CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-21

Sorry. Milford.

Amen. Thank you so much. And now I'd like to invite Senator Cabrera to lead us in the pledge.

Thank you, sir. Senator Duff, good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Senator Flexer. Do you accept the yield?

Well, thank you. And congratulations to all of our UConn Husky visitors, and just hope that someday you can be a state Senator in the circle, just like Senator Mae Flexer, who got her start at Husky Nation too. All right. Thank you so much. Senator Duff.

Senator Lesser, do you accept the yield, sir?

Please proceed.

And Senator Gadkar-Wilcox, would you like to make an introduction, madam?

Senator Gaston, good afternoon. Do you accept the yield, sir?

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Senator Gaston.

Thank you, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

All right. Thank you so much, Senators Gaston and Gadkar-Wilcox. And congratulations to FaithAct. And I hope you have a productive day visiting today. Senator Duff.

Good afternoon. Clerk's in possession of Senate agenda item Number 1 dated Tuesday, April 21st, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President. We are all waiting for 2026, as indicated [naudible 00:15:09] pg/rr 10

APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 6 AN ACT CONCERNING SUPPORTS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. pg/rr 11 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 256 AN ACT CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BY PRIVATE EQUITY ENTITIES. APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 433 AN ACT EXPANDING LONG-TERM CARE OPTIONS. MATTER(S) RETURNED FROM COMMITTEE – to be tabled for the calendar.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, now for our goal is --

Thank you, Madam President. On Calendar Page 2, pg/rr 12 Calendar 362, House Joint Resolution Number 65, I'd like to mark that item go.

Count to Page 3, Calendar 363, a House Joint Resolution Number 66, I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar Page 17, Calendar 202, Senate Bill 305, I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar Page 42, Calendar 382, Senate Bill 473, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 43, Calendar 390, Senate Bill 260, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 33. Calendar 333. Senate Bill 458. I'd like to mark that item go.

Follow the Calendar Page 31. Calendar 316. Senate Bill 470. I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 23, Calendar 250, Senate Bill 430. I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 46, Calendar 415, Senate Bill 401, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 12, Calendar 120, Senate Bill 383. I'd like to mark that item go. pg/rr 14

Followed by Calendar Page 32, Calendar 323, Senate Bill 89, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 23, Calendar 256, Senate Bill 442, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 5, Calendar 58, Senate Bill 196, I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 55, Calendar 224, Senate Bill 5, I'd like to mark that item go.

pg/rr 15 In our order of the day, followed by Calendar Page 30, Calendar 311, Senate Bill 417. I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 27, Calendar 291, Senate Bill 457. I'd like to mark that item go.

And I believe that is the end of our go list for now, Madam President. The clerk can call those bills in their order, please.

Those aren't goes, are they?

Page 2. Calendar Number 362. House Joint Resolution Number 65. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL R. RICCI OF GUILFORD TO BE REAPPOINTED A pg/rr 16 MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL.

Good morning, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance to the committee's joint federal report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this nominee was passed unanimous in committee. I would urge adoption.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in support of the nominee.

Thank you, Madam President. No objection. Might to sign and be placed on the consent calendar. pg/rr 17

Roll call? Okay. We'll have a roll call for that.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate on House Joint Resolution Number 65. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF MICHAEL R. RICCI OF GUILFORD TO BE REAPPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 65. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Joint Resolution 65. Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1 pg/rr 18

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before we get to the next item, I just wanted to have a point of personal privilege, please.

For an introduction. Today, we are very honored to have, besides my colleagues here from the House of Representatives, Representative Roberts and Representative Sims. We also have Melody Reagan, who is here on opening day. Sweet, Melody, thank you for being here. And we also are honored to have Reverend Tamara Moreland of the First Congregational Church on the Green in Norwalk. And while Ken Saccente did a wonderful job giving the prayer this morning, had we known she was still here, we would have had Reverend Moreland give the prayer as well. But she's just been wonderful in our community. She is now the senior pastor of the First Congregational Church on the Green, and somebody who we think is just really got into the fabric of our community and is making such great differences. So, if the chamber can give all of my guests a warm welcome, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Page 3, Calendar Number 363, House Joint Resolution Number 66, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT MEZZO OF NAUGATUCK TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONNECTICUT PORT AUTHORITY.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance to the committee's joint favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this nominee was passed unanimous in committee. I would urge adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in support of the nominee. Thank you. pg/rr 20

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in support of the nominee. I've known Bob Mezzo for quite a while. He is a well-respected man in the borough of Naugatuck. His resume speaks for itself, a graduate of UConn Law. He has been an attorney for many years. He also served as our mayor in the borough of Naugatuck. He is currently chair of our board of education. He's been involved in economic development in the borough for many years. He is a consummate professional whose knowledge of complex financial instruments, experience with budgets. He also takes time to volunteer in the borough, coaching a variety of sports, being a mentor and a leader for many of our young people in the borough for many, many years. This is someone who is well qualified well-equipped to serve on the port. And I'm really happy and thank Speaker Ritter for making him his nominee, and I rise in support of his nomination. I know he would do a great job for the state of Connecticut, and I'm very pleased to see him decide her support. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I pg/rr 21 rise in support of the nomination of Robert Mezzo. Bob Mezzo is a well-known name in Naugatuck in the borough of Naugatuck, having served mayor for three terms, and having, quite frankly, dedicated his life to the borough in all respects. He has been involved with the veterans, the American Legion, sports teams, and he currently also now is the chair of the board of education. Bob has a lot of energy. He is an incredibly dedicated individual, raised his family, continues to raise his family in the borough. He and his wife, Eileen, are ever present, always working, always lifting up the community, and his presence now, in this nomination, he will be very dedicated, and his service will once again be exemplary. And I rise in complete support of him. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the on House Joint Resolution Number 66. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT MEZZO OF NAUGATUCK TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONNECTICUT PORT AUTHORITY. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Joint Resolution Number 66. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on House Joint Resolution Number 66. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on House Joint Resolution Number 66. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. pg/rr 22

House Joint Resolution 66. Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Page 17. Calendar Number 202. Subsitute for Senate Bill Number 305. AN ACT ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY STATE-WIDE MARKETING AND TOURISM IN THE STATE.

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

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President in 2024, Connecticut welcomed over 70 million visitors here to this state, and their spend was about $12 billion. The total economic impact of that was close to $20 billion, and it supported about 126,000 Connecticut jobs. That's about one-fifth of all of Connecticut jobs. This produced, in total, about 1.5 billion in state and local revenue. Madam President, while these numbers are impressive, and they might seem impressive, they are not our best. Connecticut tourism sector is underleveraged. It's under-resourced, and the truth is we are leaving opportunity and money on the table. It's no secret that our surrounding states significantly outspend us on tourism and marketing. Our neighboring states outspend us, in some instances, three and four times over. And we continue to lag in these marketing sectors. But the frustrating thing about it, Madam President, is that we in Connecticut have so much to boast about. We have so much to brag about, from our historic museums, our vintage farmlands, our wineries, our breweries, our maritime destinations, resorts, casinos, our theaters, both large and small community theaters as well, our restaurants and hotels, and our convention centers and public venues. And, of course, we can't forget about the fact that we are the home to the best pizza there is. We saw a lot about that more recently. But it's not solely about our leisure and our recreational attractions, Madam President. It's about our business sectors. It's about our work culture, our highly skilled pg/rr 24 workforce, our academic institutions, our overall culture, and quality of life. Madam President, this bill will establish a working group to craft a data-driven analysis which would result in actionable recommendations to more fully realize Connecticut's full potential and our marketing opportunities. Madam President, I urge adoption. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Yes, Madam President. I'd like to say a few words. I'm encouraged about what we are about to pass here today regarding the implementation or the -- sort of a study to take a look at our marketing efforts here in the state of Connecticut. I totally agree with a good Senator Hartley regarding the we've been underutilizing some of the assets that we have here in the state of Connecticut. My God. My wife and I will watch a little television. And we'll see advertisements for New York, come to New York, or go down to -- I'll go up into Maine, etcetera. And I wonder at times, gee, where's our marketing effort here in the state of Connecticut? And what this bill looks to do is to, hey, take let's take a look at how we are marketing in the state of Connecticut and what impact does that currently have and look at what's the -- if we did certain things a little bit differently, what the results may be. pg/rr 25 I look at my district in particular, and I can name a few tourist attractions. Lake Compounds, I'll lead with that. It's probably the oldest entertainment in the city of Bristol. But not only in the city of Bristol, I think it has the oldest running amusement park in the country, as well as it has the oldest roller coaster in the whole country as well. If you haven't taken a ride, Madam President, in the Wildcat, I urge you to come visit.

I have to tell you, I went last year, and we were celebrating some event there. And I took the ride in on the Wildcat as well as the Boulder Dash. And the Boulder Dash is much newer, but I felt like a really old man when I got off the Boulder Dash compared to the Wildcat. But listen, we have the -- in addition to Lake Compounds in Bristol as a tourist destination is we have the Giamatti Center, which is the regional Little League baseball facility where the whole entire East Coast of Little League, whoever, are the champions in their particular district come to Bristol. And that takes place over a two or three-week period. And the hotel, DoubleTree Hotel in Bristol, is packed, and the restaurants are hopping, because of that specific destination event in Bristol. We also have the Carousel Museum, which I know the good president has visited. And as well as we have the Lock Museum, the Clock Museum in Bristol, and the Clock Museum in Terryville. And also in Thomaston, we have railroads that has a destination there to come and visit the railroad station there. pg/rr 26 They have a nice little trip up to Torrington and back during the Christmas holiday season. Much to be thankful for, as well as the opera house, Comston Opera House, which we are currently investing state dollars to renovate that and the shows that they put on. And I don't have to tell Senator Hartley what the theater does for Downtown Waterbury, the Palace. I just went up to the -- it's at the Warner Theater up in Torrington. My God, it was the first, not the balcony, but the 1st Floor. I went there twice in two months, and the entire 1st Floor is fold out, went and had dinner. So I say this because I see firsthand what events, what bringing in people into a community does to the local economy. And basically, it does stimulate money in regards to not only the owners of the restaurants and hotels and all the facilities nearby, but the employment that it generates and the spending that takes place. So I believe that what we're going to see what comes out of this study is -- what else can we possibly do in here in the state of Connecticut so that we can fully utilize all the resources, all the positive stuff, in order to draw in more people in the state of Connecticut and encourage tourism here. So Madam President, maybe if I could just ask a couple of questions to the good proponent of the bill, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you, I've said a little bit, Madam President, regarding what I have seen. Maybe the good Senator pg/rr 27 can elaborate a little bit more as to what she has seen in her district, and maybe if she could say what more we can do, or how we are missing the vote with not having done this before through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Well, I have to say that we are a small state, but we pack a very significant impact. And our arts and culture is certainly one of those sectors which we do. And, yes, I think that throughout the entire state of Connecticut, we have so many opportunities. We have trails. We have biking. We have skiing. We have rafting. We have conventions. We have convention centers. We have casinos. We have Airbnbs. We have quality relay and chateau, distinct restaurants. It's a beautiful place to go into the country and spend a weekend, hike, bike, bird watch, or whatever. And it's really all about a quality experience. So, all of these destinations and opportunities need to be scaled. We need to be able to support them. Our hotel and our hospitality industry is another one that has been coming to us repeatedly, pointing out the fact that we need to invest a little bit more. We saw the exponential results from when we did something simply by having a pizza war here in the state of Connecticut with New York, for one, who, quite frankly, was a little inding about the fact that we should talk about our incredible pizza restaurant but it scaled and people come and they wanted to have this experience so it's an important sector, it's support so many small and medium-size pg/rr 28 businesses and we have so much to be proud about that we need to be sure that we are supporting it in every way possible. That's what this proposal is all about, just really sit down, and explore every opportunity, and then promote those and come up with some initiatives that are going to make a difference, are going to move the needle. Thank you, Madam President.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you, currently, how much money do we allocate in appropriations specifically for tourism and marketing through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President, and through you, to the good ranking member. Yes. Line item is about $4.5 million for marketing and tourism.

Thank you, Madam President. And is this bill going to assess how that 4.5 million is currently being spent, and what's the utilization of that? In other words, are we getting a good bang for our money regarding the 4.5 million and the entities that are pg/rr 29 spending it? Are we going to be, I guess, dissecting those entities through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President, and through you to Senator Martin. Yes. We will be looking at the spend. We will be looking at the outcome for that spend and what we can possibly do to help scale that. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you. So that 4.5, how is that currently being distributed through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President, and through you to Senator Martin. The 4.5 is spent on promotions. It's spent on digital, all of the mainstays in the marketing industry. We also have regional tourism boards, and there is line items for each of those in the budget. They take care of each of their particular regions by virtue of communicating, providing information, meeting tourists, and the like. Thank you, Madam President. pg/rr 30

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, through you. So is that 4.5 million distributed through those regions, those entities? So I think it's four or five different -- I'm gonna call them districts for lack of better word here. But is that how the funds are allocated through you?

Thank you, Madam President, and through you to Senator Martin. There is a distinct line item for each of the regional tourism districts, which is separate from the 4.5 line item for the tourism spend. Thank you, Madam President.

So the 4.5, if I'm understanding this, is directly towards the actual marketing of Connecticut. In addition, we have the regions that each receive a certain amount of money through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and through you. That is correct, sir.

Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I have no further questions. I think we're on the right path here. I didn't ask for the ratio, but I think I remember reading for every dollar that we spend, there's six in return as a rate of return on our investment. And those are pretty good numbers in my opinion. So I look forward to this study. I think we're gonna have the results by the end of this year, and starting in 2027 January. When we come back, the report is due. And we're gonna have some good information that we -- from there, can decide how to best moves forward in presenting our beautiful state here in state of Connecticut. So I highly recommend all my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. Well, now Senate Bill 305, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY STATE-WIDE MARKETING AND TOURISM IN THE STATE. pg/rr 32 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the And the Senate Bill 305, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO STUDY STATE-WIDE MARKETING AND TOURISM IN THE STATE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Page 42, account Number 382, substitute for Senate Bill Number 473, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVISOR'S TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE GENERAL STATUTES.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I pg/rr 33 move acceptance of the joint committee's favorite report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you. Madam President, before us is a tech adviser's bill, it is what you would think it is. It makes technical changes to the grammar, accuracy of some of the internal references, it makes clarifications. It's a bill that we have on a yearly basis, comes to us unanimously. I would urge passage.

Good afternoon, Madam President. We're in the 21st century with a wireless microphone. Not sure I can get used to this. I stand in strong support of the tech revisers bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. Voting on Senate Bill 473, AN ACT CONCERNING THE REVISOR'S TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE pg/rr 34 GENERAL STATUTES. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill 473. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

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

I do, Madam President. Thank you. And I rise for a point of personal privilege, Madam President. pg/rr 35

Thank you. Madam president, today we're joined by a young student, a young person who has recently won the member -- or youth award at the Bristol Boys and Girls Club, Josephine. And Josie is, is well accomplished. She's been here before. And she's known for her character and her perseverance in dealing with what she's dealt with in her life. The club has really been a place for her to -- where she's turned to in her life. And what's happened is that she's turned into the leader who's really using her voice to serve others, in the arts as well as mentoring others, as she's gone through her days at the club. What stands out most about her is her commitment to others. And she's looking to pursue her career at UConn, and looking to major in psychology, where she can utilize those services to continue helping of others. She truly has the marks of -- trademarks, I should say, of leadership, particularly in receiving this award from the Bristol community. So, on behalf of the state of Connecticut, it's really my privilege and honor to provide her this citation from us. And I'll just quickly read, Josie. This is from the entire assembly here, and it's introduced by myself and the three state reps in Bristol, who are Cara Pavlock-D'Amato, Mary Fortier, and Joe Hoxha. And in recognition of being chosen to the youth of the year of the Bristol Boys and Girls Club. pg/rr 36 For over eleven years, you've transformed your personal challenges into triumphs, building confidence and leadership skills as a role model for young members. You've volunteered in many programs to serve your classmates and the community. We are so grateful for your making everyone feel included and appreciated. So on behalf of the membership here, of the General Assembly, here in the Senate, as well as Stan Stearns, and Stearns, we wish you the best of continued success. And it's signed by the President pro temp Martin Looney, Speaker of the House -- excuse me, Matt Ritter, and Secretary of State, Stephanie Thomas. So congratulations. Thank you, Madam President.

Page 43. Calendar Number 390, substitute for Senate Bill Number 260, AN ACT CONCERNING ROAMING DOGS.

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. The body, just several years ago, dealt with the issue of roaming dogs. This bill is to update and increase the penalties for violations of the statute. There was some concern in the judiciary committee about certain types of dogs who have duties, that was brought to us, and the committee recognized the concerns as legitimate and carved those dogs, doing duties like herding, and cattle dogs out of the bill, comes to us with a favorable report out of judiciary. I would urge passage.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I stand in strong support of this bill. We have seen this bill before, last year. And I [inaudible 1:15:56] for bringing this to our attention. My recollection from the floor debate last year was that there was an incident in her district that prompted her desire to remedy this situation, and as Senator Winfield pointed out, we have included the exemption of certain dogs that have certain duties. I had suggested cadaver dogs, but that did not get included, but hunting dogs did. Although there's a debate as to whether a dog is hunting, it's actually roaming or actually doing the job that it was trained to do. pg/rr 38 That being the case, we feel that this is as good, if not a better build than last year. It had strong support last year, and I would urge my colleagues to support it again this year. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Will the Senate stands at ease from it?

