tell me who you don't see, and that will be an underrepresented subgroup. So it could be by, again, disability. It could be by gender. But more importantly, also, it's going to be by ethnic. Though you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate that. I think that's so critically important to understand sn/rr 83 as a huge change to the availability of the scholarship program for individuals who want to be in Connecticut and teaching in our amazing public schools all across the state. And I think the last thing that we should put on the record here in the debate regarding the aspiring educators scholarship program, at least in terms of eligibility, is that the program, as it stands today, prior to passage of this bill, and downstairs and up to the governor's office, is that applicants, as of right now, have to come from an Alliance district. And we're changing that. So you can come from anywhere in Connecticut and have this wider spectrum of being in that unrepresented population subgroup that the good chair just pointed out. Mr. President, I have a couple of more questions regarding the actual scholarship. The scholarship, if I understand correctly from my reading of the bill, is up to $10,000 for a student who is in an institution of higher education in a teacher preparation program. Is that actually money that is given directly to the student, or is that paid to the college or university that they are studying at? Through you.

Actually, scholarship is paid toward the institution that the student will be attending, and it can be up to $10,000 dollars, and it's specifically used for the scholarship. And we wanted to make it for a scholarship because many times students can get resources from other places, and we don't want to make sure they utilize this $10,000 for the scholarship, and they use the other people room of sn/rr 84 order, things of that magnitude. Through you, Mr. President?

Thank you, Mr. President. I think that's, again, another important piece of clarity for intent that we are not simply handing a person who thinks they want to be a teacher or has started a program, but they're not sure. We're not handing them $10,000, and they can go very much like some of the federal financial aid programs work, where the money can be used for something besides offsetting the cost of education. This is directly going to help offset the expense of them going through teacher training, which we know for many, many years, not just in the time that the good Senator and I have respectively served here in Hartford, but also, prior to our time here that teacher training has been a -- the cost of teacher training has been a stumbling point or even a barrier for some people getting involved in the career of wanting to teach young people. So, that's an important part again of -- the existing program did this. And now with the expansion, we're opening that up to many more individuals. And the only other thing I want to comment on regarding the scholarship program is -- just because I think it's important, again, for those that are listening to understand. Where is the funding for the scholarship coming from? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. Buddy, coming from the state budget. And we actually have resources in the budget for the program right now because, initially, we did not come nowhere close to spending the amount of money that we have budgeted for. So we do have money for it, going forward, and also have money for marketing. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, you sit on the Appropriations Committee as well, so I do not have to ask the time-honored question, is this in the budget? When we're talking about the funding, it is in the budget. And as the good Senator spoke to, we don't ever spend the amount that is necessarily budgeted. Which takes me to my last question regarding this part of the bill, and that is the provision in Section 3, Subsection E, I believe that speaks to what can be done with any unexpended funds. And if the good chair might be able to explain what that means, the unexpended funds, I think we understand would be those that have been appropriated and properly budgeted. And I see Senator Osten walked in as we're talking about appropriations issues. But what are these funds used for if they're not used for the scholarship program? Through you, Mr. President.

sn/rr 86 Yes. We actually put in this piece of legislation that the State Department of Education can use up to $250,000 to advertise the program. I think the program got off to a slow start because a lot of the people in the state of Canada didn't know it existed, because we didn't do a great job of advertising. So we can use up to $250,000 of used funds that was supposed to be marked for scholarship to do for advertising. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. And again, I appreciate that. That's important to point out and to call out because, sometimes, we say unexpended funds can just be put into some buckets somewhere, and we don't necessarily understand where the money is being spent. This is actually going to be used to promote the program to attract potential teachers to come to Connecticut and have an offset available through this program if they meet the standards or the -- not the standards, but the requirements for being in one of those underrepresented groups. So we've tied it all together now as to where the money goes, where the money comes from, where it goes, how the unspent funds are reallocated to promote the program, which, quite honestly, is a very good use of taxpayer dollars and improving what is already a pretty darn good public education system here in Connecticut. So, Mr. President, just a few more questions, I promise, and I'll wrap up. Section 4 of the amendment before us talks about collection of a whole bunch of different types of data. And again, I'm wondering for the purpose of intent, could the sn/rr 87 good chair maybe help us understand what the commissioner of education is going to do with the data that is outlined in -- it looks like lines 146 through about 162 in the LCO 4641. Through you.

Yeah. Well, basically, we're collecting data so it can be used for the program, so we know we can determine who are the underrepresented groups. That's why we're collecting data. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. So essentially, we're qualifying what we talked about just a moment ago with the aspiring educators piece, and also eligibility for aspiring educators, and also where we stand with respect to where the shortage areas are, where the greatest need is. Again, I think this is an important part of the bill so that we can move forward and direct resources, it feels like to me as a country legislator if you will, as opposed to a big city legislator here in Connecticut that we focus many times in the -- many years I've been here, we focus on looking at the big city needs, perhaps over some of the smaller cities or smaller towns. This will allow for, in my humble opinion, a more comprehensive understanding, through good data collection from the State Department of Education, to really call out and identify where the shortages sn/rr 88 are. And I think that's so important because we cannot make an assumption that, because I'm a country legislator, I don't have teachers that fit within that group that we identified a moment ago that are eligible for the aspiring educators program. So that's really important, and again, I thank the good chair for helping to understand that. Section 5 of the bill, I think, is self-explanatory, five and six regarding the American Sign Language Working Group. Mr. President, this is something that we have talked about in this chamber and in the education committee for a number of years. American Sign Language is something that I never understood why we didn't include that already in curriculum. It helps a very special subset of our population, and why we are not using that in our public school environments already. It kind of baffled me. And I know we've seen attempts to do this. This is a work group which will help us to further understand the need and what we actually need to do going forward, but it's a huge step in the right direction for, again, improving the delivery of education in our public schools. Mr. President, lastly, and this is probably the part of the bill that we had more discussion on our side of the building, if you will, with respect to this health plan benefit that is included for para educators. Mr. President, through you, if the good chair could just briefly tell us what are we doing here with this section, Section 7? Through you.

sn/rr 89 Yeah. Through you, Mr. President, we're making the subsidy permanent, and unfortunately, when we passed this bill last year, we passed it for all public schools. Unfortunately, somehow, someway, the payers in our charter school were not included. So, therefore, we're putting the payers of our charter schools into the program just like all the other payers in all our public school systems. Through you, Mr. President?

Thank you, Mr. President. And Mr. President, I know that the amendment has up to a $10 million per year fiscal note. Is this in the budget, or is this within available appropriations? Through you.

Easiest question is in the budget. Through you, Mr. President.

Okay. I'm shaking my head. I don't mean to question the answer of the good chair of the education committee, but I believe it's within available appropriations. And I know Senator Osten left the room, but it's okay either way. sn/rr 90 But I think the point here is that we are fixing something that we did not address in the past regarding taking care of our paras and some of their needs as well. Mr. President, clearly, I stand in strong support of the legislation before us. I would urge adoption of the amendment. And thank you.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment will be adopted. Would you care to remark further on the underlying bill as amended, Senator Berthel?

Thank you. Further comment, question on the bill. Would you care to remark further? Would you care to remark further? If not --

Thank you, Senator McCrory. Great way to close that out. If there are no further comments, the vote will be open. Mr. Clerk, would you announce the pendency of a roll call vote?

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the vote will be locked. And Mr. Clerk, would you announce the tally?

Thank you, Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark? The bill passed as amended. Mr. Clark.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Maroney, good afternoon.

Would you care to remark further?

LCO Number 5001, Senate Amendment A. sn/rr 93

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a strike-all amendment that, in effect, becomes the bill. We are updating our data breach regulations to add a definition of a massive data breach, or massive breach of security. The massive breach of security is a breach of security in which the personal information of over 100,000 residents may be exposed. If there is a massive breach of security, we then add in the requirement for doing a forensic audit, and that the attorney general may request that audit. With that, I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. President. I must not make that good of an impression. I got to start razzing a little bit more, maybe to remember my name, but I'm only teasing with you, Mr. President. So, I know we're talking about the amendment, which will become the bill. So I think it's fitting that our conversation could be on the amendment before us. If the good Senator could just explain the difference between the bill that was originally proposed and went through the public hearing, to the bill we have, or the amended bill we have in front of us today? Through you, Mr. President. sn/rr 94

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for the question. The main change was that we removed debit cards and credit cards for being that massive breach of security. The reason is most small businesses, if they were likely to have a breach, if a restaurant had -- they may have credit card numbers. And that's what they would have. The other reason we didn't think that was necessary is there are already strong consumer protections in the event of a breach of your credit or debit card numbers. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Thank you for answering the question. Really, the only part that changed was not including credit card information as a qualifying hit for personal or sensitive information from customers. Is there anything else at all besides not including the credit card information to count again towards the amount of customers you have? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President, I believe there may have been some other small changes. One of them, I sn/rr 95 believe, was that following the 60 days, it didn't say that they had to hand in this report of the forensic audit, so lines 192 to 198. They instead had to give a reasonable timeline to prepare the detailed forensic report. And then, another change from earlier, and I can't remember if this was from the original bill, if this was in the substitute language, or not, but it changed from the original bill was that instead of automatically requiring it be handed in, it will be submitted to the attorney general upon request by the attorney general. Also, lines 238 to 242, I'm not sure if this is a change from the substitute language or the underlying bill, but where we said that this report would not constitute the extent any forensic report prepared pursuant to this section provides information subject to attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Submission of the report to the attorney general shall not constitute a waiver of that privilege. So I believe that was added since the original bill after testimony. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, and thank you to the good Senator for answering that question. And when we get back to the response to that question, we talked about the work product and maybe not being utilized for the other types of litigation. I'll get back to that. I guess I want to start kind of what this bill is really addressing. In the public hearing, we talked about a lot of different things when it came to consumer sn/rr 96 protection, and we talk about data privacy. We had a bunch of bills over the last couple of weeks that address data privacy and how important it is and how relevant it has become because of the amount of people utilizing computers and different technology, and scams to take people's identity, take their money, and we understand that our population is vulnerable to that in many ways, and there are bad actors that that will take this information, and then utilize it to essentially steal from Connecticut residents. So I do think it's important that we address it. But when we were talking about this, and we had our public hearing, my understanding was this is somewhat already in place. If a Connecticut business, larger business that holds a lot of data, and sensitive data of Connecticut residents, if there were a breach of any type, that they would have to disclose that, and they -- for the most part, most companies were providing that information to the attorney general's office, and then more so - - not just, hey, we were breached. There was some type of cyber-attack or hack that stole data, but it would give more information. It would talk about what type of data, how many people probably give that information, maybe talk about how it happened so they could learn from that. And I believe that that's already happening. So I just asked a good Senator, you know, what is the purpose for this legislation if, in fact, it is happening? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. It's actually an excellent question, and you're correct. This actually modifies existing sn/rr 97 statute. And in the existing statute, when there is a data breach, there's a responsibility of the company to notify the person. The statute in there, you can go through, and it'll say how they should notify the person. If it's only an online account, it could be when they log in again or by sending them an email. What this adds in is that requirement for that forensic audit, in the event of that massive breach of security. So that's the big difference here is it requires them to hire a third party to do a forensic audit to determine how the breach happened, the extent of it. As you mentioned, there are a few other requirements in there that they have to determine. And this will assist, one, potentially the attorney general and enforcement if it's requested, but it's mainly to help, as much it also helps the company to make sure that they are protecting their data going forward. So, as you mentioned, this is existing legislation. Last year in the state of Connecticut, there are over 2,300 data breaches. Only seven of those would have qualified as a massive data breach or massive breach of security, as defined in this piece of legislation. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you. And thank you for breaking that down a little further. So we heard the number of breaches that were in Connecticut. Clearly, we know that number because there's some type of reporting. As you said, it's in current law. And only seven of those data breaches would have qualified to be, I guess, governed by this amended bill before us. And does the good Senator know if sn/rr 98 those seven companies provided the information to the attorney general's office? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. I think part of the reason for this legislation is it has been difficult for the attorney general to get the information that they need when they are doing the enforcement actions. So I think that's why they've added this requirement for the report, and then even more so than the report, a timeline for when you must do the report. Within start out we'll provide a reasonable timeline within 60 days of notifying for the breach. So, through you.

