CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-07-23

Thank you, Madam President. Bless us with an inner strength on this opening day of our session in the 250th year of the United States of America. Please grant our hearts grace as we come together for deliberations. As we face many needs and challenges, give us the ability to be judicious. God bless our leaders, our people, and our democracy. Amen.

gm/rr 2 Thank you both. And at this time, I would like to recognize the President Pro Tempore of our State

Senator, thank you so much, and I would like to introduce Senator Harding for a few remarks.

Applause. (applauding)

Thank you so much, Senator. It's now my pleasure to introduce our Senate Majority Leader, Senator Bob Duff. (Applauding) gm/rr 6

Thank you, Senator Duff. And Mr. Clerk. I'm calling on you, Mr. Clerk, because I do understand you have some business on your desk, sir.

Senator Duff.

Thank you so much. Will you remark? Because I understand you'll be moving all of those items. Yes?

Thank you, Madam President. On Senate Agenda No. 2, would the Clerk please call Senate Resolution No. 1?

Senator Duff.

Thank you. Let me try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

I have the honor to inform you of the following Interim Appointments made by the Governor since the adjournment of the 2026 General Assembly: gm/rr 11 Joshua Wojcik – of Brooklyn, appointment as Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, effective December 5, 2025, in succession to Jeffrey R. Beckham, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Joshua Hershman – of Guilford, appointment as Commissioner of Connecticut Insurance Department, effective December 12, 2025, in succession to Andrew Mais, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Susan Hamilton – of West Hartford, appointment as Interim Commissioner of Children and Families, effective September 2, 2025, in succession to Jodi Hill-Lilly, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Elena Trueworthy – of Mansfield, appointment as Commissioner of Early Childhood, effective October 1, 2025, in succession to Elizabeth Bye, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. gm/rr 12 Christina D. Ghio – of Cheshire, appointment as the Child Advocate for the Office of the Child Advocate, effective October 17, 2025, in succession to Sarah Healey Eagan, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Shannon Jacovino – of West Hartford, reappointment as Director of the Office of the Developmental Services Ombudsperson, for a term of four years, effective from the date of confirmation, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Thomas Wiehl – of Madison, appointment as Chairperson and Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, effective October 21, 2025, in succession to Marissa Paslick Gillett, nd serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Janice Beecher – of New Britain, appointment as Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, effective October 28, 2025, in succession to Katherine Scharf Dykes, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. gm/rr 13 Everett Smith, III – of Greenwich, appointment as Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, effective January 5, 2026, in succession to Michael A. Caron, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Holly Cheeseman– of Niantic, appointment as Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, effective November 3, 2025, in succession to John W. Betkoski, III, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Denis J. Nayden – of Jupiter, FL, reappointment as a member of the Board of Trustees for the University of Connecticut, effective June 5, 2025, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Andrew J. Carlson – of Milford, appointment as a member of the State Board of Education, effective September 16, 2025, in succession to Juan C. Salazar, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. gm/rr 14 Hansika Lenkala – of East Granby, appointment as a non-voting student member of the State Board of Education, effective August 18, 2025, in succession to Sophia Messina, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Samarth Basanth – of South Windsor, appointment as a non- voting member of the State Board of Education, effective August 18, 2025, in succession Sreenidi Bala, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Sonia J. Worrell-Asare – of Windsor, appointment as a member of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, effective July 19, 2023, in succession to Andrew Cascudo, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. George Barrios – of Fairfield, appointment as a member of the Board of Trustees for The University of Connecticut, effective November 5, 2025, in succession to Marilda L. Gandara, andserving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. gm/rr 15 Richard I. Vogel – of New Canaan, appointment as a member of the Board of Trustees for The University of Connecticut, effective November 5, 2025, in succession to Kevin J. O’Connor, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Patricia M. Feeney – of Plainfield, appointment as a member who shall have experience in manufacturing or a trade offered by the Technical Education and Career System , or who are alumni of the system, effective January 7, 2026, in succession to Christine Benz, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Honorable Barry F. Armata – of Suffield, appointment as an Alternate Judge of the Superior Court who is not also a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Review Council, effective December 30, 2025, in succession to the Honorable Maximino Medina, Jr., to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Honorable Eugene Calistro, Jr. – of Guilford, appointment as a Judge of the Superior Court who is not also a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Review Council, effective October 14, 2025, in succession to the Honorable Susan Quinn Cobb, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular gm/rr 16 session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Honorable Tammy T. Nguyen- O’Dowd –of Bloomfield, appointment as a Judge of the Superior Court who is not also a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Review Council, effective October 14, 2025, in succession to the Honorable Theodore R. Tyma, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Honorable Christine Perra Rapillo – of Cheshire, appointment as an Alternate Judge of the Superior Court who is not also a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Judicial Review Council, effective December 30, 2025, in succession to the Honorable Tracy Lee Dayton, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. Evan Pitkoff – of Ridgefield, appointment as a member of the State Board of Education, effective September 16, 2025, in succession to Allan B. Taylor, and serving until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. gm/rr 17 Dr. Ryan G. Flanagan – of Ridgefield, appointment as psychiatrist experienced with the criminal justice system and not otherwise employed on a permanent basis by the state, of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, effective June 24, 2025, in succession to Dr. John Betti, to serve until a successor Gerald T. Weiner – of Woodbridge, reappointment as a neutral labor arbitrator of the Education Arbitration Panel, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, and until a successor is appointed and has qualified. Linda J. Yelmini – of Windsor, reappointment as a neutral labor arbitrator of the Education Arbitration Panel, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, and until a successor is appointed and has qualified. Glenn Powell – of Collinsville, reappointment as a neutral labor arbitrator of the Education Arbitration Panel, to serve until the sixth Wednesday of the next regular session of the General Assembly, and until a successor is appointed and has qualified. Governor Referred to the SENATE Committee on Executive and Legislative Nomonations: gm/rr 18 February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Section 4-65a(a) and Sections 4-5 to 4-8, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint JOSHUA WOJCIK of Brooklyn, in succession to Jeffrey R. Beckham, to be Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, to serve at the pleasure of the Governor, but no longer than March 1, 2027.

Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-19, and 17a-581, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint WAKANA HIROTA of Berlin, in succession to Renesha L. Nichols, to the Psychiatric Security Review Board, as a member of the general public with substantial experience in victim advocacy, to serve a term ending June 30, 2028, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-19, and 17a-581, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint JOSEPH D. MARINO of Westbrook, in succession to Wakana Hirota, to the Psychiatric Security Review Board, as a member of the general public, to serve a term ending June 30, 2029, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-19, and 10-95s, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint PATRICIA M. FEENEY of Plainfield, in succession to Christine Benz, to the Technical Education and Career System Board, as a member who shall have experience in manufacturing or a trade offered by the Technical Education and Career System, or who are alumni of the system, to serve a term coterminous with my term, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 51-51k of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint the HONORABLE CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO of Cheshire, as an alternate member who is a judge of the Superior Court and not also a judge of the Supreme Court, in succession to the Honorable Karen A. Goodrow, to serve a term ending November 30, 2028, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-7 and 16-2 and 16-3 of and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint HOLLY CHEESEMAN of Niantic, in succession to John W. Betkoski, III as a Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, to serve a term ending June 30, 2030, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

gm/rr 24 Pursuant to Sections 4-5 through 4-7 and 10-1 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint DR. ANDREW CARLSON of Milford, in succession to Juan C. Salazar, as a member of the State Board of Education, to serve the remainder of the term ending February 28, 2029, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 10-1 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint SAMARTH BASANTH of East Granby, to be a non-voting student member of the State Board of Education, in succession to Sreenidi Bala, to serve a term ending gm/rr 25 June 30, 2026, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 10-153f of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, reappoint JANIS C. JERMAN of New Britain, to the Education Arbitration Panel, as a neutral arbitrator, to serve a term ending June 30, 2028, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026 gm/rr 26

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 10-153f of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, reappoint WILLIAM DEVANE LOGUE of West Hartford, to the Education Arbitration Panel, as a neutral arbitrator, to serve a term ending June 30, 2029, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 10-153f of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, reappoint MICHAEL R. RICCI of Guilford, to the Education Arbitration Panel, as a neutral arbitrator, to serve a term ending June 30, 2028, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 10-153f of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, reappoint LINDA YELMINI of Windsor, to the Education Arbitration Panel, as a neutral arbitrator, to serve a term ending June 30, 2028, or until a successor is appointed and qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 9-7a of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent appoint SONIA WORRELL-ASARE of Windsor, in succession to Andrew Cascudo, to be a member of the State Elections Enforcement Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2029, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified. February 4, 2026

gm/rr 30 Pursuant to Sections 4-1 and 51-51k of the Connecticut General Statutes, I have the honor and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint the HONORABLE EUGENE CALISTRO, JR. of Guilford, as a judge of the Superior Court who is not also a judge of the Supreme Court to the Judicial Review Council, in succession to the Honorable Susan Quinn Cobb, to serve the remainder of a term ending November 30, 2026, and for a subsequent four-year term ending November 30, 2030, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026 TO THE HONORABLE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-7, 4-9c and 10a-103 of and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint DENIS J. NAYDEN of Jupiter, Florida, in succession to Rebecca Lobo, as a member of the Board of Trustees for The University of Connecticut, to serve a term ending June 30, 2027, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Pursuant to Sections 4-1, 4-7 and 16-2, and 16-3 of and privilege to nominate and, with your advice and consent, appoint THOMAS WIEHL of Madison, in succession to Marissa Paslick Gillett, as a Utility Commissioner of the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, to serve a term ending June 30, 2030, or until a successor is appointed and has qualified, whichever is longer. February 4, 2026

Thank you, Madam President. Would the Clerk now please call Senate Resolution No. 2?