Thank you, Senator Duff.

Yes. Mr. Clerk, I will open the voting machine. Please announce the vote.

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

(gavel) Thank you. Legislation passes, Mr. Clerk.

Good afternoon, Senator Flexer. pg/rr 40

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you, will you mark further? Senator Sampson. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Will you mark further? Senator Duff.

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

Have all the senators voted? Machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally, please.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (gavel) Legislation passes.

And good afternoon, Senator Flexer.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further, Senator Sampson?

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes, Mr. Clerk.

And good afternoon, Senator Lesser.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Clerk. Sir, would you please call the amendment?

Senator Lesser.

Thank you. And the question is on adoption, will you remark on the amendment? And, good afternoon Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Then, will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? The Ayes have it by a hair. The amendment is adopted. Will you mark on the legislation as amended? Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Lesser.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill as pg/rr 51 amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, the machine is open. And Mr. Clerk kindly announce the vote.

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Good afternoon, Senator Osten.

So far, great.

Thank you. The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Good afternoon, Senator Somers.

Nutrition, supplemental housing, and supplemental medical needs for those who are most vulnerable. I think this is a wise decision in having the agencies work together to come back to the Appropriations Committee to have a plan. We can evaluate the plan, vote on the plan, and then move forward. And I rise again in full support and ask everyone in the Senate to join us in supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 401, AN ACT CONCERNING A BRIDGE PROGRAM TO ALLOW ACCESS TO FOOD, HOUSING AND HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Bill 401. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill 401.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0 pg/rr 56

Page 12, Calendar No. 120, Senate Bill No. 383, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF WORKFORCE STRATEGY RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I move adoption of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you. This bill comes to us from the Office of Workforce Strategy and it's basically technical in nature, but there's three sections to it. The first addressing the human services career pipeline, it was actually never funded. So, they want to remove the implementation language from that. At the same time, tweaking some reporting that's going to be happening about kind of the landscape analysis of the general human services career pipeline. So, that's Section 1. Section 2 is adjusting the implementation date for programs in the career accelerator program. It's giving OWS a little bit more flexibility in being able to add some programs like, you know, for paramedics, LPN, air tech, that kind of thing. So, a little bit more flexibility reflecting how they're currently operating. pg/rr 57 And then the third section is removing a requirement for an HVAC program that is very important, but it is not being funded through OWS, and it's actually through the Department of Labor. So, again, really just kind of cleaning up some of the statutes related to OWS. This passed unanimously out of the Higher Education Committee and hope that my colleagues can join me in supporting this bill. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to support the bill. I agree with the Chair of the Committee that it's basically a technical and a cleanup bill. But just a quick note regarding some of the eliminations of these programs. I think it's a good idea. I think sometimes we get overly aggressive and we want to cover so much with a piece of legislation and the practicality of it after it's adopted and passed and signed, becomes law. I think reality hits us in the face saying, "Oh my God, we may not have the resources really to do this or the funding in this particular case." So, we sort of take a step back and now we clean it up with these technical bills going forward. So, Madam President, I urge adoption. And also maybe before we adopt a bill later on, you'll see the AI bill that there's so much to that bill that we may want to consider, maybe not including so much and really keep it simple. So, thank you, Madam President.

pg/rr 58 An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 383, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF WORKFORCE STRATEGY RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF WORKFORCE STRATEGY RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

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

Page 32, Calendar No. 323, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 89, AN ACT UPDATING PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION STANDARDS.

pg/rr 59 Thank you, Madam President. I'd ask this item be passed temporarily.

Page 23, Calendar No. 256, Substitute for Senate Bill No. 452, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF LIGHTER-THAN-AIR BALLOONS. There are several amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. And yes, I rise for a point of personal privilege of which I am honored to be able to do today. Madam President, the Boys & Girls Club of America, but these are the Boys & Girls Clubs of Connecticut who are here. There are 40,000 young adults who are part of this organization in 14 clubs throughout the State of Connecticut. And the Boys & Girls Club of Connecticut is very special. It's a national organization as we know, but it got its roots. It's got its start right here in Connecticut. In fact, in Hartford, Connecticut. It was started in 1860 by Mary and Alice Goodwin and Elizabeth Hammersley. And at the time, they were seeking a positive environment for young boys to get them off of the street in all honesty. That was back in 1860 and then by 1990, it became the Boys & Girls Club of America taking on young ladies of whom we have some great representation here with us today. And there is a very special program in the Boys & Girls Club, and that is called the Youth of the Year. And these are the superstars of the clubs. pg/rr 60 And every year each club picks one individual who will have that distinct honor. And it's a very competitive process and it is that individual who exemplifies leadership, who raises others up, who is a peer leader, and who reflects the lifestyle of what the Boys & Girls Club is all about. And that's who's with us today, Madam Speaker, in the circle. These young adults have amazing stories, but they have done amazing things in the short time that they have been here and with the Boys & Girls Club. And so, I would like to have an opportunity to introduce them individually and ask that they raise their hand, so we can kind of give them a high five in celebrating each one of them, and then collectively, the Boys & Girls Club of Connecticut and this program, Youth of the Year. And so, we're going to start off with our introductions with no less than our representative from the Waterbury Boys & Girls Club, whom I obviously am so proud of and that is Ted Elie. Ted. And hailing from the naval submarine base in New London is Caitlin Acur. There she is. And next from the Boys & Girls Club of Greenwich is Joell Molina. Joell. And from Hartford, from the Boys & Girls Club of Hartford, we have Tiara Robinson. Hello, Tiara. And Stamford from the Boys & Girls Club of Stamford, we have Olivia Billard. Olivia. And then from Bristol, and I think you've already met with Senator Martin, but we have Josephine Kitchens. Josephine. And Madam President, I would refer to my colleague, Senator Sampson, for the continuation of our introductions of these superstars.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you very much, Senator Hartley. That was very kind of you to offer to allow me to continue to recognize our pg/rr 61 award winners today. A bipartisan gesture. Both Senator Hartley and I represent the great city of Waterbury. I'm not sure who's on the wrong side of the tracks or not, but maybe both of us. Who knows? Anyway, I want to just continue this recognition of these wonderful young people who are Youth of the Year winners. Something Senator Hartley and I probably will not achieve anytime ever, frankly. So, the first person I've got on my list is from the Wakeman Boys & Girls Club. And that is Maya Patten. And from the Lower Naugatuck Valley, Gianna Jacobacci. From Meriden, Joseph Sapienza. From Redding-Easton, Christopher Caldwell. And finally, from Milford, Joliez Gonzalez. Congratulations to all of you. Well done. And I know that we've already given them a round of applause, but one more for all of them, please. And thank you, Madam President. (applause)

Madam President.

Thank you, Madam. And I would be remiss if I did not recognize the leaders of these respective Boys & Girls Clubs organizations who dedicate so much time and personal investment in what they do. First of all, Don Maleto, who is the CEO of the Boys & Girls Club here in Connecticut. And from my own hometown, Karen Senich, who heads up our Waterbury Boys & Girls Club. And to all of those who accompanied the parents and the staff and the volunteers, your involvement is so pg/rr 62 important and you make these things happen. And, by the way, it's all about building our future leaders that we are so proud of. Thank you for what you do and congratulations to all these superstars. Thank you, Madam President.

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

Madam President, the Clerk has an Amendment LCO 4385. Will the Clerk please call the Amendment?

Senator Lopes.

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

Very good. Thank you. Will you remark on the Amendment, Senator Harding?

Senator Lopes.

After the Amendment?

It strikes the Amendment.

Senator Harding.

Very good. Very good. Will you remark on the Amendment? Sorry. Senator Lopes?

Very good. Senator Harding. pg/rr 65

Thank you. Senator Lopes.

Thank you. Senator Harding.

Thank you. Will you mark further on the Amendment that's before the chamber? Will you remark further? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the Amendment, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye. pg/rr 66

Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to say that I appreciate everyone's help and passage of this Bill will be a huge weight off my shoulders.

Thank you, Madam President. So, I do want to speak now on what is now the underlying bill, and I do support, as I said, the Amendment, which reduces the fines, which gets me to a place where I think I can support it now because the penalties are going from 500 down to $20. You know, with that said, I still have some reservations, and I do think that many members would have some reservations. And I would like to see further issues addressed, which I do have an amendment myself, which I'll get to in a moment. You know, with that said, through you, Madam President, one question I do have on the underlying bill now -- So, my understanding through you, Madam President, it is intentional release. Right? And so, is there an age? I know as a parent of two young children, is there an age of majority when it comes down to release of a balloon? Because theoretically, I could see one of my children intentionally releasing a balloon, and I would be loathsome to see any child punished in this manner or a parent punished for a child releasing a balloon as a joke in some way. And through you, Madam President, that's my first question. pg/rr 67

Thank you, Madam President. It's a good question. It did not come up in this Bill's language, in this year's language, but in previous years, we did hear and talk extensively upon this with, I don't know if it's valuable anymore, but for legislative intent, for minors, I don't think there's, you know, a small child releasing a balloon. It'd be hard to put intent on that, and it wouldn't be enforceable.

Thank you, Madam President. I just again, I think it boils down and speaks to the difficulty of enforcement in this because of the fact that releasing balloons generally is something that people -- We understand the environmental aspects and that's the reason why. I think I understood why it was at 10. It's not necessarily to tell people, "Hey. It's environmentally okay to release nine balloons." I think it was able to create that fine line between a child or someone in a ceremony releasing a couple of balloons or a balloon as opposed to someone releasing 10, which obviously is an obvious intentional issue if you're releasing 10 as opposed to just one. I also would like to question. My understanding is through you, Madam President, in this Bill, it requires stores that are selling balloons to provide a weight. Could the good proponent please explain that detail of the Bill through you, Madam President? pg/rr 68

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. This provision was brought to us by the balloon retailers in testimony at the Public Hearing as their suggestion that they are actively on their own trying to help the issue we're facing through an education program where they tell people, "These are helium balloons. You should not be releasing them into the environment." But also, they suggested that one way to help would be to affix a weight to each balloon to make it evident that you shouldn't be releasing these out into the atmosphere.

Thank you, Madam President. So, through you, Madam President, is there any detail in the Bill in regards to what type of weight or what is a legal weight that they would apply or attach to the balloons through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. No. We elected not to be prescriptive in the weight and leave it since it's the retailer's offer on how to fix this problem to let them determine the necessary weight sufficient for the balloon they're selling.

Well, thank you, Madam President. And that's one of the only concerns that I have. You know, it's kind of ironic that if we're doing this to protect the environment, which I understand why we are, that could we actually be hurting the environment some mechanisms by the weights that are being applied to the balloons. And we do know that there are some materials that weights are made of that can be rather toxic. And so, for that reason, I would think that if we're doing this again for the noble cause that it may be, that we also be mindful of the fact that the weights should not be toxic as well, should not be harming our environment as well. And so, with that said, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO No. 4382. I ask the Clerk to please call the Amendment.

LCO No. 4382, Senate Amendment "B".

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

Yes. I will. Thank you, Madam President. I will do ask that when the vote is taken, it'll be taken by roll.

Thank you, Madam President. And so, Madam President, this Amendment, I should say, keeps the rest of the Bill intact. And all this does is simply state that the weight be nontoxic. Again, if we're doing this for environmental purposes, I think it behooves us to also ensure that the weights that are now being attached are also not harming the environment as well. I think it's a simple measure to be taken to make sure that there's no unforced errors here in our mission to be more environmentally friendly when it comes down to balloons. I do urge my colleagues to support this Amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a good Amendment that was debated and talked about during the formulation of this Bill. It is an Amendment that has value, but at a certain point during deliberations, maybe it was the small business owner and myself, that felt that because the balloon retailers and the balloon industry had brought these ideas to us, I wanted to impose as few issues on them implementing this program as possible and give them the latitude to pick what would be the appropriate weight, size, and material for this legislation. So, regretfully, but I would have to say I oppose this Amendment and ask my colleagues to vote no. pg/rr 71

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're going on Senate Amendment "B" of Senate Bill No. 452, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF LIGHTER- THAN-AIR BALLOONS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on an Amendment. This is Senate Amendment "B" of Senate Bill No. 452, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF LIGHTER- THAN-AIR BALLOONS. This is not the Bill. We're voting on roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "B" of

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

Yes, Madam President. Just briefly, I just want to thank Senator Lopes for the Amendment that dealt with that penalty. Though I know some things are cross cultural, I know that a lot of the people that I deal with back in my home city and folks I know across this state and outside of the state, particularly when there's a doubt. I'm not talking about the celebratory types of releases, but particularly when there's a doubt, they have known balloon releases to be a part of what they do to the point where they don't really think about it. I know that there's an expectation of those releases, and I know we really need to deal with the issue of the environment, the impact on our wildlife, but at the same time, the original penalty would have been significant impact on the lives of folks at the worst time who are probably least likely to be able to afford it. So, I just wanted to offer a word of thanks prior to our vote. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I'll just wrap up. I will be supporting the measure now because I do understand the important environmental aspect of this, and I think reducing the penalty is more realistic. And for that reason, I will be supporting it. With that said, I do understand some reservations that some folks may have about penalizing individuals that generally are not intending to be harmful in any way. But, nevertheless, with that said, I will be supporting this Bill. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill No. 452 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING THE RELEASE OF LIGHTER-THAN-AIR BALLOONS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Substitute for Senate Bill No. 452 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total number voting 35 Those voting Yea 31 Those voting Nay 4 Those absent 1

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that we would pass temporarily Senate Calendar No. 58,

pg/rr 74 Page 55, Calendar 224, Senate Bill 5, AN ACT CONCERNING ONLINE SAFETY.

Good afternoon, 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 4418. I ask that the Clerk please call the Amendment, and I'd be given leave of the Chamber to summarize.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. And the question is on adoption. Will you remark on the Bill, Senator Cicarella?

Yes. Please remark on the Amendment before the Chamber, sir.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney, good luck with that.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. pg/rr 82

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. pg/rr 89

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. pg/rr 93

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney. Please proceed with that.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. pg/rr 97

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Now we're going to start getting into some of the workforce development stuff, especially when it comes to education. And specifically, it's talking about in section 23, it's modifying the computer science education account, and it's also making changes to the name that's in the next section, 24 and 25. There's going to be making some changes to the advisory committee. If you could just briefly run through those sections, through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you very much for the question. Yes. So in 2019, we passed the CS for CT bill. I was fortunate to work with Senator McCrory on that. I believe at 950. I can't remember the number. I think it may have been 954 in 2019. But we created this non- lapsing account to try to encourage companies to donate into it so we could expand access to teaching computer coding to all of our residents. Ironically enough, after we wanted to get everyone learning how to code, 70% of coding or more is now done by AI itself. And so, we're looking at changing the name of that to include workforce. So not just the computer science, but computer science and workforce development. So to have a fund where we could partner with companies, they would have a non-lapsing fund that they could donate into to help us expand access to training opportunities. Section 24 and 25 are looking at our already existing tech talent fund that has been extremely extremely popular and well utilized, and trying -- just adding in that AI or other emerging technologies. In fact, they're already -- they are a technology. It's a technology talent fund, so they already are included. It's almost more of a marketing to add that specifically. pg/rr 110 I was fortunate enough to include one of the community of practice meetings at Quinnipiac University, and we do have a cohort of different programs that are going through. So this is run by the office of workforce studies. They'll put out an RFP or another way, and people will come with proposals and they identify programs. So it's another way to try to partner with both employers and higher education to provide workforce training opportunities. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And, first, I just want to do two things. One, sorry because I said that it was getting into the school stuff and the education. And apologize that I misspoke there. This is a very, very large bill, and we -- the good Senator was working on it to try to address a lot of concerns, and we just got our final copy not too long ago. The good Senator did keep me up to date of kind of what was going on, and we've spoke numerous times over the last couple of days. And this is kind of not a normal process for us to run through this in this way. So I want to thank the good Senator for taking the time to do that to help me make sure I'm not missing anything and educate the other people that may be watching on CTN, and maybe even some of the Senators around here because this did come out not too long ago. So I do want to thank the good Senator for entertaining me doing this. And I know it's a little unique, but I think it's beneficial that we kind of go through this. So I really wanted to just thank you, and you as well, Madam President, for allowing me to do that. But I do think it's important. And if I do misquote certain sections, these are my notes from, I don't know, three amendments ago. So if I do misspeak on the section, I'm sure the good Senator will correct me. But I'm going to be going to section 26, which I believe is the mass pg/rr 111 layoff aspect of the bill. And my understanding that it's going to be a way for us to determine if AI is in fact eating into the workforce, taking jobs away. We hear a lot of people that are very concerned about that. And this would be a way when employers who already are subjected to federal requirements for issuing a notice when there's a mass layoff, they would have to just let them know if AI played a role in it. And I just wanted to make sure that I was on the right page here, and if the good Senator, could correct me if I'm wrong or let me know if I left anything out through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. Yes. Sections 26 and 29 work in tandem. So section 23 is requiring -- if you're already required to file a notice because of the size of the layoff you're doing, we want you to say what percentage of those layoffs were attributed to AI. And the reason is we need to start studying the impact of AI on our state workforce, so we can make educated decisions going forward. That may not be the right data or the right metric to collect. And that's why in section 29, we've engaged the UConn Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy to analyze that data, make recommendations on other data to give us a report of the impact of AI on our state workforce. So again, that is just starting. I think it's important that you start to collect the data, and then we may learn that we need to collect additional pieces of data. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And that was from 26 and 29, but right in the middle, we have 27 to 28. And it just talks about teachers and certain types of training that they may need. When I was working on some workforce development legislation for the trades, we heard that some of the schools had a hard time getting electricians, certified electricians, that are also certified teachers to come into schools and teach. And I was just curious if in section 27 and 28, if that was trying to address high school students getting exposed to AI and all of the different areas of AI. And if it's going to put any kind of a burden on teachers or maybe education budgets, if the good Senator could just touch on those briefly.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. Yes. So section 27, again, I referenced before that CS for CT bill from 2019. In that bill, we worked with Senator McCrory and other stakeholders, the Connecticut Computer Science Teachers Association to become the first state in the country to require every pre service teacher program. So, every teacher training program to give teachers exposure to teaching computer coding. And again, at that time, we were cognizant of the fact that there are many mandates. So, we repurposed another technology requirement. And we're further clarifying on that requirement that not only do they need to have exposure to teaching computer coding, but within that same block exposure to teaching AI, responsible use of AI, and other emerging technologies. And so we try to utilize and work within an existing framework, and cognizant -- try to remain cognizant of the fact that we didn't want to add other burdens. pg/rr 113 Section 28, actually is -- DECD is already required to create a strategic plan. This just clarifies that within that, or adds within that plan, and nothing prohibited this from before, but it just adds within there that they should consider AI, quantum, and other emerging technologies as part of that strategic plan. I would say the other section where we modify the education would be section 34, where -- and again, this works with -- from that same bill that we worked on. Thank you again to Senator McCrory, where we required every school in Connecticut to teach. We updated computer science to include computer coding. And now, we've just added into that again, which includes AI, responsible use, and emerge -- other emerging technologies. And so, again, we want to make sure that every school is offering this. We're not mandating that every student take this. We're not making a change to the graduation requirements or anything. We're just updating an existing requirement to make sure that it's clear that it includes AI and emerging technologies. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And, thank you, to the good Senator, for answering that question. And then we're going to get into the part of the bill where I do have some questions, possibly some concerns. And if the good Senator could just explain what section 31 does? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. So section 31 asks us to work with CAIA, the Connecticut AI Alliance, which is an alliance of all of the public and private, all of the pg/rr 114 higher education institutions in the state of Connecticut. One of the things in order to be successful, we need to formalize an ongoing conversation between academia, industry, and government on AI to make sure that we are staying at the forefront. And so this works with that nonprofit to facilitate those communications, and to run a number of other programs. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So, is it using AI, maybe to invest these baby bond trusts? Or is it just AI to manage it? What exactly is the main purpose of that through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. I apologize. You had asked about section 30, and I was talking, I think, about section 31. So you're talking about the section where the treasurer would make families through their available resources. And again, with other resources that they're handing out to families, make those families aware of the free training opportunities available through the Connecticut AI Academy. So it may be -- and again, it's not determined yet, It would be within available appropriations, but likely updating an existing website where people are pointed to resources to also point them to the awareness of the Connecticut AI Academy. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the good Senator for that. That really probably should have been somewhere around section 22. Are you just doing this to confuse me, Senator? Because it's getting all spun around. So basically, it's just telling the treasurer when he is giving individuals information on the baby bonds, that he's going to tell them about the AI, great stuff we're doing here in Connecticut. Is that correct through you, Madam President?