Thank you. And thank you for answering that question. So when we attempt to correct the problem or try to -- especially in this committee, protect consumers, we balance possible negative consequences and unintended consequences. And I probably sound like a broken record because I bring that up a lot, but I do think it's very, very important we take that into consideration. And one of the trade-offs is hurting businesses. And we hear from our business community all the time that doing business in Connecticut is challenging, it's expensive, and a lot of other states do not have the same burdens we have, the same cost of doing sn/rr 99 business, and we want to make sure that while trying to do something noble, and well-intended, and really needs to be done, that we're not going to put a burden on businesses, that will either put them out of business, or possibly push them out of the state of Connecticut. And if there was only seven companies that would have really fell underneath the bill that we have before us, and most of them provided the data and the information needed to the attorney general's office, again, I'm just a little confused of the reason for doing this, and I just want -- I really just want to make sure that we're taking that into consideration, because these techs, these cyber-attacks, the way hackers are getting in, is changing every day. We have our cell phones, and you'll see it's new updates. So you update every other week or something. A lot of that is to fix a glitch, but some of it is to fix a vulnerability in the system because there's some bad actor that's trying to find a way to break through a firewall or break through the securities that the providers put in place to protect your information, and I do think it's a great thing. And I understand it gets more and more complicated and hard to determine how it happened, when it happened, and I just want to make sure that smaller businesses might get wrapped up in this. Like, I want to make sure that we talked about a very small number of businesses that again would even be governed by this because, like we said, seven of all the data breaches would have qualified to be governed by this amendment, that it doesn't put a burden on smaller businesses. So, if I could just ask, if the good Senator knows, what is the process for a company to determine how the breach happened, when, where, and how they go about getting that information to the AG's office sn/rr 100 for their analysis and review, and whatever they need to process after getting the data? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, most of the requirements are triggered when they become aware of the breach. And so when they become aware, and then if it's likely to be a massive breach of security, again, where that's over the date of over 100,000 people have been released. That's when it would trigger the requirement for these forensic audits. And the forensic audits would look into those issues that you had mentioned, to discover how it happened. Let's see. The forensic audit. So, lines 177 through 198. Starting on line 187, prepare a detailed forensic report disclosing at a minimum the results of the forensic examination and analysis, how such unauthorized access or use occurred as well as root causes of such unauthorized access or use to the extent the forensics examination and analysis revealed that information, and then again not later than 60 days following the discovery of the unauthorized access, that's when they would have to give a reasonable timeline for producing that report, to the attorney general. So, how it was accessed, that type of information would come from the forensic report. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for answering that question. So a lot of these large sn/rr 101 companies that would have that data have that many customers' sensitive information, probably has a large tech operation. They have a whole tech department like we have here in the state capital, who, by the way, do a phenomenal job. But do we know if all of those companies have the capability to run that kind of an audit? So, my understanding is they would need to have certain software, equipment, and training to run that type of forensic analysis. I believe Cellebrite, which I think law enforcement, FBI uses, a lot of bigger businesses use them. Maybe Oxygen is also a software that allows you to really analyze this forensic data, the metadata, things that you really can't see on the computer or on your phone. It's more in the background, and that's how we will get down to the nuts and bolts of what happened, when it happened, how it happened, all of those things. Do we know if the seven companies that would have fell under this have that type of staff to address this concern? And if they did, would they be able to do this analysis their own staff, or do they need to have a third party do it? Through you, Madam President.

Through you. Thank you for the question. This would require the company to hire a third party to perform the audit. In the event the company does not hire the third party, the attorney general could hire a third party to do the audit. But in both cases, the cost of the audit would be borne by the company. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 102

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for answering that question. And do we know if any other states have anything like this in place now that there's a state agency that would govern this type of possible data breach? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, I'm not as familiar with the data breach, legislation of various states, as I am with the data privacy legislation, but I know that we were early on in the states requiring this, and we were actually, I believe, the first state who had an affirmative defense for cybersecurity that has been modeled by other states. The one thing I will add is that this legislation does seem to be helping because last year, I think, was the first year the total number went down nationwide. Again, that's not necessarily in Connecticut because we know we had over 2,300 breaches. Although, as you mentioned, with the capabilities of agentic AI and seeing new models released, we know it's likely to be more problems in the future. So, through you, Madam President.

sn/rr 103 Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, for the good Senator, for answering my question and explaining some of the things that we see more frequently than we haven't in the past. And I understand the concern, and I understand why it's important for there to be one agency that will handle this type of problem, and we could learn from it, and we could be able to address these possible concerns as they're growing to become more frequent, unfortunately. And I totally get that we have to do something to protect individuals personal and sensitive information. And then when a company has that amount of data, health data, financial, very sensitive data, in the wrong hands, it is valuable, and people will come after it. And I get that we have to have one place to address all of it. But it sounds like, as the good Senator said, we already have it in place. And from my conversations with the agency, there's only a few of the incidents that happened over the last couple of years that did not abide by the law that's currently on the books. And I really want to support this. I want to find a way to alleviate the concerns of doing the right thing, and then not having the unintended consequence. And I think we're close. But when we talk about 100,000 people, if you're a decent-sized business, and you have 10,000 clients a year, in 10 years, you're going to have that data on your system. So, as companies grow, and we want them to grow, and we want more companies to come here in Connecticut, I think more companies would fall under this. And I think especially as they may become more frequent, it may become a bigger issue, a bigger problem. And when we don't know what other states are doing, and if they are putting this -- again, I don't want sn/rr 104 to say reasonable burden, but when you have that kind of information, you got to make sure you're doing the right thing. And I just really have to take all of those factors into consideration to realize, if we put this forward and it becomes a burden, and it becomes expensive, will it deter people from staying here or coming here if other states aren't doing it in this way? I understand that if people aren't following the rules, you need something to kind of nudge them in the right direction. And maybe that is some type of consequence for not following the rules. I just have concerns that this might be a bigger problem, more frequent, and now it may hurt the businesses that are here in Connecticut. So I'm trying to find a way to justify a yes vote here. You know, when we see digital forensics, people think about what's on TV, people think about you plug in a computer, you hit a button, it's going to tell you everything. My understanding of digital forensics is a little bit different. I have a little bit of knowledge about it, understand it a little bit, have a little bit of experience with it. And it is rather expensive. There are not a lot of private companies that do this type of forensic investigation. And if there is a company that's doing it, they're doing it to mitigate risk for their own company. So that's something that I see could be a challenge in a couple of different ways. One, they're going to have an increased cost, and it's not cheap. The digital forensics software the licenses alone could be $20, 30,000 a year. Then you need people to have the proper training, to be certified in it. And then it's probably $5, 6, 7, $800 an hour to do this work. So those are concerns that I have. We talk about providing this information to the attorney general's sn/rr 105 office. My understanding is the reason for that is we could learn. They're not looking for this data for an I gotcha. They're not looking for it to punish them. They're looking for it so they could learn from the mistakes that may have been there, the vulnerabilities, and then try to find a way to address it, and then possibly, and this is an assumption, but maybe a good Senator could shed some light, they could then take what they find, compare it to other data breaches, and then maybe go get the bad actors, the people that we really need to punish. Is that the reason that they want to collect the data and then be able to have this information? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. They just want to determine that there were reasonable data security measures, and that really is part of the underlying statute that you had to have had reasonable data security measures. And so the only way they can really determine that would be through that type of a forensic audit, or one of the best ways to determine that. I just also want to point out that many of the companies who are large enough to have that much data that may be breached will have some form of cybersecurity insurance, which may already require an audit in the event of a massive data breach. So they may, in some ways, already be subject to that, and then I know it is important here we have to balance the interests of consumers and businesses. The average cost to a consumer of a data breach is $200 per consumer, so for the breach of 100,000 people, that means that consumers would lose sn/rr 106 $20 million in our state for each of these breaches, or more, depending on the number. So I think that this also helps to incentivize those preventative measures in the end to make sure that you're putting in place those correct security measures to prevent this from happening. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to the good Senator for answering that question. And that actually gives me a little relief because that is a really good point the good Senator makes that I didn't think about. A lot of companies, even small companies, have that cybersecurity insurance, and that very well may cover the cost of some type of an analysis or an audit to rectify the problem and then maybe mitigate the possible damage from lawsuits, from the people's information that was leaked out. So that's something that is good, because it's probably something that's already in place. Okay. So it's definitely a good thing.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you, Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney. Thank you. And we are on the amendment. Will anyone else like to remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye?

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. The substitute for Senate Bill Number 117, as amended, An Act Concerning Breaches of Security Involving Electronic Personal Information. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended. We're now voting on the bill as amended. Substitute for Senate Bill Number 117, an immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 1 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 53, Calendar Number 112, substitute Senate Bill Number 116, An Act Concerning the Prevention of Human Trafficking. Several amendments. sn/rr 117

Good evening, Madam President. I apologize for all those amendments, but I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. The clerk is in possession of several amendments, but I just need him to call one of those amendments. If the clerk would please call LCO Number 5164, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO Number 5164, Senate Amendment A.

Thank you, Madam President. First, this amendment is a strike-all amendment, which, in effect, will become the bill. I want to thank Senator Osten for sn/rr 118 her work. Because of her work, we had previously passed a law requiring hotels, motels, lodging to provide training to their employees on identifying potential victims of trafficking and the prevention of human trafficking. We know, unfortunately, with the World Cup coming, often when you have large gatherings like that, you're likely to see an increase in human trafficking. Our location in Connecticut, 95, is right between two of the sites for the World Cup and Foxborough, and at the Meadowlands. So it is unfortunately likely that we may see an increase in trafficking this year. But thank you to Senator Osten, who initially passed that bill, and one of -- the only problem I would say with that was that there was no enforcement. And as we've learned, sometimes without enforcement, things don't happen. And so, in this bill, we are creating a registry of hotels, motels, inns, or similar lodging. On that registry, some of the information they have to put in is related to whether or not they're providing that training, and then we empower DCP to go in and inspect the records. So we're putting in enforcement for existing legislation aimed at preventing human trafficking. With that, Madam President, I move adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I think I stepped in front of Senator Cicarella. I just want to thank Senator Maroney for bringing this up and for the amendment that is in front of us. sn/rr 119 I do know that there's always going to be more work that has to be done with a piece of legislation like this. We know that not enough has been done relative to short-term rentals, another area where human trafficking can occur. But as in all cases, sometimes things have to happen in an incremental fashion. So, I appreciate us moving the ball forward a bit this year. Look forward to continued work, relative to this discussion. And always want to thank people for considering having a tool in the toolbox to hold people accountable relative to stamping down on human trafficking. Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you, Senator Maroney.

