CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-20

Let us pray. Dear lord, we gather here with one purpose in mind, the people of Connecticut. We ask that you ignite a fire within us, a fire that helps us see beyond appearances, beyond words, and beyond the distractions that can hinder the work before us. Remind us that while we do not have all the answers, but you do. Where our understanding falls short, grant us wisdom. Where our vision is limited, grant us clarity. Where decisions feel pr/rr 2 uncertain, grant us discernment. We recognize that we are never greater than you, but through you, we are equipped to do meaningful work, to stand firm, and to serve with conviction. Let our efforts reflect unity, strength, and compassion. As we move forward, we trust you in every step. In your name, we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purposes of an announcement.

Thank you. With my good co-host here, Rep. Moira, we are hosting Food Insecurity Day here, the 4th annual, started by our former Rep. Cook. We're carrying on the tradition. We hope that you all join us. You all have been given the invite. But most importantly, we hope that you bring canned goods, tuna, ramen, and other things that are very necessary right now in our food banks to the Capitol and put them in the boxes you see around. You've got four chances this week to do it. We hope you all encourage you all to do it. Thanks again, speaker. pr/rr 4

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege, please.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with some sad news, actually. Our former Speaker of the House here, James Amon, lost his mother last week. She passed away at the age of 92, Nancy Amon. Nancy was a member of the first graduating class of Milford High School. So she lived a wonderful life. She was a dedicated, caring nurse. And I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the chamber keep Jim, his wife, Terry, and all of his family in our prayers, that we keep them all pr/rr 5 in their prayers during this time. And I ask for a moment of silence, please, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning. I request a moment of silence.

West Haven lost an icon in our community last week, Sammy Ziada. For many years, Sammy was a proprietor of Sal's Barbershop on Campbell Avenue next to the famous Johnny's Grill in beautiful downtown West Haven. Generations of Westies got their first haircut from Sammy, and getting a haircut usually was a social event that could last most of the day. Sammy was larger than life. He was Sammy the barber, Sammy from Miami, and everybody, everybody was his cousin. I like to extend our condolences to the Ziada family, his daughter Adele, and her husband Porky. The Ziada family has given much to West Haven over the years and continues to do so. Sammy will be missed. He was quite the character, and West Haven will be just a little quieter now without him. So I'd ask my colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in his honor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Morning, Mr. Speaker.

Rise for an announcement.

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Nolan. Representative Santos of the 109th from Danbury, where are you at?

pr/rr 9 Mr. Speaker, we lost a beloved member of our community in Danbury, just about a week or so ago, a little more than a week now. Her name was Hermenia Furtado, she lived in the 109th District. I got to know her when I was a teenager. Her grandson, Daniel, was one of my best friends, and she built a life in Danbury around community, around faith, and around her family. She had five kids, 13 grandchildren, several great-grandchildren. And though she was tiny, she was fierce, and she was the kind of person who would open her door to anyone. I spent many Thanksgivings and other holidays with her family, the kind that would say, you know, you want to eat something, honey? That was the trademark line from her. And so the community misses her. Her family certainly does, and I hope that my colleagues here would rise in a moment of silence to remember Hermenia Furtado, who Danbury lost not too long ago.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

Thank you so much through you. Today, I am rising in recognition of the first day of International MS Awareness Week, which begins today. For those of you who may or may not know, I've been suffering with multiple sclerosis for the last 26 years. And some of you may have noticed that I've been using a roll-it or walker the last week or two, because my symptoms are starting to catch up with me. So I want to thank everybody in this chamber who has been supportive and offered for their help. And just to dismiss some of the myths, I can walk, I can stand, just not very long or very solidly. So you may see me walking around without it. But in the meantime, I want us all to take a minute and think of all the people who, in Connecticut, the tens of thousands of pr/rr 11 people in Connecticut who suffer from this degenerative disease, and support the work that we are doing to make life just a little bit easier for them. So thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let's have a great session day.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

Thank you, sir. Happy birthday to Mom. Any more announcements or introductions? This is your last chance. If not, visit on the Clerk's desk.

Mr. Majority Leader.

pr/rr 13 So ordered. And the daily Calendar.

On page four, Calendar 386, Senate Joint Resolution No. 4, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF HARRY RILLING OF NORWALK TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONNECTICUT PORT AUTHORITY. Favorable Report. Executive Legislative Nominations.

pr/rr 14 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Mayor Rillings, or former Mayor Rillings, now graduated from Norwalk High School before almost immediately enlisting in the United States Navy. During his military service, he was stationed at the government's largest communications facility in Isabella, Puerto Rico, and received his honorable discharge from the Navy in 1971. In September that very year, Mayor Rilling joined the Norwalk Police Department, where he began his career as a patrolman. And then over the next 24 years, he rose through the ranks, the department eventually becoming chief of police in 1995, where he served there until 2012. In 2013, Chief Rillings was elected Mayor of the city of Norwalk, where he served with honor and distinction, until, I pr/rr 15 believe, last year. During his testimony, he clearly understood the importance of the port authority spoke, willingness about the economic development, the driver that the port authority has his nomination passed unanimously out of committee, Mr. Speaker. With that, I urge your adoption.

I can never do it that quickly. Thank you, mister.

pr/rr 16 I'm bidding higher on this. I'm bidding, I'm at a thousand on that one. So, but no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. The good chair of Exec Dem has really laid it out well. Mr. Rilling's got a wealth of experience. We talked about the Navy experience because I was in the Navy at the Davis hearing, and I did ask him kiddingly, and I'm glad he's serving. You've done so much in your life. You want to keep doing it. So he's really a wealth of experience for this position, and he has a wealth of knowledge. So I support him in a 100%. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to say rise in support of my friend, Mayor Rilling. He has been a star Mayor for Norwalk in the last 12 years, I think it was, and now he's retired. And I guess retirement is making him want to get more involved in other parts of the state, which is fantastic, and pr/rr 17 Connecticut would be so lucky to have him on the board of authority. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise through you to make a comment about our former Mayor of Norwalk, Harry Rilling. Yes. Words don't describe the service that he has given our city as former police chief and our Mayor, and I want to echo the comments of my good colleague, from New Canaan and Norwalk, Rep. Dathan. Rep. Simms, Rep. Mara, and Rep. Tadeem Roberts, and I have all been influentially a part of that team, led by Harry Rilling. And I'll say this, he's such an amazing navigator on the water that I know that the Port Authority is in good hands with his expertise. As a coastal community Mayor, he will bring insight to that role. And as a lauded former law enforcement official, this is a perfect role for him in our state service, and congratulations on this nomination. And thank you, Mr. pr/rr 18

Any opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.

On page four, Calendar 387. Senate Joint Resolution No. 5. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE CHRISTINE PERRA RAPILLO OF CHESHIRE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW pr/rr 19 COUNCIL. Favorable Report of the Executive and Legislative Nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Great to see you up there. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Judge Perra Rapillo received her BA from Wheaton College of Massachusetts and her JD from UConn School of Law. She began her legal career as a staff pr/rr 20 attorney at New Haven Legal Assistance Association before holding several different positions, as a public defender, becoming chief public defender for the state in 2017. In 2022, Judge Pero Rapillo was appointed by Governor Lamont as a judge to the Superior Court, where she has presided the bench over juvenile family matters as well as negotiating settlements on various issues. During her testimony, she was very adamant, Mr. Speaker, in how important this role is to create public trust in the system, and her experience and her background really showcased that. Her nomination passed unanimously out of committee, Mr. Speaker. With that, I urge adoption.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of Judge Rapillo. She answered all our questions. She's got a wealth of pr/rr 21 experience and knowledge, and like the good Chairman said, laid it all out for her. So I mean, staying in 100% support. Thank you.

All those in favor opposed nay. The ayes have it. Resolution is adopted. Will the Clerk please call on Calendar No. 388.

Representative Concepcion, you have the floor, sir.

Of course. For the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of resolution. Representative Concepcion, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on the resolution for us? Representative Yaccarino, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

On page four, Calendar 389, Senate Joint Resolution No. 10. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF DR. ANDREW CARLSON OF MILFORD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nominations. pr/rr 25

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Carlson received his BS from Cornell University and his MD from the UConn School of Medicine. He's a practicing pediatrician currently serving as the division of head of primary care at CCMC and an assistant professor at UConn. For many years, Dr. Carlson also served as a medical advisor to the city of Meriden and the Meriden public schools where he worked closely with leadership school administrators, nurses, pr/rr 26 families, and issues related to student, both physical and mental health. During his testimony, Dr. Carlson clearly showed his experience and background would make a great asset to the state Board of Education. His nomination passed unanimously out of committee, Mr. Speaker, with that urge adoption.

Yes. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I say in support of Mr. Carlson, like we asked all the members of the state Board of Education, even though they don't set the policy, our towns are all suffering from high insurance on our Board of Education, and something that we want them to look at. But I see it in strong support of Mr. Carlson, Dr. Carlson. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Dr. Carlson. I'm happy to see him on our list of nominations today. He has served the community of Milford very well. I've known him for a very long time. He has always been involved with our local sports, with the local schools, and everything, and I urge my colleagues to support him as well today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of the nomination of Dr. Andy Carlson. I've known Dr. Carlson probably more than 25 years. He's compassionate, hardworking. He is well, it sounds like pr/rr 28 a puppy dog. He is just thoughtful and kind, and he is the type of person we want to serve on our Board of Education. He is so deeply rooted in the Milford and Orange communities. He serves as the physician for our local football team, and he is always there to make sure all of our students fulfill every desire they want to lead to lifelong achievements. So I urge my colleagues to support doctor Andy Carlson today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Resolution is adopted. Aye. Will the Clerk please call Calendar 390? pr/rr 29

Representative Concepcion, you the floor, sir.

Question for the chamber's acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution. Representative Concepcion, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on the resolution before us? Representative Yaccarino, you have the floor, sir.

Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Page five, Calendar 391, Senate Joint Resolution No. 36. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF DONALD E. WILLIAMS, JR. OF BROOKLYN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS FOR HIGHER pr/rr 32 EDUCATION. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nominations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, former Senator Williams received his BS from Syracuse University and his JD from Washington and Lee University School of Law. His career in public service began early on when he was elected as a first elective of Thompson pr/rr 33 in 1987, serving two terms there. In 1993, he was elected state senator of the 29th district, where he served with distinction until 2015, when he retired as Senate president. He then served for six years as the executive director of the Connecticut Education Association, where he was responsible for implementing priorities and policies for Connecticut's largest education union, representing more than 43,000 students. Former Senator Williams is obviously no stranger to public service. Again, his demeanor and attitude at the committee meeting was explanatory. He was fantastic. He truly understands the how to showcase his love for the state and the future workforce for the state of Connecticut. His nomination passed unanimously out of committee. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, we know former Senator Williams, and I supported him in committee -- and I well, no. I could not pr/rr 34 vote for him, I think, the day because he sent a resolution, but I'll vote for him today. My issue was for any of the member of the board of regents. I know they do a good job, but it's just so people know that one of the other members we voted on today were not paid. They're volunteers. These are fairly high-paid jobs, I believe. And that's the only rub I have, is I would love to have gone back to the board of trustees. I think it helps the states much less money to put into education or higher ed or local education, but I'm going to support him. I think he'll do a great job. But I just think the board of regents is to me, it's overpaid. I'm nothing -- no disrespect with all due respect. I just think that we need to look at all these things, but I will be supporting him. I think he'll do a great job, and he did a very good job as a senator. I just wanted to let that know be known that they are paid. And if there's anybody that wants, I don't believe I'm wrong. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to say I'm voicing my opinion in strong support of former Senator Williams. He was my senator. He did a great job when I first got here, and I'm really pleased to see him have this nomination. So he does great work. He understands the systems all -- the entire systems in the state of Connecticut. So I'm really, really pleased to offer my support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just a quick question to the good proponent, if I may, through you.

I heard that the Board of Regents has paid salaries, and in doing a little research, I saw that the highest salary at the Connecticut Board of Regents in 2025 was $453,000. And the number of employees at the Connecticut Board of Regents in 2025 was 23,125, and the average salary was $30,000. I'm wondering what is the salary for a member of the Board of Regents for higher education? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't have that answer. I did the same Google search that you did, and I got the exact same numbers. Those are the large range. Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So we don't know who at the Board of Regents makes $453,000. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do not. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if is this job going to be one of the $30,000 a year jobs or one of the $450,000 a year jobs if the good proponent knows? Through you. pr/rr 38

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. I do not. Through you.

Obviously, former speaker or actually former president of vote no. I'm just concerned about the salaries. I had proposed a bill, didn't even get a hearing on any salaries over the governor's salary should be voted on by the legislature. I truly believe that's a great bill. Good bill ought to pass, but it never got out of the committee. But just think about it. If we had a vote on any employee who made more than the governor, we'd have an open process and know everybody would know what everybody made. Now we could Google it and research the Connecticut salaries under FOI. pr/rr 39 But right now, I think we should have the ability to vote on anybody who makes more than the governor. And I'm going to listen to more if anybody else has anything to say on this. I know normally this goes pretty quickly, but, as everybody knows, we've got a lot of debt in Connecticut, and salaries are number one in the country for public service here in Connecticut. So, anyway, just want to bring that out. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the good proponents' responses. Thank you.

I'm guessing our side is going to want to vote on this. A roll call, I'm guessing. So

--on the resolution before us. If not, the machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members recheck the board to determine your vote is properly cast? For all the members who voted, it shouldn't be locked, and the Clerk takes time. Clerk, please announce the tally.

Resolution is adopted in concurrence with the Senate. Will the court please call? Calendar No. 392?

Representative Concepcion, we have the floor, sir.

Question before the chamber, acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report, and adoption of resolution. Representative Concepcion, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on the resolution? Representative Yaccarino. You have the floor, sir.

pr/rr 44 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? Will you remark on further resolution before us? Representative O'Dea laid on the button there.

You may proceed. Representative Concepcion.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

On page five, Calendar 393. Senate Joint Resolution No. 65, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF EVAN PITKOFF OF RIDGEFIELD TO BE A MEMBER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nominations. pr/rr 46

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pitkoff received his BA from Brooklyn College, his master's from NYU, and his doctorate from Columbia. He began his career as a special education teacher in New York before making his way to New Britain High School, where he served as principal for seven years. He then served as superintendent at regional school district number 10, which includes Arlington and Burlington, and as Newtown superintendent pr/rr 47 from 2002 to 2007. He retired in 2018 after 11 years serving as the executive director for the Cooperative Educational Services. Obviously, given his diverse experience and his understanding and appreciation of multiple points of views, particularly navigating through the education system, he'd make another great addition to the Board of Education. His nomination passed unanimously out of committee. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

It's a busy morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Yeah. Mr. Pitkoff has a wealth of experience as far as education, a teacher, a principal. He answered all the questions. And just for clarification, I'm going to ask the good chair a question of exec terms. These positions on the State Board of Ed, I believe, are volunteer through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they are. Through you.

I thought -- thanks. It's a good cheer. I thought so. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah. He like all of our members, most are volunteers. Of course, the commissioners are paid. The arbitrators should be paid because they're trying to bring up a solution quickly. So I do support Mr. Pitkoff. He's got tremendous experience, so I stand in support. Thank you.

Page six, Calendar 394. Senate Joint Resolution No. 66. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF RICHARD H. KOSINSKI OF OXFORD TO BE REAPPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nomination.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Attorney Kosinski received his BA from UConn and his JD from Saint John's University. He joined the United States Army shortly after graduation and as a JAG officer. He first worked as a prosecutor before beginning his injunction career as a foreign claims commissioner in Vietnam. When he returned home to practice law, he concentrated on employment relationship and was appointed to the education arbitration panel all the way back in 1991 by then-Governor Weicker. Mr. Kosinski has served on the panel for the last 35 years, and we asked the question if he's ever lost passion for the work, and it was obviously he has not lost passion for the work. And can continue to do some great work on behalf of the state of Connecticut. His nomination passed unanimously out of committee, Mr. Speaker. With that, I urge adoption.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. When I first questioned Mr. Kosinski, I thought he was fairly new. He's been on the board for over 30- plus years. True on his amount of experience, loves his job. He loves helping people, and I stand in strong support. Served our country. Served our state. What else could you ask? And it's a volunteer position. Thank you.

pr/rr 52 All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Resolution's adopted. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 395?

Representative conception, you have the floor, sir.

Question for the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of resolution. Representative Concepcion, you have the floor, sir. pr/rr 53

Will you remark on the resolution? Representative Yaccarino, you have the floor.

Representative Concepcion.

Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I will -- oh, Representative O'Dea of the 125th. Quick on the trigger there.

Representative Concepcion. pr/rr 56

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Page six, Calendar 396. Senate Joint Resolution No. 68. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF SALLY KRUSE OF HAMDEN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CONNECTICUT PORT AUTHORITY. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nominations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Miss Kruse received both her BS and master's from Rutgers University. Her extensive career in the maritime industry has spanned almost 40 years in several different capacities, including as environmental manager for a few different electric utility companies and now as the executive director of the New Haven Port Authority. In this role, Miss Kruse is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of one of our, of course, most important ports in establishing and implementing goals objectives of the organization. During her testimony, she clearly knew the importance of the maritime industry and its role in economic vibrancy throughout the state of Connecticut. Her nomination passed unanimously out of committee with them, Mr. Speaker. I urge adoption.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. Miss Kruse, to me, the port authority is vitally important for our state of Connecticut for economic development, especially I'm in North Haven near New Haven, and then you have the Bridgeport Port and New London Port. It's really important to have strong, vibrant ports, and I believe I think she brings the energy and the experience to this role. I believe it is a volunteer role through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good chair. I believe it's a volunteer I mean, nonpaid position. Through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it is a volunteer position. pr/rr 60

Representative Yaccarino. I appreciate the clarification. I think we all know how important like -- ports are, vitally important to our -- we have a state that has a nice shoreline, and we can utilize it. And these men and women that serve in these positions try to enhance our ports with the local Mayors and first selectmens and boards and commissions. So I stand in support of her, and I would hope we support our support -- we all support our ports for a better economy and better recreation. Thank you.