That is, correct. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. So you definitely are messing with me. Okay. Moving on. Section 32, higher education workforce development. Seems like a longer -- pretty long section. If you could just break down what that does through you, Madam President.

Specific question so you don't have to describe that whole section through you, Madam President? pg/rr 116

Through you, Madam President. Yes, please.

I do know it's a long section. But as we were just talking about high school and promoting -- and earlier education, that we're going to also be working with Higher Ed to development strategies and implement this into the workforce. But the quick question I have is there going to be any cost to the state of Connecticut when trying to implement any of this through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Many of these are working through existing programs, so there wouldn't be an additional cost.

Sorry. pg/rr 117

Thank you, Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney.

Thank you, Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney.

Thank you for answering that question. Just wanted to clarify that we just didn't pull a random company or equity comp, or investment company, or angel investor to come and take these college kids' great ideas and make millions out of them. I just want to make sure there'd be protections for these individuals that are going to be working hard to win the competition. And then hopefully, build a big business to stay here and help people with their positive health outcome. So I just pg/rr 122 wanted to just check to make sure that there was a connection to the state of Connecticut, and I appreciate your answer. Moving on to section 34. That's a good number, 34. And it's good state agency, DCP. This is a pretty big part of -- a pretty big section in this big bill here. And I know that other individuals may want to ask questions, but I have a quick couple of questions. And as I was trying to educate myself on this bill along with my attorney and SRO, we were calling them the AI police. But it's my understanding that DCP is going to be tasked with finding some companies that are going to be able to look at models, AI models to make sure that there are safeguards in place to some of the stuff that we saw in section two and three. Is that a fair assessment that the IVOs are going to be tasked with trying to find vulnerabilities in some of the programs. And then if these companies are utilizing that service, then they would have, I guess, less exposure. They would show that they're making a good faith effort to try to find some of these errors that can cause harm or maybe discriminate. If you could just elaborate on what's the purpose for the AI, please, what I'm referring to. And I think it's in that section, through you Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. It's section 33, which is creating a pilot program for independent verification organizations. And so it would task DCP with identifying organizations that may be appropriate for this. There's an application process. What we did do is we did kick out the implementation date for a year on this program and put it into the working group, so that we can continue to work on this. pg/rr 123 Growing up my grandparents had a manufacturing business. They manufactured toggle switches, small electrical switches. You had to test your toggle switches before you shipped them out, and if they pass the testing and one of the things on the case we had was the UL listing, underwriters laboratory. So the UL was at that time, I think it was a nonprofit kind I'm not sure if it was quasi, but it was independent organization that could certify the safety of electrical pros -- of electrical products. And so some companies would only buy things if they knew that they were UL listed. They had passed that underwriters laboratory testing and so the person from UL who would come down to check out our quality control process, Sal, would come in and inspect to make sure that you look at our processes to make sure they were inspecting things in the correct way and meeting their standards. So that is similar. We're going to identify groups that would be able to validate or verify that you are mitigating risks or that you're doing what you're saying you're doing. And so, it may be like the good housekeeper's seal, [laughs] so to say, when it would be more akin to that underwriter's laboratory. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to the good Senator, and thank you for some of the staff. Just to clarify, because this is an amended copy, it wasn't 34. So I get to say section 34 again the next time, because that was actually section 33. But thank you to the good Senator for picking that up. I believe section 30 was taken out of this amended bill before us. So I do apologize, and thank you, Senator pg/rr 124 Maroney, for not calling me off, being off the section number there. Staying on section 33, not 34, when it talks about DCP's responsibility, not only to help find these five organizations that are going to be, essentially testing the switches. It's not that simple. It's really going to be some serious coding, serious knowledge, basically a whole another language and then seeing how it works. Is there somebody in the DCP right now that has that kind of expertise? And if so, what exactly is that expertise to test those kind of models, to make sure there's the safeguards, through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you. I do not believe there is at this point someone, so it would require a program manager. The companies as part of the application process would have to explain it, and it'll be up to that manager to verify what the metrics are they're looking for, how they're testing it, and if they believe that they are able to accurately test for those metrics. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, the good Senator. And my understanding is these five companies that would be identified to help out with checking their model. Do the companies, the AI companies have to utilize this oversight or protection, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. Thank you very much. No. This is a completely voluntary program. The goal is to become more of that good housekeepers seal, so there would be something that actually consumers would look for to know that it was a safe product. And so it may be akin in that way to -- federally there's a COPPA safe harbor program. So we're not creating a safe harbor, but what that does is there are organizations like Entertainment Sports Association, like the Entertainment Sports Rating Board. So when if you're getting games, it may say it's rated for certain. And so it would create a process like that. And the incentive would be you would hope there would be a competitive incentive that people would want things that they knew were tested to be safe. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, again, great analogy, and it helps me understand it. And besides that kind of seal of approval, if you will, does it provide any other benefit to these AI companies, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. They would just be like an evidentiary proof that they had attempted to do the right thing. So if a lawsuit were brought against them for some reason, they would use this as proof that they weren't negligent, that they had attempted to do the right thing pg/rr 126 and it was validated or verified. Again, what the courts would do with that would be up to the courts. And there are things written in there that if they were intentionally negligent, they could lose that certification. And the organization that had given them, it's not even a certification, but their certificate or whatever you would call it, the organization could also lose their agreement with no longer be recognized by DCP for providing that. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the good Senator. So it's not essentially a get out of jail free card. Is there some form of insurance there, like the IVO is taking the liability on? Or if the IVO kind of messes up and something slips through the cracks. Technically, the AI company would be liable and then the punishment for the IVO would be like, okay. You're not doing your job well. You're out. Or would it give them some coverage from maybe liability or being sued? What is the other benefits of utilizing the IVO besides the stamp of approval, through you, Madam President?

Through you, it would be -- I mean, the stamp of approval we're looking at, the theory is -- would be the main benefit, but also that benefit of the evidentiary proof of having done the right thing. Again, it's not a get out of jail free card in any way. Through you, Madam President. pg/rr 127

And when I was looking at the section, kind of in greater detail, I thought it had some benefit, basically, showing you did the right thing, that you made that effort to try to find those safeguards. And it would give some benefit or it would be taken into consideration, in other areas, but not when it comes to the attorney general. Can if you could just kind of clarify that for me?

Through you, you're correct. It's been narrowed there would be in a civil lawsuit. So if someone were suing them, it wouldn't be for an enforcement by the attorney general.

Thank you, Senator Cicarella.

Through you, Madam president.

Through you, it was just they did not -- the attorney general's office didn't want to be hindered in their ability to enforce. However, already if you participate in some kind of a good housekeeping sealed program that does count as evidentiary proof without us writing it in. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And again, to stay on that. So part of the benefit is -- we went over this before that companies are being sued. Certain big AI companies are being sued for some of the things that we just talked about. For the sake of time, I won't revisit them, but that's where something like this would come into play.

Through you. That is correct. pg/rr 129

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the good Senator, for clarifying that. Last question on section 33, is the cost to employ someone to find these IVOs. I think there's only a $100,000 in the fiscal note. If DCP doesn't have the resources or the money, this is only within available appropriations above and beyond that $100,000 for fiscal year 2027 through you, Madam President.

Through you. And we kicked this out too so that it won't start until -- but through you, it is in the -- within available appropriations. So it would only be if they were able to find the person, and be able to fund that person, through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And I'm just going to just go right down to the last section. I don't even know what section it is. But I believe it's the Governor's social media bill that's designed to protect minors. And, I do know that anything we could do to protect our children is extremely important. But just because it's basically kind of another whole bill in there, if you could just kind of run through or highlight what this bill is doing and how it is going to pg/rr 130 really make sure we're protecting our minors and make sure they're not being victimized in any way on these platforms through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you, for that question. And so what this does is it looks at addictive feeds, and so the way that you're able to prioritize content that you're showing to someone if the covered operator has actual knowledge that they are a minor. And so it prevents them from sending notifications after certain hours. So I think we're all used to our phones buzzing and getting a notification that someone has liked, or commented, or whatever the reason. So it prevents those types of notifications from incentivizing minors to come back. And it also says you can only do the feed designed on someone's data if it's a known minor for one hour a day. The rest of the time, there have to be another way to prioritize the way they would -- someone was seeing content through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And when we were discussing this bill in great detail earlier, I believe that this is extremely important that with technology changing, with parents maybe not being so savvy online, that there is going to be protections in place for minors. And make sure that in no way that -- when you were talking earlier about these children that basically, were encouraged to kill themselves or commit harmful acts against their family or themselves, we see though, even pg/rr 131 with social media where not computers, people could get a hold of children on social media and lure them to dangerous places or encourage them to do dangerous things. So I think this is almost fitting. I really wish it was a separate bill, but it's almost fitting because it is protecting the children from vulnerability, not from a chatbot, but from bad actors on the other end of a social media platform. And I do believe that it has good intentions, and I do support that. But I just have a quick question. It'll be the last one for legislative intent. When we talk about certain platforms, we talk about streaming services. Would the streaming services that make professionally produced videos, and these people have to subscribe to them, would they be in this definition?

Through you, the intent is for the covered operators to be social media. And I do have to clarify, at an early public hearing when someone asked me if Snapchat would be included, I wrongly said no. So, it would include a service like a Snapchat. So it's intended to be for what we would consider the social media companies, through you.

Got it. Thank you. And social media, or Snapchat, anyone can make a video. I can make a video. That's not like a professionally produced video. Like some of the streaming services, Hulu and other streaming services. pg/rr 132 Some of the other ones may be considered social media, like YouTube. Would that be considered social media? So I was just trying to get clarification. If there is a professionally produced video, but there's a subscription needed to access these videos, would that be included in this legislation, through you?

Through you, I don't believe so because, again, the one of the pieces is the user generated content through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And, I'm just going to close. I'm all done with the questions. And Senator Maroney, thank you for being a good sport and going through this with me. I know it took a little bit of time, but I do think it was important. When we talk about our vulnerable population, our children, it's something that's very near and dear to my heart. And sometimes you have to really balance your decision you're going to make on a piece of legislation, whether it's going to have the desire to tend -- to really do one thing, but there may be negative intentions. For example, sometimes we're trying to solve a problem, but then we very easily create another one. And I believe that when we were trying to originally address some of the AI concerns in Bill's past sessions, there was going to be negative consequences with our businesses, our small businesses. Possibly punishing individuals that were utilizing AI, but didn't even realize it. And as I look at this piece of legislation pg/rr 133 before me, I think this does a very large service to address the concerns that I've heard. And I think that it also does address a lot of the issues that I'm not concerned, was concerned about, when it comes to really negatively impacting the businesses here in Connecticut, businesses that want to come to Connecticut. Also was worried about the additional costs that were going to be associated with this bill. And I'm really not seeing it. And I want to thank the good Senator for going through it. I do not believe that the concerns that I had are present in this bill, and I believe that it will do a lot of good. And I do believe I'm going to be supporting the legislation before us. And I want to thank Senator Maroney and the General Law Committee for all their work, make sure we're addressing consumer protection issues, especially when it comes to our children.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to Senator Cicarella. I would just say when the vote is called, I ask that it be called by roll.

Good evening, Madam President. Thank you for the recognition. I've been listening intently to the conversation that began maybe around an hour or so ago when this bill began. I want to start by expressing a little bit of frustration about the process, but I certainly will get into the bill. The first thing I would pg/rr 134 suggest is that part of the reason why I was listening intently is because I just got this bill. This is yet another strike all amendment. I think the third or fourth one that we've gotten in about 24 hours. So I continue to sit down and go through the bill and make my notes. And every time I turn around, somebody says, by the way, throw that away, Senator, because here's a new 70 page document with 40 sections that you have to get up to speed on. And I got to tell you, it's frustrating is not the way that I believe our constituents think we're operating up here. And I know they wouldn't approve if they knew the detail of just how the process actually does work. I also want to express some frustration about the title of the bill, something I'm apt to do. Everyone knows that I sometimes will call into question a title, but this one, is entitled an act concerning online safety. And I'll just suggest that while there may be a couple of sections of this bill that may touch on the notion of online safety, that's not what the bill is about. The bill is about creating a massive takeover of individual and corporate freedom in the decision making process when interacting with computer aided programming hardware and software. And I'm just going to use that very extremely broad term because in my view, the definition of AI that is included in this bill is also a very broad definition. But I'm going to get back to that because I want to approach this in a methodic way. I only managed to get through the first 17 of the 39 sections during the conversation. Although I did grab a few notes regarding sections 33 and I think 39, because of the conversation that preceded me rising here. So I'm going to stick to that portion of the bill because that's all I got, frankly. And I'll just suggest that as we get into this bill, I want folks to keep in mind just a couple of things. In my view, there is few things more dangerous than a government that feels the need to engage in policy making on things it does not understand. And I pg/rr 135 will tell you that this is a subject that the government and the entities that are involved in producing this policy do not understand. I also believe that most of the things that have been brought forward as concerns are already addressed in our existing laws. It is already against the law to commit fraud. It is already against the law to steal, whether you use technology or not. It's already against our laws to discriminate against people using technology or not. It's already against the law to try and harm a minor. All of these things are already against the law. The mechanism is what is being regulated in this particular proposal. And that's the danger, folks. We should not be trying to regulate mechanisms. It's the same thing as gun control. The issue with violence is not about the gun itself. It's about the intent of the parties involved to cause harm to one another. And generally speaking, when you take away one of the mechanism that someone has an ability to harm someone, they'll just find another mechanism. And I'm afraid that's what's happening here. So this is kind of like the instinct of people on the political left of the spectrum, which is to just immediately jump to regulation. We're fearful of what might arise out of this new technology and the freedom of people to use it, both for good and bad. And I can understand the fear because AI is new. And it does present concerns because we don't know the upper limit of what AI technology will be capable of. But I also don't believe that's a reason to over regulate it. Let's stick to what we have always done, which is to make sure that we put our laws and system of justice in place to regulate bad behavior, not instruments of good and bad. And I'm afraid that that's what this bill does. I'd also suggest that this is not something that we should be doing on a state level. These are policies that affect a lot of entities that are international in nature or at least national in nature. And I don't know why our state pg/rr 136 government in particular, our majority party in the legislative wing of our Connecticut government always seems to have this tremendous arrogance that somehow we got to stick our nose in and we're the right people to start regulating everyone else in the whole country. Just a couple of days ago, we were going ahead and putting a law into effect to regulate federal law enforcement agents, something that will clearly be struck down, because it's unconstitutional because frankly, the state government has limited amount of power to regulate certain things. And this is an area that just doesn't make any sense for the state to regulate. This is something that really should be regulated on a federal level, if at all. And again, I would encourage the regulation to be limited to bad behavior and finding a way to protect people from that, not from the existence of technology. That makes no sense. Imagine if way back when people said we should regulate automobiles out of existence. We should write a policy that regulates them so thoroughly that no one wants to go into business because they're going to be taken out of business the first time there's an automobile accident. That's what this is, folks. This is putting a mountain of regulatory framework and restriction on innovation and for people that are just innocently participating in this new technology. It's extremely dangerous and counterproductive. We should be taking it very slow. We should be learning what is happening in the field of artificial intelligence. We should be watching and monitoring, and we should be making policy when there is an issue that arises that generates the need for it. We shouldn't be trying to create impediments out of the gate. And this bill is a laundry list, a cobbled together smorgasbord of impediments. 39 unrelated sections that are so ham fisted and poorly written that there are conflicts and things within the same section. Let's just start off by suggesting that this proposal is not a narrow online safety bill. pg/rr 137 It is a sweeping, multilayered regulatory framework that reaches into consumer transactions, into business operations, employment decisions, and even the relationship between parents and their own children. That alone should give this body pause. So let's go section by section. I really do appreciate the time taken by Senators Cicarella and Senator Maroney going through the bill section by section to kind of give us an inside look at what each section does. And it looks like section one is really about creating the definitions. So let's talk a little bit about lines 18 to 27, which is where the subscription model is called into question. So I have a question, through you, Madam President. Why is the state requiring a written acceptance process for AI subscriptions beyond what would be normal in ordinary contract law for any other type of similar transaction? What is different about a subscription to an AI versus a subscription to some other online device or product, through you?