Thank you, Madam President. So I do rise in support of this bill, for a few reasons. One, we need to do something to address this problem, and this is something that just kills me when I see human trafficking. It's disgusting, and we see it more and more in a lot of different ways, and vulnerable populations are taken advantage of, and people are capitalizing on all of that hurt and filth. And anything we could do to address some of that, by all means, I'm going to support. But what we have before us is a way to possibly curb some of the activity, making sure people that work in the hotels can see the signs, and then report it to the proper authorities. And I think that's good. And I was at a round table with the good Senator, Senator Osten, and the hotel associations, I believe, or the lodging association. And we were talking about what they do, and that they actually go above and beyond. sn/rr 120 A lot of them go above and beyond the training that the state would recommend. I think it was maybe DCF. There was someone there that helped with those trainings. I think we have to replace that person. They retired a short time ago. That's what I heard. Hopefully, we did that. But what I see here is, and I don't want to say it's a burden. But we're putting a task on business owners, sometimes small, to abide by this law, and then if not, they're going to be penalized. Again, I probably sound like a broken record. But it's something that frustrates me. And we're putting a lot of penalties on businesses for doing the wrong thing. And I'm okay if they're doing the wrong thing because we need to hold people accountable, but I haven't seen any legislation to address the root cause of this problem. And that's strengthening the penalty for some piece of garbage from doing this type of activity. Children and women and taking it away from their loved ones, and violent and disgusting things that happen right in our backyards. We don't even realize it. We need to address it. But how I believe we solve some of these problems is increase the penalty for some piece of garbage that partakes in human trafficking. That's what I'd like to see. I'd like to see the most strict strong penalty that will deter anyone from doing this activity anywhere, but especially here in the state of Connecticut. That's what I would like to see. This bill does some good. There's already a lot of hotels that do this. We're going to be putting some burden. And again, you weigh it out. I think anything we could do to stop this is good, and I think most people would just accommodate this. But I want to make sure that we're not hurting our businesses when we should be hurting those terrible people doing this. And I mean sn/rr 121 hurting. Like, let's make a new law. Let's bring them right up here, and we'll take care of them ourselves right here. That's what I would like to see. Not putting burden and regulation on other people when we're not addressing the person and people that commit crimes. I want to see more of that. I support this bill. I thank the good Senator for bringing it forward. I think we could do a lot more. But what I'd like to see more of is punishing people that commit bad acts, not holding other people and businesses accountable for their bad actions. That's something we really need to address. I support this amendment and the bill before us, and I look forward to continuing to do a lot more to address this problem that we're seeing. Thank you, Madam President.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Yes. On the amendment and the underlying bill as well. I want to just thank Senator Maroney for all his work on this, and Senator Osten. This is such a critical issue. I know Connecticut was a leader in the state in requiring trainings in the first place, and I do want to give a shout-out to my good friend and colleague at the Quinnipiac University Law School, Sheila Hare, who has really taken a lead in Connecticut for helping facilitate those trainings. And thank you also to the Connecticut Lodging Association for making this a priority. I was also at that meeting with Senator Cicarella, and I think sn/rr 122 it's important, as Senator Cicarella also said, taking that step, and I completely agree with him to really go further, though, and address the root cause. So I appreciate this bill in taking a step forward to make sure that we're not only having visibility for these crimes. This is my biggest problem with the crime of trafficking. It's, in fact, a very visible crime. We will see victims on buses, on public streets, public transportation, in lobbies of hotels. And so there has to be more of an awareness program to make sure people are trained to recognize the signs of trafficking. But we need the next step, which this bill takes us one step further, the enforcement mechanism. So what happens when that isn't happening for a crime that we can prevent because it's so readily visible? And I think that's the next step, but I absolutely agree with Senator Cicarella and want to echo his comments that that's not where we end, though, because we need to address the root cause. And there is another bill in government oversight I hope will be called in the House and then in the resources across the state that we have to make sure we're focusing on prevention because it is a horrible, horrible crime, and it impacts people for an entire lifetime and disrupts families, disrupts communities, and that we're really coordinating our efforts around resources and making it safer also for victims to be able to come forward. And I want to thank all the advocates that are doing the work around human trafficking now, because that work is incredibly important, and it's the trafficking in Persons Council, all the advocacy groups, that have been making sure that victims are able to come forward. And I hope that we're able to sn/rr 123 continue taking the next steps to make sure that this crime is something we prevent in the state of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of the amendment, as well as the underlying bill that commends Senator Maroney for bringing this forward, as well as the hard work and diligence of Senator Cicarella on the general law committee and his insightful observations. I just want to give a shout-out to a group I actually was able to visit this weekend. I want to give props to the Connecticut Motor Transport Association, as well as within my district in the great town of Somers, the New England Truck Tractor Trailer Training School. They had something called Truckers Against Trafficking stop in Summers. They had two stops this weekend, one in Summers and one in the city of Bridgeport. And it's an organization that started about 16 years ago, and travels throughout the entire United States, essentially with a giant tractor being pulled, but inside it's a whole educational program that folks can learn from. And just stopping in there this Saturday morning for a little bit, to give them props and wish them well, and welcome to my district. And actually was very happy because we had probably far in excess of 30 young men, primarily, but some women, taking classes at the New England Tractor Trailer Training School there. sn/rr 124 It's amazing what the educational effort can do. And there's actually stories where just a trucker who had stopped in there, learned some of the basics, was able to just tip off the police out in the Midwest, and it broke a trafficking ring that had spread across three different states with multiple victims. So they encourage people don't take things into your own hands, but there are certain things that you can look for that can alert you to tell law enforcement to investigate further. And to Senator Cicarella's points, the perpetrators of trafficking can be incredibly patient, and it is rather diabolical. They will groom individuals to create this huge amount of trust, and sometimes that situation can last, if not months, over a year, until suddenly the script is flipped, and they're asked to do something you would think that a normal person or even a young person would pause, but because they had been groomed and lulled into this sense of complete trust, you know, with food and gifts and time and everything else, they don't take that step back. They don't have that pause button, and next thing you know, they've been trafficked, and there's no way to get out. And, this can have extraordinarily devastating consequences. So, here in Connecticut, we're making strides. I know on the Judiciary Committee we've made great efforts, but our other committees are making efforts as well. Last I looked there were at least two bills percolating through the system. One of them had to do with the anti-trafficking council and things like that, but I think another one now. One of them is probably this bill that we have right here, but has to do with motel short stays and all these other things, where we can try to get our arms around it. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Cicarella that really firm penalties against the perpetrators of these crimes, because these are not spontaneous things. These are not something that you're young, and you just do it in the heat of the moment. A lot sn/rr 125 of these are long planned, just really, really insidious, and to take advantage of people that are in a vulnerable position. And they can be of various ages, but all too often, they're young women. They're forced into a life that's just horrible. Between the dangers physically, but also psychologically, very difficult to overcome. So, any strides we make in this direction are wonderful, and, again, I commend the leadership, Senator Cicarella, and most importantly, Senator Maroney for taking the lead regarding this, as well as everyone else. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox, appreciate all your efforts and your constituents as well. If we all unite, we can push back on this just like that one trucker out in the Midwest just tipped off the police, and next thing you know, shut down a trafficking ring that was spread across three different states. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in support of the legislation that is before us. Although I will, admittedly, say that the bill in front of us, from a policy standpoint, is at best a mixed bag. I certainly appreciate my colleagues getting up to talk about the scourge of human trafficking across this great country and some of the things that have transpired in Connecticut. Just before, standing up here, I was just revisiting some newspaper and TV reporting over the last couple of years about some of the unbelievable incidents that have occurred in Connecticut. And I still find it shocking that this body has not really addressed this in any significant way. I put a bill in to the Judiciary Committee every year, that has about 10 sn/rr 126 steps that I have been given by people that are advocates trying to stop trafficking in Connecticut, as things that are commonly utilized in other states as methods to improve the situation. And yet that bill never goes anywhere. The bill that is before us is a step in the right direction in the sense that it may cause folks that are in the hotel business essentially to be a little more conscientious because we're putting a lot of owner mandates and onus on them to be the police in this particular situation, which I don't know is the proper solution. So in some sense, I look at this like we're grasping at straws to solve this problem. For me, creating a mandate that says that having short stays of less than a full day stay at a hotel is not the solution to stop human trafficking. There are probably a lot of reasons why someone might only want to rent a hotel for a short period of time. Maybe it's a trucker just needs a shower or something like that. And this basically eliminates the ability for that to exist as a commercial opportunity, both for a customer and for a business. But yet that's what's happened in the state is that we've wrapped ourselves into a not trying to find solutions, and the solutions that we've come up with, I don't think really attack the root problem. With that said, I just wanted to get up and express my desire for this legislature to take this issue seriously, truly seriously, as we go forward. There's another bill that we've worked on in the Government Oversight Committee, which I think is a much better bill than this one. It still has not been raised in the House yet, but I'm hoping that it does. We're down to a week to go. I will telegraph to those interested that if that bill makes it out of the House, I'm more than happy to try and get it out of here as fast as possible. So, it's a good one. Let's put that on the must-do sn/rr 127 list. It's for a cause that I think really does matter. Let's work together to make good policy for the state of Connecticut to combat human and sex trafficking in the state of Connecticut. It is something that doesn't need to exist. If you read some of these articles and you hear the stories of what has happened to some innocent individuals, you can't help but feel concern and a tremendous desire to do something to help. That's why I'm standing here, more than support for the policy that's in this bill, which may ultimately result in some positive movement in the right direction. For that reason, I am going to support it. But I still don't think this is the right method. The right method is to really follow the lead of other states who have done a better job of handling this. Thank you, Madam President.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Will you remark on the bill as amended? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Osten, do you have an announcement?

Thank you, Senator. We will stand at ease briefly.

And good evening, Senator Slap.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark on the legislation? Good evening, Senator Martin.

Thank you, Senator Slap.

Thank you. Senator Martin.

Thank you. Senator Slap.

Thank you. Senator Martin.

Thank you. Senator Slap. sn/rr 134

Thank you. Senator Martin.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 135

Have all the senators voted? Senator Lopes. There we go. The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Do that again. That was quick.

And we will slot that to go after the DMV bill, which is 25, 278, 413. So I'll mark that after that bill. We'll tell you later offline. Thank you, Madam President.

Page 51, Calendar Number 73, Substitute Senate Bill Number 148, An Act Concerning Revisions to Agriculture-Related Statutes. There are two amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. sn/rr 137

Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 502. I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Senator Lopes.

Please do summarize.