Page six, Calendar 397. Senate Joint Resolution No. 69, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF GLENN POWELL OF COLLINSVILLE TO BE REAPPOINTED A MEMBER OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ARBITRATION PANEL. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nominations.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Paul received his BA from Hofstra and his JD from Cornell Law School. He's been a labor and employment lawyer for 45 years, working on behalf of various commissions and panels. He's handled a wide variety of labor and employment law and contract matter disputes, which have taught him the importance of working closely with both parties. Obviously, his experience and background make him perfectly suitable to continue in this role. This is a renomination. His nomination during our committee passed unanimously out of committee. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge adoption.

pr/rr 63 Yes, Mr. Speaker. I see it in support of Mr. Powell. Again, these men and women want to settle these differences as quick as possible, and there is a small cost or a cost to both parties, but they pay it. And at the end of the day, the quicker you settle this case and/or a dispute, and both parties are happy, that's what you want. So I stand in support. Thank you.

All those opposed nay? The ayes have it. The resolution is adopted in concurrence of the Senate. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 398? pr/rr 64

Representative Concepcion, you have the other floor.

Question for the chamber is acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption resolution. Representative Concepcion, the floor.

Will you remark on further resolution? Representative Yaccarino, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative.

Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Page 7. Calendar 399, Senate Joint Resolution No. 71. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF SHANNON JACOVINO OF WEST HARTFORD TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES OMBUDSPERSON. Favorable Report of Executive and Legislative Nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of Committee's Favorable Report in adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Miss Jacovino received her BA from the University of Connecticut and began her career as a case manager for United Services. And while she's had a long and distinguished career with multiple organizations, she spent her last four years as a great ombudsman for development services. Miss Jacovino is extremely well respected because she truly understands what this role is about, which is accountability, access, and fairness. Serving as that independent, impartial advocate has helped families with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities navigate a pretty complex system that can sometimes negatively impact this vulnerable population. It was clear in her testimony that she clearly cares about this work and the impact it has on thousands of families in this state. She absolutely deserves to be reappointed to this position to continue this invaluable work that she does. Her nomination passed pr/rr 69 unanimously out of committee. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Yeah. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. Missus Jacovino obviously has a difficult role. Developmental services needs as much attention as possible, and I believe she brings that. She is a paid position, obviously. It's a reappointment. She's done a good job, but the fact is, we need between her role and the DCF's role, we need to really have our eyes on everything these men in these positions are doing for our young men and women or any adults for that need care, especially developmental care. So I'd seen the support of hers, but it is a paid role. I don't know how much she makes. I'm sure it's a fairly good sum of money, but I don't have the dollar. But I do support her, and I did support the role of coordinating between our developmental services. So thank you. pr/rr 70

Good to see you, Mr. Speaker. Sorry for coming up all the time here on this issue. But as I understand, I've heard nothing but good things about this candidate, and so I firmly anticipate voting yes. I'm just wondering, is the salary, I understand, somewhere between a dollar and what coach Hurley makes? It was, I think, about $6 million or $8 million -- $6 million, which by the way, I'm not complaining about. I just wish we could vote on that because I'm a fan of the UConn Huskies and think he does a great job. He's probably the best coach in the NCAs. So, that wasn't the purpose of me bringing that out, but we've got a range of between a dollar and 6 million. I'm wondering what this director would make, serving as I'm the person.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the good representative. I don't have that in front of me, but I'm sure you give me five more minutes to Google something. I can figure that out pretty quickly? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. W could talk later on. Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 72 Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And I just wanted to rise in support of Shannon Jacovino. She has been an absolute star to the whole IDD community and a real advocate for so many years. And I know Rep. Case, and I have been working with her on the IDD bills that we have been working on, and I just want to -- I can't say enough good things about her. So I rise in support and look forward to seeing her continuing her work as the DDS ombudsman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 73 All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Resolution is adopted in concurrence of the Senate. Will the Clerk please call on Calendar No. 413?

Chamber will stand at ease. Chamber will come back to order. From Park City, the Miami Of The North, the esteemed chair of the Judiciary Committee. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.

Question for the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of resolution. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.

Will you remark further on this resolution? Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution? Representative Osborne of the 16th. You have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the resolution? Representative O'Dea.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this candidate, Attorney Barrett. Although I've been litigating in the courts throughout Connecticut for 30 years or thereabouts, I have not done any family law work. I've not litigated against Mr. Barrett, but I've heard nothing but very good things from those who have. And just for the millions that are listening to us online, watching this, there is a process by which candidates go through to become a judge. And I was chair of judicial -- I was lucky enough to be chair of judicial selection a number of years ago. And in order for an attorney to become eligible to be nominated by the governor, they have to get through judicial selection, which we always held out as a member of judicial selection. It wasn't partisan. It didn't matter what party you're on. What mattered was, and it's statutory, your experience, your intellect, and your temperament. Those are the three things judicial selection group of 12 look at in order for you to become a judge, to become eligible to become a judge. And if you get on pr/rr 79 that list, get through judicial selection, then the governor nominates you, and they go through the process of a hearing in front of the Judiciary. Now, the judicial selection process, the late great Hugh Keefe was traditionally on, and he was a titan among us litigants, litigators, I should say. And I was lucky enough when I first went on to sit with him on judicial selection. Only about a third of the attorneys, 1/3, got through judicial selection. They either didn't have the experience, courtroom experience, or they didn't have the intellect, or they didn't have the temperament. And for those that are stuck hearing me and in Judiciary Committee asked the Robitis question. I got that from Justice McDonald. He had given that asked that question of everybody about Robitis. And Robitis is, for those non-lawyers, an attorney who goes to the trenches and litigates when they some of them when they used to become a judge, they would put on the robe and become very difficult to deal with. They forgot where they came from. So that person, the affliction they were ascribed was called Robitis, and it's a temperament situation. So it's one of the hardest things to determine whether or not somebody would be a good judge is their temperament. How are they going to change once they put on the pr/rr 80 robe? The best ones don't, but some of them do. And Mr. Barrett, from all I've never litigated against him, but for everything I've heard, he's going to be the ideal jurist. He's going to put on the robe. He's not going to forget where he came from. He's going to have humility. He clearly has the experience, and he has the intellect. No-brainer. This is going to be a unanimous nominee. He's going to go on consent as I understand it. But we have to make sure there's some people who have gotten through, and Robitis is the hardest to figure out. But Hugh Keefe used to say, on experience and intellect, it's easy to determine whether or not somebody's got the intellect to be a judge. It's clear. You ask questions. Do they like the individual voir dire process? Do they like the box voir dire process in federal court? What do they like better? Why? Ask about the constitution. The good chair of Judiciary knows that I carry around in my pocket a copy of the Constitution, the Connecticut and US. The intellect is easy to test. The temperament is difficult to test, and the experience you would think is easy to test. Mr. Barrett has the experience. Unfortunately, not all the nominees coming up before us today have the experience, but this one does, and I urge my colleagues to support him. Thank you for my little pr/rr 81 diatribe there on the process, but I think it's important for us, and it will become more important as we go on throughout the day. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised no one mentioned, by the way, Mr. Barrett will not be someone who you cannot recognize in the courtroom. His trademark bow tie, I'm assured, will remain with him in the courtroom. So with that, Mr. Speaker, if there's no objection, I would make a motion that we create a consent Calendar and move House Joint Resolution 72 to the consent Calendar.

Page two, Calendar 411. House Joint Resolution No. 70. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF FELICE N. GRAY-KEMP, ESQUIRE, OF HAMDEN TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of the Judiciary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the second of our nominees. This is the nomination of Felice Grey Kemp of Haddam to be a judge of the Superior Court. I will start by acknowledging, Mr. Speaker, that Ms. Gray-Kemp's nomination did not pass the Judiciary Committee unanimously. There were some no votes on this. But I'd like to explain, Mr. Speaker, why I believe Ms. Gray-Kemp has the intellect, temperament, and, yes, experience to be a judge of our superior court. First, with respect to intellect. Ms. Gray- Kemp is a graduate of Yale University, where she has a Bachelor of Arts in English literature. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but they didn't let me in. She also has a law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law, as well as an LLM, which is, for those who are not familiar, an LLM is sort of a post-law school extra, accreditation in taxation from Boston University School of Law. pr/rr 84 She has worked for a number of years, decades in fact, in general counsel roles. She has worked as the general -- deputy general counsel and compliance officer of such large Connecticut corporations as Amphenol Corporation. She also was the general counsel and compliance officer at Lego, among other locations in her career. I believe she was also with United Technologies at one point. Mr. Speaker, I think she certainly has the temperament. I believe she was very mild-mannered. She took on some very tough questioning in the Judiciary Committee, and I believe she stayed poised and respectful in answering those questions. Finally, with respect to experience, I think there were several questions posed to her about her actual courtroom experience. And, admittedly, her courtroom experience is a little more limited, I should say, actually, much more limited than some of our nominees, including the one we just previously entertained. But what Ms. Gray-Kemp, I believe, brings to the bench is years of having supervised counsel in litigation. You know, in a practice like mine, Mr. Speaker, where you're generally representing larger companies in litigation, sometimes there are judges who may come from either smaller firms or come from state service that don't quite understand the time or the intricacies involved in getting, pr/rr 85 a pleading reviewed and getting it up from the drafting phase to the general counsel reviewing it to the underlying client and back and sort of the delay that is involved with that, the strategy that goes into that, on a more complex case. And I believe, Ms. Gray-Kemp talked some about her experience in supervising that type of litigation, that I think, while maybe a somewhat untraditional path to the bench, is one that shows a diversity of experience that I think will be useful to our state court system, and I would urge support for her nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I sort of feel like the closing act following the opening act. I think Attorney O'Dea did a good opening on where we sit with this particular nominee. You know, in general, I will say she was poised. When she came before the committee, she answered questions. She answered questions in pr/rr 86 a poised manner. But if we go back and we look at the various nominees, I think starting five years ago, where we established during a public hearing that that particular nominee had been violating -- had been practicing law without a license, and the governor's office ended up withdrawing that nomination. That nominee, very poised during the public hearing, answered all the questions. A couple of years ago, we had a state's attorney who came before us, a lot of questions about his demeanor and how he was utilizing his prosecutor ability punitively against people that had been arrested. That individual, very poised during the public hearing, was able to answer questions. Last year, we had another nominee, a public defender, who, once again, a lot of questions about experience, their demeanor, very poised with the answers. I've never seen a nominee who jumped out of their skin, went nuts during a public hearing, that kind of stuff, based upon the questions. So I have to discount that. We have to actually look at what is before us here. In fact, there's no evidence that this individual ever supervised anybody in a courtroom engagement. There was a representation upon challenge. Admittedly, I think you could the takeaway is this person's never even walked pr/rr 87 into a courtroom anywhere in the country. And yet, we are going to put them on the bench for eight years with virtually no way to pull that person back. You know, usually, we hire someone in a government, there's a probationary period. Is this person going to work out? There is no evidence before the committee nor this body that this individual can operate in a courtroom or even knows what a courtroom looks like. We look at the questionnaire. You know, we send out a questionnaire to the nominees, ask them to answer certain questions. And we heard about judicial selection from the good representative. One of the questions that we ask is, when did you make it through judicial selection? The nominee's answer? Unknown. It was so long ago that she couldn't remember. We found out at the public hearing. It was about 15 years ago. 15 years ago. Now, a lot of things can happen in 15 years. We had another nominee that was put up by the governor, who had some problems with the law, and that was within the last 10 years. It was in the last six years. A lot of things can happen in 15 years. We also ask about areas of the law that the individual enjoys the most and why. Some of the answers we got were reaching creative, cost-effective, efficient resolutions to challenging problems so that parties can proceed pr/rr 88 with clarity. You walk into a courtroom, there's civil, there's juvenile, there's family, there's administrative appeals, there's all sorts of things. But the level of acumen by this particular individual, because she's never been in a courtroom anywhere, she's never been in a courtroom anywhere. She was unable to give us any area of law. Very telling. Also, we have the representation. We ask how often, in particular, what percentage of your court appearances were in federal courts? Now I've already told you, she's never basically been in a courtroom. She told us federal court's 5%. 5%. Of her appearances, court appearances were in federal court. State courts, 5%. Other courts, not applicable. So that adds up to 10%. We also ask what percentage of your court appearances were in jury cases or non-jury cases. Jury cases, 2%. Nonjury, 4%. But this person has never appeared in court. And the good representative talked about temperament. And there's a branch off of temperament that has to do with humility. Do you have the humility to admit when you're wrong, to hold yourself at a level that's not superior to others? The Robitis situation. We ask the question, please provide the names of any firms, offices, part-time, or legal employment pr/rr 89 associated with since submission to the bar. Years of each association, last 10 years, so on and so forth. Please include the general scope of your practice at the firm. The answer is titled summary, and then it says, and I quote, award-winning attorney with nearly 30 years of experience. I've never seen anything like that. Never. First of all, it doesn't answer the question. And second of all, it shows to me a level of superiority. That's not the temperament that we're looking for. We also ask to please list all public offices or positions you have held, local, state, federal government, if any, during the last 10 years. Include service at any legislative, executive, or judicial branch, boards, commissions, or committees, as well as local boards or commissions, and years of service. Her answer? She was a regent on the Connecticut State Board of Regents. She doesn't tell us when, so we have a nominee who's never been in a courtroom, who doesn't have humility, and can't follow directions. Great. Great. We also ask, please describe any pro bono work you have performed. Her answer supports boards with legal inputs, et cetera. Now, most people, in answer to that question, give us something concrete. I read to children as I do, I read to children pr/rr 90 during Dr. Seuss' week, you know, March 2, that week usually. Nothing concrete. We had this recently. We had a judicial renominee who serves frequently at a soup kitchen. Or we have -- I do pro bono work many times for clients that can't pay. But, obviously, because this woman hasn't been in a courtroom, she can't give us any examples of pro bono work in that area. We also ask, Mr. Speaker, for writing samples. And we have had this in the past, where a judicial nominee just can't write English. I remember we had a nominee a couple years ago, and it's like every paragraph had some sort of typo, misspelling, something like that. And we flagged that, and that nominee ended up not being a nominee anymore because it's important. It's important. You know, the judges are a reflection upon our society, our procedure. People go to court. Courts are very important because, but for our courts, you would have chaos. You would have a motor vehicle accident. You'd have people getting into a fight instead of going to court and resolving it there. It's very important, and what is generated by a court, especially by a judge, should not have typos and misspellings. So that's one of the things that we look for. And when we got the writing samples from this particular nominee, because they had never been in a courtroom anywhere, and pr/rr 91 although we heard a representation that they helped with some sort of case, never got any documents that were supportive of that position. There was three documents. And the third one -- and I was very careful. I asked the nominee about the creation of the backup. And one of the documents was a letter, a one-page letter. The nominee is representing to us that that is a sample of their writing. But I ran the metadata on the document and was able to establish that somebody else was the author. Now then, the story changed, that person is one of the people that works for this individual, and had a hand in this one-page letter. The story changed. But then I asked about content, and there was one particular case that was mentioned in that letter, and I asked about the substance of that case. And the individual was very general, and the case had a reference to the common law in the letter. And I asked, what was the analysis of the common law in that particular case? And the nominee was unable to answer the question. And I said, well, would it be of any surprise to you that the two words common law don't even appear in that case? All of these things should be of concern to the body. Because first of all, I pr/rr 92 have no idea what court our judicial branch is going to put this person into because they have no experience. We don't have a corporate law courtroom. We have a civil courtroom. Sure. Get out to be doing different things, but this individual has no experience. So one of us, maybe before this judge, who has no experience, never been in a courtroom before, has not shown that they know anything about the rules of practice, the rules of evidence, those are all important. They're part of due process. And I'm going to tell you, it's very, very scary for people that have never been in a courtroom before, and all of a sudden, they're looking up the judge, a person in a black robe who's a stranger, and they're hoping for their life, in some cases, that that person has some experience, experience with the court process. So, Mr. Speaker, I can't, in good faith, allow myself to vote for a nominee who -- I don't know why they're on the list. Obviously, they went through judicial selection over a decade ago. Nobody has reviewed this individual in the meantime. There's a lot of questions. The backup just doesn't match up, and the backup do not reflect experience or the demeanor to be on the bench. So I don't look to demean the individual, but I uphold the process, and I intend to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 93

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I didn't think at 01:30, before we even discussed the recreational marijuana bill, I'd be up this many times today, and I've cleared out my side. I guess I should work harder to clear out the other side if I keep talking. No. Yeah. But on a serious note, clearly, this candidate got out of the Judiciary Committee. And I don't have a crystal ball, but I'm pretty sure she's going to get out here and become a judge. And I hope she becomes one of the better judges that we have. I hope she won't get Robitis. I hope she will have the humility, and she clearly -- I agree with the good chair of Judiciary. She certainly has the intellect, and she -- we don't know about the temperament. We think -- I mean, she presented okay on the temperament issue. pr/rr 94 I'm not going to disagree with my ranking member, who I thought very eloquently set through his concerns. Those of us who sit on Judiciary know that the good ranking member is very thorough. If you've got an apostrophe in the wrong place or a comma versus a semicolon, he will call you out. And frankly, he's been, in my time, one of the best-ranking members we've ever had. He is as thorough as anyone, and I mean that. And I respect his opinion immensely. And here we are, and I do appreciate I'm not EF Hutton. Mr. -- the first kind of candidate here we voted on, is well respected in the community. We don't know what this candidate will be like on the bench. Judicial selection, quite frankly, I think, let us down here, and here's why I bring that up. I'm going to mention the late great Q'Keefe again. He would tell candidates, look, you don't have the experience. Go volunteer. You can represent a pro se. There are dozens of opportunities to get into a courtroom as a non-litigator, and judicial selection should have told this candidate to get some experience. Should have told this candidate, you know what? Volunteer. Represent someone who needs help. Because I will tell you, I've had cases where attorneys have gotten out of control. I actually had to physically hold one down. Marshals got called in. Judges, they go pr/rr 95 to judge school. One of the best things a judge can do is ask for a sidebar. If there's an evidentiary hearing -- an evidentiary concern on whether or not something's hearsay, relevant. You know, you call for a sidebar if you don't know. If you're not ready to make a ruling and you want to have a further conversation outside the presence of the jury, you can excuse the jury or you can have a sidebar. This candidate wouldn't know how to handle something like that. Hopefully, after judge school, they would. As an attorney who wants to become a judge, one of the best things you can do is observe someone as an attorney. How do they handle people on the other side? When I was on judicial selection, we would call, you give references to become a judge. Call three attorneys who've litigated against them. I would call those attorneys and say, who do you know has litigated against this candidate? So they're not on their list. Right? Because the people that are on the list for references, the attorney knows, hey. I'm putting you on my list of reference. Is it okay? Can you give me a good word? So someone's list of references is usually pretty good. So I always try and get one someone removed, once removed or two removed. pr/rr 96 And being a lawyer, New York is different. New York is very confrontational. Connecticut, generally, while it's confrontational, it's gentlemanly. The ladies and gentlemen of the Connecticut bar get along very well. I see my good colleague from Stamford, who also gets along very well with members of the bar. Someday he may become a judge, want to become a judge, and I'd certainly vote for him. No? My friend from the 148th. And by the way, my friend from the 82nd was sitting over here, I'd vote for him too. There he is. I'd vote for him too. I know his temperament. I know his experience. I know his intellect. This candidate, we don't know. So while I'm certain she's going to get through, and I wish her the best, and I do. And she may be one of our best jurists, and I hope in eight years, if I'm still here, someone put me out of my misery. No. I'm just kidding. I hope she's going to get unanimously through in eight years, because that means the right thing happened. She studied hard, she learned, and she became a very good judge. I just have too many concerns right now to vote yes. I'll continue to listen to the debate, so I don't clear out the room any further and see where I'm going to go. But I think I'm going to be a no, and I good appreciate, Mr. Speaker, for your time and attention. pr/rr 97

