CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-05-05

Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox. vs/rr 155

Is there any objection? Seeing no objection, so ordered. (gavel) Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to yield to Senator Lesser. I believe he has an introduction.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President, and good to see you up there. Madam President, just for a brief introduction. We're joined today in the State Senate by your good friends, a business and a community leader from the town of Rocky Hill, Tejal Vallam, who is involved in more -- has more hats on than any other person I can think of. We're very grateful for her as a business owner, but also as an important community leader in the town of Rocky Hill as well as in the South Asian community, and we're very grateful for her. And I would ask that the Senate extend our usual warm welcome to Tejal Vallam. (applause) vs/rr 156

Page 45, Calendar No. 507, substitute for House Bill No. 5575, AN ACT CONVEYING A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE CITY OF SHELTON.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this bill authorizes DAS to convey a parcel of state owned land at 784 River Road in Shelton for $350,000 plus administrative costs. And it's subject to approval by the State Properties Review Board. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a very straightforward conveyance to the town of Shelton, and I support it. The gentlelady has described the vs/rr 157 conveyance in full. It's a very straightforward one. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there are no objections, I'd ask that this bill be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 45, Calendar No. 508, substitute for House Bill No. 5577, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND TO THE TOWN OF SOMERS.

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. This bill amends a prior conveyance transferring state-owned parcel in Somers to the town by reducing the cost from fair market value to only administrative expenses. And vs/rr 158 that's because we're adding a restriction that the land must be used solely for public safety purposes. I believe the intention is to have a public safety communications tower. The bill also requires the state to retain an easement for a fire department staging area while maintaining the existing provisions that the transfer is subject to the State Properties Review Board approval. I urge adoption. I suspect my good colleague, Senator Kissel, may have something to say about this. I urge adoption of this bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is another straightforward conveyance of a parcel of land to the town of Somers, Connecticut. This is effectively amending something that happened in 2024, and it's extremely straightforward. It looks like this is a relatively small parcel of land. The value is almost insignificant, which is why I believe the conveyance is for administrative costs only, and its purpose is limited really for this public safety issue that was described by the chairman. I urge adoption. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of this conveyance, and I'd like to extend my strong thanks to the co-chairs of the vs/rr 159 committee, Chairman Gadkar-Wilcox, as well as House Chair, Lucy Dathan, and to the ranking members, my friend and colleague Senator Rob Sampson, who's been very, very helpful every step of the way regarding this modified conveyance that, yes, was started two years ago, as well as the ranking member on the House side, I believe Kurt Vail. This was actually a transaction that was modified, but at arm's length. It's a very fair transaction in that the concerns raised by the Department of Administrative Services were addressed by the town itself in agreeing to limit this parcel of land to being utilized for public safety purposes only. If there was ever another utilization contemplated, this land would revert back to the State of Connecticut. And the chairman, Gadkar-Wilcox, is exactly correct. Town of Somers, at its own expense, is anticipated to build a communications tower on this parcel. And not only will that help the ambulance and first responders in the town of Somers, but the town of Somers is relied upon a great deal by the Department of Corrections when they have emergency services needed for their elderly inmates that tend to be housed in units such as Willard-Cybulski and Osborn in that Enfield, Somers section of North Central Connecticut. I also want to say thank you very much to Commissioner Gilman and her staff at the Department of Administrative Services, as well as the former West Hartford State Rep., and now liaison for the Department of Corrections, David McCluskey, who worked closely with me. And I'd also finally like to thank Attorney Nick Presto, as well as Attorney Melanie Dykas, and my legislative aide, Katelyn Liegeot, for working behind the scenes in all the communications that we were doing, not only with the committee but with various state agencies, as well as preparing written vs/rr 160 testimony for the hearing. And so, a lot of people is helping to make this a reality. But certainly, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Chairman Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox, whom I've thoroughly enjoyed working with over these last two years, both on the select committee on special education, which only had a one-year run, but on the Judiciary Committee, as well as working with her in her capacity as chair of the Government Oversight Committee. And with that, I would hope my colleagues would support this as well. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And I believe there's no objection to this bill, so I'd ask that it be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 45, Calendar No. 509, substitute for House Bill No. 5578, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE CHESPROCOTT HEALTH DISTRICT, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A".

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move vs/rr 161 acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill amends a prior law conveying a two-acre state-owned parcel in Cheshire to the Chesprocott Health District by expanding the allowed uses of the land. The district may now permit or transfer portions of the land to nonprofit organizations for the purposes of temporary housing. The language also includes a standard reverter if the property is not used for those purposes. And it provides any proceeds will go to the state, and that DAS will do the conveyance on behalf of the Department of Corrections. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I rise in support of the conveyance that is before us. This one's a little near and dear to me since it is in my backyard. It is happening in the town of Cheshire, which is in my district. And I'm delighted that I was able to work with my colleague in the House, Representative Linehan, to come to a compromise to be able to get this over the finish line. There's a little history here with this conveyance. It's not worth necessarily getting into since it's a town issue more than anything, and we've kind of resolved it. But I am very pleased that I was able vs/rr 162 to include, in an amendment that ran in the House, some conditions that were important to me. And there were some conditions that were important to the Representative. And I think that that made for a far better bill, far better conveyance, certainly respecting the will and the wishes of the people of Cheshire, which is what I was concerned with. The original conveyance, while not necessarily problematic, did present the possibility that there might be temporary housing that might be less than desirable by most of the members of the community. And we simply added a stipulation that this had to conform with local zoning requirements so that you couldn't have a tent city or anything of that nature go up on this property. And I'm pleased that we put that caveat in the conveyance. That is what is allowing me to support it with confidence. And I do so. I encourage my colleagues to support it. And I don't believe there are any objections to this also, and I'd offer it for the Consent Calendar.

I concur. If there's no objection, I'd like to offer this also for the Consent Calendar. Thank you, Madam President.

Page 44, Calendar No. 504, substitute for House Bill No. 5579, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF CHESHIRE. vs/rr 163

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

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. This bill amends a prior law authorizing the transfer of three state- owned parcels in Cheshire, about 48 acres, to the town by expanding the allowable uses for their eventual sale to include economic development, a medical facility, housing, or open space preservation, and extending the deadline for such a sale to July 1st, 2031. The parcels must be sold at fair market value with proceeds going to the state's special transportation fund, and will revert to the state if not sold for one of the approved purposes by that deadline. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I appreciate the comments by the good chairman of the Government Oversight Committee. This is another conveyance in the town of Cheshire within my district. Again, this one also has a little local history. This is a vs/rr 164 modification of a previous conveyance that generated some consternation among the people of the town of Cheshire when the town proposed a certain type of use for the property. And as a result of the outcry from the public, they decided not to go forward with the original plans. And that's what generated this request to modify that conveyance so that it could be used for other purposes. And therefore, you see the language in the bill essentially allowing different types of investment or economic development, including what I think is most likely the development of a medical facility. And I certainly support this on behalf of the town of Cheshire. And I believe that it's much more amenable to the people that I represent. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this item as well. Thank you.

Madam President, I believe there's no objection to this bill, so I ask that it be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 45, Calendar No. 505, substitute for House Bill No. 5580, AN ACT AMENDING A PRIOR CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF STRATFORD TO PERMIT THE PARCEL TO BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED OR LEASED. vs/rr 165

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

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. This bill amends a prior state land conveyance to the town of Stratford by removing earlier restrictions that required the parcel to be used solely for school purposes and prohibited sale. The amendment now allows Stratford to use the land only for parking purposes and is now allowed to sell, transfer, or lease the parcel for that same purpose. If the land is used for anything other than parking, ownership will revert back to the state, and any revenue generated from a sale, transfer, or lease must be paid into the special transportation fund. I urge adoption of the bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We are on quite a roll here running through these conveyances. This one is amending a prior conveyance for a parcel of state land to the town of Stratford to permit the parcel to be sold, transferred, or leased. This is vs/rr 166 building on Public Act 18-154, presumably from 2018. And I support this amended conveyance. It passed out of the committee unanimously, and there were no objections. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there are no objections, I ask that this bill be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 46, Calendar 510, substitute for House Bill No. 5581, AN ACT AMENDING A PRIOR CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF ROCKY HILL.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. This bill amends a prior conveyance to the town of Rocky Hill by vs/rr 167 updating the parcel size and identification details. The land will be sold so that there's a change from fair market value for the land to be sold for administrative costs, and with a reverter so that it will go back to the state if it's not used for the purposes of open space and passive recreation. It's still subject to the approval by State Properties Review Board, and DOT retains control of the property until the transfer is complete, and proceeds will be deposited into the special transportation fund. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, I rise in opposition to this particular conveyance. Generally speaking, you know, we try and grant each conveyance request that comes to us as long as it fits into a few checkboxes. Number one, that the property is being conveyed for some legitimate purpose that is beneficial to the people of the State of Connecticut. Number two, that it is being conveyed for a fair value because that property does belong to the taxpayers of Connecticut, and they should be compensated if that property is exchanged to another municipality or some other entity. And then finally, that there would be no significant opposition. This particular conveyance being amended makes some changes that I do believe create some opposition. There is testimony from the Connecticut Department of Transportation that was submitted on April 1st when we had our public hearing on this that expressed concern that this particular amendment to this conveyance increases the acreage of the vs/rr 168 property to be conveyed to the town of Rocky Hill from 5.3 to 7.5 acres. The size not really being an issue, but they indicate that the original release map was created based upon the department's internal concurrence process. And that expanding the conveyance would infringe upon the DOT's maintenance operations, which require retention of this area as it has been actively utilized, they say, for the last 25 years. The site continues to function as a temporary storage location for materials such as clean fill and stone used in paving and resurfacing projects. It's a staging area for maintenance and construction activities and so on. This opposition from the Connecticut Department of Transportation leads me to have some concerns that this conveyance should not go forward. And I will encourage my colleagues to vote no. Thank you.

I'll just ask for a roll call vote on this one, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the AMENDING A PRIOR CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF ROCKY HILL. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're vs/rr 169 voting on House Bill No. 5581, AN ACT AMENDING A PRIOR CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF ROCKY HILL. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Bill 5581: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 27 Total voting Nay 9 Absent not voting 0

Page 45, Calendar No. 506, House Bill No. 5583, AN ACT CONCERNING CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS OF STATE LAND IN THE TOWN OF DERBY, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A".

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move vs/rr 170 acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Madam President. Thank you. This bill authorizes the DOT to convey approximately 1.5 acres of state land in the town of Derby, which consists of multiple lots, to the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority for administrative expenses and subject to the State Properties Review Board approval. The property is to be used for mixed use purposes, and it may be sold or leased accordingly. If the development doesn't occur within 10 years, the ownership reverts back to the state, and any revenue generated from the sales or lease of the property must be deposited into the special transportation fund. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I support the conveyance that is before us for the town of Derby. This is one that I objected to in the committee, and I believe my objection was that the original conveyance did not reflect a proper compensation for the people of Connecticut for this transfer, but that was changed. There was an amendment adopted by the House of Representatives that included language requiring fair market value to make this conveyance more appropriate. As a result of that change, I am now in vs/rr 171 support and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's no objection, I ask that this bill be placed on the Consent Calendar. Thank you.

Page 5. Calendar 166, House Joint Resolution No. 29, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF JANIS C. JERMAN OF NEW BRITAIN TO BE REAPPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move the acceptance of the Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President's, this nominee came out of committee unanimously, and I urge adoption.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you up there. I rise in support of the nominee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's no objection, might this item be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Page 4, Calendar No. 159, House Joint Resolution No. 59, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF JANICE BEECHER OF NEW BRITAIN TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to recuse vs/rr 173 myself under Senate Rule 15 to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Madam President, will the Senate stand at ease for a moment.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Committee's Joint Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, Janice Beecher is a new nominee to the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and somebody who came through our committee to her initial appointment, and who will serve four years. Somebody who comes to us with extensive knowledge and feel that you will be a good member of PURA. And that came through with a mostly unanimous vote. And somebody who many of us feel has a strong confidence in getting through. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I understand there may be some members that would prefer a roll call on this item. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 59, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF JANICE BEECHER OF NEW BRITAIN TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Joint Resolution No. 59. This is a RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF JANICE BEECHER OF NEW BRITAIN TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Joint Resolution No. 59: Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 33 vs/rr 175 Total voting Nay 2 Absent not voting 1

Page 4, Calendar No. 160, House Joint Resolution No. 60, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF HOLLY CHEESEMAN OF NIANTIC TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Thank you very much, Madam President. On this particular matter, I would like to recuse myself under Senate Rule 15 to avoid any appearance of possible conflict of interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Committee's Joint Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, Holly Cheeseman of Niantic is a former State Representative. Her name is familiar in this building, and is one of the newest commissioners for the Public Utility Regulatory Authority. She came through on an 18 to 2 vote. And I would urge adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak. I rise in support of former Representative Cheeseman as a commissioner of PURA. Obviously, the saga involving PURA in recent years has been entirely negative for our state, our residents, and our utility consumers. We all know that the cost of utilities in the state is far too high and that we need improved state policy in a new direction in many ways in order to make it more affordable. For many years, I and many of my Republican colleagues have insisted that the Governor and the administration appoint permanent, full termed commissioners to PURA and fulfill the legal obligations of the Governor to appoint five commissioners to those terms. It's important that we have the certainty that we have those terms filled out for the entirety of five years for all five commissioners as contemplated by law by this legislature, which envision that that is the correct configuration of a commission in order to protect consumers and ensure that there is certainty and steadiness in our regulatory policy. vs/rr 177 I think it was one of the great mistakes over the last several years and part of the chaos that surrounded PURA that we were leaving all the commissioner spots entirely in the wind. Essentially, allowing all those commissioners that were on a temporary basis, the only three commissioners that were serving on a temporary basis, had to be at the whims of the politics in the state because they had not been given the full appointment and the full confirmation, the benefit of a full term. Having five members as designed by law appointed and confirmed is going to be to the benefit of the state and should have happened a long time ago. I am certainly hoping that all five of our commissioners that have been appointed, and who will presumably all be confirmed, one of which had already been confirmed, former Representative, and the next four will likely be confirmed. I am hopeful that this can be a new day and a positive new direction for PURA and eventually for our utility consumers all across the state. I think that the lack of certainty and steadiness in our regulatory policy has been negative for everybody involved in the utility industry, and especially for our consumers. And I think that the benefit of all five members being seated for five-year terms will be to the benefit of the state. And I am satisfied from my interviews with the candidates for commissioner that they can do a good job. And I will be voting in favor of all four because of that. I hope this can be a new day for our utility regulatory policy where there could be steadiness and certainty and most importantly, a firm defense of consumers who are paying too much already. Representative Cheeseman, we're speaking on currently, but I am hopeful for all four new members, new commissioners of PURA that they can vs/rr 178 charter a positive course for the future of regulatory policy regarding our utilities in the state. Thank you, Madam President, for the time.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on House Joint Resolution No. 60. This is a RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF HOLLY CHEESEMAN OF NIANTIC TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY, PURA. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF HOLLY CHEESEMAN OF NIANTIC TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF PURA. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Joint Resolution 60: Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 29 Total voting Nay 6 Absent not voting 1 vs/rr 179

Page 5, Calendar No. 162, House Joint Resolution No. 62, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF CHRISTINA D. GHIO OF CHESHIRE TO BE THE CHILD ADVOCATE.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance to Committee's Joint Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the child advocate came through the committee on a 17 to four vote. I know that she takes her job very seriously. She got her Juris Doctorate from the Georgetown University Law Center and bachelor of arts magna cum laude from Central Connecticut State University. She was the associate child advocate, and I would urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just rise in strong support of this nomination. I had the pleasure of working with Christina when I was Chair of our select committee on special education, and I found her advice and her thoughts and the information that she was able to provide on behalf of children and especially looking out for the protection of children, and suggestions for reform to be incredibly insightful and incredibly helpful. So, I strongly support this nomination.

Thank you, Madam President. I also rise in support of Christina Ghio as the child advocate. She has been an incredibly strong voice protecting children. And while I, as the Chair of Children's Committee, think of her as someone who is working with DCF to improve their oversight, I know that there are many other ways that the Child Advocates Office protects children in Connecticut, and I think this is a terrific nomination. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in strong support of Christina Ghio for her position. As a former Chair of the Children's Committee, I had the opportunity to work with her. She's an independent voice, a very focused individual with the capacity to make sure that our children are going to be safe. vs/rr 181 I also had the opportunity to visit various sites, where children were incarcerated in our prison system, and the depth of knowledge, understanding of the challenges they were facing was incredible, and the amount of concern and focus that she has is something that we do need. I want to make sure that, and I would urge all my colleagues to support her. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 62, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF CHRISTINA D. GHIO OF CHESHIRE TO BE THE CHILD ADVOCATE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on House Joint Resolution No. 62. This resolution is confirming the nomination of Christina Ghio of Cheshire to be the child advocate. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Joint Resolution No. 62. Total number voting, 36. Total voting Yea, 27. Total voting Nay, 9.

vs/rr 182 Page 4, Calendar No. 36, Senate Joint Resolution No. 63, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF EVERETT SMITH III OF GREENWICH TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise to utilize Senate Rule 15 to abstain from this vote to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.

Thank you. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, Mr. Smith from Greenwich comes to us and came through the committee in a 18 to two vote. He seems well qualified and doing the job, and I would urge adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of Mr. Smith's nomination to PURA. Mr. Smith is a respected member of our community in Greenwich, but most importantly, has extensive experience in finance and an energy investment that will, I think, lend itself extraordinarily useful to the benefit of the general public here in Connecticut as we try to orient our Public Utilities Regulatory Commission to be pro consumer and limit long term costs to the benefit of our entire state. I'm hopeful that the new commissioners to PURA will be to the long term benefit of the entire state. With someone with investment and financial experience, I think that will be helpful, a welcome addition. And knowing Mr. Smith personally, and knowing how well respected he is in our community, I'm confident that he will be an excellent public servant to the benefit of our entire state. So, I urge my colleagues to support his nomination today. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF EVERETT SMITH III OF GREENWICH TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF PURA. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Joint Resolution No. 63. This is the RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF EVERETT SMITH III OF GREENWICH TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY vs/rr 184 AUTHORITY. An immediate roll call vote in the the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 31 Total voting Nay 4 Absent not voting 1

Page 4, Calendar No. 35, Senate Resolution No. 62. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THOMAS WIEHL OF MADISON TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution. vs/rr 185

Madam President.

Senator Kissel.

We will note that in the journal, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to compliment Senator Kissel on his form of running out of the chamber. Really great. Madam President, again, I move acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution. vs/rr 186

Thank you, Madam President. This is a full time paid position. Chairman Wiehl of Madison came and we've met with all the commissioners prior to the committee meeting, and somebody who comes from the Office of Consumer Council is well heeled to inherently understand the impacts of the decisions of PURA on rate payers, and somebody who have a great deal of confidence, and he's worked closely on a number of different issues I know already, and I believe he'll be an excellent Chair. And I commend the Governor for nominating him and appointing him as Chair, and I move adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 62. This is a RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THOMAS WIEHL OF MADISON TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER FOR PURA, PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Joint Resolution No. 62. This is a RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THOMAS WIEHL OF MADISON TO BE A UTILITY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITY. That's PURA. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Joint vs/rr 187 Resolution No. 62. Immediate roll call vote in the

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 32 Total voting Nay 3 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. I'm going to mark two items for go, please.

The first item to go will be Calendar Page 16, Calendar 201, Senate Bill 277, followed by Calendar Page 59, Calendar 291, Senate Bill 457 as goes.

Page 16, Calendar No. 201, substitute for Senate Bill No. 277. AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES' RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE CODE OFFICIAL CAREER PATHWAY, THE FIRE SAFETY CODE, BURN INJURY REPORTS AND STATE BUILDING CODE PROVISIONS RELATING TO ACCESSIBILITY. There is an amendment.

Good to see you, Madam President. 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. 4826. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Senator Gaston. vs/rr 189

Thank you. The question is on adoption of the amendment. Please do proceed to summarize, sir.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. vs/rr 190 (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. So, as we talk about public safety and we talk about recruitment and retention, it's not only in, you know, police officers, firefighters, which again, the fire marshals are firefighters. So, I don't want to get any phone calls. Ray, don't call me. I know you're a firefighter. But we do need to make sure we're getting everyone trained and gathering information to make educated decisions. I think this bill is a balance. It was worked out over this session, had its public hearing, and I think it's a good bill and ought to pass. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 277. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on vote in the Senate. vs/rr 191

Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Voting on

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

Page 59. Calendar No. 291, substitute for Senate Bill No. 457, AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE'S BOTTLE BILL as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A". There is an additional amendment.

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

Madam President, the Clerk has an amendment LCO 5239. Will the Clerk please call the amendment?

Senator Lopes.

And the question is on adoption. Please do summarize, sir.

Thank you. Will you remark on the legislation? 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. vs/rr 194 (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in support of the bill. I do think it's an agreement with all parties involved. It does look like it is taking some significant measures to start cracking down on the fraud that we've seen. It hearkens back to what I've been saying though for a while, and I think many of my caucus have said that, frankly, we should have waited till the other states surrounding us move to 10¢ in order to go 10¢ on our own. Right in my hometown of Brookfield, which is a Costco, which is right on the New York border. You see a lot of New York plates with a lot of bottles and cans coming through, and that's not the only part of the state where you're seeing this. And ultimately, our constituents are the one paying for it. And so, I think, frankly, this should have been done with other states buying in or triggering upon other states enacting the 10¢, but nevertheless, we are where we're at this moment, and at least this takes some measures to crack down on enforcement and crack down on those that are fraudulently utilizing the system to steal money essentially from the taxpayers of the state. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I had not intended to speak on this. I've been working on several other items, but Senator Harding has caused me to want to rise and express similar feelings regarding our decision to advance the 10¢ alone and what it's caused and what it is continuing to cause and will continue to cause. And I hope that this bill will provide some relief both to distributors but also, as Senator Harding said, to taxpayers because we will pay this in the end on behalf of those distributors who are being overcharged currently. And I hope and I pray that this body has the will to recognize that in our efforts in Connecticut to be a leader environmentally, that that should be and needs to be balanced with the cost that are incurred, whether that be in electricity prices or in this case in terms of the bottle bill. And we all support a cleaner environment, but we need to do it smarter. And I personally regret the fact that the Finance Committee did not include that provision that we only allow this to go forward when our neighboring states do so as well. But here we are, and I'm hopeful that this legislation will curb the inflow of bottles from other communities that do not have a similar 10¢ fee. And but if not, I hope we can come back next year and address the issue more directly in a way that would discourage it completely. Thank you, Madam President.

vs/rr 196 Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to agree with both my colleagues who spoke. I agree with them on this issue. And I do unfortunately have to say that, you know, this isn't the last time we're going to be revisiting this bottle bill. This is not a solution. This is just the latest iteration of a fix we need to make, and we're going to be going forward. And I assure the people in this chamber and the thousands and thousands watching on TV, that no one is less happy than I in terms of revisiting this bill over and over and over, but unfortunately, that is a curse someone has to bear. But I do encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 457, AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE'S BOTTLE BILL as amended by Senate "A" and "B". An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 457, AN ACT CONCERNING THE STATE'S BOTTLE BILL as amended by Senate "A" and "B". An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 vs/rr 197 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. We're going to mark two bills, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Calendar Page 35, Calendar 417, Senate Bill 477 as an ex go item.

Followed by Calendar Page 15, Calendar 195, Senate Bill 449 as a go item following that.

Thank you, Madam President. vs/rr 198

Thank you, Madam President. Calendar Page 15, Calendar 195, Senate Bill 449.

Page 35, Calendar No. 417, substitute for Senate Bill No. 477. AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR CERTAIN GRAND LIST EXEMPTIONS AND A MUNICIPAL OPTION TO ABATE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES ON CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND. There is an amendment.

Thank you. Senator Fonfara.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO No. 6140, Senate Amendment "A".

I move adoption, Madam President.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, this is the annual failure to file bill. This one's on steroids, however. And I'll go through the summary of it momentarily, but this is matters pertaining to a number of matters including the failure to file in the towns of Berlin, Lebanon, Meriden, Middletown, Waterbury, and West Hartford. It also has matters pertaining to the boards of education, carry forwards, judges' salaries, hospitals, charter revision in the town of Windsor, tax assessments, revaluations in the city of Hartford, fuel cells, film tax credit, absentee ballots, Medicaid reimbursements, the insurance department, nursing homes, school construction, automated license plate readers, South Central Council of Government, State BERD, Torrington vs/rr 200 Transfer Station, Angel Investor Tax Credits, and statewide translation language access, including Northwest Regional Workforce Boards, municipal grants in the city of Bridgeport, Shoreline East, Finish Line Scholars, Gravesfields, Productivity Gaps, Innocence Fund, Governors Horse Guard, Students Bus Fair Farms, Elector Pledge, unlicensed institutions, Early Childhood Endowment, the Repeal of Authorizations in Senate Bill 1, ICHRA Clarification, Tweed New Haven Airport, Youth Services Prevention, school supplies, adds ranking members, Newtown pedestrian crossings, and LCO tech revisions. Madam President, that includes the matters before us in the failure to file a bill. I urge passage.

Thank you, Madam President. We just need to PT this bill for a moment, please.

Thank you, Madam President. If the Clerk can go to the next item, please.

Senator Rahman, good evening.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO No. 4213. Senate Amendment "A".

I move adoption of the amendment, and I ask I please give, you know, summarize to the bill. vs/rr 202

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is really a friendly amendment. The strike in the Section 1 and 2. Original bill was repealing the Section 1 and 2, but we are, you know, removing the Section 1 and 2. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam President, and I'm reading through the amendment, and I will have a number of questions through you, Madam President, for the proponent of the bill, if I may.

So, I just want to understand about this amendment here and make certain I understand what it does and doesn't do. My understanding is that this amendment before us, LCO No. 4213, on AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING DIVISION WITHIN THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT. My understanding is that one part of this amendment strikes the entirety of Section 1. Is that correct?

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm reading through Section 1 here, and I do note that Section 1 looks to start on line number one and goes through line number 21, if I'm correct. So, I do have some follow-up questions regarding, though, certain things in those lines. And I do want to ask a question, through you, Madam President, to the proponent of the bill. Looking at lines eight through 11, I just want to understand if we remove that, would that then be favorable for municipalities? Is this removing something that otherwise would hamper municipalities being able to obtain certain types of grants or monies that they might want use?

Through you, Madam President, yes. We are empowering the town, giving back to the local control.

Through you, Mr. President, original bill Section 1 and Section 2, I stipe grant and local capital improvement grants, OPM tried to hold this, but this amendment basically putting back the Section 1 and Section 2. But if it's town start their project and some reason they didn't finish and used all the grants, either partially or full, whatever it is, but they can carry forward their grant, through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the answer to that. That clarifies what I was thinking. So, it seemed to me that this amendment would seem to be favorable for municipalities. And if that is the case, that would certainly be considered good and positive for them. And I may get back to a follow-up question on those lines depending upon answers to my follow-up questions here. vs/rr 205 And I just want to make a clarification on line number 16. This is in Section 1. So, Section 1 is removed and line 16 has words, "certified by the chief financial officer of such municipality" that would mean then that there could be somebody else other than the chief financial officer if that gets removed as part of Section 1?

Through you, Mr. President, Section 1 (i), and (j) of Section 7-536 of the generalist statute apply.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, I'll take that as a yes to my answer that removing that specific reference that's in the bill and this amendment would then remove because it's removing Section 1, would then not, I guess, focus just on the chief financial officer of the municipality. And then am I correct that in the bill itself starting on line 19 through 21 inclusive, where it talks about that if a municipality neglects to submit a "true and correct" reports, that the municipality will forfeit $100 to the state, my understanding of that is new language that's in the bill. I'm not talking about -- I am referencing the amendment because the amendment would strike out Section 1. But in the bill underlying, those words are new relative to that the bill is going to be adding that into law, and thus vs/rr 206 Section 1 would remove what was proposed to be new and revert back to the way it was. Through you, Mr. President.

Yes. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate the answers from the good Senator so I can understand what the amendment does. I wasn't involved in the discussions of the amendment. When I'm looking at Section 2, my understanding is that when I look here and the amendment says it's going to strike Section 2, that if I look at in the bill itself, which has Section 2 in it to be struck by the amendment if the amendment passes, lines 44 through 48, that's similar to what we talked about before about not hamstringing municipalities, that if they haven't yet fully expended funds on one grant, but they're in process of doing it, they shouldn't have to be held at bay if they're trying to get another one. So, it's similar to what was in Section 1, just trying to remove that same type of issue in Section 2, if I'm correct through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President, yes. The bill, nothing changing. Original bill keeping as it is everything except Section 1 and Section 2, removing, you know, empowering the town and control their own money. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. That does answer my questions. I understand what the amendment does. And so, I appreciate the answers from the good Senator who's Senate Chair of the Planning and Development Committee. So, it seemed to me that in further reflection, we certainly want to do things to be helpful for municipalities and facilitate what they do and certainly making certain that they have access to grants and state funds when they feel it's needed and the state hopefully can provide it to our municipalities. We all know that our municipalities need all sorts of different grants and funds. Extremely important. Otherwise, it falls onto the property taxpayers in the towns that have to fund things, and that may be prohibitive. So, it seemed to me that this amendment, getting rid of some things and reverting back to what's in current law, which seems to be a process that's working and doesn't have to be otherwise changed at this point of time would be good and helpful for our municipalities. And sometimes you have to go with the maxim first do no harm. So, this would seem to follow through accordingly on that. So, that would seem to make some sense to me. I think, likely, our municipalities would understand that during a vs/rr 208 process when bills are discussed and they go through committee that they're not always in a final form. Sometimes things have to be worked on further outside of the committee given constraints of the calendar, especially in a short session where we try to get work done by the JF deadline, and then we work collaboratively. I try to work collaboratively to see what we can do to improve upon bills, especially when different stakeholders are still working with us and our municipalities are working with us. So, this is one of those examples that I think it's important for the public and our constituents to understand why there are times that amendments come out and certainly one endeavors to work collaboratively. And I always advise and encourage that in a bipartisan way to see what we do when working on amendments. I wasn't involved in this amendment, so, finding out about it, I'm glad I had an opportunity to ask some questions relative to the committee that I'm proud to serve my second year on as a ranking Senator and work with the Chairs and the members of the committee on. So, I think overall, when one looks at this amendment and whenever we end up eventually taking a vote on this amendment, this to me would seem, at first glance, to be very reasonable and something at first glance that I might be inclined to support. I do have an additional follow-up question, if I may, through you, Mr. President, to the good proponent of the bill.