Thank you. Would you like to remark on the amendment? Senator Harding.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. sn/rr 139

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to quickly extend thank you also, Senator Osten, for being a prime driver in this bill. When people talk about, sometimes the acrimony, here at the state house and everything. But we do find solid bipartisanship when trying to help out farmers and the amount of work they do and the things that they do for our state has really appreciated. And we're hoping, as the Good Minority Leaders said, that this is a good first step in the right direction. A lot of the legislation here really counts on freeing up other money to put into this fund to help farmers, and that's what we can hope to achieve later on this session. Thank you.

Thank you very much. First, I want to thank the Good Chair of the Environment Committee for bringing forward, for the second year in a row, policies related to agriculture and farming in Connecticut. It's really important for us to support an industry that does so much good for our state. This bill, in particular, will save an industry. That's just the basics of what's going on here. We sn/rr 140 are pushing for some of the dollars related to the federal response to actually be used to stabilize the dairy industry. The dairy industry's expenses and revenue are set by two different streams. Their revenue is set by the federal government, has been set by the federal government for decades. In this case, they lost significant revenue on the commodities market. Without us stepping in and doing something, we could lose more than 50% of our dairy industry. It is so important for us to stand by these family- owned businesses who support each and every one of us. Not only do we like to see our dairy industry as it populates our roadsides. But quite frankly, the dairy industry is the backbone of agriculture in Connecticut. I so appreciate people standing together as we have, year after year, in a bipartisan way, to support this industry. And I can't wait to vote for this piece of legislation and see it pass, and then have the governor sign it, and support those industries with federal support dollars. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to make a few comments about this bill.

Yes. I wanted to rise. sn/rr 141

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I first wanted to thank Senator Lopes for his leadership and his help with this important bill, and also the leadership that Senator Osten has provided, and everyone else who's been part of this effort. Madam President, the dairy industry is going through a challenge. In the last seven years alone, it has reduced by about 25%. This is one of the toughest parts of farming at this time because the farmers are putting the highest investment, and their return is the lowest, because of the fact that they do not control the sale price, and they have the smallest part of the profits. With that, it's a proposition which is a failure to begin with if you were to look at it from a business mindset. But one cannot even imagine a state, a town, a community without this, and that's where we have to have all people on board. Every year, we have been able to, as a state, do our share to take care of our farmers, but this bill is adding to that effort. The bill is going to look at not only helping out right now and using grants for an opportunity for the dairy farmers to benefit, but it is also looking at a long-term strategic plan. Because it is not only a sprint every year, but it's going to be a marathon for us to be able to address this. So that's why, Madam President, this bill is an important bill. I wanted to thank the advocates for this. And I also wanted to give a shout-out to Oakridge. That's one of the largest dairy farms in our state, in my district in Ellington. They have been working very hard for the advocacy work and also the largest dairy farm in our state. So it's very important for sn/rr 142 such places not only to keep our family community, everyone healthy, but also to be one of the very important employers. So, Madam President, I would urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. And I, too, rise to support this bill. In the 13 towns I represent in Northeast Connecticut, I have a number of dairy farms. And proud to live in Woodstock, which has a large number of dairy farms, and I always say this because it's true. I think we have more dairy cows than people in Woodstock. And proud to have a lot of dairy farmers in my district. I want to say that this is good. I know I and others have submitted bills to see what we could do to help the farmers in the short term, and then see what we can do to create a financial sustainability program for them in the long term. So, given all that's gone through in a short session, I think there's a lot that's been achieved. I'm glad to see that we have some meaningful things moving forward in this bill. I certainly will be voting yes for it. I do want to thank the chairs of the committee for moving this forward as well. I certainly appreciate that. And I also want to thank my leader, Senator Harding, for his ongoing efforts to support dairy farmers and work with all of us, as we're working to support the dairy farmers. As we heard, over the decades, we've been losing dairy farms. Once they're gone, they're gone. And many times, that good prime agricultural land that they need to grow the hay and grow the corn gets developed and gets lost. So the more that we can do to support dairy farmers, the more we not only sn/rr 143 support the Connecticut economy, create the jobs that we need, local jobs, but also, and I can speak from experience, the wonderful, nutritious milk that we all rely upon, and we all encourage our kids to drink. So I encourage all my colleagues to support it and am proud to play a role working with others, bipartisan, to see where we are today.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended, An Act Concerning Revisions to Agriculture- Relate Statutes. An immediate roll call vote in the Act Concerning Revisions to Agriculture-Relate Statutes. We're voting on the bill as amended. We're voting on the bill as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0 sn/rr 144

Page 25, Calendar Number 278, substitute for Senate Bill Number 413, An Act Revising Various Motor Vehicle Statutes. There's an amendment.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5199. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

Please do summarize. sn/rr 145

Thank you, Senator. Senator Hwang. sn/rr 147

Thank you, Senator Hwang. Will anybody remark further on the amendment? If not, I will try your minds. On the amendment, all those in favor, please indicate by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you up there. I've made my initial remarks on the amendment, which is now the bill and before us, and it sounds like we're going to be going through some of the sections. So, I will defer through you, Madam President, to the Good Ranking Member for those questions. sn/rr 149

Thank you. Thank you to the Good Chair of the Senate in Transportation. And I'll begin with Section 1. It encompasses Sections 1 through 7, which is reflected in the original bill proposed in the committee of 413 that had a joint favorable vote out of committee by a vote of 35 to 1. Through you, Madam President, could the Good Chair articulate what the respective sections were as it relates to the DMV placards, as well as the parking advisory council? It was one where most of the bill language and the ideals were transferred through. So if we could, through you, Madam President, could the Good Chair of Transportation articulate the respective sections of one through seven. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. I can do that. And through you, Sections 1 and 2 deal with accessible parking placards. This bill has a requirement for DMV to redesign the placards and make the expiration date very clear on those. It also specifies that the accessible parking advisory council will make some educational videos. I mentioned my constituents. There's a willingness to create educational materials around what the requirements are to be given a parking placard and make that educational material available to physicians who would be issuing eligibility criteria to provide to the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue this parking placard or these parking placards, I should say. sn/rr 150 It also requires medical professionals who certify this eligibility for placards to select an initial from the eligibility criterion, that is set forth. The criterion hasn't changed, but sometimes something can be overlooked. So the idea is to really have those professionals go through and select each one that the individual is eligible for and why. Section 3 deals with queue endorsements. This is for fire apparatus and those who have their endorsement in another state. It just allows for reciprocity of the same. Section 4 deals with e-scooter weight limits. It turns out that our weight limit, as set forth in statute right now, is 100 pounds. A lot of our cities are moving towards these e-scooter rental programs. And because some of them are just over 100 pounds, we needed to increase that weight limit by 10 pounds to 110 pounds. Section 5 deals with vehicle rentals. We've had something similar before us in the past in terms of allowing credit cards versus cash to be used when renting a vehicle. This just creates a distinction that all-terrain vehicles, sport vehicles, and convertibles are in the list of vehicle categories for which a rental car company can require a credit card versus cash, if they desire. Section 6 deals with local, bridge program eligibility. It turns out that we really want to make our bridges eligible, and municipalities eligible for these dollars, and some were excluded from that program, based on the setup of particular bridges. Sections 7 through 11 deal with the vessel record privacy laws. This really just streamlines processing and protects customer info with respect to records relating to vessels and vessel titles, and make sure that the privacy protections apply to personal information and DMV records, and also still sn/rr 151 allows the disclosure of that information to be available to the vessel owner. Also, I'll go on just because, unchanged by the bill, the original bill is 5237, we have simple changes that really help us align with federal guidance. There was a suggested delineation of the commissioner as a record custodian when it comes to electronic issuance licensees and different licensees, like dealers and repairs, with respect to the commissioner being the custodian of these licenses. Section 15 deals with replacement titles, just really trying to align best practices here, and help identify and prevent issues of theft and fraud. Just making sure that when issuing a replacement title, we are checking the vehicle identification number, or VIN, against certain databases. And then, back to accessible parking and the recommendations of that parking council, we are creating an accessible parking awareness day. Again, just to raise awareness and create more education around this, that will be the second Monday in July each year. And I think that's it for House Bill 5272 in terms of those sections.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, just to add to the well-presented and succinct presentation of the Good Senate Chair, I think some aspects of the goal of this bill was in regards to the Q endorsement. I had to learn about that, but I think it was a reflection of our support of fire and first responders that we have a shortage throughout our state. This allowance allows qualified, Q-endorsed drivers of fire vehicles to be able to work in sn/rr 152 Connecticut. And I think that was a rationale for that perspective. The other is in regards to e-scooter weight increases. It is an area of e-bikes and e-scooters that we have given strong consideration, that have been given by the leadership of our police throughout the state. That was one where we didn't have a public hearing, but we had heard from municipal leaders that we're going to be impacted by the poundage change. The car rental classification looks at open-air and more of the active, exotic cars to be sure that risk was appropriate with regards to the possible use of it. I think the other part of it was in looking at the section that the Good Chair articulated from the DMV recommendations. And for transparency and accountability, I just want to verify, that was part of House Bill 5237, which you received unanimous vote out of committee, which incorporated the vessel records, the background checks that complies with federal standards, as well as a replacement title, which the commissioner of DMV articulated was a real marketplace challenge for people to be able to effectively replace their vehicles and titles without delay. Accessible parking awareness is one of the issues in the working groups that we have created in this committee to look at parking and parking access. And we've been able to create a day of awareness and education to alert and make people understand the importance of the unique parking challenges that we have. So, through that, I wanted to be able to follow up in the section related to Senate Bill 234, which unanimously passed out of the committee based upon the revisions and language changes from the LCO. But also, I want to acknowledge the good chair's recognition of the public feedback in our public hearing. It is an example that sometimes the best of sn/rr 153 intentions and ideas go through a sunlight review of transparency and accountability in a public hearing. What raised has a practical challenge regarding young people learning to drive in a permit, to be able to facilitate to ensure that we hold on to the principles and one of the focus criteria of this committee, which is safety on our roadways. And I want to compliment the good chairs as well as the various advocates regarding roadway safety to reach a compromise. So the title of 234 may reflect one thing, but this reflects a change with very specific and narrow application for immediate family members that are also, of driving permit age to be able to be in the presence of an adult of 20 years or older to be able to practically learn how to drive, and that it does not bypass or allow underage and not driving permit family members to be transported by new recent permit holders learning how to drive. I may not have articulated it as effectively as the Good Chair, who is a major proponent of this bill, based upon constituent feedback. But, also, again, I want to applaud her for her ability to recognize that we do not waver on safety on our roadways, particularly with the young drivers, but then be able to reach a compromise to address this issue. And that's why this bill, despite the title and maybe some of the misrepresentation in the media, is not allowing young drivers to drive with occupants who are not immediate family members, are not learning to drive, and do not have the supervision of someone 20 years or older. So, through you, could the Good Chair of the Senate articulate better than I tried to do that? So through