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'll be brief. Just a couple of additions to what my good ranking member of the Judiciary, my friend from New Canaan, just mentioned. Having been on the Judiciary for several years now, I know that the judicial branch does aid and try and help the prospective judges to get through the process. What baffles me is when we get a candidate like this that hasn't been in a Connecticut courtroom or worked on a criminal case in decades. They don't even make an effort to shadow a judge, take some time to sit in a courtroom, but just hasn't even been in the room. If you're out there, as my colleague from New Canaan mentioned, the many people watching this and the many people that are going to be judges or sitting -- our perspective judges, they watch the hearings. They know what's going to be asked. It always shocks me when someone comes in pretty much unprepared in the questionnaire and pr/rr 98 then not even making an effort to familiarize ourself with our courts. So for all those perspective judges out there, take some time, get into the Connecticut court, volunteer on a case, go pro se, or at least get there and shadow a judge, meet with the state's attorneys, meet with the public defenders, the family court, victims' advocates, so you know what you're getting into. But the effort's not there. And that's why I will also be a no on this candidate today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just a few brief remarks in response to some of my colleagues' concerns. First, I think, one of the things that was said during the debate, I believe, by the good representative from New Canaan, was judicial selection let us down. I don't know that I necessarily agree with that. I think judicial selection did what it was supposed to do. I think judicial selection looked at the experience, the intellect, and pr/rr 99 the temperament of this individual at a period of time, which was admittedly nearly two decades ago, and found her qualified. And that's what we asked judicial selection to do is to determine whether someone is qualified to go on the bench or not. And what I'm hearing here today is members of the Judiciary Committee saying, Yeah. You know what? Let's ignore what they had to say. We're going to make our own determination of qualifications, which is fine. That's the prerogative of the Judiciary Committee. I'm not saying they can't do that. But we are making a subjective decision based on our snapshot in time now, as opposed to what judicial selection did a couple years ago. And that, Mr. Speaker, I need to point out because I think it does present, I think, what we would all agree on the Judiciary Committee is a fundamental failure of the system right now. That is, once somebody goes through judicial selection in a period of eight, 10, 12 years goes by, they should have to go back through judicial selection again. You should not be entitled to stay on the list forever. But the statute as it currently exists says you go through judicial selection, you are approved, judicial selection deems you qualified to be a judge, the governor can pick someone off that pr/rr 100 list. I would submit -- I think the governor actually did make a very smart decision in this pick. I am proud to stand here and support this nominee before us. Like I said, I think the experience is different. It is not that this nominee has no experience. In fact, they have decades of experience at some of the very highest levels of the general counsel C-suite of very significant companies in our state. That may be a different experience. It certainly is a different experience than, say, Attorney Barrett who we just pushed through. But it is a level of experience, and it is a type of experience that I think provides professional diversity, which is something we need to continue to strive to push for on our bench. Mr. Speaker, the other thing I just want to say is there was a remark about her not shadowing judges or being in a courtroom. Her testimony before the committee was actually the opposite. I specifically asked her during the debate whether she'd had an opportunity to go and sit in court, and she said she did. She said she frequently went to New Haven Courthouse. I asked her for a few names of judges. Frankly, I was testing her, and she did respond with a few names of some prominent judges in the New Haven Courthouse that she had gone and testified. I think there may be a conflation between this pr/rr 101 nominee and maybe one of the other original nominees of this class who since withdrew. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to please support her nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just feel that I have to respond to some of the representations that were made. With particular the issue of shadowing judges. Yes. The question was asked. The two judges that were named were Judge Lubbie Harper and Judge Julie Crawford. Now, Lubbie Harper has not been on the bench since 2012, I believe. I couldn't tell you when the last time Lubbie Harper was actually in the New Haven courthouse. I've been practicing in our courts for 25 years. I've been in the New Haven Courthouse, various other courthouses for 25 years. I've never seen Judge Lupe Harper at the New Haven Courthouse. In fact, I think 2011, 2012, Judge Lubbie Harper was on the either the appellate court or the Supreme Court. pr/rr 102 So with regard to that nominee, it has to be at least, what, 15 years? If that's true? The other, Julie Crawford, is a JTR, a Judge Trial Referee, I believe. Recently reappointed in 2022. But also with regard to that individual, there was nothing concrete about a particular case, a particular subject matter. I believe the question was, What judges would you aspire to be like? This nominee falls flat on all fronts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the second time. Just briefly. And I do appreciate the good chair's remarks on the process, maybe failing us. And I know we had some legislation last year that we tried to get passed that you would have to go through judicial selection within the last, I think it was 10 years, which I support. I know there's some discussion about trying to fix that, make it eight years or 10 years or 12 years. I do think that's something we need to do. And I would ask the good chair if we could work together on getting pr/rr 103 that done. That would be fantastic with the good ranking member. With regard to, I'm looking at Connecticut General Statute Section 51-44(a) and Section (e) goes to evaluate incumbent judges. But if you look at Section (b), its appointments, I'm just looking for the definition of experience. It is not experience outside the courtroom. What we're referring to is experience in the courtroom. And so, I understand as I've been on the committee for fourteen years now, and if you add the three years on judicial selection, I've been kind of evaluating judges now and those who want to become a judge for 17 years. And as time has gone on, I'm sure my good colleague from the 110th has been evaluating them longer than that. The experience issue is about experience in a courtroom. And I think my good friend from 110th would admit that we've had less focus on experience in a courtroom as of late. I think, initially, when I first started, there was a focus on having how many trials did you have, those types of questions have come less and less. And I think that's hurt us from a bench standpoint. Certainly, rookie judges, I think we all would admit, are less experienced. And that could be a good thing. I don't think so. I think having courtroom experience is something every judge, pr/rr 104 even as a rookie, should have. And so, having listened to my good colleague, I'm looking forward to fixing, going back to judicial selection within 10 years, at least. I know the good ranking member wants it a little earlier than that, but I hope I'm wrong with this candidate, but I'm voting no because I'm not sure. I'm not comfortable voting yes that she has the temperament. I, unfortunately, do not think she has experience. And my good rank or good chair had said, well, judicial selection might not let us down because maybe 15 or plus years ago, she did have the experience. I didn't see it anywhere. Courtroom experience. That's why I was saying I thought I think judicial selection let us down because, looking back, she didn't try any cases. And since that time, judicial selection should have told her, go try some cases. Go be a pro bono. Help out somebody in court, so you get that courtroom experience. She didn't do that. And so for the hundreds of thousands or millions that are listening that want to become a judge in Connecticut, I would encourage you to get courtroom experience. Because it's not an easy job. I think all of us who are litigators here know being a judge is one of the toughest jobs you would have. And this candidate just doesn't have any experience. And she may be a very fast learner. I hope she is. And pr/rr 105 like I said, I hope she's unanimous in eight years. But, unfortunately, I'm going to have to be a no here today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the second time.

House Joint Resolution No. 70: Total Number of Voting 147 Necessary for adoption 74 pr/rr 106 Those voting Yea 99 Those voting Nay 48 Absent not voting 4

Page one, Calendar 408. Joint Resolution No. 67. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF SEAN P. MCGUINNESS, ESQUIRE, OF NORWALK TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of the Judiciary.

pr/rr 107 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the resolution to confirm Sean McGinnis to be a judge of the Superior Court. Attorney McGinnis has been working for a number of years in the various states' attorneys' offices as a prosecutor in our state. He's probably some of you may recognize the name from all the news coverage of the Michelle Troconis trial, in which he was one of the prosecutors. After that, he actually became the lead prosecutor in the GA court on Golden Hill Street in Bridgeport, Mr. Speaker. I think the committee was particularly impressed with his humility, his humor, as well as his extensive trial experience in our state courts. Mr. Speaker, most importantly, I did obtain a commitment from him that he will continue to attend Fairfield versus pr/rr 108 Quinnipiac basketball games with me as we have in the past. So with that commitment that I got from him, I can stand in support of his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nominee. My support is based upon things other than tickets and acquaintances. I will represent to the chamber that the backup for this individual is extremely impressive. His many, many years of actually being in court are to be heralded. In fact, this particular nominee just went through judicial selection in December. So we have someone, in contrast to the prior, who has gone through judicial selection within the last six or seven months, has extensive experience in our courts. Not only that, but writes extremely well. The backup for each of the cases that he brought to our attention actually puts a color, a flavor, tells us what those cases are about, because this gentleman actually has pr/rr 109 courtroom experience. And I do rise in support, and I ask my colleagues in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Attorney McGinnis's appointment to the Superior Court. I've had the privilege and the pleasure of knowing attorney McGinnis since after my first year of law school, when he was my intern coordinator at the Danbury State's Attorney's Office. In addition, he was my mock trial coach, where he has taught me, among countless other individuals of aspiring young attorneys, how to excel in the courtroom to master the skills of evidence, and be effective oral advocates. My good colleague at the 125th was recently talking about intellect, experience, and temperament. Above all else, Attorney McGinnis demonstrated to me time and time again that his pr/rr 110 temperament, above perhaps all else, is what makes him uniquely qualified for this role. While it's true that perhaps he hails from New Jersey, nothing wrong with that. My mom's from New Jersey. He's a Quinnipiac undergrad, Quinnipiac Law, and he continues to be an integral part of our community. He is an asset to the bench. He will continue to be an asset to the state, and I could not urge stronger adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise for a couple of quick comments, if I may.

Thank you. Like many of my colleagues, I rise today in support of Attorney McGinnis and this nomination. I had the privilege of serving on -- being on a mock trial at Quinnipiac Law School when he was on a mock trial. He was actually the judge when I came before a mock trial. And it's nice to hear that the sentiment today is that he remains the same person, full of humility and humor, and that he's a hardworking individual, that he was when I met him back at Quinnipiac. People tend to change over their careers, and the impression that I'm getting, again, is that he's still the same person. And it's really glad -- I'm really glad to hear that. I've heard nothing but good things about him. I've observed nothing but good things about him in the media and otherwise, and I just stand with such pride today in a fellow QU Law grad and happy to be here to support his nomination. Thank you.

pr/rr 112 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, my colleagues who spoke before me pretty much laid out the competency of Attorney McGinnis, but I had the experience of working with him at Danbury Court for years, and he proved to be a very respectful, very competent attorney. And I think he'll do a great job on the bench. So I stand in strong support as well. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I'd move House Joint Resolution 67 to the consent Calendar.

Page one, Calendar 409, House Joint Resolution No. 68. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF NISA J. KHAN, ESQUIRE, OF WEST HARTFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although I do believe now it's innovating since 1641, but who's keeping track? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise and support the nomination of Nisa Khan to be a judge of the Superior Court. This is quite an impressive applicant. She brings much-needed perspective, I believe, to the bench, not just in terms of her background, but she's emerging class of a new generation of jurists. She attended her undergraduate at Saint John's University and had got her law degree at Albany Law School. She has committed her career to one of public service, most recently with the Connecticut office of Attorney General's child protective services, working hand in hand with the Department of Children and Families, a job that I know firsthand, see some of the most difficult issues that we face here is, as a government and as a state. What she has also demonstrated is that she has substantial trial court and appellate court experience, which I believe would make her uniquely qualified and effective as a judge of the superior court. With the unanimous consent of the Judiciary Committee, I believe that she should be approved, and I urge my colleagues to support this candidate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 115

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the nominee that's before us also. We heard before about diversity on the bench, and certainly, diversity has various characteristics to it. And here we have a nominee who has actually practiced in our courts and has been in the juvenile area, the child protection area, which is very important to have that wide diversity. That individual can not only serve in juvenile court, they could serve in family court. There's a lot of overlap there. We have places that this individual could seamlessly go to, and it's a good appointment, and she is a good appointee. And I do rise to support, and I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move the House Joint Resolution 68 be placed on the consent calendar, please.

Page two, Calendar 410, House Joint Resolution No. 69. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF PATRICK M. FAHEY, ESQUIRE, OF SOUTH GLASTONBURY TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of confirming Patrick Fahey to be a judge of the Superior Court. He earned his undergraduate degree from Holy Cross Law School, University of Connecticut ( inaudible 1:59:57) practice law in 1993. He has spent the almost entirety of his professional career at Shipman & Goodwin where he has been a partner since 2004. In terms of his extracurricular activities, I would note that he was a member of the board of directors of the Connecticut Supreme Court Historical Society, and he is currently the Director of the Greater pr/rr 118 Hartford Legal Aid Foundation. I believe that he would be an excellent judge, and I urge adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this nominee as well. Another extension of diversity on the bench, this individual not only has practiced in court for many years, but not only state court, but federal court. And that knowledge many times comes into place having some level of knowledge about our federal court process is helpful being on the bench in state court. I on't need to get into the nuts and bolts, but it is sometimes helpful. Also, with regard to this particular nominee, license to practice in various states. Many times you go to practice in another state, you're licensed to practice in Connecticut, you're pr/rr 119 going to be involved in a case, let's say, in New York, you come in what is known as PRO Act V check. You ask the court for permission to be involved in that case, and it's a temporary appointment for that particular case. But this particular individual is licensed in the Eastern District of New York, Southern District of New York, Northern District of Florida, District of Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the US Supreme Court. Now there's not that many lawyers in the state of Connecticut that are actually licensed to practice in the US Supreme Court. I happen to be one, and I'm asked many times, "Why are you licensed to practice in the US Supreme Court?" I don't need to get into that also. But my point is this individual has diversity in our courts, various courts, various states, credit to the bench, and I'm sure once again a seamless transition from private practice into being on our bench, and I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move that House Joint Resolution 69 be placed in the Consent Calendar.

Page 2, Calendar 412, House Joint Resolution 71. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THEODORE M. DOOLITTLE, ESQUIRE, OF WEST HARTFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary. pr/rr 121

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to be a member of this chamber long, but it strikes me that there are not too many times where an applicant for a new judge is already a judge. But that's what we have here. pr/rr 122 Attorney Doolittle is probably more aptly to be referred to as Judge Doolittle. Because since 2023, he has been a US immigration judge overseeing hundreds of immigration proceedings, where he has, among other things, the ability to preside over a courtroom, to understand the rules of evidence, the rule of law, and how to deal with individuals when they are at their most sensitive and vulnerable. He earned his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, obtained his law degree from the University of Connecticut School of Law. One of the things that struck out to me is his pro bono work with the Department of Justice, where he was a part of and handled cases on behalf of abandoned babies with the Abandoned Babies project. He would literally be the voice for the voiceless. I think he would be an extraordinary asset, a fantastic judge, and we don't disseminate the lists publicly. But one of the things that he put in was, he's ready and willing to serve anywhere in the state. Put me in coach. Well, with the unanimous consent of the Judiciary Committee, I think it's appropriate for this chamber to call in Judge Doolittle's number and put him in the game, and I so move. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 123

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this nominee as well. You know, we were given the backup for the nominees for this year. At least I was given within 24 hours of the public hearing. And I stayed up until 03:00 the next morning reviewing, researching, background checking individuals that were nominees. And when I first look at the backup for this particular nominee, you know, one of the questions I said before, when did you go through judicial selection? And that individual remembered. December 2007. And I was like, well, I don't know about this one, and I went on. And I learned about Judge Doolittle. I learned about Judge Doolittle's work, very valiant work in our immigration courts. I read a lot of his decisions that were well written. The gentleman's doing the job. It just so happens that got caught up in with the feds. You know, I guess they came pr/rr 124 in and said everybody's done, and he lost his job. And he got this opportunity. And I think it's a credit to us. Ultimately, maybe what the feds gave up on, our system benefits because this gentleman appears to be a fine judge, is able to reason. You know, I read decisions where he found for an immigrant, and I read decisions where he ordered deportation of individuals. It wasn't like he was one-sided, and I was very appreciative to be able to read those many decisions. So, I do rise in support and I look forward to seeing his good work on the bench. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this nomination as well. Judge Doolittle was actually working here helping us out with health care access issues. And he's very pr/rr 125 analytical, very brilliant analysis on very complicated issues of health care access. So, I am really pleased to see him as a nominee as a judge here in Connecticut. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move that House Joint Resolution 71 be placed on the Consent Calendar.

pr/rr 126 Page 2, Calendar 414, House Joint Resolution No. 73. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF SEAN O. KEHOE, ESQUIRE, OF WEST HARTFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favourable Report of Judiciary.

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

pr/rr 127 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Sean Kehoe for nomination to the bench. He has been an attorney practicing in the state for 14 years. He's a graduate of the Quinnipiac School of Law. He's been employed at the Office of the Attorney General since 2002. He's currently assigned, he's the Chief of the Division of Government Administration. And he's practiced in family court when he did family matters for the attorney general's office, and I believe he will be a good jurist and recommend adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do rise in support of the nominee attorney Kehoe to be a judge of the superior court. Not just because I went to law school with him, but because he has shown himself to have experience in our courts. pr/rr 128 Not only our courts, but administrative proceedings as well. Another diverse aspect of law that is necessary to be brought to the bench. So, I do rise in support, and I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that House Resolution 73 be placed on the Consent Calendar.

pr/rr 129 Page 3, Calendar 415. House Joint Resolution No. 74. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF PHILLIP MILLER, ESQUIRE, OF GLASTONBURY TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the nomination of Philip Miller to the bench. He's been practicing law for 14 pr/rr 130 years. He's a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law. He is also currently employed by the Office of the Attorney General. He's the Section Chief for the Finance Revenue and Services Division. Before that, he worked in the attorney general's office for special litigation for all three branches of the Governors, serving the Governor's office and constitutional officers, this body, the General Assembly, as well as the judicial branch. He's also a navy veteran, and I believe he will also be a good jurist and support his nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nominee that's before us. You know, as lawyers who actually practice in courts, we run across various other lawyers that are on the other sides of cases. And how we handle those cases is part pr/rr 131 of the demeanor that we can exemplify when and if we come before the Judiciary Committee to be considered to be a judge. I can tell you that during the pandemic, I did have a case with Attorney Miller. It happened to be involving evictions and whether or not the government could shut down our courts for evictions. And he defended that case. And I can tell you, and in review of and my background of Attorney Miller, I went back and I looked at all of those correspondences. Did that individual treat me with a level of respect or were they just, you know, making accusations through emails, which some lawyers do? And I can tell you that he was very respectful. The writings that he would send, the filings that he would send, our exchanges were always very respectful. And he has certainly not only experience once again in state courts, but also federal courts, very complex matters at the attorney general's office that he's handled for all three branches of government. And I think you'd be a fine credit to the bench and I do rise in support and ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that House Resolution 74 be placed on Consent Calendar.