Senator Duff. gm/rr 34

Will you remark? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye.

SR NO. 1 RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE PRINTING OF THE SR NO. 2 RESOLUTION CONCERNING ROLL CALL AND READING OF THE SENATE JOURNAL.

Thank you, Madam President. Would the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 1?

Senator Duff.

Thank you. Will you remark? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the resolution, please signify by saying aye.

SB NO. 83 AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE FEDERAL CUTS RESPONSE FUND.

And off they go.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I know we have a number of senators with guests here who would like to introduce them.

Okay. Could we start off with Senator Somers, I believe?

Good morning, Madam President.

And I rise for a few points of personal privilege.

Thank you, Madam President. I do have quite a few guests here today, but my first shout-out is to Dr. Kevin Booker, who is a professor at Eastern with three degrees from Eastern, and he has brought with him his class up here in the gallery. Please give them a warm welcome. (applauding) Kevin is right here. Kevin is an amazing person who can say hello I believe, close to 100 languages. Is that correct?

Thirty languages is. It feels like 100, but it he is an amazing person. I hope you all have an opportunity to meet him. The second person that I would like to introduce to everyone is my new intern from Eastern, Patrick Mahaney. He's a senior at Eastern studying business and doing a great job. I'm not sure where Patrick is, but shout out to Patrick. There he is back here. So I have something that's a story of making lemonade out of something that was sour in a lemon. I have with me today the mother of a young man who was killed in a tragic accident in Old Saybrook over a year ago, where a boat, unfortunately, collided into a breakwater because the breakwater was not lit. And unfortunately, there were four people that were killed in that tragic accident. This person, Jessica, who's here with us today, worked with Captain Williams, who's also here with us today, and also with the Deputy Commissioner of DEEP, Mason Trumbull. Thank you for being here. He is here somewhere. And what we have with you today is we are presenting Connecticut's first water safety dog named Bay. And her mission is to teach young people about water safety, the importance of learning to swim, the importance of wearing a life jacket, and the importance of knowing how to operate a boat if you are on the boat. Could you please give a warm welcome to Bay, Jessica, and Glenna, who is our trainer. So I would like to thank the Deputy Commissioner, Jessica, Glenna, and it's really exciting that Connecticut has -- Officer, Deputy Commissioner, please come up so you can get your picture taken. We also have, we thought it was apropos because we have Bay, our Capitol Police that have all our comfort dogs here, that all bring comfort around Connecticut and to us during stressful times. So I'd love to have them come up gm/rr 39 also, and take a picture and give them a warm welcome in the Senate. (applauding) Who let the dogs out? All right. I will also note that Jessica has managed to work with the Congressional Office and the Coast Guard, and now that breakwater in Old Saybrook is lit. So congratulations to Jessica. (applauding)

Thank you all so much.

Thank you. My last personal privilege, which the poor person has to go after the dogs, I'm really sorry about that, is, I have Mr. Mike DeGoya, who's here from North Haven, Connecticut. He is a wonderful developer within our state, developing new housing that we all need. And if we could also give him a warm welcome, it would be greatly appreciated. Bay's going to be here if you want to get your picture taken with her after. So, thank you all. (applauding)

I do, Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce Kevin Christie, who is joining us from the town of Westport. He was gm/rr 40 recently elected after many years on the Board of Education, as well as on the PTA. He comes to us from the world of finance, and we are honored and thrilled to have him here with us and look forward to working with him in the coming years for the benefit of our community.

Thank you, Madam President. I stand for point of personal privilege. I have three constituents as well as my friends visiting today. I have Tanae Redmond, Amalefi -- no. So I was going to call you Asavera. So Asavera and her daughter, who I --

Her daughter, whom I've known since she was that tall. I call her my daughter, Chanel Acevedo. I want to thank you three for being here with us today.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege for the purpose of some introductions today. gm/rr 41

Thank you. So actually, this is a short session. It's such a privilege to always come to the Capitol. As Senator Looney says, it's always you're in awe of the dome as you drive up. But short sessions tend to be all business. We're not being sworn in as a new legislature. And so as such, I didn't invite my family to join me today. And it was my dear friend, Representative Parker, who saw one of my daughters out at ice cream a few nights ago and said, hey, Ashlyn, will you be at opening day? And she promptly texted me and said, oh my gosh, it's opening day. I need to be there. So as such, I have two of my daughters here today because, of course, you can't bring one without the other. My daughter, Ashlyn, who is a senior at Guilford High School. She'll be attending Amherst College in the fall. And my daughter, Ryan, who is a sophomore at Guilford High, are joining us today. And I was thinking back, they were 8 and 10 when I was first sworn in. So they have been here for many years, and so it's such a wonderful learning experience for them. Also, joining me today is First Selectwoman Peggy Lyons of the town of Madison. And we also, I understand, have First Selectman, Brendan Ray, of the town of Durham. He's in the House right now, as well as Matt Hoy of the town of Guilford, who is in the House right now. And also with me is a famous man of sorts, a famous farmer from my district in North Branford, Willie Dellacamera. He is known for driving his tractor from North Branford to Washington, DC. He is a tremendous advocate for our farming and agricultural community here in the state of Connecticut, and so if my colleagues would join me in welcoming them to the chamber. (applauding) gm/rr 42

Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, I rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce some guests.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, here with me are two guests right behind me. First, I wanted to introduce Mayor Zimmerman from the town of South Windsor and Deputy Mayor Paterna from the town of South Windsor. I just wanted to share a few things about both of them. Mayor Zimmerman has been a coach for a generation of young men. He is also the board chair for the board of education for multiple years. He has really helped the school system and the education and sports activities of our children in our town. And Deputy Mayor Paterna was a former mayor, and he is such a good mayor that I called him Lord Mayor. So he's been an amazing influence. So I just wanted everybody to welcome these amazing two individuals who give so much to the community. So thank you for being here. (applauding)

I've got more. And Madam President, I have more. gm/rr 43

And I invited my other mayors as well in the first selectmen, and some are in the House, and then others had other responsibilities that they had to address. Madam President, this morning, I had introduced a number of my colleagues to two guests that I had asked them to come. They are hesitant to come in this room. They are a little scared to be physically in the room with a lot of people, but I felt it's worthy to talk about the reason I had invited them this morning. I received a text and information not far from where we are right now. They have been living in a tent in cold weather. And this is Sam and Megan. And I've had an opportunity to talk to them and meet with them a few times. They heard drones that were sent over to check on where they were physically, and after the drones had identified where they were, somebody came from the local town, municipality, and they took the tents and everything away in below- freezing temperatures. And they not only took everything away from them, they also took Sam's heparin and Sam's oxygen. He has been on oxygen. He had a generator to be able to survive. And when I heard about this, I said, you are going to come as my family members. And I wanted to share your story, because not far away from this important building, we had people who were finding some safety gm/rr 44 in this below-freezing temperature, and in the middle of the night, everything that was very little for them was taken away, including their oxygen, his heparin, because he's got clots. And drones were used to identify where they were. They had not hurt anybody. They have not hurt an insect, essentially. But here we are. So they're too scared to be in this room, but I wanted to have their voice and their story be heard today, and then we need to have a conversation of how do we allow this to happen in our beautiful state, in this beautiful capital, and the surround area. And I want to understand the wisdom. Perhaps somebody can educate me on that later. Thank you so much, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. It's good to see you again, and I arise for purpose of introduction. I have, as you noted, the Lieutenant senator from the 9th District, Ms. Lilly here, and my Chief of Staff, who's a friend to all, Sam, who's no stranger to this building, has spent an awful lot of time here since he was first brought into this world. Also, have some additional guests from my family. My mother, Patricia, is here with us on the floor. My Senator. That's okay. Just don't poke yourself. My wife, Sarah Steinfeld, is in the gallery, as well as our friend, Savelle. Also, joined here by a constituent of mine, Michael Fallon, no stranger to this chamber as well, who works for Senator Murphy, as well as by my aide, Matt Plourde, and our stellar intern, Amber Mazzillo, who is a student at Central Connecticut State University. gm/rr 45 Also, in the building, I think they're in the House, I don't know if we should take that personally or not, are several prominent folks from the district, including Mayor Alan Smith of Rocky Hill, Mayor Jon Trister of Newington, Mayor Eugene Nocera of Middletown, and his Chief of Staff, Stephen Kovacs. Welcome to all of those guests, and would ask that the Senate please extend our usual warm welcome. Thank you. (applauding)