Thank you. And for reference, I'm just going to try to find the line number, if that's okay, to make it vs/rr 209 easier for the good Senator relative to my question that I have. Yes. It pertains to lines 59 to 60. And it looks like that the bill was going to remove the words secretary of the office of policy and management, and then put in instead secretary. So, if I'm correct, striking Section 2 in this amendment would revert it back. If it reverts it back to the wording, does that do any substantive change at all, or is it more just terminology but not substantive?

Through you, Mr. President. It's the same procedure for the initial election. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, my understanding is, if I heard correctly, that this change that was put into the bill and now this amendment that would get rid of Sections 1 and 2, and we're talking about Section 2 lines that are pertinent to my questioning right now is lines 59 through part of 60, but not all of line 60, that that is a change. It just reverts back to how it has been in law, but it's not a substantive change. And that's helpful for me to understand when we're discussing a change. And if I may, through you, Mr. President, have a follow-up question to the good Senator Chair of the Planning and Development Committee. vs/rr 210

And in this amendment that strikes Sections 1 and 2, does it do anything else? I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything that getting rid of Sections 1 and 2 doesn't do anything else to existing law.

Through you, Mr. President, no. It's that this bill, nothing changed after going back to the original bill, where they submitted after the amendment passed. And like my good Senator, love the local control, and this is exactly what the amendment does. This is why we put this amendment through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I do appreciate the good Senator referencing local control, and I always do look for good opportunities to do that and certainly welcome opportunities moving forward to work on amendments to bills that can foster local control. And I think I will spend a little bit of time on this amendment talking about local control as the good Senator raised, because I think it's important to highlight that a little bit more to vs/rr 211 make certain I was clear in some of my comments earlier. So, when we do talk about local control, I do believe that is important. And it's important on big bills. We've had big discussions on big bills, such as a housing bill and other bills, but it's also important when we look at a lot of, I guess, for lack of better terms, smaller bills, but, you know, all bills have various degrees of importance. Sometimes that's in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes there's agreement overall bipartisan that bills have certain importance in what they're trying to do. And I know one of the things we try to endeavor when we're dealing with bills and planning development, I know I speak on that, and this is relative to this amendment about local control, is what can we do to, first and foremost, stay out of the way of what municipalities are doing. Because many times municipalities are doing good things, and there are those in state agencies who may not even know the names of all the 169 towns and cities in Connecticut, and let them do what they're doing if they're not creating a problem. It would seem to be that this amendment recognizes that and says, "You know, we thought about this in committee, sounded like it was a reasonable idea to make some changes, but upon further reflection outside of the committee, we really don't need to make the changes, and we revert back to what the current law has been." And I think that's certainly good and gets to what my good colleague, the Senate Chair of Planning and Development Committee, who I do enjoy working with, our second year, working together in my role as ranking Senator on the committee, that this is a good opportunity to follow that. I said earlier, first, do no harm. And I think this is good to make certain we're not going to unnecessarily, even if vs/rr 212 initially it was well intentioned, hamper what municipalities are doing. I think that's listening to the concerns raised by municipalities relative to bills that come out of committees, taking that into account, and then seeing what we can do. So, I think that certainly is, you know, very, very, good, you know, in that regard. There are some times that we do have to take proactive steps to further promote local control. But many times when it comes to local control, this is an example. And I think it's a good example of saying that what we do many times is not getting in the way, and I think that's very good. So, as far as I'm concerned, I think and I'm glad the good Senator raised this. I think it is important from a local control point of view, and I would think that and I know I do and others do whenever we look at bills that are affecting municipalities, especially look at things planning and development, when we look at things housing, when we look at things education, when we look at things public safety, for example. And there's many, many other things relative to municipalities. I think every committee, at some point, hits into something with the municipality in this state, if not nearly all or all municipalities that we want to be extremely mindful of what the impact might be. And sometimes, if we're concerned there might be an unintended consequence to hit municipalities, that should give us pause, and we should stop, and we should think. But also, as I mentioned earlier, we should listen to folks in the municipalities and see what they have to say. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them all the time, but in a case like this with this amendment, which is LCO No. 4213, and it's relative to this bill, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING DIVISION WITHIN THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT. vs/rr 213 And some people refer to Office of Policy and Management as just OPM, which I think is a bit easier to say than Office of Policy and Management, which is the more formal, legal term for that agency. We do want to make certain that we're taking these things into account because it may look good on paper, and then we may move on to another bill, but it's at the ground level where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. The municipalities have to deal with it, and we hear about that all the time. And that's certainly a concern as far as I'm concerned. So, I do appreciate having had an opportunity to know now that there's an amendment on this bill and to have an opportunity to have a discussion about it. But also, I do appreciate the good Senator, who brought the amendment out, letting me ask him some questions so I can better understand the amendment, but also make certain that this way, out there in the public, folks know what's up with this amendment as well and why we're making a change in this bill via this amendment LCO 4213, which is relative to this bill, if I hadn't mentioned it already, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL POLICY AND PLANNING DIVISION WITHIN THE OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT. So, at this point, I don't think I need to say anything more on the amendment. I may have more to say on the bill once it comes amended, and I look forward to that opportunity if I have more to say on the bill, which I may very well wish to say more on. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment make underlying bill better. For that, I ask my colleague to support this amendment. Thank you.

(gavel) Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment will attach. Senator Rahman, would you care to remark further on underlying bill as amended?

Thank you. Would you care to remark further on the bill? Would you care to remark further on the bill? If not, the machine will be open. The Clerk please announce dependency of a roll call vote. vs/rr 215

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will announce the tally.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. The bill passes. (gavel) Mr. Clerk. Oh, yep. The Senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Senator Duff. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Cohen.

Thank you, Senator Cohen. You may proceed.

Thank you, Senator Cohen. Senator Hwang.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cohen.

(gavel) Sure. Senator Hwang.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Senator Martin, do you accept the yield?

Good evening. vs/rr 227

Senator Cohen.

Senator Martin.

Senator Hwang, do you accept the return of the yield?

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang. vs/rr 232

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Senator Cohen.

Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Yes, it has.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you, Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen. vs/rr 265

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Good to see you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Kissel, good evening, sir.

Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel. vs/rr 274

Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Cabrera, I understand you have a question, sir -- Sorry. Sorry. Senator Kissel. vs/rr 277

It absolutely is, sir.

Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you very much. vs/rr 285

And I very much appreciate the good chair's response to that question. I'm just going to hold off on questions for a little bit, but clearly, a lot of time and effort has been put into this legislation, and it's exciting. But one of the things that it definitely underlines for my constituents in my neck of the woods is, I am so blessed to live in my part of Connecticut. Because it just seems that what folks in the area close to New York City, down in Fairfield County in particular, but I'm guessing in other areas south of Hartford deal with on a much more regular basis than we have to grapple with north of Hartford is this heavy congestion and this heavy traffic that is really plaguing the economic development of various parts of Connecticut. And so I applaud the fact that Commissioner Eucalitto and his staff with the leadership of Chairwoman Cohen and Ranking Member Hwang have determined that what is being utilized to the benefit of the citizens in other states, and in particular, North Carolina and Georgia, can be utilized up here in Connecticut. And when I go back and I talk about legislation to my constituents, they naturally say, well, how would this possibly affect us? I look over across the circle and I see my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon, and his folks are north of Hartford as well. And so, a lot of the congestion that other folks may grapple with, we're actually sort of lucky. And we have other issues in our area of the state that folks in the southern part of the state may not have. So I think this is a good and creative way, and I'll probably follow-up in a few minutes with a question regarding another portion, which has to do with the vs/rr 286 fact that it's not just opening up an additional lane, but it appears that the bill contemplates the utilization of a whole system. And not only a whole system, but I'm reminded of the General Law debates that we had just recently regarding data privacy. And I dug into this just briefly. And all of a sudden, I'm seeing that in here is a provision to protect individuals data. And I'm trying to figure out how can me driving north and south on Interstate 91 create data for some sort of database that now has to be protected. And I'm looking around saying, where's Senator Maroney? I need to ask Senator Maroney this regarding the data. But apparently, we're moving into a brave new world where traffic is going to be able to increase in its ability to move smoothly at the flip of a switch. And another thing that I think is extremely important is the fact that not only is all of this done by the Department of Transportation, but much of this can be done by certain delineated municipalities. And I don't know exactly what municipalities would qualify to be able to use this dynamic flex creation of these lanes. And I'm guessing that it's probably not some of the smaller municipalities that I represent north of Hartford. They wouldn't have a magic switch that they could throw regarding creation of dynamic flex lanes here in the State of Connecticut. I promised the circle that I would not go on too long. I've only touched the surface of a couple of things that I wanted to dig into, But I now am checking, myself check, and I believe I've already talked for a half hour.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. vs/rr 287

I know, and you grabbed right onto it. And I haven't even gotten to the ice age part of my conversation or the fact that Windsor was the first English settlement in Connecticut or the fact that Enfield had the Minister Jonathan Edwards coming to talk about Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. But with that, what I'd like to do is to yield at this time to my friend and colleague, Senator Gordon, because I know he has some questions on this bill as well.

Madam President, yes, I do and I appreciate the offer of the yield. So I do have some comments and I will perhaps have some questions, but I just want to start out talking a little bit because I do talk a bit about transportation issues out in my neck of the woods. I know Senator Kissel talked about his district out in North Central Connecticut, and my district is Northeast Connecticut. Now one of the things I think we might be blessed with up in my part of the state is we don't have to travel 95 on a daily basis. We have 395, which other than an accident or when you start heading down, heading down to Norwich, especially the casino area, you really don't pick up much traffic. But it is an interstate technically, and 395, by designation, does flow into Massachusetts before it just magically becomes, in Auburn, Route 290 and winds its way through Worcester, my hometown. And then we also do have in vs/rr 288 my District 84, which itself, in my part of the state, is actually not always that busy until perhaps you get down to where Tolland intersects with Vernon, where it does pick up a lot of traffic. Mostly, we have a lot of -- outside of the morning and evenings, we just have a lot of truck traffic because 84 is a federally designated truck highway as far as where trucks are, we're supposed to be designated to, quote, unquote, "go," but they go wherever they want to go now because of GPS. So my part of 84 is very different than perhaps other parts of 84 in the state, especially the central part of the state where our traffic concerns tend to be much different in that regard. And then I start having other various routes. Biggest one tends to be 44, which is a real heavily trafficked one that goes its way all the way into Providence. And then we have another number of secondary routes that crisscross throughout our towns and our technically state roads or, quote, unquote, "state highways," but not highways in the traditional sense of what people think of a highway. But I do remind my constituents that even though there are many times I'm not talking on a transportation bill or asking questions about it, I do certainly pay attention to things that come out of the Transportation Committee, and appreciate the good work that the members of the Transportation Committee do. And I remind my constituents that transportation issues can, in certain regards, affect every part of the state, even if perhaps things that look into 95 congestion, we don't worry about, or the commuter rail, we don't worry about. We do hear the rumblings at night of some of the freight trains that roll through, especially through Putnam, and there are ones that head on down from Massachusetts and work their way through parts of Mansfield and in those areas where not that long ago, there was a train derailment. Unfortunately, no one was killed in that train derailment. But it did affect part of a town of Coventry because there was a scare about chemical vs/rr 289 release, and some people had a shelter in place for a little bit of time, but fortunately, no injuries there. So I do look to see what goes on with different types of transportation bills and, you know, rightly so, some things that come up in transportation bills don't really pertain to my district, but there are some things certainly that caught my interest in this bill that I would like to talk about and certainly ask some questions about to better understand certain things about the bill. And one of the things that I do know, well, and especially from our part of the state, we have a very active legislative delegation. My district is a big geographic area. It's 13 towns. So a big chunk of real estate, very happy to have all 13 towns in my district. I do have one part of Thompson, happy to pay attention to the entirety of Thompson. I have one part of Ellington, happy to pay attention to the entirety of Ellington, is that there's been a lot of infrastructure work that's going on, and it's important for my constituents to always be mindful that things we talk about and do here and including anything we want to fund for infrastructure does filter its way up to Northeast Connecticut. A lot of roads have been paved, state roads, some very long ones, have been paved. I know there's ongoing work on 84 with the various detour signs that I can see for various bridge repairs and bridge replacements. Those are certainly very, very, important as well. So lot of good infrastructure stuff and reason why there are things we need to be doing legislatively to keep that going, but also deal with various things on our routes and on our highways. So I'm always mindful of the importance of transportation issues. We always take it for granted. I sometimes joke that some people on 95 may deal with real massive congestion on 95. I've been on that road many times. But I joke that sometimes in some of my small towns, the traffic congestion can be, you're in back of a massive piece of farm vs/rr 290 equipment, that's rumbling down the road to get to the next cornfield or hayfield. Sometimes it's a big manure truck, and you got to keep your distance in back of that. But we have our own set of challenges and issues with transportation in my part of the woods, especially since a vast majority of my roads in towns, the small towns, have no lights whatsoever. People actually want it that way. So you got to be extremely careful at night with the twists and turns and ups and downs in the middle of the night, especially in the winter. One of the things that I found with interest in this bill, I think it's section 2. I didn't print the bill, so I have it up on the screen so I can see the different sections, is it talks about parking of, I believe, plug-in hybrid vehicles or what's referred to also as battery electric vehicles. I think that must mean full EV vehicle relative to parking spots. And this is in section 2, I guess it creates a new or changes a subsection c, and there's some new wording in there relative to that, no person shall park a vehicle, either they have this hybrid or they have a full EV in a space that's equipped with a state agency electric vehicle charging station, unless that person is actually plugged in. But then there's some wording here that talks about accept that someone may park their hybrid plug in or their, I guess, full EV in a parking spot, if they're not charging, I guess, at the discretion of the state agency. And that certainly caught my interest. I do have constituents who do have hybrids. I have constituents who have EVs just as I have those who have gas powered vehicles in diesel, including those with big pickups and various other types of farming or commercial. We still have some industrial, but not a lot of true major, high intensity industrial vehicles that rumble around. But there are their share of big diesel construction trucks. And, actually, many of the farms use them too, the big massive payloaders. They use them very much so. And vs/rr 291 diesel is a very efficient combustion engine, sometimes more than gasoline in efficiency per stroke in the cylinders. But one question I have, and if I may, through you, Madam President, to the good proponent of the bill, is what is the thinking or the reason behind allowing someone with a hybrid or a full EV to be able to use a parking spot that's designated as the charging station. Is there been some problem at the state agencies with just not enough parking, or I'm just trying to understand why one would be able to park at a charging station if they're not entry needing to plug in if I'm reading this section 2 subsection C correctly?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, oftentimes, these are designated for charging only. If a vehicle is plugged in and has finished charging and it's not actively charging, they're in violation, and so this allows some discretion there to allow for vehicles who are not actively charging to be in those spots, if they have a hybrid or an electric vehicle. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. That answers part of my question. So I was just concerned that someone could show up. They have a near full charge, and they're just going to use the parking spot because it's convenient. But this is more for someone who is plugged in and they've already charged up, but vs/rr 292 they're still doing business or doing whatever. And now that it's no longer technically charging, but we don't want them to be in violation. So that would seem to make sense as opposed to just giving them access to a parking spot when they don't need the charge, whatsoever. So that would certainly seem to make some sense to me. I just wanted to get clarification on that. I know that, certainly, talking with friends and colleagues, even constituents who do plug in, it certainly could take a period of time much different than filling up a car with gas or with diesel. And if this is going to allow them to do the charging and not be in violation once the charge is done, then that certainly would be reasonable to do. And I'm glad to hear that as well. I know there was discussion that Senator Kissel had about these dynamic part time flex lanes and things like that, and he talked a bit about I-90 one. And I'm going to talk a little bit about I-84 with regards to these flex lanes. One question I do have through you, Madam President, if I may, if these are being looked at on the interstates, is that something the state has jurisdiction to say to create the flex lane, or is there a whole federal process that has to be gone through for an interstate to be able to create these flex lanes or change them, modify them, stop them? I'm not certain how that works with regards to the federal interstate system and what the states can and cannot do with the interstates that roll through their part within their borders?

Thank you, Madam President. And through you, yes, there are federal requirements with respect to these flex lanes, but we as long as those requirements are vs/rr 293 met, they can be on interstate highways. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And that's what I kind of expected. There had to be some federal interface given federal issues relative to the interstate system. And it is interesting because I can certainly see in more populated areas. I know as I take two routes to get to the capital, there's really only two routes for me. From my part of the state where I live a couple of miles under the border from Massachusetts, in Woodstock, I either have to come down 44 and then work my way, and then I pick up 84 right in East Hartford and flow into Hartford, or I work my way on 197 West right under the Mass border. I go through Bigelow Hollow. I try not to do that in the winter because it's steep going down and steep coming up. And if you're in back of a truck that doesn't know that, in the winter of the ice, you're stuck in back of a truck that has no way to get out unless it's able to work its way into the state park and try to get off the road. And then I pick up 84, literally in Union, and work my way straight down. So there's only two ways that I work my way here to get to the Capitol. And with 84, for most of the stretch that I have to take, it's not a lot of traffic. I sometimes see a lot of trucks because when you're in Willington on both sides of the highway, there are two big truck stops, Truck America and then there's Lowe's, literally on both sides. It's not uncommon that we have to see on one part, heading south on 84, the exit ramp is extremely sharp to get to one truck rest area, and trucks will tip over. It's unfortunate, but that vs/rr 294 that does happen when the truckers are not deciding to. And I also can see all the trucks sometimes going through the way stations when I'm further north on 84 from heading north into crossing into Holland and then to Sturbridge, Massachusetts. So given there's not a lot of major traffic for cars, it's probably might not be a stretch that you're going to really think about wanting to put a flex lane in. But I can see as one starts heading further south on 84, you're picking up more populated areas. You're picking up a lot more traffic. There is the HOV lane, and I can understand how some of this may work and might be of a benefit. Even in some part of my state, again, very different, not as densely populated as other parts of the state where you're really picking up some major road traffic and truck traffic. Not even if you don't even take into account construction, which can be very vexing sometimes having to deal with, but I understand construction still needs to be done to keep those highways going and maintained. I can also see that people create their own flex lanes. One of the problems we have on 84, I don't have too many police departments in my district. I have great police department in Vernon, great police department in Coventry. Everything else in my district is covered by state police. Troop D out of Danielson and Troop C out of Tolland. And, certainly, troop C will cover a stretch of 84. I've done a number of ride alongs. I certainly see what they do. I think the average speed has to be at least 80 miles per hour, and looks like people might be trying to create their own flex lanes because more and more people are traveling and passing actually in the breakdown lanes, which is quite something to see, especially at night. If you're in the right lane and then suddenly you see someone decide to weave around you, vs/rr 295 we do see that quite a bit when there's a lot of trucks at night because trucking happens a lot at night to do shipping between places. So a lot of trucks are out in their routes. And sometimes if they're in the middle lane, the right lane, you'll see people try to pass us in the breakdown lane if there are other folks who are traveling in the speed lane, even though they're by law, they're not actually supposed to, they're only supposed to be passing. They're not supposed to just be making it a travel lane. That's a whole separate issue, but I usually just confine myself to the middle lane or the right lane, and go accordingly. But I can see people, in an unsafe way, creating their kind of their own flex lanes, and that's an issue. I commend the state police for going after these folks, and that is a continued issue on our highways. So the whole concept of these flex lanes is very, very interesting, and I can see how that would work. One of the things I'm always mindful of 84 is, as you know, it flows into Massachusetts, And there are people who feel that if they're going fast enough and they can cross the border, then they're free, but they forget that the two, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with their troopers and our State of Connecticut with our troopers, they do a huge amount of crosstalk. And if you're up there in the area where the border is and there's a big area there in the medium that they use, you'll very much see the Connecticut troopers trying to pick up people speeding down from Massachusetts heading south, and also, the Commonwealth troopers are just over the border, or they're there picking people speeding up to the north. And sometimes you'll see the two troopers on either sides of the road, which is an intro. I'm not stopping and taking a picture, but it's a mental picture that I have. vs/rr 296 And you can definitely know when they're there, you'll suddenly see everybody who's passed you going 90, 100 miles per hour. Suddenly, as you're going along at 65, you catch up with them because they're all suddenly slowing down when they see the troopers on either way. So, it is certainly interesting dynamics at the borders on 84. One thing that I read with interest is this whole concept of what do you do as far as the penalties if there's violations. I understand if there's violations that somebody does, there's a consequence, but that whole process is very interesting because we've gone from an era where things were just on paper and you would get a paper ticket to more and more everything has gone computerized and things get printed out for you. Look. There's all these mini computer consoles, and setups in the trooper cars to nowadays with the cameras and everything else that are now the new way of doing things to deal with enforcement, monitoring traffic flows, safety, all of that stuff. More and more, we see that infrastructure popping up. Certainly, in more congested and busy areas of the state, lot more traffic. I can understand that. But even we're seeing that more and more all throughout. Even in the rural parts of the state on the various interstates, we're seeing that infrastructure. We're seeing that use. So, I can understand that there will be things looking into with regards to the fines and things like that. But one of the things that struck my interest is that how more that's going to be controlled. And one of the questions I have through you, Madam President, if I may, is, with these flex lanes, I'm assuming you're not going to have police just sitting every hours of the day there. But I believe more and more, there would be, I imagine, more of this video or monitoring surveillance that would then pick up people who are violating. vs/rr 297 And if I'm trying to read this bill correctly about that, is that how that's being envisioned if one's setting up these flex lanes to have various cameras or surveillance or things like that to pick this stuff up with snapping the license plate in the car, things like

Thank you, Madam President. Through you. Yes. In this case, they're called flex control systems, they're automated traffic or speed enforcement devices that are used to ensure everything is running smoothly and people are adhering to speed limits, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, and I appreciate that. And I guess with the surveillance systems, and I was reading through this bill as far as who has to review the alleged violation and all those types of things. It looks like there's a built in process. One of the things that I want to make certain that I'm understanding in this bill that -- And I wear my municipal hat when I used to have to deal with land use violations that anytime you set up a violation process to someone who reviews it, you want a human to review it, even if you have AI and everything else do these things, and then an appeal process to be fair. vs/rr 298 And I just want to understand if I'm understanding this bill correctly, through you, Madam President, what is the appeal process if someone says I disagree with being told I violated? Is that they have to go to court, like a traffic court or something like that? Is that how it is, or is it some other noncourt administrative appeal process? Just so I can understand that more.

Thank you, Madam President. In the case of these violations on our highways versus the use of flex lanes in our municipalities, because there is a separate and distinct process, but on our highways, this would be through the Centralized Infractions Bureau, also known as CIB. If an individual were to plead not guilty, the Centralized Infraction Bureau would then send that plea and request for a trial to the clerk in that area court, and then it would go through the court process, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the answer. That clarifies to me. I certainly have seen sometimes how the video or automated systems can create problems. I remember a number of years ago, I was traveling with my wife on the Mass Pike. And that's when they actually still had all the toll booths up. vs/rr 299 And they certainly had certain automated lanes that you could go through and didn't have to put your change into the bucket necessarily. But still, they would have those. You throw the change in the bucket, and you didn't have to go and stop and, you know, if you had exact change, you know, I remember going in, throwing the coins in the bucket. The thing turned green. I'm starting to go, then suddenly the gate starts coming down again. And I had to stop, and then the gate goes back up, and I go. And then suddenly in the mail, I get a printout from some computer system saying that I violated the mass pipe tollboom twice. And evidently, I did it within less than one second, which was impossible for me to do the same violation twice that shorter time. The appeal process was that I couldn't even track down a human to even make an appeal. I would have to send a letter in and write something and then hear back. But I actually looked up the Massachusetts general law, and it actually said that if you appeal, a person would be who you would go to. That seemed to stump the Massachusetts Highway Authority that was trying to tell me that whatever they created, I didn't have to get in touch with a person. And I kept citing this law saying, but the law says it's a person. Didn't say it's a machine who I could go to for an appeal. And I ended up having to write a letter to the Lieutenant Governor at the time, Tim Murray, who actually was born and raised in Worcester, former mayor. That's my hometown. He happened to be Lieutenant Governor at the time when Deval Patrick was Governor there, and they actually agreed that the law said a person had to deal with the appeal, that it wasn't their machines and I didn't have to send something in, that I could get in touch with a person. vs/rr 300 And then they agreed that I didn't violate and that there was no way that I could physically, within a fraction of a second, do the exact same violation of a tow booth twice. And that's the benefit of speaking with a person who can understand where a machine probably wouldn't, and how quickly the machines operate and deal with nanoseconds and less than nanoseconds. So, I remember that whenever I think about where we go in our society with all these cameras and, you know, saying if you're speeding or you didn't stop at a red light or you didn't do A, B, and C, you didn't do X, Y, and Z. And so, you know, I'm glad that if there is a process "appeal", that one would still be dealing with actual people as opposed to just dealing with the technology. And so, I'm always mindful of that. I actually still have somewhere in a drawer the copies of those double violations and the letter I sent. I actually did get a letter back from the commissioner at the time of the Mass Highway, and from the Lieutenant Governor at that time agreeing with me that I was right about reading the law and agreeing with me that they couldn't think of how it was possible for me to commit that double violation that quickly, you know, unless I'm Superman going real fast, which case I wouldn't be in my car. I'd be flying from where I was going from Worcester to Boston. So, I'm glad to hear about that with regards to this. One of the things that also mindful of is that when we're dealing with the different types of the highway systems, and this whole flex lane thing is very, very interesting. I'm just thinking about as we move forward in time, we may have more congestion in the roads, especially if the state is going to push and mandate more housing in various parts of the state. That just leads to more traffic and the interstates will absorb a lot of that as well. And also more and vs/rr 301 more in our society going less to actual brick and mortar stores, which I still very much like to go to, and more and more you just sit and you order things online and magically, it gets delivered. Now that's all due to trucks and the delivery vans and things like that, and that will lead more and more to traffic on the roads and things like that. And since I travel a lot on 84, I'm mindful of that. One of the things that's interesting about 84 is there's actually two Interstate 84s in our country. People may not realize this. If you've been out into the Northwest, especially out in the Portland, Oregon area, there is actually an I-84, and it works its way into Utah. I think it merges with I-80 and stops. There's actually if you go to the history of the designation of these interstates, they all had very interesting numbering systems, and some of them had duplicate numbering systems. Until things were more modernized, some of that was done during the Kellogg and Coolidge years and then onward. That during the Hoover years. Hoover was very big as a commerce secretary under Harding and under Coolidge and was also working on issues with trying to update the numbering systems. And so, there's actually two 84s. I've actually been on the other 84, not the whole stretch, but I've been in the other part of the 84. And so, I always I'm not out there often, but I've been out there a few times on 84. It's kind of neat to see the 84 signs that I get to see every day in a different way out here in the eastern part of the country. But with regards to the flex lanes, I can see more and more given how one might want to shift and use things. You know, our infrastructure for the interstates was when it was built, and especially when we dealt with the Eisenhower interstate growth, was never really took into account the phenomenal growth and traffic that we have. vs/rr 302 And a lot of our highways are landlocked, and even if it's not landlocked like a 95 where it's heavily built in either side, there are stretches of 84 where you're not going to really develop because you're going to start building into wetlands and lakes and protected areas and things, like that. But certainly, it was never designed to deal with what we deal with nowadays. And in fact, the reason Eisenhower during his presidency wanted to build out the interstate, in part, was for national defense to be able to move military as quickly as you can from one part of the country to the other. But back in the day when he wasn't a general, in the early part of the 1900s, he was part of an expedition to try to travel from one part of this country to the other in a military convoy. Most of the roads were dirt roads, weren't paved, terrible mud conditions, and if you want to read a story about perseverance and endurance, even for military officers and non-enlisted personnel trying to go through the trucks and cars they had at that time to make their way through. It showed how unprepared the country was to try to move from one part to the other, because things really moved by rail then. That was it. There wasn't a lot of air either. So, it's just kind of interesting in why historically when you see the five stars and the blue signs to say the Eisenhower interstate, we can thank him, because he remembered his experiences traveling, and wanted to see what he could do during that time of the presidency in the 50s when clearly things were just, you know, very much blossoming with people out there in their cars. Age of the cars, very, very much so. So, it's certainly something very much that one would want to keep in mind. But I digress a little bit, but still remaining germane to the bill about vs/rr 303 flex lanes. One thing I also found very interesting in this bill, and rightly so, is more and more we see the distractive driving. It's just incredible the technology that is out there now that people can do. You can run everything, I mean, literally off of your phone. It's just amazing. And in fact, I worry about some of the younger generation why I agree we should not be having cell phones in school because, basically, all you have to do nowadays is just talk into your phone, it will do math for you. Talk into the phone, it will do whatever for you. So, it's just an absolutely incredible and more and more people love the technology in the cars. I certainly do in the Jeep Grand Cherokee I have. I don't use most of the technology that it seems to come with, but I'm very happy to have a really big screen in my mid console that has GPS and can show me where to go when I want to go and things like that. So, certainly, I use that technology a lot. It's hands free and my phone is, you know, not being used, and so it is good technology, but technology more and more can distract you with all the bells and whistles, but also using your technology, and I'm glad to see there are things in here about distracted driving, which as we know leads to many accidents, including people dying on the roads in accidents. And these are preventable injuries and preventable accidents, very, very, much so. So, we all have our phones on us, and it's always tempting to want to use it, but, you know, there are times where your phone goes off and you just have to leave it be. Or I pull off somewhere. Not on the side of the highway, but I literally get off and exit and go somewhere if I really need to take the phone call and do something. vs/rr 304 So, I understand the push for the distractive driving and also for various types of video. And I do have one question about that with regards to I believe in the bill, it talks about trying to prohibit driving with certain video in a normal driving mode. And I know it references holding mobile electronic devices, but I'm assuming in this bill, and if I may through you, Madam President, ask a question of the proponent of the bill. I'm assuming that this doesn't prevent some of the vehicles that have certain types of heads up display, where you can see your speed or some vehicles have it. Not many do, but some do have that, and my question is, those would still be allowed. You're not connected to your phone. It's just they're off on the side, on the windshield.

Thank you, Madam President. And yes, it is still allowed. The idea here is there are a number of devices that now allow for streaming videos, streaming content, using social media, for example. All of these would be disallowed under the legislation through you, Madam President.