Through you, Madam President, this builds in some ways on our existing click to cancel where you're already required to give notification before renewal. This issue came from a constituent who in the middle of the month has been throttled on different processes. And so he would receive a notice that he'd used up all of his -- it could be his tokens, it could be his transcription services, or other services, when he said he didn't even know how much he had. And so this is just to ensure that people are aware of what the money they are paying actually gets them and that they know that if it is variable within that month, so that it may change. So it's a consumer disclosure. Through you, Madam President. pg/rr 138

Thank you very much, Madam President. Are any other entities restricted from being able to include that type of throttling in the type of product that they provide to their consumers without having a written acceptance. I'll give an example. Cell phone. Mobile phone contracts. I know that most of them, if you buy a product that sets you up with a certain number of gigabytes of data each month, when you approach that number, they start to limit your access to that data. Will we now be requiring them to require a written acceptance of those terms, through you?

Through you, Madam President. This is only for the subscriptions. It is intended to go to the subscriptions of the generative AI Large Language Models, and it is not prohibiting that practice. It is just requiring the disclosure of that practice, through you.

And thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. Except that I just -- seems like kind of a questionable policy to me, right out of the gate to go ahead and start to put this new type of restriction on this particular product. And before I get too far down the road, let's talk about what the product is really quick. pg/rr 139 I noticed that in the very first section, when it starts to define artificial intelligence, it immediately points you to section 17. That's the lovely thing about some of these bills, boy. It's great. You're like on page one, line one. It's like, go check section 17 to find out what this means. And, I checked section 17. And I've got the definition here. It says, artificial intelligence means any machine based system. That's a lot of things. That for explicit or implicit objective, that basically means anything. You could just leave that set -- part of the sentence out of it. [laughs] Doesn't mean anything at all. Infers from the inputs. Okay? My phone infers from the inputs. My computer, calculator receives how to generate outputs. All those things do that too. Including but not limited to content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations that can influence physical or virtual environments. Including but not limited to. That means basically anything that has a computer brain. And in fact, does it say that? It says machine based. So through you, Madam President, where am I going wrong with suggesting that this definition of artificial intelligence that is used throughout the bill is a very broad definition that includes my cell phone, my computer, my calculator? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. In working in tech policy, one of the things that they ensure you to do is to try to maintain interoperability. With that, many of the large companies will point to stay international to look at internationally recognized frameworks. This definition is a commonly accepted definition that came from the OECD, Organization for Economic Co- pg/rr 140 operation and Development, and is utilized throughout tech policy, in most of the states throughout the country. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the good gentleman telling me where the definition came from, but I'd asked a different question, which is where am I going wrong when I assume from the definition that simply requires a machine based system that infers from inputs and generates outputs, including but not limited to content and so on. That's pretty broad. Does that not include my mobile phone or my calculator? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, it would not include your mobile phone. They may be utilizing the technology within them, but they would not be the technology and not a calculator, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that answer, although -- and again, I want to be very respectful, and I don't want to press the good Chairman, but this is his responsibility. He's the Chairman of the General Law Committee. This is his bill he's bringing to the floor. pg/rr 141 His obligation is to explain it to us and to defend the principles and the language that's in there. And I guess, I'm just going to follow-up with why not? Why doesn't my calculator count? That is a machine based system. No? It does infer from inputs, and it does generate outputs, including content. I think that's the basic definition that's included here. And I'm asking this question for a very good reason, which is that this bill starts to regulate AI in huge sweeping ways. And now if you're starting to talk about something beyond the recognized AI companies that are out there, and you're starting to talk about different things, like calculators and mobile phones, etc., I think that we're in some dangerous territory about regulating these issues. So through you, Mr. President, why not?

Through you, the end of the definition that can influence physical or virtual environments.

Well, thank you very much, through you, Mr. President. But physical or virtual environments is everything. There's either the physical world or the virtual world. I don't know if there's another place. Maybe the dream world. Maybe that's not included. But the fact of the matter is that I don't think that changes my question. Just like explicit or implicit. That includes everything. You don't have to say it. It's explicit or implicit. Well, that's everything. So stop using words that are unnecessary. This is the definition we're given for AI, folks. It's very broad to the point of being pg/rr 142 indeterminative. Let's just keep going on. Let's stick to section one. So on lines 34 through, I want to say around 53, I think. There's a statement about quantitative or qualitative limitation, So the question is how is a provider supposed to know in advance if there's a quantitatve or qualitative limitation in every discretionary reduction in quality or functionality that might arise in a AI system? Is this workable for a small business or startups? How are they going to know in advance whether there is a quantitative or qualitative limitation, through you?

Through you, the intent of this bill is to apply to the large language models providers such as Gemini, ChatGPT, OpenAI, Claude. And so they would be typically, like on Google, Gemini, they do have a subscription page that tells you what comes with your monthly subscription. And so the quantitative, maybe you can generate so many images in a month, that you can transcribe so many hours of conversations in a month, or you can utilize so many tokens in a month. And so it would be up to them to define that, but if they're going to limit you based on that, they should be disclosing that, through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Well, I appreciate that that's the intent. And I did notice going through this bill very quickly, as I mentioned, that there are certain sections that do describe thresholds like a million customers and whether more than 50 people are harmed, pg/rr 143 kind of things like that, which we can certainly talk about. But I don't see anything in the first section about that. So this would apply to someone who's starting an AI. And again, given the broad definition of AI that we just described, that's a little bit concerning. Is there somewhere in the bill that you could point me to the limitations that say this is only going to affect those large, big name, mega companies that you referred to through you, Mr. President?

Through you, that does need to be clarified. So again, you asked the question before earlier for the purposes of legislative intent that I had gone over with Senator Cicarella. But the subscription base is intended to be for the generative AI models from the large language model providers, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I appreciate you wanting to include that for legislative intent. However, that legislative intent doesn't mean a single thing to anyone inside or outside this building, particularly not in a courtroom. I can tell you that when we say that for legislative intent, it only means these big guys, but it's not in the bill, I can promise you the court's going to look at what it says in the bill. Despite the fact that we're having this conversation. So is it or is it not in the bill, through you. pg/rr 144

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that answer. Again, we're trying to get to the bottom of this. And, I don't know. This bill may or may not pass today. It may or may not make it over the finish line, but it's something worth considering that when we go forward, that if we're going to have legislative intent that it's only going to affect these generative AI models. These big guys, the Claudes and the ChatGPTs of the world, well, then it should say so. I think that this extremely broad definition of AI that I went over with you folks, machine based takes inputs, gives output. My TV does that. Right? My radio does that. My old eight track player in my first car I had in high school did that. Right? If we're going to start to regulate AI under that definition, we got to be careful. Right? And we should be explicit. We shouldn't leave it up to, well, legislative intent. I notice also in section one, right near the end, there is the -- I believe it's lines 54 through 60. This right here says that any violation of these provisions, shall constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice, and be enforced solely by the attorney general. Can I ask why something like these requirements that are put in place about subscriptions having to be signed off on by the consumer and so forth cannot be enforced via a private right of action and they can only be enforced by the attorney general? Am I supposed to call up the attorney general when I'm subscribing to something and they're going to throttle my available service? I've got to act and rely on the attorney general to decide whether it's a good enough pg/rr 145 case and bring it forward. Am I correct about that, through you.

Through you, Mr. President. Yes. There is no private create -- right of action created. CUTPA is how we enforce many of our consumer protections. We do have within the attorney general's office, a data privacy unit that has the technical capabilities, and they enforce most of our tech policy in the state of Connecticut, through you. Mr. President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I find this to be surprising. And I think it's something that we're going to see throughout the language of the bill that there seems to be this dual level of enforcement. And in my view, the attorney general's name is invoked far too often in this particular piece of legislation. We are turning over all of this tremendous authority to regulate to one elected person. I don't know how people out there listening feel about our current attorney general, but this would apply beyond our attorney general if you like him. Would apply to him if you don't like him. But the fact of the matter is we should not be empowering some politically elected person to be the decider of who is prosecuted and who is not. I bring this up all the time. Our country is founded on this very simple concept that we write our laws down and they apply equally to everyone. We do not empower individuals to decide selectively who they're going to hold accountable to the rules that we make. Even if pg/rr 146 they're kind of crazy rules, like in section one. It's dangerous. Section two. And we're on a roll. 39 sections. We're on section two. Catastrophic risk. That's how this section starts. I think I'll maybe just start with a basic question, which is, what is the purpose of defining catastrophic risk in section two? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, the purpose is to quantify large significant risks that could be caused by the significant size larger systems. So again, systems that are larger than 10^26 FLOPs. And so to put in effect protections for whistleblowers who are working within these large frontier developers. Through you.

Thank you very much. Mr. President, I appreciate that answer, But I guess I want to know why we are defining catastrophic risk in such a sweeping and speculative way when Connecticut, in fact, is never going to be the primary regulator of these frontier AI models. Through you.

Through you. This is modeled after similar bills that have passed in other states, again. Bills that have pg/rr 147 passed in our neighboring state, New York, the RAISE Act, and Senate Bill 53, from California. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate the answer, but I really don't care what California did. California is a crazy place in my view. I care about what my constituents want to see for laws in Connecticut. That's why they elected me, to come up here and debate and vote on policy for the people of Connecticut. And I'm not convinced that Connecticut or California does anything right. I mean, I can point to a list of really bad policies they've enacted over the last century. A lot of things that they've had to go back and repeal as a result. We should not be like lemmings. Well, California passed it. It must be good. And that should definitely not be the answer to my question about why this appears in our bill. I can tell you that much. I deserve a better answer than California did it. The question I asked was why such a sweeping and speculative definition? And let me just talk about that. Any foreseeable and material risk that the development, storage, use, or deployment of a frontier model by a frontier developer will materially contribute to the death of or serious injury to get this, more than 50 individuals or more than $1,000,000,000 in damage to covered property, and on and on and on. That is a very vague, a very speculative definition. We are not going to be the ultimate regulators of these frontier AI models that are happening internationally. We're the Connecticut Legislature, and I'm completely content with my limitations being a state Senator in Connecticut. I don't want to regulate the world. Let's ask a better question. Mr. President, since this only applies in the case of a catastrophic risk that pg/rr 148 involves death or serious injury to more than 50 individuals, can I say that if you only cause death to 49 people, that this section of the bill will not apply? Through you.

Through you, there are a number of qualifications for what this would take. A large frontier developer that -- and so there are limitations on the size of the system if it is capable of causing more than 50 -- so, deaths is the definition there for catastrophic risk, or $1,000,000,000 in property damage. Again, this is designed to try to prevent one of the feared harms of the BCRN, biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear risks that are potentially posed. The fear is by -- as the AI systems continually get larger and more powerful. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I appreciate the gentleman's answer, and I get the purpose of the section. I don't even necessarily disagree with the purpose of the section. What I'm concerned with is the fact that it will ultimately lead to endless litigation. And trial lawyers making a lot of money, but not a lot of clarity for a policy. Because when you start to be arguing in a courtroom about whether or not this would have killed 50 people or 49 people or would have led to 999,999, I'm sorry. Whatever. $1 under a billion. [laughs] Or a billion or more. What are we doing here? We're talking about arbitrary figures. But yet you're making law and it will be litigated. pg/rr 149 I trust me when I tell you, when someone sues Claude, for example, based on this clause and this bill, I can guarantee you that the lawyers will be arguing over this catastrophic risk definition. And yet, we're putting it in the law right now. Ahead of time, on purpose, super vague, ready to go, make the trial lawyers rich. That's what this bill is mostly about, frankly. Is making a bunch of lawyers rich because they're going to be arguing about this stuff till doomsday. Let's talk about a little bit later in section two, I think, which starts on lines 121. It's just a paragraph. This is about extremely large frontier developers. And, again, it's got an arbitrary number in there, and in excess of $500,000,000 in gross revenue. $499,000,000. You're off the hook. Are we regulating mostly out of state actors? Because I don't know of any AI large frontier developers in Connecticut that have over half $1,000,000,000 worth of gross revenue. Through you.

Through you. Currently, there are none. It would only be, again, this section goes towards requiring a process for allowing people to anonymously make a complaint and providing those whistleblower protections, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you again for the answer. But it should make everyone wonder why the state of Connecticut would be debating policy that is well beyond its ability to control. Why are we talking pg/rr 150 about large frontier AI operations that don't exist in Connecticut when we don't have any authority over them? It doesn't make any sense to me. So lines 134 through 135 is very interesting, because now we start to talk about how they are going to be in a position to discharge, discipline or otherwise penalize employees because of a potential whistleblower. I get the goal here and I do want to make sure that everyone understands that I'm not opposed to someone raising the red flag if someone's going to advance a computer system that's going to nuke the planet. Okay? I'm okay with it. I think that's a good policy. The problem I have is that we're reaching our legislative, bureaucratic, government arm inside of a private company and dictating what their hiring practices are. And I just don't think we have a right to do that. I think that's extremely dangerous. And for me, again, without being -- the word comes across as angry and combative, but all I think of when I see policy like this is arrogance. I see that the majority seems to think that they have the right to dictate to everyone how to live, what policies you can have what kind of company you can have, what you can do with that company, who you can hire, what the rules are. There's no respect for individual autonomy. There's no respect for freedom. They're debating bills in the other chamber that are going to dictate what people put in their very body. If there was ever something that I could point to that suggested the difference between the political parties, it's that world view. I believe in individual liberty and freedom. I believe people should make their own decisions. I also believe these corporations should be able to make their own decisions. When they cross the line into causing harm, we should act. But this is acting before anything ever happens, without any certainty that anything's going to happen. All it is proof that the government has the power to control the people. And pg/rr 151 that's something I want to push back on as hard as I can, which is why I'm here debating this bill. So let's just bump ahead to section six. Actually, before I do that, I want to talk a little bit about section four. Forgive me, I have so many notes, and they're all over the place, it's hard for me to keep track. In fact, I even skipped the entire sandbox thing. Can I just ask on section three, which is the sandbox legislation? I'm trying to understand, because it seems like a bit of a disconnect. In some respects, this bill seems very, very harsh in the regulatory scheme on the subject of AI. But the sandbox thing seems like the complete opposite. It's like we are a two headed monster and one of those heads is like, we should go full force trying to develop AI because it means jobs and opportunity. And on the other hand, we're like, we should stop AI today because something terrible is going to happen. So can I just ask through you, Mr. President, what is the deal here? Which approach are we actually on? Or is it true we're going to have both.