Good morning, Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

Thank you, Madam President. We take a few moments on this opening day, like we're doing now, to honor and welcome guests to the Capitol, and it's a delight to share some introductions today from my district. I have two good friends here, Janelle Wilk from Watertown and Matt Grimes from Brookfield. We're also joined today by four different selectmen, were first selectmen from four towns in the 32nd District. Selectmen and select women are an integral part of the local governance of many of our towns across Connecticut. And today, I'm honored to recognize and introduce First Selectman George Temple of Oxford. They're all up in the gallery up there. Mr. Temple is in his eighth term, Madam President. Fourteen years leading the great town of Oxford. He is also, gm/rr 46 should be noted, a US Navy veteran, a submariner who served in the Vietnam War. And thank you, George, for your service to our great nation. (applauding) He's also joined by the person that actually runs his office, and that would be Kristen Rosa, his executive assistant of many years. Madam President, I know you like to celebrate the success of women in leadership roles. And today, I am very honored to introduce the first-ever first selectman from the town of Middlebury, and that is Jennifer Marr. Jen, if you would give a wave. Jen is the first woman to ever be elected to the position of first selectwoman in the history of the town of Middlebury. Welcome, Jen. Marissa Recamp and Selectman George Recamp of Bethlehem. George is in his fifth year on the Board of Selectmen. He's also the chair of the Republican town committee. But also very important, Marissa and George are a great example of how small businesses can be successful. They own a small business, headquartered in Watertown, where they provide mental health services to their clients. And they've been in business since 2018. Welcome. And we also have Southbury Selectwoman Holly Sullivan, who is currently the longest-serving member of the board of selectmen in Southbury. Holly is not only an elected official, but also president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, commonly known as CCDL. Welcome, Holly. Madam President, real quickly, we also, as we know, and I know Senator Lesser just introduced his very young children, mine were not quite that young when I started here 12 years ago, but we always recognize and thank our families for putting up with the endless hours and missed parties and whatever. And, Madam President, I'd like to just recognize my wife, Krista, of 30 years this year, we will be married. My two adult boys, Matthew, who was 10 when I got elected, and Paul, who was eight when I got elected. gm/rr 47 Thank you all for your support. I love you all very much. Madam President, I would ask the chamber to please join me in welcoming these distinguished guests today. Thank you. (applauding)

Thank you, Madam President. It's wonderful to see you, and I'm looking forward to a session where we get a lot accomplished. Told him he had to stay a foot behind me, but it is a privilege and an honor to introduce Mayor Michael Passero from the great city of New London. That's where I live. It's where I've raised my four children, and it's a city that I truly love. I started my political career with Michael Passero's first campaign. We are a city that punches above its weight. We are 25,000 strong, and we have built over 1,000 affordable housing units since Michael has been our mayor. We have the state pier and the windmill, business, which I am telling you, sitting on the beach and seeing those windmills and seeing neighbors of mine who are working in industry now. It is doing great things for New London. We have the Coast Guard Museum that is going up in our downtown. And we are five-and-a-half square miles. We are a very dense little city, yet we managed to find that land where we can build housing. Michael has led our city into a renaissance that none of us ever thought was possible. And I am incredibly proud to be standing here with him. We're all here for a reason. And after reading that beautiful article about President Looney in the Connecticut Mirror by Mike Mark Pazniokas, it was absolutely beautiful. And I read about his mother, Mary Mescall Looney, and her tenacity, even with the Catholic church. I couldn't think of my CCD teacher, gm/rr 48 Eileen McGuire Passero, and my mother, Catherine Maloney Marx, who were -- I don't know, Marty Looney's mom, but I'm saying they were two tenacious, strong women before their times. So it's wonderful that so many of us are here because of our strong Irish mothers. He didn't know I was going to mention his mom. And I am so privileged to have Mayor Passero here with me today. I also would like to recognize dear friends who has done incredible things for Southeastern Connecticut and for those afflicted with the opioid crisis, and just a dear friend to me and to Mayor Michael Passero, and that would be former State Representative Joe de la Cruz, who is here. He's down in the House working his way up. So, if you could please give a warm welcome to both. Thank you.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox, do you have a point of personal privilege?

gm/rr 52 Thank you so much. And welcome, First Selectman Vicki Tesoro. And Senator Herron Gaston.

Thank you so much, Senator Gaston. And Senator Kushner.

Thank you so much, Senator. (applauding) And Senator Fazio. gm/rr 55

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Senator Maher, do you have an introduction?

Thank you so much. And welcome, Ms. Connecticut. And Senator Martin, thank you so much for your patience, sir.

Please proceed. gm/rr 57

Thank you, Senator. (applauding) Will you remark further? Senator Hartley.

Please proceed.

Senator Maroney.

Please proceed, sir. gm/rr 60

All right. Senator Billie Miller.

Please proceed.

The record will so reflect, Senator. All right. Are there any other points of personal privilege? We've had so many important people here. For the second time, Senator Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you so much. Senator Duff.

Excellent. See you all in the House chamber shortly. Thank you. Senator Duff.

So, Madam President, on Senate Agenda Number 3, we have an Emergency Certified Bill 83. I'd like to mark that go and have as our business for today, please.

An Act Establishing the Federal Cuts Response Fund. There are four amendments.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Emergency Certified Bill Number 83 in passage, through you. gm/rr 63

This bill just extends the federal cuts response fund until the end of fiscal year 27, continuing the response to any federal cuts relative to discussions that happen amongst leadership and the Governor. Through you, Madam President.

Only if Senator Osten is concluded her remarks.

This is a continuation. Not much to say here.