Thank you, Madam President. The Good Chair is correct. This bill, at public hearing or when we first introduced the proposal, was dramatically different. And we explored whether or not we should roll back provisions allowing young drivers who have just been newly licensed to have a sibling in the vehicle with them. Current law states that you need to wait six months before having a sibling in your vehicle. And as somebody with three children, I've been through this. Now my two oldest have been licensed for, you know, past the amount of time required. I have a 21- year-old and an 18-year-old who have been on the roads for a few years now. I have a newly permitted driver at home, but I don't have this issue that a number of families come up against, where their children are going to the same place at the same time, school, practices, different things like that, and they wanted to explore being able to allow the sibling to be in the car with their newly licensed driver. We listened at public hearing, and we heard overwhelmingly that that would be a mistake. The data really suggests that having additional drivers when you're newly licensed, like that, additional distractions, whether it be the radio or another passenger or whatever it is, really exacerbates the danger out there for not only that driver and their passenger, but others on the roads. And so we took a close look at that. But one thing that we did here at the public hearing, which was really interesting, and actually a couple of constituents of mine, from Killingworth, have been tremendous proponents of this, is something that's come to light that it impacts a much smaller population of the state of Connecticut, and this is permitted drivers who are learning to drive currently if they are under the instruction of sn/rr 155 a parent or legal guardian or a driver who's had their license for a number of years and it is legal to teach somebody how to drive, that permitted driver, they are not allowed to have another passenger in that vehicle unless they too would be eligible to teach this person how to drive. So typically, that's a parent or a caregiver. But what happens in the case when there are twins or two siblings who are very close in age and just happen to have their learner's permit at the same exact time? Is that parent or caregiver, whether they be in a single-parent household or there are multiple caregivers in that household, or really stretched to find the time to get the proper on-road instruction for these newly permitted drivers? And so we've allowed this very narrow exception for those types of families where there are twins that have gotten their learners permanent at the same time and are really trying to get that on-the-road instruction. This really helps not only the instructor who's providing that guidance and support for their child or the person that they're caring for, but it allows them to talk through it with the other permitted passenger in the car, the sibling, to say, up here, you're going to slow down, you're going to stop, you're going to see this sign, this is what that means, this is what you do in this scenario. So they're both receiving instruction at the same time, and then, of course, the other permitted driver could certainly get behind the wheel as well. It could just be a lesson for both of those siblings. So again, this is a very, very narrowest exception. We felt good about it because in these situations, where a parent or caregiver is giving this on-the- road instruction to a permitted driver, there are no distractions. You're turning off the radio. You're really focused on instructing that new driver on the rules of the road. And so, we felt fairly confident in incorporating this into the bill and seeing to sn/rr 156 its passage, based on very compelling testimony. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank the Good Chair for articulating the rationale. And it is very important, and I will repeat. This is a very narrow band that allowed very, very specific requirements of family members that are learner’s permit and supervision, and the need to abide by all the standards of roadway safety and learning through the permit process. There is no waiver of that. So I think it's truly important to understand in this debate and for legislative intent that we are not allowing young drivers to bypass the current statutory requirement, because we want to ensure safety for young drivers on the roadway. I want to applaud the Good Chair for articulating the narrow band and being able to address a practical solution without bypassing the safety concerns. And I thought this was a very, very effective compromise. You will see that in the debate, we nearly unanimously approved of this bill out of committee based upon the new revision language. That's important to note. We are never, ever, I think for myself, and I think I can speak comfortably with our committee leadership group that safety in our roadways is critical and an essential part of the role that we have as part of the leadership in the Transportation Committee. I'm going to move on to the remaining section of '19 through '26. And that is reflected off of Senate Bill 412. Now that has a very mixed vote, in the various JF vote out of committee because it had a conveyance issue in regards to consumer protection and conveyance fee impact on consumers and sn/rr 157 transparency and accountability, which is something that we really focus on in this committee, to protect the consumers and some of the feelings or some incidences in which they weren't properly aware of conveyance cost that impact their ability to buy vehicles. I want to acknowledge the tremendous and tireless effort of Senator Martin and Representative Steinberg, as well as the Good Chair of the Transportation Committee, and advocating for consumers in regards to conveyance fee transparency in automobile purchases. That is one side of the equation. And for those that may have voted against it in the transportation JF vote reflected the other side of the debate, and that is that the Connecticut automotive retailers. Many of our retailers that are community fabrics, they sponsor the Little Leagues. They're an integral part in providing for the necessary fabric of our community and their local family-owned businesses in many cases, although it's changing a little bit. But nonetheless, they're very much an essential part of our community's contributions. We were trying to reach a compromise. As I said earlier, what we do in the Transportation Committee is an [inaudible], look at both sides of the equation, give a little something to the various proponents, but also reach a compromise. And in this case, many of the sections that incorporate Senate Bill 412, despite the mixed vote in the committee, were we addressed the long concerns of franchising regulations in which dealers have had to deal with original auto manufacturers and the fast-changing climate of retail, as well as Internet and sales challenges and dynamics. And that put tremendous pressure on antiquated franchise laws that impact our local businesses. What you will see in the components that I will ask a Good Chair to articulate, I want to compliment. This was truly a collaborative compromise effort sn/rr 158 regarding conveyance to really enforce the law that was put into effect by Senator Martin in his past ranking role as transportation and advocate of consumer advocacy and transparency, but also be able to help in this compromised language to incorporate some of the franchise needs of our dealers. So there was a compromise, and I truly believe this was an effective way to give a little something to everybody to ensure that we move businesses as well as consumer protection forward at an equal pace. So, through you, Madam President, could the Good Chair articulate, as I have tried earlier, she tends to do it in a far more eloquent and effective way, what I was trying to say in the contrast between conveyance fees for consumers, but also updating franchising regulations for our dealers as well. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. As the Good Ranking Member mentioned, this has been before the committee for a number of years, and there are a great number of legislators in this building who have been working with the committee to try and see the passage of this law with respect to transparency. And over the years, I really feel that there were a number of iterations, and they all had their merit. We deliberated over them at length, session after session. And I know, Senator Martin, a member of this chamber, has been very involved and vocal on this issue. I suspect we'll hear from him in a little bit, so have others, like Representative Turco, Representative Lemar, and certainly my co- chair, Representative Berger-Girvalo, and myself have really been passionate about this issue. sn/rr 159 I know the General Law Committee last year passed extensive legislation regarding fees for add-on consumer goods and services, and making sure that there was a level of transparency associated with the fees. And we really believe that this law, with respect to conveyance fees, needs to be in alignment with those transparency laws. So this will require car dealers to include their dealer conveyance fee or processing fee in the price that they advertise or quote for a motor vehicle. This is really about consumers being able to make fair and informed decisions, being able to competitive shop, you know, look from dealership to dealership and really know the final price. So when you see the final price advertised on a website or on a piece of paper, it will be inclusive of those dealer conveyance fees. That is not the case right now. Right now, there can be fine print that says not inclusive of conveyance fees, even though it may say final price. And so it's really important. That's an important distinction because you may think that you've negotiated the final price. And then, when all is said and done, you get back to sign your paperwork, and you see an additional thousand dollars tacked onto your bill. A thousand dollars is a lot of money for people. And that is typical of conveyance fees in this area. They could be anywhere from, for some used cars, $500, and they can go up to $1,500. We've seen example after example of this. When neighboring states have caps on their conveyance fees or place other limits or have these transparency laws in effect, and we don't here in Connecticut, it becomes suspect. It becomes like there's this lack of trust. And quite frankly, I feel like it gives dealers a bad name when they're doing such good work for our communities. Consumers don't want to feel like they're being cheated. And everything should be outlined for them so that they sn/rr 160 know exactly what their final price is once they've negotiated. And that's what we've done here. I'm grateful that the dealers have come to the table on this. We've been working with them. You'll hear a little bit more. We're going to go into further sections, where we've updated franchise law. Again, as I said in my opening remarks, dealerships are incredibly important to us. They're huge employers across the state of Connecticut. They are economic drivers. They serve our communities really well. And we really believe that there needs to be transparency around these conveyance fees for everybody involved. So, through you, Madam President, that is what Sections 18 and 19 do.

Through you, Madam President. I appreciate the Good Chair's articulation, and she's been a true champion of conveyance fees and bringing forth, like Senator Martin previously. I think this was an effective compromise, and I'm grateful that the dealers have come to the table. But also, I want to compliment the Good Chair if she could articulate some of the initiatives that she heard from Carr and the various shareholders in regards to franchise feed updates, which have not happened in many decades. And I thought that was a very positive step forward to be able to ensure that our businesses in the changing national and international marketplace of original manufacturers are protected and effectively being able to continue doing their business. So, through you, could the Good Chair articulate some of the franchise provisional changes that were a result of the compromise of this section? Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 161

Thank you, Madam President. And I also want to mention what the dealer franchise act changes are, but I do want to say that not only did our dealers, the retailers, come to the table on this and really work this out, but this is also, after a number of years, the manufacturers working together with us. As I mentioned at the top, this bill includes so many stakeholders, different groups, and a lot of competing interests. And so when you're talking about manufacturers, and you're talking about dealers, those are competing interests generally. And they both came to the table to work with us to come up with some appropriate changes given the times that we're in, and what various dealers are up against. So what these sections 20 through 25 of the bill do is limit the circumstances under which manufacturers can require dealers to construct, renovate, or substantially alter their dealership. An example might be that a manufacturer wants all the dealers to have a particular update. They make those updates, and then a year or two later, there's another change that needs to happen. And these can be quite costly. We're not just talking about a couple of thousand dollars here. And so this is really important for our dealers to be able to make their own determinations as to whether or not they're going to make those renovations that the manufacturers are requesting. It also establishes new requirements related to consumer data sharing. So once again, consumer privacy practices really limiting when manufacturers can require dealers to share certain data on their customers. And it also entitles new vehicle dealers to compensation from the manufacturer for certain sn/rr 162 stop-sale orders or do-not-drive orders on used vehicles in their inventory. So again, Madam President, that is Sections 20 through 25 of the bill.