Thank you. And I appreciate that because that's what I assume was we're not getting at some of these safety things. My car doesn't have a heads up display. My mother had one at one point. It's a little weird for me to drive her car. I mean, I tend vs/rr 305 to like big SUVs, and her car was low to the ground, so I kind of felt I was way too low. But it would pop up the speed and even the miles per gallon. And she never really liked it, and I could never figure out how to shut it off. So, she has a different model car that doesn't have it, so I guess the problem was solved. So, but, you know, there is that type of technology, and you always worry more and more things that the car manufacturers want to throw up on the screens, the more you are looking at that and not looking at what you're actually doing. And I'm hopeful that federal agencies would keep things in check-in in common sense in that regard. I don't have any other questions at this point in time. I appreciate the Senator answering my questions so I can understand the bill in more detail. I certainly will continue to read through some more analysis of the bill and listen more to the debate, however long that may go on tonight or into the morning, and learn more from people as to any questions they have and comments and other statements that they make. But I'll just wrap it up as I started, which is always important for us to be mindful of transportation issues because transportation is something we all take for granted. Our society literally runs on it, and functions from it. So, things we do with regards to make our roads safer and to remind people to be safe on the roads, to be able to have our roads handle the traffic and the commerce that needs to be done, the thank you that's there to the men and women of our police departments, the state police, our fire, our EMS that's there to keep us safe on our highways, but also, heaven forbid, we need help. No matter how minor severe it is, they're there to respond and help. And also, I do appreciate, as I said earlier, the work that DOT does. Everybody takes it for granted. And many times, I know this vs/rr 306 happened in my own town where DOT had to replace a road on Route 169, pretty close to the mass border. It's near where I live. Wasn't a bad detour for me to get around, half a mile. Most people in my town had no idea that there was even a bridge there, let alone the name of Gravelly Brook, which is an old name going back historically in Woodstock for the brook, until the bridge was closed and it needed to be repaired and fixed. And of course, people complained about it, and then people became very thankful of DOT for fixing it because not only did they fix it, and it looked nicer, but they did a wonderful job in a 4-point intersection right by the bridge, the overpass of Gravelly Brook, with better sight lines and better ways of taking a left and a right. And then people were like, "Wow. This is wonderful. Glad it was done. Thank you to DOT." So, we all complain about the construction. Myself, I do sometimes. We don't like it. But, nevertheless, we need it, and so thank you to DOT for what's done. But otherwise, I certainly look forward to more on this bill tonight to see where one stands, and learning more on it. And with that, I'll wrap up my comments. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. Feels good to get into the action here a little bit. Been sitting here all day and all week and previous week as well. Again, I apologize for my voice. I'm going to miss Tony, Senator Hwang, Madam President. He's been the ranking member on Transportation for a few years now. He followed -- You know, I sat on that as ranking member when we went through the tolls. vs/rr 307 And I think I was a ranking member for four years, but following what Tony's done with the good chair, and the chairs from the House and from the Senate, they were outstanding. I mean, it was a great team, and the legislation that they've put forth in front of this circle, I think has done well for our state and protected the entire state of Connecticut and those that are on our highways. And first, my thanks and appreciation. I follow what good Senator Gordon said about those that work in DOT and our first responders, and those that clear our roads when we have inclement weather. Just a huge shout out of thanks and truly appreciation from myself and from all of us here in the circle. I've had an opportunity while I'm sitting here to go through the summary and the bill. And I like what I see here. And but I do have some questions, Madam President.

I heard Senator Kissel talk about dynamic flex lanes in the state of Connecticut, and we're going to be creating these lanes. And one of the first questions that I had been in the construction, although I have built roads, I've hired people to build roads for me. My son, however, I never thought he would follow sort of the family legacy, so to speak, of being in the construction trade. And he got exposed to the construction sites at a really young age. And I have this picture of my son. He's probably four years old now, and he currently has a four year old. And he is up in the great hall of heavy machinery. And there's a picture of my dad and my son. And never did I think, I never pushed them to follow the construction industry, not at vs/rr 308 all. But he took such a liking and a bond to my father that when he had the opportunity to go to school at Roger Williams, he took it and went into construction management. And today, he works for a good sized company. He worked for Gilbane, for, like, five, seven years, and he traveled from, he started out in Rhode Island, then came back home to Connecticut, went up to Massachusetts, did a construction project up there. And actually, he was involved with Hartford Health and their orthopedic building there. And he was the site safety, I want to say, officer, but he was the guy in charge of all the safety aspects of that job. And now he's working for the Richards Corporation in Plymouth, a good sized company again. But I bring his name up because Roger Williams, they specialize in road construction and then also in building construction. They get exposed to both. And in his senior year, he captained a team of construction students who compete, and they won their regional competition. And then they were flown out to Las Vegas for the national competition. And he was a captain of the road construction component of the competition. So, I really assumed that that's the path that he was going to take. And little did I know about my son, he just decided, no, I think I'm going to pursue the building side of it and actually being, not taking care of the site itself, construction site with the big heavy machinery. But he chose to follow the building side where he's dealing with a lot of the trades, the HVAC contractors, the electricals. So, he's been working in the trade for, God, 15 years, I think, already. And I can't say enough. I know we've got an introduction, I think, earlier today. I think it was today, Senator Berthel, wished, gave a shout out to vs/rr 309 his son, Matthew for his birthday and how proud he was of his son. And, you know, I feel the same way, like most dads, regarding our children. So, going back to this road question that I have, through you, Madam Chair, are these roads going to be redesigned, and will road construction be required? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Would the good Senator mind repeating his question?

Sure, Madam President. I can go back.

Yeah. Happy to go back. So, understanding, I don't know anything about these flex lanes, and I can only imagine after reading what I did is, you know, will we have enough space in our roads in order to create these lanes? And through you, Madam President, what I'd like to know is, will these roads be required to have additional widening of the roads, additional construction to create these lanes? Through you, Madam President. vs/rr 310

Through you, Madam President, it would depend on the purpose of the lane. So, for use on a highway, for example, I know there's been some discussion about potentially putting a flex lane in the Danbury area on I-84. There is some construction involved in that process through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you, the section of the bill, is it addressing different areas of the state? Are we going to be only focusing on one particular area of the state? Or will there be more than one? And if you know what those areas are, can you share them? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This enables the Department of Transportation to use flex lanes, which have many purposes, not just the one that I've cited, which is in Danbury, allowing for the redirection of opposing traffic, but they could be used as high occupancy vehicle lanes, also known as HOV lanes, they could be used for within municipalities as bus rapid transit, they could be used specifically for emergency vehicles, and so there are a number of purposes that a flex lane may vs/rr 311 be designated either on a highway or within a municipality along a state road. So, it, again, just depends on the situation. I don't know specifically of any other plans beyond that which, you know, many of us have probably read about in the news, which is in the Danbury area on I-84 through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you, will this only be on a temporary basis until a widening of a road takes place? Or are we looking at this once a flex lane is designated, will that lane just become a permanent lane through you, Madam President?

I would assume that it would become a permanent lane. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So, sounds like we're going to start in a Danbury area, and I would like to think -- Well, I think we all know Danbury is a pretty congested area, but there are other areas in the state that are congested. So, is it fair to assume that we will be expanding this throughout the vs/rr 312 state, or is this just a pilot idea through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. There are certainly other areas of congestion throughout the state, though not all would be conducive to this type of dynamic flex lane. I don't know of the department's plans for the rest of the state. I certainly think this is a project that is anticipated in the short term should this legislation pass and everything fall into place with respect to federal law, and then I assume we'll see what happens. Thank you. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. The flex lanes, I saw that the buses were going to be created or these flex lanes would be able to provide the ability for transit bus system to go through that. I wish that idea would have come forward, I don't know, 15, 20 years ago when, you know, we had the fast track bus, I guess, more than a debate. It was a big topic of conversation in Bristol. And you know, even today, we still question why did we have this bus lane created specifically to bring people from New Britain to Bristol. And the cost of that per mile was off the charts. And, you know, we lost the ability to an existing rail line and being able to commute people from Bristol to Hartford through the rail line because we had to sacrifice throughout the path that the bus roadway would take, vs/rr 313 would need to be abandoned so that we could place the road into that. It's really unfortunate. And first thing I thought of was this bus busway. And even today, in every opportunity, I have to say it. I don't think that this was a good idea for that bus system, bus road to take place. I know that it's here and it's going to continue to be here. But it is unfortunate because I just see dollars and the people in Bristol see dollars just being thrown out the window because there are a minimum amount of riders in the bus. And we have a bus that I don't know how frequently it comes per hour, but it is just one person on the bus. Maybe I've seen three, max. And I've seen this bus over and over again. And one night, I remember coming out of this building and heading home. And 11:00, it is still driving, and there's nobody on the bus. Even one day, I'm in front of City Hall waiting for the light to turn red and I see three buses parked in tandem and there's nobody on the bus. Just I've said it to the commissioner. Not just commissioner, but I felt that people in Bristol are just laughing at the some of these decisions. I think had this flex lane been around, I think that probably would have been good part of the conversation. Through you, Madam President, through you, I just talked a little bit about the flex lane for the buses. Are there other purposes that this lane will be used? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. I guess my question would be, does the good Senator mean specifically vs/rr 314 the flex lane that would be developed on I-84? Or just generally, what could flex lanes be used for, through you, Madam President?

Good question, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, yeah. So, what are the purposes? I know you identified the Danbury area, but if this possibly could be expanded, what other purposes could be used on those flex lanes, through you?

You can use flex lanes for various purposes. You can use them as high occupancy vehicle lanes. They can be used for authorized emergency vehicle lanes. You can also develop bus rapid transit lanes, so buses can get to where they need to be faster. And so, those are the various uses aside from what we've been discussing that has potential for I-84 in Danbury. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So, just so that I'm clear, these flex lanes would be used permanently. Would they ever go back or would we ever I say, if it's a three lane, we create a fourth lane. I don't know if that would be called a flex lane at that vs/rr 315 point. So, you know, I guess, I have to wait to see what the plans look like. But when I hear flex, I feel that they're used on a temporary basis, and then they revert back to the normal two lane or three lane. So, if I understand correctly, flex lanes could be used for emergency situations through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. So, once the flex lane is installed and implemented, it could be used, like I said, for the purposes of opposing traffic. So, if it's, you know, heavy congestion time in the morning, it may be used going westbound and in the evening going eastbound. A flex link could be developed for the use of emergency vehicles. I also suppose it could be one that was implemented for the purposes of using it for opposing highway traffic could be used for emergency vehicles, but it's not likely it would then be that same flex lane would be then, you know, used for bus rapid transit sometimes. Typically, I would think the commissioner would determine its use ahead of time and it would stick to that use unless, of course, at a date in the future, it seemed more efficient to perhaps use that lane for an HOV lane, rather than its initial intended purpose. Through you, Madam President.

vs/rr 316 Thank you, Madam President. I'll go back to my years as a ranking member on the Transportation Committee. And a few years that were there and ever since actually I arrived here in 2015, tolls were a topic. And it was a big topic when I was a ranking member with my ranking partner Laura Devlin. We traveled throughout the whole state. We took a firm stance on that position. We traveled throughout the whole state of Connecticut, and we visited, oh, 20 something communities to talk about tolls. We knew without a doubt that we would not win the argument here in this dome. The numbers, we were outnumbered, I think, at the time maybe were 15 Senators and, to, was that 21? 21 on the majority side and in the House, that maybe there's a similar ratio down there. But we knew that Laura and I had been arrived here at the Capitol at the same time in 2015. And we heard as members of the Transportation Committee, not ranking, but we heard the arguments for tolls and against tolls. And we had a lot of knowledge between the two of us. And when we came back to the Capitol in January, her and I sat down and we knew we're going to lose this argument here in the building. So, we thought and we went to our leaders, we talked to them about, "Listen, we feel that we need to take this to the public." And they agreed with us. We felt that if the people knew what we knew about tolls, that once they had the right information in their hands, that they would not want tolls either. And thank you. And we traveled throughout the state. We came up with a pretty good PowerPoint presentation, made our arguments, and we even had the Governor one day, probably the last town that we visited, Greenwich. We went down to Greenwich and shared the information about tolls. And he came walking in. It was kind of cool. Were you really? You didn't have all that here. So, it vs/rr 317 was, we gave him time to talk to the people, and he was very polite and people very receptive to what we had to say as well as what he had to say. But in the end, Madam President, we were successful. I think the people spoke. There was like 100,000 petitions that were signed and we can thank the No Tolls organization for having put that together, and they traveled a little bit with us. It's sort of a collective effort. I don't think we would have been successful perhaps without the No Tolls organization and vice versa. They would not have been successful. And we even have a rally out here, and I know the vaccine group were 4,000 plus perhaps out there, but we had a few thousand people out there the day that we had to rally. And in the end, we were able to successfully put an end to the tolls. So, through you, Madam President, I have a question regarding these flex lanes. Are tolls a possibility that they can be placed on these roads, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Tolls would need to be passed through the legislature through you, Madam President.

Well, thank you. I totally understand that. But the question is, if we build these roads, these flex roads, is there a possibility that we could place or vs/rr 318 install tolls? The gantries, specifically, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. The authorization of these flex lanes doesn't involve the implementation of tolls. Tolls could be placed anywhere on our highways with the legislature's approval, so it's not contingent upon whether or not we have a flex lane through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, has there been any discussion at all regarding placing tolls in the future regarding conversations about flex lanes? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. I do know that some states charge for high occupancy vehicle lanes. I'm not sure if that is what the good Senator's wondering, that there is not an immediate plan for anything like that as far as I know of. I certainly can't speak to other proposals that may come through the Transportation Committee in the future, but this doesn't deal -- Nothing in here pertains tolls, through you, Madam President. vs/rr 319

Thank you, Madam President. I understand that there is no language regarding tolls, but I guess the question that I have in meetings regarding our discussions that have taken place regarding the flex lanes, has the discussion on tolls ever come up? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Not to my knowledge through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. There's a section in this bill regarding the use of cameras. And could the good Senator, through you, Madam President, explain how those cameras are going to be used regarding I don't know if there are fines that take place. So, could you just explain the use of the cameras on these flex lanes through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. If there are certain restrictions in the flex lane in the case that we're sort of referring to in the Danbury area, this would be speed enforcement. The flex lane control systems would issue violations for those who are going over the speed limit, the first violation $75, subsequent violations are $200, the fine revenue goes to special transportation fund, and these violations don't impact the driver's record in any way, shape, or form through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, could we just stand at ease? I need to find some information out.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. So, Madam President, do the cameras -- Is that a pilot program regarding the use of those that captures people speeding?

Through you. No. This is not a pilot program. vs/rr 321

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I have some questions regarding the TNC, and my wife and I are going away right after this. And I probably have used the TNC probably twice since their inception. I find it fascinating. And I see that we're modifying some of the requirements and particularly the locations and using of identifying markers in particular. Maybe if the -- I'd like to know what the safety features are that we can expect in the future that we're not having currently right now. It seems like, you know, I make a request for a ride. The driver knows what vehicle to look for. I get the ID, and I can identify who that I should be looking for. How's that going to be different with what's in this bill for, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. We are requiring that the TNCs notify the riders about any safety features that they may have. It could vary from transportation network company to transportation network company. Some of these features include location sharing, where you can share your ride with a third party, you know, a family member, a friend, to let them know where you're going and that you are in a vehicle with a driver, there are emergency assistance interfaces available with some of these vs/rr 322 companies allowing the intervention in the case of a deviation and perhaps an emergency from the ride. There is the potential for optional audio recording as well as reporting chatter hotline 24-hour support on the part of the transportation network company, through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you. So, are these already -- Have the TNCs already adapted these and these are some of their features. And now we're just codifying it so that they're in statute here. It almost sounds like that. The technology is out there. They already have it. They're using it. And now we're just sort of putting it on paper. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. Some of the companies have all of those that I've listed. Some do not. They have some. All they have to do is list the safety features available, so that a rider can determine if they want to use them, if they want to use that company because of those safety features, they're just added protections and, yes, we are in some cases codifying this into law to make sure that folks know they're available, make them more readily available, perhaps, by the transportation network companies, and make riding with a TNC safe for everybody. vs/rr 323

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, in section I don't know. I believe it's in 23 and 24. It talks about the traffic-like equipment and the municipalities in an effort to modernize some of their signals. Could the good Senator explain how two municipalities are cooperating in doing this together, through you?

In these sections, we're really relying on the Department of Transportation to determine where these traffic signals could be modernized and become more efficient at getting traffic moving. And there is a bond authorization for this purpose, through you, Madam President.

It says that it changes the preference to the application. Could she explain what that means, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it talks about changes in preference to the application and there would be a prioritization taking place to the program. So, I'd like to know what the current program is in regards to the application process through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So, the traffic signal modernization program hasn't really kicked off in terms of these grants, and there is a bond authorization. So, it just reiterates the bond authorization for this purpose, through you.

Thank you. Through you, how much is that bond once again, through you, Madam President?

$75 million, through you.

I'm sorry. $75.

Million. Okay. Thank you. So, if I understand her answer, through you, Madam President, so no municipality has requested the use or has applied for this program, through you, Madam President?

That's correct, Madam President. Although DOT would help municipalities identify where there is traffic congestion that could benefit from this modernization program, through you.

And the prioritization, is that a different -- Is that sort of a list to qualify for the funds? Or is it just to say that we're reprioritizing and sort of changing the program around, through you, Madam President.

If there are multiple grant applications, priority would be given to highly congested areas through you, Madam President.

Fair enough. Thank you, Madam President. There's a section in the bill that deals with the homeless, and I think this touches on every single community. I had a good friend, passed away, died of cancer. He would all the time, not just in the summer months, but during the winter time, he would go out and located all the camps that were in the city of Bristol. He would bring them lanterns, you know, gas little lanterns. He'd carry food, clothing, and he'd come back and he asked -- At one time, I owned it for 18 years. I built a storage facility. So, he came to see me and wanted to know if we could help him. "Of course, I'd be happy to help you." So, he had his storage unit, and he would put boots in the storage unit. He had clothing, male, female, whatever they needed. He had, you know, they needed raincoats, but he would go out to visit them. He would just wanted to make sure that they were okay. Okay. And you know, sometimes they got disrupted. Police would come by and say, "Sorry, but, you know, you really need to move along." You know, back in the 40s and 50s, you know, they were treated much differently back then than they are today. I think we're probably more compassionate with those that are homeless today. We treat them more with human dignity. Back then, you know, they used to be vs/rr 327 called Skid Row if we had a camp of a population of them, and they were most likely arrested or they were physically just, you know, manhandled probably. I remember when I first built that storage facility, we had a camp right behind us. We didn't bother them. We, male, female, I believe, blue tarp, blue tent. They were there for years. And then just maybe the last two or three, four years ago, different property owner. I didn't own that property behind us. It belonged to a manufacturer and he sold off the piece and sold it to a contractor who turned it into sort of a little quarry, so to speak. He brings in material, stores his equipment back there. But the camp got disrupted and they're no longer there. But they were there because we had the Aquatic River that ran through that area. And you know, this is where you really find a lot of the homeless people. They need access preferably to the water. We have them currently in Bristol. It's pretty clear where they are. They are on a highway. They are on Route 72. And if you come in through the expressway and you veer off heading towards Downtown Bristol, it's pretty clear as to that there are quite a few people in that camp area. In my storage facility, we had someone sleeping in it. How did we find that out? Well, we saw tracks coming out of one of the doors, the exit doors, the entry doors. And we thought, oh, how do those footprints show out and not in? And we learned that we had someone living in the facility, and you felt for them, you cared for, you know, you're concerned for them. And when you find out a little bit more about them, you'll find out their difficulties and things that are going on in their lives. So, Madam President, I came across something that I'd like to share with the group here. It's a problem. It is a concern and a problem for a lot of municipalities. vs/rr 328 I'll say about maybe two months ago, I came across a photo and a little, a little solution, I'll say, to the homeless dilemma that we are trying to address. And I think even 60 Minutes may have done a special on it. I don't remember, but it there is an organization in Minneapolis, and it's called Avivo Village. And they've been helping the homeless for years with services, finding shelter, helping them with food, helping them with mental services if they need it. And they've come up with a pilot program where they house -- They bought -- I don't know, but from the pictures that I saw, and I have one of the pictures on my phone, but they took a big warehouse or they built a big warehouse, and they put a 100 units of tiny housing inside of this big warehouse. So, it's an indoor tiny home shelter inside a large shelter, and the homeless are brought in, and they have their own little space. And if it's all of a couple of 100 feet, you know, a place to sleep, a place where you can put your clothes, and I would think there's probably some type of water or they have areas where they're going to get cleaned up. They have common setting areas, extremely unique. But along with that, they are addressing the need that they have, not only from getting out of the cold during the winter months, but they're providing the wrap around services that are required for helping them and getting them back on their feet, giving them that dignity. We have a great facility in Bristol, St. Vincent de Paul, and I'm sure, Lieutenant Governor, you have visited it. They were able to provide or gain some grants. I'm sure probably some of it came from the state, but from other various sources as well. The last time I went in there, I was so impressed. And the construction, the renovation work that they did inside the facility, it was old. vs/rr 329 It was an old convent that St. Anne's church used to have. They've sold that to St. Vincent de Paul or gave it to them. I don't know. That goes back quite a few years. But it's been a homeless shelter for years. Like most shelters, they run over. They run out of room during the winter months. And I was in a meeting two years ago. The other local representatives were in the meeting as well. But they were telling us that they needed help from the state fire marshal because they needed to go on a temporary basis, go use the church hall or another building. But they needed some help. But the point that I'm making is, they service these, the homeless, and when they use this grant money or the funding that they received, they renovated the facility itself. What a breath of fresh air that you experience in walking into that place. And how good of a feeling that you feel. And when you learn about the services that they're providing and trying to get them not only shelter or place to live, but also helping them get a job and if they need some type of health service as well. But those that went there or go there, they don't feel less. They know that they're going through a difficult time, but they're not made to feel little. And I compliment those that provide those services. Regarding this bill, Madam President, we talk about 14 days of written notice and could the Senator explain? It sounded like what I heard from the previous discussion that it used to be three days and they would move the camp, but now we're extending to 14. Could Senator clarify that, but also so what happens at that 14 days? The notification has been given. The notification has been given and then what happens after that? Through you, Madam President. vs/rr 330

Through you, Madam President, it doesn't have to be a strict 14 days. It has to be at least 14 days written notice providing the removal date and time. The idea being that at that date and time, the encampment would be removed from the location, through you.

Through you, I'm sorry. I was reading here, but a 14-day notice, it can be done sooner. I heard that. But what happens after that? What do they do when they actually have to move the people, you know, the homeless? Where do they go? Through you.

The hope is that they'll be placed in shelters. They'll work with local social service organizations for placement. And there is a study about property in here as well working with DOT and DMS, through you.

vs/rr 331 Thank you, Madam President. If they're going to be studying, I hope the good Senator will mention them to their group about this Avivo Village in Minneapolis. And if they could look into that, that would be truly appreciated. The bill calls for a removal or the increase in fines regarding mechanical equipment and noise. I'm laughing because I hear noise where I live. I live off of Route 69 which is a pretty busy road. And I hear these whiny, whiny pieces of equipment, motorbikes. I can hear them from a mile away and where I happen to live across the street from me is probably a rock that's probably as high as that light. And the noise just bounces off and you hear these little yapping machines just zipping by. I'm glad to see, you know, that these fines are being increased. I would love to see the how we can get them to reduce that noise. I always question Madam President, how do we enforce that? How does the police interpret or are able to say, "Hey, that noise is excessive." I'm not going to ask a question. It's just sort of rhetorical question. Maybe it's, when I see a law enforcement, I'll ask them. This part of the bill also talked -- It reminded me of the street takeover bill that we passed into law a couple years back. You know, Bristol itself had two incidences where we had over 200 vehicles take over two different parts of the city. And I don't know if there's one week and then a follow-up with the following week, but they were pretty close in time. And as we all know how dangerous they are and pretty much reckless stunts that take place and how they endanger those that are trying to get through the roads that they've taken over. I can only imagine that street take over, Madam President, in Muzzy Field, and the damage that they would have done to our beautiful park. vs/rr 332 They certainly took over the boulevard and they took over a sacred place, sacred to the people of Bristol and to our vets. And I'm glad that they were apprehended eventually, and I believe that the culprit, the organizer was from out of state, like, was out of state and nonetheless, we passed legislation up here. I think it's all actually began with Senator Fonfara when the street takeovers were being taken over by little mini bikes or little motorbikes, I'll call them. But I remember him leading the charge on that. And when that bill passed, he came up to me and slapped me on the back. Like, he will say, "We're going to get control of this." Then the following year, it happened in Bristol. So, thank you to Senator Fonfara. I do have just one last question regarding the task force, regarding the study and the recommendations. Very quickly, Madam President, through you, you know, there's a concern for the health agencies, those that have worked for health agencies, and they go out and provide a home service. And sometimes the parking is an issue. Who's going to be included in that work of force study through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. The task forces consists of 10 members appointed by leadership. Through you.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, at the public testimony, were a discussion taken place regarding some type of identification card, a placard card of some sort that would identify them, that they were in the medical field and they are here for that reason, through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, yes. Through you.