Well, on that note, I do beg to differ, actually. gm/rr 64

Thank you, Madam President. I think there actually is a lot to say about this legislation today. In the fall, we came into a special session, and this proposal to create a special fund outside of the budget that the Governor could spend with minimal oversight from the legislature was sold to us as a temporary emergency measure that was necessary, first, because of an impending government shutdown, and second, because the legislature was not in session to approve spending and needs for state programs in a timely fashion. Well, fast forward, today is the beginning of our legislative session, and the current authority for those funds expired, and was written to expire today because the legislature is now back in session. Meaning, our elected representatives and senators all across Connecticut are able to pass legislation, approve spending when it is necessary to fund certain programs, including if they are subject to reductions from federal spending and grants to our state governments. So it is very surprising to me that we have legislation before us today that extends that virtually unilateral authority of the Governor to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars even when this legislature is in session. I submit to you that we take it very seriously when we take an oath to uphold the state constitution. And in the state constitution, the power is given to the legislature to tax and to spend. Because our founders, both of this country and of this state, determined that the spending power and the taxation power are so important, were so powerful. I think George Washington said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. That they should be vested in the branch gm/rr 65 of government that is closest to our electors, to our voters. And that is the legislature in this case. And so it should only be in a very, very serious emergency or pretense that we are removing some of those powers and giving them to another branch of government. I would argue that those scenarios are never. But at least there was an acceptable pretense that the legislature was not in session, and so could not be readily available to approve necessary funds. There was a looming and potentially long-term government shutdown that would subject us to more financial needs, as a state or for our individual constituents. Those pretenses are now gone. This legislature is in session as of today, which is exactly why the previous legislation saw a sunsetting on this date when the legislature comes into session. And not only that, but there is not the same magnitude of concern at the federal level that there might be a long-term shutdown, disagreement and unavailability of federal funds. Of course, there are always controversies in Washington, but we are in session as a legislator. We are showing up to the state capitol every day, regardless of chamber, regardless of party, to do our work. We are able to pass spending that is necessary in a normal and regular fashion through the Appropriations Committee, where my good colleague sits as chair. None of the arguments for this special emergency provision that was passed in November are in existence today. And we were told by this Governor and by our friends in the Majority across the aisle that it was temporary and it should end in February. And I took them seriously. I take my colleagues, even those whom I don't agree with very frequently, seriously at their word, that these powers would only be given to this Governor on a temporary basis in case of emergency. And yet here we are, and it certainly seems to me that that promise was broken. gm/rr 66 And it's with deep disappointment that I report that. It is important that we protect our constitutional balance of powers, our checks and balances, especially when it is appealing or tempting to break them. Rules, constitutions, and laws exist not for the easy cases, but for the hard cases. If it was easy to protect checks and balances and avoid the concentration of power in one branch of government, then no constitution would be necessary. But these checks and balances of power exist in our state and federal constitutions for very specific reasons, to protect people against their worst instincts, which is to concentrate more and more power in several or even one individual. And that's what we have today. A proposal to extend for many months, the ability of one man to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a virtually untracked manner. And make no mistake about it, this legislation provides even broader powers for the Governor to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars without necessary checks from the legislature, because the previous legislation that we passed, and I voted against, but some republicans did vote for, the last piece of legislation at least sought to limit the spending to several programs that they thought could come under financial pressure from a federal government shutdown. This provides much broader ability for the Governor to spend on any number of programs that he sees fit without the active participation or approval from the legislature. For the taxpayers watching, I understand why you already don't trust this state government to spend your money wisely. Too often, it's not only been ineffectively spent, but it's even been abused. Laws have even been broken. But at least we are supposed to have a modicum of procedure of public hearings, of debates, of transparency, of deliberation, of debate that makes you a little more confident as a hardworking taxpayer in this overtaxed state that gm/rr 67 your money might be spent with some amount of deliberation and consensus. And yet here, you have an elected legislature abandoning its constitutional powers to give one man the ability to spend hundreds of millions of dollars how he sees fit. One of the quiet things I heard when we passed the last piece of legislation from some of my Democratic colleagues is, well, we don't even think the Governor will spend much of the money. But he spent 170 million already on any number of programs that probably, many of which, would not have seen approval from the state legislature. And now, here we are extending the authority even further. It's max of politics and opportunism that this would be allowed to happen, and that we should not have checks on spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars. And remember, just last week, this Governor was extolling the virtues of the fiscal guardrails. Those famed 2017 budget guardrails passed in a bipartisan fashion when this Senate was split between Democrats and Republicans that protected this legislature and state government from itself, from overspending, from over borrowing, from overpromising, and force it to start paying down the debts and the liabilities that have been accrued on the backs of taxpayers so that taxpayers wouldn't have to see billions of dollars of tax increases into the future. Well, just this week, we are now having new efforts to abandon those budget guardrails. Did you know that last year, we passed a state budget that increases spending 6% year over year? Inflation, for context, according to the federal government, is about 2.7%. Our state economy has not been growing over the last several years at 5% or 4%. It's actually one of the slowest-growing economies in the country over the last eight years. People's incomes, for certain, are not growing by 6%. gm/rr 68 So, who are these spending increases going to be absorbed on the backs of? They're going to be absorbed by middle-class taxpayers in this state, who are taxed too much already, taxed the third- highest of any state in the country, and the bill will come due eventually. This is on top of. These hundreds of millions of dollars are on top of the 6% spending increases approved in last year's budget. No family that I meet out across the state, the vast majority of families are struggling to make ends meet. They're having to pinch pennies. They're having to choose between paying their electric bills and their rent, and their health care bills in some really tragic cases. And yet, the state government refuses to tighten its belt. It does not think somehow that a 6% annual spending increase on the backs of taxpayers is sufficient. And so we are breaking the fiscal guardrails that, out of one side of our mouth, we say are so great and spending hundreds of millions on top of those annual 6% increases. I submit to you that when you have the third-highest tax citizenry in the entire country, that you have enough money to fund vital social programs, infrastructure, and other things that we all across the aisle recognize are necessary to the functioning of a society. You do not need to raise spending then by 6% year over year on the backs of taxpayers, and you do not need to give one man the power to spend hundreds of millions of dollars with virtually no checks on top of those increases. It's about time the forgotten men and women of this state, middle-class and working-class taxpayers, had a voice defending them in this state government. It's about time that this state government tightened its belt instead of forcing taxpayers to tighten theirs year after year after year. We could, by being careful, by saving, by cutting waste and limiting growth while investing in the most vital services. We could, as a state government with leadership, cut middle-class taxes substantially. gm/rr 69 middle-class and working-class tax cut that would be the biggest in state history. That is possible with some tax reforms taking away some of the special deductions and carve-outs in the tax code that benefit more politically connected industries. By limiting the growth of spending, by limiting the amount of debt issuance for politically preferred projects, we could make this state affordable. We could grow our economy and paychecks in the private sector instead of growing government. And yet, we get more of the same. This state predictably, but sadly, is doubling down on all the worst mistakes of the past. Maybe they're committing even graver mistakes than ever before. Because not only are we increasing spending in the state government, growing the bureaucracy by more than almost ever before in recent memory, but now we are giving special and super constitutional powers to one elected official, the Governor to spend hundreds of millions of dollars himself in an election year. I do not understand how that is construtable. I do not understand how, in an age when we talk about defending democratic principles and not having kings, that one man or one woman should be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars without the active participation of elected officials in the state legislature. Connecticut is the third-highest tax state of any in the country, and it is for a reason. It is because of mistakes made in this state government over many years. And today, we are doubling down on those mistakes, and the middle class and working class are going to pay for years to come. A 6% spending increase year over year by this state government is already unacceptable to taxpayers. But adding hundreds of millions of dollars on top of that without regard for fiscal guardrails, without regard for checks and balances, allowing one man to spend it is totally unjustifiable. It's breaking promises that many of whom support this legislation today gm/rr 70 themselves have made to taxpayers and citizens all across this state. This is not a difficult vote to take today. There are difficult votes, and sometimes I have to think very hard, as do many of my colleagues, and bellyache about which way to go. And I understand and appreciate that colleagues on both sides of the aisle are so careful and thoughtful about the votes that they take and the complicated legislation that we have to pass. I do not believe that this is one of those complicated questions. This is a very clear one. We can fund vital services and government programs in a state where we have the third-highest taxes in the country already. We can protect taxpayers and tighten our belts in Hartford, and we certainly can protect the constitutional principles of checks and balances that we all promised to uphold. By passing this legislation today, which is expedient, we are breaking vital promises to taxpayers, to citizens all across the state of Connecticut. And so for that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote no today. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I want to just start by concurring with my good colleague, Senator Fazio, in his remarks. I think that he stated the case very eloquently. But I want to just step back a second and create some framework around this discussion. And that is that while everyone seems to be being pulled towards national politics and outrage, what is happening here in this chamber right now is so very important to the people of Connecticut. It cannot be overlooked. gm/rr 71 I've been approached by three or four members of the press today, and each one of them started the conversation with what's going on in national politics with President Trump or with ICE or Minneapolis. They should be focused on what is happening in this room right now because all of that is political theater that is being used as a distraction to allow the majority party, and in fact, one man, the Governor of this great state, to have the power to spend 330 million taxpayer dollars with virtually no oversight. That is a shame. In all of my years in the legislature, I have seen very few cases where the bold policy impact of a short bill like this, which may be the only redeeming factor it has, is that it's not a thousand pages long, is so clear-cut and so offensive to the senses. I hope that the people of Connecticut are aware of what's happening here. I hope that they get the opportunity to really weigh this in their minds, if this is the type of government that we want to have, where we have a state leader who takes to the podium in the House of Representatives to deliver a budget address that starts by creating national division and rhetoric. How about we focus on what is actually happening in Connecticut? As Senator Fazio mentioned, we are back here again, effectively replaying the same scenario that happened in November when we were here in special session to, at that time, create another slush fund. That time, $500 million effectively given to the Governor with very little oversight, no legislative oversight, no public hearings for how the money would be delivered, no audits after the fact, just a blank check. And now we're back because apparently, he couldn't figure out how to spend $500 million in only a couple of months. He only ended up spending around a $187 million of it. So here we are today, back to get the other 330 million or so in a new bill with a new timeline. And gm/rr 72 instead of the first bill, which expired after only a couple of months and was created out of some emergency that was established by the Majority's opinion, not fact, this one has almost no end in sight. It goes on for over a year. When we came in in November, there was a government shutdown that was underway. I don't remember what days of the week it was. I think the House was in on a Wednesday and we were in on a Thursday, something like that. We were in the day after. Remarkably, the House voted for that package on the Wednesday when the shutdown was still happening, but then the shutdown ended that night. They wrapped it up. The Democrats and Republicans in Washington managed to come to terms, and they actually ended the shutdown. You would think if you had common sense that that would be the end of this conversation. Oh, I guess we don't need it anymore. That's not what happened. What happened is the Senate Democrats brought us in anyway, even after the shutdown was over, to vote to give the Governor $500 million as a blank check, as a credit card on the backs of Connecticut taxpayers. And as I said, that emergency waned before we ever voted in the Senate, and there's certainly no emergency now. There's no national government shutdown. There's no federal crisis occurring. What is happening are some routine adjustments to how the federal government spends benefits and delivers money to taxpayers across this country for various programs. At most, this is simply rolling back some pre-COVID level amount of funding for different programs. The bill contains no definition of emergency. There is no trigger that says the emergency is actually in effect. We need to spend the money. Nothing. It starts today. Effective 02/04/26. Emergency, no emergency, it doesn't matter. What's happening here is that we are witnessing not emergency government. We're witnessing convenience government. We are here because it's more convenient for the Majority to gm/rr 73 come here with an emergency certified bill and grant themselves all kinds of power with taxpayer dollars rather than having to go through the legislative process. The legislative process would include committee meetings, public hearings, comment from the people of this Connecticut whose money we are spending. No. Apparently, the Majority doesn't think any of that's actually necessary. It's much more convenient to slap the emergency label on this bill and bring it in here and jam it down our throats in a couple of hours while simultaneously trying to distract everyone with national politics. The people of Connecticut need to pay attention. The press that is covering the news today needs to focus on this. This is not Minneapolis. This is whether or not the people that we live in our communities with, our neighbors, our relatives, our parents, our grandparents, whether or not they could afford to pay their bills, because Connecticut, frankly, despite listening to the Governor's speech about how everything is so rosy, it's not rosy. I have constituents that contact me virtually every day who have to make hard decisions about whether they're going to pay their electric bill, or whether they're going to fix their gutters on their house or whether or not their furnace is going to work. It shouldn't be like that. It should not be like that. Federal responsibility, in this particular case, is being shifted to Connecticut residents. Connecticut taxpayers, frankly, already pay federal taxes for federal programs. And what's happening here is Connecticut taxpayers are going to be asked to be taxed again for the same thing because the federal government didn't deliver those benefits. So now, supposedly, it's the state's responsibility. But we're going to actually charge the people of Connecticut twice for the same thing? Does that sound like good fiscal policy? I don't think so. This bill takes the power away not of just the gm/rr 74 lawmakers. There's a 187 state lawmakers, 36 senators, 151 state representatives. We rightfully should get to vote on every policy that affects the residents of this state. That's why we have elections, folks. That's why we have representative government, which, in fact, in my view, is the thing that defines our country, representative government. That is all out the window. The majority, despite the fact that they're in the majority, by the way, and they can win every vote, but they still feel the need to go around the process. You know why? Because the process would be unbelievably embarrassing for them. If they had to actually go to hearings and listen to more than just half an hour of me speaking on the floor, exposing this, if there were a lot of people covering it, if there were a lot of people learning about it, if there were a lot of people talking about it, I think that there would be a lot more outrage. And sure, I'm raising my voice. I am trying to make up for the fact that there was not enough outrage because there was not enough public presence of this policy. Because frankly, the majority did not have the decency to allow this policy to go before the people. When this money is spent -- in fact, let's just jump right to it. I got the bill here. If you look at Section 4, which I refer to as the no king section of the bill, this is the part that effectively says that OPM, which is the Office of Policy and Management, which is synonymous with the governor, I like to consider it as OPM, other people's money, they're going to be in charge of this $330 million carte blanche. And the only way that a decision that the governor makes about how to spend the $330 million, the only way it can be stopped is if a majority of the leadership of this legislature -- and let me just break that down for you. It's six people. You have the president of the Senate and the speaker of the House, both Democrats. And then, of course, you have gm/rr 75 the leaders of the House and Senate Democrats. So that makes four Democrats. And then you have the minority leaders, the House and Senate minority leaders, which are Republicans. So it's a 42 vote. Now, normally, when we have to vote on something in this chamber, we have to actually win the vote. It's got to be more than 50-50. Not this. Tie doesn't go to a runner here. You actually have to vote against the governor being able to spend this money, which it means requires a four-to-two vote against. How is that going to happen exactly? And the answer is it's not. And they know that. And every one of us, by the way, and I'm talking to my democratic colleagues right now, you should be offended. You should be, frankly, pissed off that your leadership would sign up for a bill that basically negates your role in any of this because you have no say. You're going to vote for this bill and give up your rights. And worse than that, Madam President, worse than that, you're going to give up the rights of your constituents to decide. It's not okay. The people that elect us, they have a right to be represented. They also have a right to know whether or not you agree with how the money is spent. This is shirking your duty if you vote yes, in my view. You're basically saying, I'm going to step back. I don't care. I'm going to just trust that Governor Lamont is going to do whatever he thinks is best. After the speech I just listened to, I don't trust that man, frankly. His speech was filled with politics and derision and division, the exact same things that the people on the street are saying they don't want. They want to see us focused on policy, making the state more affordable, improving the lives of Connecticut residents for the future. That's what I want. That's why I'm standing here. This is an unbelievably dangerous precedent on top of 1,000 other dangerous precedents that are already happening, like the notion of emergency certification for bills. When you start to have this gm/rr 76 level of convenience, that there's actually no real emergency going on, there's nothing you can point to that's happening today that wasn't happening yesterday, et cetera, and you could just say, oh, it's an emergency. It's an emergency. So, therefore, we can just skip the whole legislative process, and we can grant one man extraordinary power. It's absurd. If everything is an emergency, where's the accountability? What happens when we have a real emergency? This bill deletes 187 lawmakers from the process. Frankly, that's what it does. Let me just talk a little bit about the money itself. Why does the state have an extra $330 million or 500 million or whatever number is kicked around on a day-to-day basis? Why is that money sitting in our state government coffers? I'll tell you why. Overtaxation. It's there because the majority party has passed policies in the state to take too much tax money from the citizens. Now, in my view, when I know that there's people back home in my district that are having trouble paying their bills or buying their medication or keeping up with their public benefits charge on their electric rates, I would say give them back their money. It's theirs. I'm afraid that there are people in this room and in this building who forget whose money they're talking about. They think it's the state's money. It's the state's money, senator. No. It's not. It's money that was earned through the hard work of individual citizens in this state, who actually had to do something to get their paycheck. It's not the state's money. The state doesn't have a right to use it any which way they choose. The state is obligated to have a policy passed through a legislative process that is approved by the people who are elected by the actual citizens. Not one man. Not a king, a dictator, authoritarian, or even a governor granted ridiculous power. gm/rr 77 This bill is so broadly written, it shocks the senses. When we were here in November, I remarked about how the last bill wasn't about specific cuts. It's not like, oh, the federal government is going to cut this one little section of SNAP. We should make up for it. It wasn't even that. I could maybe even get around that. In fact, if we had a conversation about that, we could probably pass that in a bipartisan way, but that's not what happened. They just globally said, well, health care. Opening the door to have that money spent on all kinds of things that had nothing to do with what the federal government was doing as far as cuts. But you know something? That was not broad enough, apparently, for this majority. That was not broad enough because what they've done now is they've come back, and they said, we're going to use these terms, policy impacts. What is a policy impact? That is not a definitive policy decision. That is not a cut that you can identify. That's just a random broad term that opens the door for whatever you want. Referring once again to the bill, it says, for the purpose of responding to the policy impacts and mitigating any action or inaction. So if the federal government does something or doesn't do something, guess what? The governor can spend money. It's insulting, frankly, to write a bill like that. You should just write one page. The governor shall now be king. Just do that. One sentence. Trying to couch that in some ridiculous language is absurd, and I'm offended by it. And any thinking person who actually understands what's going on here would be offended by it, too. And I will repeat that my democratic colleagues who are going to sacrifice their own vote on what happens with this money in the future ought to be just as offended. We are effectively outsourcing our constitutional powers to OPM. Not to mention the fact that the last year and a half has been a series of news stories about corruption, where we're finding out that money that was earmarked to various gm/rr 78 NGOs is suspect, to say the least, in how it's being used. We learned, actually, last year that we earmarked money to various organizations without even a contract in place to begin with, without even an understanding of what the money would be used for. That's actually drafted after. So a democratic lawmaker can go to their leadership and say, well, you know what? I'm in a tough district. I could really use some money for some specific program that might help me out with my voters. And I'm using that as an example because that is exactly what the speaker of the House said to the press when he was asked about it. But the fact is that some of that money goes to organizations that we could not identify. We could not find them. We looked online. We looked with the Secretary of State. These are not registered businesses. And it's only after the fact the Judicial Department is tasked with the job of locating who the recipient is and then drafting some, frankly, half-assed one-page document about what the money is for. Again, no way to run a state government. No way to be responsible with the people you represents money that they worked for. So I'm concerned. I'm concerned that this money that the governor is going to have this authority to be able to hand out willy nilly and for whatever reason he deems is appropriate, much like the majority can deem any emergency anytime they want, I'm worried that that money is actually going to go to something of value. How do we know? How do we know? I could ask the good chairman of the Appropriations Committee a bunch of questions about this, but I don't need to. I already know the answers. Is there an audit process, madam? No. There's not. There's no audit. There's nothing. Carte Blanche, blank check, money goes, end of story. We're lucky if we get a report after that says one sentence about where millions of dollars go. It's gm/rr 79 unbelievable. What should happen instead is that if there are federal changes going on that truly affect the people of Connecticut in some way that we need to address it, then we should. But that would mean identifying the specific programs, identifying the real dollar losses, holding public hearings, allowing the minority to participate in the process of drafting the legislation, and requiring the full legislature to actually vote on the substance. Before $1 gets spent in this state of the state's money, again, the taxpayers' money, the public deserves transparency and debate. With that, Madam President, I want to offer an amendment.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of LCO No. 675. I ask that this amendment be called, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Sampson.