Through you, Mr. President, I don't think that they are mutually exclusive. I think the majority of people want to feel safe, and we're not going to see the true economic opportunity from AI, and the true impact on our state will be felt by broad based adoption. We are not going to see broad based adoption until people feel safe. In tech, there is the mantra to move fast and break things, which unfortunately, we've seen has sometimes had impacts on real lives. We've seen what has happened with social media where right now, one in four teenage girls has had a major depressive incident in the last year. One of the leading causes of suicide for young people, or one of the leading pg/rr 152 causes of death for young people is now death by suicide. What we are saying in this bill is we want innovation. We want responsible innovation. And instead of move fast and break things, we want to shift to what John Wooden, the UCLA basketball coach called hurry up, but don't rush. We want to innovate, but we want to make sure we're doing so safely and thoughtfully, and that we're bringing along all Connecticut residents. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much. Mr. President, I appreciate the good gentleman's comments, but they are very -- let me just say, clarifying. Because this is the complete opposite worldview that I have, which is that people are free. Businesses, individuals should be left to their own devices to innovate, to create things. I say all the time in this Chamber that we are the greatest country on earth because of the innovation of our people. And this is a bill that is not about going slow and being careful. This is about telling people that if they're interested in this type of technology, that you're not welcome in Connecticut, frankly. That do not come here, do not bring your company here. Because if you do, we are going to regulate you out of existence. And based on a supposed threat of something happening. And I appreciate the examples made by the good Chairman about the tragedies that have occurred with some teenagers committing suicide, maybe related to their interactions with social media. But those are decisions that are outside the purview of the Connecticut General Assembly. They just are. Whether or not a teenage girl who is depressed should be on her social media and making poor decisions is really not up to the Connecticut General Assembly. Now, if pg/rr 153 you're talking about trying to prevent a crime from occurring, I'm all for that. And I want to be careful here because I recognize that there's a lot of people that are leaning on portions of this bill based on the supposed intent. We're going to save people. This is about online safety. You're not creating online safety. You're not. You're regulating industry is what you're doing. It's also very hard to understand what we're trying to do. In section four, we talk about artificial intelligence companions. And there's all these definitions in here. An interface that provides adaptive human like responses. Okay? So if you ask me what the answer is to two plus two, I'm going to tell you four. I suppose a calculator would do the same thing. If you put in two plus two, it will tell you four. So am I doing a machine-like response, or is the calculator doing a human-like response in that particular case? Through you, Mr. Chair -- Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. So the human like response comes from -- artificial intelligence, as we know, is not new. Artificial intelligence as a science, the term was coined in 1956 at a Dartmouth conference. One of the initial things when they were discussing artificial intelligence is called the Turing test. The Turing test was to tell if you were interacting with a machine or a human. And so by going through a process, could you tell whether or not it was a machine making those responses to you or a human? So we've reached that time when computers, artificial intelligence can now pass the Turing test. And so that's what it means by the human-like. And so since that was just a one instance, like is the two plus pg/rr 154 two four, or is the calculator performing it if it enters that? I would say the calculator is not necessarily human like at that time, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate the gentleman's response. I'm just think that what we're doing is we're creating very difficult questions because this section effectively is creating the potential for a great deal of liability and enforcement on private entities. And they need to know whether they're coloring inside or outside the lines. And when you say that this is something that generates a human-like response, who's going to decide what a human like response is or what a anthropomorphic feature is, or even better, what is likely to elicit an emotional attachment? These are very subjective terms, and they will ultimately, like the things in the previous section that I mentioned, be litigated. We're going to end up in courtrooms, arguing over whether or not the answer four was human like or not. And that's what I'm afraid of. You shouldn't be creating policies that are so complex that it is very hard for us to answer these questions, even in a theoretical situation. Because at some point, if this bill becomes law, there will be no more theoretical situations. We will have actual businesses. We will have actual courtrooms and we will have actual high paid attorneys making boatloads of money arguing over it. And I think that it's our obligation to try and write a clear law to begin with. And I think humanlike response is a completely subjective term. We could have done a better job of defining that, in my view. In section five, can I just ask, we're looking at lines 266, I believe. Which is this -- pg/rr 155 actually, my line numbers are probably off, because I think this is the start of the section now. Those line numbers were from the previous version of the bill. No operator should provide an artificial intelligence companion to a user unless the artificial intelligence companion includes a protocol that at a minimum uses evidence based methods. Can I just ask, where is the definition for what evidence based methods is, through you, Mr. President? Because if I'm one of these operators, how am I going to know whether I'm coloring in or outside the lines again, through you?

Through you, Mr. President. This is a term of art that would be akin to industry best standards. And so there are recognized practices in industry for pruning in these types of protocols. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I keep asking a lot of these similar questions because I'm trying to prove a very, very easily to prove point, which is the fact that this is going to be litigated. The fact of the matter is that when you say you have to use evidence based standards, but then you don't suggest what those are in any clear way in the bill, what's going to happen is that term of art, as the good Chairman referenced, is going to be debated in a courtroom. And they'll decide what evidence based standards are. And maybe that will stand up as president long into -- pg/rr 156 precedent, rather, long into the future. But I don't know that. On lines 295 to lines 299, it talks about if the artificial intelligence campaign detects any user expression, it should refer the user to the appropriate mental health evaluation and treatment resources including the National Suicide Prevention. And I get where this came from. This is a bunch of layman sitting around talking about how to solve the problem of someone talking to a chatbot that might be suicidal. And this is what they came up with. Well, it shouldn't advise them. It should just call tell them to call the hotline. Frankly, I don't think that's a very intelligent solution. I agree we shouldn't have people that are suicidal talking to chatbots, But I don't know if there's a way to actually fix that. And this attempt is not going to get us there because I don't think that it's appropriate for people to be engaging in what really is mental health counseling at this point. As far as this policy goes in this section of the bill, that's what you're asking of the AI operator. Going from -- to lines 317 to 332, it looks like. This is the section that says that if you are a minor that is engaging with an AI operator. And again, I just want to keep going back to the fact that the definition includes a lot more than those large scale operators that were described. But this requires that the operator has to provide a static written form of notice that is visible throughout the entire interaction with the user or, in an audible or written form at the beginning of the first interaction. And if the user is younger than 18, they have to get that notice at least once an hour. And then it says if the user is 18 or older, then they have to get the notice every three hours. Can I just ask, through you, Mr. President. Where did this policy come from? Is there any evidence? I'm just going to have fun here and say, is there any evidence based method that says that's going to going to solve anything for you. pg/rr 157

Through you, Mr. President. This is policy in the state of Maine, state of New York, recently passed in the three hour notification was policy in Maine, New York, California, and Oregon. The state of Washington was the first state who changed that for youth to have it one hour. The state of Nebraska is at 30 minutes. The reason why is just to make it clear and remind people that this isn't a friend. It is a technology that's communicating with them. The concern is -- my concern is as much for senior citizens as it is for children. Senior citizens are not digital natives. And there are many products that are made and marketed to them because we know there's a loneliness epidemic in this country. And so we just want to make sure that they're not confusing that for the actual companionship or the advice of another human. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate, Senator Maroney's desire to save everyone. But the fact of the matter is this reads to me like the Connecticut Democrats putting forward this bill. Think you're too stupid to realize that you're interacting with an AI. I mean, that's what it says. And what's worse is that they don't just apply it to children. I get it. If you're under 18, we want this to flash on your screen once an hour to remind you you're talking to a machine. You're not talking to a person as if they don't know. pg/rr 158 Come on. But the fact of the matter is you want to do it to adults too? What if I want to engage with my chatbot as an adult? Why do I have to get some notice that you think is a good idea every three hours to remind me I'm talking to a chatbot? This is just the kind of madness I'm talking about, where the government seems to think they got a right to stick their nose into your private business. By the way, imagine if they started to tell people that write books, that on like every tenth page of the book, it has to say, you are reading a book. This is not real. You are not in Oz. Come on. Our constituents, the people we represent are smarter than that, and they deserve better than that than to have policy dictating things like this to be put in front of their nose. We live in a free society. We live in a society where people are actually able to make their own decisions. We have a government at the choice of our constituents. They choose us to come up here to make their laws. We are not their overlords. We are not their kings. We shouldn't be telling them how to live. They want to make choices as adults. Let them make their choices. To me, that's one of the most frustrating sections of the bill. I mean, I get how the majority gets away with doing all of this excess regulation in the cases where children are involved because it's real easy to go, it's for the children. Okay. But what about the adults? Why is it such a good idea to start regulating to adults? Section six also goes on to use a lot of terms. Again, more vague terms, a manipulative technique. Someone in the courtroom is going to decide, well, what's a manipulative technique? Excessively praising. Telling you that you're smart or you're handsome or you're beautiful. How many times be is excessively. That's going to get argued in a courtroom. That is not clear. Fostering inappropriate emotional dependence. What is fostering? What is emotional? What is inappropriate? Can I ask, through you, Mr. President, why are operators prohibited pg/rr 159 from a long list of outputs to minors based on what they, quote from the bill, know or have reason to believe about age. Through you.

Through you. These are additional protections for minors who are utilizing companion chat bots. We had seen last year in a Connecticut insider article, that a number of children have been led into inappropriate sexually explicit or inappropriate conversations with chat bots. I've even had in discussions with an intern, who also interned in a middle school. She said in just the previous week, she had witnessed two of those conversations in the school happening. And so this is just to make sure that we are putting in protections for children when they are using this. So if it has -- knows or has reason to believe you are under the age of 18, they have to institute these protocols to attempt to prevent these things from happening. Again, utilizing industry best standards for better.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. So to my point, it's for the children, so we're allowed to regulate every last ounce of behavior. So let me ask this question. Isn't it like a very straight line from point a to point b to say that if you're going to regulate these AI platforms based on what they can or cannot possibly know about someone's age. That they're immediately going to turn around in an effort to protect themselves from liability and start instituting verification systems for age that they'll pg/rr 160 know you're now going to when interacting with anything online. And frankly, more than that, again, go back to my definition, that I shared with you guys. The fact of the matter is you're going to have to put in your credit card to prove you're an adult now to interact with your mobile phone every time you pick it up. Because that's what this is the thing that is leading us towards. I lost my place in my notes here. Through you, Mr. President, can I just ask? Is there any concern or thought put into my suggestion that this is going to cause these platforms to start being very aggressive about restricting access unless there is a verification of identification, or they're just going to become risk averse? And they're not going to give anyone the same experience that previously existed. In other words, your model T is now only going to go four miles an hour because at five miles an hour, it becomes dangerous. Through you.

Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. This does not require strict age verification. That has been tried in some states. This is a standard that is similar to the standard we passed in our children's state of privacy bill, SB 3, in 2023 . That passed unanimously through both the Senate and the House, where if you have actual knowledge or willfully disregards in that bill, this is similar that if you know or reasonably believe that someone is a minor, you have to put in those protections, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Again, I appreciate my colleague for taking the time to answer me, but I didn't really get an answer to the question I was asking, which is that, I got it. The bill does not require it. That was kind of the basis of my question. But you've created a landmine field for them if they don't. So my question was, isn't that going to mean that they're going to turn around and do that automatically? And we'll see how it plays out. I'm sure I'm correct, though. This is what happens. When governments go ahead and institute rules and they pass laws, what happens is the public reacts. They're like, we've got to do something different now because now there's a new law, a new rule that says I can do this and I can't do that. And these AI platforms don't want to get sued by Connecticut. They don't want attorney general, this one or any future one coming after them over something as subjective as whether or not they could clearly state whether they were dealing with a minor or not. This leads me to lines 400 to line 405. No operator shall provide an AI companion to a user if the operator knows or has reason to believe that the user is younger than 18. Again, we're talking about children again. Unless the operator has made available to minor users and their parents or legal guardians tools to manage minor users' screen time and account settings. So now this section, in my view, takes another giant leap. Now you're not just regulating the user. You're not just regulating the platform. Now you're suggesting what the behavior of the parent should be. Why is it that this section is included in the bill from a policy standpoint? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you. Thank you. Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. This is not mandating the behavior of parents. It's making tools available for parents who may choose to use them. I would not likely utilize those tools, but there are similar tools on social media platforms. We did have an online safety center that we required as part of our children's, privacy bill. And so this is just again, making sure that we're having these tools available, which in many cases already are available, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I appreciate that we're just making tools available to the parents, But what we're doing is basically saying that parents are now obligated to follow this process if they want to comply with the requirements the Connecticut legislature has. Not the AI provider, not their kids' desire to use any particular machine based platform that has inputs and outputs. No. It's going to say that the government is going to dictate under what circumstances that can happen that now involves the parents. For me, that's a stretch. That is a stretch, trying to engage the parents in this legislative network of pathways that you have to make it to be able to achieve the goal of using one of these platforms, which used to be a straight line and now is a maze that has to be navigated. Section seven is something that in previous iterations of the bill, I heard a great deal about from industry in the state. They're super concerned of what this very broad based policy is going to do to their hiring and the decisions they make about their personnel. pg/rr 163 This is a section that says, automated employment related decision technology. Okay? And this is a technology that processes personal data and uses computation and generating output including but not limited to. Again, when you put including but not limited to, boy, you're just opening up the world to everything at that point. You're not specifically saying if you misuse this in this way, you're just saying, we're going to interpret it later down the road. Any prediction, recommendation, classification, ranking score, other information that is a substantial factor to materially influence an employment related decision. There's more to the paragraph, but that's basically it. So now it basically says that if you were an entity, any business in this state, and you use any type of machine based input and output system to determine whether or not you are making automated employment related decision technology. Now you have opened yourself up for all kinds of let's say, scrutiny from the government. Am I incorrect, through you, Mr. President, to suggest that this could capture ordinary human resources, screening, scoring, or recommendation tools that are already in use by many, many employers, through you?

Through you, there are many services that are already being utilized, that are actually already complying with this. New York City local law, which in -- went into effect July 1st of 2023, goes way further than what this requires. So this is the definition section, and then later on, it goes into requiring the disclosures if that is being used to materially -- well, as a substantial factor, which pg/rr 164 means to materially alter the decision. So it does set a level for when it may need to be -- the disclosure may need to be made through you, Mr. President.

What I'm hearing, through you, Mr. President, is that many, many employers, large scale employers, hospital systems, and so forth, they may get hundreds of thousands of job applicants. And those need to be screened in some mechanized way. So, yeah, they use a software system to do that. That doesn't mean they're using that system in a discriminatory way. And I get the goal here, but it's kind of odd to suggest that somehow some automated mechanism is more likely to be biased than a human based one. But I think that's what this is saying. I'm very concerned that this is going to get many, many employers caught up in a regulatory scheme. That's laid out in sections seven of the bill that they're not going to be able to comply with at least on any kind of level that allows them to do without tremendous expense, again, passed on to consumers. People that are listening to this are probably aware that Connecticut is one of the most expensive places to live in the entire country. And make no mistake, it's because of bills like this. It's because of the regulatory environment in the state of Connecticut that continues to impose more requirements and regulations and higher standards on employers, on industry, on individuals. All of those things ultimately lead to higher costs. And this bill generates a lot of costs on its own. The fiscal note is pretty substantial. We could talk about that when we get there. But there you are. You're going to be paying taxes for all this new regulation. And all of these companies that have to pg/rr 165 comply with all this regulation are now going to pass those costs on to their consumers. And all the products that we're purchasing are going to cost more as a direct result. So, I mean, is it worth it? Section nine. This is an interesting section. This requires a disclosure. And I'm trying to remember what this disclosure is about. Is this, through you, Mr. President, requiring a disclosure when any business entity is using a, quote, unquote, automated employment related decision technology, through you?

Through you, this requires a disclosure if an applicant is interacting with an automated employment decision technology, if it would not be obvious to a reasonable person that they are interacting, in fact, with an automated employment decision related technology.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I bring this up only because it's yet another example that will be litigated into oblivion because who's going to determine whether it's actually obvious? No disclosure shall be required under circumstances in which a reasonable person, what's a reasonable person would deem it obvious. What's obvious? What's not? That such -- excuse me, that such person is interacting with an automated employment related decision technology. It should be written more clearly, in my view. If somebody is operating, interacting with an automated employment related decision technology, and you wanted to pg/rr 166 say that in every case, the disclosure must exist, or it should only exist in certain circumstances, I think that's fine. But when you leave it up to subjective terms, like a reasonable person will think it's obvious, you're opening the door for litigation. Okay. Moving on. Let's do section 10. I promise I'm not going to do every section because they probably don't all deserve such, direct scrutiny. Section 10. Let me see. This one is about a deployer. A deployer is a business that is deploying the automated employment related decision technology. Say that three times fast. So let me ask you this. It says that the deployer has got to disclose the categories and sources of personal data and how the data is assessed before a decision is made. Can I ask the reason for that, through you, Mr. President.

Through you, would the good Senator repeat the question?

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm reading on section 10. Section 10 is all about the deployer having to provide the personal data and how the data will be assessed before they make a hiring decision. So I'm just curious about that. What's the reason for having to do that? And more importantly, if there is a legitimate reason for maybe protecting against the potential for some sort of bias being involved, which I'm guessing is the answer. Isn't pg/rr 167 there a concern that risks releasing internal hiring decision making processes that might be proprietary, through you?