Yeah. Madam President, I think that's a good part of this bill. And there are many good parts of this bill, and I will definitely be supporting it. And I think that particular part does need to be looked at and studied. Placard guard could be the answer, but there are various situations, I'll say, that those that go out in service, that they are confronted with. And I think once the study is done, we're going to have a better understanding of how to better address that in hopes that we can provide some type of parking for them when they go out and service our population. So, Madam President, I'll yield to the good Senator Fazio if it's okay.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. I do accept the yield. Thank you, Senator Martin, for the yield. Naturally, this is a very comprehensive, very complicated piece of legislation, with many interesting and important sections to it and many that certainly deserve a thorough discussion. I think for most of us in the Republican caucus, you'll see many of the sections where there is agreement and a belief that it's advancing, you know, many causes regarding transportation that are important and that'll see broad agreement. And then there's also other sections of the bill where there will be some major concerns and controversy. Looking at, for instance, the first section of the bill, this seeks to create a narrow exemption for standards that had previously been set, mandates that had previously been set, that most or all buses in the state of Connecticut should be zero emission by 2030. And in, I believe, SB 4 back in 2022, we had a lengthy debate about whether all school buses should be required to be zero emission by 2030. And it is certainly, you know, an area that is worth debate and discussion in terms of whether certain vehicles, especially buses, are reasonable from an environmental standpoint in producing clean air. But at the same time, we're also dealing with taxpayer dollars and municipal mandates on towns and cities, which transfer certain costs to their property taxpayers who are so overburdened already, where we need to be able to balance important considerations. And a one-size-fits-all aggressive mandate might not work in practice, might not be cost effective, and might not even be feasible, because there might not be, in certain cases, ample supply of zero emission or electric buses. The infrastructure might not be vs/rr 335 there. There are other practical questions, where we might not be able to meet the mandate at all. And it's important that we have realistic alternatives that we set forth in pursuit of all these competing goals. One proposal that I made with Representative Marra this year was to at least allow school districts to purchase or use propane fueled buses in order to meet some of those requirements that were set out in SB 4 back in 2022, which was, I think, mostly passed on a party line vote, which I voted against, and I believe most members of my caucus voted against because of concerns on costs and how realistic the requirement was. You know, well, fast forward a few years, and it's, I think, even more clear that it'll be difficult for towns and school districts to meet that mandate at a reasonable cost. And we're certainly seeing more tempered expectations on how many electric vehicles will ultimately be delivered and sold in The United States in years to come. I think, you know, several years ago, there was enormous optimism that electric vehicles would become more than half of the vehicle fleet, whether it's buses or passenger vehicles across the country. And I think a few years later, it's obvious that the expectations have been tempered. I actually think just recently, ISO New England, the regional grid operator, released their new projections for long term demand for electricity, and they actually reduced their expectations for electric vehicle usage among other electricity demand in New England. First, because expectations are being tempered over time. The electric vehicle industry isn't growing quite as fast as we had anticipated several years ago. And also, you know, price, you know, you learn in economics classes that supply and demand sets price, but price also affects supply and demand. And we have very high electricity rates here in Connecticut. vs/rr 336 And because of that, it destroys demand and it sends demand elsewhere. So, you know, obviously, in a place like Nebraska or Oklahoma, middle of the country. Middle of the country plain states is, I think, where they have the lowest electricity rates in the country. It's going to be much more cost effective and attractive to purchase an electric vehicle or an electric bus than it would be in Connecticut, where our electric rates are more than twice as much as what they are in the middle of the country. So, you know, imposing very strict mandates on the state, on our towns, on our school districts, or any others to purchase electric buses, electric vehicles, is not going to make sense from a cost perspective in the same way that it might in Oklahoma or Nebraska where they have electric rates that are less than half what they are here. And so, I appreciate that section one provides a little more flexibility, but I think that there needs to be a lot more flexibility, and it's something that many of our towns and cities would like to see. And I'm pretty confident that in, I think, I would bet that a lot of these mandates on the purchase of zero emission or electric buses are going to be pushed out rather than met in 2030. I think that is a very good assumption that these mandates, these requirements, these standards that were set a couple years ago are not going to be met by 2030 or whatever. And certainly, it's going to impose a bit of a cost on any municipality that's trying to meet them. So, you know, one of the, I think, very modest proposals Representative Marra and I made was that at least, for instance, propane buses, which I think have, like, 80 or 90% lower emissions than diesel powered buses do, that those could be used to meet the mandate. vs/rr 337 Yeah. They're not zero emissions, but they're much lower emission and they're much lower cost than, for instance, the electric buses are. I think the going rate that I've seen or the general estimate that I've seen is that the electric buses cost, like, three or four times to purchase. Maybe closer to three times to purchase the diesel buses. They have a little lower run cost, but you also have to build out the infrastructure. You know, it's interesting in -- At least I find it interesting, maybe others don't. But, you know, we've had a lot of trouble parking some of our school buses in some of the school districts in my district, and there's a lot of land that it takes just to hold an entire fleet of school buses or any other number of buses. And you know, when you're switching out and you're dealing with long term contracts that some of the school districts have, maybe get a duplication of your entire fleet and you have difficulty finding a place to put the buses. I think in Greenwich, which is obviously one of the larger school districts in the state, they found it more cost efficient to do an entirely new school bus contract because the current school bus company that they contract with is so unreasonable that they wouldn't let them get out of the contract. And so, they found it cheaper to actually get a new school bus contract and park the existing buses somewhere. And I believe they asked the State Department of Transportation if they could use some of the unutilized state DOT lands in the area to park some of those buses, and the state DOT said no, I believe, to that request even if the town would pay the state DOT a market rate to park the buses for just a year or two or however long is left on the contract. So, I would strongly, you know, ask or kindly ask the DOT to engage with the town and the Board of Ed on that question, because it seems like vs/rr 338 a very reasonable request and actually a revenue generator for the state. You know, these are not -- You know, I know some of the areas, the state properties, the DOT properties in the town, and they're not being utilized. And there's no reason not to work with the town and take in some revenue for the state in the process and be cooperative. So, that's just one example of all the complicated logistics when dealing with school buses, when dealing with state or buses, and that it's not just as simple as saying, "You got to do this," and, well, you know, it's going to happen and it's going to be beneficial environmentally or economically. It's certainly not been the case, and it's, I think, unlikely to happen. Again, you're going to have to find land. You're going to have to implement all the charging infrastructure. While you are going to have to deal with the utilities and building out some of the electric infrastructure to do all that charging, you know, what happens if you change the buses, if you switch out, you know, and deal with a different bus company or type of bus in the near future, then you're going to have to change out that infrastructure. It's just a lot less flexible than some of, you know, the diesel buses that we're all much more accustomed to. And yes. Absolutely. I think, you know, there are benefits to electric buses and electric cars as well. So, but there's also middle ground. There's propane powered buses. There are biofuel powered buses. I used to work a lot in the biofuels industry, and, you know, there's benefits and cost to biofuels compared to traditional fuels as well. Yeah. They burn a little cleaner, but really, they're supplementary to gasoline and diesel. They're not really a replacement, and they actually can work well in the entire fuel sector, but more in a vs/rr 339 complimentary or a supplementary fashion, not really as a replacement for gasoline and diesel. You know, they provide octane. They provide -- They're an oxygenate, which is necessary. And in The US, I think we banned MTBE, which was a crude based form of oxygenate. And so, you know, the point is obviously that there needs to be a lot of flexibility here. And you know, I think the state being too preemptive of either its own agencies or local districts in delivering the right kind of transportation solutions is not going to be beneficial of taxpayers, is not going to be beneficial of citizens either. There are a couple of sections after the first section regarding electric vehicle charging stations at state facilities. And boy, I think we already see a lot of these electric vehicle charging stations in public places. I know we have them in the State Legislative Office Building. I see them there. You know, we see them all along that the rest stops on 95 and the Merritt Parkway. You know, trust me, I've been to all of them. I obviously have one of maybe the longest drive in the state legislature, probably the longest drive in the state Senate. You know, there's a couple other Greenwich legislators who are -- I think Hector Arzano is just a stone's throw away from me. Maybe Tina Courpas is a little farther, but I've seen all the rest stops, and there's a lot of electric vehicle charging stations at those rest stops. At some of the Merritt Parkway rest stops, I think there's more charging stations spots than there are parking spots entirely. And you know, the improvements that have been made to the rest stops on 95, on the Merritt Parkway, have been, I think, really positive. And I think probably bring more revenue into the state because you get so many more out of state visitors coming through, you know, and vs/rr 340 patronizing those stations. They're certainly much better than they were when I was young. So, I think the state does deserve credit for their work, DOT, whoever else, whatever other agency contributed to improving the quality of all those rest stops, I think deserve credit. But boy, there are a lot of EV charging stations already at those rest stops. So, so many that, you know, sometimes you can't find a parking spot. And so, I'm not sure that, you know, how many more we need to push or whatever, because there seems to be a substantial number of them already, but, you know, it's all about balance. It's all about balance. And you know, there's been interesting discussions in the Transportation Committee. I think the House Republicans have been, you know, very strongly pushing the idea that there needs to be an equitable or reasonable registration fee for the electric vehicles compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles, and that seems reasonable. And I've even read testimonies from some of our electric vehicle owning friends and residents who say that that is reasonable, and they actually support that. They say, you know, "You know, make me pay more for my electric vehicle." Maybe it was one of my legislative colleagues actually, where we had that discussion. But because obviously, if you're driving an electric vehicle in comparison to a gasoline powered vehicle, you're not having to pay the state's highway tax, or the state's gasoline tax, and that is an important revenue source for our entire special transportation fund. I think maybe it's half. I don't remember off top of my head. But, obviously, as there are fewer internal combustion vehicles and there are more electric vehicles, that is going to leave potentially a hole in the special transportation fund that will need to be filled. And vs/rr 341 it's probably fair and equitable to have it be filled by other drivers who are utilizing our roads, and that probably takes the form of a higher registration fee for electric vehicles because I don't think there's any universe. It would be interesting if I'm incorrect because I don't think you could specifically, like, tax the energy that is derived from charging stations because most of the charging happens in households anyway. So, the only logical avenue to actually generating the revenue is probably from a registration fee. And on top of it, we know that the electric vehicles are much heavier, much more dense than the internal combustion engine vehicles. So, they obviously impose much more wear and tear on our highways and on our roads. And in order to, you know, have a fair kind of state of our state transportation policy, the people who are using the roads more, you know, should be paying more. And even if we had a registration fee as was proposed, I think most prominently by the House Republicans, it probably still wouldn't be equitable or exactly equivalent to the usage and the wear and tear that was being imposed by the electric vehicles compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles. And I think that that is an issue that, you know, we would benefit from being addressed in legislation like this, or any other transportation legislation. Eventually, we're going to see a deficit come to the special transportation fund because of all this and all these developments. It might be pushed off in a couple years. It might be a little less bad than we thought it would be in the near term because we're seeing lower adoption of the electric vehicles than was previously projected. But Connecticut has probably a little bit more electric vehicles than the rest of the country on average per capita. Certainly, in my neck of the woods, you see, you know, a lot of Teslas. You see a vs/rr 342 lot of whatevers, you know, Rivian. Sometimes you see I don't know that there's that many of them at all. But anyhow, it's an important issue that needs to be addressed. And you know, in the long run, it's going to become more and more of a concern and an issue for the state, for the state budget, for our roads and infrastructure that will need to be addressed. You know, going down in the bill a little bit more, Sections 5 through 11 and 13, you know, there is the discussion, and I was very interested in the discussion between Senator Cohen, Senator Martin about the dynamic part time lanes, the flex lanes. And I learned about it actually on the news recently, you know, watching the discussion of the introduction of flex lanes potentially around Danbury. And boy, that's an extraordinarily interesting innovation. And I'm open minded about it. Obviously, whether it's practical, whether it's cost effective, whether Connecticut can do it as efficiently or effectively as other states or as it's written down on paper is an open question. But it strikes me as very interesting and innovative, and I certainly hope that, you know, if it does ultimately get implemented and built out that, you know, it will pay dividends to the state. You know, we know that we have some of the worst traffic in the country here in Connecticut, certainly in Hartford County, certainly in Fairfield County. Oh, boy. It's brutal down there, and I spent many, many, many hours. You know, my mom works in Greenwich and lives in Norwalk. So, I think she's one of Senator Duff's constituents, but she's going with traffic, and I think she would love to see some sort of dynamic flex lanes alleviating traffic if it proves out to work in practice in Lower Fairfield County along 95 where we have probably some of the worst traffic in the entire country. vs/rr 343 You know, one of my concerns ultimately is that in Connecticut, we are building every mile of road and every foot of infrastructure at a much higher cost point per unit than the rest of the country. Now, I remember a few years ago reading a study from the National Association of State Budget Officers, which is about as exciting as it sounds. and it found that Connecticut had the second highest per mile of highway cost for construction of any state in the country. I think after South Dakota. I'm not sure why South Dakota. You know, I've actually driven across South Dakota, fun fact. And there's not much in the middle. There's a lot on the ends with Rapid City in Sioux Falls, and there's Mount Rushmore, which is very cool. But they are the only state in the country that has a higher per mile of highway cost per construction than Connecticut. And I think if I would have one priority for the transportation agencies in the state of Connecticut, it would be to understand why we have the second highest per mile cost of roads and highways of any state in the country and what we could do to realistically lower that. And remember, it's not just a matter of can we save taxpayer money in the process of building out our infrastructure and our roads and bridges. It's actually looking at it another way, it's like, can we build more infrastructure with the same amount of money. So, how can --

vs/rr 344 Thank you, Madam President. I was having trouble hearing what I was thinking, but that was probably for the best anyway. So, I think if I had one priority, one issue that is of the most interest and probably of the most import to the state of Connecticut, it would be how we can ensure that every mile of road, every mile of highway, every foot of bridges can be built and maintained in the most cost effective manner to taxpayers possible built and maintained and renovated expeditiously. And that's not just a matter of reducing taxpayer burden. It's also about building more infrastructure in a shorter period of time for the same amount of money looked a different way. And the same goes for other forms of infrastructure outside of the transportation space. And you know, that means schools, that means other important public services and public assets that we need for this state to thrive. So, I think that's enormously important, and, obviously, that's one of the things one worries about the efficiency when we actually undertake something that I think is very ambitious in the case of dynamic part time lanes, flex lanes. But I think we've also all been in other states where they have those. I think I've seen them in Texas. I think I've seen them in Nebraska, but I can't remember exactly. But it's innovative, and I like that we're thinking about it at least. I appreciate the interest and the leadership of Senator Cohen and Senator Hwang and the DOT for exploring this issue. You know, maybe it is a creative way to alleviate the traffic in the state of Connecticut with all the traffic that we suffer from. You know, famously people think of Los Angeles with the worst traffic in the country, but, you know, I think of Fairfield County with the worst traffic in the country. You know, certainly between exits, like, two and nine, it's brutal. And part of the reason for that vs/rr 345 is that we have a lot more probably exits per mile of highway than in other places. In some ways, in some parts of the state, our highways are more like local roads than they are truly like highways. And you have people getting on and getting off, and I probably bear some responsibility for the traffic, because that's one of the reasons that you have traffic. It's the constant merging, people getting off, people getting on, people using it as a local road when it really should be used for longer distances, or at least that's generally the intention of highways. And you know, I find myself getting, you know, going from Greenwich to Stamford, you know, one or two exits all the time, even though it's not that far, and that's a lot of where the choke points exist. But it's also difficult because who's going to say in their town or their city that they want to see an exit eliminated? That's going to be controversial. It's like the reverse of not in my backyard, I guess, if you had to have a name for it because people want to be able to use the highway accessibly, and they don't want to lose something that they have. But with the number of exits that we have, the number of points of entry and exit on the highways and the difficulty in merging, you're just going to probably expect a little bit more traffic in Connecticut than in most places. It is a very dense state. I think Connecticut is like the fourth or fifth or maybe the seventh. I forget. At most dense state in the country, it's certainly in the top 10. And I think it's the fourth smallest state by land area in the country, but it's, like, in the 30s for population. So, the point is it's very dense, and so you're going to face some of these issues with traffic. It's interesting that it's so dense, but we also don't have a city more than a 150,000 people. vs/rr 346 Bridgeport's the largest city. Stamford probably will surpass Bridgeport and become the largest city before too long because you see so much development in Stamford, especially in the South End. And you know, it's another thing to contemplate about development because it has such an important influence and consequence on traffic, and the type of development you have will affect traffic enormously. So, if you have mixed use development, you're going to need less cars on the road for people to get around and so on and so forth. Whereas, when you don't have the type of mixed use, everyone's going to need a car even if you have a lot of development, even if you have a lot of dense development. You know, so when I think of this kind of concern and issue and its effect on transportation and roads and traffic, I think a lot of Downtown Stanford. Because in Downtown Stanford, you have a lot of mixed use. You have, yes, very dense developments and very large apartment buildings that have been built out in recent years. But you also have grocery stores and restaurants and convenience stores and entertainment and so on and so forth. And so, you have less need to put cars on the roads. And I actually don't see, you know, a ton of traffic in Downtown Stamford compared to, you know, some of the other towns and cities surrounding. I think, you know, in a Darien, in a Norwalk, in a Greenwich, I experienced a lot more traffic than in Downtown Stamford specifically, come to think of it. And it's probably because the downtown part of Stamford has a lot of mixed use, so there's less need for wear and tear on the roads. There's less need for transportation investment. But then, I think, by comparison, when you look at the South End of Stamford where most of the development has happened, it's been a lot less mixed use. And so, you have very, very giant apartment buildings in vs/rr 347 places like Harbor Point in the South End of Stamford where there aren't grocery stores. There aren't many convenience stores. There's probably just a couple of restaurants, and not too many other retail shops. And so, even if you live in kind of those very, very large apartments at the South End of Stamford, which are very nice and, you know, have added taxpayers and so on and so forth, added workers to the city. You know, part of the problem is that you still need a car. You still need a car even if you live in that area. Yes. You're kind of like a couple mile walk or a mile walk from the train station in Stamford, which is a major central hub, and, you know, it's an enormously important train station. And it's seen some renovations. They're renovating the main train station, which I think is good because it wasn't a very pretty situation before. Yeah. I really needed some TLC. And they built out that new parking garage, which had some problems, and it was a good case of where some of the state investment doesn't work out as well in practice as intended. And it was definitely very, very expensive parking garage, but I don't know. A lot of people complain about it. I think it's kind of an interesting looking structure in terms of design and architecture as well. But you can't really get around living on the South End of Stamford without a car, even though it's not that far from the train station because there's just not any mixed use. And so, all these things are related to one another. The wear and tear on our roads and our highways, the need for transportation investment, it's so intertwined with development and planning and zoning. And you know, you just look in your own town and city, especially one that's changed a lot, and you can see that in your own backyard. And you know, there are certainly, you know, a lot of development, vs/rr 348 a lot of changes we're seeing in many of our towns and cities, especially in Southwestern Connecticut, Norwalk. There's obviously been enormous development, not quite as much as Stamford, but probably the second most. We all know in Darien, there's that major downtown development, which is very interesting. And you know, it seems like it's generally embraced by the residents in Darien. And that's kind of a more interesting one because there is a lot of retail there. You can kind of live there. I don't want to use the term work, live, ride. I think it's become more of a trademark than anything else, but it's important to consider these things about planning and development because they're so intertwined with infrastructure. So, you know, going back to traffic and the flex lanes, which is where I started on, you know, I think most of the -- Yep. I think most of the evidence that I've read is that the on ramps and the off ramps and the merging are what have the greatest influence on traffic. And I think probably second, if I were designing priorities on the transportation, if I had to look at what's second after cost effectiveness, trying to reduce the cost per mile of road and highway in Connecticut, it would be alleviating traffic. And to do that, I think most of the evidence -- I'm very much a layman on this, and I've only read a little bit about this. But it seems like ensuring that the on ramps and the off ramps and the merging work as best as possible is the best way to address that in a cost effective manner. Believe it or not, it seems like the evidence says that expanding the number of lanes, which is kind of conventional wisdom, you know, adding a fourth lane where there's three lanes, is actually not an optimal way of approving traffic overall. vs/rr 349 It's actually the exits, the on ramps, and the off ramps, and the merging, and, you know, simply working backwards, I guess those are -- I'm not sure if those are civil engineers or what exactly the job description would be, but working backwards from where the choke points are is probably the best strategy. So, I guess, you know, if I'm playing armchair or fantasy Department of Transportation commissioner, which probably isn't the most popular fantasy sport out there, you'd probably just want to order where the worst choke points are in the state and work backwards from that. And so, focus on those exits and entries and mergers onto the highway. And, you know, elongate those is probably the most sensible way. Maybe on the exits, if that's a choke point, you allow a right turn on red. Some of them don't have a right turn on red. I think there should be. I think of getting off Exit 3 on 95 going southbound is what I think about when I'm driving in all the traffic on the highways, how you can reduce those choke points. And I think, you know, investing in a longer on ramp or off ramp is probably one of the best ways to do that. And so, you would just work backwards from what the worst choke points are and whether investment or construction improving the on ramps and the off ramps help, that makes a lot of sense. You know, driving on 95 in Eastern Connecticut where it becomes two lanes instead of three where it is in most of the Western part of the state, it's not as if there is more traffic because there's two lanes. There's actually a lot less traffic and it's a much more pleasant and scenic drive. And yes, there's a lot less density in the Southeastern part of the state than the Southwestern part of the state, but there's also two lanes on 95. And you know, it seems like there's a lot less traffic, and there's fewer exits. You know, so I would say that investing in improving the merges and the exits would make a lot of sense as well in addition to the idea of flex vs/rr 350 lanes, which again, I think is innovative and interesting. You know, there are other, I think, interesting parts of this proposal. The traffic signal grant program, you know, I know that in Stamford, for instance, there was a lot of work in recent years to automate and systematize the traffic lights, and I think that is a great way to improve traffic flow as well. So, I think this is a part of the legislation that I would support. Having kind of the smart traffic like programming, you know what traffic flows are supposed to be. I don't know if it's dynamic, like, down to the point that you're paying attention to the traffic, that the traffic lights change, or that they're just programmed in a way based on what the historical traffic patterns are to change. But, you know, how frustrating it could be sometimes when, you know, you're trying to get somewhere and the traffic lights just aren't fair or efficient, and that can contribute to worse traffic too. I always find it interesting when you drive in Manhattan that, you know, the traffic lights go boom, boom, boom, boom in succession. I don't know that's a technical term for it, but I think automating those can be helpful for improving traffic flow. And I think one of the reasons that they're automated to go in succession like that in Manhattan, for instance, is probably to keep people from speeding up too fast. So, that's also a good way. You could improve safety as well in addition to improving some of the traffic flows. You know, after that, there are zero emission school bus sections, and I think I kind of covered that in the discussion on the first section. Again, I think there should be a lot more flexibility, but, you know, reducing the mandate from a 100% to 90% by 2040, is I think a very modest loosening of that vs/rr 351 mandate, and I would much prefer for it to be a lot more flexible. You know, I would really strongly, confidently predict that that does not get met by 2040 at 90%. You know, I won't be in the Senate by 2040, but I would be shocked if it gets met at that point. And I think, you know, we want realistic goals. You know, you can have goals, you know, maybe we disagree on the goals, but they should be practical and realistic. And you know, it's just two years after making the mandate that we're already, you know, pushing back the mandate, and I think it's going to be weakened even more going forward. You know, I love seeing the working group about ports and sea lanes. You know, it's super important to have accessible ports, to have dredged ports, to allow ships to get in and out for commerce, especially, yes, for recreation. You know, I know people are concerned about that, but especially for commerce. You know, you can create enormous jobs, good paying, blue collar, union jobs at many of our ports under the right circumstances. If you have a, you know, deep water port, if you dredge the port, and so on and so forth, you know, you know, it's a little different situation, but the State Pier has obviously been a disaster, and we shouldn't forget about it. But, you know, having -- That's really, I don't want to say, contrived. It's really more of a government kind of pushed effort and enterprise because, obviously, the State Pier was specifically subsidized and constructed for the purpose of offshore wind marshaling all those projects. And that is yet another industry where there were great expectations to borrow the phrase from Charles Dickens, and they haven't quite been met. And it looks like there's only going to be one offshore wind project marshaled off of the State vs/rr 352 Pier. And the initial estimate would be costing $90 million, and it turned out to cost $300 million. I mean, boy, what a disaster. You know, this is exactly why people don't trust government, because it tries to do so much, and the things it tries to do as ambitiously as it does, it so often fails. And I think it's more important that government, especially in areas like we're discussing today in transportation, that the many things that it's trying to do, or the important things that it's trying to do, like transportation, like infrastructure, it should focus on a few things and do them very well, and that builds trust in government. But when it tries to do a lot and fails to do them well, that I think is correlated. The more you try to do, the less you can do well, and it reduces trust in government. And I don't think it's very surprising that we've seen attitudes and trust towards government in the last generation or in the last two generations decline as we've seen government get more ambitious and more big and more powerful. And by all accounts, it really has. You know, how do you measure that? You measure in things like government spending and the number of regulations and so on and so forth. And by all measures at state level, at the federal level, government's become bigger. It's become involved in more of our daily lives. It's become involved in more of our economy, and I don't think anyone would say that it's become more efficient. And that's to the detriment of the vital services that government has to offer and must offer, and that includes especially transportation, you know? Everyone wants roads and bridges. Everyone wants them maintained well. Everyone wants minimal traffic. And the way to ensure that that is the case is to have government be efficient, and it should vs/rr 353 focus on that rather than trying to deliver you the moon and the stars. I think that, you know, a good example of where our kind of marine infrastructure, our seagoing infrastructure investment should be focused on is making our ports accessible, making them commercially viable, you know, dredging, ensuring that all the piers are something that could be utilized by maybe larger vessels will be to the benefit of workers, especially will be to the benefit of consumers. And it might even be to the benefit of trafficking congestion that we were talking about because there's going to be less need for trucks to take freight and more ability for large vessels to take freight. You know, we're obviously talking about, you know, me and some of my colleagues who are leaving the election that I won to enter the Senate, we actually had three candidates. And one of the candidates, the third-party candidate, John Blankley, who is a great gentleman, and a Scotsman actually. So, an American immigrant. He had a proposal that would basically call for enormous investment in our ports and dredging, and ultimately use basically barges, I think it was to use barges to take cars, passenger vehicles up and down the Long Island Sound to alleviate traffic on the roads and the highways. And I didn't think that that was -- I thought that was a more elegant idea in theory than likely in practice, and I stand by that, but I like the innovative thinking. I like the thoughts on arbitrage, on trying to find new ways to make life a little easier, to make our transportation a little easier. But I spent, you know, a few years at the beginning of my career in shipping, and that is an enormous help to industry, an enormous support for economies where there are deeper water ports where there could be freight vs/rr 354 coming in and out, where it could support workers at ports, longshoremen, etc., etc. So, I think that this is a good idea for a working group. You know, it's almost like we're doing the working group here in the Senate debate already. And, you know, when you think of ways to prioritize our resources in the state, you know, ensuring that our ports are accessible and commercially viable is important. You know, one of the reasons that it's important, you know, goes downstream all the way to the consumer. And I think about the fact that in the very, very cold winter months, for instance, you see some of those heating oil tank bottoms, you know, show. The heating oil inventories hit tank bottom in some cases. And normally, kind of the market will -- the industry will work and be able to replenish those tanks. And, you know, people won't go long, if at all, without heating oil. And, you know, New England and Connecticut in particular have a little bit of a unique residential heating market in that it's kind of split three ways. You know, maybe it's like 40% natural gas or 30% home heating oil and like 20% electric heat. It actually might be higher in heating oil. But that's why it's, you know, such an important thing that many of us watch, the energy committee watches, and members of the administration watch every winter when it gets super, super cold, and heating oil inventories drop very low as the demand to heat your homes. And having larger vessels be able to get in and out of the harbor, for instance, in New Haven, where I think a lot of the tanks are is very important for energy security. It's very important for people being able to heat their homes in the coldest months. And, you know, in terms of energy needs, those are going to be the greatest in the winter vs/rr 355 going forward, or actually even currently than they are in the summer. You know, the health of our residents is much more at risk if the heat goes out in the winter than if the power and the air conditioning goes out in the summer. And you are much more likely to see fatalities, to see deaths in that case. And so, you know, keeping the heating oil inventories full even in the coldest of days and weeks is very important. And our ports, investment in our ports and the viability of our ports and the ability of larger tankers to get into our ports and discharge into the large tanks in our harbors is enormously important. And so, it should be a priority, and it should be a discussion for the Transportation Committee and for the Department of Transportation. And so, I am glad that this working group is a part of the legislation today. And, you know, I've always been a little surprised that there wasn't as much kind of action at our ports. You know, I know it's the Long Island Sound. It's a little less accessible. But, you know, again, it's a very dense area, and we obviously want to balance quality of life and the recreational use of our waterways with commercial needs. But this could be a good avenue to discuss that balance. I also want to discuss the next couple of section, which is the Department of Transportation encampment renewals. This was an area where I had more concern because I think, again, we need balance in our state policy and in our state government, and we need to meet the needs of a very sensitive kind of social problems while also protecting the general public and other considerations and quality of life as well. And this section of the bill writes into law that there must be 14 days' notice in Department of Transportation state properties before removing a vs/rr 356 homeless encampment on those state properties. And my understanding is that it used to be just a few days as it was written into the law, but the DOT had internally changed its practices to be 14 days in policy. But this proposal, this legislation here today would change it to 14 days in law, which is obviously a lot less flexible and is a concern. You know, for instance, you can imagine a case where because the notices are written very clearly in the areas as it's written or designed in this legislation, it would be the case that they would say, okay, it's 14 days' notice, so on this day, the encampments would be removed. Well, that might mean that you would have the individuals who are having the encampments, you know, leave the property on the 13th day and then come back on the 15th day. And then, you know, obviously, the notice would be given again, and maybe the system could kind of be worked around. And so, they become maybe permanent in a way, you know, with just a minor interruption. And, you know, at the end of the day, I think it's unfair to everybody to have an excessively lenient policy in this regard because, you know, many of the individuals, actually most of the individuals who would use an encampment, who are homeless, they need services. They need state support. And it's one of, again, the areas that we're talking in this bill. The basic responsibilities of government is to provide a safety net for those who are down on their luck, who need it the most, or have extraordinary circumstances. And we know from study after study and all the evidence that the majority of homeless individuals are either experiencing, you know, mental health problems or substance abuse disorders. And those individuals, you know, should and can have hope and vs/rr 357 rehabilitation, but they're going to need some services and intervention. And, you know, the intention in some cases of people who want a much more lenient policy towards encampments, for instance, and the utilization of public property for what I would call a private use, an individual's use. Yeah, it might be well intentioned, but it's probably not helping anybody in the end. It's certainly not helping the general public who has a reasonable expectation that public places are used for the public and general interest, not for individuals' interests, and that they're safe, and that they're orderly, and that they can be readily and openly used without concern by the public or by whatever department of government needs to use them. Like in this case, the Department of Transportation, which needs to use them for potentially very important or sensitive endeavors. But it's not good for the individuals who are out in the cold or the heat who might be, you know, subject to a much more dangerous situation. Some people who are in those encampments who would take advantage of them. You know, very flagrant drug use, especially dangerous drugs where you see overdoses and so on and so forth. And so, it's in the interest of those individuals who are facing enormous difficulty, especially if they are facing mental health problems or substance abuse problems that they get the services they need. You know, I believe I've read that the State of Connecticut spends nearly $100 million per year on services for the homeless. And I think that there are 1,000 or 2,000 homeless individuals in the State of Connecticut. Maybe it's a little more. It might have been like 3,000 or a few thousand more, but it's a very large investment per person. So, you know that those services exist. vs/rr 358 You know, there I think are, you know, not quite, but maybe upwards of 100 different shelters in the state. And, you know, that's where they can be warm or cool in the winter or the summer. It's where, you know, they can get a bed. They can get services. They can have access to services. They can have a safer and more regulated space rather than be in an encampment. And this is an area where I think the government must have, you know, a reasonable role to play and must be responsible. You know, it's not responsible and it's not compassionate to allow encampments to kind of go on for long periods of time. It's not safe or reasonable for the general public who, you know, should be able to expect that public places, public property and spaces are safe and well-regulated and maintained. And it's not safe for the individuals who would implicitly be encouraged for two weeks at a time to remain in an encampment where a lot of bad gets done and where they could be victimized, where they could victimize others unintentionally. This is just not a kind of sensible way of doing things. You know, Section 26, which has most of those changes regarding the 14 days' notice before any encampment can be removed I think is wrong, is highly imprudent, is more ideological than practical on its face. And so, I do not support it. You know, the next section, Section 27, contemplates having a study, I think, of the encampments. Maybe it was a task force. But basically, you know, they - - oh, yeah. It's a study from the Commissioner of Transportation and Mental Health and Addiction Services on recommendations for best practices for removing the encampments. I don't know why we would put the cart before the horse, Section 26, into this bill when we're doing a study of what best practices are in Section 27. I vs/rr 359 think that you can have a study on best practices, you know, places where they have the right protocols for removing encampments, for getting people services, for protecting personal items, and so on. And then you change the policies. But I don't think you go to a 14 days' notice before removing encampments. So, openly allowing, you know, homeless encampments for two weeks on end on public spaces without sufficiently reasonable protections to the public or to those individuals who are in need, without doing a study like this first. You know, in my cursory research, because this is such a voluminous piece of legislation, and it certainly has changed a little bit. And there's so much legislation coming before the Senate today. You know, potentially many, many pieces of legislation, potentially not. We're almost into tomorrow, which is interesting. Because a lot of these proposals are very, very consequential and complicated, and they deserve discussion in the people's body in the State And so, I don't see why you would have Section 26 that changes the policy when, you know, even in New York, again, from my cursory research, that the notice is for seven days before removing encampments. And so, that means we're going to go and double the notice period of New York, which is a disaster area, essentially, for public safety and public order and public health, that basically encourages encampments and ultimately makes the public much less safe. You know, you see some of the chaos and the crime and the killings on the subways. And also results in the deaths of so many of those individuals who need help, who are homeless, who are suffering from different issues and problems. And we all know what happened this past winter with, you know, so many deaths of homeless individuals in the cold winter in vs/rr 360 New York City. And there was a failure of government to ultimately deliver on its basic responsibilities. Again, I suspect because it's putting ideology ahead of practicality. And that was a city that says that there must be seven days' notice before the removal of a homeless encampment. And in Connecticut, now we're contemplating putting it into law that we have 14 days' notice. Allow 14 days, two weeks at a time, of kind of unchecked homeless encampments to remain, you know, well more open ended than New York City. That is just totally inexplicable. I cannot understand it, and it is potentially going to cause the problem to metastasize and increase, and fewer people to get the services and enroll in institutions or at least go to shelters where they can get help and instead be out in public places, in dangerous situations, in the bitter cold or the sweltering heat where their health and safety is much more in jeopardy, where overdoses and dangerous drug use is much more likely and so on. So, I am very concerned about this section. And Section 26 I would very much like to see stricken. I think that would make it much more likely that you would get broad support for this proposal because there's other parts of the bill that I think are very much admirable. You know, there's other subsequent sections that I think are, you know, important for the public interest. You know, for instance, revisions to distracted driving laws. You know, one of the interesting theories I've heard recently is that one of the reasons we see more traffic in this day and age is that all the distractions in our passenger vehicles, not just obviously cell phones for one but even kind of the gadgets on the consoles of passenger vehicles currently. There's, you know, display you can play with. And, yes, it's touchscreen, etc., etc. But it can still vs/rr 361 by itself be distracting. And obviously, the use of cell phones in vehicles as well. And that kind of distracted driving, obviously, creates greater danger. You know, it still does seem like that the fatalities seem to be more associated with really, really chaotic driving and, you know, driving under the influence, not just of alcohol but marijuana as well. And that is a difficult thing to actually regulate and enforce, particularly people being under the influence of marijuana while driving. You know, it's not just that police can smell it anymore because obviously, it can be ingested through, you know, edible products. And that makes our roads more dangerous as well. And then, obviously, we have all the technology in the cars and the cell phones in the vehicles that oftentimes people are using while driving, and that makes our roads less safe. It also probably increases traffic substantially. You know, people are distracted. They're not driving at a steady pace, keeping a distance. A lot more stop and go, a lot more chaoticness on our highways. And that probably creates a problem with traffic in addition to safety and, you know, it's probably contributing as well to the rise of car insurance premiums which have skyrocketed in recent years. And that's an interesting discussion by itself. They've gone up a lot in Connecticut, but they've gone up a lot elsewhere across the country. And presumably, it's not just because whatever insurance companies just want to make more money. They always want to make more money, but it's a relatively competitive industry. And if there's competition, that's going to drive down profits, which will drive down premiums. But I think that there's probably other factors that are becoming more common issues that are resulting in higher car insurance premiums, car insurance premiums going way up. And that probably includes vs/rr 362 distracted driving, the technology, the cell phones in the cars. It's probably in part because of, you know, increasing marijuana use among motorists. But it's also that you've seen the value of cars and vehicles go up substantially. That was especially the case after COVID when you saw used car prices go way up because of restrictions to supply. And you've seen insurance and other cases go way up as well; home insurance, etc., etc. And it's yet another case where this state government needs to be focused on making the state more affordable, focused on the top priorities of government, which is creating an economy that works for everyone, a state that is affordable for everyone, and a state government that delivers on its basic responsibilities, which is services like infrastructure being cost effective and well maintained like our roads and highways, which I think we can do a better job at, and like ensuring that everyone is safe. You know, whether they are facing the worst of circumstances, whether they're a member of the general public. You know, the people who are most in need, who are homeless, who are suffering from substance abuse or mental health disorders need services. They need institutional help rather than to be encouraged to remain in encampments as this law would contemplate. And the general public has a right to ensure that they're safe as well no matter the place they go, the public space they go. And all of these issues, I think, are touched upon in some way, shape, or form in this bill. There are some ways in which I think this bill will help make those issues a little better in our state, but there are others in which I am concerned that it'll make our state less safe and less sensible and make this government work less effectively. vs/rr 363 So, I understand why people would vote yes or no on this legislation today. I'm trying to keep an open mind and examine it, but there are sections like Section 26 I discussed where I have great concern. With that, you know, I think I've explained myself sufficiently. And I would like to yield, Madam President, to my friend Senator Sampson from the 16th District.

