June 15, 2026 · 1,989 words · 6 speakers · 20 segments
The Senate will come to order. The Senate will come to order for the 2026 reconvening of the 2026 regular session for purposes of considering vetoes filed by the Governor. We will begin this morning with a prayer by our guest Chaplain, Ken Saccente, of Milford. Mr. Chaplain.
Please bless us with an inner strength so that our lives and our work may be a blessing on others.
Thank you. Short and to the point, very -- thank you. We now call for the Pledge of Allegiance, our distinguished Republican Leader, Senator Harding, and our Majority Leader, of course, Senator Duff, bipartisan Pledge of Allegiance. [laughs] SENATORS DUFF (25TH) & HARDING (30TH): I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you, gentlemen. Is there business on the Clerk's desk? bk/rr 2
The Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda item No. 1, dated June 15th, 2026.
Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. Morning to you. Good morning to our Republican leader. Mr. President, I move all items on Senate Agenda No. 1, dated June 15th, 2026, be acted upon as indicated; that the agenda be incorporated by reference in
Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader. Will you remark? Will you remark? If not, let us vote on the adoption of the Senate Agenda. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye.
Opposed? The Senate Agenda is adopted. No. 1 RECONVENED SESSION RECONVENING 2026 Regular SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY bk/rr 3 Whereas, the Governor has disapproved a bill passed by the Regular Session of the 2026 General Assembly and has transmitted same to the Secretary of the State with his objections: and Whereas, the Regular Session of the 2026 General Assembly adjourned on May 6, 2026, in accordance with the Constitution of Connecticut; and Whereas, said bill was not reconsidered by the General Assembly or was so disapproved by the Governor after said adjournment. Now Therefore, as required by Article Third of the Amendments to the Constitution of Connecticut, I hereby call the 2026 Regular Session of the General Assembly to reconvene in session at Hartford on Monday June 15, 2026, at ten o'clock in the morning, for a period not to exceed three days following such reconvening, for the sole purpose of reconsidering and, if the General Assembly so desires, repassing said bill. Given under my hand and the Seal of the State at the City of Hartford, this 9th day of June 2026. Stephanie Thomas Secretary of the State
March 3, 2026 The Honorable Stephanie Thomas Secretary of the State State Capitol Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Madam Secretary: Pursuant to Article Fourth, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, which bk/rr 4 authorizes the Governor to disapprove distinct items of appropriation contained in any bill while approving the remainder, I hereby approve Reallocation of Certain State Funds and Various Provisions Relating to Education, Public Safety, General Government, Elections, Intermediate Care Facilities and Warehouse Distribution Centers, except for the specific items of appropriation listed below, which I return without my approval. Article Fourth, Section 16 permits the Governor to veto "items of appropriation" without rejecting an entire measure. The provisions identified below constitute distinct, severable appropriations of specified dollar amounts directed to particular entities or purposes. Accordingly, they are subject to line-item veto authority. Let me be clear at the outset: my objection is not to the missions of the organizations named in these sections, nor to the goals the legislature seeks to advance. Many of these programs do meaningful work in communities across our state. My objection is to the process. Over the past year, Connecticut residents have rightly asked for greater transparency and accountability in how legislatively directed funds - commonly referred to as earmarks - are proposed, reviewed, and distributed. When taxpayer dollars are set aside for specific entities outside of a competitive or formula-based process, the public deserves to know exactly how and why those decisions are made, what standards apply, and what oversight mechanisms are in place. That is why I introduced House Bill 5039, legislation that would establish clear guardrails bk/rr 5 for legislatively directed funds. That proposal would require detailed identification of recipients defined purposes for the use of funds, reimbursement-based disbursement except in limited circumstances, annual reporting by recipients and agencies, and publication of a public database so taxpayers can see where their money is going. Those reforms are straightforward. They are reasonable. And they are necessary. Until meaningful transparency and oversight standards are enacted into law, I will not approve new legislatively directed appropriations embedded in omnibus legislation. Accordingly, I disapprove the following distinct items of appropriation: • Section 5(a) - The transfer of $174,000 from the Department of Education, Other Expenses, to the Department of Economic and Community Development for a granting aid to the New London VFW. • Section 6 - The direction that $70,000 of Judicial Department, Other Expenses, be made available for a grant to the Village Initiative Project. • Section 7 - The direction that not more than $2,500,000 from the Office of Policy and Management, Other Expenses, be made available for outdoor recreation in the City of Hartford. • Section 11 - The direction that $330,000 from the Department of Economic and Community Development, Other Expenses, be made available for a grant to Our Piece of the Pie. • Section 12 - The direction that $750,000 in each of FY 2026 and FY 2027 from the Department of Education, Other Expenses, be made available for a teacher residency program operated by the Capitol Region Education Council. bk/rr 6 • Section 13 - The direction that $200,000 from the Department of Education, Other Expenses, be made available for a grant to Free Agent Now, together with the associated non-lapsing carryforward provision. Each of the foregoing provisions sets aside a specific, identifiable sum for a designated entity or purpose. As such, they constitute distinct items of appropriation and are properly subject to line- item disapproval under the Constitution. These provisions direct specific sums to particular entities outside of a competitive or formula-driven framework. Approving them without structural reform would perpetuate a system that lacks consistent transparency and enforceable standards. I hope this action does not overshadow the many important provisions contained in this bill, including strengthening health and safety standards for warehouse workers, safeguarding our elections from federal interference, and enhancing training for our police officers. I am proud of the work we have done together on these priorities, and I remain committed to continuing that partnership as we move Connecticut forward. I remain ready to work with the General Assembly to pass meaningful earmark reform. Once we have a clear statutory framework that ensures accountability and protects public trust, I will welcome the opportunity to review future targeted appropriations within that structure. I approve the remainder of Senate Bill No. 298 and return the foregoing items without my approval. Respectfully submitted, Ned Lamont bk/rr 7 Governor State of Connecticut
At this point, we'll have points of personal privilege, and the Chair will take one. I believe Senator Harding also wants to comment on the issue as well and perhaps our Majority Leader as well. Our presence here this morning for this veto session is somewhat unusual, somewhat anomalous in that the one item that was under consideration which we are not going to make an effort to override, but, were noticed to convene by the Secretary of State, was a matter that was taken up during the regular session, and it was a bill that the Governor signed but line- item vetoed certain spending portions of it. That veto occurred on March 3rd of the regular session. So we had from March 3rd until May 6th, to take up that veto had we chosen to. Clearly, I think the intent of the General Assembly was reflected by the fact that we did not take action during that period of two months and three days. But yet, we were -- the constitutional interpretation was to require us to come in today. Would be something that probably would not draw that much notice, had there been other bills that the Governor had vetoed. And this would be just one of several agendas to come in and have, in effect, a technical session, whether -- if we were not going to attempt an override on any of them. But we just note that somewhat odd result in this case, and would urge the Chamber and the House, the entire General Assembly, to take a look at that issue for the future. Senator Harding.
Well, thank you, Mr. President. And, even though it's anomalous why we may be here, it is nice to see you nevertheless. I mean, nice to see Senator Duff. bk/rr 8 But with that said, I want to also comment on Senator Looney, Mr. President's comments. I believe he's absolutely correct. And I do believe that maybe next legislative session, we could talk about some - - the way we interpret the constitution and whether or not it's necessary to have a veto session. Because as Senator Looney rightly mentioned, we as a legislative body had over two months in session to override the veto, yet we decided not to do so. And I think that if there's a reasonable span time where, if a veto was made, let's say, 35, 45 days out, from the end of session, that there's no veto session necessary, if the legislative body decides in that 45-day period or more, not to override. So, again, I just want to comment that I would agree with Senator Looney's comments. I would hope that next session we could take a look at that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Senator Harding. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. Good comments by both you and the Republican Leader as well. I'm just going to take a quick point of personal privilege.
Please proceed, sir.
One is why we see our sound systems getting a redo here. [laughs] But I'd like to introduce two folks here from the city of Norwalk. We have Rodrigo Torres, who was in the room when we had the retirement celebration for Senate President Looney and he was here when we saw all the folks here, but bk/rr 9 this is an actual real session. Rodrigo just graduated from the Center for Global Studies at Brien McMahon High School and is on his way to George Washington University in the fall. And then we have William Kibbe, who is a rising junior at University of Massachusetts of Amherst and lives right down the road from me, and is also interested in the political world as well. So, it's been great. I think a number of us have had folks who are interested in learning more about our state government, and we should make sure that we try to inspire them and help them as much as we can, as the next generation of leaders. So if the Chamber can give a nice warm welcome to my guests, I would appreciate it. Thank you. [Applause]
Welcome. Although we don't have a full complement of people here, we welcome you with enthusiasm nevertheless. So, again, I hope you have a good time up here today and will be back with us in many other occasions when we have a full house. Thank you so much. Mr. Majority Leader.
Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I don't think there's any further business in front of us at the moment. So I motion that we adjourn sine die.
Motion to adjourn sine die. All in favor?
Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned sine die. (Gavel) bk/rr 10 (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 10:36 a.m. adjourned sine die.)