Through you, the purpose is disclosure so that people know what is being used. The belief is that there is a right to know. Many people believe that you have a right to know if an automated employment decision making technology is being used to make an important decision about your life. In other bills, we've seen it defined as a consequential decision. If the believe that you have a right to know if AI is being used to make an important decision about your life. We don't go into any of the other rights that have been talked about in terms of the right for a human review, the right to opt out. This is a disclosure that you have that right to know if the automated employment related decision technology is being used to make an important decision, what that decision is, the purpose it's being used, the trade name of what's being used. And it's not all, it's the categories of data. So the types of things that they may look at in making the decision. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'm going to try and, move along a little bit. I've been kind of hammering the same types of points over and over again because they repeat throughout this bill, which is a steady reference to increasing the authority of the attorney general. pg/rr 168 A repeated use of subjective terminology that will ultimately end up in a courtroom being litigated at great expense to all the parties. It just goes on and on and on. And I have something I could probably say about virtually every section. Section 16, is all about the case pipeline, the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering. This is the section that concerns me greatly because what we're doing is we're taking a bunch of non-elected people, and we're putting them in a position of developing and proposing legislation. Last time I checked, that is the responsibility of this legislative body. I noticed in line in section 17, lines 927 and 934. This is all about involving all of the stakeholders in developing policy going forward, and everybody under the sun is included in this thing. The board of regents is in there, the Charter Oak State College, the Labor Department, the State Board of Education, the Connecticut AI Economy, workforce investment boards. Everybody's involved in this whole thing. You know who's not involved in any of it? The parents. There's no parental involvement in developing any of this policy that has to do specifically with minors interacting with social media and AI platforms. Nothing at all. Section 18 is one of the more alarming sections of the bill. It comes up with this creation of something called a technology court. It's like, wait a second here. Can't we just go back to having regular court? If you harm someone, if you defraud someone, if you steal from them, we got laws for all those things, as I said from the outside of this outside of this debate. You do not need special crimes because the tool involved was AI. We don't have special rules that say, if you send an email to someone and defraud them, that's not different than defrauding them in some other way by sending them a letter or calling them on the phone. It doesn't make sense. There's no need for it. The crime is not the use of the AI. The crime is the stealing. The crime is the pg/rr 169 defrauding. All of that is just an excuse for the government to regulate. And that's what I want people to realize, that this bill is just using examples where crimes have been committed using AI as an excuse for the government to come along and to control behavior and regulate AI. That's all it is. And it's not even necessary. I don't know. Let's just ask the question. I would love to just get an answer. I might get an answer that blows me away here. But through you, Mr. President, is there some type of crime that we would actually consider a crime, like harming someone or stealing from them or defrauding them? Is there some type of crime that involves a victim who's actually harmed that is created or addressed in this bill that doesn't previously already have a law associated with it through it? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. The bill clarifies in areas where it needs clarification as technology, as the world changes, we know we often need to update our laws. In the General Law Committee, we pass a new alcohol law every year, even though alcohol is thousands of years old. We need to update those laws. And so we are looking at updating some of our laws as well as creating some new laws to stay consistent with the technology. Through you.

Thank you very much. Mr. President, I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that we're -- all we're doing is we're updating our laws, blah blah. We didn't hear pg/rr 170 while a new crime where someone is harmed by AI specifically is being addressed. People are defrauded by AI. Guess what? They have a mechanism already. If people are harmed by something. The examples that were already provided, there are lawsuits ongoing that will probably be successful against the social media operators against the people that are involved because those things already exist. As I said, all that has happened is the existence of AI and the prevalence of AI in our day-to-day discussions as a society is nothing more than opening a door and excuse to the majority to decide that this is a new thing and we've got to regulate it because that's what they do best. Section 33, which is about the IVOs is very concerning. This is basically saying that you're going to create a mechanism where we're going to let some businesses that we select as a government decide whether or not you're a good actor or not. And by the way, after they give you that good housekeeping seal of approval that was described earlier, it doesn't matter. So I don't know why anyone would go through the process, frankly. There's double standards like crazy. If you go on at the end of section 33, 1598 through 1606, it says that evidence of verification or good standing provided the IVO shall be admissible solely in a civil action brought by a private party, but such evidence shall not be admissible when the attorney general is looking at you. These are not the types of things that we should do as a state government. We should not create uneven enforcement of our laws. We should not create mechanisms where people are treated differently based on their circumstances. And we should not be empowering people like the attorney general to decide whether they want to selectively charge or penalize or enforce the law against the entities that they choose. That is just not the way to do things. In section 39 of the bill, I found something rather interesting. There is a major conflict here on lines 1969 pg/rr 171 through 1975. This says no covered operator shall allow a covered user. We're talking about minors, to use a device if the user is a minor, that's what it says. And then later on in the same exact section lines 2084 to 2093 says, as a default setting, minors shall have a maximum of one hour per day. This is a direct conflict in the bill. These two things do not go together. One says one thing, one says another in the same section. I, for the life of me, could not figure out why. There's a lot more to say about the language of the bill. And as anyone listening, probably realizes, I decided to kind of move on from our section by section analysis, pretty quickly. But I just want to wrap up and say a few things and I will tell the good Chairman that he's off the hook for me for the rest of my comments. 'Cause I just want to say a few things, and wrap this up. I want to remind people that this is not a narrow online safety bill. As I mentioned earlier, this is a regulatory framework that is basically reinventing how we are going to tell an entire industry, a national global level industry, by the way, that we're attempting to regulate as the little itty bitty state of Connecticut. It's government overreach, plain and simple. We're creating additional authority for the attorney general while limiting private rights of action for others. It sets up working groups to regulate general purpose AI models. It sets up technology courts. This is just an expansion of bureaucratic and government control. More than anything, This bill is going to burden businesses. It is going to stifle innovation. Connecticut is already a difficult place for people to do business, and this is just telling an entire industry, basically, the next frontier of industry, the next big technology, and Connecticut wants to put a big flashing neon sign to say that we are the one place you don't want to go to. It makes no sense. We should be trying to welcome people that want to embrace new technology. pg/rr 172 Imagine if Henry Ford was coming by with his brand new Model A, and we said, no. We can't have those car things on the road. That's what's going on here. And we did okay. It was probably a little bumpy ride at the beginning dealing with cars when they were a new thing. I get it. And the AI thing is a little bit of a bumpy road too, but this is a massive takeover. There are not clear legal standards anyway in this bill - - anywhere in this bill. If I had to list all of the subjective terms that will ultimately litigate it, I guarantee it's over a 100 terms in this bill. Substantial factors. What's substantial? Reasonably, reason to believe? Manipulative? What's manipulative? It goes on and on. It's also very clear to me that the way this bill came to us today, multiple strike all amendments, sections added, sections dropped, sections that are duplicative, sections that have direct conflicting language right in the same bill, that this is just a cobbled together mess of policies that the folks in the majority could not come to agreement on and kept arguing about until they finally came up with what they've presented to us today. It would not surprise me in the least if we came back with another bill later to change something that's in the bill that is in front of us now. We should be encouraging innovation in Connecticut, not regulating it out of existence. We should be supporting families who want to make decisions about how they determine whether their children are interacting with AI or social media, not inserting government into their decisions. And we should be passing thoughtful, targeted policy on the subject of AI, not sweeping 39 sections, 71 page omnibus bills to try and control everything in an emerging industry. I've got to vote no, Mr. President. I just can't support this in its current form. Thank you.

Alright. Good evening, madam -- I'm sorry. Not madam. Excuse me, Mr. President. I'm used to saying Madam President. I rise for just a couple clarifying questions for legislative intent, to the good Senator. And I'm hoping that the sections haven't changed since I put my questions together, but we'll go through it really quick. So it was section four at one time, and I wanted to just be reassured that the language in section four is not intended to interfere with licensed health care providers who use AI technology, including chat box when working with patients. And the reason that I ask that is some of our children's hospitals use chat bots to contact their pediatric patients after surgery. They may say, how are you feeling after surgery, etc.. So I just wanted to pg/rr 174

Senator Maroney.

So I just want to be clear that nothing in that section is intended to interfere with a licensed health care provider in the course of clinical care or activity, care coordination, patient education, or health-related communication. That this would not affect that because they currently use chatbots to be able to communicate, especially with some young patients, and that was of concern for me.

Hold on. All right.

Through you.

You are correct. Actually, an even more clear exemption would be, Line 248, any artificial intelligence system used solely to provide health care-related education, clinical support, medication adherence reminders, disease management guidance, or other treatment support functions. So, through you, that is not the intent. We want to allow those uses, those safe uses that, in that instance. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to the Good Senator for that answer. I just have a couple of other questions. Again, this is for legislative intent and clarification. Again, I'm not 100% sure if these sections have changed or not, but there are several labor and employment sections in the bill. And because these are very new restrictions and evolving technology, what is the mechanism that we pg/rr 176 would have to cross-check the requirements and/or the restrictions so that we know if they're good or if they're bad for business, good or bad for employees or employers? Is this something that the DECD, for example, might be studying or looking at? How are we going to know if we pass this bill today that these restrictions we're putting on how they're going to affect our businesses, and how we would evaluate what we've done here today? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. I did it too. I was so good the whole time. I've been wanting to say it. Through you, Mr. President. There are two sections in the bill that actually call for studies from the UConn Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy. One is we want them to study the impact of AI on the workforce. And then the other is we do ask them to do an analysis on the pilot program for the IVOs because that was, again, to test and see if that would increase the trustworthiness and adoption with the IVO. So, there are two places in the bill where we're actually engaging with UConn to do a study. Through you. Thank you for that question.

Yes. Through you, Mr. President. It's wonderful that UConn is going to do the study, but I'm not sure. Or do they have the expertise to truly evaluate how this affects small businesses, employees, and pg/rr 177 employers? I know you said workforce, but I would think that somebody like the Department of Economic Development would have a better understanding of how it may affect businesses. So, through you, Mr. President, is that something that we would consider or you would consider looking at, should we not get the information from UConn that we feel is adequate to make an evaluation of how this bill may affect businesses?

Through you, Mr. President, thank you for the question. I agree that often enough, we don't do cost-benefit analysis on the policy that we pass here. And so I would offer that in the working group, we say or other topics related to artificial intelligence. So this should be something we look at in the working group to make recommendations going forward, if we need to formalize some form of an evaluation policy. So, through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the questions.

Yes. Thank you to the Good Senator for his answer. My last question again for legislative intent and clarification is simply, Section 33 or former Section 33 sets up really what I would consider an elaborate pilot that will be overseen by the Department of Consumer Protection. And I was just curious as to exactly what that pilot is for, and pg/rr 178 does the department have the expertise to actually carry out this pilot? Through you, Mr. President.

Through you, Mr. President. Thank you for the question. This is an idea that a number of states are looking at now. Virginia has what they call a Joint Council on Technology, where they'll review bills in the off-season. Anything that goes through the JCOTS process, typically, if it passes through that process, ends up becoming law. But it's proposed in Ohio and a number of other states. So, we are looking at doing it on a smaller scale here to try it as a pilot program. Currently, I would say DCP does not have anyone on staff. And so it's likely they would have to hire one person to oversee this program. But we are talking with the other states, but also there's an organization that is helping to put forward this idea. Through you.

Yes. Thank you for that answer. So, through you, Mr. President, if DCP would have to hire another individual with maybe the expertise to evaluate the pilot, is that in the budget? Do you know if that's in the budget, or is that something that they would currently be taking out of their open positions at DCP? Through you, Mr. President. pg/rr 179

Through you, it wasn't in the budget. It was passed last year. And as we know, we haven't passed the updates to the budget yet. And so it would then be, unless additional money were allocated through available appropriations. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I didn't remember that being put into the appropriations budget. I could be wrong, but that's why I want to ask the question. That's all the questions I have at this time, and I thank you for standing here and answering all the questions that I had to get on the record for legislative intent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and Senator Maroney, I don't have any questions, so get a little break. I just want to speak briefly in support of the bill. Last year, we did a bill related to artificial intelligence. And while I voted for the bill, I got up and gave a speech about some of the issues that I saw in the bill, particularly around protections for human beings. pg/rr 180 I heard a lot about business, whether small or large, or people wanting to come to the state to do business, and the new frontier, and all of that. What I really didn't hear a lot about were people, the folks that will be affected by the things that we do here. And I have a lot of concern about people. I have concerns about folks' ability to find work. I have concerns about folks' ability to have housing. I have concerns about all of the issues of discrimination. And the framework that we have for our anti-discrimination laws deals with human beings. So, we deal with intention. We're not dealing with human beings. So we need to think about a new framework. And a new framework would mean that we also need new laws that speak to the reality that we're in. So some would say, and you've heard today, some say, well, we have laws already to deal with this. The problem is that human intention, and the way that the laws have grown up, mean that the systems that we're dealing with, these artificial intelligence systems, are operating in ways in which our laws have to make a stretch in order to make them work for the reality we have. Now, we could do that and hope, or we could be proactive as we are being here. And maybe if you ask me, individually, we might not be doing enough, but at least we're moving forward from last year. We could say, listen, these are the new laws that deal with the new systems we have. You see this in the medic case in 2012. There was a question of whether there was intention or not. It doesn't matter. The systems feed off of data, and the data is what it is. And some of that data has bias built into it. And so whether you have intention or not, it plays out in the real lives of real people. This body would be irresponsible not to when we have the ability to deal with that. So we are here today, at pg/rr 181 least in part, to deal with those things. That makes a lot of sense. If you understand AI, even to some of the owners of AI, this is a black box for them. They don't know whether their data is transparent or not. They don't know all of the inputs of the data, which is why we deal with transparency and explainability. So from my perspective, particularly as somebody who doesn't get to walk through this world, and everything is just the way it should be because it's built for me, particularly as one of those folks, I want us to be moving in this direction because of the new framework, because of what the technology means. And so I would hope that as we move towards a vote sometime later this evening, we think about not just the businesses. We think about not just whether folks are going to want to come here. They're going to want to come here. That's going to happen. Sometimes we overplay that hand. I hope that we think about the people who have to experience what it is to live in the state of Connecticut, where artificial intelligence is at play. And where the legislature that is supposed to represent them has the opportunity to do something about how it's going to impact their lives. And tonight, when I vote, I will be voting in the affirmative on this bill because we are actually making the move that I wish we had made last year. So I want to thank Representative Maroney. I watched how much he's worth here, and I see one of our house colleagues up in the gallery up there. So I think there are a lot of folks who've put input into this to get us to this point, and I'm thankful I don't have to make the same speech I made last year. Thank you, Mr. President. pg/rr 182

Checking. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to make a few comments about this amended bill. Mr. President, I wanted to start by thanking Senator Maroney for his leadership and the work that he has put in, and also Senator Duff. This is a very important bill. I wanted to highlight two cases, and these two cases are recognized and published as well. The first one is of Ms. Johnson. A few years ago, one of the larger health care systems started to look at the services that were going to be provided to the patients. And this health care entity was using artificial intelligence to identify the patients who were with significant medical problems so that appropriate resources could be placed to be able to improve the outcomes. Ms. Johnson was a classic case, an African American woman who actually had diabetes, hypertension, and also had coronary artery disease and renal insufficiency, which means that she had multiple organs that were involved. If you look at all the organs that were involved, she would have been the classic candidate to get the health care from this algorithmic system of artificial intelligence that was created. However, Mr. President, she never received the care. She never received the care, but everybody else around her with different demographics received the care. And when they identified that she was not receiving the care and her outcome was moving in the wrong direction, they started to look at what the major issue was. Why was she not able to get the care? pg/rr 183 The reason was that this was an AI system that was looking at the cost of expenditure on health care as the way to identify the ones who are using more health care, and that would be the issue. But the reality is, many people in our communities, many people in our country, many people, while they have multiple illnesses, they're not necessarily getting health care. Either they are working on two jobs. Either they do not have access to health care. And as a result, that algorithm failed. That failed not only her, but the entire community. This is not a coding error. This is actually a decision and design error. And that's very real, and many of the people use this term that our blind spots are still invisible. So when artificial intelligence uses the technology, our blind spots do not necessarily improve. The invisibility worsens. And that's why it's important to have laws and then conversations which would actually address how we take care of this responsibility. Another case is that of a 14-year-old young boy. Madam President, this 14-year-old young boy felt lonely and was able to download a bot and started to have conversations with that bot about some of the stresses, the anxieties, the difficulties that he was facing, and he would have conversations with this bot every day. This bot became a friend of this individual, at least a perceived friend, and this bot would say all the things that this young boy needed to hear. This child was going through some difficulties. And in some of these vulnerable moments, when he was seeking help, there was no teacher. There was no friend. There was no individual who could identify that this child was moving towards a high-risk situation. And the bot, rather than helping out in that situation, deescalating the situation, pg/rr 184 escalated the situation, and the child killed himself. This was a death that was caused by artificial intelligence by the bot. The things that are invisible to us, the invisibility gets worse with artificial intelligence. We have to have the humility to understand that there is a problem, while we can talk about all the good things that are there, and absolutely, there are good things that are there, and we must embrace all the good things that can allow us to be at a far higher level of our abilities to perform and do things well. But we have to have important conversations and pauses and protections in place. If we don't want to listen to the people who are the vulnerable ones who have been impacted by this or their families, you have a responsibility to at least listen to the ones who are owners of some of these biggest companies. At one point or another, the biggest owners of these largest companies who are now worth multibillion dollars, have said that we need some guardrails to be able to make sure that this does not go out of control. Senator Maroney, your bill, Senate Bill 5, is just allowing us to be able to move in that direction. This would not be the first bill of this kind because this is evolving so fast that the conversations we had last year and the year before are conversations that are even changing because the technology is advancing so rapidly. The coding and the new generation that are coming and asking and telling us the vulnerabilities in everything that we do are getting more apparent to an average individual, with something that one in a billion people could identify what could be done and do, God forbid, harm society. Now, an average child can find those through some of these technologies, and that is outright dangerous. And that's why we pg/rr 185 need to have these conversations, and we need to have a bill like this. So I will be wholeheartedly supporting this bill, and we need to continue the conversation. We need to protect our society. We need to protect the people, but also listen to the experts in the country and the world who are saying that we need to be cautious. It is a technology which will not go away, but it's a technology which we should embrace, but embrace with humility and understanding that we can do harm with it too. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for this opportunity.