I do. Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you to my esteemed colleague for his yield and his very, very extraordinary, illustrative, illuminating, and sometimes comical remarks. And I appreciate that we all could use a little more comedy at this hour, the nights before our D Day here in the legislative session. So, the bill that is before us has quite the title. Everyone who knows me knows I'm fond of pointing out the titles of various bills. This one may hold a record for the size of the title. What is on the board that we can see here is probably not even half the title, and it's pretty significant right there. This is AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CONCERNING VEGETATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES, TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION GRANT PROGRAM, ENCAMPMENTS, MARINE PILOT LICENSE S, MOTOR VEHICLE MECHNICAL EQUIPMENT, DISTRACTED DRIVING, A TASK FORCE TO STUDY ACCESS TO PARKING FOR HOME HEALTH AGENCIES, AND A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND TECNOLOGIES IN SCHOOL BUS FLEETS. And what's interesting is that I don't think even with this very significant and complete appearing vs/rr 364 title, that it covers all of the sections of this bill, as there are 37 total sections and a 38th as a repealer. But there were a number of sections that I thought were interesting and I wanted to dive in a little bit more deeply. Sections 17 and 18, and also 19 I believe, have to do with transportation network companies. And this is something very interesting and near and dear to me because over the years, I've been involved in a lot of the debate and legislation surrounding transportation network companies. Back when I served in the House of Representatives, I was in the Insurance Committee. I was the ranking member there, and there was the Uber bill, as it was commonly referred to at the time. And people far and wide were aware of the Uber bill. And what was really interesting about it is this is a bill that rightfully would have gone through the Transportation Committee possibly, but ended up in my lap as ranking member of the Insurance Committee. And I think that was due to a loose connection to the liability insurance associated with transportation network companies. And I remember debating our current comptroller who was the chairman of the House side of the Insurance Committee at the time, and we had many lengthy debates about transportation network companies and the legislation that was proposed in that legislative session. And I had always had a lot of concerns about the way this was being addressed because in my view, we already had policies established for transportation network companies in the sense that we always had legislation in place that covered taxi cabs. And for me, this is virtually the same industry. These folks are doing almost the same thing, and yet we were going to come up with an entirely new policy. And I think it's because Uber was taking off. It was a new and innovative thing, and people vs/rr 365 were excited about it. And it was becoming more and more popular. And I think people saw it as a new and more inexpensive option from taxis. And I guess that's maybe because some people have their preconceived notions about what a taxi cab is. That, A, it might be expensive, may not be the cleanest or most up to date kind of thing. And not that those things are necessarily true. I think that they are actually contrary to the truth. But the fact of the matter is people saw Uber and Lyft and companies like that as a new and innovative way to both make money for some folks that are looking for some extra cash, and also as a way to get around that was really comfortable by utilizing the fact that folks are going and going every day to all different places, and we could cooperate with each other and for a very little money, get a ride. And I think it was a great idea, except I think that the excitement surrounding transportation network companies preceded a lot of the concern and policy that really should have been addressed at the time, and policy concerns that were not new to legislatures, including in Connecticut. After dealing with taxicab legislation decades before, you would think that we would have already had it all figured out about managing safety concerns, about who the drivers are, about making sure there are appropriate background checks, making sure that people that were being picked up had access at different times of the day. All of the things that you would think of that had already been addressed in taxicab legislation, but had yet been ignored up until this point when we did the initial Uber bill, like I said, as it was commonly referred to as. And I remember debating on the floor and being very concerned that we did not address a lot of things, not just the safety of the drivers, which was vs/rr 366 certainly a concern. You might have drivers in an Uber situation that could be, you know, relatively young person, maybe even a relatively inexperienced and naive person who might end up picking someone up in a dangerous neighborhood somewhere. And we needed to find a way to make sure that they were going to be safe when they got there. And you also had the safety of the people that were being picked up relative to the drivers. There was a lot of things that I don't think were properly addressed in that legislation at the time. And I made a big deal about it and ultimately voted against the bill as a result because I thought the eagerness to create a policy for Uber became more important to the majority than actually coming up with good policy to implement their move into Connecticut. There's also some other wild and crazy things that were associated with that, including the fact that they had actually asked for some enormous licensing fee to enter into the State of Connecticut. And the reason for that was quite clear. The idea was that if they had an enormous licensing fee, then anyone else who wanted to compete with them would also have to pay an enormous licensing fee. But they were in a position to pay it, and this was a mechanism to keep out the competition. I think at the end of the day, we ended up reducing the fee from something significant. It might have been $50,000, and we ended up dropping it, I think, to $5,000, something like that. And I don't know what it is today, but I just think that was a very interesting way for them to enter the state. A company that was already doing business here, doing business all across the country, but they desperately wanted to have some sort of legitimacy in our state law. And they worked very, very closely with members of the legislature to get a bill over the finish line. An incomplete bill it was. vs/rr 367 And the evidence is that ever since then, and I don't remember exactly when that was. I was still in the House. I would guess it was around 2014, 15, 16, something like that. Every year since then, we are tweaking the statutes that have to do with transportation network companies. And this is nothing new. And here we are again. And there are a couple of sections of this omnibus bill that is before us. I think even before I talk about the transportation network companies, I might just ask about how this bill came to be that it includes, I think, 38 sections, as I mentioned. And there are a number of different bills. In fact, there are a number of different bills who primarily come from the Transportation Committee, but I noticed that there may be a Housing bill in here and a Judiciary bill as well. Can I just ask, through you, Madam President, to the proponent of the bill, how we came up with this large bill that has all of these individual sections in it, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. These bills went through the Transportation Committee, had a public hearing, and they've been compiled into our omnibus here today. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes. I do see now looking at this that they all did go through Transportation, but some of them did also visit some vs/rr 368 other committees along the way. The thing is that these were all individual bills. They were House bills, they were Senate bills. And I'm counting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I think 10 individual bills. I think that folks know by now that this is a concern of mine and a number of other lawmakers that we often lament that we get bills that are combinations of multiple smaller bills. And, of course, this is a very effective way for the majority to move a significant amount of legislation in a relatively short time. And I think that this debate is evidence that even though this debate has gone on for some time and it may continue to, it's probably not still even equal to the total amount of time it would have taken to run all of these individual bills. And the majority ultimately nets a gain of being able to pass more legislation in a shorter amount of time. There's also the concern about having different bills that might have different opinions within this chamber and the House as well. I could look at this, and I might be in favor of a number of these bills individually, and I might be opposed to some individually. And then you end up with this situation where you've got to weigh how much of the bill you like versus how much of the bill you do not like. And that's a frustration, certainly, for folks in the minority. But I imagine it's a frustration for folks in the majority too because sometimes you're being asked to essentially swallow some things you don't like if you want to get things that you do like across the finish line. And I never like to see that. I think that the public generally respects and expects us to put together legislation that is simple, easy to follow, and clear when an ultimate decision is made about turning it into law. And vs/rr 369 every opportunity that I've had to discuss with my constituents the nature of omnibus legislation or putting a bunch of individual smaller items into one bill is always, and I mean always, met with consternation. People don't like it. They think it is frustrating. They don't think it's a proper way to do business. And I agree with them 100%. So, that is a concern out of the gate for this bill, although I do appreciate the LCO folks taking the effort to try and create a title that covers all of the different pieces of this bill. That's quite an accomplishment in and of itself. But back to the transportation network company sections of the bill, it looks like Section 17 is focused on various definitions. Telemetric monitoring, safety anomaly. Those are some interesting definitions that I didn't expect to see in any legislation today, but happy to see them here since they relate to the following sections. I'm wondering if the good chairman of the Transportation Committee can share with me the goal that is in Section 18 of the bill with regard to this language that is in paragraph two, starting on line 766, and then carried through to the remainder, I guess, of Section 18, which has a lot to do with safety features and new requirements in the statute placed on the transportation network company, I believe, for the purpose of creating additional protections, both for drivers and passengers. Am I correct about that? And maybe I can get a little explanation about what I'm reading here. Through you, Madam President.

vs/rr 370 Thank you, Madam President. Yes. The good Senator is correct. These are safety features that, in fact, we came to an agreement with the transportation network companies in writing this legislation. But these are safety features that would be available to the rider in order to either have a third party following their ride, have emergency assistance if it were needed, be able to call into a hotline, etc. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I think it's interesting that these are features that were somewhat offered by the transportation network companies. Maybe they realize that they've got to also improve their image regarding safety as well, and maybe this is an attempt at that. I'm reading the part on line 775 about location sharing, and I think this is a great provision. I'm just worried about the technology aspect of this. How does this work? Does a transportation network company have to require access to the passenger and the third party's mobile devices in order to be able to share this location access, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Basically, a rider would get in the car and have the option to share their ride with a third party, be it a friend, family member. And that person would receive a text or they vs/rr 371 could follow the person's ride through GPS. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The reason why I'm asking, and anyone who has a modern mobile phone is aware of this, that their device has settings for sharing location data. And I'm just curious how this works from a technology standpoint, and whether or not the rider would have to be providing their location data through this system through their mobile device, or is this something that is a direct result of the transportation network company and maybe the driver's mobile device tracking the ride, through you?

Through you, Madam President. I believe the good Senator is asking about permission for tracking. And the rider requesting through the app would be giving permission for that when they request the ride. They can choose whether or not they want that ride tracked. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That was indeed part of my question, but the part I was asking about is what is being tracked? Is the rider vs/rr 372 being tracked via their mobile device, or is the driver in their vehicle being tracked through their mobile device or something else, through you?

In the case of allowing a third party, like a friend or a family to track, it's through the rider's mobile device. In the case of emergency assistance, the transportation network company is tracking the driver and making sure they are on course. And if they deviate from that course for any reason, the emergency assistance would be triggered, prompting a text to the rider. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the information. I think it's somewhat interesting because you could already do this. You don't need this provision in this law. And I've done it myself wherein I have a loved one that is away from me. We share our locations with one another on our phones so we know where they are and make sure that they arrive at their destination safely if they're traveling, things like that. So, I would presume that that part of this already is something that folks can do. And I'm just trying to understand the transportation network company's role in all of that. So, for example, if, you know, my wife is going to take a trip and she's going to go into New York, and she's going to get on an Uber in Fairfield County someplace and I can track her, I don't need the vs/rr 373 transportation network company to track her. I'm already tracking her telephone because she's granted me permission. How does this work? What is the TNC actually doing here with the app that is beyond that, through you?

Through you, Madam President. Again, the rider can decide whether or not they want a third party tracking that ride. So, you know, perhaps if you were tracking your loved one already, you wouldn't care to be tracked on the ride itself. But there is information that's shared such as the driver's name, the destination, that sort of thing. And it sort of depends from TNC to TNC. But that's the general information that's shared there. And again, it would be optional for the rider.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate that answer. I'm just, I keep going back to this notion about whether we're tracking the rider or we're tracking the vehicle. It seems to me that if we're going to ask to be tracked, to allow a third party to track the ride, they're probably not tracking the rider. They're tracking the driver, and that's what's going on. And I was just curious because I think it does matter from a safety perspective to understand what that third party is actually looking at. When they're looking at the GPS travels of their loved vs/rr 374 one or whoever they're tracking, are they actually tracking the mobile device of their loved one through the TNC application or are they merely following the driver's path? Through you.

In the case of the emergency assistance, as I stated earlier, that is tracking the driver. It is tracking the driver, and they know the destination of that driver. They know the route of that driver. And if the driver deviates from that route, the emergency assistance is prompted. It prompts a text to the rider to determine whether or not the rider's aware they've deviated from course, and if they are okay and safe. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that clarification, and I appreciate this emergency assistance interface. I think that is an interesting thing. What makes a determination about whether or not the driver has deviated from the path? I mean, maybe they have a road closure or they're taking a shortcut that is understood by both the driver and the rider. What actually is the threshold by which there's a determination made that the driver has deviated from the prearranged ride path, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. And as I had mentioned earlier in the debate, earlier this evening, I have been the recipient of those emergency assistance texts from the TNC asking me if I was okay. We didn't deviate far. We had the deviation due to traffic congestion. We were in the middle of Washington, DC. Maybe we were a couple of blocks over from the intended route, but I did appreciate the check-in. I know there are, depending on the TNC, and each TNC does this a little bit differently, they may have a third party involved in that emergency assistance protocol, and they may prompt a text several times before determining that there is emergency assistance needed. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. So, I guess the answer is that it doesn't necessarily have to be much, but it's not specified in the bill and therefore can be determined by, I imagine, the TNC's own judgment? Or is this something that is part of the disclosure process that the TNC would provide to a rider, through you?

Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you up there. It is still good evening to you. And these are as laid out in the bill before us. These would be vs/rr 376 requirements that the TNCs would have to share these safety features with the rider once they request a ride. So, if these features are available, they would be provided to the rider requesting the ride. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Again, I appreciate that. I think it's pretty obvious. I mean, what I was looking for was more specifically about whether or not there was anything required in the bill language about the specificity of this interface and how much deviation was allowed and that sort of thing. But I understand. I guess it looks like it is just really up to the transportation network company's judgment to set the parameters. And it's, you know, part of the private agreement that is in between the company and the rider. The Section III, it would be an optional audio recording feature that may be utilized during a prearranged ride. I'm not familiar with this. I've never seen this before. Can the good chairman describe this for me? What exactly is this audio recording feature, through you?

Thank you, Mr. President. So, this is a feature that's becoming available through certain TNC applications that would enable a rider to prerecord the ride. So, it would give them that option, again, vs/rr 377 once they book the ride as to whether or not they would like to do this. Through you.

This says, on the following sentence, it says, provided such feature includes notice to the driver. And I'm just curious how that notice works. Is this a notice that would be given to them through the application, through you?

Thank you, Mr. President. It's not prescribed in the bill. But, yes, that would be my assumption of how the TNC would notify the driver. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President, or Mr. President. I apologize. These are some interesting, you know, aspects of the bill that I think are beneficial certainly to riders, to drivers. I don't see anything really wrong here with this particular section, although I do often wonder when we draft a policy like this, whether or not this is worded as some sort of mandate or it's simply being allowed that these items can work. The only thing that I see that looks like really required here is the notification made to the rider vs/rr 378 in a couple of sections. I don't need to ask a question about that. But I do want to ask about the next aspect of this bill language that talks about how a driver, a network company driver can be, excuse me, a rider can be verified. And I understand that this may be for the safety of the transportation network company driver. And how does this work exactly? I see that they've got to submit some sort of information. But what is the purpose of verifying the rider, and how does that work, through you?

Thank you, Mr. President. We did hear about some safety concerns with respect to riders and using ghost accounts, some of them, you know, with names like Mickey Mouse and others. And while these could be benign in nature, you know, drivers deserve to feel safe as well in these situations. And so, this section is with respect to that. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I completely agree. I'm the person who argued possibly first in the State of Connecticut when we first did the very first transportation network company bill about the safety of drivers. I was concerned about that when I think no one else even recognized that it was an issue. I was worried about the fact that we were going to have relatively young people getting into this industry. vs/rr 379 And at that time, I think that there were very little requirements in the way of advising that transportation network company driver where they were headed even before they accepted the ride. They would accept the ride, and then they'd be told where to go pick the person up, even if it may have been in some place they didn't really want to go. And ultimately, they would not know either end of the destination to where they are picking up and where they are dropping off. And I'm glad that we've made those changes. And it looks like we've come a long way and steadily made it more and more important to address the safety of the parties involved. And I think that's a great thing. I'm just reading this section. It says the company shall designate an individual as verified if the company has authenticated the individual's identity through the submission of a photograph and the comparison of the individual's account information. It doesn't sound like much, frankly. Is there anything more to this that maybe the good chairman can add to let me know that there's a little more verification going on? I mean, I think anyone can submit a photograph and say that my name is Mickey Mouse. Here's my picture. What are we doing in this bill to make sure that this verification process is actually legitimate, through you?

Through you, Mr. President. It does provide some discretion for the TNC to determine what would be appropriate for verification. It also doesn't require verification of a rider. But this is one example, using a valid photograph. There are other vs/rr 380 means of identifying and verifying riders. Through you.

Thank you very much. I just have a little concern here about whether or not transportation network companies are going to begin advertising, or maybe they already have, to potential riders that the drivers are verified, and vice versa. This is more about the riders being verified, I understand. But my concern is that if they begin this process, I think that what they're doing is they're also trying to convince folks that there is a degree of safety involved. And if there's only the requirement that someone submits a photograph, and that is the determining factor about what their verification is. I know it says some other things here. Account information with records maintained by another party or another method that reasonably enables the company to confirm the identity. Do we know what that is at all, through you, Mr. President?

Thank you, Mr. President. Again, this gives some discretion, but one might assume verification against a name on a credit card that is loaded into the application just as an example. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Certainly, in 2026, there are mechanisms out there to verify someone's identity. It just doesn't seem like this is very fleshed out in this bill. And respectfully, it almost appears that all of the language was written from the perspective of the transportation network company, and really gives them a lot of latitude about how to implement all of these policies. And the level of verification is left entirely to them. And I'm not suggesting that is a tremendous shortcoming. It's better than what we had before, which was nothing. All I would suggest is that if we're going to create this mechanism in statute, that we ought to be doing it with some teeth to actually provide something of significance to a driver when he or she comes across as supposedly verified passenger, to make sure that they are indeed a verified passenger and that some mechanism other than what is listed here with a great deal of latitude, which doesn't strike me as enough. Moving on, there is a paragraph that talks about a telemetric monitoring system. Presumably, this is a GPS system, or is this an entirely different thing that works parallel to a GPS system that would allow the person monitoring the ride to be able to discover the whereabouts of the passenger, through you?

This could be through text messaging through the rider to check-in on them to understand whether or vs/rr 382 not they're okay or if there's an emergency situation. Through you.

Well, thank you very much, through you, Mr. President. I'm going back to Section 17 where it says telemetric monitoring means the continuous automated collection and evaluation of operational and system performance data that is generated by a digital network during a prearranged ride. And that doesn't sound like a text message, although I do understand that if you have multiple cell phone towers, you can telemetrically determine the location of a mobile phone or mobile device. And I'm just curious if that's what this is referring to versus a GPS, through you.

Yes. Through you, Mr. President. So, as I mentioned previously, this emergency interface would be tracking the driver knowing the route that they are to be taking, which is predetermined at the time the ride is set, and if there's a deviation from that route. They would then, you know, text message the rider to determine whether or not they're okay. So, it's really taking a read on where the driver is based on that predetermined ride that is made available through the application, through you. vs/rr 383

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate the gentlelady's response. At this time, I'd like to yield to my colleague, Senator Perillo. I know he has some other questions, through you.

I do, Mr. President. Thank you. I don't have any questions, but I have some comments that I'd like to sort of walk through. You know, one of the things I noticed very early on in the bill in line 16 through 19 is we talked about plug-in hybrids and the utilization of those plug-in hybrid spaces for vehicles that aren't being actively charged at the time. And actually, I know I said I wasn't going to ask any questions, but now I actually have one, and I apologize. Is that intended, A, solely for charging stations on state property? And B, is there any sort of timeline? Is the idea that I've got an electric vehicle, I can park in this space, and I could leave it there all day long, and nobody else can charge their vehicle there? Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you. This is specific to state agencies. So, vs/rr 384 think Department of Motor Vehicles or Department of Transportation where there may be multiple charging stations made available, signage that says you can't park there unless you're charging. This would allow somebody that maybe was charging and that finished to stay there, but doesn't require the person to be charging at all. Through you.

Mr. President, thank you. And I appreciate that answer. You know, I'll be honest. It bothers me a little bit. And so, let's shift our focus from electric vehicles to gas powered vehicles. You know, I think of my ride up here, you know, to the Capitol. So, you know, I live in Shelton, Connecticut, which is not too far from Route 15. I get on Route 15, and on my way up, I have to get gasoline. And I often stop at the rest stop on the Wilbur Cross Parkway in North Haven. And when you want to get gas and you want to pull in to the space that has the pumps and there's a car there, and that car is not getting gas because the driver is inside buying chewing gum or a cup of coffee or wandering around or using the men's room, that's irritating. And it's wasteful. And in some cases, it's downright dangerous because that one individual who's at the gas pump with their cars there not being fueled, but they're away from the vehicle, you know, that can create congestion. It can create queuing problems. It can just lead to dangerous situations, especially, because ironically, these are state properties, it can especially lead to queuing problems along highways. vs/rr 385 So, imagine if you're pulling into one of our rest stops, you know, around the state, especially those on Route 15 because they tend to be smaller in size. And you can't get your vehicle to a working pump because somebody else is there away from the vehicle not being fueled. Let's sort of shift gears and we'll go back to electric vehicles. Now, we've got a situation where we're permitting, in the bill before us, we're permitting electric vehicles to park in the charging space while they're not being charged. Now, that seems to me to be inherently unfair to those individuals who actually want to charge their vehicles. It appears to me, we're intending to encourage more and more individuals to purchase and drive electric vehicles. That seems to be a trend. We've seen it for a number of years now in this legislature. We're trying to encourage people to do that. Yet, at the same time, we're saying, yeah, but we're going to make it a little bit harder for you to charge your vehicle because somebody's parked in it, in that space where the charger is and they're not charging their vehicles. So, they're essentially taking up a charging space that you could otherwise use. So, it seems very inconsistent to me that on the one hand, we're encouraging people to purchase electric vehicles. Yet, at the same time, we're making it harder for those individuals to actually charge their electric vehicles. We really can't have it both ways. So, it just seems very odd to me. It seems unfair. I mean, good grief, you get to work. You plug your car in, it gets charged, move your car. In some ways, we're actually sort of encouraging rudeness here. We wouldn't let somebody at a gas station fuel their vehicle and then just leave it there. We'd have them move their vehicle. But here in this case, in line 16 through 19, we're saying, "No, no, no. That's vs/rr 386 okay. You fueled your vehicle. Great job. Pat you on the head. Oh, and you could leave the car here too. That's fine." So, the next guy who wants to charge his vehicle says, well, I'm out of luck because there's only six chargers here and they're all taken up by six cars, none of which are being actively charged. So, the next guy, our guy number seven, has nowhere to go. And that just seems inherently unfair to me. And actually, if you don't mind, Mr. President, just another question, through you. I'd like to kind of understand the rationale behind that. What's driving that new legislation in lines 16 through 19?

Thank you, Mr. President. So, there are a great number of -- I'm not sure if the good Senator has been to the Department of Transportation. There are a significant number of chargers available at, in particular, the Department of Transportation, and a lot of those spaces go unused because the vehicles can't stay there for any length of time. So, those parking spots just remain empty. Again, the purpose of this would be to allow those vehicles to charge and then remain there for a little bit of time. It is at the discretion of the agency. And so, if they determine that there's a problem and people can't secure chargers as a result of this, this could be modified. Through you.

vs/rr 387 Mr. President, thank you. And I thank the chair for her answers to the questions. So, that actually makes me feel a little bit better. So, A, in this particular case, you know, DOT, great example. They ought to have a lot of chargers in the Department of Transportation. So, they've got enough chargers. Seems not to be an issue there. People could come in, charge their vehicle, go to their office, you know, bring their cup of coffee, you know, open up their emails and do their thing and then not have to worry that they have to wait to find out when, you know, their vehicle is fully charged so they have to go out and move it in January when it's 5° or in May when it's pouring rain. So, they can leave it there. There's enough spaces and it'll work out just fine for folks. Where on the flip side, you know, on state properties, near state buildings where there aren't perhaps as many charging stations, where there aren't stations that go unused, you know, spaces that go unused because there's no one to charge, the agency, you know, to the Senator's point, would have some discretion to say, well, no. Actually, here, because we only have six chargers, we don't have 36 chargers. That here, you can charge your vehicle. But once it's charged, you have to move it. So, I appreciate that that flexibility exists in the bill that's before us. Because I do believe it's important for us to encourage more individuals to buy and utilize electric vehicles. You know, we hear it's good for the environment. We understand that. I don't know the science, certainly, as well as the chair and ranking of the Transportation Committee do. But we have to keep in mind too that the market is the market. And try as we might to encourage EV purchases, support EV purchases, induce EV purchases, we have to remember that when the technology is adequate and the price is appropriate, vs/rr 388 more and more people will buy electric vehicles. And we're starting to see that happen. We're starting to see that happen. You see more electric vehicles on the road. And I think that's a good thing. And I hope that this section of the bill helps us move in that direction. But it's very, very important that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that we can make a market. We can't make a market. Market is supply and demand, and a lot of that is driven by price. So, demand for vehicles will go up when range goes up, when the amount of time it takes to charge a vehicle goes down. That that will increase demand. And, you know, the supply, you know, remember the supply curve and the demand curve. You know, price matters because price does have to come down to a point where individuals can afford to make that choice. Like, look, there's the lifetime cost of the vehicle. We all know that. You know, there is savings involved in not having to put gasoline in your car, especially today with prices where they are when it comes to fuel. But we just have to remember as the State of Connecticut, you know, we shouldn't be overreaching when it comes to encouraging individuals to purchase an electric vehicle. You know, I mean, I think the public benefit charge is a great example. You know, of course, we know there are many charges on our electric bill and the electric bill that residents of the State of Connecticut pay, one of which is, at least it used to be, I believe it's still there, funding for the construction of electric vehicle charging stations. Now, if you think back in time before any of us were here when cars were introduced and there needed to be gas stations constructed, the government didn't do that, right? The government didn't build gas stations. That was the free market because there was a demand. And the supply of gas stations met that vs/rr 389 demand. So, the market was the market. The market worked. Markets are efficient. Taxpayers didn't have to underwrite the cost of those gas fueling stations. But here, in our public benefit charge, we're actually asking taxpayers to underwrite the cost of electric vehicle charging. And I don't think that's fair. And I don't want to turn this discussion into a discussion about the merits of the public benefit charge. That's a different discussion for a different day. But that said, again, this to me becomes one more example of the State of Connecticut trying to pull levers to encourage people, to force people to purchase electric vehicles. And I just don't think that we, as a state, ought to be moving in that direction. We should certainly, you know, welcome individuals to purchase vehicles. You know, we see that we have rebates. There are, you know, tax credits and abatements. And there are many different options that are out there in Connecticut and in other states. You know, that to me is okay, right? I can reconcile that in my mind. We're really, we're putting money back in people's pockets. So, okay. I get that. But when we start changing the rules and when we start charging one person to underwrite the cost of charging stations utilized by somebody else, that just seems to me to be inherently unfair. And like I said, the bill that's before us is one of those measures that I wonder whether or not it flies in the face of this because it could conceivably discourage individuals from purchasing electric vehicles because when they get to work, you know, maybe there's not a charging station available. But as the Senator pointed out, it looks like hopefully that will not be the case. vs/rr 390 We're talking about just state buildings. You know, ideally, this is targeted at state buildings that have ample number of charging stations so that we don't have a situation where, you know, there's a backup. People are waiting to get their vehicle charged. So, that's a good thing, and I like the flexibility in that. And I appreciate that the committee, both chairs and ranking members, considered that in their structuring of this particular section of the bill. So, I'm very appreciative of that. You know, I don't want to go on too long, and I hope I didn't ask too many questions. I know the Senator has answered quite a few tonight, so I wanted to keep it as short as I could. But thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise tonight regarding this legislation to talk about, you know, a lot of the safety measures that are important in the state. And I have issues that in my district, up and down Route 7, particularly in the southern portion of Route 7 in my district in New Milford. There has been a number of tragedies there. And so, through you, Mr. President, is there anything -- because my understanding, this is a comprehensive DOT bill. Is there anything regarding safety measures, particularly on roadways such as Route 7 that have been struck with cars going far too fast, and unfortunately, incidents in which individuals have lost their lives? Through you, Mr. President. vs/rr 391

Through you, Mr. President. There's nothing in here specific to Route 7. There are a number of safety measures, including our distracted driving provisions, as well as making sure that speed is enforced on flex lanes, but there is nothing specific to Route 7. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate. So, the flex lanes is not a safety matter though, through your, Mr. President. That's just helping commuters get through traffic better, through you?