Thank you. I want to thank the Good Chair again for her effective articulation of the rationale of those bills. It was a lot of work to try to reach that compromise. I want to applaud her and the leadership and the committee's input, but most importantly, from the consumer advocates impacted by conveyance pricing, and also the dealers. I will leave this section by reinforcing, because of the statutory requirements articulated and implemented through this committee, that conveyance fees need to be enforced. That transparency and awareness to the consumer of those respective fees are in the law and in the books, and they need to be articulated, effectively, prominently displayed, and made aware. But, also, to be able to help our local dealers, who I value and have great respect for their community contributions. This little franchise move is very, very helpful to them, so I want to applaud the good leadership and this component of the bill. We're going to move forward to two provisions that did not have a public hearing, but they were a result of critical issues that our committee has heard many, many times, and in the previous years have addressed in issues that are a recent phenomenon, and that is in addressing e-bikes and motor-driven cycle definitions. Scooters could very easily -- we addressed it earlier regarding poundage. But these were requests from our local law enforcement, who have seen the increase regarding that, and we needed to have a better definition. sn/rr 163 So even though we did not have a public hearing and a raised bill because we'd raised it and passed it through legislation last year. In a fast-changing climate, we wanted to write some adaptations and clarify greater the definition and some of the regulations that would be implemented in the fast- changing dynamic of e-bikes and the impact on the roadway and safety. So, through you, could the Good Chair of Transportation articulate some of the impetus for this change in the language and why it was put into this bill, even though it didn't have a public hearing? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And I thank the Good Ranking Member for his questions. So this pertains to Sections 26 and 27. Last year, if this chamber will recall, we passed extensive e-bike legislation recognizing that the technology has changed tremendously over the years and we're seeing these e-bikes and electric motor-driven cycles all over the state of Connecticut. This simply changes -- I wouldn't call it a drafting error. It's not a drafting error. We made an error in judgment, perhaps, or just an error, because what we've discovered is that we wrote that e-bikes needed to be under 750 watts. Well, it turns out a lot of e- bikes are exactly 750 watts. So we are just changing the language to say seven fifty watts, and less would be considered an e-bike, and anything over that would be considered a motor-driven cycle, or then perhaps a motorcycle, depending on the definition. And it also removes the brake horsepower limit from the definition of motor-driven cycle. It still retains that wattage and cc limit. And that, again, just to make a clarifying change. sn/rr 164

Thank you. And it shows that lawmaking and the fast- changing dynamic in regards to transportation and safety. And I want to applaud the good leadership of this committee to recognize that this shift, this change, is so dynamic that we need to stay up to date to ensure that proper definition, proper protections, and proper processes are in place to ensure roadway safety, as I mentioned repeatedly. It is one of our major priorities. Along that same vein, the second section, as it relates to that, was a request from the Department of Motor Vehicles regarding convenience. It is critical to define that we are allowing renewals of identification cards through the DMV, without having some individuals with disability or challenges to be able to travel to get renewals, to be able to do it online, but still retain the original photo ID. But it is critical to note that it is not a real ID that is allowed to be used for identification and travel, that those type of real ID still requires the necessary documents and verification in order to be valid. A second part of it is, I believe, through you, Madam chair, to clarify that it doesn't allow new license, acquisition, or ID acquisition without having been in person. This is a convenience factor that the department articulated to allow those that may be impacted by travel challenges or physical disabilities to be able to renew and offer a convenience of digital services, but ensuring that every aspect of protocol and security is ensured. So, through you, could the Good Chair articulate the request? Even though we did not have a public hearing, this was a request from the Department of sn/rr 165 Motor Vehicles, and it was a positive aspect to help those in need. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. While we don't typically like to add things that haven't been before the public at a typical public hearing-type forum, this was a request from the Department of Motor Vehicles that seemed incredibly reasonable. Something that comes up in a limited number of circumstances. But we have an elderly and disabled population that requires ID. Not necessarily a real ID, not necessarily a driver's license, but an ID for various things. So whether it be something with respect to health insurance or other applications. And these individuals are homebound and can't make it to a DMV in order to renew the photograph that is required for these licenses. So this simply gives the DMV commissioner discretion in allowing an older photo to be used when issuing a new ID to these folks. Again, not impacting real ID. This would not be a real ID, an eligible identification. It is not for a driver's license. So, just to clarify, this is just a very limited number of circumstances for an ID for those who are homebound.

Thank you. I want to reiterate that. And it is a credit and a compliment out of the respect and appreciation for the relationship that the commissioner and its respective designees from the sn/rr 166 Department of Motor Vehicles and working with this committee and its leadership, and the good work that they have continued to do in being responsive to consumer needs and adaptation. So I want to applaud the Department of Motor Vehicles for making this suggestion, but also reinforcing that this is not a driver's license. This is not a real ID, and there are necessary protocols to be put in place. But, again, it is an aspiration to be more consumer-friendly, challenging the convenience balance with security and proper protocols for this kind of licensure. But, again, it is a reflection of my respect and this committee's respect for the commissioner and his designee within the department to take this suggestion. But we did not take it lightly. We vetted it and ensured that all the necessary protocols, security, and safety are in place, but nonetheless, be able to provide some aspect of convenience and access for many of those that are impacted. We'll move on to the final section, which is a remarkable, remarkable effort by the leadership, but all the shareholders. I'm going to go circle back around to where we began, that the committee's protocol and dynamic is truly a collaborative and engaged process in which many of the shareholders and many of the advocates, as well as many of the agency heads, were involved in drafting and articulating language that'll impact all the parties. The towing language and package is a continuation of some remarkable landmark legislation that this committee and its leadership undertook last year that addressed a long standing issue that balanced consumer challenges and equity versus the struggles for many good businesses and the heavy, as well as nonconsensual towing, but got through the public hearing process and through the multiple dialogues sn/rr 167 that we put into this effort to understanding some of the bad actors and the bad stories that you hear. We were able to craft something that I think we were all very proud of, and it was a collaborative compromise in which all the impacted shareholders. Again, a good compromise is one where we move forward in a positive direction. But nonetheless, all the advocates walk away a little bit grumpy and a little bit unhappy that they didn't get everything that they wanted. So, it's a credit to the good chairs of this committee to be able to craft such a delicate balance and move forward, and I believe they have accomplished that in this bill. So I will defer to the Good Chair of the Senate in the Transportation Committee to articulate the delicate crafting of balance that she has articulated in this section of this bill. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And, yes, it is a delicate balance. We want to make sure that we are protecting consumers all the time, the folks who need these services across the state, from bad actors, and there are bad actors. We have read about it in the press. It's what prompted us to take action and really take a look at our towing statutes on the whole, both for nonconsensual towing as well as police order tows. We now have councils that are formed in both regards. And we've been working for the past year with the towing industry on this. We've also been working with consumer advocates and the insurance industry. There are multiple stakeholders here. There were still some things that we left open-ended last session, and it was important that we address them. There were recommendations coming out of these councils. We sn/rr 168 received recommendations from the police order towing council, as well as the nonconsensual towing council, and we really took those to heart. We held a public hearing ourselves, and I think we've developed what is before us today, which is a very good piece of legislation that really takes all of this on balance. Make sure that the law is clear and articulate in ensuring that we do have consumer protections in place, and there's no question about where a consumer needs to go if their vehicle is towed. It contains the creation of an electronic towed vehicle portal that will allow anybody across the state to access information about where their vehicle is, how long it's been there, and if it's going through a sale process, because that vehicle has remained uncleaned. So, again, I think that's at the heart of this. That portal will make life easier, I think, not only for DMV in terms of record keeping and for the state of Connecticut, but it's an assurance for consumers, for those who have been towed, to understand where their vehicle is and how to retrieve that vehicle. Last year, we created a towing bill of rights. We are going to include the portal address on that towing bill of rights, which will go out to vehicle owners who have been towed. It will also be posted in the tow facilities. We've gone through extensively the towing rates and the hearing process with respect to any increase in rates or a decrease in rates. We've also taken a look at the complaint process in terms of towing complaints and when those can be brought about. We've taken a look at the notice to towers, with respect to any changes, making sure also we have implemented traffic incident management training for our towers, make sure that they are safe out on our roadways, and we've more clearly articulated the vehicle disposal process. sn/rr 169 This is something that was really open-ended at the end of the last session. The tow council met on this, provided recommendations, and I think we've struck a really good balance here that protects folks from getting unnecessary storage fees, makes sure that folks are notified if their vehicle's towed, on how to get that vehicle back, and limits the amount of money that they can be charged in these instances. And, again, also updated the notice of tow requirements. And so that is it in a nutshell, Madam President.

Thank you. As I said before, I want to thank the Good Chair for her articulation. And it is important that this articulation and the changes that she mentioned are a long way from the original bill that we had a public hearing on, which was House Bill 5465. Again, it reiterates how this committee works. We heard from many of the advocates. We heard from the department. We heard from consumer advocates who wanted to be sure that they were protected and that fairness and equity were in place. We also heard from the heavy towers and the nonconsensual towers. And we worked to hear all of their concerns and reach a collaborative compromise. So I really want to applaud that from the original bill and the public hearing, we have come a long way. A couple of significant factors I wanted to reiterate were the earlier implementation of a portal. We're going to stay engaged on that. It is a transparent tool, but we want to be sure that it's implemented on a timely basis and is used effectively. I think we added some additional provisions to the consumer bill of rights regarding towing protection. I can assure you, some of the sn/rr 170 towing advocates weren't too happy about that. But, again, it's a good compromise. But through you, if I could, one of the major components is the bill passed last year, which looked at fee schedules along with the various counsel that were put together. And we've been delayed in that regard, and that has been a point of concern with many of the businesses that struggle day to day. One such example that we heard from the towers is the fact that they're out in their roadways doing their job, and they have seen gasoline prices increase. And that there is no comparable, and the delay regarding the fee schedule being approved has a dramatic impact on their way to do business. One of the very creative and innovative ways I want to compliment the leadership of this committee in the collaboration with all the shareholders was to look at tying it to the consumer price indexing. Could the good chair articulate the fairness consideration, but also a process in which our small businesses, our heavy-duty and nonconsensual towers, that our small businesses are able to compete and be viable in a very difficult business climate. So through you, could the Good Chair articulate a little bit of some of the creative and ingenious ways that we are able to support our businesses, but maintaining that the council and the rate setting with the Department of Motor Vehicles will be fully implemented. But in the meanwhile, there are processes to move it forward, that there's some consideration for inflation and cost increases that are unexpected. Through you, Madam President.