Page 3, Calendar 416. House Joint Resolution No. 75. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF LEAH M. POLLARD, ESQUIRE, OF POMFRET CENTER TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary. pr/rr 133

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Leah Pollard for appointment to the bench. She's been practicing law for almost 30 years. She's a graduate of the University of Colorado Law School. She's currently working for the Connecticut Legal Services specializing in elder law, helping low income seniors on a variety of legal issues. pr/rr 134 She's also been a judge in our probate court serving in Putnam. So, she does have experience on the bench, and I believe she will be another good jurist that we're adding to our court, and I recommend adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of attorney Pollard becoming a judge of the superior court. I believe her term as a probate judge ended in 2023, but we see from her experience that not only has she served as a judge in the probate court, but she also, you know, it's probate courts have regional probate courts also. And from time to time, judges are selected in the probate court system to serve in that regional probate court system, and that's an honor to be able to do that. This individual obviously has done that. They've weathered the storm of being a judge. You pr/rr 135 know, certainly, if there were complaints, something like that, that would have been brought to our attention already. So, they've already done some part of the job. Not only that in the probate court, but have actually practiced in our courts, our state court system. Therefore, once again, seamless transition, and I ask my colleagues to support this nominee as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support for a couple of reasons having known Judge Pollard for a long time. Her interactions with the community, legal aid, had been a judge of probate is huge. But I rise for another reason. This is the first time in 15 years that a judge who resides in Windham County has been nominated for the bench. pr/rr 136 In addition to her successful nomination, there's only one other judge in Windham County currently on the bench. And it's important that people live in the communities that they have to act upon. And I appreciate Governor Lamont's nomination listening to our request that we diversify our pool of judges, not in just the traditional ways, and we nominate. We couldn't ask for a better model judge, and I think as time goes on, she's going to represent the state of Connecticut well and the county and the community. So, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that House Resolution 75 be placed on Consent Calendar.

Page 3, Calendar 417. House Joint Resolution No. 76. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF PATRICK T. RING, ESQUIRE, OF WINDSOR TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the confirmation of Attorney Patrick Ring to be a judge of the superior court. Attorney Ring has a BA in classics from the University of Dallas as well as his Juris Doctor from Quinnipiac University School of Law. He has served for 17 years with distinction with the attorney general's office, 10 of which he has served as an assistant attorney general handling a wide array of different cases, financial consumer protection, securities law, taxation, and administrative appeals. So, he brings a wealth of trial experience to his potential tenure on the bench and has also served as a federal Clerk for The US District of Connecticut with the honorable Judge Squatrito. I move adoption. pr/rr 139

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nominee. I really can't add anything to what the good vice chair of the committee stated. I do support the nominee and I ask that colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we add House Joint Resolution 76 to the Consent Agenda.

Page 3, Calendar 418. House Joint Resolution No. 77. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF ROSEMARIE T. WEBER, ESQUIRE, OF GRANBY TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable Report of Judiciary.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the confirmation of Rosemarie T. Weber to be a judge of the superior court. Attorney Weber has her BA in political science from the University of Pennsylvania. She has an MPA from Golden Gate University and her Juris Doctor also from Quinnipiac University. She served for 13 years with the attorney general's office. She has practiced extensively in juvenile law and child protection law and has actually tried 172 cases as sole trial counsel to verdict. So, extensive trial experience and has also served as appellate counsel as well on a number of these matters. I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nominee that's before us. You know, once again, I point out that this nominee went through judicial selection June of 2024. So, very recently, had the review, the statutory review, and that's important. You know, those of us that actually practice in court will tell you that most of the work for a trial happens before the trial. Depositions, putting your exhibits together, figuring out what questions you're going to ask what witnesses, what witnesses you're going to have. And still, even though you've done all that preparation, I love trial prep, case may settle. You don't have a trial because you're able to settle on the morning of trial. But with this particular individual,172 cases to verdict in a 10-year period. So, that means on average, 17 cases actually went to trial over those 10-year period. That's very impressive. That shows a high level of experience and, once again, seamless transition to the bench. I ask my colleagues to support the nominee as well. Thank you. pr/rr 143

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know Attorney Weber personally. She's been deeply involved in the community many years on the Board of Education, and I strongly support her nomination.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it also bears mentioning that Attorney Weber is also a veteran of the United States Army. With that, I move that we add House Joint Resolution 77 to the Consent Calendar. pr/rr 144

Page 3, Calendar 419. House Joint Resolution No. 78. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF JUSTINE L. WHALEN, ESQUIRE, OF BRANFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favourable Report of Judiciary.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last one. Attorney Whalen, I rise in support of Attorney Whalen's confirmation as a judge of the superior court as well. She has her bachelor of arts in political science and journalism from the University of Connecticut, and she has her Juris Doctor from Northeastern University School of Law. Attorney Whalen brings experience both in Massachusetts courts and Connecticut courts having served as a public defender in both jurisdictions. She has extensive experience in criminal law as a public defender and also has had a former clerkship with the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the nominee that's before us. You know, once again, Mr. Speaker, we have a nominee who recently went through judicial selection, January of 2024, within the last few years. That's a good thing. This nominee also, you know, I started to review the backup. I saw Commonwealth. So, all these cases with Commonwealth. I was like, wait a second. Is this person licensed to practice law in Connecticut? Did my due diligence, and I found that they were. We asked her during the public hearing, "What happened?" She came here during COVID. She had always wanted to live in Brantford. Her husband liked Brantford. And an opportunity came to her during COVID transition as we can all remember how difficult it was getting around and the restrictions and all of those things. So, she seamlessly transitioned from being a public defender in Massachusetts to Connecticut, extensive experience in our courts. Once again, it'll probably be a fine credit to the bench. I look forward to seeing the good things that she does over the next eight years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 147

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I rise for a brief comment.

Yeah. I would just say that I'm really pleased to know Ms. Whalen and her family for many years. Her family has been in Brantford for a very long time. She's fair and thoughtful in her decisions, and she's a strong and youthful talent, I think, on the bench. So, I am just rising to enthusiastically support her nomination today. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we add House Joint Resolution 78 to the Consent Calendar.

Consent Calendar No. 1. House Joint Resolution is 72, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move the Consent Calendar.

The house of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

Consent Calendar No. 1: Total number voting 147 Necessary for adoption 74 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a purpose of announcement.

The House Republicans will be caucusing in Room 110. The House Republicans will be caucusing in 110. Unless somebody wants to talk about 5244 judicial selection anymore. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. House Democrats will be caucusing in Room 207 A, otherwise known as the Caucus Room. And with that, I move we recess subject to the call of the Chair.

pr/rr 152 Chamber come back to order. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 272?

Representative Lemar from the 96th District, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, sir.

And with that, I move the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just under three years ago, after about a decade of thought and consideration about what a framework for legalized adult use, medical, recreational use, cannabis could be in this state, we created a pr/rr 154 framework that would allow for marketplace to develop, build, and grow here in Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, that conversation taking place over that long period of time, established some clear goals. One was that social equity needed to be at the forefront of what we developed. We needed to address the decades and decades of the war on drugs and its impact on very specific communities across our state. We needed to be thoughtful about how the impact would extend to our medical patients who are already utilizing a current framework. And we need to ensure that public health and safety was protected under all consorts. And with that, Mr. Speaker, we incorporated a number of protections in the development of this marketplace. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of those protections developed in those early stages, but there are some concerns with how the marketplace is functioning today. Over the last couple years since I've been chair of the General Law Committee, I've had an opportunity to meet so many people that are trying to engage in this space. And they came with myriad ideas for our committee to consider. pr/rr 155 The good ranking member and I had the privilege of serving as leadership of the General Law Committee, and have had robust conversations with almost every entrant into this community. The bill before us, which we'll talk about an amendment in a few seconds, begins to address the challenges that this market is confronting. With that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO No. 4259. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and I be granted leave the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4259 offered by Representative Lemar, Representative Turco, Representative Rojas.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us makes a number of significant changes from the bill that we originally heard in the General Law Committee. While it incorporates so many of the suggestions that the industry partners have brought to us and helps clarify roles, obligations, regulations in the space, it eliminates duplicitous regulatory constraints. There are a few issues that we thought weren't quite ready for consideration, and those have been removed in this bill. My good ranking member and I will talk a little bit about some of the concerns that many members still might have about this. But a couple issues such as the public use locations and allowing restaurant facilities to serve alcohol and THC infused beverages in the same location, those were removed from this bill. The conversation about potency limits was robust and confounding to many. There was original draft that circulated that pr/rr 157 had potency limits increase for all products in our marketplace. I would like to say that the only potency limits under consideration today are ones on the flour and the concentrates. And all of those increases due is movers into compliance with other states around us. It's the same as Massachusetts, for example. There are a couple other issues that are not in this amendment though that are almost as important. One is the tax issue and how folks are negatively impacted by the tax basis and structure that we have in Connecticut. We will address that in a finance bill also before this chamber later this year. And similarly, what we see in an illegal, unregulated marketplace happening in vape shops and smoke shops across our state. Proud to work with my good ranking member and members of the General Law Committee to get us a bill that hopefully we'll see soon in this chamber that goes after that as well. So, this bill here is one stool of that three legged stool of addressing cannabis regulatory framework here before us. We'll go into deeper detail about all of the sections included in this bill, but I will say what this does is it modernizes our cannabis and hemp laws to reflect today's market realities. pr/rr 158 It closes some loopholes, strengthens some public safety, and it creates a more coherent regulatory system. We'll talk a little bit more about products and marketing, advertising, potency limits. We'll talk a little bit about what the federal government did on hemp laws and how that's impacting a burgeoning marketplace here in Connecticut for THC infused beverages and why we need to step into that space and have that conversation. Mr. Speaker, I am certain this will be a robust conversation covering myriad sections. I look forward to entering into that conversation. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good chair of General Law. You know, I sat here and I pondered how best to have this discussion about this bill, whether or not to just let the pr/rr 159 amendment go through or maybe we should question the amendment beforehand. The amendment that he raised today is slightly different than the bill that I received and I marked up, so maybe some of the lines are different. But I thought it best that maybe we just go start slow. Maybe we ask some questions about the amendment itself, and then we could work ourselves up to some of the more substantive parts of the bill that I think may and I don't think I believe will cause irreparable harm to the citizens of Connecticut and especially our young people. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, if it's through you, on the amendment, my first question is on line 44, it says that the Department of Consumer Protection is to regulate the carrying honor with this the municipality, the manufacture business possession, and to become presidential to public health and to fraud and cheating and unreasonable annoyance. So, it's written right in the legislation that we are not supposed to be unreasonably annoyed by marijuana. I don't think we could find one person in the chamber that hasn't been while driving on 995 The Merritt Parkway or walking down the street or out of Bradley Airport annoyed by marijuana. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, pr/rr 160 does the good chairman agree that we are supposed to be free of annoyance of marijuana?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this section grants authority to the local municipality to determine what those rules and regulations are, and determine of their own volition, how to enforce best unreasonable annoyance in their boundaries. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, further in Section 10, we are creating a statewide cannabis board consisting of the attorney general, the Chief State's Attorney, the Commissioner of pr/rr 161 Consumer Protection, Commissioner of Emergency Service Public Protection, the Commissioner of Mental Health, and we added the Director of the Social Equity Council. Through you, Mr. Speaker, this chamber or this group of people is supposed to get together every quarter, and they're supposed to discuss and research documents related to the regulation of marijuana. Written in this bill is that the quarterly meetings of this board and all documents related to such meetings shall not be available to the public or subject to the inspection of disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Through you, Mr. Speaker, does the General Law Committee have that authority to bind this committee so that the public can't figure out what they're talking about through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this General Assembly certainly has the ability to keep the legal conversations pr/rr 162 that occur in this framework in that manner. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Cognizance under the Freedom of Information Act is the General Administration Committee here, the GAE committee here in the General Assembly. Did this bill happen to go through the GAE committee through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it did not.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a parliamentary inquiry and see if this bill with this language, which repeats itself numerous times within the bill, should have gone through the GAE committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm assuming that you said that it's not a mandatory referral, but essentially, if we are exempting government employees doing the people's business from FOIA, it probably should go through the Committee of Cognizance. So, I'm not going to make a motion at this time. I will keep going based pr/rr 164 on your ruling, but I certainly don't agree, sir. Thank you very much.

All right. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

You shut me off already?

pr/rr 165 I don't blame you to be honest.

I always thought us Waterbury guys are supposed to stick together. Good. Good. All right. Through you, but in the bill, it speaks of how cannabis is extracted from a plant. It talks about the stalks, the fiber product and it also calls for oil cake made from the seed of such a plant. What exactly is that through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was looking forward to this question. The answer to that question is it is one of the many products that I do not partake in, so I can't offer you the most pr/rr 166 full and complete description of what it entails, but it is something that seems to be a common offering at retail cannabis establishments across the country. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, further in that same section, it calls for high THC hemp product. This is where I always have some confusion. Hemp is not an intoxicant from what I understand, but yet there's high THC associated with hemp. So, are we saying in this that hemp is a THC product or a high THC product through you, Mr. Speaker?

pr/rr 167 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you can extract from the hemp product a high THC material that can be used to create hemp products with THC levels that would meet the high definition beyond what is legally allowed. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is confusing because if you could extract high THC from hemp, then isn't it cannabis and not hemp because cannabis is the plant that has the THC or the intoxicating properties. But I digress. And through you, Mr. Speaker, further on in that same section, it talks about a cannabinoid, a cannabinol. Can we explain exactly what these two products are, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes. I think the definitions of those are included in the text. I don't want to read directly from the text, but if you'll allow me to look at the bill language and permit me to read a little bit, I can give you a better answer.

4684. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you could recognize in starting in line 464, cannabidiol and chemical compounds which are similar, chemical structure which there have a psychological effect which are controlled substance under this chapter, accepts and I think it describes throughout there like what the definition of those are. If you want a more detailed description I can provide that for you as well. I think in line -- I'm still searching for the line, but to be short and quick to the point, this is just a pr/rr 169 chemical compound that's found inside of the cannabis plant. It's when THC, which is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis, breaks down over time, especially to air and light, you'll end up with cannabinol. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good chairman's answer. You know, sometimes we ask a lot of questions because we don't know, and sometimes we ask a lot of questions because we find them interesting or, you know, we're trying to extend things maybe sometimes a little bit. I do have substantive questions about certain parts of this bill that I think it's more appropriate that I get to. And I'm going to -- In this bill, there's multiple sections where it talks about allowing qualified out of state patients to come in and purchase medical marijuana from a business in Connecticut, right, and their caregivers. How do we define qualified? pr/rr 170 What if the qualifications in, say, Massachusetts are different from that here in Connecticut? Meaning, we have a list of conditions that you have to have in order to qualify for palliative use of cannabis or marijuana or whatever you want to call it. And what if Massachusetts are different, but yet they have a medical card through Massachusetts, and these are in conflict through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate moving away from the chemistry lesson the good Representative was trying to get me to engage in. It's not my forte. Talking about the changes that we have here, this came at the request of a number of our medical providers with respect to qualifying out of state patients who may be here on vacation, maybe here on a trip, they may be visiting relatives, they may have been pr/rr 171 qualified in another location, they're here for a couple weeks, they want to access these products, they have a qualifying metal card from their state. I believe they can present that card and sign an attestation that they're compliant with the Connecticut regulatory process. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that and I expected that answer except in the legislation, I was hoping the good Representative could point me to where they would attest to the fact that they are following Connecticut law. The way I read it, it would mean -- The way I read it, they would just need a card from their state saying that they qualified regardless of the fact or irregardless of the fact of whether they meet the requirements in Connecticut, which was the original question through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 172

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the good Representative is correct.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. It's not heard very often, especially at home, but I'll take it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, also, we have -- I think in this bill, we're saying that you could have five ounces of marijuana purchased at one time. I believe that's the amount for medical along with recreational. What if that isn't the amount allowed in the state where this person travels back to or the state where they're from, through you, Mr. Speaker? pr/rr 173

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Could the good gentleman ask the question again? I think there may be legal restrictions on the transport that you've indicated, but I want to be clear on how you ask that question.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, because that was my next question. If somebody from Massachusetts drives to Connecticut, either purchases marijuana recreationally or for that matter through the medical program and travels across state line, they are in violation of federal law. pr/rr 174 They are transporting an illegal substance over federal law. The bill over and over again says that it's allowable for them to come by it, but it doesn't speak to whether or not they're not allowed to bring it home, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad you highlighted that. That is an important understanding that folks need to have. If you are coming into Connecticut from out of state and you plan on consuming cannabis in the state of Connecticut and you want to use a medical qualifying card to do so, this would make that process easier. In fact, anyone who buys in Connecticut, wishes to consume in Connecticut, that regulatory approach that we have in our state is supportive of you doing so. It would be violative of federal law for you to transport products that are purchased in these spaces from Connecticut into Massachusetts. pr/rr 175 Just as right now it is illegal for Connecticut residents to go to Massachusetts or New York, purchase those products, and bring them back into Connecticut. A lot of folks don't know that. A lot of folks aren't aware of that. We hear a lot about leakage of sales into surrounding states, and we're trying to make our marketplace a little bit more responsive to the reasons for that. But it should be clear that folks are violating federal law when they engage in that behavior, through you.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I did read the law the same way as the good chairman of General Law. The only thing is that when I read the bill, it's very encouraging of out of state patients to come in and use our dispensaries for their medical purposes. But nowhere in the bill does it say that they have to post the notice or let them know that, hey. You have to consume this in pr/rr 176 the state of Connecticut for you to be doing something legal. Unless I missed it, and then the good chairman could point it out through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is no notice requirements on the individual establishments to say that, by the way, if you purchase this product here, you cannot bring it across state lines. That would be valid of federal law. We don't have that for the current existing framework either. And so, I don't know that it would be a necessary component. Perhaps I can work with DCP in months preceding an adoption of this, maybe we can develop a policy and procedure that could encourage signage or another act, but legislatively asking people to put up signs saying they need to be compliant with federal law seems unnecessary. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 177

Well, I appreciate that. We do have a requirement in the law that they have to post that you have to be 21-year old or older to enter the facility. We do have medical warnings that are on every packages saying that it is not healthy to ingest this product at a high level, but I'll move on. Through you, Mr. Speaker, on on my line, 1136, which is part of section, oh, boy, Section 29. It talks about a dispensary facility shall ensure that a licensed dispensary is available. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is a licensed dispensary a pharmacist? Are we referring to a pharmacist, through you?

pr/rr 178 Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm pulling myself up to Section 29 just to make sure. Mr. Speaker, is the good gentleman referring to the Section 1136, which starts Section 2?