Safety in terms of speed enforcement. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for the chair's answer to that. My understanding also is that there is aspects of this that address the Clean Air Act, and some modifications there related to mandates vs/rr 392 related to EV buses, etc. So, through you, Mr. President, what are those changes? Some were describing those changes as actually modifying it in a direction that was a little more conservative as if they were not modified, those changes, that we would be destined towards more intrusive standards. Is that correct, through you, Mr. President?

Through you. I don't know that I'd use the word intrusive, but they may be -- this definitely pushes back the timeline a bit so that they do not have to adopt zero emission buses quite as early as previously set forth, through you.

Thank you, Mr. President. So, my understanding would be then, if I understood the chair correctly, that this actually delays the implementation, delays the mandate. And so, if this were not to pass, that the mandate would be mandated upon the municipality sooner? Through you, Mr. President.

That's correct. Through you. vs/rr 393

Thank you, Mr. President. And so, that is a change that I think is a positive change as I've heard from a lot of communities. Despite the fact they may want to move towards more environmentally friendly vehicles for their community, that that mandate is particularly expensive, and the supply is somewhat limited in some circumstances. And so, this delay, I think, would allow them to abide by the law with that, but still maintain the aspects of it that were intended in the underlying bill, or excuse me, in the bill passed previously that mandated this change. I also had heard a lot about this bill in regards to homeless encampments. I know it's a DOT bill. So, what exactly is being changed in terms of these incumbents in this particular bill, through you, Mr. President?

Thank you, and through you, Mr. President. This aligns statute with DOT's policy in terms of encampment removal. Through you.

Thank you. And I apologize, I was inquiring with our staff. So, if the chair could just one more time. I do very much apologize that I missed what the chair vs/rr 394 had said about the change to the homeless encampments. Through you, Mr. President.

Well, this is not in statute currently, so we are aligning statute with DOT's current policy with respect to encampment removal. Through you.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. So, I'm a little leery of some of those changes, and I know that some of the municipalities I think have voiced concerns about these changes and being able to abide by them and comply with them. And so, that would be one reason I'd have reservations supporting this measure. I appreciate the chair's patience to go over the many aspects of this bill this evening, into the early morning hours. And thank you, Mr. President, for the time.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're going on House Bill No. 5464. vs/rr 395 We're voting on House Bill No. 5464. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Those voting Yea 32 Those voting Nay 4 Those absent 0

Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you, and good morning. Mr. President, does the Clerk have Senate Agenda No. 1 on his desk?

Senator Duff.

Can you please repeat that, Senator Duff?

So ordered. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, as our next item, please, I'd like to mark Calendar page 35, Calendar 417, Senate Bill 477, please, as our next go item.

Page 35, Calendar 417, Senate Bill 477, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR CERTAIN GRAND LIST EXEMPTIONS AND A MUNICIPAL OPTION TO ABATE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES ON CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND. We are on Senate Amendment "A".

Senator Fonfara.

Mr. President.

I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession. I know we did this before. But just to be clear, the Clerk is in possession of LCO 6140. May the Clerk please call, and I be permitted to summarize?

It was previously marked Senate "A", 6140. Move adoption.

Will you remark? Senator Fanfara.

Thank you, Senator Fonfara. Will you remark? Will you remark further? Senator Fazio.

I actually can't call an amendment yet because we haven't adopted this amendment.

Well, I hate to give away the attempt at compromise, but here we are. I think we should continue through the bill. But that would probably be the best possible amendment we can offer to this policy proposal today. Section 49 is another earmark that we had previously discussed. Section 50 is another interesting policy that had been discussed in the Finance Committee and which did receive pretty broad support. It would make changes to the angel investor tax credit. I voted in favor of that in committee, and I think that was probably a positive change. So, if that was a standalone amendment, like many of these others, then I think you would see pretty broad support from our Republican caucus, and this vs/rr 414 legislation could be passed in probably a more expeditious manner. Because, again, it was something that had a public hearing. It was discussed and voted upon in committee. And yes, maybe it would be coming to us in the Senate at a later hour than we had previously anticipated, but it's probably a positive change and pretty narrow in its scope. Section 51 will add American sign language from an education bill. Again, something that we've discussed in the Education Committee, which I happen to be on, but it's added to this failure to file bill at a pretty late hour slightly surprising. Section 55 includes minor changes to expenditures for Shore Line East. Now, I think it's important that we invest in Shore Line East. It's also important that we make those investments cost-efficient for our taxpayers as well. Section 59 discussed the augmented productivity tax exemption, which was an interesting policy idea that we discussed in the Finance Committee. I think this section, as I understand it, is removing that topic from being contemplated in previous legislation. There are several other minor changes to different earmarks that were already existing in section 66, section 67, section 68. We're moving a little bit towards the end of this amendment now. Section 70 discusses the farm investment tax credit and delays eligibility changes to 2027. Sections 73 through 75 discuss faithless electors, and that's obviously pretty far afield from the Finance Committee, although it is an interesting topic. Obviously, we elect a president in this country through the electoral college, meaning each state holds an election and the popular vote determines where they assign their electoral votes. vs/rr 415 And there's been, I think, very few rare cases in American history where some of those electors for the states don't actually follow the majority or plurality vote of the voters of that state. And instead of going to candidate X, which the majority of the voters in their state showed their preference for that one of those electors from that state might vote for candidate Y in the electoral college. That would be a faithless elector. Again, it's very rare but sections 73 through 75 apparently would find a way to more tightly bind Connecticut electors to whoever wins the popular vote in Connecticut in presidential elections for the purpose of the electoral college. Again, probably something that there is not going to be disagreement on for most legislators, but surprising policy to be added to a failure file bill. It could have been a standalone bill through the GAE, and we could have had an interesting discussion and debate for a while on that alone. But I was pretty surprised to see that come to us in an amendment to a failure to file bill from the Finance Committee. So that's a little bit frustrating. Section 77 and 78 lower penalties for operating a business without a certain, I think, health care businesses without a license. My notes doesn't include what type of business it is. Section 79 allows that the Early Childhood Endowment funds not lapse, meaning that they continue to be carry forward rather than, I think, returned to pay down debt, returned to the general fund, or any other alternative. I'm not sure that that is a responsible budgeting policy, but it is an important change, given that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in that endowment fund. And again, I don't think that that was a policy that was passed through the Finance Committee. So I, again, am relatively surprised to see it appear in this amendment to this failure to file bill. Section vs/rr 416 81, again, makes changes to the film production tax credit. I think it lowers the value from 92% to 78%. I think the way that the film production tax credits -- again, because we're getting this legislation so late, I'm having to wrack my brain. And it is a late hour or almost an early hour. I think the way it works normally is that the film production company, whether they're producing a movie or a TV show in Connecticut, oftentimes on a temporary basis, they collect the tax credits for against the cost of production here in the state. But they don't actually collect it directly from the state. They normally sell it to, I think, insurance companies, which ultimately kind of do the administration and are ultimately reimbursed by the state taxpayer. So, in the process, the production company, I think, is trying to get the cash closer to upfront, and they'll sell it to an insurance company, which will buy it at a discount and ultimately getting reimbursed 100% by the state. So it's, I think, a little bit surprising, counterintuitive, suboptimal, even a little bit comical that our film production tax credit in Connecticut is benefiting insurance companies directly who are making a profit, making a differential on those film production tax credits, which are sold by the production companies to insurance companies, which are making a vig on those credits. Again, important topic, interesting topic, something where there's probably bipartisan agreement. Maybe I would vote for that as a standalone bill, and maybe there'd be broad agreement on that as a standalone bill, but was not anticipating it coming to the file bill. The later sections in the 80s, a lot of them relate to some of the earmarks that we discussed earlier. vs/rr 417 As we're getting to the last 10 or 15 sections of the bill, section 96, I think, is pretty important. It might be or it might not be. It relates to an important topic, but it repeals several sections of, I think it was in the budget that changed the Office of Health Strategies responsibilities. The Office of Health Strategies deals with health care regulations, mostly certificate of need. And I think it was in the budget that those responsibilities were moved to the Department of Public Health, which I think there is broad agreement was probably better than the status quo. I believe that these this section, section 96 of this amendment is actually reconciling those changes, not changing policy in any significant way. But again, an interesting question. And I think towards the end, we touched on some of the earmarks that brings us to section 105, which is just a technical change. And so, here we are with 105 sections in this amendment, some policies that you would receive broad bipartisan support for, somewhat which would be highly controversial, some which are insignificant, others which are very important. But all together, pretty surprising, that would receive an amendment of this volume, of this complexity on what was otherwise a very simple, straightforward, normal piece of legislation regarding failure to file. For all these reasons, I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment being adopted in the failure to file bill. Vote on the failure to file bill that several sections that are straightforward by themselves, which the several towns and cities considered, actually, need to have addressed. And discuss these policies, these important and interesting policies at a later date, whether it's in a future session or in a special session, it would be much more proper and much more vs/rr 418 understandable if we went through those deliberations rather than at the 11th hour of this legislative session. So, again, Madam President, I would ask for a roll call vote on the amendment, and strongly urge my colleagues to vote against it. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 477. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A". This is not the bill. This is S.B. No. 477, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR CERTAIN GRAND LIST EXEMPTIONS AND A MUNICIPAL OPTION TO ABATE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES ON CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 477. This is not the bill. We're voting on

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 24 vs/rr 419 Total voting Nay 11 Absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. Madam president, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 6173. May he please call, and I'd be permitted to summarize.

Senator Fonfara.

And the question is on adoption. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Fazio.

We will have a roll call, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk. vs/rr 421

Amendment passes. Will you remark on the bill before the Chamber? Senator Fazio.

LCO 6177, Senate Amendment "C".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment would provide thorough reform to the earmark process in Connecticut. Yes, we know that in many cases, tax payer funds are giving to very narrow organizations, nonprofit, sometimes municipal and public, sometimes, other private organizations. And oftentimes, they might not benefit the state as a whole, but at least we need to ensure that they are as thoroughly vetted as possible before those funds are ultimately appropriated from the state and given to all those organizations. We have seen too many scandals in recent years of public dollars being wasted or even stolen, and it's important that we have processes in place that any private company, any nonprofit organization, anywhere in Connecticut or across the United States would avail themselves of in order to ensure that their investors’ money, their donors money are being vs/rr 423 spent responsibly for the purposes that are clearly stated beforehand. And so, this amendment would simply set out very clear processes and metrics to vet any political spending, earmark spending before it's actually appropriated by the state government. For instance, there should be a clear sponsor in the legislature that is supportive of this spending rather than it appearing out of nowhere, and millions of dollars of spending sometimes without any legislator taking responsibility for it. That sort of accountability should be a reasonable expectation. If you're very proud of the dollars being spent, if you're very proud of the organization receiving it, you as a legislator should be willing to attach your name to it and announce it at minimum. That way, there could be some responsibility, some skin in the game for the legislator who wants to sponsor it. There should be an indication that all the board members of that entity receiving the dollars don't have any conflict of interest, that they have not been convicted of any financial crimes, that there be a use of funds of the taxpayer dollars, so we know, the purpose that we're giving them the money for, that there are tax documents or audited budgets given, so we understand that the nonprofit organization is actually doing what it says it's doing, and so on and so forth. This is such obviously good policy, transparent, and accountable so that taxpayers can be confident that their money is not being wasted by the legislators in this building, by the people making decisions for our great state. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this common sense measure. And when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by roll call. Thank you. vs/rr 424

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I think that every member of this Chamber and the Chamber downstairs, as well as the administration is supportive of additional transparency, which is after significant deliberation, consideration, that this body and the body on the 2nd Floor passed legislation earlier regarding increased transparency as it relates to earmarks in that regard, and involving the administration and the governor in those discussions. And so, with that consideration, I would ask the Chamber to not support this amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the S.B. No. 477. It's not the bill. Senate Amendment "C" for S.B. No. 477. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "C".

Total number voting 36 vs/rr 425 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I think that was common sense reform. The earmark reform that was passed in the budget was entirely insufficient, and the proposal that we made just now would have given taxpayers far greater confidence. There is also, in this bill, I think, an important section that needs to be discussed, and that is probably the biggest policy change of any here in this underlying legislation. And that is the ability of a voter to request absentee ballot applications be sent to their home for all future elections indefinitely, and for that application to be prefilled out. And obviously, people move, people pass on, there are changes to residences. And yet, here in this bill, there is a very major policy change to have absentee ballot applications are requested and delivered in this state. Absentee balloting is a necessary means to vote that voters should have the right to avail themselves of in this state. And when they do so, they make an application for an absentee ballot. They fill it out, they send it in to their town or city hall, and they receive back a ballot. They fill out that ballot, and they mail it in. vs/rr 426 But, certainly, there is not ever been discussed or contemplated or received, I think, broad support the idea that not only should that ballot application be automatically sent to voters, but that it should be sent to voters and already filled out with sensitive information, potentially to a place that the voter has already left. This is an extraordinarily unusual policy change to our voting laws in an area that we have seen in Connecticut real trouble. We've seen major scandals. We've seen arrest after arrest, for instance, in the city of Bridgeport in their mayoral elections, and we know that that is probably not the end of the violations we've seen of the rights of voters in Bridgeport and all across Connecticut to make their own decisions, cast their vote for their preferred candidate. And yet, we're about to undertake a new policy that would prefill out absentee ballot applications and send them indefinitely automatically to voters households into the future without, I think, a thorough debate or discussion about what the consequences of that policy are. This is all very frustrating. This is a very narrow failure to file bill that could have gone through the Senate, I think, very quickly, justifiably, and yet we have to spend hours discussing these policies that are complex and unrelated one to another. This is just not the right process for our state. Some of these policies, we could be misunderstanding, we could find common ground on, but because 100-section amendment was given to us just hours before the bill ran, really just minutes before the bill originally was going to run and hours before the end of the legislative session, it makes it very difficult to cast an informed vote as elected representatives of over 100,000 constituents each. All this is extremely unfortunate, and I don't see how anyone watching right now, any of our vs/rr 427 constituents, any of the people we represent could look upon the Senate Chamber and think that this is the best we can do, that this is the best way to do business. And so it's extraordinarily disappointing to me. I think that we could make any other number of amendments or propose any other number of amendments. I could propose an amendment to the state bird so on and so forth. But I just, overall, am disappointed at this process. I think that there's a better way of doing this, better way of making policy. I wish it didn't have to be this way. And so, I will just simply leave this debate by saying, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this piece of legislation, and hope that we can endeavor to make policy in a more open, transparent, and reasonable way going forward. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the immediate roll call vote in the Senate. This is S.B. No. 477, AN ACT CONCERNING THE FAILURE TO FILE FOR CERTAIN GRAND LIST EXEMPTIONS AND A MUNICIPAL OPTION TO ABATE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES ON CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND. We're now voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the call vote in the Senate.

S.B. 477 as amended: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 25 Total voting Nay 11 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I move the clerk now call Calendar Page 56, Calendar 178, S.B. 342 as our next go item, please.

Thank you. Senator Cabrera, good morning.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO No. 6132, Senate Amendment "B".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment and ask that the reading be waived, and I be given leave of the Chamber to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a strike-all amendment, Madam President, after much conversation with a variety of parties. It's about a large chunk of the original bill is gone in an attempt to reach compromise, which I believe this amendment does. It does a few things, Madam President. Downcoding is becoming a more and more of a bigger issue in healthcare specifically in regards to the use of vs/rr 430 algorithms, AI, to automatically down code or deny health care coverage. And this bill simply provides electronic notice to every health care provider of a down code denial to make sure that they know what is happening. It also requires that an explanation be given as to why the downcoding or denial such claim was done, including a rationale for the denial. It also provides an electronic appeals process if there is a dispute over it. And it also requires the insurance commissioner to require the providers who provide carriers, excuse me, to submit a report to describe the form and manner prescribed by the commissioner to explain the number of claims, as well as the percentage of claims that are being done by a carrier. Madam President, this is a huge issue that's happening all around the country. The downcoding via AI or an algorithm is happening all over the country, and doctors and patients are being negatively impacted. In fact, Madam President, the American Academy of Physicians has called on the current administration to investigate AI downcoding. As recent as October, NBC had a very in-depth story regarding downcoding with several providers. In California, Cigna has agreed to pause their AI or algorithmic downcoding program pending review because of concerns raised regarding automatic downcoding by the American Medical Association. Madam President, this is happening all over the country. In fact, there are many states attempting to address the use of artificial intelligence in health care insurance decisions. Just a sampling, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Indiana, Louisiana, Alabama, and I hope tonight, Madam President, Connecticut will join other states in making sure that we are addressing downcoding. This was a product of lots of hard work. vs/rr 431 I was pleased to have members from both sides of the aisle involved in the negotiations. I think it goes a long way in addressing an ever increasing technology that is being used to, unfortunately, deny and delay care to too many people. And I urge its passage.

Thank you. I will be making comments on the amendment, through you, Madam President. Thank you. I rise to kind of give some background in regards to this strike-all amendment and how we got here. I think, first and foremost, S.B. 342 began as a comprehensive health care bill in the Insurance Committee, and through feedback and concern. And in fact, I have voted against this bill in committee because of the feedback on some of the fiscal note that would be impacting this policy. Every well-intentioned policy related to the insurance and health care is valid and important. But, nevertheless, we have to weigh it with the uncontrollable, unsustainable, and unaffordable health care cost concerns that weighs all of us as policymakers. That being said, I think it's important, through you, if I could ask the proponent of this bill, of this amendment, to be able to clarify how we arrive to this change. And so through you, first and foremost, could the good chair explain, not use the word articulate, but explain how we've evolved with the previous existing S.B. 342 and its respective sections before this amendment that were removed, and also offer the fiscal note of the previous policy as we move forward on this? Through you, Madam President. vs/rr 432

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to the good senator. And the good senator's correct. This was a large comprehensive bill in committee that was stripped down significantly. When we started the process, it had various provisions that are no longer present in the amendment. We had an anti- steering clause. We also had a rebuttable presumption, as well as some step therapy for prescription drugs, and a few other things, Madam President, that carried with it, unfortunately, a large fiscal number. That is all but gone in in this amendment. And again, it was an attempt by us to reach compromise, reach common ground, address all the various issues on both sides of the aisle. We think that's where we have arrived.

Thank you. And I appreciate the good chair's explanation on how we arrived at this amendment. This is a significantly parred down, focused of downcoding. And I think it's important to understand medical downcoding. The good chair explained the impact. To me, it's even simpler. It is about having a physician or a health care provider to be able to use their expertise and discretion in regards to providing patient care. Now, obviously, in collaboration with health care insurers that are looking to maintain and contain costs, that there is always a tug of war in this respect. But, nonetheless, it was important that we vs/rr 433 specifically address this bill, the unilateral decision approach that has impacted health care delivery. And that, to me, was critically important. We should never ever undermine or question the health care delivery of our medical experts. This bill allows that we will not take away an insurer's ability to use downcoding. I think that was critical in the component and the collaborators on this amendment bill. That being said, we're not saying that they couldn't use downcoding. What we're saying through this bill is that there is a collaboration, that there is input, and that there's an opportunity for validation of the medical expertise in regards to the service provided. So, through you, Madam President, could the good chair verify that this is my understanding, that we are approaching downcoding in this amended bill to be able to ensure that medical discretion, medical expertise is never ever undermined through the downcoding process that is unilaterally in current policies instituted by insurance companies? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes, the good senator is correct. We were attempting to address what we're often seeing in health care, which is the automatic downcoding or automatic denials that is happening throughout the industry. We've seen more and more speaking to many doctors of the Connecticut Medical Society. We've seen and heard from them how this practice is becoming more and more prevalent. And while we all, I think, have a healthy respect for the use and growth of AI in our economy, the reality is that when it comes to health care, what vs/rr 434 serves patients best is that doctor-patient relationship and being able to make good medical decisions, doctor and patient together, and making sure that there's no automatic algorithm or any kind of electronic system that is undermining that bill, that ability for a doctor-patient relationship.

Thank you, Madam President. Indeed. One of the comments that we had and challenges and objections to this bill was the fiscal note, as mentioned by the good Chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee. Let us go through that. The previous bill before the amendment had a fiscal note for fringe benefits and state controllers of nearly, for the fiscal year of '27, $67.3 million, and fiscal year '28 of $130 million, and various impact and potential costs to municipalities. Through you, Madam President, could the good chair explain that this amendment, this pouring down of downcoding, but addressing this issue in being able to ensure quality medical care is not compromised by AI algorithms or unilateral decision of downcoding by health insurers, that the fiscal note was an emphasis, as we approached it, of what the current amended bill's fiscal note is? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes, we were very sensitive to the fiscal note. We realized that that was an obstacle, and it was something we wanted to vs/rr 435 remove. We obviously want to make sure that this policy doesn't cost any money. In fact, the new fiscal note as a result of this amendment, potentially, will lead to a revenue gain in FY '27 for the UConn Health Center. So, we believe we've addressed aggressively the original fiscal note, and that is one of the reasons why I believe we all came together on a bipartisan basis to support this amendment.

Thank you. And I appreciate the chairman's explanation on the fiscal note. We were extremely keen and sensitive to it. But as I focused earlier, the input of medical care, medical decision making, that the expertise should never be outweighed by algorithm and downcoding decision making that impact patient care. That being said, if I may, through you, Madam President, yield to the good senator from the 3rd District to be able to offer some of their unique perspective and a cosponsor on this bill. Through you, Madam President.

Yes, I do, Madam President. Good morning.

vs/rr 436 I wanted to thank Senator Hwang for the yield, and I wanted to thank Senator Cabrera for the hard work that he has done to bring this forward. I just wanted to put this in perspective, Madam President. Let's say this morning as we hopefully go home when the time is right or just stay here and continue the work, but if, let's say, we were going to head out and our car was not working, and we were able to get somebody to fix the car, and then we were able to get a mechanic. The mechanic puts all of their effort, spends multiple hours, and fixes the car, and then has said that they expect to be paid a certain amount, and you have already agreed to that amount. But as soon as the car is fixed, you actually drive away and give them a fraction of that cost. Now, in the usual rest of the professions, the mechanic is going to call the law enforcement agency and say that you robbed them. In the same way, if an architect was hired and that architect was expected to do some work and they made the drawings and you made the building, and once a building is made, you say we are not paying you, that architect has a right to call the police and law enforcement and say, they are robbing me. There was a promise and expectation. But, Madam President, when it comes to medicine in the state of Connecticut, every single day, every single day during the working hours, every single hour, hundreds and thousands of people who are getting care their payments are downcoded by the insurance industry and there's no recourse. This would be criminal in any other part of the world, but it is allowed here and it is being done every single day to the point that people can no longer practice medicine. And when you're trying to write a bill, this building comes to a standstill. Why? We are told this is the insurance capital of the world. And I vs/rr 437 say, well, does that give them the right to abuse everybody in the state of Connecticut because they're the insurance capital of the world? Absolutely not. They should be far more responsible. This is theft. This is wrong. This should be unacceptable. This is not acceptable in any other profession. So, why when a person is septic, is going to have a surgery, and when they have their heart surgery or their knee surgery or everything is done, and when it's time to get paid, somebody says, oh, we cannot pay you anymore. We're going to down code and give you a fraction of this? I would have loved to have a bill which would say we call the police and then put them in prison for theft. But we have reduced this to a bare minimum, which is a good starting point, but I'm so glad that we are working on this and moving in the right direction. So, thank you so much, Madam President, and I would want to yield back to my colleague. Thank you so much, Senator Hwang. Thank you, Madam President.

I do, gratefully, and I want to acknowledge the passion that is offered by the good senator from the 3rd District. It is a tremendous credit to him that he spoke so passionately about care for his patients and the well-being of those individuals that are under his care and many other professionals in the health care sector. Through you, Madam President, can I now defer to the good senator from the 35th District?

Madam President, yes, I do. And I appreciate the senator for the opportunity through the yield. I've spoken many times about patient care and about insurance. And I understand there's a role for insurance. Certainly, I do. But in my many, many years as a doctor, and I hope many more years, because I'm not at any point yet ready to retire from the practice of medicine, there's one theme that I see, and I know my colleagues in medicine see as well, and that is having to continue to bump heads and to fight with the insurance companies to do what we know we need to do for the care of patients who come to us. These are the people of Connecticut. And the other theme I see, and I believe I can speak for my physician colleagues and others in health care, is that this issue, having bump heads more and more with the insurance companies, has been getting worse and worse. It is not getting better, it is not staying static. And the reason we continue to fight is because we know we need to do what we can do to help take care of people who come to us in emergencies when there's something urgent, when they're here seeing us for chronic diseases. I'm a cancer doctor. I certainly see people longitudinally who have cancers under my care, or when they're well and they're coming for wellness checks, which many people do seeing their primary care and family practitioners. But to provide the service that we do, sometimes very complicated and involved, and to legitimately and properly bill, following rules that we follow per insurance contracts, not trying to commit fraud, not trying to abuse the system, we then get faced with downcoding of our bills. That is outright wrong. And what that does is it continues to show the insurance companies are vs/rr 439 focusing more and more on profit while my physician colleagues and I and others in health care are continuing to focus on patient care. And there has to be a given, because in the real world, you can't keep on providing patient care. And if you're in private practice, keep the doors open literally, the lights on, all the equipment up to date, deal with everything that you have to deal with, pay your staff if you're not getting properly paid. You can't keep seeing people when at a loss because you can't stay in business. And the same for the hospitals at a bigger scale. This is, to me, an abuse by the insurance companies on those of us and others who are providing care, because they know we're going to continue to provide the care because we have a professional obligation, we have an ethical obligation, we have a moral obligation. We're not going to not provide the care, but on the flip end, then we have to deal with this. And I very much appreciate the work of Senator Cabrera, Senator Hwang, others. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. This is not everything that I would like to see. I would love to see an outright ban saying it shall not happen. It doesn't mean that an insurance company can't look if there's a true case of fraud that isn't very often, but there are processes in place for that. But I understand it's a process, and I believe that where we are now at this hour of the morning on this amendment, that this is a good step. It sets a marker. It opens a door to say that, okay, if this is continuing to happen, especially using AI and the computer technology that is abundant and rapidly growing, then there has to be some fair play here. There has to be a notice. There has to be an appeals process. And I hope that this will get enacted, and I encourage my colleagues in the House, when they get vs/rr 440 this, to enact this. And then I hope that next year, we can take another step and move more towards an outright ban on this. When I was president of the Connecticut State Medical Society some years ago, the theme of my presidency was the patient-physician relationship. And I know my colleagues in healthcare feel that way as well. And this intercalates and interjects and interferes in that key fundamental relationship at the heart of health care. A health care professional and a patient. And we should not be letting that happen, because when that does, that interference can have adverse outcomes, and that is not what we want. That's not what we want to see. I have seen it, and I know I'll continue to see it when I take care of people. And the more that we can work together in a bipartisan way to say enough is enough and stand up for patient care, that is good. And I'm always happy to join that cause. So I appreciate that this is coming forward. I support it. I encourage my colleagues to support it. And thank you, Madam President, and I appreciate the yield.

Thank you. And I appreciate both of my colleagues who also, in the professional ranks, serve as physicians and their expertise. And you hear from them their passionate advocacy for this bill, particularly in regards to their commitment to quality patient care. Now, obviously, there's an emotionality to it, there's a professional pride and a focus on care, but we also must balance it with the uncontrollable cost of health care impacting ratepayers and consumers. vs/rr 441 It is something that I know this General Assembly, as well as the administration has keenly focused on. So, it is important when we looked at this bill not only to maintain and protect and sustain patient care, we need to balance it with the highest ability to contain cost. That being said, let me repeat again in regards to the original bill that looked at a fiscal note of, again, FY '27 in the range of about $67 million, and for FY '28, approximately $130 million-plus. We made the effort to be conscious about the fiscal note impacting consumers and insurers' ability to provide affordable health care insurance. So, as a result of this bill, let me repeat again. This amendment, through the diligent effort of the good chair and through many of our legal counsel, as well as the Office of Fiscal Analysis, has now made the fiscal note to be one where there may be a additionally potential minor cost to the state employee health plan and the municipalities that are enrolled in the state partnership plan beginning in FY '27 and '28 to the number that is de minimis to the point that we took note of cost to health insurance premiums. Make no mistake about it. This bill and the adjusted amendment reflected a real consideration to the impact of health care insurance premiums. It's important to note that. But that being said, what actually came out through this amendment was the fact that the UConn Health Center would actually see an increased potential revenue gain. And the reason for that is exactly why we address the issue of downcoding. And the explanation that was provided by the Office of Fiscal Management in regards to a potential revenue gain through the fiscal note of the various '27 and '28 fiscal year is, this amendment results in a potential revenue gain annually, beginning FY '27 to the UConn Health Center, because it established a notice requirement and appeal process vs/rr 442 when insurers use artificial intelligence to automatically downcode denied a claim made by health care providers to the extent that this increases the reimbursement the UConn Healthcare Center receives from private insurers, there is a revenue gain. Again, we are making sure that the health care delivery that is given to patients is fully and properly reimbursed, and that the utilization of AI, as well as downcoding mechanisms does not compromise the doctors' or health care providers' expertise and discretion. One of the important part of this amendment is also making clear, this does not prohibit health insurers to use downcoding, but it affords the experts in the health care delivery system to be able to offer input, to be able to engage in question without delays in billing, without delays in reimbursement. So, through you, Madam President, I wanted to ask the good chair my explanation on the fiscal note change, which is critical, but also to understate the importance of balancing patient care with health care insurance premium controls. And if there's anything I might have missed through the good chair, could he explain further? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the good senator. He is correct. We were taking great pains to try to make sure we had addressed the fiscal note issues. And as I mentioned in the beginning, the bill is significantly reduced from the original fiscal note last because we took many of the elements that were in the original bill out. vs/rr 443 And as good senator has mentioned, this is something now that has a potential gain to UConn Health Center and low cost. So it is something that just requires reporting, and so all the more expensive elements are reduced or removed, I should say. Nevertheless, we believe that this is a great step in the right direction in addressing the growth of AI in health care.