sn/rr 171 Thank you, Madam President. Last year, when we passed this bill, we had a number of vehicle owner protections put in place. We heard about extensive price gouging with respect to storage rates, seeing these fees rack up, not getting proper notice, not having signage, predatory towing practices where towers, again, bad actors were trolling lots to find vehicles to tow, taking them away, and then again, just racking up these fees. So last year, we really addressed that in a number of respects. What we weren't able to address and that we were hearing over and over again was from these really good businesses who provide this important community service of towing, for all of us across the state of Connecticut, whether it be at apartment complexes in conjunction with the police to clear a roadway, or in conjunction with the Department of Transportation to clear a highway. We need them. It's an essential service. But what we heard was that their rates were not increasing, and that was really frustrating to them. They were going to a rate hearing, and they just weren't getting any rate increase. And they really gave us a lot of compelling data. Again, we didn't feel that we, as a legislature, should be setting rates. So we gave that duty to the towing councils that were created in the legislation. And we will have a continuation of the towing council going forward. But what we did do, that the Good Ranking Member mentioned, is something that we did discuss last year, which was providing for interim increases. And we thought linking it to the consumer price index and an average of not only CPI, but also the Producer Price Index, PPI, which the two can vary at different times, one higher than the other, would be averaged. And we would give the towers these interim yearly increases while they're awaiting a third-year review on their rates. sn/rr 172 Things change, Madam President. Diesel prices go through the roof as they are now. Equipment changes. Sometimes things change in the other direction. Gas prices go down, which we'd all love to see right about now. Or labor rates change, whatever it is. And so that three-year review is very important and needs to be deliberated on by a hearing officer. But we also know that there's inflationary pressure; there are other cost increases that happen on an annual basis. And so this simply says that we'll take an average of CPI and PPI and provide it to the towers in the years that they are waiting for that three-year review. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Thank you to the Good Chair and her efforts in regards to addressing, updating, and complementing the challenges in the towing industry. It has been fraught with many challenges, and I'm very proud to be part of a pathway to a solution in which we're able to help many of the impacted shareholders and properly be able to survive and sustain themselves. This is a close of my conversation regarding this bill. But what you will also see in this engagement -- and I want to thank the Good Chair for articulating and effectively understanding the cause of this bill and the rationale. What we did not discuss here, and it's a compliment to the unique and dynamic relationship we have in this committee, there were many components that were advocates and were raised that did not get included in this bill, and that was because we heard from shareholders. We listened to the engagement. It needs to be equally acknowledged that the leadership saw the wisdom and the pathway of a compromise to be able to craft a sn/rr 173 bill in which we addressed all the concerns and issues. I want to compliment by closing and saying that this is a bill in which we addressed, as much as we could, the concerns and issues, while focusing on transportation-focused issues, safety, but also representative of the interests of the people that we've been elected to represent. I want to thank the Good Chair, but I'd be remiss in not thanking Katrina Stratton, our LCO, as well as Heather Poole of OLR. And I want to thank Megan Dreher of the Senate Republican researcher. All three of them make me sound a little bit more knowledgeable than I probably am. And I want to thank and close by thanking my chairs. My chairs have given me the opportunity and the privilege to be able to shape and be involved in this process. And through that, I'm very proud of this bill, and I urge support, and I want to thank the Good Chair for her time, knowledge, and insight. Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, thank you so much. I want to begin by thanking the chairs and the ranking members, Senator Cohen and Representative Berger-Girvalo, Representative Turco, as well as Representative Lemar, and I can't forget my good friend, Senator Hwang, and Representative Kennedy. There's a specific part or section of this bill that pertains to efforts that we've addressed in the past. But before I get to that, I just wanted to say this whole bill truly addresses and solves a lot of problems. If you took in every single section of it sn/rr 174 one by one, and the testimony that was presented and the issues that consumers or perhaps those that were disabled, those that were seniors, particularly with the placard cards, updating that the cards themselves, addressing the parents who had concerns about driving with more people in the car. I think that was a great fix than what you guys came up with. Of course, the towers and those that were having vehicles towed. I think what you guys came up with is a great solution. The car dealers and the manufacturing component of it has been in this building for a long time. They've been asking us to help them. And I thought it was brilliant. I've told you this, Senator Cohen. Using that to help us get a better product or get transparency to our consumers who are buying vehicles, I thought that was brilliant to tie those up together. So overall, Madam President, this is really a good consumer business bill if I can use that as well, and transparency, moreover. Just very quickly, thank you for addressing the conveyance fee. That's been a problem for a long time, where consumers were very surprised after having negotiated a car that they would be surprised by this conveyance fee. We thought we had addressed it a few years back. We didn't. We tried to change it. We tried to hold our dealers' feet to the fire. But I think how you guys changed it, you tweaked it, in this bill, made a lot of sense, and now the consumers are going to know upfront before they go into the backroom for financing that this is how much this car is actually going to cost me, and the negotiations are behind them. So thank you, Senator Cohen and your team. I'll call you guys a team. Senator Hwang, for your voice inside the committee and the screening rooms. And I think having everybody at the table really helps to sn/rr 175 make a good piece of legislation. And I think this is a really good piece of legislation. So thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill Number 413, An Act Revising Various Motor Vehicle Statutes, as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the in the Senate. We voted on Senate Bill Number 413 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

amended: Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 1 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, for the next item to go, we'd like to mark that PT. And if we can go to Calendar Page 32, Calendar 342, Senate Bill 472, which is previously go as our next bill.

Page 32, Calendar Number 342, substitute for Senate Bill Number 472, An Act Concerning the Electronic Surveillance of Employees. There are three amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the bill before us today expands on some existing statutes with regard to the surveillance of employees in the workplace. Madam President, our existing law already requires some notification for employers that are surveilling their employees in the event that there may be conduct that is in violation of workplace policies or law. sn/rr 177 Madam President, the bill before us expands on those existing statutes to ensure that employees in the state of Connecticut can know when in the workplace and how their activities are being monitored or surveilled. Madam President, the bill requires that employers give a written notice to all employees informing them about specific locations on an employer's premises where monitoring may occur. It requires the employer to post in an obvious place the location where the monitoring might occur, and the types of monitoring that may occur, Madam President, and it also requires employers to provide a written notice to employees hired after October 1st, 2026, about the type of monitoring that may occur in that workplace, Madam President. Madam President, the bill also exempts the Connecticut Airport Authority from the provisions. In this bill, we received feedback in the committee from the Airport Authority that there was some concern that meeting these expectations that I just outlined may do harm to their efforts to maintain safety at an airport, which we can certainly understand why that is the case. And so the bill that passed, the GAE committee does change that and makes that exception for the Airport Authority. Madam President, I would just say more broadly, I think this is an issue where you'll find that the political spectrum perhaps isn't a straight line, but maybe is a circle. I'm hopeful today we may be able to garner some bipartisan support on this measure because I think increasingly in our society, as we've heard in other debates and other bills from other committees, there is concern about the way we are all being monitored in a variety of facets of our lives. And so, in our committee, we were approached to look at this particular arena. We believe that employees have the right to know how they're being monitored in a workplace, where they're being monitored, so sn/rr 178 they can have some expectation, to know how that monitoring is happening and where that surveillance may be, Madam President. Madam President, I think that the world has changed pretty dramatically over the last several years and the last several decades, and we're used to, in this room, thanks to CTN, for more than two decades being on camera. But the prevalence of cameras in a variety of places, the prevalence of electronic monitoring on our computers and other systems, I think employees have the right to know, and employers have the right to do what they need to do to maintain safety in their workplace. I think this bill strikes the right balance. It certainly isn't limiting how monitoring can occur, but I think it's best when people are informed of exactly how and where this type of monitoring is happening. So, Madam President, that's what the bill before us today does. I'm hopeful that my colleagues will see fit to support this measure, and I thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. sn/rr 179

Thank you for the recognition. I rise with some concerns. I guess I would start off by saying about the bill that is before us. I certainly respect the comments that we just heard from my esteemed colleague, the Chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, and I'm sympathetic to her remarks, especially when it concerns the privacy of people in our society, and the freedom of people to go about their business. But I think that we are seeing the world through very different lenses. In my view, the government is, who I'm concerned about, digging into the privacy of individuals. These days, we have the government tracking almost everything about each one of us, including what vaccines we have or speed cameras in our neighborhoods. We're being tracked and monitored by our government about our behavior in a lot of different ways. I'm also in agreement that there are certain basic protections that employees should have, but an employee-employer agreement is a voluntary agreement. And when the parties enter into that agreement, they go in on a contractual basis, understanding the terms. And really, the confusion I have about this bill is that we already have a very, very good law. I believe that we have a very good state law and a very good federal law that governs when employers can monitor their employees, and the requirements for when they are required to provide notice to the employee. And all of that's great, and I wouldn't change a thing about it because I do think that's important, and we've got to respect the rights of employees. sn/rr 180 But where this bill goes wrong is that it creates a situation where there is a big difference between telling employees you may be monitored at work, and telling them here's where the camera is. The first provides a fair notice to the employee, and the second can compromise the very reason why the monitoring exists to begin with. So, let me ask a question or two, through you, Madam President. Can I just get a sense from the good chairman how she feels this would impact the efforts that employers use monitoring for, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, could the good Senator repeat the last word of his question? Monitoring what?

Through you. I said for.

Go ahead, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Flexer.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. We will have a roll call vote. Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? Senator Flexer.

Thank you. We will have a brief recess and stand at ease.

Senator Duff.

Very good. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Maroney.

And the question is on passage, except that we need to get -- we want to pass the correct bill, because the one that's on the board is the PT'd one. So, we will replace it. All right. There we are. There you go. Senator Maroney.

LCO No. 5160, Senate Amendment "A". sn/rr 187

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment is a strike-all amendment that effectively becomes the bill. In Section 1, we lay out the definition. Section 2, we create protections for consumers for door-to-door solar sales, establishing hours 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM that they can knock, that they can go home-to-home selling the solar, and requiring the creation of a handbook that they must distribute to the consumers. In Sections 3 to 8, we have technical corrections. Section 10 is a good section that will require that if a consumer requests a payoff statement from the solar company, that they be given that within seven days. And then Section 11 updates a task force. With that, I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. I do believe that this amendment addresses some of the concerns that certain agencies and departments had. And for that reason, I think this is a great bill, especially consumer protection related, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment as well as the bill. Thank you.

Nay? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you mark further? If not, the machine -- wait. All right. We have to as amended. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk. All right. The machine is open. Mr. Clerk, announce the vote, if you would, please.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk, the next one.

Thank you. And Senator Lesser. But we just have to make sure we have the correct piece of legislation on the board. So, let's do that. There you go. Senator Lesser.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 191

Thank you. Senator Lesser.

Okay. And the question is on adoption of the amendment. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Perillo.

Please proceed.

Senator Lesser.

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

Very good. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. So, there was quite a bit of debate regarding the section the gentleman mentioned about volunteers and insurance during the public hearing and, of course, during the committee meeting as well. Could the gentleman just describe in a little bit greater level of detail exactly what he's referring to when he talks about that?

Yes. So, thank you. Through you, Madam President, the bill, as amended, prohibits insurers from refusing to renew a motor vehicle policy or increasing the rates, including by assigning a surcharge on a premium solely because the vehicle operator is a volunteer driver who provides services such as transporting people or goods to a nonprofit or charitable organizations without compensation. So, you could do it for another reason, but you can't do it for that reason. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. So, again, through you. So, what are some of the reasons why an individual, a volunteer might be driving somebody?

You might drive someone, through you, to a medical provider appointment, I'm guessing. Or you might provide food to a food pantry. There are lots of reasons why people might be a volunteer. And so, you would be volunteering for an organization that supports people with disabilities or an organization that supports the hungry or people with mental health and substance abuse needs or children. You know, there's certainly a number of nonprofits that serve our DCF, kids in DCF receiving DCF services. So, there are a number of reasons why you might be volunteering your time for a nonprofit. And so, it's impossible for me to think of every possible reason but those are a few. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the gentleman's answer to the question. So, let's talk about some of those specific reasons, one of which the gentleman mentioned is taking somebody to their medical appointment. Now, I imagine in those circumstances, some of those individuals might be older. They might be enfeebled. It would seem to me, and that maybe the gentleman can clarify, through you, Madam President, might some of those individuals have some sort of physical disabilities that might make it difficult for them to get in and out of a vehicle?

Through you, just a clarifying question to the honorable ranking member. Is it the driver or the passenger?

It's a fair question. I'm referring very specifically to the passenger. So, a passenger who has a disability has to get into the vehicle then has to get out of the vehicle. Might there be some risk in somebody with a disability entering and exiting a vehicle driven by a volunteer?

Through you. Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. So, if there is an increase in the risk of an individual getting into the vehicle and out of the vehicle, might that change the risk of driving the vehicle and owning the vehicle? Through you, Madam President.

Through you. Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. So, if it is riskier to be a volunteer driving a vehicle that takes disabled people to their doctor's appointments, might it be reasonable to conclude that perhaps the cost of insuring that vehicle would be higher?

Well, through you, it might be. And that's what we're seeking to outlaw or prohibit with this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate that. So, let's say we have a pool of 100 of these volunteers, and these 100 volunteers are bringing disabled people to and from their doctor's appointments. The act of doing that increases the risk of an injury, of a lawsuit for those 100 people taking those individuals to their doctor's appointments. If it is riskier for those 100 people and if the risk of paying a claim is higher for those 100 people, and if that would have raised the premiums sn/rr 197 for those 100 people, yet this bill passes, would we not be passing the risk and increased cost for those 100 people who have chosen to volunteer to the other people who have chosen not to volunteer? Would that be an accurate assessment?