I am, sir. Thank you. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. This is referring to the licensed individual who's allowed to dispense medical products, through you.

Thank you. The reason for my confusion, good sir, is that further on in that section, it says that the facility which shall have a sign, I guess, it's okay to have this sign, should be at least eight inches high and 10 inches wide incorporating the letter and size and style clear and legible that a pharmacist is available for consultation in a clear and legible manner. But I guess I'm still confused. If they're going to say pharmacist in the legal notice is a licensed dispensary, did we answer that question whether it was a pharmacist or not through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. I believe the term licensed dispensary is the legal technical term that comes pr/rr 180 throughout statutes in Connecticut statute book and that definition and terms used here to mean that person, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, my understanding right now is that there has to be a pharmacist. I don't know if it's either on premise or available at all times. And the way I read this bill, it's 35 hours a week. A, am I correct in reading that a pharmacist is now only needs to be available 35 hours a week and or is that 35 hours a week in person or through telehealth, through you, Mr. Speaker?

pr/rr 181 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The good Representative reflects current law accurately, and that's become particularly burdensome and somewhat unnecessary if you talk to a number of the operators in the space that folks are coming in very infrequently to discuss their medical needs or wish to speak to a pharmacist, and that the cost of the pharmacist themselves was largely spending most of the day without any real job requirements on-site. That person gets paid more than anybody else working in the establishment and is making more than even the owner of the establishment. And it wasn't really serving the public health purposes that we need. Instead of that person being there at all hours of the day that the business is open, they need to be available 35 hours. So, if somebody wants to speak to a pharmacist, they can get an appointment and the pharmacist will be available to them to directly consult on that product. So, this says that the pharmacist has to be available for 35 hours. It can be both in person or via telehealth. And if the person requests that it be in person, they have to make themselves available to meet in person as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is where some of the confusion comes from for me because if it's for medicine per se or palliative use, which means just pain, I would imagine they would be prescribed, I think, by a doctor. I'm not sure. A strain, an amount, or possibly a THC content, through you. Mr. Speaker. If the pharmacist isn't available and this is medicine, how would this person know exactly which one they're supposed to get and how much of it they're supposed to take, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if the good gentleman looks at line 1162, you can see how we are preventing pr/rr 183 nonpharmacist employees from selling to medical patients unless they have completed the appropriate training necessary to do so. So, if someone coming in and wishes to fill a medical request and that person is not a licensed pharmacist or that person, they cannot complete that transaction at that time. They'll either have to have a telehealth consultation with the individual or come back later and have that conversation in person before they can fulfill that medical grant. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm so glad the chairman brought that up because it was my next line of question. If we do read 1162, it says no registered employee of a dispensary facility shall sell any marijuana for palliative use, which is medicine, unless such registered employee has completed at least one hour of education concerning the types, availability, dosage, message pr/rr 184 methods, and administration of marijuana for palliative use. One hour. You know, they spent a lot of time thinking about this bill. They spent a lot of time saying you got to have a pharmacist there to administer or to prescribe the -- Not prescribe, but to dose the marijuana. And you had to had a doctor's note to even get in the building in the first place, but we're saying that it only needs one hour to train an employee to know the dose, what you need. Who determines what that training looks like, through you, Mr. Speaker? Is it the DCP, or is it the dispensary itself?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if you look at lines 1170 onward, it outlines the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Consumer Protection to implement the provisions of pr/rr 185 those sections, and that would be contained within. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, it's up to the Department of Consumer Protection to come up with the outline of how to treat somebody of what level of marijuana they need or the dose of -- I find that slightly hard to believe. But and then it says that that person also can't dispense unless they have one hour of education concerning professional ethics and one hour education concerning the state and federal laws and regulation concerning patient privacy, and one hour of education concerning developments of palliative use of marijuana. It's not a lot of time to talk about a lot of stuff. And is that one hour and you're working there, or is that one hour a year, one hour a month, one hour a quarter? Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 186

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again, this section is to be developed and implemented by the Commissioner of Department of Consumer Protection to establish those very parameters that are consistent with regulatory structures in surrounding states regarding the information that is necessary when you're filling an already existing pharmaceutical prescription that's already been provided and signed off on by somebody else. This individual, the larger and the specific, is serving as a tech and needs to be compliant with the privacy notifications inherent within. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 187 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it also talks about a one-hour class about patient privacy, which in the medical world is called HIPAA. I guess that's if a person is working, just has a job at a dispensary, they've taken a one-hour class about patient privacy. Who's responsible if that privacy is breached, sir? Who is responsible for the patient's if there's an issue where their personal information has been exposed? Is it the dispensaries itself? Is that one employee who's only had an hour's worth of training? Or is it DCP who came up with the manual apparently for them to use through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if a person's private identifiable information is leaked in any manner, it would be the responsibility of both, I believe, the tech and the individual business who do not engage in protective measures to pr/rr 188 ensure that patient's confidentiality and privacy. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Along the lines of a dispensary, we've learned or I've learned through questioning, that a dispensary before this bill is the medical version of marijuana sales or cannabis sales is a dispensary. So, if we look at line 1196, hopefully, it's the same in the new amendment that it was in the one that I received a couple days ago. It says the Commissioner of Consumer Protection shall determine the number of dispensary facilities appropriate to meet the needs of qualifying patients. Do we know how many dispensaries we have in the state through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that is not a number I have offhand, Mr. Speaker, through you.

I only asked that question, sir, because since we commercialized, and that's what we did, commercialized marijuana, there's been a 50% decline in the number of registered patients in the medical program. It's a known fact. We had 50,000, 60,000. We're down to about 32. And I want to know how many less dispensaries we have today, sir, than we did at the height of the medical program, through you.

pr/rr 190 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a wonderful question. That's why we kind of outlined in the bill in current existing language Department of Consumer Protection shall promulgate that information to the committee. I don't have it top of mind offhand. A quick Google search indicates that your numbers are accurate, that there were about 60 to 61 licensed cannabis dispensaries in Connecticut. I don't know how many of them are still active. It's been a rough marketplace to exist in the last couple years. It's why we're trying to improve the market conditions for these individuals. So, I'm not sure how many are still operational under their license structure, but originally, there were about 60. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. You know, and I do understand the point. But my point was if you had 61,000 patients and you had 20 dispensaries, and now you have 30,000 patients, but you still have pr/rr 191 the same number of dispensaries, the bill, the law explicitly says that the Department of Consumer Protection is supposed to regulate and monitor how many dispensaries we have to take care of the needs of the patients. So, if 61 was enough when we had 60,000, is it still enough, or is it too many now that we have 30,000? So, there's not a question there. I guess I was just sort of putting a period on the point that I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if we -- There's a paragraph in the same section I found confusing, and I was hoping for some clarification. On line 1231, it's letter D. Hopefully, the good chairman's in line with the same amendment. I'll give him a second to look and nod. All right. Notwithstanding the provision of Subsection A and B of this section, a retailer or hybrid retailer, which we now know, sir, is a commercial cannabis, and a hybrid is a half commercial, half dispensary, which is medical. As such terms are defined in Section 21a-420, clever, as amended by this act, may use the term dispensary in any marketing, advertising, or promotional material at any signage, branding, item, or logo. Hey. First things first. What are we talking about, number one? And number two, are we now saying that things that pr/rr 192 used to be a medical facility, which was a dispensary, can now be used by everybody, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, there are a number of locations across the state that in any other state would be allowed to call themselves a dispensary. We reframed that word under our adult use framework a couple years ago to only apply to those who are selling medical products. In that there's so few of those and there's a number of folks who are engaging in hybrid sales and retail sales and dispensary is the common terminology for those folks who are selling cannabis. We're going to allow those individual retail locations that are engaging in adult use sales to also use the term dispensary. Most people when they're doing a quick Google search and they want to instead of go to a package store or a liquor store or whatever the nomenclature is in alcohol, if they want to purchase a cannabis pr/rr 193 product, what they'll do is they'll type in the word dispensary. Closest dispensary to me. And sadly, none would come up near them because those businesses were not allowed to advertise themselves or to call themselves such terms. And so, this should clarify that they do have a right to call themselves dispensaries and list themselves on Google's dispensaries and allow folks to come to them. Right now, if you're sitting in a home in Waterbury, you Google closest dispensary to me, you won't get anything near you even though there's five or six retail locations close to your home. And this should solve that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think luckily, they might not find a dispensary in Waterbury. One moment, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on line 2090, I guess this is the final round of who actually works in these buildings that we found confusing. It says dispensary technician. So, in the last paragraph, we said licensed dispensary or dispensary. Now we call it dispensary technician. It says means any individual who has an active pharmacy technician or dispensary technician registration in the state within the past five years and is affiliated with a dispensary. Again, is this a pharmacist, or is this somebody who went through that one really important jam packed hour of training and is now able to dose marijuana? Through you, sir.

pr/rr 195 Thank you very much. That person is not allowed to dose marijuana. That person is allowed to fulfill the terms of the prescription. But, yes, the dispensary technician is people who've gone through that process. That will be we've watched the rights will be promulgated. The training program will be promulgated by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to move on, sir. The bill is so big. There's so many pieces of paper on my desk. That was it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if we work our way all the way up to section -- This is a pretty big section. 64. In 64, we had some definitions of a retailer that were confusing to some, and I was looking for some clarification. It says, notwithstanding the -- It's line 3657. Notwithstanding the provision of this chapter and the Chapter 420F and except provided in Subsection 2 and Subsection A retailer, pr/rr 196 when they say the word retailer, see, we were confused by the word retailer. Is the retailer the commercial cannabis seller or is the retailer anybody? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, could you have the good speaker clarify again which line he's referencing?

Maybe this will help through you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that. We are in that section now about other products, and I believe some of these are hemp derived or they're CBD products that may contain THC. pr/rr 197 It was 3657 is where it started. I was going to ask some questions about a retailer and then sort of get into some of the things that they're allowed to sell that we were confused about through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're talking about, like, the cannabis concentrates, the topical treatments, the creams, tablets, capsules, rosins, and products intended for sublingual absorption that that's the section we're referencing, through you, Mr. Speaker?

pr/rr 198 Yes, sir. I wanted the definition of a retailer under those conditions because it's states retailer in line 3659. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd have to find the original use of retailer in prior language to give you a full and complete. But in that there's retailers, hybrid retailers, and medical providers. A retailer is now inclusive of all three of those, I believe. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification, he may have just done it. So, in this context, we're using the word retailer solely as somebody who sells pr/rr 199 commercially cannabis, not like a retailer like Macy's through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, retailers are at the base level, those who are engaged solely in the adult use marketplace, not the hybrid or medical marketplace, through you, Mr. Speaker.

So, through you, Mr. Speaker. So, even though we're using the word retailer, and I'm having a hard time finding -- I know it calls the commercial cannabis outlet a retailer. I get that. But it makes many references to retailers throughout the bill. My concern was that we weren't restricting. pr/rr 200 Meaning, we may have said cannabis retailer in one section and then just the word retail in another section and then maybe some outlets that aren't licensed or didn't pay for -- Actually, I'm protecting these dispensaries who aren't licensed dispensaries or paid the fee, went through the program, did everything, would be able to sell some of these products that were once exclusive to a dispensary, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern. It's clear that to be a retailer involved in this space, you need to be licensed, and go through the appropriate processes that were legislated, redirected, and DCP codified, and the retailers are specifically outlined as one of the essentially the equivalent of almost like a 3-tier recreational adult use medical marketplace. pr/rr 201 Retailers are at the very base level adult use only. Hybrids are adult use cannabis and the medical program and dispensaries. At this point, we're only MMPs. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate that clarification. I think it's good for the legislative record. Through you, Mr. Speaker, a topical treatment. So, in testimony, I think we learned that a topical treatment is sort of like a cream or a rub. Is there any absorption of intoxicated THC through the skin, through you, Mr. Speaker?

pr/rr 202 Through you, Mr. Speaker. The representation before the committee was no. There's no absorption into the skin to it, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

And thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this section also calls for a rosin. To be honest, I wasn't exactly sure what a rosin was, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my only understanding of what rosin was prior to this bill was the rosin bags that majorly pitchers have on the back of the mound to get a little sticky on their hands before they throw a fastball. I don't pr/rr 203 know that the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox may start using THC infused rosin bags in the back of the mound. It may help my dear Red Sox team if they did. But rosin generally is a sticky cannabis extract that you can make by pressing cannabis flower. It's a sort of a clean, solventless form of cannabis that's applied to the skin. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I do too. And if it helped the Red Sox, I certainly would be in favor of it. Oh, I don't think they needed help today. Thank goodness. So, I'm not sure why anybody would need rosin made out of cannabis, but I guess it's in there. So, it's in there. And then the last thing was products intended for sublingual absorption. So, it took a little time. We learned about what sublingual absorption is. Sublingual absorption, from my understanding, is pr/rr 204 that sort of goes under your tongue. Am I correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the good gentleman. Could the good gentleman reframe what his understanding is again?

It's sort of like a Tic Tac or a mint or they love the word tincture that but would it go underneath your tongue. Is that correct, sir, through you?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think the good gentleman's correct in his assertion of what sublingual means, through you, Mr. Speaker.

So, my concern was, even though we find it mildly amusing, is all these things can contain intoxicating hemp or intoxicating THC. And my understanding is, through you, Mr. Speaker, and this will be my question is, if you're going to use sublingual absorption, doesn't that A, work faster and could possibly have stronger effects than other ways to consume intoxicating THC? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, this is what a retailer is allowed to offer for palliative care. This is one of the many products and delivery mechanisms by which consumers are available in other states. And we thought it was appropriate to allow the use of these products in Connecticut under these terms. We feel it gives our local retailers an ability to compete with products that consumers want in other states that are not offered here at the moment. And we believe that the medical information and justification for these products was well justified through the public hearing and subsequent conversations we had with the committee. Through you.

pr/rr 207 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good chairman's answer. So, maybe the last section on the medical program was a concern, and I really didn't understand why we were doing it. On line 3693, which is Section 66 of the bill, no retailer, well, I guess that it's now not medical anymore because it's using the word retailer, shall retain any personal data that the retailer obtains from a consumer for the purposes of age verification for longer than 24 hours without the consumer's express consent. Why would we need a provision like that, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this prevents retailers from retaining any personal data for longer than 24 hours without the written consent. We are worried about the proliferation of data in a variety of retail settings. And we want to start the process here where people are handing over their IDs or handing over sensitive information. pr/rr 208 They're handing over information that a retailer may not want to buy. You're giving someone your license. You're giving somebody information that you don't want that retailer to have in perpetuity. I wouldn't want, frankly, my local package store to be retaining that data either. We think this is an important consumer protection manager to ensure that consumers know that when they hand over a piece of sensitive personally identifiable information that it's not going to be used to market to them. It's not going to be sold. It's not going to be a product that they don't understand where its life cycle ends. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I guess my concern was when you read something like that, in conjunction with the questions and answers, the discussion that the good chairman pr/rr 209 and I had previous, meaning that it is illegal to transport marijuana, cannabis across state lines, whether medical or retail. If someone is doing an investigation and somebody has a quantity of marijuana or marijuana they're not supposed to possess in another state and they want to investigate whether or not they bought that and cross state lines for that reason, they would really -- There is no longer a subpoena power or there's no longer a method for them to go back and check to confirm or not confirm. We're basically destroying evidence of a potential crime. I'm with the good chairman about saving my dad and doing all that, but it just seems odd that this is the one place where we said, hey. You know what? You got to delete all that information within 24 hours. Well, why? Why? Are we trying to avoid? Are we trying to help cover up a potential crime? What is the real reason we're deleting this information, through you, Mr. Speaker?

pr/rr 210 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear if I wasn't in prior. The only data that is required to be deleted is the data that was used for age verification purposes. That sale, that transaction, the fact that you provided a medical card from a qualifying state, a qualifying condition, all of that can be kept. It is that which is used for age verification. That data is the data that needs to be removed through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good chairman's answers. Moving on to Section 79. I'll give you a chance to get there. We start talking about 79 is the troubling section of the bill, to be quite frank. And, so we're going to try to go through it in-depth and have a better understanding what's going on, and then we'll share some of our concerns and then possibly talk about if there's any fixes to the bill. pr/rr 211 I realize that we're on an amendment, sir, and that we'd have to adopt an amendment to try to amend things. So, we may get to that point after we have a short discussion on this one, and then we could move on from there through you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on line 4626, it says we're talking about plant species again and genuine cannabis or infraspecific taxon. Through you, Mr. Speaker, what is that?

Mr. Speaker, I got to be honest. I do not know what an infraspecific taxon thereof is. If you'll give me a moment, maybe I can get some clarification for the good gentleman.

pr/rr 212 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, infraspecific taxon is a biological classification rank below species, such as a subspecies variety or form used to identify distinct populations, variations, or cultivars. You might also be interested to know that they are designated by ternary names where the species name is followed by an epithet. Key aspects of this are their botanical ranks, the zoological ranks, their naming conventions, and their differences of usage in botany, they're used for wild plants. In this specific, that's where we're referencing wild plants, cultivated variations, and hybrids. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'm only slightly jealous of the help that the good chairman gets. The fact that they could find that that fast is impressive. I do feel that there might be a certain Representative whose last name starts with a T who might be helping, but it's really out of jealousy and respect. That's all.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Rutigliano.

Thank you, Representative Rutigliano. Will anybody else want to speak on House Amendment "A"? Representative Ackert of the 8th District, sir, you have the floor.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Lemar.