Thank you. And I appreciate the good Chair of the Insurance and Real Estate validating the diligent effort that we made in balancing between health care costs, health care insurance premium control, but also making sure that the highest level of patient care and expertise is delivered. I'll close by simply offering and thanking the leadership of Senator Looney who has advocated in regards to this. We're grateful that he has put his name on to cointroduce this bill because it was his input on the original bill that raised the concern of ensuring that quality health care is available to our constituents and in our community, and his willingness to compromise and understanding the balance that is necessary to be able to move forward on the downcoding issue. It reflects how important it is to begin the discussion to balance health care cost containment from our insurers versus the delivery of quality sustained patient care. So, through you, madam, I would defer to the chair in how he would request to have a vote on this amendment, either via voice or a roll call vote. Through you, Madam President. vs/rr 444

Thank you, Madam President. If there is no objection, a voice vote will suffice.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will your remark on the bill as amended? Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Senator Looney. vs/rr 445

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

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

Thank you. (gavel) Legislation passes.

Senator Duff. We will stand at ease, sir. Senator Duff.

Yes. Just it will take us a minute. Mr. Clerk.

Good morning, Senator Maroney.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

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, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

We'll stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. vs/rr 455

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Stand at ease.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

On Calendar Page 42, Calendar 44, House Bill 5381. I'd like to place that item on our Consent Calendar.

I have one more. I'm just waiting for a page number. On Calendar Page 54, Calendar 549, House Bill 5334. I'd like to place that item on our

Thank you, Madam President. The Clerk can now please call the items on our Consent Calendar, followed by a vote.

5381, Madam President.

545 - vs/rr 458

Madam President, stand at ease for a moment.

Madam President, if we can take one item off our Consent Calendar.

Calendar Page 6, Calendar 56, Senate Bill 135, please.

Thank you, Madam President.

Consent Calendar No. 1. Page 1, Calendar 436. House Joint Resolution 67. Page 1, Calendar 437. House Joint Resolution 468. House Joint Resolution 69. Page 2, Calendar 441. House Joint Resolution 72. Page 2, Calendar 442. House Joint Resolution 73. Page 3, Calendar 445. House Joint Resolution 76. Page 3, Calendar 446. House Joint Resolution, 77. Page 3, Calendar 447. House Joint Resolution 78. Page 64, Calendar 501. House Joint Resolution 42. Page 63, Calendar 500. House Joint Resolution 57. Page 46, Calendar 512. House Bill 557. Page 46, Calendar 513. House Bill 5574. Page 45, Calendar 507, House Bill 5575. Page 45, Calendar 508, House Bill 5577. Page 45, Calendar 509, House Bill 5578. Page 44, Calendar 504, House Bill 5579. Page 45, Calendar 505, House Bill 5580. Page 45, Calendar 506, House Bill 5583. Page 32, Calendar 368, House Bill 5141. Page 40, Calendar 470. House Bill 5143. Page 48, Calendar 521. House Bill 5447. Page 52, Calendar 539. House Bill 5476. Page 41, Calendar 478, House Bill 5155. Page 40, Calendar 472, House Bill 5525. Page 46, Calendar 514, House Bill 5534. Page 30, Calendar 354, House Bill 5125. Page 30, Calendar 351, House Bill 5126. Page 30, Calendar 353, House Bill 5163. Page 31, Calendar 357, House Bill 5239. Page 41, Calendar 480, House Bill 5291. Page 43, Calendar 491, House Bill 5431. Page 41, Calendar 479, House Bill 5208. Page 52, Calendar 540, House Bill 5481. Page 31, Calendar 361. House Bill 5215. Page 26, Calendar 314. Senate Bill 465. Page 32, Calendar 371. House Bill 5401. Page 42, Calendar 484, House Bill 5381. And Page 54, Calendar 549, House Bill 5334. An Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No.1.An Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. vs/rr 460 We're voting on Consent Calendar No. 1. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. This is the Consent Calendar number one. Immediate roll call vote in the

Consent Calendar No. 1: Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those Voting Aye 36 Those Voting Nay 0 Absent and Not Voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I move all items that require further House action to the House of Representatives, please.

Thank you, Madam President. For our next item, please. Madam President, Calendar Page 38, Calendar 455, House Bill 5043. vs/rr 461

Thank you. Good morning, Senator Winfield.

And the question is on passage, will you remark?

Thank you. Question is on passage. Will you remark? Senator Kissel.

Thank you, Senator Kissel, and good morning, Senator Sampson. We will get that working for you, sir. There you go.

Please proceed.

Thank you, Senator Winfield. Do we need a microphone?

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Winfield. vs/rr 490

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield. vs/rr 491

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield. vs/rr 497

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Well, to get to one, my good friend to my left did a little digging on the old supercomputer we now carry in our pockets called our cell phones, and it was an individual who plead guilty just two months ago. So that's at least one. But as I said, I've had some conversation, and if I had the data, I would share it with the good Senator, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I'm extremely overjoyed and enlightened to hear that we have evidence of one person who's plead guilty. What did they plead guilty to, through you? vs/rr 502

Thank you, Madam President. I will look it was unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That tells us two very important things. One, that this person was a felon already, not your typical law-abiding citizen. Probably somebody with a criminal record who probably possessed that firearm illegally. But more important than all of that is the fact that it's already a crime. It's already a crime to convert a semi-automatic firearm to a machine gun or a fully automatic gun. And if they plead guilty to it, that shows us that that process is actually working. And that there's no need for this bill, which criminalizes possession of perfectly lawful firearms that are simple, semiautomatic firearms in common use. The Connecticut Democrats like to take pride in the fact that Connecticut has some of the already strictest firearm laws in the entire country. A person seeking to possess a firearm lawfully has to navigate permits. They have to do background checks. They have to give up fingerprints. There are waiting periods. There are transfer rules whenever one's going to actually purchase a firearm. Connecticut already regulates gun ownership more aggressively than most states. And you have to go through a lot of steps to vs/rr 503 purchase any kind of firearm. And that matters because the people that are affected by this bill are not the people ignoring the law. They are the people complying with it. The people that are most harmed are average, ordinary, everyday people that are purchasing firearms, maybe Glock handguns, for their own personal use for their self-defense. Like veterans, hunters, sportsmen, instructors, small business owners, manufacturers, you name it. Every day people. I want to talk about gun stores because I think this is, like, one of the worst parts of this entire bill is the impact on FFLs, federally licensed firearm dealers. We've had recent legislation, including last year, House Bill 7042, which we debated in this circle probably in the early morning hours, although I don't know if it was quite this late or early, depending on how you look at it. And that bill was also an attack on firearm commerce. And I believe it was designed to send a chilling message to gun stores in the state that they could, in fact, be held liable and lose everything, not just their business, but maybe their personal wealth, simply because they came in contact with a firearm that would be later used in a crime that they had nothing to do with. This bill sends a similar message because Gun Stars are already regulated. FFLs are already under both state and federal regulation. And they have to deal with a lot of paperwork and a lot of stuff to make sure that they get everything right. They have to make sure they dot all of their I's and cross their T's. They cannot be accidentally selling a firearm to a person who's ineligible, etc. Can I ask, is there anything in this bill that suggests that federally licensed firearm dealers are going to receive any guidance on what firearms fall into this category, through you? vs/rr 504

Thank you, Madam President. And, through you, Madam President. As I read the bill beyond the definition and descriptions in the bill, no.

Through you, Madam President, is there any entity, the Department of Safety and Public Protection, maybe, who will issue a list of which firearms are covered? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I, again, thank you, Madam President, through you, Madam President. As I read the bill, the only information that one, I guess, would have would be the statute itself, which would be amended by this bill, which would be 53202. But I do not believe to try to answer Senator Sampson's question, as clearly as possible, would be the type of list that would make him feel comfortable that one would have the level of clarity he is seeking, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm just trying to digest that because I think while I might not be comfortable with a list like that, I think I'd be a lot more comfortable having a list that comes from the Department of Public Safety than not having it if I was a firearm dealer or a gun store because I would then follow-up with a question to say, would firearm dealers be protected if there was such a list and that they were following it? Because I'm concerned that what can happen. Can a dealer, firearm dealer, be basically exposed to a felony just for making a good-faith mistake, through you?

So, thank you, Madam President. Through you, I believe that the way in which this bill is written, they would have to actually have knowledge that what they were doing violated the law. I think the term knowingly is used in all of these sections. Now, clearly, there would be some conversation about whether or not that actually happened. And as we know, establishing knowledge or intent is often difficult. I would also just say to offer myself yet again, I think Senator Sampson makes a good point. And I suspect it might even show up in one of his amendments, that we might get to, which clearly I will reject because it would move this bill back down to the House. But I think he makes a good point about making sure we are clear. And subsequent to this, I think, kind of have a sense of how this ultimately ends up. I would be happy to engage in a conversation to see if, we could establish the type of clarity he seeks. Though I recognize that doesn't, for today, do very much to his concerns. Through you, Madam President. vs/rr 506

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. Unfortunately, this bill is likely to pass out of this Chamber and go on to the Governor for a signature. And that does not make me feel comfortable that people that are engaging in a lawful activity in the state of Connecticut operating a gun store and transacting business in good faith every day, making sure they're not arming criminals, could end up guilty of some kind of felony as a result of this legislation because as we've stated, it is not clear which firearms fall in the category of convertible pistols. There is no such list. There is nothing in the bill that specifies that a list will be created. I don't know that anyone has asked any firearm dealers in the state whether they actually have the ability to comply with this law. To me, that would be important before moving ahead. What happens when a legally held firearm, that convertible pistol, breaks, and the owner needs to have it repaired? Can they bring it to a federally licensed firearm dealer, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. I'm trying to orient myself in the bill to give it, and as if so if I could have a moment. I've mixed my Pages up. I'll hurry up. vs/rr 507

Thank you, Madam President. So, in the bill, as it describes, what is here, I don't believe there's anything written here that would prevent the fixing of the implement that the individual is allowed to continue to have as long as they are allowed to continue to have it clearly.

Thank you very much, Madam President. My concern is more about the firearm dealer being in possession of a convertible pistol and transferring it back and forth from the person who owns it. Is there anything in this bill or any other existing statute that would make that a crime to transfer that firearm back and forth, through you?

As I look at it, it doesn't seem to violate the section of the bills that talks about what you cannot do, which are knowingly advertise, sell, offer, expose for sale. Those are the things that cause the individual to trip over this law, should it actually pass. And so I do not see where that transfer for that purpose would be a problem under the bill. vs/rr 508

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that clarity and that legislative intent. These are some of the important questions that came up during my visit with my friend who is a gun store owner, and he's very concerned about ever coming contact with another Glock handgun that is no longer going to be eligible for commercial sale for fear that merely being in possession of one might create a crime. And I'll just point out that one of the things that was pointed out to me by him is that very often, people purchase firearms through different means. Maybe from a different state or even online on a site like Gunbroker.com. And what happens in a transaction like that is that the buyer who resides in Connecticut makes the purchase on GunBroker, but because they can't take possession of the firearm directly, it would be shipped to an FFL in the state of Connecticut. And then that person would go to the FFL and pick it up. And, obviously, they'd probably be charged some sort of fee for processing the transaction and the transfer. But that presents a bit of a concern because what if someone ships a convertible pistol to an FFL in the state of Connecticut, that could happen unbeknownst to them, and they are then in possession of it, and then they have a customer that is looking for this pistol. Would that violate the bill that is in front of us, through you, Madam President?

Good morning, Mr. President. I hate to do this. I was trying not to ask a question about the question. So, an individual -- I want to make sure I'm answering the question that Senator Simpson is attempting to get an answer to. So the individual is selling the gun, but they exist outside of the state. They send it into the state to the FFL, who then would be the holder of the gun until it's picked up by the person who bought it. Is that correct?

Through you, Mr. President. Nice to see you up there. And, yes, sir. That's exactly what I'm referring to.

Thank you, Mr. President. Well, that is a really good question, and I'm glad my brain is so foggy that it did not follow it. Well, let's see. The things that one cannot do is knowingly advertised, that is not -- that it cannot knowingly sell. The FFL is not selling it. It was already sold, offers or exposes for sale any convertible. The FFL itself is not doing the offering or doing the exposition here because the sale occurred prior to the FFL. So, as I read it, I don't actually think that whether intended or not, is what the bill would suggest is a forbidden practice. So sorry, Mr. vs/rr 510 President. At least as it relates to the FFL, through you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I appreciate that answer also very much. I'm going to ask, kind of a difficult question, which I don't know what kind of answer I will get. But how confident is my colleague in that response when it comes to the real world? Am I able to walk out of here if this bill passes and tell my friend who owns a gun store that he's not in any trouble simply for coming into contact with a convertible pistol, as long as he's not actively selling it. But he could be party to a transaction that is some other seller and buyer, as long as he is merely acting as the FFL processing the transfer, that he'd be able to repair a firearm that was brought to him, that he might be able to do warranty work on a convertible pistol that was brought to his shop. Those are just some examples. There might be more. But how confident is the good Chairman that he would be in the clear under those circumstances, through you?

Thank you, Mr. President. I think the good Senator knows that the law kind of grows up over time. And so whenever we pass a bill, no matter how confident you are, what ultimately will determine what will happen has to do with the way that our lawyers are tested by our courts, Mr. President. And my level of vs/rr 511 confidence in my response has to do with reading the bill as it lays currently. And I'm sure at some point, someone will run into an issue and perhaps find themselves in a court. And on the response of repair of the implement, I feel relatively secure on that on the response of the transfer. I feel secure, but I think that might have more of an issue in a court, potentially. I would say on almost no law, that I'm a 100% sure that it will lay as we have intended here. We have seen laws where we clearly expressed intent. And the courts have not agreed with us, through you, Madam -- Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I appreciate the candor in that reply, and I am very, very aware that the letter of the law certainly will take precedent over legislative intent. I've seen it quite a few times, and that's why I'm always concerned when I'm asking questions in this Chamber of my colleagues, and they have this, don't worry about it. We've got legislative intent on our side. So I appreciate my colleague being much more straight with me to suggest that he's got his honest opinion, but it will be ultimately interpreted by a courtroom down the road. Because that's how this works. It's frustrating very often, actually, especially when it comes to this gun control legislation that we've had since I've been here. I've seen quite a bit of it. And I am constantly faced with people asking me questions about what is an assault weapon, for example. And, well, this is a pistol, but it has a screw-on barrel. And this and that. It really is vs/rr 512 very hard to say beyond any shadow of a doubt whether or not something is compliant with our laws in the state of Connecticut, because in order to know, they'd have to be tested in a court. And some courtroom will have to decide exactly what the letter of the law means and establish a precedent, which is only as good until someone else decides they want to break that precedent. But generally speaking, as the gentleman said, our laws tend to grow. Based on that, Mr. President, I have an amendment. The Clerk is in possession of LCO No. 5835. I ask that this amendment be called, and I'd be given leave of the Chamber to summarize.

Senator Sampson.

The question is on adoption, will you remark? Senator Winfield.

Will you remark further? If not, will the machine be open, Mr. Clerk?

Have all Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? Have all Senators voted? If all Senators voted, the machine will be locked. Mr. Clerk.

The amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

LCO Number 5777. Senate Amendment B. Senator Sampson. vs/rr 516

Will you remark further? Senator Winfield.

vs/rr 517 Will you remark further? If not, what machine will be opened. Mr. Clerk? Please call the roll.

Have all the senators voted? If all the senators voted, the machine will be locked. I'm losing it. And then the Clerk please call the tally.

The amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson. vs/rr 519

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Sampson.

LCO 5776, Senate Amendment C.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. This is a very, very straightforward amendment. Just like I was describing, this would create a section after the last section of the bill, simply requiring that not later than 30 days after the effective date, which would be the passage of this bill, the commissioner of the emergency services and public protection shall within available appropriations establish a list of convertible pistols. The commissioner shall post such a list on the DESPP Internet website, and update each such list monthly. This is the very least that ought to happen to make this bill a little bit better for the people of Connecticut. I move adoption. I'd ask for a roll call vote.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment C, House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment C of House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

LCO 5776, Senate Amendment C, as amended: Total Number Voting 31 Necessary for Adoption 16 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 20 Those absent and not voting 5

Thank you very much, Mr. President. That is a bit of a frustrating experience. I certainly recognize the technical obstacle with passing such an amendment and having it go through the other chamber. But I do not, once again, believe that justifies ignoring vs/rr 525 what is such a much needed addition to the policy that is before us. The fact of the matter is that list might be the difference between someone being found guilty of a felony who is completely innocent of any actual crime or not. I started this conversation earlier by pointing out its political nature and my frustration with that and my focus on attempting to try and build a legal case that could be used later to challenge this law. And I have four additional amendments to this bill that I'm going to offer in quick succession. I thought about how to do this a little bit, but I think these amendments are extremely important to illustrate what is happening here, which is we are about to pass what I believe is a wholly political bill. It is designed to send a message to lawful gun owners in the state of Connecticut that this majority will continue to pass more and more legislation infringing upon your rights. Your rights that are guaranteed both by our state and US constitutions, that they are willing to pass bills that are, to the average, non-constitutional scholar still in direct violation of two very significant Supreme Court precedents. Almost to guarantee with certainty that this particular legislation will not stand up to scrutiny in a courtroom. But unfortunately, until that happens, it will indeed be the law in the state of Connecticut. And people will be charged and tried and possibly prosecuted for crimes under such a law. It would take a legal challenge at some point down the road, which may take years. It may take a decade. It may never come for people to actually have justice. And I compare that with other policies this legislature is passing. vs/rr 526 Most recently, this legislature passed a bill that would raise the age of juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes. Crimes that harm innocent people in the state of Connecticut. To treat them like juveniles all the way to the age of 26. And I understand there's a lot of passionate arguments on both sides of that argument, but I cannot abide the notion that we are in this legislature actually concerned with preventing or stopping criminal enterprise. To me, that bill, which I believe passed the House of Representatives today as well, which will probably be headed to the governor for a signature, doesn't do anything to prevent crime. It doesn't do anything to make the people of Connecticut one bit safer. And this bill that is before us doesn't make us one bit safer either. But what it also does is it puts a target on the back of many Connecticut citizens who happen to possess these firearms. To say that they are one step away from potentially being felons, for possessing some item that they bought lawfully, have used properly, and have committed no crime. It's really remarkable. I believe that we should have adopted the amendments that I have offered previously that didn't change the policy. I know when I'm beat. I know when the majority has more votes than I do. I know that they're going to get their way at the end of the day. I know they're going to pass this into a law. All I was looking for is some clarity. So that when this law does pass, people aren't caught up in it unexpectedly or innocently. I don't want to disparage my comments, but I have to tell you it is extremely frustrating to watch, to sit here, to be offering ideas for the sake of desperation and clarity on a bill that I cannot stand but I cannot stop. And the argument is, well, it would be inconvenient for us to actually go back and redo this bill through the House. vs/rr 527 And I get it. But I think it would be a whole lot more inconvenient to be charged with a felony because you did something accidentally, because you didn't know which list of guns or whether your gun was on the list of affected firearms. And that's what we're talking about. I simply wanted clarity. And to have my approach, which I think has been as diplomatic as I could possibly be under the circumstances, This is legislation that flies in the face of everything I believe in. I would categorize it as morally wrong. I would classify it as an American. I would say that it falls in the category of abuse of the citizenry, frankly. I'm trying to keep that to myself as much as possible to make the argument from a legal perspective and not one of passion. Or a personal feelings and views. So I'm going to offer a series of additional amendments, and I already know that they're going to fail, but I'm going to offer them anyway because these particular amendments deserve to be on the record and the people of Connecticut deserve to know who actually thought that these were good enough ideas to overcome the small inconvenience of possibly delaying the passage of this legislation. The first one actually would simply delay the passage of this bill for less than a year. But it would attempt to try and get the policy right. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO 5836. I ask that he calls this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Sampson. vs/rr 528

Will you remark further? Senator Winfield.

Will you remark further. If not, will the Clerk please call the roll? And it should be open.

Have all senators voted? The machine will be locked. Clerk, please call the results.

The amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

LCO Number 5837. Senate Amendment E.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. As mentioned throughout this debate, the majority seems to come back to this chamber year after year after year with more gun control legislation. And a lot of the arguments hinge on whether or not this is actually impactful on fighting crime or making people in Connecticut safer. And a frustration I have is that when we start to talk about data, often there isn't any. To determine whether or not firearms are being used in crimes, or whether those firearms were lawfully purchased, or whether or not they were trafficked firearms, or illegally possessed, or where they came from, et cetera, et cetera. So I believe that we should start tracking that information. The amendment that is before us would vs/rr 531 create a new section at the end of the bill, asking consultation with the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, to annually compile a report on the occurrence of crimes in the state involving firearms. As part of such report, the commission and the department shall include the number of charges, such crimes, and the disposition of such charges, trends in firearm violence, percentages of offenders who legally or illegally possess the firearm or firearms associated with each such crime, and the percentage of such crimes that were committed with a firearm or firearms banned in the state. It would require the commission submit such report annually, not later than January 15th. I believe this information would be crucial in determining whether or not any of these policies, including the one before us, have any merit at all as policy or just politics. I move adoption, and I ask for a roll call vote, and I encourage my colleagues to please support this amendment.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment E. House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment E of House Bill Number 5043. This is not the bill. This is Senate Amendment E. An immediate roll call vote in the 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. vs/rr 532

Total Number Voting 32 Necessary for Adoption 17 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 21 Those absent and not voting 4

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Again, not surprised, but, of course, disappointed at the failure of these recent amendments, which are all, I think, ideas that under the right set of circumstances, we could get the majority even to agree, at least philosophical level that we ought to have data before acting and making policy. It's unfortunate that that was not considered as part of this process that brought us here to this day where we're here moments away from voting on a bill in the make it in effect the law of the state unless the governor sees otherwise. But being that it's the governor's bill, I have a strong feeling he will ultimately support it. I don't want to belabor this point much more, but I vs/rr 533 have been weaving a thread throughout this conversation that we are talking more about politics than policy with this particular proposal. And that it has very little substance when it comes to actually changing what's happening on the street, making anyone safer, solving any crimes. And the fact of the matter is, there is a debate in the state over who's actually interested in doing the job of helping to provide for the public safety. And I would argue that some of the policies being passed by the majority, certainly since I've been in this legislature, tend towards weakening our criminal justice system. And I could write a book, frankly, about the number of things that I've voted against in this chamber and in the House that I think directly undermine law enforcement, undermine the rule of law, and the whole concept of law and order in the state of Connecticut. They make excuses for criminals. They make softer penalties and sentences for criminals. And ultimately, make it much more difficult to prosecute people that are truly dangerous. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think that there is some benefit in trying to get through, certainly, to young people that have chosen the wrong path. I absolutely do. And I don't want that to be mischaracterized in any way. But the fact of the matter is, some folks have committed serious offenses in the state of Connecticut. And many of them involving firearms. And since we're here talking about allegedly the notion of firearm safety, I want to offer two amendments that have to do with criminals using firearms. And the question really is, if we are against people misusing firearms to harm people, to cause mayhem and havoc in our state, should we be prosecuting them? After all, the majority is here presenting us with a bill that they argue is about gun safety. vs/rr 534 From my point of view, this doesn't do anything to stop a criminal act in any way, shape, or form. Criminals are still going to obtain firearms unlawfully. They are going to, if they so which, modify those firearms. They're going to use them criminally. They will obtain the criminal Glock switches. They will obtain the scary convertible pistols. They'll obtain whatever they need. And if they don't, they'll probably use some other implement of destruction. That's what criminals do. This bill doesn't solve any of that. This bill has the potential to make law-abiding people who are simply possessing firearms for their own safety and protection potentially guilty of a felony. It has the potential to make a firearm dealer who works hard every day to make sure that the firearms that he sells to people that want to protect their families are being sold without risk of selling one to a criminal or someone who will do harm and make them potentially a felon through no fault of their own, through a mistake, through the fact that there's no list of firearms that even fall into the category the bill requires. So since we're going to have this question about who is actually concerned about protecting the people of Connecticut from criminals who would use firearms for negative and dangerous purposes -- and forgive me for misspeaking occasionally. It is almost 6:00. Since we're having this conversation, I believe we should be on the record. So, Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of another amendment. This one is 5779. I ask that he call this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO Number 5779, Senate Amendment F.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman or Mr. President. I'm sorry. I keep doing that.

This amendment is very straightforward. Again, like some of my previous amendments, it simply adds something after the last section. And without getting into every last detail of what is written here, I'll just say that what the purpose of this amendment is, is to eliminate the eligibility for what is known as the Clean Slate Program in the state of Connecticut, which is a program by which we erase the records of people who have committed certain criminal activities. This would eliminate eligibility from the Clean Slate Program for any serious firearm offense. In my view, if you're serious about wanting to stop people who use firearms as criminals, then you should want them to be prosecuted for those crimes. And you shouldn't want them to get a pass down the road when they do. This bill or this amendment, rather would simply add to the existing bill a provision that those folks who've engaged in serious firearm offenses are not available or eligible for that program. I move adoption, and I’d like a roll call vote. vs/rr 536

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment before the chamber as we've discussed in many, many prior conversations, Clean Slate is not just an opportunity to get out of jail free, if you will. It's an opportunity for the state to recognize that people are not the same throughout the course of their life. At a certain point, you're no more likely to commit a crime than someone who never committed a crime. And with that, Mr. President, I would rise in objection to this amendment.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the not the bill. This is Senate Amendment F of House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment F of House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment F, House Bill Number 5043.

Total Number Voting 30 Necessary for Adoption 16 Those voting Yea 10 Those voting Nay 20 Those absent and not voting 6

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Following up on that amendment, which I think anyone watching realizes failed on a party line vote. Although, we seem to be missing a few members. Not sure why that would happen at 6:00 a.m. after we've been here for the full previous day. But let me just offer one final amendment. This is a similar amendment to the previous one, making a very similar point. This one is LCO 5833. I ask that the Clerk please call this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

vs/rr 538 Thank you very much, Mr. President. This amendment, the previous one, I had structured so that we would eliminate the eligibility for the Clean Slate Program for individuals who had committed serious firearm offenses. This amendment is very similar in that it applies to those who've committed serious firearm offenses, and would restrict them from receiving what is known as risk reduction credits, which is a mechanism that would allow folks to take time off of their sentences. I don't know that I need to go to any more detail on the substance of the amendment because that's really it. It's just a very straightforward eligibility restriction for risk reduction credits. And I move adoption and ask for a roll call vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in objection to this amendment.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. Voting on Senate Amendment of House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the not the bill. It's the amendment of House Bill Number 5043. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total Number Voting 32 Necessary for Adoption 17 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 21 Those absent and not voting 4