Thank you. And the question is on adoption. Will you remark further? Senator Osten.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

And we will have a roll call vote. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? Senator Gordon.

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, a voice vote has -- I mean, a roll call vote has been requested. So I will open the voting machines. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, would you kindly give us the tally?

Amendment fails. Senator Billie Miller. gm/rr 86

That's okay. We're getting your microphone on for you. We're having technical difficulties. If that doesn't work, maybe use the one on the other side, perhaps.

Yes. Thank you.

Very good. Senator Flexer--

Thank you. Senator Flexer, do you accept the yield? I see you have some distinguished people behind you.

And thank you, Senator Miller, for the yield. And forgive the interruption, Senator Sam said, I will be brief. Madam President, this afternoon, as many of my colleagues have had here today, a variety of special guests. And I just wanted to take a moment to make some introductions for some special guests that I have here with me today from Northeastern Connecticut. First, I want to recognize Grace Kelton, who is a high school junior who is here shadowing me for the day. And what an exciting day to be here on a day when the Capitol is such an exciting place to be. I'm also joined by four incredible municipal leaders from Northeastern Connecticut who've been here today, watching our session and also watching the governor's address earlier this afternoon, and I'd like to introduce each of them. We have the mayor of the town of Putnam, Barney Seney, who is here. The first selectman of the town of Brooklyn, Joe Bellavance. The chairman of the Killingly town council, Ed Grandelski. And the first selectwoman of the town of Pomfret, Maureen Nicholson. If the chamber would please give them all our usual warm welcome. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm rising to gm/rr 88 lament the failure of my most recent amendment, which I think was a very straightforward illustration of where we are as a state of Connecticut. The tally was 25 to 11, which is not surprising since that also happens to be the makeup of the legislature: 25 members of the Democrat majority, 11 members of the Republican minority. And that was a very, very simple statement about what we think should happen with the taxpayers' dollars. The state acknowledges that they are in possession of 330 million excess taxes that belong to the people of Connecticut. I believe that money should be returned back to those taxpayers. Clearly, the majority disagrees. And, in fact, they're empowering the governor to be able to use that $330 million in any way he so chooses. Irregardless of the individual thoughts and approval of this legislative body or any lawmaker or the people they represent. Emergency-certified bills, emergency powers should be designed to protect people, not politicians. Frankly, this whole bill feels like a bit of a magic trick. On one hand, there's like a sleight of hand where we're being distracted with this drama that's unfolding on a national level, while the other hand quietly reaches into the taxpayer's wallet. I think it's a disgrace, Madam President, and I'll be voting no on granting this authority to the governor and taking away the money of the people and their best interest in how it should be used. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. And further remarks on gm/rr 89 the underlying bill. We've already heard various things already about it. And in my remarks, I'm not referring to anyone personally. And I'm not getting into the merits, or not, of whatever this money has been spent on and might be spent on. This is really about a process that the Senate and the legislature is following, or in my opinion, failing to outright, purposefully follow. And how the public's money, which we term taxpayer money, is being spent with regards to decisions being made, how those decisions are being made. Those are tremendously serious issues. And when we talk with our constituents, and I know I spend a lot of time in the 13 towns I'm proud to represent, talking with people, listening to them, hearing what they have to say. Some of the reasons there is continued distrust of state government, regardless of political party affiliation, is number one, people who are paying the taxes don't really know because they're not being told how their money is being used. And number two, they are not given at times the fundamental proper opportunities to have their voices heard about how their money is being used in a representative democracy. Those are really major issues. As a former town official for 16 years, I took great pains to make certain that a town commission I chaired, people know exactly how we spent that money. And took great lengths to make certain people had multiple opportunities to have their voices heard. Not just an opportunity, but multiple opportunities. There's a distinction. It's one thing if you give someone one opportunity. It's different if you give them multiple. It's a very different scenario if you give them zero opportunity. And what we see this process here is completely opposite what representative democracy is about, not just in the United States of America, but in the state of Connecticut. gm/rr 90 And part of that is, in a representative democracy, people elect officials to represent them. And they want those representatives to let them know what's going on and to give them opportunities in their government. Remember state government, like federal government, it is a government of, for, and by the people. Doesn't get any more to the point than that. And when they're not given an opportunity, like today, to weigh in on staggering amounts of money of their taxpayer money, I agree they should get upset. And they should seek peaceful and appropriate redress. Meaning, they should be talking with those elected officials who represent them, who want to give them an opportunity, and those elected officials who not only aren't giving them an opportunity, but don't seem to care they're not giving them an opportunity. And when we talk about a representative democracy not giving people opportunities on the money being spent such as in this bill, that sends a terrible message, especially on an opening day and on the first serious debate and vote that the legislature is taking. And that's bad. I don't know how one explains that when one goes to civics classes in high school, and we talk about the importance of being involved as a member of society and of a community. That people shouldn't be afraid to let themselves be heard through the proper processes that government sets up. Yet, government turns around and pulls the rug on those processes and says, "We've had this fund. It's supposed to expire today per law." But now we want to keep spending the money, make it even looser and more unaccountable for how the money is going to be spent. And we'll extend it out through some part of the June 2027. We're actually in the beginning of February 2026. And we're not going to give members of the public opportunity to be heard. There's a reason we have public hearings. But I guess we don't need a reason gm/rr 91 to not hold a public hearing on this. But yet, as we've heard many times, during debates in this very chamber on things that get brought up in strike all amendments, the concept was already heard in a public hearing, or this was already heard in a public hearing. So that covers us. I have no idea what type of cogent argument, coherent argument one can make when one outright brings something like this up and no public input, no public hearing. That's bad way to make public policy. And that's a bad process to follow. And we may hear arguments, "There are various programs we need to be covering." And we may hear this and that about reasons why this money should be spent. But I'm talking about the process in divorcing the public away from being involved in providing input, asking questions in a representative democracy. I have yet to hear any real serious argument. Now some people may say it's an emergency and whether or not it really is or isn't. But we're very mindful that during true emergencies during the history of our country, for example, during World War II. The constitution does not disappear. The fundamentals of representative democracy do not disappear. And surely during this, the state constitution doesn't disappear and representative democracy does not disappear. Delegating sole authority over the expenditure of taxpayer money, especially money that we're talking here, that is $330,811,954, that's a huge amount of money. Delegating that authority on how it's going to be doled out and spent to any single individual. It doesn't matter who that individual is in the governor's seat, whether a Republican or a Democrat or not. But to that one individual, especially when the legislature is in session as we have as of this morning. And without the opportunity for the public input, that is bad public policy. And I can go on an hour just using the word bad to describe as an adjective relative to the word "policy". gm/rr 92 And it undermines, as I've said, the foundations of representative democracy and democratic governance. Those are not minor issues. And if anything we should uphold in the legislature, surely we can agree that we should be upholding that. And I don't see a reason why we should be inconsistent. Some make the argument that, "When we were out of session, we needed to do this." But it was with the understanding in that law that passed in a special session, that when we went into session, which we have as of this morning, that ended. This is very different. This actually says, if you boil it down to what the public is going to understand, that we know we're in session, and we can take a vote any time the chambers want on any manner to spend money and pass it by a majority vote, or in the case of some amendments, not pass it by majority vote along political lines. But while we're in session, to see that authority outright to the executive branch of government. We are a coequal branch of government, one of three. And for the legislature as a coequal branch of government to cede one of its fundamental responsibilities over to another branch of government like this is absolutely insane. It is inane. We are in session, so we're going to say, we're here in session making decisions, but we'll let another branch of the government decide how to spend over $330 million and there is literally no meaningful oversight, nothing to say there needs to be an audit, while we're here making decisions up until we end this session. That's absolutely terrible. And I don't think constituents are going to understand that process. In fact, they're going to be angered by it because they're going to want to know why do we have a legislative branch if we just cede something like that to the executive branch while we're in session? I look forward to hearing, and I'd be happy to have a lengthy debate about that, but I've yet to hear anything that says why we should be doing that. And gm/rr 93 again, the legislature can go into a vote anytime it wishes. We can do a special session anytime we wish. We don't have to wait technically for the governor. So if we feel something needs to be done, we can debate it. We can get public input and we can act. But to say we don't want to act by ceding authority, that is staggering, to me. And I can't understand a thinking process that goes into that. And to hide behind saying there's a "emergency" when we're in session and can do these things if we want doesn't make any sense either. Gets back to what I said earlier on the prior amendment. When we heard today in joint convention about common sense, I bet you if Thomas Paine were here today and I could take a point of personal privilege and have him here, he wouldn't understand this either. I dare say that. Public funds belong to the people, and we understand that. Not to any one officeholder and not to any of us, other than our share of taxes that we pay personally. We need to make certain also that we have the appropriate legislative oversight. This is a lot of money that's already been spent and now proposed to be spent over a lengthy period of time, potentially over a year. Where is the built-in proper oversight? We don't see that in this wording. In fact, it says that within 24 hours, if "defined" legislative leaders don't vote to disapprove, there's an automatic approval. Shouldn't there actually be an automatic review and affirmative vote to approve? That's a convenient way out. And I think that, B, speaks more to the mutation of the process or lack of a process in a representative democracy. Has nothing to do with an emergency. And in an emergency, all the more we should have proper oversight of staggering amounts of taxpayer money because we don't want things to be rushed in haste and errors are made or money is sent to organizations that don't exist. We've seen that already. Or used inappropriately, and then we have gm/rr 94 to see state and federal investigations. We've seen that already. It sets up a system ripe for abuse. And it also sets up a system ripe for partisan politics. Picking winners and losers, special interests over the public interest. That's not a process we should follow. And again, separate from whatever we feel the money should be spent on. And I welcome those debates as they occur. Right here now, we're saying we don't want those debates because now we're just going to blatantly cede that. That's terrible, and that's wrong, in my opinion. Good public policy and good government demands and dictates that there needs to be openness, transparency, accountability, fair play, inclusivity. That's not an all-encompassing list, but important items on the list. This bill not only ignores all those items, but thumbs a nose at them. And by extension, thumbs a nose at the public, given the lack of any legislative process in a representative democracy. And the reason we have coequal branches of government, especially the legislative and the executive, is for checks and balances, and to say we're going to get rid of the checks and balances. And one may say as a technicality, it's built into here that certain key people, six people, could vote within 24 hours. That's not the intent and spirit of representative democracy. And we know it, even if there's a legal technicality to it. With that said, to further decision-making so that we can uphold representative democracy. So we can uphold making certain that there is wise and proper use of taxpayer money. And that we can uphold the rights of people to know what their government is doing and have their concerns and questions addressed by the very public officials they elect to represent them. Madam President, the gm/rr 95 Clerk is in possession of LCO number 677. I ask, please, that the good clerk call the amendment.