And that's what I was --

pr/rr 227 Thank you. Sorry for jumping ahead, sir. So, for tactical revisions, we always love when we get these tactical revisions. So, maybe that's what be one on the next cycle of this legislation. The other piece that I am trying to understand through you, Mr. Speaker, is it illegal whether federally and or state to purchase cannabis in Connecticut and transport it across state lines. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Mr. Speaker, we had a good conversation. Whether it's for medical purposes or adult use purposes, it is illegal to do both. It is illegal to purchase in Connecticut and bring into Massachusetts, and it's illegal for a Connecticut resident to go into Massachusetts purchase and bring home. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the reason why I mentioned that I believe throughout multiple section of this bill, there's requirements about some type of signage. You know, the pharmacist is on duty for this amount of time. If you can't reach them, then there's a telehealth or provider, you know, we're giving them information. Maybe I should ask, was there a conversation earlier I thought about that they should have a signage that is in whatever area that you're buying cannabis products that says specifically, this product purchased in Connecticut cannot be transported across outside of Connecticut. And so, did I hear that right that we're not interested in putting that signage up or we're not requiring in this legislation to do that enormusly required at all at this time, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the good gentleman's last point is correct. It is not considered in the current regulatory structure, and it's not provided for in this bill either. That is a federal law that it is illegal to transport this product across state lines. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because it's interesting when I bring up about alcohol in the state of Connecticut that believe it or not, if you purchase alcohol outside the state of Connecticut and transport it across the state line, there's a limitation on how much alcohol you can actually do. People don't know about it. Being on General Law Committee, it's something I just started reading and listen to my -- It's regarding taxes, actually, in a way. We're only allowed to bring four gallons of alcohol. I guess one of those things that nobody pr/rr 230 wants to post, hey, and you're in Massachusetts. Oh, by the way, if you decide to buy at the one of our beautiful, you know, breweries and you want to bring many cases of beer back, there is a limit on how much you can transport by our state law regarding taxes. If you don't have a taxing permit, it's four gallons is the limit. And you have to pay taxes on that, believe it or not. So, people that run up to that package store right across the street. So, these are things that we have these laws that I don't know if they're actually ever put in effect. But here's a law that we have regarding marijuana that specifically says if you decide to purchase this and bring it across, there is a legal ramification for that. So, I think that a sign on that is in some way worthy. Let's not put somebody in a position that they're getting in trouble that they bought him here. So, to having that as a courtesy, I think is a good decision. So, a couple of things. Let's get that technical region in the works on eliminating the word that we don't want anymore. And then let's make sure that the people that are purchasing here in Connecticut understand the ramifications of bringing that across the lines. pr/rr 231 I'll leave that comments for now on the amendment as we can. I know that the good ranking would like to move this along, getting this out and then have further discussion. I may have more questions on the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good gentleman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. I was like, I'm on the list. Sorry. Thank you. I just have a couple of questions for the Proponent of the amendment.

Thank you. So, in reviewing this bill, the good ranking member brought up a couple of things, and I just wanted to kind of delve a little bit deeper into them. One of the things that it looks like we're trying to change here is palliative products. And if I go online and look, you know, I've got a lot of people in my family in the medical field. Palliative products are specifically defined as specialized medical care focused on relieving symptoms, pain, stress of serious illness, and cancer or heart failure to improve the quality of life for patients and families. So, I guess my question is knowing that palliative care products are really meant for illnesses, especially severe illnesses of, like, cancer, heart failure, you know, we're talking people on hospice and that. What is the logic behind making this now available to the general public, sir, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, is the good gentlewoman referencing a specific section of the bill that I could directly relay back to her an answer, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, sir. It's actually Section 66 through 68, which authorizes the cannabis retailers and hybrid retailers to sell palliative use products to consumers and includes topicals, creams, tablets, rosins, and sublinguals.

pr/rr 234 All right. I've got it. Again, starting in section -- It's line 3655 where it denotes the specific products that are now available. Again, it will help incentivize the production of those products by giving them more opportunities for products that are popular and of use in surrounding states that are used for these purposes. It allows folks to access them in the locations that are closest to their homes, and it sort of correlates closely with the modification that this marketplace has seen since adult use was enshrined in statute a few years ago, and it mirrors that of what we see in states like New York and Massachusetts and the surrounding states where this product availability is more robust and easily accessible than it is here in Connecticut. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 235 Thank you. So, I guess to further delve along that line, you know, palliative care is meant for specific illnesses. It's a medical, right? So, it's not something that is typically generally given to the general public without a medical need, right? Palliative care in and of itself, just the basic definition of it, is for people with illness or serious illness, heart failure, cancer, end of life. So, is the logic that some other state has said we're going to allow high doses palliative care to be openly available on the general market, and we are now following that, sir, through you?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think the good gentlewoman is referencing one version of the use of the word palliative in a medical treatment standpoint, but palliative is a more broad word that means more than just the use of medical treatments. pr/rr 236 Palliative is generally just, it refers to, you know, treatment that relieves pain or symptoms, like using a topical oil that you can buy anywhere. This could be a palliative use. It doesn't mean it corresponds with a medical directive. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir. Well, I guess that's kind of where my concern is. Palliative is medical, right? The literal definition, you know, in the diagnoses puts palliative care is medical care. It is care that is typically handled by a doctor. It is care that is typically prescribed. You know, if we think about this, are we now saying -- You know, my concern here is, you know, we saw people using palliative care for oxycodone in our massive opioid. Like, you know, if you think about the addictions that we have had and seen, the absolute destruction of lives by people misusing palliative care, we're now pr/rr 237 saying this highly concentrated medical use, palliative care and medical use is going to be allowable and given to the general public on a whim because another state has done that. I have a lot of concerns around that. If you think about what we've seen in our country with the abuse of drugs, taking something that is so highly concentrated and used for somebody who is fighting cancer or at end of life and saying we're going to make these tinctures, these sublinguals available to the general public because they want them, are we not looking at seriously just starting the next crisis, the next opioid crisis? This is a little farfetched for me, especially because -- I will disagree and say that palliative care is very clearly defined what palliative care is, and it is medical. So I definitely have a problem with that. One of the other restrictions that we put in place when this law was passed was specific to say there was -- and I had residents in my town talking to me about this. The packaging was not going to be packaging that was appealable to a child or a teenager. The fact that we put in regulation to say it's got to be black and white, it can't have - - if you think about it, my daughter lived in Colorado for a while when she was travel nursing, and there are all kinds of shops all pr/rr 238 over the place. And when you've got advertisements with unicorns and rainbows and kittens on it and that, I'm sorry. I don't think as an adult, I am looking at advertising that has rainbows and kittens and unicorns on it to sell me as an adult. But you know who that does sell to? Kids. Teenagers. That's the kind of thing. The fact that we're looking at easing up on our very well- thought-out restrictions for this packaging is scary to me. We are allowing the people who are selling this to loosen up the advertisement. And the only person who is going to be drawn in by that type of advertisement is a younger brain. Somebody who doesn't know better. The black and white should stay the black and white. It should be nondescript. Not targeted at younger audiences. And I really feel like in this bill, by adding the extra colors, we're doing what the industry wants. And why does the industry want it? So they can sell more. There is nothing that says an adult brain needs a colorful package to be influenced to buy something. We don't. If you're going into a pot shop, a marijuana place, and you're trying to buy whether it's gummies to help you sleep or the actual leaf and weed, all of that, you know what you're going to buy. You don't need rainbows and kittens and unicorns to buy it. I grew up pr/rr 239 in the 80s. We were joking around about Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man. All of these different things. So that advertising wasn't meant for adults. It was meant for us 14-year-olds in high school who thought it would be cool to be Joe Camel. We need to not allow stuff like that. If an adult brain is saying, I want to go into a cannabis shop, and I want to buy weed, or I want gummies, you know what you're getting. You don't need fancy advertising for it. You don't need extra colors. Black and white, here's the label. Here's what you're getting. So, I definitely have concerns around the amendment here where we're looking at that. Because I want to ask you, everybody who's going to vote yes for this, who are you looking to help here? Is it society or is it the person who's trying to make the money? Because the person who's trying to make the money wants to be able to advertise this to other people besides the adult brain that's looking at it. The last question that I have on the amendment is --

Thank you, sir. So currently, when we're looking at the dispensary facilities and having a pharmacist available to do a telehealth or in-person consultation in order to get the medical- grade drugs. Is this something that's going to be billable through insurance, or what is the payment plan going to be to have a doctor consult on this? Is this an insurance billable item? Sir, through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to approach the answer to that question in a second. I will, again, highlight a number of, I wouldn't call them misrepresentations, but over- representations of what the bill does when it comes to advertising and marketing. Again, there's a definitional difference between the term palliative care, which is not referenced in this bill, pr/rr 241 and what is used is the palliative use. Those are two very different things. The good gentleman is right that if the term palliative care was used, that would signify a different legal structure. This is a palliative use style. The products that are outlined here are the most common palliative use products everywhere, not just because one other state did it, but everywhere in the country. Connecticut is foreclosed from offering these products on this current construct. We think this opens the door for us to offer the products that are in demand by consumers in this state that are often going over state boundaries to get and access the same things, and then illegally transporting them back into the state. On the marketing and advertising component of this, again, no product is ever going to be approved that it market to children or is attractive to children. That's a complete misread of what is allowed in this bill. DCP will still have the ability to review and authorize every single product design that comes before them. We've actually included in the budget a position that they need specifically responsible for reviewing that packaging material as it comes forward. There won't be unicorns and rainbows and all that stuff that's approved. pr/rr 242 And so I want to ensure that these products that are now just going to have the ability to have the same color on their product that they have, again, right across the border. They have a blue box in Massachusetts. They can have a blue box in Connecticut. They have a red and blue box in New York. They can have a red and blue box in Connecticut. This isn't about unicorns and rainbows and appealing to children. It is meant to allow folks who have identified with a product that they may have purchased in another state to access that same product here in Connecticut, to remember when they had a product at home, what it was, because it triggers in their mind, that's the product I bought. That's the product I did not like. I don't want to buy that one again. And so it just provides clarity and understanding of the marketplace. Folks oftentimes are answering questions inside the retail establishment themselves. It's like, I don't remember what I bought last time. Can you pull up? Do you have access to what I bought? If the folks had the actual ability to remember, like, oh, right, I bought the red and blue box before that I bought somewhere else. It's just simplicity in its easiest form. And then finally, to the third point you brought up, the provision by which people will access either telehealth or in- pr/rr 243 person services in the state isn't complicated by anything we do here. So by whatever means, they are able to access services, cost reductions, or insurance, whatever process that they otherwise use, that is extended to them in this regard. Through you.

Thank you, sir. I'm sorry. I thought I heard the Good Representative say something, and I'm hoping he can either clarify or repeat that. If I were to, which I wouldn't, but if I were to go to Massachusetts and buy marijuana in Massachusetts and bring it back to Connecticut, crossing the line, is that illegal? Sir, through you.

pr/rr 244 Thank you very much. Yes. Well, Mr. Speaker, if you were to purchase a product and then not consume it while you're there on vacation or not consume it while you're there at a concert or at a friend's house, and bring the product back into Connecticut, that would be violative of federal law. But that doesn't change the fact that you bought a red or blue product in Massachusetts and you want to buy the red or blue product in Connecticut. You know what that product was. You purchased it there. You're able to look at it. You're able to see it. You remember. It triggers in your mind what that product was, and having that same cross-border availability rather than the black and white bottle and hoping you get the right thing next time you're in another state, which would be pretty complicated. This actually helps the individual who wants to buy the same product back in Connecticut because they have a frame of reference of what they purchased in Massachusetts. They don't feel the need to bring a product into Connecticut to remind them what they bought. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir. So having clarified that, and I appreciate that, can you tell me how that then is different from the fact that we are now going to permit out of state patients to come to Connecticut and purchase marijuana, and purchase cannabis products if, say, they're issued a medical card in Georgia, and they're going to come to Connecticut by cannabis, isn't that then going to be illegal if they bring that cannabis anywhere besides Connecticut? And how would we know whether or not they are using it in Connecticut and not taking it over state lines? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we've asked, and we've had this conversation a couple of times. Yes. It is illegal to transport that product across state lines into another state, and the ability for a medical patient who's visiting Connecticut for a week, two pr/rr 246 weeks, or three weeks to be able to access medical cannabis in the state of Connecticut is preserved under this change. We're ensuring that if you're a medical patient in another state and you've come up to Connecticut to visit a loved one or a relative, and you have a medical a medically qualified endorsement from that state, it is recognized here in Connecticut. It would be illegal to then transport it back to Georgia. How would the state know you're violative of federal law? We don't know every time someone commits a federal felony. There's no process by which we are in everyone's home or in everyone's suitcase or in everyone's back pocket, determining whether or not they're committing a federal crime. We won't have advanced knowledge, but they are rights and obligations as a citizen, and are not allowed by federal law to transport this product across state lines. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 247 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that wraps up all of my questions on the amendment. And I'll probably be back for a second round when we actually have it voted on. Thank you, sir.

Opposed? The ayes have it. (gavel) The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Lemar.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative O'Dea. REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. A number of questions to the good proponent, if I may. Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 251

Representative Lemar.

Representative Lemar. pr/rr 254

Representative O'Dea. REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Good Chair. No. That was exactly the answer I was looking for in an explanation. Thank you sincerely. Because what I heard was vaping and smoking will not have caps. Is that my understanding of the good bonus response? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The THC content in what they're inhaling will be uncapped, under the provisions of this legislation. That is again directly related to how those products are administered and the safety of their such, and it brings us in line with surrounding states. Gosh, if I didn't know this product and if you'd asked me before I began investigating how these pr/rr 257 products are used, that would sound terrifying to me. And I understand a causal understanding of like an uncapped. That is ridiculous. That is the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. But in fact, our current limit is about 35% on cannabis flower. The natural limit is about 38%. So it's allowing you to move to what people consider to be the natural limit. And then again, the vaping product, the concentrate, is being uncapped. Again, what you're inhaling through that at 100% is not like you're taking a thousand puffs at once. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Lemar.

Representative O'Dea. pr/rr 259 REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to, with the Speaker's permission, as much of the chamber may remember, I had a pirate patch on at one point in time, and I had a magnifying glass, because I have a hard time reading, and seeing things out of my left eye. So if the Speaker's okay with me reading the study results, just briefly. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Can I read the study results?

Representative Lemar.

Representative O'Dea. REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that response. Does the Department of Consumer Protection in Connecticut allow chlorfenapen to be used in mitigating the mold and mites in the marijuana growth process? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought the chemistry section of this debate was over, Mr. Speaker. So if you don't mind, I need a minute to determine what is allowable and unallowable, the remediation structure. Again, my presumption is that a remediation plan would be submitted to DCP. DCP could determine whether or not it meets the health and safety guidelines that they've established through policies and procedures, and whether or not that's consistent with our pr/rr 267 remediation plan. But if a good gentleman would be tolerant of me taking a moment, Mr. Speaker, I'd appreciate that.

And, also, Mr. Speaker, if the good gentleman could pronounce again, which chemical that is.

pr/rr 268 Representative Lemar.

Representative O'Dea REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And the reason I bring that up is specifically in -- it was December 2025 in Colorado. Nearly 300 dispensaries were forced to shut down our salt because of recalls, because of the excess presence of chlorfenapyr in the products that they were selling, essentially became poisonous to residents. Because of the idea of growing marijuana 24-7 indoors, pr/rr 269 causes that kind of a problem. And we knew that was going to be a problem in Connecticut. Connecticut has a lot of experience growing tobacco. It's actually, as many of my colleagues, particularly from the 61st, know, the Connecticut River area is world-renowned for its tobacco growing, but it's not year-round. At least some of the growth is not year-round. I think, Mr. Speaker, just a couple more points. If the Good Proponent knows, isn't it true that in Connecticut, since the passing of recreational marijuana, we have seen an increase in road fatalities, as the former chair of Transportation and now the chair of General Law? There has been an increase in roadway deaths, whether the cause is simply the recreational marijuana, the COVID, or the lack of enforcement. Can a Good Chair agree that we've had an increase in roadway deaths since the passing of the recreational marijuana? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a good gentleman knows, I could probably give a 10-minute answer on this one, too. Having previously served as chair of Transportation for six years, having it be the passion area which I'm most identified with, in this chamber, I can tell you, with great assurity that the rise in wrong-way traffic fatalities and highway deaths and fatalities on our roadways has many causes. While an increase in driving under the influence is one of those causes, it is by no means the primary driver. In fact, we started seeing that increase well before we had a legal cannabis marketplace in the state of Connecticut. 2023 was the first year we had a regulated retail use, adult use cannabis marketplace in Connecticut. The increase in fatalities started dramatically in 2020, extended through 2023, 2024, and into early 2025. We started to see a slow pullback from that data and those numbers. While I greatly respect the concern that many people have that this may be increasing because of adult use of cannabis, and that there is actually correlated evidence in surrounding states that have indicated that. The reality is, you've seen a direct increase in traffic fatalities in states across the country, pr/rr 271 whether or not they have a legal or recreational cannabis marketplace. That increase is seen statewide and nationally, irrespective of cannabis legalization. I could go on for ten minutes. I know a lot of this data like the back of my hand. I know we just received a reward for wrong- way driving, provisions that the Department of Transportation has established. I was proud to support those. You and I sat through some painful testimony a number of years ago. You're one of the few people who stuck it out for most of that hearing. You were online, if I recall, but you stuck it out, and we heard a lot of painful testimony over those two years that we worked on some of those issues. I had that issue has a lot of causes. A lot of it is distracted driving with result to handheld devices. A lot of it is folks relying on navigation systems to give you their audible cues, saying take the next left. They don't use their visual cues to realize that that means the entry ramp, not the exit ramp. And so I want to be careful when we correlate these issues. While there has been an increase, and that has correlated closely with the legalization of cannabis in Connecticut, those two are not directly relatable. In fact, the evidence suggests that there is no pr/rr 272 relevance between those two inference points and data points because of a similar increase we've seen in states with no legal cannabis marketplace. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Lemar. pr/rr 274

Representative O'Dea. REP. O’DEA (125TH): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to clarify, is it three colors that are allowed or five? If a good proponent can point me to the line. I was looking for it, and I couldn't find it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the clarification because I think I have done this now twice, I believe. And I want to make sure that people understand what I'm saying. It's three additional colors. Black and white are regulated as three additional colors, and black and white are not included in the three colors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Rutigliano.

Representative Lemar.

Representative Rutigliano. pr/rr 280

Chambers will stand at ease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.