Good evening, Madam President. Good to see you up there. I'd like to begin by acknowledging the really tremendous efforts that have been undertaken by the proponent of this bill and Senator Maroney's passionate commitment to understanding artificial intelligence, the science, and the technology, but more importantly, the impact that it will have on society and public policy. I truly want to applaud him and compliment him for his remarkable effort. But I also want to acknowledge his colleagues on the General Law Committee, Representative Lemar, as well as Senator Cicarella, Representative Rutigliano, and the countless other technical experts. Having sat through as part of the AI caucus, that's been led by Senator Maroney throughout the past couple of years, we have talked to more people across more states in understanding the policy. I think one of the things for our debate that has undergone today has been, it's very easy when you pg/rr 186 talk about AI to go into the weeds. Sometimes the popular culture and the idea that AI and the impact of AI is half realized, half frightening, but also half ifs. So I think this policy effort, as we've done in the last two or three years, led by the efforts of the General Law Committee, but also regarding the impact that it has on policy and the people that we will impact as lawmakers, is what we're going to debate here. Through you, Madam President, I just have some particular questions in regards to the balance that we need to have. It is no doubt in my mind that public policy and the societal impact in protecting our youth are most vulnerable. And at the same time, the possible mechanical and algorithm abuses that may impact from a nonhuman contact. That's what we're trying to address in regards to understanding the impact of AI and how we're going to try to regulate. But through you, Madam President, to the proponent of this bill, I'd like to find out what some of the recent passages that have occurred specifically in surrounding states to us in New York, and what the recent legislation is as it relates to AI, and I have always understood it that through their Governor and through their work efforts in the legislature there is much a narrow [inaudible] to ensure that marketplace and business competitiveness is not hampering. So through you, in this case, the surrounding state of New York and their policies on AI, because it will directly impact us as the state of Connecticut, and the businesses that operate within our state that could easily cross over to states that don't have it. That was one of the concerns last year when a bill passed out of this committee that was potentially rejected by the administration. So, through you, what is going on in New York and the passage of recent bills? Was it much narrower, and pg/rr 187 how does this bill, Senate Bill 5, differ from what the law passed in New York? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. New York State has passed a number of bills related to AI. One, their Empire AI program. They are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in increasing access to compute for their universities and residents, and spending significantly on a competitive advantage in New York. So that's one. So the Empire AI program. The RAISE Act, which was passed last year, goes beyond the large language models in terms of how they are regulated, in terms of making sure there's a plan to prevent these catastrophic risks, and the number of other requirements beyond just protections for whistleblowers, who would report companies creating these risks. Part of our bill is modeled on what was in the New York state budget last year. So in the New York state budget last year, they created regulations around the first -- Maine required the chatbot labeling, and then I believe that was after New York State. New York State passed in their budget, and thanks to Senator Kristen Gonzalez, that if a user expresses suicidal ideation, it must shut down the conversation and point them to resources. So, in addition, in 2021, New York City, which is significantly larger than the state of Connecticut, where many of the residents of Connecticut actually work in New York City, passed New York Local Law 144. New York Local Law 144 requires, in addition to the disclosure on the employment, bias audits, it pg/rr 188 requires annual audits as well as a number of other, I believe, post-decision notice as well, things that we don't have. So New York State, I would say, has gone much further in both the economic development incentives for AI as well as in the regulations to ensure that it is safe use. As far as chatbot laws, a number of them have passed throughout the country so far this year, and more will pass. Maine updated their disclosure law to do a mental health chatbot law. Utah has done a mental health chatbot law. Illinois has done a mental health chatbot law. This year, Washington and Oregon passed bills. California has passed a bill. But I believe Nebraska's bill brings that notice that we discussed earlier from an hour down to only 30 minutes if you're interacting. So we are nowhere near the first state to act. And we are, I would say, behind both New York and Massachusetts in terms of actually investing money in our competitiveness and economic development around AI. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. And I appreciate the clarification of that because that was going to be my second question is what are the potential AI legislation that's being pre offered or passed in Massachusetts? As the Good Chair of the General Law articulated, I completely agree with the commitment to economic development and supercomputer resources. On the Bonding Subcommittee, we made a commitment to be able to offer to UConn in their supercomputing initiatives to be able to have the latest and best to be able to compete. It's critical for us, and I pg/rr 189 know there are components of this bill. And there are many components of this bill I like, particularly following through on past year's bills of the AI Academy, the focus on education, and the ability to really reinforce the AI initiative. Because if we're not up to date in education and advocacy, then we will fall behind. I think the other critical part that I want to applaud the Good Chair again, and the General Law Committee has been to protect the most vulnerable, our youth. And the Good Chair argued in his debate that seniors can be significantly impacted as well. So I applaud that arena as well, but I struggle. I struggle with the fact that we have two states surrounding us that have made an economic development commitment, supercomputing, and education, because in their mind, it is a competitive business advantage to be able to channel AI, innovation, training, developing, and creating an environment that hires, recruits, and retains the highest, the best, and the brightest. That's what I worry about this bill. This is why I worry about this bill, because at the end of the day, we are potentially throttling back the real need to be innovative, to be able to be creative, to have the best and the brightest, so that we are in a very challenging business climate, where our businesses struggle with high energy costs, taxes, and affordability. The real challenge I have in struggling with this bill is the best of intentions, but unfortunately, we may be creating a roadblock that hampers business success. Business innovation. The Good Senator and I participated in multiple forums. We talked about the innovation, the exponential potential of AI in creating economic sustainability and viability. The real concern is that if we pass potentially restrictive bills like this, then we throttle back. pg/rr 190 So through you, Madam President, just an extension, even for a state that is outside of our surrounding neighborhood states in Colorado, which has the mantle of the first in the country to have passed an AI regulation bill. Could the Good Senator update us on the implementation of that bill that was passed nearly two years ago, in which their vote hesitated and measured against the economic impact? Not to go into the weeds, but to be plain and simple, the economic impact and the chilling of that to control and regulate AI, its algorithmic, its application, the pitfalls that may befall it. So through you, what has happened in Colorado in the first in the country passage, but their governor had put a hold to evaluate the potential business impact? Could the Good Senator, a proponent of SB 5, articulate what has happened in Colorado? Have the business considerations been addressed by the legislature and through the governor's implementation of the first-in-the-country bill? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. First, I just want to repeat, part of my answer to the last question, because I'm not sure if the Good Senator heard me. New York State is significantly more restrictive in its regulations, as well as embracing economic development. They are not mutually exclusive. We've seen AI regulations passed in a number of states. Texas, the Texas Responsible AI, TRAIGA, Utah. These are bipartisan issues in many states. As far as Colorado, its law is set to go into effect on July 1. There have been, as with any big bill, and we've seen it with a number of bills where we pg/rr 191 come back each year to refine them. They are looking this year in the legislature. There are potential changes. I believe they adjourn on May 7th, and as of yet, do not have a compromise bill. So, I do not know what will happen there. It's probably a 50% chance that the bill goes into effect, the way it is, unless they can reach a compromise. Through you, Madam President. And, actually, I apologize, Madam President. Well, they were the first to approach decision-making. Utah actually passed the first AI bill in the country. It was a chatbot labeling bill. Through you.

Thank you. And I want to thank the good proponent. No one knows AI better than Senator Maroney. He's done some remarkable and tireless work. But he offers something that is exactly my concern and caution. He cited that New York has been one part passionate about advocacy, education, awareness, and utilization of AI. On the other breath, he said, it will have passed some of the most restrictive, protective actions in the country. I disagree with him when he says they are mutually exclusive with each other. Because, unfortunately, real-life marketplaces, businesses that need to make or break decision-making can't bank on if. They can't bank on which end of the wait. I'm not even going to do six or seven, whatever that works. You can't balance what a business needs to decide. New York has made that bet in hoping that it would be able to maintain that delicate balance. What if New York is wrong? How do you recoup those businesses that will now go to other parts of this country that do not have those regulations? We've pg/rr 192 seen the pitfalls of New York and some of its policies with the best of intentions. The taxation of the wealthy that we always argued has the mobility to be able to lead the states in which they're being taxed. I think it was recently that New York Governor Hochul publicly stated to many of the New York residents, because of the high taxes, left the state of New York and went down to Florida. I think she actually made a public plea for those residents that have fled the high taxes of New York. I worry that we may be losing a competitive advantage to follow suit with a state that may be making a bet, as the Good Chair articulated that they will have one of the most restrictive AI algorithmic legislation passed. But at the same time, they are betting that we are going to generate creativity. We are going to generate economic initiatives. We are going to make businesses want to be in the state of New York. That's a heck of a bet. Great if they're right. Terrible if they're wrong. And the only people faced with that dilemma and having to make that decision are businesses. Businesses do not have the luxury of saying, " Oops, we made a mistake." Businesses will have mobility and decision-making based upon how it's going to impact what they do year after year. That is my dilemma with this bill. There are so many components of it that are well-intentioned. And I supported this bill in the past in regards to internet privacy and youth protection. But last year's bill raised a compelling, balanced question. Do we pass bills that present the specter and the pearl of business decision-making? We're not operating in a vacuum. We're not operating in an intellectual working group of what if. We are dealing with people's business decisions and the implications and impact that if they have to do pg/rr 193 business somewhere else, they will leave our great state. They will take their employees. They will take their revenues. They will take the initiative. That's the fear. I understand why we are pushing so hard because, unfortunately, there is no national policy that will regulate this kind of AI impact and algorithmic societal impact. But are we willing to roll the dice and impact businesses who says, maybe I'll just do business on Rust. I've talked to economic development programs throughout the state. But I've also had opportunities to talk to economic development directors in Georgia, in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida. They call Connecticut businesses seven times a week, offering them a better business climate. Will this be another example that they will use to say come to our state? It's not just about the weather. It's about a business climate that allows your business to be able to prosper, to be able to be innovative. It's a difficult decision. I read this bill, and I'm amazed, and I'm going to compliment again the great effort that this committee has worked to craft. But the ultimate message and the challenge I have is, are we pushing so hard that we've forgotten the realities of how businesses operate? Not in a committee hearing, not in the intellectual debate, but businesses that are happening in the real world. So I really want to close without complimenting the Good Chair, and really the good intentions for this bill, but I cannot support it because it sends the wrong message. That we are going to do what we can with the many parts that I liked here, protecting the algorithm's impact of society, but at the same time, at what costs, and will we be the teachers of these lessons? Or we wait, observe, and allow others pg/rr 194 to go through this, like New York, like Massachusetts, like Utah, like Colorado. Maybe in our patience, maybe in our waiting, with expertise that's been demonstrated by the proponent of this bill and the committee that oversees that, that we could be able to gain the best of the best without putting our businesses, the impact that this far, if it may be profit or may not be correct, could have a devastating impact, or even worse for our businesses at our great state. So I will be voting no, but I hope, and I want to close by acknowledging that this is an issue that we need to be vigilant, we need to be proactive. I want to acknowledge that the Governor's office, as well as the office of Economic and Community Development, has been at the forefront, and the Commissioner has been equally relentless as the Good Chair of General Law, and I'm not [inaudible] praising and I'm not speaking for them, but that they have taken the approach that we need to be cautious and why the urgency that perharps the end from the mistakes brothers and now have to live with the consequences of the possible mistakes that we may be making. So I urge caution, and I want to applaud the effort and the blessings that have wormed through this whole process, but I hope that we will delay this process, and I hope my no vote will look to the fact that I support the idea, I support the initiative, I applaud the work, but I don't want put Connecticut's businesses and the economic sustainability, viability of our state at risk. There's no harm in waiting for passage so that we can learn the lessons from the other before us. So I thank you for your time, Madam President. I want to thank the good proponent of the bill for his efforts, and I urge that we pause and not move forward with this bill and vote no. Thank you. pg/rr 195