It could be, or the carrier could absorb their risk itself. It's hard to say. Through you.

Madam President, thank you very much. I appreciate it. So, for these volunteers, are they forced to volunteer or is it a choice that they volunteer?

I think the word volunteer implies that it's a choice. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification of what a volunteer is. So, I'm trying to wrap my head around this because sn/rr 198 there was so much. And I'll admit, you know, when I first read the amendment, I thought that it eliminated the section about insurance and volunteers because it was so controversial when it was discussed during the public hearing and so controversial when it was discussed during the committee meeting. Yeah, I was obviously wrong because that section of the bill is still here. So, what I'm trying to reconcile in my mind is why it is okay to pass the risk and associated costs made or created voluntarily by a volunteer onto those who have not chosen to volunteer. It would seem to me inherently unfair that we've done that. So, we still have to -- the society needs to bear the cost of this. And while it is laudable and admirable that these individuals choose to volunteer to help many individuals, some of them disabled, get to and from their doctor's appointments, it seems inherently unfair that we would then pass the risk and the associated costs on to somebody else. And that, to me, is unfortunate. You know, we certainly want to encourage individuals to volunteer, But at the same time, there are risks associated with that volunteerism. And, you know, if the state decided, if we as a legislature decided that perhaps we wanted some sort of fund set aside to cover the additional cost, if we as a state decided we wanted a pool or a trust of money that would help defray the costs and cover the cost of claims incurred in the process of transporting individuals, I could get behind that because I appreciate what we're trying to do here. We want to encourage individuals to volunteer. But at the same time, I don't believe that individuals who choose not to transport folks from their doctor's appointments to home and from home to the doctor's appointments who are disabled, who increase the risk, I don't think it's fair that we sn/rr 199 pass that cost onto them, onto other insured individuals. That just seems inherently wrong to me. And I have to admit, I feel a little bit duped on this one, and maybe it's my own fault. But I'm disappointed because I really thought that we had done something important here and moved a bill forward that obviously is a priority when it comes to the work group, the advisory board rather, but we've still left a significant problem on the table and we missed an opportunity to fix it. I'm really worried about what precedent this sets in terms of shifting the risk and cost associated with it onto those who have chosen not to absorb that risk, not to create that risk. Because if we do it for this, what's next? What's next? Individuals are pursuing a risky behavior that brings with it associated claim cost and somebody else is paying for that. I don't think that's fair. And like I said, it's a slippery slope, because what else do we carve out? What other risky behaviors do we permit without added cost, and then take that cost and make somebody else pay for it? What's next? So, that's my concern. I was very ready to support this bill because I thought we were moving in the right direction, but clearly we have not done that. So, I will be opposing it today. What a shame. What a missed opportunity. Thank you, Madam President.

I appreciate the comments and the concerns expressed by the honorable ranking member. And I listen, I take his position seriously, and I think we move carefully when we limit underwriting by insurance companies. It's not something we do every day. sn/rr 200 But I want to say this. There's a public policy reason why we want to encourage people to volunteer for our state nonprofits. And when people don't do that because they've heard that their neighbor had a, to their chagrin, discovered that their car insurance was canceled because they were volunteering for the soup kitchen down the road, which is a horror story that no one wants to have happen to them, what happens as a result is that support for our nonprofits dries up. And two, the nonprofit has to make up the difference somewhere, right? They still need to have food distributed to the food pantry, or they need to have people driven to their medical visits. So, how do they make up the difference if they can't get volunteers because nobody wants to volunteer for the nonprofit because they don't want to lose their car insurance. So, what happens? We have to hire people. And if you think that it is expensive for society, for the state to say, yes, we might subsidize whatever minuscule additional risk there is for driving, you know, the grandmother down the street to her medical visit, the cost of having to hire a paid staffer to do that is infinitely more, and that cost will be born ultimately by the taxpayers, which, of course, is all of us. So, the idea that this is going to add cost to the state I think is wrong. In fact, quite conversely, not including this section would increase cost for nonprofits, and by extension for the state that funds those services, and by extension, all of us. I think this gentleman has it exactly wrong, but I hear the concern. I don't want to limit the ability of insurance companies to underwrite. I just think we should be very, very careful about doing anything that would increase cost to taxpayers. And for that reason, I want to align myself with the vast majority of the sn/rr 201 folks we heard testify on this section and support this section in the underlying bill. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it. Yeah. I respect the gentleman's thoughts on this, but I don't think I'm "exactly wrong". In fact, I think there are other ways to do this. Indeed, there's a world where nonprofits would have to hire somebody, and I can agree with the gentleman that that might be more expensive. Yet at the same time, there's a middle ground. There's a way we could do this. There's actually a couple ways we could do this without passing the cost onto other insured drivers. We could offer the opportunity for the nonprofit itself to pick up the differential on the insurance premium. That would be far less expensive than hiring somebody and would still spare other insured motorists from the additional cost of the risk. As I said before, we could also establish a fund here at the State of Connecticut that would cover the risk associated with this volunteer work. So, my point is there are other ways to do this that don't cost more money for insured motorists. It's not binary. It's not A or B. There are other options, options that we have not explored, options that we could explore. But here we've just chosen to pass the buck, pass the cost off to individuals who are not incurring any of the risk at all. So, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I am very -- you know, what the gentleman wants to do in terms of encouraging volunteerism is admirable, and I share that desire as well. But there are other ways to do it that sn/rr 202 don't treat certain motorists unfairly. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm sorry to interject. I was just listening to the conversation, and I know a thing or two about insurance. I have been an insurance producer since the 1990s. Used to serve as a ranking member on the Insurance Committee. I understand this bill went through the Human Services Committee. I don't understand why something that is so clearly related to the subject of insurance would be in a different committee. But I'm also listening to quite the conversation about the concept of insurance, and I'm listening to such irony too. I hear from the majority all the time that we have to force people to participate in insurance products because of the need to expand the pool. And this bill does the exact opposite. It is telling an insurance company, oh, no, you cannot charge someone for the actual risk that they are producing, and we must charge everybody else for that. It's absurd. I don't know much about the rest of this bill, but I do understand that this is a bone of contention, and it's a legitimate one. This section of the bill really ought to be removed. Thank you, Madam President.

sn/rr 203 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 87. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total one Yea 25 Total one Nay , 11 Absent not voting 0

Page 18, Calendar 216, substitute for Senate Bill No. 408, AN ACT CONCERNING LIQUOR PERMITS, FIRE SAFETY AND PREVENTION INSPECTIONS, THE REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION AND JUICE BARS. There are three amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. Good to see you up sn/rr 204 there. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of amendment, LCO No. 5225. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Senator Gaston.

And the question is on adoption. Please do proceed to summarize.

Thank you. And we are on the amendment. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Senator Cicarella.

Very good. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye? (MEMBERS): Aye.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended. This is AN ACT CONCERNING LIQUOR PERMITS, FIRE SAFETY AND PREVENTION INSPECTIONS, THE REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION AND JUICE BARS. sn/rr 208 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill No. 408 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Senator Bill 408 as amended: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 0

Page 31, Calendar No. 331, substitute for Senate Bill No. 399, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. There are two amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move sn/rr 209 acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that comes to us through the Judiciary Committee. It deals with CHRO and a disposition of cases. It makes some changes to when a party may request a legal intervention as opposed to the way it used to happen. It has to happen prior to the issuance of the draft report. It also eliminates the two-year statute of limitations that is in existence, and says that within 90 days after receiving the release from jurisdiction, it would have to happen. It comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. I with urge passage.

Hello? Okay. Thank you very much, Madam President. Technologically, nonsavvy with this new microphone. I stand in support of this proposed legislation as well. I don't think all the parts are perfect, and it has morphed considerably from its original genesis as an issue regarding a health club. And it would have been nice had that original intent remained in the underlying bill. And in the first section, I'm not in love with the fact that we're changing the time frame regarding when one can go to court. Nonetheless, as a whole, I am happy to sn/rr 210 support the bill moving forward. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 399, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES. An immediate roll call vote in the the vote on Senate Bill No. 399. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 31 Total voting Nay 5 Absent not voting 0

Page 39, Calendar No. 384, Senate Bill No. 484, AN sn/rr 211 ACT CONCERNING DISTRACTED DRIVING AND THE SAFE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE IN A HIGHWAY WORK ZONE. There is an amendment.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, there is a strike-all amendment, so I probably should call that. It's LCO 4908. I'd ask it to be called, and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO No. 4908, Senate Amendment "A".

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The amendment, which is a strike-all as I mentioned, does effectively two things. It says that the operation sn/rr 212 of a motor vehicle in a highway work zone that is defined under the bill, when engaged in prohibited activities, is a violation of the section that we are amending. And it also makes sure that that violation is not also a double violation. I would move adoption.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark? sn/rr 215

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Lesser.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Winfield.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Winfield. sn/rr 223

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO No. 5218, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you, Madam President. It's an amendment that came to us through work from the Attorney General's Office. It adds additional language to a section of the bill specifying that some of the processes that could be in play, including offering advertising or making available these sports wagering services. So, it is a positive amendment. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The amendment is just a minor amendment. It is not a strike-all. The underlying bill remains the same. Reviewed it with my crack attorney, Attorney Melanie Dykas, and we find it acceptable, and we'll not object to this amendment. Thank you.

Opposed? The ayes have it, the amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk?

Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 229

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Flexler.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Sampson. Oh, let's get your microphone working properly. There we go.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. sn/rr 231

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, please give us the tally.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Rahman, good evening. sn/rr 232

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Gordon, good evening.

Thank you. Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk, announce the vote, if you will.

sn/rr 234 Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, announce the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Senator Gordon, do you wish to accept the yield? sn/rr 236

Thank you. Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

sn/rr 237 Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff. We will stand at ease briefly. Senator Duff.

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Flexer.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Senator Sampson, do you accept the yield, sir?

We will indeed withdraw that, and we'll go back to Senator Flexer.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 239

And we'll get it up there. Senator Flexer.

Thank you. So, we are on the amendment. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber. Will you remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. sn/rr 240 (MEMBERS): Aye.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the This is Senate Bill No. 472, AN ACT CONCERNING THE ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF EMPLOYEES, as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill No. 472 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 472 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would like to move for immediate transmittal to any items that require further votes by the House of Representatives.

Thank you, Madam President. And Madam President, I'd like to yield to Senator Osten.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'd just like to let the appropriate people know that Appropriations will be having a meeting tomorrow at 10:00 AM to deal with products or bills that have been sent to us. Through you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. For our marking, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On Calendar page 50, Calendar 475, Senate Bill 5035, I'd like to place that item on the foot of the Calendar, please.

Did I say House Bill 5035 to the foot of the Calendar, please?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it is our intention to be in at noon tomorrow, and a So, 10:00, Senate Democratic caucus. And at noon, session tomorrow. Thank you, Madam President. Seeing no other points of personal privilege or announcements, I move that we adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.