I appreciate it, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I've been following along very intently the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues with regard to the proliferation of a product in our state that is pr/rr 282 a controlled substance under federal law, yet the chamber sometimes decides to follow federal law and sometimes decides not to. Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns has to do with the labeling on these products, and we certainly require labeling on products that, by public policy, this chamber, the chamber upstairs, ultimately, the Governor's Office has said that we need to put out warnings. And presently, Mr. Speaker, under our law, we have, I believe, it's four different warnings that we employ. Yes. There are four. All of them are very serious about this product that is a controlled substance under federal law, yet our state seems to want to proliferate its use across our state that we've seen the effects of. Presently, Mr. Speaker, the law does not require all of those warnings to be on the products. It rotates. Mr. Speaker, I'm just reading from the present law. Those warnings are frequent, and prolonged use of cannabis can contribute to mental health problems over time, including anxiety, depression, stunted brain development, and impaired memory. I agree. It's one of the warnings. But it doesn't always appear on the product. The next one is consumption while pregnant or breastfeeding may be harmful. Okay. DPH has said that's important. We need to pr/rr 283 warn individuals that are pregnant or breastfeeding and engaging in the utilization of this substance that it's a controlled substance under federal law, but somehow our state is determining that we can proliferate its usage. We don't need to put that all the time on the products. That's of concern. The third one, Mr. Speaker, is cannabis has intoxicating effects and maybe habit forming an addictive. I agree. In fact, that's of concern, not only here in this chamber, but also federally. Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, the last one being consuming more than the recommended amount may result in adverse effects requiring medical attention. We've seen that across the state. Children getting a hold of edibles, the increase. Look at the numbers. Now that our state is determined that we're going to foster the proliferation of this controlled substance across our state. So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 4339. I ask that the Clerk call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "B", LCO 4339, offered by Representative Candelora, Representative Rutigliano, and Representative Fishbein.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish somebody had objected because I'd like to read the warnings once again, but I won't take up the chamber's time doing that. The amendment is very simple. It takes the four warnings that we as a body have said are appropriate and reasonable, and it requires them to be on all the products. Very pr/rr 285 simple. I ask that the amendment, when it be called, will be by roll. I think it's a good amendment for public policy, and maybe we can save some people in our state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the good amendment from the colleague, and I understand he offers this with consideration for the public health of Connecticut residents. That being said, the labeling conventions on many products, including cigarettes, follow the same standard rotation policy, and not all warnings associated with nicotine are included on every package. Similar to alcohol, believe it or not, there are more robust, recommendations, with respect to warning labels on alcohol products, but in fact, none of those warnings have been adopted and placed on alcoholic products. pr/rr 286 Singling out this one specific product for this intense delineation of all potential warning signs is a politically unnecessary way of differentiating it from the other types of regulated products that we have in our marketplace. We believe the labeling components that we have with respect to the myriad warnings that are associated with this product are best placed in the rotation policy that's been developed at multiple products across multiple spectrums. Through you, Mr. Speaker. And I urge folks to vote no on this amendment, and continue following the traditional labeling conventions that are found on many other products. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, given the comments by the Good Chair of the committee, I have some questions with regard to that, if I may. pr/rr 287

Thank you. Is it your representation that currently, with regard to tobacco, we have a warning that is put on the products that says frequent and prolonged use of tobacco can contribute to mental health problems over time, including anxiety, depression, stunted brain development, and impaired memory? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think it's unusual to have questions of me. This is the good gentleman's amendment. But what is required under the tobacco warnings is an approved set of warnings, including graphics and text that are cycled over time on pr/rr 288 each of the products. They include the myriad warnings that are associated with smoking cigarettes. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just if I may, the representation to the body was that we have similar warnings on tobacco products. And I'm looking at these warnings, and I don't see that many of - - maybe one of them may apply to tobacco. So I just want the record to be clear here, and I will go to the next question. Is the representation here before this body that we currently put on tobacco products on a rotating basis or an always basis, the following. Tobacco has intoxicating effects and may be habitual, habit forming, and addictive. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, clarifying the questions he has on his own amendment. The warnings that are included on tobacco products are a set of preapproved warnings, often including graphic images and text, and they must be recycled over time. This is very similar in construct and development to the warning structure that we have incorporated into cannabis. While the direct words and warning language are not the same, the style with which we make consumers aware of the very differentiated warnings appears in the same way. A set of preapproved warning messages that are applied and cycled throughout time on each of the products. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the final question with regard to the warnings is there a representation to this body that there is a warning that is on tobacco products that says consuming pr/rr 290 more than the recommended amount may result in adverse effects requiring medical attention. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, for, I believe, the third time, there is a set of approved warnings that are placed on tobacco products that are rotated over time. They are different because it is a different product. But the manner in which we make warnings known and available to individuals is by the same mechanism, which is producing a rotating set of warnings on each product that are cycled over time. Through you.

pr/rr 291 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer. The distinction, though, is we're dealing with a controlled substance that is illegal under federal law, yet our state is piercing the federal law to permit its use, its trafficking, its sale in our state. We have warnings on bicycles. We have warnings on scooters. We have warnings on skateboards. We have warnings on tobacco. They're all legally sold products here in Connecticut. And all the amendment does is it says it takes the warnings that this body has already approved for a controlled substance and asserts all of them on the product. So it is not an apples-to-apples approach when you're looking at marijuana compared to tobacco. I'll tell you that I used to smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, literally, for 10 years, till I got this deep voice. Now I run, I play hockey, all that stuff, so I quit the first semester of law school. I've also smoked marijuana when I was in college. I inhaled, and I exhaled. I know the difference between the two, and I know the warnings on marijuana are much more important for what we see, what we hear, and what we see going on in our state with regard to this product. pr/rr 292 I haven't picked up a pack of cigarettes in years, but I know 20 years ago, there was always a warning for individuals that were pregnant. It's been on there for years. I'm not aware of the rotation of warnings on tobacco products. But once again, tobacco is a legal product in our state. It's a good amendment, and I ask that my colleagues support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really stand in strong support of this. And mainly, it's such an important -- if somebody's breast, a woman's breastfeeding, or whatever it is, it's a controlled substance, like the Good Ranking Member of Judiciary said. And you should be warned of the dangers of anything, especially something that is a legally controlled substance that could do psychological damage. It's such a common-sense, simple approach just to put the pr/rr 293 warning label on the packaging. I do have one question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Good Chair of General Law. Currently, if you buy marijuana, are there any labels at all for warnings? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when you purchase cannabis from any of our regulated entities and marketplaces across Connecticut, there is a warning label. It rotates amongst the different warnings that have been approved by, say, Connecticut. And, again, this may, in some people's minds, be a common-sense approach, but we don't apply it to any other products that have more severe consequences and more well-understood repercussions. The tobacco warnings don't say that you have to have all of these warnings on every single product. I would highlight the sort of absurdity of making a small product contain all of these approved verbiages. The approach that pr/rr 294 we take is to put a rotating list of warning labels on each individual product and ensure that people have full awareness of the product that they're buying and on the associated warnings. Similar to cigarettes, somewhat similar to alcohol, though we don't require that of them as much as we probably should.

I appreciate the answer. The issue I have is, like the previous speaker, when I was a teenager, I smoked marijuana. Luckily, it was not strong. It was weak. I haven't smoked in 40 years, whatever it is. But it's so strong today. And if a woman's pregnant, they might think, well, I'm not going to drink, but I'll smoke a little marijuana. I don't know if they realize how strong it is and how potent it is, and the damage they could do to themselves and their baby they're carrying. So I think it's a common-sense amendment. It makes a lot of sense. There's only pr/rr 295 upside to it. There's no downside to this, so I stand in strong support of this. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the time.

Oh, no. Sorry. No. Sorry. It's not on the amendment. Thanks.

pr/rr 296 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

I'd like my vote to be cast in the negative, Mr. Speaker.

Correct. pr/rr 297

House Amendment Schedule "B": Total Number Voting 143 Necessary for Adoption 72 Those voting Yea 52 Those voting Nay 91 Those absent and not voting 8

pr/rr 298 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that we've learned that the chamber --

Oh, I can outshout them. Mr. Speaker, now that we've learned that marijuana overtakes warning labels, it's interesting. We heard a lot about tobacco compared to marijuana, and, certainly, there are places that you can't smoke tobacco. We, by statute, say you can't go to certain retail establishments and smoke tobacco, which is a relief to me as a former smoker. I'll tell you. I like being able to go to a restaurant and not have to smell somebody else's smoke. I will admit that during a tough deposition, somebody steps out to go have a cigarette on the sidewalk. I will stand next to pr/rr 299 them because sometimes I miss the smell. But that's my voluntary act. So when I go to a retail establishment, I don't want to smell somebody else's smoke. And I appreciate that the chamber, in its wisdom, has banned the smoking of tobacco in certain places. But, unfortunately, when we rush to allow the utilization, the proliferation of this controlled substance in our state, we didn't give the same consideration that we gave to tobacco that happened over many, many years. So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of another amendment, and that's LCO 4340. I ask that the Clerk call the amendment, and I be given leave to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "C", LCO 4340. Offered by Representative Candelora, Representative Rutigliano, et al.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have even more regret that somebody didn't object to the summarization here. This one's longer, and I would have enjoyed reading the entirety. But all the amendment does is intellectually honest. We've said to the populace of the state of Connecticut, you can't smoke tobacco at certain places. The amendment just brings that in line with these cannabis products. I can tell you that I'm always concerned. I'm sitting on the beach, and I can smell skunk coming from the other corner. Am I going to get a contact high? It's always the question. As I'm walking off the beach, is it that I got too much sun, or am I stoned? Why should I be subjected to those kinds of things at a retail establishment like I was discussing before? Why don't we, by law, say you can't smoke tobacco here, you can't smoke pot here? pr/rr 301 Makes sense to be intellectually honest with our constituents. So I do move the amendment, and I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll. I ask my colleagues to support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, according to Connecticut General Statutes, in general, you can't use cannabis anywhere smoking tobacco is banned. Public use is generally illegal. Public consumption of cannabis is prohibited. That includes smoking, vaping, and eating cannabis in public places. There are currently violations in law that can lead to civil fines of about 100 to $500. State parks, beaches, and similar public recreation areas are specifically banned. pr/rr 302 Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is something that the good gentleman has a distinction that he would like to highlight, but in general, the locations that he referenced in his articulation on behalf of this bill are already prohibited places. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I'm putting the unusual position of hearing that this is a friendly amendment, and I'm glad to hear that. But in particular, if we look at Line 82, that deals with -- that is the current law, and it has the amendments. And it says no person shall use any cannabis, cannabis product, cannabis type substance, and that's exactly the place where it talks about in any area of a retail establishment accessed by the public, in any restaurant, in any area of an establishment, a permit issued for the sale of alcoholic liquor. So it's the statute that we presently exist. We add the clause to that, which, once again, is intellectually honest with our citizens, and these are pr/rr 303 all amendments to the law. So I stand on the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the current law, as it exists, considers all of the things that would be in any way impactful on another human being, by prohibiting in all public places, the smoking or vaping of cannabis. Those are the public nuisance aspects of it that the good gentleman has highlighted. He doesn't want to smell it. He doesn't want to hear it. Those actions are already prohibited: smoking and vaping. Extending this seems unnecessary, considering the good articulation that the Representative mentioned in his testimony. It seems like an unnecessary expansion of the law that doesn't have any basis for need. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can we get a statutory site on that reference that we just heard about for you?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking specifically to the amendment that the good gentleman has offered in the statutory language that he has provided. The need for this expansion is unnecessary. It's unjustified by any of the comments he's offered about the nuisance that he perceives, and I urge my colleagues to vote no. Through you.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was merely at we have a representation to the body that what we are looking for is already the law. So I think the body is entitled to know where it is in the law because, certainly, it's not in the sections that I referenced. It's not in the sections that deal with tobacco expressly. So once again, to keep the body institutionally honest, and I will certainly admit if it can be pointed out to us where that is presently in the law, I will address it accordingly. But I think we are entitled to that statutory reference for you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, again, I'm looking at the very language submitted in his testimony. References the current law and expands upon that law. There is an actual effective expansion from October 1, 2021, to our Clean Air Act. State Statute Section 19 a-342. Expands the definition of smoking pr/rr 306 to include any tobacco, hemp, and cannabis. The area where smoking is prohibited now includes both the interior of buildings and facilities, which are specifically mentioned. It kinda goes through each of those delineations. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Good Representative can direct our attention to particular lines of the existing language that is represented to us appear in the bill, it would be helpful. Through you.

Thank you. Again, if the good gentleman could reference Statute 19a-342. I can try to pull up direct lines, but I think pr/rr 307 that his Google search is going to be a little bit easier than mine at this point in time. But it's 19a-342, the Clean Air Act, as it was perhaps prohibits smoking, including electronic nicotine delivery systems and vapor products in most public workplaces, restaurants, and bars. Smoking is banned inside of buildings as well as within 25 feet of doorways, operable windows, and air vents. This includes cannabis products as well. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I'm a little confused, and that does happen. Am I to understand that that existing language that was referenced is not in the amendment? Because I asked for particular line numbers. Now, I need to go pull up a different statute, or I heard before that it's already in the amendment. So if we could just have particular line numbers, it would be helpful. Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 308

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is the second amendment in which the good gentleman has taken one thing I responded to and applied it to a different question. Again, I responded to the expansion included in your own language in the amendment and said it was an unnecessary expansion given the current statutory construct. The current statutory construct does exist within Section 19a-342, the Nuisances in Public Places section, in regards smoking where it's prohibited, with exceptions are the signs that are required, the penalties inherent in that. Smoking includes cannabis products. The very instances and nuisances that you highlighted are covered under that very specific section. And the expansion that you articulated in the offered amendment did not reference any of the concerns that you saw in the justification for the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So now I'm looking at 19a-342. It's not in our amendment. Is there a particular subsection that the Good Representative would like to point our attention to? Because it has a through f with subsections therein. Is there a particular subsection that the Good Representative is pointing our attention to, which represents to be addressing this? Because I don't see it right now. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for pulling it all up for you. A little bit

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think what the Good Representative is saying is that in Subsection A1, smoke deals with tobacco, cannabis, or hemp. And then if we go forward from there, the representation is that no person shall smoke, which would bring that together, and then it goes on to talk about those areas. Is that what the Representative is representing to us here? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was confused why the good gentleman couldn't find it because it is definition A1. So that's why I was confused of why he couldn't see that. The definition of smoke or smoking means a burning of a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe, or any other similar device, whether containing wholly or in part tobacco, cannabis, or hemp. It then defines the areas where that is prohibited. It defines what cannabis means, and it goes pr/rr 311 through what hemp means. It talks about those areas where it is prohibited. In each of the locations where smoking is prohibited, cannabis and hemp are necessarily as defined in this similarly prohibited. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Which brings us to the extension, because these are cannabis products. This is the utilization of cannabis products, which is more expansive. So some of the areas that we talk about in the existing law with regard to tobacco and smoking have to do with schools, school grounds, things like that. So an effect of the amendment would be the utilization of this product on school grounds. Edibles, for instance, is a cannabis product. So, to my knowledge, 19-342 has to deal with the smoke, but it doesn't deal with the consumption of these products on, for instance, school grounds, unless the Good Representative has some other information for us. Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 312

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't see a cause of concern. I'm trying to work with a Good Representative to get to his underlying concern and where he's coming from on this. I don't see how this expansion and its current articulation is justified in this section. And none of the commentary that was made in its presentation spoke to that issue. I encourage my colleagues to vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, certainly, our existing law prevents tobacco products on, and it expressly says in342, any area of a school building or on the grounds of such school, when they're a childcare facility or on the grounds of such childcare pr/rr 313 facility. So we're just trying to be intellectually honest here. If you're banning the utilization of those products on schools, why can't the legislature say you shouldn't be ingesting edibles on school grounds? You shouldn't be ingesting edibles at childcare facilities. That would seem to make some sense here. And that's one of the things the amendment tries to achieve. So I do ask that my colleagues support the amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

No. Thank you. Again, I would highlight that the ingestion of edibles in school grounds is already prohibited in the original construct of the bill, and there's no need to do this at this time. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "C": Total Number Voting 143 Necessary for Adoption 72 pr/rr 315 Those voting Yea 52 Those voting Nay 91 Those absent and not voting 8

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions, please, for the proponent of the bill. Mr. Speaker?

I'll cede my time, please, to the Chair. pr/rr 316

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO number 4345. I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and grant to leave the chamber to summarize.

pr/rr 317 The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is the objection to summarization? Is there an objection? Hearing none, Representative Lemar, please proceed with summarization.

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of questions, please, for the proponent of the bill.

As I was reading through, as it is now, there are pharmacists that are required for the dispensaries, and it seems that this bill actually decreases the amount of time that a pharmacist is in the dispensary. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to understand why this was put in the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, talking to retailers and operators in the space and talking to even the medical cannabis community, it was determined that the utilization of pharmacists on-site was better accomplished through a telehealth mechanism or an on-call mechanism. We still want to ensure that there's availability of pharmacists, 35 hours per week, for anyone who needs a consultation. But having them be there every pr/rr 320 hour that the establishment was open was particularly burdensome, and was not justified by the utilization on-site. In fact, it became a difficult operationally for someone. If the pharmacist had an emergency at home and needed to bring his or her child to a doctor or a sporting event, the retailer had to shut down their entire establishment because the pharmacist wasn't on-site. So we believe that this accommodation allows the retailer to offer the on-site services and telehealth services that patients may need, but does not require that the whole business revolve around the availability of said pharmacist. Through you.