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. And Madam President, I rise in support of the bill, and I listen carefully to the debate. And I respect the comments just now from my friend, the Senator from Fairfield. Oh, states across the country are all wrestling with the same issues. We see this as an enormously promising technology that has the potential to improve the lives of countless residents, to provide jobs and new cures for diseases, and to support economic potential beyond our wildest imaginations. It also has significant risks to all forms of society, including our economy, to lost jobs, to potential for discrimination, certainly risk to children, and, of course, a much bigger potential, catastrophic risk to our species in some cases. But the thing that we are doing is all wrestling with the same question, which is the role of the states. And the previous colloquy that we heard was specifically talking about one state in particular that we're always mindful of, which is our friendly rivalry with Florida. They have us beat for alligators and for mosquitoes, but we have better pizza. But we are always trying to do what we can to make sure that Connecticut is competitive in our nation, that we're competing for jobs, and also making sure that we have the best quality of life. I do want to acknowledge, though, that Florida is a leader in this specific issue, which is in standing up to the industry that has said that they want no regulation at any level, at the federal level or the state level. And in fact, I saw a quote recently that an AI tool is only as good as the data that is pg/rr 196 input. Garbage in, garbage out. Whoever controls the data inputs will have immense power to shape the reality for hundreds of millions, maybe billions of people, in ways that could make the truth a foreign concept. The man who said that was Governor Ron DeSantis in his State of the State address, just a few months ago. And he was doing that because he has been an outspoken defender of the right of states. That what he believes is the obligation of states to step in and provide some rules of the road. I don't think this is an easy issue at all. We're all not just talking about it in this country, but we're also in a great power rivalry with the Chinese and other folks who are racing to develop these new AI tools. And I don't think anyone is suggesting that we follow the European Union and really have very strict regulations that might hamper development. The question is, how do we focus on the priority populations? Children, discrimination, displaced workers, to make sure that we have protections, that we don't stifle innovation. I think Senator Maroney, Senator Duff, and their great partners, including Representative Delaney in the House, have really struck a fine balance here that moves the ball forward. It is a difficult issue and probably one we'll have to take another stab at going forward, but this is an important bill, and I'm happy to support it tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, first of all, I want to compliment Senator Maroney for what he's done on this bill. I watched him for a pg/rr 197 couple of hours now and just answering questions. And I think he's brilliant in this field. For him to rattle off answers, statistics, and data, there's definitely a piece of some type of AI hardware in his mind. So, kudos for what he's done on this bill. But I don't know too much, Madam President, about AI. I asked myself how much do I know. And I think wasn't until last year at this time that we're talking about AI. I bought a couple books. I was able to read one, real fundamental. And the next one, probably take me up a little bit. But I find it absolutely fascinating that what we are talking about is the ability of a computer to be able to think like a human being, from thinking, learning, and problem-solving. Then from there we've creating robots that are human like. And who knows what is going to happen within the next 10 years or so. But what I do understand, and I say 10 years, is that this is happening very quickly. It's growing at an enormous pace. And just to give you some numbers, what I found here is the market itself, it's projected to go from $150 billion today to $1.3 trillion by the year 2030. That's only four years away. That's significant economic growth or impact. That growth is just accelerating at a speed that's lightning. It's definitely changing our world and it's creating fear, and I think this bill looks to address some of those fears. Particularly, the ability of these machines or the AI industry to change jobs. Changing of jobs, I'm talking about the loss of jobs. That is definitely going to happen. But as well as the new jobs that are on the horizon. The AI industry is covering the health care industry, the education system, the finance world, and the military, cybersecurity, etcetera. It's the innovation that is what the businesses this AI sector is creating and how it's enhancing productivity and making things more economical. pg/rr 198 We're going to lose some jobs, but we're also going to gain some jobs. And those jobs is exactly what we here in this building are trying to accomplish is that we want higher-paying jobs. I think this industry is going to be leading the forefront into this. You're looking at data scientists. You're looking at software engineers. You're looking at business intelligence developers, etcetera. We're going to see an increase in products. We're going to see an increase in services in markets that we haven't even seen yet, all in a very short of time. I think, though, and I believe that there are ethical implications in this industry, and we got to find a balance between the ethical principles and that innovation that this industry is bringing to us. I've heard my colleagues here. I understand the limitations of regulations and the importance of it, and that we shouldn't be hindering our businesses from success, etcetera, with regulations. But at some point, I believe that there's a definite value of formulating guidelines for industry. We've got a phone here, great technology. It's pretty much run on its own for a while. But now we're heading into an area where this industry is becoming almost human-like. Should we pause and take a look at that industry a little bit closer and put regulations on them and guidelines so that they behave the way that they should? I think we do. I think it's important that we create these guidelines for research along with transparency, making sure that the public is protected, and particularly our youth. So I heard that there are other states that have taken a lead on this, and now that we're about to do the same when enacting this piece of legislation. I'm going to be voting yes, first of all, because of some of the things I just said here, regarding the pg/rr 199 ethical portion of it in particular, but I think, bypassing this, we're going to be sending the feds sort of a message. I really do believe this is a federal issue and their guidelines need to come from the federal government and then down to us. But in the meantime, I think this is a good way for our state, along with the other states, to put pressure on the federal government to say, "Hey, get your act together, get this thing done, give us industry standards that we all can follow, and give us those rules." Not only in the state, our government here, but also in other countries as well. I think we're going to see that take place. So Madam President, I highly support this bill. Again, thank you, Senator Maroney, for the good job that you've done here.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And just to build on a little bit of what, Senator Martin had said, I agree that ideally this would be a federal issue, and there would be one standard. But what we've seen in tech policy is that the last major comprehensive privacy bill that was passed by the federal government was in 1998, and that was the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. At least until last year, there was the Take It Down Act, which was a little more narrow. Many of us, as state legislators, have seen what happened with social media and how that got away. And said, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And so, while we're not going to be 20 years late, like we were on data privacy, we'll probably be five to ten years late on the AI pg/rr 200 regulation. So we're moving a little more quickly here. And I do, again, to build on what Senator Martin had said, is that jobs will be lost, but jobs will be created. The jobs that will be created there are not necessarily a one-to-one skills correlation between the jobs lost and the jobs that are created. And that's why it's important that we start thinking together as a state now of how we're going to educate and upscale and reskill our residents. The Bureau of Economic Research says that 60% of the working population will need to be reskilled by 2030. In Connecticut, that's a million people that we need to reskill. We had over 2,000 go through our AI academy last year, so we're on our way there. But we need to make sure that not just people who have computers now are getting access to this training. And that's why we want to make sure that we're partnering with non-profits like CIFAL. We know through our digital equity survey that 27% of Connecticut residents were connected to high-speed Internet. Over one-third failed basic digital literacy. So we need to get our residents digitally literate than AI literate to make sure that they can compete and that we have the most AI literate workforce in the country, which will make us more competitive. I want to thank Senator Lesser for his words. And, yes, Florida Governor DeSantis has put forward an AI bill of rights. This is a bipartisan issue around the country. We have seen Texas pass its Texas Responsible AI Act. We've seen Utah be one of the leaders in tech policy. So, these are laws that are passing around the country. I also just wanted to take a moment to say, why is it important? What's the why? We've seen, unfortunately, with social media, we have seen harms. With chatbots, we've seen harms. We've seen pg/rr 201 that move fast and break things can have real impacts on real lives. And unfortunately, we've heard of the worst cases, the murder suicide that happened in Greenwich, the death by suicide that in Florida. There have been cases in Colorado and in California. Those are the worst cases. But we also know that sometimes these machines get things wrong, and they make recommendations for jobs. And we are not requiring testing here, we're just requiring to let people know if it's being used to make an important decision about your life. And why is that important? Because eventually, once people take the recommendations, research shows that 90% of people will accept the AI recommendation. And so we want to make sure that if it is making a recommendation, it is fair and accurate. We know that it as we heard before, this is based on data, and I think Senator Lesser said garbage in, garbage out. We're at risk of taking the data from all of the world as it is now and perpetuating and amplifying our biases going forward, and giving it the name of science. Because it comes from a computer, it must be true. Without thinking about it, testing it, or assessing it to make sure that it's fair and accurate. And I think Senator Winfield had talked about last year, his disappointed bill hadn't gone far enough. And so, I'm going to end, before I say my thank yous, with last week, I was talking at a conference, and I brought up the difference between AI discrimination and discrimination in the real world. And I think I said the good thing about AI discrimination, but you can't really say there's anything good about any discrimination. And one thing to know is that discrimination impacts us all. There's racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and age discrimination. There are pg/rr 202 many ways that AI systems could have a disparate impact on your opportunities. But I said that the good thing is that you can identify and test for discrimination or disparate impact in an AI system, and you can fix it. But then the woman brought up, well, how can you say that's good? And I said, well, I meant to say that the difference. The other thing is that people aren't going to identify and test for that unless we pass policies to require that to happen. And again, we know that we're at risk of accepting those decisions as we look at again 90% of people accept those and take that with the sign that's a science-based background. So, that's why it's important that we start to have the transparency to know what is being used to make the decision and to update our laws where necessary. Again, to work to make sure that in past technological revolutions, Senator Martin alluded, you lose jobs, and new jobs are created. We've always had more jobs created than were lost in technological revolutions. This may be the first time we don't. We don't know. We might, but we have an obligation to make sure we're lifting all of our residents up to make sure that everyone has the ability to compete. So with that, I just want to say a few thank yous. Thank you to Senator Looney and Senator Duff for their support over the last couple of years. Thank you to Senator Cicarella, Representative Lemar, Representative Rutigliano from the General Law Committee, Representative Delaney, and the other members of the AI caucus for their support this year. Again, this has been something. This has been a collective effort. This has been an effort. We passed our first data privacy law. I think since we passed that, we actually, in 2022, wrote in our pg/rr 203 first AI task force in the state. So this is something that we've been working on for years here. And one thing we know is that alone you can go fast, but together you can go far. And so I look forward to having the support and working with all of our colleagues because we have a long way to go to make sure our residents are protected and able to compete in this new economy. And with that, thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and good evening. I think this is the third time I've had to give a wrap up speech on an AI bill, and I was thinking of asking ChatGPT to write one for me. Thank you. I appreciate it. In lieu of that, I wanted to ask my colleagues to support this bill, and really simple reasons for doing so because of the fact that our residents are asking for this, and we actually came into this not from a position of weakness, but from a position of strength. What I mean by that is this is not a goal where we're worried about whether or not businesses will leave the state of Connecticut or not. My belief is that the businesses that are here and businesses that are likely to come to Connecticut will look at this walk and view it as a balance, as an equal, as one that provides the necessary guardrails that businesses need to be able to predict their own models and be able to predict the rules of the road. And so rather than having other states where it's literally it's the Wild West, anything goes. And it's almost like a race to the bottom. pg/rr 204 Here in Connecticut, with the strength of this law, we're able to then be able to provide businesses with the ability to see those guardrails, which will provide better protections for our constituents. That's why I think this is a good idea. This is why it's been a good idea for the last four years. This is why I think it was a good idea 10 years ago. We weren't there yet to be able to do it, and we're seeing more and more and more where AI is infiltrated into our lives, which is not necessarily a bad thing in all cases. But without the necessary guardrails, we can all see, as has been described throughout this debate today, where it can go terribly wrong. And just to think, potential employees could be discriminated against. People may not get the health care that they need. Others may get rejected from a rental property or apartment. We, as a state, have laws already about that, but we need to catch up to technology. And I think that's why this bill is so important and why it's important that we are here today. It would be a grave mistake, a grave mistake for us to wait any longer to pass this bill. The door is almost virtually closed on passing strong AI legislation. I'm assuming in the future, at some point, we're going to have to continue to build upon the law that we will hopefully have this year, as we have done with our data privacy. As technology changes and advances and moves, we'll probably have to do that, but we have to lay the foundation, and that's what we're here to do today. So this has been a lot of work from a lot of people. I want to, of course, thank Senator Maroney for his work on this. Representative Lemar, Representative Delaney, Senator Cicarella, and all those on the General Law Committee. Representative Rutigliano as well. It seems like we're going to have a good bipartisan vote today, which is great. But this has pg/rr 205 been a lot of work to get here, and we're so fortunate to have Senator Maroney, literally, as a national expert on this issue. Wherever we go in the country, he is viewed as a national expert on this issue. So this is not a fly-by-night idea. This is not words on paper. This is an actual good policy that is predictable and reliable that businesses always ask for all the time. This is a Senate priority bill, Senate Bill 5. So thanks to Senator Looney for all his support and dedication to ensure that this is an issue that is front and center. And thanks to our staff, of course, for all their work behind the scenes, because we never could stand here and talk about these things without their work as well. So, Madam President, I would urge the chamber to support the bill, and let's get a law that provides the necessary guardrails that protect our residents and that builds for the future. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President, and thank you. And I rise today, first off, I do want to thank Senator Moroney for his work. Whether we agree on some issues or not, there is no doubt that his devotion, his hard work, and his intelligence on this issue certainly put us in a very strong position on General Law, in regards to being on the cutting edge related to artificial intelligence technology and the regulation thereof. So thank you to him and his work. I also would be remiss if I did not mention Senator Cicarella, his good ranking member, who has worked, I know, diligently with the chair, on the language pg/rr 206 in this bill and the regulations, and the provisions within the legislation, which is critically important and complex. But that's also one of the reasons I rise, is that I do have reservations. I appreciate the work that's been done on this bill. I appreciate the fact that the causes are noble. I appreciate the fact that there are things that we absolutely have to legislate in terms of protecting children, in terms of protecting individuals from things such as revenge porn and the utilization of AI in inappropriate ways for individuals, making their lives very difficult, miserable, threatening, and harassing. And so there are all things that we should come together in a bipartisan fashion as a legislative body to legislate the things that we absolutely all agree upon, and we know for a fact also won't stifle legitimate good investments as it comes down to artificial intelligence in our state. But that's the complexity of it, because as we come together and agree upon a lot of things that we absolutely should be legislating to protect, as I mentioned, there are residents from artificial intelligence being used in inappropriate ways against them, or in a harmful way towards them. Again, complete agreement with that. We also have a bill that's very large and complex and addresses many aspects of artificial intelligence, that's in addition to all that. So that's really the crux of what I'm standing here discussing here today, because I think that is the aspect that leaves me with some reservations over the bill. Again, complete agreement on the basics of protecting our residents from the harmful aspects, but also at the same time, respecting the fact that this is a unbelievably complex cutting in text technology, that we could be creating a regulation pg/rr 207 or a piece of legislation that impacts a certain provision or an aspect of it that could potentially either stifle investment here in our state as it relates to AI, and also at the same exact time prevent individuals or businesses from utilizing AI in a way to help and enhance them in a positive way. I also am in fear of crafting legislation in the state of Connecticut with four million people, on a technology that is really unknown, evolving by literally the second, when frankly, this should be done at the federal level. Now, ultimately, the federal government is not doing their job here, admittedly, in a bipartisan fashion, frankly. And that's the reason why states are left to try to legislate and regulate this in the fashion that we are here today. But I also believe, philosophically, it is over-encompassing for a state of four million people. And then ultimately, you have a case where one by one different states implement regulations and legislation surrounding it that could be different, depending on the state, which is just not an appropriate way to handle such a complex technology that has overcome not only our state, not only our country, but frankly our world, in ways that we couldn't have even imagined just three or four years ago. And so that's my reservation. Is it are we doing the appropriate thing? I think, as I said, there are aspects of this where everyone agrees, whether it's social media protections, protections for minors, protections against individuals that could be harmed by AI, by individuals looking to do bad things, complete agreement, and I think that we could ultimately vote on that easily in a bipartisan fashion, unanimously. But it's the parts outside of that where there is debate, where there is question about what we are pg/rr 208 doing with this technology, whether or not it's stifling investment, whether or not it's prohibiting a company from doing something in a positive way with artificial intelligence, whether or not we're going to be regulating something that may become impractical when other states legislator regulate this very complex technology. And that is the debate in my own mind. I think it's the debate within my own caucus. I think that's why you're going to see some of our senators support this measure because there's aspects that we can all agree upon, but also why you may see opposition, not because of any disagreement, as I said, on the issues protecting our residents, but frankly, because of the unknown as to what unintended consequences we may be ultimately implementing by regulating a technology we are just learning about by the second and being one of the few states in the country to actually have legislation on it when it really should be done, as I mentioned, on a federal basis. So with that said, I thank Senator Maroney for his work, Senator Cicarella, all those involved staff, and thank you for your time. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I ask leave of the chamber to withdraw my motion for a roll call vote on the amendment.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. So, will you remark on the bill as amended? Good evening, Senator Looney.

Thank you so much. Will you remark on the bill? Will you remark? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk, announce the vote, please.

Have all the senators voted? Have all the senators voted? The machine will be locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally if you will.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. If we can go back to an item previously marked PT, Counter Page 32, Calendar 323, Senate Bill 89, mark that go.

pg/rr 213 And then if we can put another item on our go list, Counter Page 41, Calendar 379, Senate Bill 259. I'd like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President. Followed by Counter Page 56, Calendar 261, Senate Bill 9.

As go, please.

Page 32, Calendar 323, Senate Bill 89, An Act Updating the Prison Rape Elimination Standards.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move the acceptance of the joint committee's favorite report and passage of the bill. pg/rr 214

Yes, Madam President. Before us is the bill, as the title would suggest, it updates the present rape elimination standards that we have in the state. What the bill does is it codifies PREA, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, as it stood on January 1, 2024. And the executive branch agencies that incarcerate, the folks in our state would have to comply with PREA, as it stood at that point. Madam President, this bill also requires that the Department of Corrections adopt regulations to implement these standards. It also expands the responsibilities of the correction ombuds that we've had some conversation about this session, and that we still have in its nascent stage, I would say. And they will be receiving reviewing reports as it deals with the issue of prison rape and assaults. Madam President, in addition to the bill as it lies, there have been some conversations, and there's an LCO that makes some changes to the bill. I would ask that the clerk who is in possession of LCO 4419 call it. I'd be granted liberty with the chamber to summarize.

Senator Winfield. pg/rr 215

Thank you, sir. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Kissel, good evening.

Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment? Will pg/rr 216 you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I just want to bring to the staff's attention and your attention, Madam President, that for over an hour on the previous bill, I was listening in my office, and many of the senators could not be heard on the CTN network. So whatever changes are happening to the microphones, they have to expedite that because people that were viewing just could not hear certain of our colleagues as they debated that very important bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I stand in support of this bill. It is unfortunate that there are rapes and sexual assaults and other assaults that occur in our correctional facilities here in the state of Connecticut and throughout this great nation. And it's not always what one might consider a correction officer versus an inmate. It can be inmate on inmate, or it can be correctional officer on correctional officer. pg/rr 217 Indeed, we just had a report on the women's facility in the last year, where it was reported that there were various assaults in various spots in the women's correctional facility. Whether they were sexual or not, there are certain areas within our correctional facilities where there are no cameras, and it's very difficult to detect bad behavior. And so this is a pernicious problem that we have to stay on top of. And so this bill, as amended, makes sure that we're on the right track, and that we will continue until this abuse between people in a facility where we have the responsibility to maintain the health and welfare of these individuals, whether they're convicted criminals or not, whether they're corrections officers or not. Until this is eradicated, we will stay on this issue, and I completely support this bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. So I rise in support of the piece of legislation. I think it's very important for us to codify the Prison Rape Elimination Act in our statutes and not just reference federal legislation. Because federal legislation can change, and then we're copying something that we may not necessarily agree with. And I think our state is right to stand up and codify this within the confines of our statutory language. I think it's really important, a number of years ago, before I was in the legislature, Senator Kissel pg/rr 218 may remember this when Senator Prague was here. We had a similar problem that was happening within the confines of our correctional system, and we worked really hard to make sure that that did not happen again. We really need to stay on top of actions like this, because they have a habit of creeping back. Without having language like this that's codified within the umbrella of our language, we will not be able to -- can you grab me a water? I apologize.

I was so proud of this chamber to come forward with this piece of legislation. This is something that should never happen within our prison system. And the people that work there are equally needing of protection, and that's codified within this language, I do believe. No one should be in a facility where we are responsible for them and have that action happen. Sexual assault and sexual harassment should not be accepted within our state. We just should not allow it. I want to thank Senator Marx for bringing me some water. I think it's really important for us to get this done, and I'm hoping that it's one of those pieces of legislation that is immediately effective. We can't, just cannot, allow this activity to continue. And I fear that without this, we are seeing a reversal from something that we had stamped out amongst a very proud group of workers. So, I thank Senator Winfield, Senator Kissel, and all those that were involved in getting this to fruition. I think it's well deserved that we get this through. Thank you very much, Madam President. pg/rr 219

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the We're voting on Senate Bill Number 89 as amended, An Act Updating Prison Rape Elimination Standards. We're voting on the bill. This is the bill as amended. Senate Bill Number 89. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill Number 89 as amended. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 41, Calendar Number 379, subsequent Senate Bill pg/rr 220 Number 259, An Act Concerning the Female Genital Mutilation.

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. Before us is a bill that we've been working on for quite a while. I believe that, should acknowledge that Senator Kissel, several years ago, brought this bill before the Judiciary Committee and even got it in front of the chamber. Interesting conversation we had back then. But over the years, this went from a bill that Senator Kissel was trying to push to a bill that, at least the Judiciary Committee I can speak for, has been desirous of moving forward. What it does is it establishes a crime of female genital mutilation, and it prohibits victims of this mutilation from being judged incompetent due to age. It authorizes civil actions. And it really updates our statutes along with many of the other states who've already moved forward on this in a way that we should. And Madam, President, I would urge passage and hope that we finally pass the bill. pg/rr 221

Thank you very much, Madam President. I would like to thank Senator Winfield for bringing this bill forward. It was about eight years ago when two elderly women from the town of Somers brought this issue to my attention. I was frankly astounded that this was taking place in the state of Connecticut. I was happy to champion the effort at that time. Amazingly, this bill has been very difficult to get across the finish line, and I am hoping that this is the magic year. As Senator Winfield alluded to, and I believe Madam President, you will recall as well, there was a debate I had in the wee hours in this chamber with then Senator Kasser, who asked some very interesting questions that were difficult to answer, but I did my best. For this particular issue, unfortunately, in the land of steady habits here in Connecticut, we are an outlier. We are one of the few states that do not ban this horrific practice, and even the federal government has a website dedicated to how pernicious and bad this practice is. And so we really should just get this behind us and move forward, and make sure that this is a criminal behavior that is responded to, with the full force and credit of the law, and make sure that this stops being an abuse that happens to our young women throughout the state of Connecticut. I would urge my colleagues' support. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Act Concerning Female Genital Mutilation. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill Number 259. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Bill Number 259.

Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we're going to have some referrals, but if I can just mark one of our bills, I mark go, Counter Page 56, Calendar 261, Senate Bill 9. Just refer that to the Finance Committee, please.

And if the Clerk can now call Counter Page 27, Calendar 291, Senate Bill 457.

Senator Lopes.

And question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO number 4410, Senate Amendment "A". pg/rr 224

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

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment makes the bill significantly different than it came out of committee, narrowing it down dramatically. It gets rid of just about everything. It leaves one section on an issue called transhipment, when dealers willfully collect and charge a refund value on beverage containers not sold in the state of Connecticut. It is somewhat of a work in progress. We're going to refer it, and continue to work on it.

Opposed. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Senator Duff. pg/rr 225

Off it goes, sir.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Yes. So ordered.

Thank you. The journal will still note.

Very good. Thank you so much.

(gavel) We are adjourned. Go forth and govern. (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 8:53 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the chair.)