Senator Gordon. Thank you.

And let's just wait till we get it up on the board because I'm not seeing it yet. But then as soon as it is, please do summarize, sir. Senator Gordon, please proceed.

And we will indeed have a roll call vote on the amendment.

Thank you, Senator Gordon. Will you remark further, Senator Osten?

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I will open the voting machine. Mr. Clerk, would you call the roll?

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

Thank you. Amendment fails. Will you remark further on the legislation before the chamber? Good afternoon, Senator Cicarella.

LCO number 678. Senate Amendment C.

Thank you. I move adoption of the amendment, and I just seek leave to summarize.

Thank you. And at the conclusion, I do ask that there is a roll call vote.

Excellent. Thank you. So, the amendment that I have put forward, I believe, is not only common sense but really should be a friendly amendment. We have processes that are very similar when allocating other types of money to multiple different organizations, municipalities. We have STEEP. We have SIF. And really, what's going to do, this amendment does is put some safeguards in place for any of this money that will be delegated from the $300 million that we're talking about today. It's just asking that in the application process, it is very detailed. It talks about the reason why it is needed, how much is needed, what is the public purpose, what is it going to be doing, and how will it serve our community? And it also not only has safeguards on the front end, but as well as on the back end. What it also does is after this money is allocated and approved, with those series of questions being answered, it has, again, checks and balances. You'll be able to see with reporting where did the money go, how was it utilized? And I believe that's important. We have a lot of wonderful nonprofits in Connecticut that do so much for our community with so little. And when working with the nonprofits, it's eye-opening to see, number one, how many nonprofits do the same thing. And when dealing with these nonprofits, having these conversations, they all have their specific areas of success and maybe expertise. We look at nonprofits that deal with workforce development. Some do parts of that process very well; others not so well. But there isn't a way to have checks and balances to see are they successful? Is this money, the taxpayers' dollars, being utilized successfully and smart? This would have that. This would tell us where is the money going, how much administrative costs, how much was for lobbying or advocacy? What gm/rr 103 are the other income sources? All of the different expenditures pass through income. It's very transparent. We talk about that. We see, without oversight, there is room for waste, fraud, and abuse. And I do believe this is something we're going to hear a lot about this session is paying attention to the waste, fraud, and abuse. And this is going to implement that just like STEEP and SIF have in place. So it's just simply common sense. I wouldn't understand why we would not find this to be very reasonable. All we're saying is we want oversight of hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxpayers' money. Speaking of the nonprofits, there's a nonprofit in Wallingford, and they do so much for their community. Just over the lines in Meriden, there's another nonprofit that works in a similar space with a similar demographic, and the Wallingford nonprofit gets substantially less but does so much more. And it doesn't make a difference in how much money they're actually receiving. That just does not make sense. This process that would be put in place if this amendment passes would be applied to this specific money, the $300 million that are left. I think this is something that we should start to look at any time we're giving money to nonprofits or nonpublic agencies that receive our taxpayer dollars. I do believe again it is common sense. I do believe it is a friendly amendment, as we do this all the time with STEEP, with SIF, and it's going to accountability and transparency. It's not only just to prevent fraud and waste, but it's also going to highlight the nonprofits or these agencies that are doing great work, and they should be rewarded for doing their great work. So when it comes time next year to allocate money to a nonprofit, we could see were they successful? That's how we should be making these decisions. And for that reason, I urge gm/rr 104 everyone here to support the amendment we have before us. Thank you, madam

Well, thank you very much, Madam President. I just want to make sure that we have it up on the board. Is this right up on the board for LCO 678? Am I right in seeing that up there?

Okay. And I urge my colleagues to not support this. I don't think it's necessary for the underlying bill. It doesn't comport with what we have. Happy to talk about all of these things in the upcoming legislative session. Through you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment C. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment C of Senate Bill Number 83, an act establishing the Federal Cuts Response Fund. This is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the senate. We're voting on Senate gm/rr 105 Amendment C of Senate Bill number 83, an act establishing the Federal Cuts Response Fund. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 83.