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I do not have any more amendments, and, frankly, I'm almost out of steam. It's been a long last 24 hours and a frustrating one, of course, for some of us who serve in the minority. This bill represents a number of things to me. It's a yearly frustration that I face as a Connecticut resident, as a gun owner, and as a Republican in the Connecticut state Senate. It's difficult to keep losing this battle year after year after year. I ran for office mainly because I was concerned about watching my state government head in a direction that I disagreed with on a lot of things. On spending, taxes, on government regulation, and in particular, on the passage of laws that infringe on my constitutional rights and my family members and the people that I care about. vs/rr 540 These rights are super important to me. They are what drive me. They are what make me come up to this Capitol every day and stand up in this chamber and fight for what I believe in. That's why I'm here right now at 06:05 a.m., debating what is probably a pretty inconsequential bill when you get right down to it. At the end of the day, if everything holds true that me and the good chairman of the judiciary committee talked about, who's affected, who's impacted, and who's not, chances are all that's going to happen is it's going to limit the sale of certain few models of semi-automatic handguns, and the manufacturers will adapt and eliminate that issue altogether. No. It's not good. No. I don't agree with it. But at the end of the day, it's more symbolic than it is anything else, especially if federally licensed firearm dealers can still interact with these firearms for repairs and personal transfers and gun broker deals and all that. If that all can still happen, they just can't sell older models that might fall into this category, it's probably not that much of an impact. At least not on the standpoint of policy. But it has got a huge impact on what it means for this legislature to pass this bill, and the one that was passed last year, and the one that was passed the year before that, and the one that will be passed next year. It is a constant and steady reminder that this state government is openly hostile to the notion that a Connecticut citizen should be able to own and possess a firearm. And the folks in the majority can say, well, we're not really trying to ban all firearms. We're just trying to get at a few certain things. Well, that few certain things comes back every year and year to be a few more certain things. And I don't mind saying, I don't believe you. vs/rr 541 The moment it becomes politically expedient to ban personal firearm ownership, I think the majority would gladly do it. Maybe not everyone, but some of them. We can't have that in America. Our country is based on simple but super important concepts. And the most important one is that we are free citizens. Free citizens make their own decisions about what they're going to do. They also take responsibility for themselves. And that means not just responsibility for how you're going to pay your bills, or how you're going to raise your children, but also how you're going to protect yourself. Ask any police officer, and they will tell you that the odds that they're going to be there at the exact moment that your life is in danger because of some criminal enterprise is not very likely. There's the old saying that says, when minutes count or when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And that's no attempt to disparage police officers. They just can't be everywhere. And if you live in a rural part of the state of Connecticut where they don't even have a local police department, you might wait a half an hour or an hour after whatever has happened at your house that has jeopardized or harmed you or your family. Sure, they'll come and write a report. As Americans, we have the right spelled out in our founding documents. And boy, there's been a lot of fights over those words over the last 250 words, but we still got them. We still have them. And we still have them because there's a few of us that are willing to continue coming back to remind everyone else that those are important words that should not go away. The right to keep and bear arms isn't about hunting. It isn't about the shooting sports. It isn't about a hobby. All those things are important. And Americans vs/rr 542 should have the freedom to engage in them. What it's about is the notion that as a free American citizen, you have the right to defend yourself and your property. That's what it's about. It's about self- defense, a natural right we all possess. And these bills chip away at it little by little by little. They are an active attempt to tell people that sell firearms for a living that they are in great jeopardy operating in the state of Connecticut. The law last year that created liability for them, out of control. Frankly, insane. And this is just another notch. We're going to create the potential to put these firearm dealers out of business over what today is a perfectly lawful firearm that you can't really tell even the difference between one generation to the next based on looking at the outside of it. It's sending a message to people in this state that if they are lawful firearm owners and that they value their Second Amendment right, that they are not welcome here. That this state government is openly hostile to them. And that is a terrible, terrible message to send. And I'm going to keep working every day, and I'm going to keep trying to come back here until that changes, until there is a majority of people that respect the rights of the people of Connecticut. I certainly do. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. The sun is shining. I think it's rather unfortunate how we're seeing the Senate proceeding in the last day. It's vs/rr 543 certainly not as if the May 6th -- sine die date, was set just recently and has snuck up on anyone. It has been well known since the beginning of the year, and yet we have significant complicated, and consequential pieces of legislation being pushed through this chamber, which is supposed to be a great deliberative body, at the last minute, in the last couple of days. That could have certainly been brought for debate for a vote in many weeks ahead of this last day or two. And this is no way to have deliberation, to have debate, to have a honest conversation that is accessible to the public. And not even all the senators are awake for these votes, which are extraordinarily important. And this should have been predictable when you have a majority and when you have an end of session date that has been set before the year began, when you know exactly the days and the months when you are able to pass legislation into law. None of this should be done in this way. And all of the discussions and debates that we're having on bills like this and previous important pieces of legislation that have been discussed over the last several hours, they're all reasonable discussions to have. These are not overly drawn out. In fact, I think the last major bill that we discussed was a truncated conversation that should have gone much longer when you have 105 sections that nobody saw until just minutes before it was attempted to be passed through this body. This is not how a great deliberative body acts. This is not currently a great deliberative body, even though it should be, with the great history in the state. It being the Senate of this great state. So I'm extraordinarily disappointed in how this body has acted and proceeded in the past day, especially. vs/rr 544 We should, as a state, respect people's individual and constitutional rights. We should pass reasonable rules that protect the public safety, especially from criminals and people who are clear and present danger to the public. And we should enforce those rules in a fair and firm way through our law enforcement officers. This proposal today does not meet those standards that we should all be able to agree to across party lines, to uphold the constitutional rights and freedoms that we all swear an oath to uphold every two years before our term in office, and to enforce reasonable and clear rules that protect the public safety, especially from criminals, especially from those who are violent, from acquiring and using dangerous weapons that they should never have in the first place. Machine guns are illegal to freely buy and sell in this state and this country. The switches that can make semiautomatic handguns into much more dangerous weapons are illegal to own. Converting a semiautomatic handgun into a much more dangerous weapon, basically an automatic handgun, is illegal in this state and in this country. So the concerns of those advancing this legislation, I think, have already been thoroughly met in law. And those laws should be on the books. And those laws should be enforced. But today, we're trying to go far afield with this policy of those principles, of those laws that there is broad bipartisan support for. We all know that in Connecticut, we already have among the strictest gun control laws in the country, maybe the strictest gun control laws in the country. The only exception I've seen, perhaps, is the state of California. Connecticut has always been a safe state for many, many generations. vs/rr 545 It is a very high social capital state. We have very strong communities. We have very conscientious citizens who follow the law. And it has been that way for decades, for generations, for an extraordinarily long time, for any of the members of this state senate were seated. In the last couple of decades, obviously, Connecticut has become known for passing much more strict gun laws than most other places in the country. Many, many laws and policies were passed in that time. Some had bipartisan support. Some are good laws, and others are going past the line of what is reasonable. And in many cases, simply do not protect the public safety. They're difficult to enforce. They're unevenly enforced. They're followed by law-abiding citizens, but they're disobeyed by criminals. And they don't make us safe in their sum total. In that time, Connecticut, compared to the rest of the country, has actually seen its homicide rate, the number of murders per year, converge with the rest of the country. Again, historically, Connecticut was much safer than the rest of the country going back a couple generations, and it's become slightly less so compared to the rest of the country. These are the facts, simple facts. Homicide data goes back many decades. And so the promise of policies like this one today are very unlikely to manifest to actually keep the public safer than what was promised. What is likely is that this will undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Just recently, there was a very serious, very scary home invasion in Darien, where the perpetrators, who were armed, who could have killed an entire family, were chased off by a law- abiding gun owner. vs/rr 546 We don't know exactly what type of firearm, what type of handgun that resident owned. But it is important that we enforce the laws on the books that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, like those individuals who invaded that home. And also protect the law-abiding rights of the rights of law-abiding citizens, like that resident, like that homeowner who is able to protect himself and his family. That's why we have constitutional rights protected in our founding documents and in the founding documents of this state. And it's why the Supreme Court has recognized those as well. And so we can do both. We can protect public safety. We can ensure that law enforcement is able to do its job of keeping us safe and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals, while also respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens, and because of that, it's very likely that this proposal will not withstand the court challenge based on the precedent. So instead of focusing ourselves as a state government on protecting the public and making it possible for law enforcement to do its job and take guns out of the hands of criminals, get them off the streets, we're going to find ourselves as a state government likely in a court challenge that is escalated to federal courts, the highest of federal courts. Because, as Senator Sampson discussed, this proposal today flies very clearly in the face of a Supreme Court decision that was applying the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That decision said very clearly that common use weapons for self-defense should be protected in our laws at the federal and state, and then in subsequent decision at the state level. And it's hard to understand how this policy, which would ban some of the most common-use semiautomatic handguns in our state and in our country, would not fly in the face of that Supreme Court precedent. vs/rr 547 There are probably few, we talk about whether certain policies we pass and debate here in the legislature, often whether or not they will conflict with Supreme Court precedent, with the US Constitution, or the state constitution. This seems like one of the more clear cases we've ever discussed on the Senate floor. We have a very, very common use item, semiautomatic pistol. One of the most common use in the entire country that would be banned by this legislation, which contradicts the very clearly laid out standard set in Heller, which is a policy that was incorporated to the state governments through, I think, the subsequent Supreme Court decision, which was McDonald. There's only one question I would like to ask the proponent of the bill, the good chairman of the judiciary committee. And, through you, Madam President, I would like to ask the good senator from the judiciary committee whether he knows if anyone in the state of Connecticut has been killed from a handgun that is in question in this bill that has been converted into an automatic weapon using the switches contemplated in the legislation. Through you, Madam President.

Good morning, Madam President.

Good to see you. vs/rr 548

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam President, and through you, Madam President, to the good senator. I don't have that data with me, but it is my understanding, by having watched the debate downstairs, that this question was asked, and the answer to that, according to the other chair of the committee, is yes.

The answer is yes, which is surprising to me because my research, I could not find an example of that. I would just ask as a follow-up through you, Madam President, to what degree are you confident that that is the case?

Through you, madam president. As I said, I was reporting what I heard during the debate, and perhaps maybe even -- yeah, I was reporting what I heard during the debate. I won't give the rest of the comment. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Again, it doesn't seem through my research that this has been a common occurrence or an occurrence at all where there has been lethal crimes, homicides committed with weapons that have been switched, converted into automatic handguns in the first place. And so we should always be trying to solve a clear problem. There are over 100 homicides committed in Connecticut every year. And I don't know of any of them that are being done in this fashion through this means. And that would seem to be an important question that should be answered very clearly before we go down this path. We do know that there are over 100 homicides committed in Connecticut, and many of them are committed with illegally obtained firearms that we need to get off the streets, and that we need to enforce our existing laws in order to do that. We have passed more and more laws over the last several years, but it appears that we are enforcing them less and less. Connecticut loves to make more and more criminal laws. It does not like to enforce them. You steal a firearm when you're in the country illegally, while the Trust Act, which we passed a few years ago, says that you cannot be detained and taken out of this state and out of this country under that pretext. You commit a homicide. You kill a person with a handgun. And as is -- or if we pass into law a policy that we debated in the Senate just a few days ago, you could become eligible for parole after just ten years in prison, despite taking the life of another person. So we don't like serving justice to those who commit serious crimes with firearms, take the lives of other citizens. But we do like passing new rules, vs/rr 550 which will likely violate the rights of law abiding citizens who are simply trying to exercise their own prerogatives for self-defense. We have our priorities backwards. Our priority should be to enforce the laws on the books that there is broad agreement will keep us safe. Support our law enforcement in doing so, rather than trying to violate on a daily basis the rights of law- abiding citizens. We have our priorities backwards. We have our priorities backwards, and I think the proof is in all the evidence we've seen in recent years. After 2020, the state of Connecticut saw homicides rise by 40% over the next couple of years, while in the rest of the country, they rose by a little over 20%. And yet we had much more strict laws on the books, but we weren't doing a good enough job of enforcing them. And so I am a firm believer we could keep the public safe here in our state. It should be easy to keep the public safe here in our state. We can do a better job of enforcing the laws. We should be ensuring that our background check system is airtight because background checks are an excellent way, probably the best policy, to keeping the public safe and guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals who should not have those guns. We should have proactive policing. We should have consent searches and other proactive policing tactics, which we know take guns out of the hands of criminals who should never have them and illegally obtain them, and has been successful in taking hundreds of illegal firearms off the street in the first place. There are so many policies, if we enforce them, will make us substantially safer. And yet we're embarking down the road of passing policies, which we know will undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens vs/rr 551 and subject the state to a constitutional challenge that it does not need without solving the underlying problems. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation. There has already been bipartisan opposition in the state House of Representatives. I hope that there will be bipartisan opposition in the state senate. Even members of the House who in recent years have crossed party lines in the Republican caucus to vote for some of the previous gun control proposals voted against this one. This is far beyond the pale. We keep coming back and finding new ideas to undermine the rights of law- abiding citizens while failing to make our state more safe from those who break the law habitually. There is a better way to protect the good people of our state. We are not doing it right now. We are going down the wrong road. It doesn't have to be this way. So I urge my colleagues to vote no today and do better to support law enforcement, enforce the law, and keep Connecticut safe. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, can I yield to the proponent of the amendment?

But then I would be -- vs/rr 552

Not a problem. I understand. I just wanted to say, you know, it was suggested that we should be supporting law enforcement. Law enforcement they suggest to us that we should be doing this. We remember that. Law enforcement that tells us that they've pulled a number of Glock switches off the streets. We should be doing this. In Hartford, the number was 51 in 2023 and 2024 that they pulled. But they have said to us that this is the policy that we should be following. So, yes, we should be listening to law enforcement, and that's what we're doing. And even when you don't, in fact, get the implement off the street. I live in a neighborhood where there's, unfortunately, oftentimes, the sound of gunfire, and you can tell the difference. It's on our streets. This is not to take away people's guns, just because the reality that we are facing is that we have Glock switches on the streets of Connecticut. And I don't think that what we should be doing is saying, people were killed or not killed. They were injured or not injured. We know that these are in play in the state of Connecticut. It's unsafe. Law enforcement is suggesting to us that this is what we should do. This is what we should do. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to make a few comments about this bill that is under consideration. Madam President, I've had the opportunity to listen throughout the night about some of the conversations and discussions that we have had. I just want to put things into perspective. Many a times, individuals have asked how many people have died so that we can write this bill. I think it's important to recognize a few things. We do not have to have people die before we make a common-sense policy. Here's what's happening. These, Glock switches, they are becoming at a level of an epidemic. If we were to listen to the federal law enforcement agencies, if we were to listen to ATF, they are mentioning that in parts of the country, including Connecticut, there is a very large increase of these kind of semiautomatic convertible guns that are being created. Now, these are not meant to be semiautomatic, but they have been changed into that, which has a potential of harming a lot of citizens. What they have seen in Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and Waterbury is a very large increase. There are some 51 such guns that were identified in Hartford alone. And if you look at the total growth, they're about 570% increase. So with this large increase with the law enforcement locally telling us, the federal ones telling us, then why not do the right thing and listen to them? So the argument that we have to wait for people to die doesn't make any sense to me. This is the smart thing to do. We are seeing this pattern. This is a loophole. vs/rr 554 We need to make sure that we listen to the law enforcement, which are asking the people of Connecticut, the legislative branch of the government, to protect the people. I, for one, will be voting in favor of this because I refuse to wait for people to die before we do the right thing. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning.

Thank you, Madam President, and good morning. Good morning, sir. So, obviously, we've been talking about this for quite a while today, and I've been listening. And I just heard some comments from the good senator talking about we need to do this because we have to save lives, and we have to listen to the law enforcement. I couldn't agree more that there is a problem with gun violence across the country, but, yes, here in Connecticut. I'm sure everyone knows or heard of someone that was affected by it. You turn on the news, and every other day, we're seeing it happen. It is a problem. We have to do something. But we have to come up with legislation that will actually address the problem at the root cause. And the good senator that just spoke before me said we have to do this. We have to do it now because we need to save lives. And we have to listen to our law enforcement. But I've had conversations with our law enforcement. And when we talk about who is committing the gun crimes and what type of weapons are being utilized, and it was in the judiciary public hearing, our law enforcement said these are illegal guns, most of which are not from Connecticut. And the individuals vs/rr 555 committing the crimes are not legal carriers, meaning they do not have pistol permits to carry. So if this passes and it looks like it's going to pass, I do not believe the people that the good senator was mentioning that are committing these crimes, and it's horrific that people are, in fact, customizing these weapons and killing people in Connecticut, are going to listen to this law because they're disregarding many laws on the books. Like, don't possess an illegal firearm, don't modify your firearm, and don't harm other people. And they're disregarding those laws. So why do we believe that if we pass this piece of legislation, it is going to have any effect at all on the individuals that are committing these violent crimes? I've only been up here for six years, but I've been a part of numerous gun debates. As one of the individuals mentioned in this long debate, they talked about a gun day, something that's a thing. It's a gun day. We're going to have a bunch of bills about guns. And we talk about gun violence, and I really don't believe that we are hitting the mark. I don't think we're doing anything to address the real problem. We had a bill, I think it was two years ago, 6667. And, again, a majority of the bill was targeted, in my opinion, towards legal gun owners. And in those public hearings, we heard that it's not the legal gun owners committing the crimes. Some would say, well, maybe it's their weapons not being properly stored or they getting stolen. And that does happen. I'm not going to say that that's not how some of these weapons get on the streets here in Connecticut. But a majority come up from other states. Come 95 [inaudible]. So to say that imposing stricter laws on already very strict laws, which I think there needs to be common sense gun legislation. I'm not saying vs/rr 556 everybody gets guns. No oversight. No background checks. I'm not saying that. We need to apply common sense when we're doing this to try to address the problem that we all agree on. We see it. We see it. We turn on our TV. We hear from friends or loved ones that they or their family, or someone they know. It was on the news the other day. It was John's cousin. This is terrible. That's a problem. But the legislation that we've been proposing, I do not think, addresses it. But when we did do 6667, there was a part in there that allowed the judge to give up to a 30% cash bond. I believe it was on a second serious gun charge within a certain amount of time. I think it was five years. And in my opinion, I'm going to call that part bipartisan. I think some of the big city mayors, I think, Hartford mayor at the time, the New Haven mayor at the time, testified in that public hearing and said, we're seeing the same individuals committing the crimes over and over again. We're seeing that they're getting arrested. They bond out. And that process, it doesn't really have much oversight. So if they know a bondsman, they have a good relationship, they could give them very minimal amount, and they're back out on the streets, and then they're committing the gun violence again. And it's a cycle. And from asking questions, we heard that they'll adjudicate the individual's cases that are incarcerated first. So someone that's out on the streets committing this crime over and over again could be arrested two, three times before they actually get their day in court. And most of the time, they'll lump all two, three of those cases together and get a plea deal. But with that bill being passed, I personally believe that we see a reduction in gun violence, and I think that's to be celebrated. vs/rr 557 But I think that's actual common-sense way to attack the problem at the root cause and going after individuals that completely disregard the law. I think we could go even a little bit further. We see mental health as a real problem. We should look at that. But I think by just putting more laws on the books, when the majority of the people that it affects follow the law, or they want to be able to have a pistol permit in the first place, is silly. And then I think people get sensitive. Even if it was the smallest minute gun bill, and it could be really small. Really small. They're going to get excited about it because they're being targeted. They feel that way, and I can't disagree with them. I don't think this bill does anything that's going to address gun violence, but I don't think that it's -- I'm going to get in trouble for this one. I don't think it's that terrible of a bill because Glock is already modifying their newer Glocks. They see the problem with their assembly and their manufacturing and the way that these weapons are put together. And they proactively addressed it. Very similar with AI. We've seen some AI companies build stuff so strong, and has the hacking capability of 10 hackers, it could do the work of 10 hackers in ten minutes. They're good stewards. They said, we're not going to release this to the general public. Glock's doing that. Glock is changing the manufacturing of the weapon, and we're now putting this bill forward. So I don't see the need. I don't see the cost- benefit analysis, but I see a group of people that feel like they're targeted often here in Connecticut, just targeted again. And if I really thought that this bill would save lives or have a meaningful impact on the violence we're seeing in our streets, I would say, let me try to find a way vs/rr 558 to support that. But I do not believe that this does that at all. At all. And I was being interviewed today, and one of the reporters said, well, we have very strong gun laws, and we haven't seen, knock on wood, a serious school shooting. And it's working. And I said, well, that's great that we haven't seen that. But I said, what about the things we're seeing in our cities every single day? That doesn't matter? That's a problem. And to address that, we need to come up with other types of legislation that targets and comes up with solutions instead of imposing arbitrary rules and laws that the law-abiding citizens will follow, but the individuals committing these bad acts will completely disregard. If they're willing to kill someone, I doubt they're going to say, well, let me not buy this Glock because I'm not going to want an increased penalty. I think they're way past that. And I think that it does have an impact on business. There are a bunch of Glocks that are third, fourth generation, that the design may be flawed, or there may be a way that it can be modified, and they could put a switch in there. But what are they going to do with those? Somebody wants to sell their weapons. Maybe somebody bought a bunch, and they said, you want to know what? I want to go from Glock to Sig, and they have six of these weapons. I don't believe that they would be able to sell them to someone. Maybe to go back to the FFL, and the FFL then could sell it out of state somewhere. And I know the good senator has been asked a lot of questions, but if the good senator could answer that question, if after this law passes, and somebody has some Glocks, and they just don't want them any longer, would they be able to sell them to someone vs/rr 559 else? And if not, can they just sell it to FFL? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I'm trying to reorient myself back into the bill if you give me a second. Okay. Let's see. Thank you, Madam President, for the moment. And no one, no individual, no firm, no partnership, no corporation, I'm in section three by the way if you care to follow me, limited liability corporate company on and on, may knowingly import into the state. Advertise, sell, sell. So that would say that that would not be able to be done with these types of implements.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to the good senator. And I know that when there was laws with the others, and people couldn't buy them any longer, but if you possess them, you would be able to sell them to an FFL, and then the FFL could sell them out of state. The way the good senator read that, it says just import, something else, and then sell at all. So I'm assuming that people who possess these in Connecticut have no other option but to maybe forfeit them. So, in my opinion, I think it's kind of problematic because if somebody has a lot of these, they invested into them, we're essentially saying they're stuck with them. And I think maybe that might be an unattended consequence. vs/rr 560 These are the things that, when possibly trying to solve one problem, others get created. And I do believe it's unintentional, but these are the things that we have to really dive into and look at. The good senator answered that question, and it made me think about something else. When we passed 6667, there was a part in there that legal, law-abiding gun owners who bought and registered, and I mean registered the state of Connecticut, understands what guns individuals have at this point. There's already a registry for these guns. You go to the gun store. You purchase the guns. They do their background check. They call the state police. And once it's purchased, they take all that information, they take the serial numbers, and then it gets logged with the state police. And you literally could call up and say, I want to know what guns I have, what guns do I own. They have a whole list. And individuals believed that they already had their guns registered because they believe that, well, if I go and say, hey, what guns do I have? And they give all of the list of guns. Well, they think they would think they were registered. Now, when trying to implement that bill, and it was an act for preventing gun violence, they were trying to find a way to stop gun violence. And they thought maybe those weapons shouldn't be possessed. I disagreed. But within that, individuals had to basically recertify or fill out a form to the same agency that already knows they have these weapons because they're on that main list. And law-abiding citizens, thinking, not realizing, didn't do that. And now some of these individuals are possessing these others, which they lawfully reput in another form, certifying that they have them and they have some acknowledgement from the state police back saying, yep. We got your paperwork. You're all set. A lot of people didn't do that. vs/rr 561 We got a lot of calls saying, hey, what do I do now? And that's what made me think about this, because the individuals can't do anything with those guns right now. And they were saying, and I agree. They're saying it's unfair. I'm following the law. I'm following the rules. No one told me anything. State police didn't send me a letter in the mail saying I have to do this. They know I have these firearms. But now, even worse, I could be a felon because technically, I'm possessing another, and I can't do anything with it except just give it to the police, maybe in a buyback program, or just you relinquish the weapon for nothing. You just kind of give it to the police department. And some of these things are extremely expensive. So the reason why I mentioned that is it brings me back to individuals that may have these type of Glocks, the third and fourth generation Glocks now. If I have a bunch of these firearms and I don't know, hopefully, not too soon. But I'm going to move into a nursing home. And I'm getting old, and I want to give all of my stuff to my kids. I don't know. A car and everything else that I have. A watch, jewelry, family heirlooms. And I have all these weapons, I can't even give my own kid those guns. And I don't understand how putting those types of unnecessary burdens on legal gun owners, people who follow the law, or they wouldn't be able to have a pistol permit, have to deal with that. And then individuals who completely disregard the law are not going to be affected. This is going to have zero impact on them. And when we were talking earlier and discussing this bill and going over who was going to talk about what, one senator talked about a lot. So he took a lot of the topics that we wanted to talk about. But he had really good points that even vs/rr 562 in the public hearings, these are people that have so much training, not only with how to handle, not only how to clean, and to shoot, but to fix. Take it apart, swap parts out, do all different types of things with these weapons. Literally, it's their job. They're experts in it. And they were asking us when we were trying to learn a little bit more about how would this affect individuals and businesses, and their profession. They didn't know what some of these parts were. They didn't know how to even begin to explain to us how it's going to affect their business. Because they said, we don't even know what a cruise reform trigger is. So when we're going to be putting legislation into place, we got to think to ourselves, is this going to do the intended goal and solve a problem without having unattended consequences? And I think some of the unattended consequences, simply put, we're going to have individuals that might unknowingly be breaking the law. It's an accidental thing, and they could be a felon. That's a pretty bad unintended consequence. Another one, you have individuals that own these now. Maybe they need money. They lost their jobs. They had to pay their electric bill. They wanted to go sell this. And now we're basically saying it's rendered worthless because they can't sell it. And we heard about saying we have to pass this now because it's going to save lives. If that were true, well, I think maybe then those unattended consequences -- no. No. No. Let me rephrase. If that would stop gun violence in the state of Connecticut, that would be worth it. You weigh that up, say no more gun violence if we were to pass this bill. Alright. You're going to lose some money on a gun, possibly. And if you didn't follow the rules, you may get vs/rr 563 wrapped up in this. There have to be no more violence, no more pain, no more things we have to see on the news. People's lives cut short for gun violence. Maybe you'd have to consider this. But this will not affect the individuals that are already breaking the laws. It won't. We're not going to see a reduction in people that break the law already with these Glock switches, say, oh, they passed the bill, so now I'm not going to be using this. Simply not. And then we're going to have people that want to follow the law, but can't keep up with it, don't understand it. I think we have a hard time understanding it. And then we're going to tell them something that they had that was worth something is now rendered worthless. That is a huge problem in my book. And we talk about where does it go from here. I am a very, very reasonable person. I like to start from the middle, work my way out, understand both sides of an issue, and I think that's a really good way to conduct business here. And you'll learn a lot. You’ll learn the pros and cons. Even if it's not my bill, and somebody proposes something to me like, hey, I got a great idea for a bill. They tell me all about it. I'm like, oh, it sounds pretty good. Who would be against it and why? And then I go talk to them. It's like you ever watch TV shows? You see the defense go up. They make their case. Then you see the prosecutor go after. If only the defense went. I'd say, oh, I'd believe that until you hear the other side. And all too often, we're seeing certain populations, and I don't want to say political, but it is a hot topic issue. Some people don't like guns. They're scary. They could really do a lot of damage to people. So it's a sensitive subject. There's other sensitive subjects, but we're not going to get into that. But there's vs/rr 564 certain things that people feel passionately about. And just as much as there are people that might hate and dislike guns, there's a large group of people that really like them. They really feel strongly that they should have access to them, and their rights shouldn't be restricted. And they feel like every year, more and more legislation is coming out, and it's targeting them. And they ask why. They're saying, but we're not breaking laws, but this now has to happen. What about the people that are committing the crimes? That's what we have to ask ourselves. When are we going to start attacking the problem at the root cause? I think it was good Senator Fazio said that we like to create laws, but we don't like to enforce them. And we've seen this. It's not just with crime. We've seen this in business. We see bad actors in a business. And what happens? That industry gets more rules and regulations put on them. We need to go after the bad actors. That's what we have to do. I have just a couple of additional comments, and then I'll turn it over to whoever's going to be speaking next. But we were talking about other public safety legislation. And one of the ones was school mapping, and I think it passed today. And someone says, what does that matter? School mapping. What do they need these maps for? Well, not today. Yesterday, in the town of North Haven, there was a scare. There was a threat called in. They locked down the high school and the middle school, and people were calling because there was a ton of police activity. It was all over the social media, and people were extremely scared. They were worried. And the first thing they think of is a shooting is a shooting. Passing laws like that mapping bill is a way to address some of the issues of responding to those situations. vs/rr 565 I feel that we are very reactive instead of proactive. And how I believe that we could be more proactive in situations like I was talking about for in an industry. You see a couple people find a way to bend the rules, not follow the rules, is address that at its root cause, and not try to circumvent it by adding more rules to that industry. Same thing applies here with the guns. And if that conversation was being had, I would be totally willing to find a way to support something to stop violence. But simply put, I do not see where that is. I do not see what this bill's positive impact would be to our community. So I cannot support the legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

We're good. Madam President, thank you.

So I find with bills like this, I need a lot of things explained to me, especially when it comes to the manufacturer, the science, the tech behind the things that these bills do, it's a little bit of it's a bridge too far for me. I don't have that kind of grasp, because this is not my expertise. So one of the things that I worry about, and actually, I believe Senator Fazio referenced it earlier in his remarks, is whether or not this is a solution in search of a problem. So I kind of wonder vs/rr 566 that. So I do have a few questions in that vein, for the proponent, if I may, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Referring specifically to Section 5, this has to do with some of the technical aspects of a handgun, and very specifically, there are changes to unfinished frames or lower receivers, and then that becomes unfinished frames and unfinished lower receivers. Could the gentleman please just explain for me what that means, why those changes are important?

Thank you, Madam President. I think I'm there. Give me a second. I'll make sure I'm there. Yes. Section 5. Correct? Is that where we are? Section 5 is the question?

Senator Perillo?

Senator Winfield.

Senator Perillo?

Senator Winfield.

Senator Perillo.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Perillo.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Perillo?

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Senator Fazio? Chambers, then at ease.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will the clerk please announce a roll call vote? The machine will be opened.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have vs/rr 573 all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machines will be locked. Would the clerk please announce the tally?

Bill passes. Senator Duff.

You may begin, sir.

So ordered. vs/rr 574

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. vs/rr 576

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Mr. Clerk, before we call the consent plan calendar, would you please call those items? The chamber was then at ease. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, sir. Would you announce a roll call vote?

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. The clerk will announce the tally.

It passes. Senator Maroney. Senator Maroney.

Let me try your minds. All in favor, say aye.

Great. Great modern system. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I will mark this PR, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we have some bills to mark to go, please. On calendar page 52, I'd like to suspend. On calendar 542, House Bill 5229 to mark that item go.

On calendar page 29, calendar 344, Senate Bill 483, I'd like to mark that item go.

And for suspension, Madam President, on calendar page 47, calendar 517, House Bill 5485. I'd like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President.

Page 52. Yes. Calendar 542. Substitute for House Bill number 5229, act concerning gaming.

Good morning, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House. vs/rr 580

Thank you, Madam President. This is our committee gaming bill. In the bill, in the first section, we require licensed entities to have a toll-free number that allows someone to answer questions or to call to have questions answered about any problems they're having with that electronic wagering platform. In Section 2, we prohibit advertising for Keno, online lottery games, fantasy contest, et cetera, during television programs that are aimed towards children. We have some restrictions in that section also on advertising at athletic facilities on higher education institution campuses. In Section 3, we require a study of the effect of prediction markets. And then Sections 4 and 5 are for the lottery. Section 4 clears up some of the geolocation requirements around when you need to verify someone's geolocation. And Section 5 is in regards to testing requirements that the Department of Consumer Protection may put forth on the lottery corporation in regards to their games. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So, as you said, as the good senator stated, this is one of our gaming bills. I know that the lottery DCP were going back and forth. And the original bill that came out of Committee really addressed mostly lottery stuff. If the good senator could just highlight the changes vs/rr 581 that are in 5229 after coming out of the house? Through you, Madam President.

Yeah. Thank you Madam President. This bill combines the original 5229 with 229 from the Senate. So the lottery bill with the Committee gaming bill. So, the advertising protections as well as the lottery sections. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to the good senator. I have an additional question. So, does this bill apply to entities other than those holding a gaming license under the Connecticut laws such as media companies, broadcast, or third-party distributors? through you, Madam President. Senator Maroney.

Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you, Madam President. Think it's a good piece of legislation, very balanced, good bill, ought to pass.

The roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate voting on substitute for House Bill number 5229, act concerning gaming. Immediate roll call vote in the roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on House Bill number 5229.

House Bill 5229: Total number voted 33 Total voted yea 32 Total voted nay 1 Absent not voted 3

Page 29. Calendar number 344, substitute for Senate vs/rr 584 Bill number 483, an act establishing the crime of digital forgery. There's an amendment.

Good morning again, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Madam President, there's a strike all. So, I'd ask the clerk to call LCO 5985. We'd be granted a leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Kissel. Will you remark? Will you remark? Will you remark? This is a voice vote. May I try your minds? All those in favor?

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Immediate roll call vote.

Total number voting 33 Total voting yea 33 Total voting nay 0 Absent, not voting 3 vs/rr 586

Page 47, calendar 517, substitute for House Bill number 5485, an act concerning supported decision- making as amended by House Amendment Schedule A.

Good morning, Madam President. I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. This bill simply creates a working group to study and make recommendations around supportive decision-making. I move adoption. Passage.

I encourage folks to do the same.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate on House Bill number 5485, an act concerning supported decision-making.

House Bill 5485: Total number voted 33 Total voted yea 33 Total voted nay 0 Absent not voting 3

Thank you. Thank you. Great retirement job. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, for calendar page 29, calendar 344, Senate Bill 43, I'd like to immediately transmit that to the House of Representatives, please, if for further action.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we have been here all night, but we do in the spirit of Bob Kiely. We'd like to thank the school group from St. Mary's for being up here today and watching the proceedings all evening. And thank you so much for being here. What a wonderful group of kids. All night, they were here. I mean, stamina, these children. Madam President, it is our intention to be back here at 01:45 for our Senate photo. The risers will be here. We expect everybody to be dressed as sharp as possible with three hours of sleep, and we will see everybody at 01:45 for our Senate picture. And with that, I move that we adjourn, subject to call the Chair.