Total Number Voting 35 Total Voting Yea 11 Total Voting Nay 24 Absent Not Voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, good afternoon. And, in our summations of the emergency certified bill right now, I want to thank everybody for their work on this because this has really been a process over many months when first concept of this was brought up and raised about how we can respond to what's happening federally to our own state and how do we help and protect the residents of Connecticut. And this is one that we have kept our eye on because many times, as I'm sure we'll hear from our senate president, that it's a game where it's a moving target, and we don't always know what we're facing or what is going to happen day-to-day coming out of Washington, DC. So this is an opportunity for us to gm/rr 106 be able to control a little bit and be able to protect some of the emergency gaps that happen here coming into Connecticut and give us some flexibility going forward that maybe we didn't have a little bit earlier as well. So thank you to Senator Osten for bringing that through and, of course, all the work that's been done to continue on these funds, again, because we just never know what we're waking up to. And that is really the crux of the issue is that it's hard to plan. It's hard to make decisions about everything that we want to do when sometimes we hear the news in the morning or we see a tweet or something else and there now may be cuts to something that we didn't know about. But everybody who depends on food, health care, heating assistance, education, and the list can go on and on and on. That's where this fund comes in and helps and I think provides real needed assistance to those in our state who need it the most. So Madam President, I think that this is well worth it. I'm glad that we're able to do it. Not every state can do this. I'm glad we're able to do that. And, again, it shows a commitment by this state legislature and by our governor and you, Madam President. It shows a commitment about our values, who we're protecting, who we're standing up for, and what we believe we need to do in order to help those who need it the most, those who don't have a voice, those who are being most impacted by some of the draconian cuts, those cruel cuts coming out of Washington DC. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I stand here today to gm/rr 107 talk about what's before us here in establishing this fund and understand the importance of it. Senator Duff laid out offsetting federal cuts. Many other legislators, Republican and Democrat Senators that spoke here this afternoon talked about offsetting those federal cuts. There's certainly circumstances in which, I support offsetting certain cuts. What we've done out of this fund in terms of the ACA subsidies and offsetting it for certain individuals that meet certain income criteria and ensuring that they don't have to face that grueling aspect of an increased premium at a time when we're an unaffordable state to begin with. Things in life have become more unaffordable. The last thing you need to see is in health care insurance premium coming in for your family, your working class family, and not being able to pay it because of some of these subsidies going away. These are all examples of what I think are well- intentioned and appropriate funding sources to offset certain federal cuts in some circumstances. Over the past few months since this fund has been established, I, as a minority leader, have an ability to object to some of these appropriations, and call for a meeting. But in most of the cases, I think, generally, the funds that were spent were generally appropriate and I didn't object. But this is not about offsetting federal cuts. This is about a lot of things outside of that because I sat here or I stood up or what have you, but I was in this chamber here back in the fall when we established this fund. And when this fund was established, it was established to expire, and we all agreed upon that, Republican and Democrat, the individual that brought it out, the leadership in the senate on both sides of the aisle, the understanding was the legislation that was before us created a fund to offset federal cuts to expire on February 4th. gm/rr 108 There was a set deadline. At no point, at no point did anyone ever get up and say, "We have February 4th, but we're going to revisit that." No. And it's not lost on me that it's February 4th right here today. As I stand here today, it is February 4th, the day that this fund was supposed to expire. And just, coincidentally, we stand here today because today was the opening day of our legislative session, which means February 4th was a day that meant something when we implemented this fund. Again, it was the day that we opened session, which is now today. And the theory behind it is that us as legislators, Republican and Democrat, would have the ability to be in session and use our constitutional authorities to appropriate funds appropriately if we decided to offset federal cuts, not the governor. And so it makes me question what the intentions were when we initially established this fund. Because if February 4th was a moving target, if that date was questionable to us, if that date could be modified, why wasn't it discussed here in the chamber when we established it? Why was a definitive date given? And we were understanding why that definitive date was given. In fact, you had members on both sides of the aisle that supported that, and some, particularly on the Republican side, supported it because there was a definitive date, and it made sense that we would go back into session and appropriate funds at a later date if the legislature felt necessary. And so it makes me think and question, is this just a mechanism by which we can utilize more money to get around the spending cap? Let's be honest. Because I haven't heard one thing pointed to as to specifically what we're going to appropriate this towards. It's just that we need to continue this fund, and it's not lost on me. This fund continues to be off-budget, and now this fund gm/rr 109 will be able to be utilized by the governor in an election year to be spent off budget outside the spending cap. I can go on and on about the spending cap and the fiscal guardrails. We've talked and spoken about that in this chamber many times in the previous session. I'm sure we'll speak about it again many times in this upcoming legislative session. But I was in this building, as many of you were, at times we were not doing well financially as a state. And I was also in this building in the house when we voted on a measure to implement these guardrails. And I could tell you there's a reason why we did, because we had went through what we went through in the house and the senate respectively at that particular time, and we're implementing historic tax increases on a public that could least afford us. And we were running deficit after deficit after deficit. And in a bipartisan fashion, we got together and said these are rules we need to put in place to ensure that future legislatures don't make the same mistakes as the past. And we're standing here today finding more ways to erode these guardrails that led us finally to fiscal sustainability. And I hate to say that these are the measures that in compilation over time, we're going to look at in the future and say, "Gee. We should have held to these guardrails. We shouldn't have eroded them. We wouldn't have been in this position." And this is what this does. I also want to speak briefly about some of the amendments that were proposed. I would have an ability to potentially support this measure despite what my fear is about this spending cap if some of these amendments had passed or at least it would give me some pause in considering this legislation. As I said before, many of our members, including myself, believe there are federal programs that should be offset by our state that are so critical, particularly right here and now for citizens in our gm/rr 110 districts, that we'd be willing to appropriate funds to help offset some of those federal costs depending on what the program is. And we as a legislature can make that decision ourselves, not in a singular fund solely decided by the governor. However, it makes sense for us to say if money is coming out of this fund to a third-party vendor, like the amendment that was proposed, that we would ensure that every single cent that was spent was spent in the manner it should have been. And based upon what has happened in this building and across our state over the past few years with COVID funding and other organizations, third party vendor organizations, wouldn't we look at ourselves and say, "Gee. We really need to do this"? This is not our money. This is hard-earned working class taxpayer money that we're investing in nonprofit or other organizations in the state, and we're finding out that in some cases, there's grand jury investigations looking into potentially that money being pocketed. And all we said in our amendment was, let's put some parameters and transparency surrounding this so we can ensure that if the money's leaving this fund, the taxpayer money, the hard-earned taxpayer money that's leaving this fund, let's make sure it's spent in the manner it should be spent for, that the people that need the help are getting the help. How could we possibly object to that? What logical response could you possibly give to say that that's not necessary? Then we have an amendment that says, look. We can keep the fund to potentially offset federal cuts. However, we as a legislature should have a vote. That got shot down on party lines. I just talked about earlier this morning the awesome responsibility we have that every single time we cast a vote, we cast it for a 125,000 men and women in our districts. gm/rr 111 And they give us this amazing responsibility that very few people get the opportunity to have to hit that button for every single one of them. And we sat around, and we thought about that awesome responsibility, and I thought we all appreciated that amazing responsibility. And what is the first thing we do when we go into legislative session today? We give away that responsibility to one person for $300 million. I start to question how much we understand the awesome responsibility of our vote and what is allotted to us in advocating for our constituents when the first vote we take gives it away to one person. In what world-- is that how government should operate? Again, we can make these appropriations. We should do it within ourselves. We should do our job for our constituents and make these appropriations ourselves, not give it to one person to decide to do an election year, frankly. Again, I understand what we're facing. I understand the importance of these funds, but we all know we have the ability to make these decisions ourselves. I would argue we have the responsibility to make these decisions ourselves as a legislative body. And I'm arguing, let's continue to make those decisions ourselves. Let's continue taking on that awesome responsibility and appropriating funds for our districts as opposed to giving it to one person to do. That's wrong. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Madam President, speaking in support of the bill, I believe that our experience over the last almost three months since the emergency fund was created in gm/rr 112 November, shows us that this extension is, if anything, more necessary than the original adoption was in mid-November. Based on, at that time, we acted upon, what I could characterize I think as prudent apprehension about what might come. But what we've seen in the interim, now I think this extension is really based on painful experience and threats, some of which had been pulled back after initially, being offered. But leaving us with a great sense of fear and discomfort and unease, about what may come. Obviously, in in the original debate back in November, Madam President, if you'll, recall, there were efforts by the minority party to say that while every item in the fund should be, carefully, itemized. The entire 500 million should be, itemized and detailed in the fund. Otherwise, it amounted to a slush fund. But that very week, just prior to our vote, we had seen the Trump administration take about four different positions on SNAP as to whether or not benefits would be paid, or whether or not a federal district court decisions would be respected or appealed, whether states might be penalized for filling in at the time beyond the 65% that the Trump administration put out there as another option. So all of this volatile churning that we have seen has left us in a position of real instability and lack of confidence in being able to predict what we might be facing. So what we saw a few weeks ago was, in effect, a midnight attack or an attack at 2:00 in the morning, one night where the Trump administration indicated that it was going to discontinue funding for mental health grants throughout the country. Twenty-four hours later that was rescinded. We also saw a proposal to cut HUD funding for housing vouchers for people who had been on the streets but then had been stabilized in shelters and then moved into subsidized housing. That was put out there and then also rolled back. But all of this is gm/rr 113 very, very disturbing. How do you plan when all of these things are out there? You don't know which ones will turn out to be threats and which ones will turn out to be actual. What we're seeing probably is that the Trump administration seems to be reacting to where there's congressional opposition from Republicans and then pulls back on this. But we can't operate that way. So it's absolutely essential for us to continue this fund, to have the remainder of that $500 million on hand. And we still are facing-- we know that some people in our state are going to be facing some loss of SNAP funds. That is, those who may not be able to meet the work or volunteer requirements. They're still facing a loss of their SNAP funds. So there's a significant exposure there. And the funding that has been expended already, I think, is clearly essential. A 115 million to replace expiring federal health care subsidies, absolutely critical. The money that was spent to increase call volume at 211 for community action agencies, the replacement of community school grants that were being cut on short notice for New Haven, Waterbury, and Hartford public schools, expanding health workers' ability to help the public meet changes to SNAP and Medicaid eligibility. All of these things are essential and necessary, and we are fortunate that we, unlike other states, do have a budget reserve fund. We have had surpluses built over the last several years. So we are in a position to meet this rainy day because it certainly does qualify as a rainy day and is one that is even more disturbing because it is not one that we can plan for. Again, there is such a degree of volatility and capriciousness and arbitrary conduct, I think, on the part of the Federal Administration in Washington that things are roiling in a way that is very hard for us to deal with governmentally. gm/rr 114 We all hope, as government agencies and government entities, that we will be able to rationally plan. But we've been robbed of that capacity because of what we're facing in Washington. So this extension of this fund does allow us to, perhaps, cushion the blow, even if at this point we can't accurately predict what the next blow will be. But we expect there will be one coming soon, but at least we are in a position, by the extension and maintenance of this fund, to deal with it and to make it less painful for the residents of our state than might otherwise be the case. So for that reason, Madam President, I urge the chamber to support this bill today and to get it to the House of Representatives, where they can take it up tomorrow. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the federal cuts response fund. We are now voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the senate on Senate Bill No. 83. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. We are now voting on the bill. Senate Bill Number 83, enact establishing the federal cuts response fund. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill number 83, an act established in the federal cuts response fund. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. We gm/rr 115 are now voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill number 83. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total Number Voting 36 Total Voting Yea 28 Total Voting Nay 8 Absent, Not Voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to immediately transmit that bill down to the

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, yield to any points of personal privilege or announcements. Madam President.

Just for a journal notation, Senator Lesser missed a couple of votes, and if it can reflect that he was on business in his district.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe that concludes our business for today, and I would move that we adjourn, subject to call of the chair.