Thank you. Is there some sort of limit as to how many pharmacies one pharmacist can serve via telehealth?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the bill, there's no consideration to the number of locations that that person. I think there's a practical issue that they need to be available to each individual location for 35 hours that limits that. Their policies and procedures of mechanisms available to DCP to further expound, to pound those limitations. But in the bill, we don't specify, because there is a practical limitation inherent in that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you. I do hope that DCP takes this under consideration because I think we've seen across the state, and I agree with the proponent of the bill that it is an issue if a pr/rr 322 pharmacist has to leave an establishment. That's what happens at regular pharmacies as well, not just cannabis pharmacies. When you are open, a pharmacist needs to be there. When we talk about medical use of cannabis, we have some of the sickest of the sick patients that go into these facilities and require help. So I think it is imperative that these patients have access to health care when they go into these establishments. The role of the pharmacist goes beyond just handing over the cannabis. They are looking at drug interactions that may occur. If someone is going in and they are using cannabis for chemotherapy illnesses that they have, if they have cancer treatment, then they're looking at interactions. They're looking at safety profiles and safety risk. They're recommending products. They're helping them to go slow and to titrate to get the appropriate dose. They talk about the route of administration. So a lot of these patients, maybe if they do have nausea and vomiting, maybe they need to inhale something, or maybe they have lung cancer or lung issues, and they can't inhale. There are modes of action that they're going to have to use. So I think access to a pharmacist, if we're truly wanting this for medical help, we do need to be very careful that we're not all of a sudden pr/rr 323 overburdening a pharmacist and putting people at risk for health care across the state that are using these facilities. Moving on, there was another section that looks like, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that it added different routes of administration into what's available to, not just at the dispensary, but in the retail setting, like topical treatment, tablets, and capsules. Are there strengths that are required for each of those through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no, they're not.

pr/rr 324 So will the tablets be five milligrams or can they be 10, 30? Do we have any sort of under because these aren't edible? So, I guess they don't fall under the edible product. What kind of limits are we looking at with these?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the chemical compounds, the CBN that defines these compounds, are very minor. They're minor cannabinoids. They do not have those product limitations, those numbers of THC potency levels that you referenced. They're small minor cannabinoids.

pr/rr 325 Okay. So you're saying that these will not have the THC components in that. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand where the good gentlelady is trying to get to. I think if we can help her get there, if it's framed a little bit differently. The products themselves are chemically constructed to be small ozins, whether they be subliminal tablets. They don't deliver a quantity that can actually get you high. They do have THC content in them, but the chemical construct of them is such. I think if we phrase this question a little bit differently, I can get a different answer. Perhaps if I provide an answer, these are not intoxicating products. They are used as rubs and creams. They don't actually deliver a THC level into the bloodstream that's of a relevant level. They are uncapped, but themselves, pr/rr 326 definitionally, do not have the product concerns that come with other cannabis edibles. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

All right. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Chair's response, and I promise I'm not trying to be hard on these questions. I know I'm getting a little bit specific. So maybe it might be just easier if I just make some comments instead of going through and asking because topical treatments, creams, they actually do get absorbed into the body. They vary depending on what type of substance it is. Certainly, it looks like transdermal patches were excluded because that is an increased amount, but many of you may know. Many of you may already use topical things, and it does get into the body and is useful. There's also tablets and capsules in here, which are oral products which will act much like the edibles, and they'll get absorbed into the bloodstream through the stomach. pr/rr 327 Rosins can be administered in many ways, including smoked or eaten. And then sublingual products. Well, sublingual products are one of the fastest ways you get things into your body, period. If someone's having heart issues, the nitroglycerin tablets that you put under your tongue that get there really quickly, that's actually a sublingual product. I certainly appreciate the Good Chair and his comments, but I'm thinking that there's something intentionally a little bit more than is presented here, and I don't think that it's anything that we're necessarily putting in the words that's intentional. But somebody's trying to get something intentionally done here. There's something that's getting into the body if you're using a sublingual tablet, to be sure. There's no reason why you stick something under your tongue unless you're getting an effect from it. There are many things I would like to know. One, who's approving these products? And that does not seem to be contemplated here. How are these products being approved? Who gets to decide what you're sticking under your tongue? And who is testing that to say that that is okay? We are doing something once again here in the state of Connecticut that I just can't disagree with more. We are taking on pr/rr 328 the role of the FDA and the federal government, and we're asking our DCP to take on that role. I don't know. I guess just to make sure through you, Mr. Speaker, are any of these products going through any sort of approval process or testing process through the state of Connecticut?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Each of these products will be tested. They will go through an approval process that's outlined in the bill. The commissioner shall adopt the regulations to allow sales of additional power of used products to consumers in accordance with the provisions of the section. There's a testing regime that has been broadly discussed and is incorporated into DCP's policies and procedures. We anticipate that it might go through there or come back to the legislature for consideration. But the products do have to go through a robust, regulatory, construct, and approval process. pr/rr 329

Thank you so much. Thank you. It's a big bill. I guess I did miss that part, and I had a feeling it might have been in there. So I appreciate that, but wow. That is a lot that the state of Connecticut and DCP is taking on to go through and do a whole approval process for each of the topical treatments, each of the creams, each of the tablets, each of the capsules, rosins, and these are all going to be completely different processes for testing them. I'm certainly happy that we are testing them because that is very important, but for the state of Connecticut to take on this role, I just think it's above and beyond what we should be doing here. I'm going to move on to just my last question, and then I will just make a couple of comments. In line, I believe it's 3767; it is talking about continuing education for employees. I believe I've got that line correct. Who is putting on this continuing education? How is it formed? Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 330

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question, we talked about this a little bit earlier. This section, the implementation thereof, will become part of DCP's requirements for what that program looks like and the manner in which it'll be provided to those employees. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Who is developing the program? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Department of Consumer Protection will develop the regulations to enact these sections. The agency itself will direct the appropriate way to have folks receive this education, but the Department of Consumer Protection is charged with implementing the sections, Lines 3767 through 3775.

Okay. Thank you so much. I thought I was going to stop there, but I did forget about one other section that I didn't get to go through, and this section is about infused beverages. So I understand that the increase from the three milligrams to the five milligrams is because many of the other states around us have five milligrams. I get that. I'm trying to understand what is happening with the manufacturers and their retail sales, and the consumption of beverages within the retail setting. Can you please explain why, because it sounds like people are able to purchase beverages pr/rr 332 where they're manufactured in a side room? Is this barroom on the side? If you can explain that, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I want to clarify the question a little bit further. The move from three milligrams to five milligrams isn't just because other states are doing it. I appreciate by providing more nuance than that. Oftentimes, we'll get reduced to that as a simple talking point. It is not just because other states are doing it. In fact, we will still be far below what other states are doing when we move to five milligrams. It is a product that has popularity and demand in the state of Connecticut, which local Connecticut manufacturers are producing here. They recognize that they're losing sales to out-of-state suppliers and folks who want to purchase these products, that five milligrams is the more relevant product point, where there is consumer demand and where there's marketability and profitability for the individual company pr/rr 333 to engage in the production of that product, not just simply because other states are doing it. I know I've used the corollary of what other communities are doing and why we're bringing consistency across state boundaries, but I think it's shorthand for this is where the product's marketability, availability, and consumer demand lie. Going beyond that, what we're doing with on-site consumption in sales, no THC can be included in any product that's consumed on-site. There will be a retail operation available. They can sell their product, but you cannot consume that product on-site. What you can consume are non-THC infused beverages that the market might do for sampling purposes. So you can't sell a THC-infused beverage. You can sell that product without the THC included. People who are interested, who want to understand what the product is, who have no familiarity with it, can taste and sample it, but they can't have an infused product available on-site.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the clarification on that. That is what I read. I just wanted to make sure that that was, in fact, what the intent of the legislation is. Look at what I appreciate many parts of this bill. I do think that we maybe have gone too far with taking the pharmacist away. We do know that we have some of the most ill people going in to get medical cannabis because they're trying to turn to something else to help relieve their pain and their suffering. And so then to take away the pharmacist that's going to be available to them, I think, is the wrong move forward. I think the state of Connecticut has stood as an example to many other states, as we are a state that looks at health and looks at health care. And what we're doing here is not looking at health care. And I truly believe that. But besides the medical cannabis part, taking the pharmacist away and then going the extra step and removing the concentration caps that we have on these products is detrimental to the residents of Connecticut. And we know across the board, you hear of the pediatric wards being filled with kids that are suffering from hyperemesis, uncontrolled vomiting due to pr/rr 335 cannabis consumption. And this is not an easy diagnosis to figure out. When someone comes in with hyperemesis, there's a whole host of things that could be. You're having to do a full-on workup, and it is painful for these kids to go through this. And then on top of that, we have psychotic episodes that get triggered. So nowhere in my community does anyone say, " Hey, I really wish, gosh, I should have some stronger THC in my products." No. What they're saying is, I have a great kid who went crazy on me because he had high THC counts, and he was attacking me. These are horrible stories. I have a son that has been dealing with hyperemesis because he was addicted to cannabis and has been suffering. These are the stories that I hear from people in my community. No one's saying put more THC in my stuff. So I strongly am against this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote against it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had prepared remarks to end our discussion for today, but Representative Marra's is very powerful. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment. The Clerk has an amendment. The LCO number is 4294. I would ask the Clerk to call it, and I'd be allowed to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "E", LCO Number 4294. Offered by Representative Candelora and Representative Rutigliano.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill essentially does one thing. It removes the section that removes the caps from THC. So when I first got elected, my leader was Larry Cafero. And Larry always said, listen, you could talk about a bill. You could talk about the technicalities of the bill or try to get up and tell a personal story. Sort of a story that the good Representative just told. But unfortunately, so many of us have those stories that, you know, maybe they get washed out or drowned out. You know, I have a nephew. I have a nephew who went off to college, full scholarship, straight A student. And he came back nearly dead from hyperemesis, something that he couldn't control, something that almost killed him, put him in rehab for three years, in and out of rehab, destroyed his family, destroyed his career at college. He lost his scholarship. I'm happy to say he's doing better now, but he wasn't. And then, so when I started listening to these families tell these stories, sorta like my nephew and like Representative Marra's children, there's so many. There's so many. There's so many stories of people getting taken away in an ambulance. They're having a psychotic episode that lasts days, not just a couple hours. I'm pr/rr 338 not just a little drunk and I wake up in the morning, you're talking days of a psychotic episode, somebody who was exposed to high THC content. So when we get up here and everybody makes great points about the bill, there's good points in here about why are we raising this, why are we doing that, why are we testing this, and why are we keeping moldy pot forever and letting them resell it. So there's some parts of this bill I think that everybody could have a problem with. But I think, Mr. Speaker, what you'll find is as we go along, we'll find that there's a lot more personal stories about the harms of uncapped and unlimited THC. Connecticut already has a problem of the vape cartridges and the dabs that the kids do at times being without a cap of THC. Every medical professional we have out there says that the cap should be around 10%. We're saying it should be unlimited. It doesn't make any sense. There's so many families, so many stories. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It simply removes the section that uncaps the THC, which we think is bad public policy, bad for our kids, and bad for our state. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 339

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of powerful stories in the General Law Committee. Personal stories from individuals who approached the committee about problems that they saw in their communities. I was moved by a very personal and passionate story told by one of the General Law Committee members himself. I understand the concerns that people have about the direction that we're heading with respect to THC caps and levels. I would highlight again that most of the instances that we heard from, that people are concerned about, are the purchases that are engaged in on the unregulated marketplace, where products are not tested, or products that have no specified THC levels. Those are the products when you see the news reports about overdoses on the New Haven Green or at a local high school. It is products that are purchased in the unregulated marketplace. pr/rr 340 The regulated marketplace doesn't have those same concerns. There isn't the same correlation and linkages that we heard in those reports and in those studies. What we have in our regulated marketplace are tight controls over the products and their limits. We've got an ability to offer a product in these communities that is something that'll keep people out of the unregulated marketplace because it's a product they can buy in any other state. And when they seek to find something similar, they end up purchasing something they have no idea what the contents are. They end up purchasing those dangerous products that cause a lot of those episodes. There was a concern about potentially lifting the cap on edibles. I worked closely with the good colleague, and ensured that we would not lift the cap on those particular products. This section does also impact the THC beverages, and moving from three to five is a wholly responsible and thoughtful approach to what that emerging marketplace looks like and what the status of the demand from consumers across our state requires. We're going to continue to monitor as we move forward. And with that, and with my deepest, shared concern that the good individual for the committee highlighted, I ask that people pr/rr 341 vote no on this amendment because by allowing this framework to move forward, we are actually pushing individuals into a safer, more regulated marketplace with safer products that prevent the very issues that were highlighted before our committee. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no, but I do take the amendment with seriousness and earnestness, and I do appreciate the good gentlemen for offering it today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. March 10, 2023, I got a phone call at 01:00 o'clock in the afternoon to tell me that my stepson had passed away from a drug overdose. He was 26 years old. Okay. That was twelve years, from beginning to end. When he died, his pain went away. His struggle went away. His addiction went away. He started smoking weed, pot, marijuana, cannabis, call it whatever you want to call it, it's all the same. Fact is he started smoking it when he was 14 years old. And at that time, obviously, it was pr/rr 342 a lot less, you know, pure as it is now. And as he started smoking it, you could tell the changes. You can tell small changes that happened to him. You know, and as a parent, you see it, you talk to him, you hope that he'll do something, you know, he'll listen to your words. But again, they're 14. They do what they want. So we continue to do that. Unfortunately, that escalated very quickly to additional drugs. And unfortunately, for the next 12 years, he dealt with an addiction that not only obviously affects him. And it wasn't just the addiction, it was mental health. It was a whole bunch of other things that he had to deal with. And so, as a family, you sit there and you struggle. You try to help him. You try to make sure he can get through it, and you're there for him. But, unfortunately, they don't always listen and they do what happens. You know, sometimes the kids, they get lost. And he unfortunately got lost. So when you talk about -- and we all went through therapy. Our whole family went through therapy. When you sit there and you listen to the therapist that tell you, you know, that marijuana is not a gateway. Well, there's not one person that could ever tell anybody that it's not a gateway because nobody knows how a child when they start smoking marijuana is going to affect their brain. pr/rr 343 Nobody knows. I wouldn't have thought it would been my stepson. He was a great student. He was a great athlete. He played soccer as a freshman on the varsity team. So there was no signs that you thought that there would be a problem. So, you know, as we sit here and we debate this bill, and I hear people talk, and unfortunately, the talk hurts when the talk turns to, we're losing, you know, we're losing business to another state. Like, is that really what we want? Is that really what we should be concerned about? Should we be concerned about that we want the highest THC level out there so that we can sell our product here, and we can make more money, and we can build our tax base? You know, I struggle with that, and I don't know how anybody can even think that that's a great idea or even remotely a good idea. You know, what we should be concerned about is making sure that we get kids off these drugs, whether it's marijuana and anything else it may escalate to. Because it escalates, it escalates quickly, and you have no control over it. When he passed away, like I said, his addiction was done. Our nightmare and our health goes on. Goes on all the time with my kids. It goes on all the time. You know, just a text from my daughter, Miss Michael. pr/rr 344 You know? So that struggle continues to happen. And it's like we don't do anything about it. So we talk about all this, the cannabis. We talk about it. We talk about the legalization, the commercialization. But what are we doing if the kids are starting to struggle? What are we doing? Are we giving any mental health issues? We talk about mental health a lot, but what are we doing? Are we doing anything to help those kids that are troubled? So, as we continue the debate and we continue to talk about it, you know, it'll hurt every day and it'll hurt every day for the rest of my life because nobody ever wants to lose a child. I wouldn't wish it on anybody, but it does affect everybody. And it affects everybody, not just in your own family, but the extended family, friends, everybody. So as we sit here and we debate this bill and we vote on this amendment right here, I hope people really just think about it. Think about the impact that that will have. And I know it's always party lines around here, and unfortunately, that sometimes is an issue as well. But to sit there and just not even hear and understand that this has an impact on people, people that you know, people that you talk to, your friends, your relatives. pr/rr 345 Nobody would know that this happened to me because I don't talk about it. The reason I'm talking about it here and today and tonight is because this is bad legislation. It's bad legislation for our state. To put money ahead of our children is a problem. I urge you all to vote for this amendment.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule E: Total Number Voting 144 Necessary for Adoption 73 Those voting Yea 69 Those voting Nay 75 Those absent and not voting 7

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed that the amendment failed. And as we close out the debate on this particular bill tonight, I think what we could take from it is that even though we went for quite some time, unfortunately, we probably could have got a lot longer. There's a lot more people pr/rr 347 with a lot more stories and a lot more problems with the legislation. If we had just stuck to certain things in the bill, testing, making it easier for some folks to conduct their business that we made commercially viable, I think the opposition would have been less. We could have had a quick discussion about it. But when we start getting into potencies and advertising and all the things that are ancillary to the commercialization of cannabis and marijuana, I think that that brings up the issues. I wish I had more enlightening things to say. I was so struck by some of the stories by Representative Marra and Aniskovich. And I know so many have come up to me that didn't get on the mic today and tell their story. There's so many more in the chamber, including my own family, that could probably tell a powerful story about how it started off as a simple thing and turned into a major problem. So as we end today, I just want to be clear today that I know there's some connotations to dates and everything in the world. Today is Patriots' Day, Mr. Speaker. It is a uniquely New England holiday. It's separated by all the states in New England and Connecticut recently. We passed it a few years ago. Patriots' Day is a celebration of recognition of Paul Revere's ride in the first pr/rr 348 battle of the revolutionary war in Lexington and Concord. So we should all be proud of that as American that today, April 20, is Patriots' Day. It's not some made up holiday or some adolescent fantasy. It's Patriots' Day. So I will urge my colleagues to reject the legislation today. Let's go back to the drawing board and get it right. Let's not put our youth and our citizens at risk any more than they already are. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the bill. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my good ranking member. We work very closely together on a number of issues. When I moved from the Transportation Committee to the General Law Committee, it was hard. I loved transportation. I was able to develop a great relationship with so many people over so many years, worked on so many bipartisan bills. pr/rr 349 I moved to General Law, and I didn't know Dave well. I didn't work with him, Representative Rutigliano well. And we've developed a close working relationship and I feel proud of the fact that so many of the bills, almost every bill that we'll bring before this chamber this year will have bipartisan support. I feel great about that. I feel great about the fact that we're able to do it in a bipartisan way last year as well. And I feel good about our continued working relationship. The good representative knows at many points of time over the course of this session with this bill, there were issues that he and I actually agreed upon. And I'm glad we thought through some of the ramifications and concerns that we had. And I believe I was able to offer product here today that is responsible step forward for the State of Connecticut. It's about recognizing the regulatory constraints that our current cannabis market has. We've put our local businesses, hundreds of them, thousands of employees in economic harm by not empowering to engage in the simple strategic business choices that their competitors and surrounding states are able to enjoy. Make no mistake about it. A Connecticut business in this space is at a severe disadvantage to those that exist in New York, Massachusetts, and pr/rr 350 Rhode Island. A severe disadvantage. They cannot compete on an even playing field because we stack the deck against them. And you could suggest that a lot of those issues were public health concerns, and I would agree with you. I would agree that those are really robust concerns that we had and articulated over the proportion of almost half a decade before we entered into the adult use marketplace. What we are considering here today is responsible. It is tested and proven by other states surrounding us with respect to their rules, their laws, their regulations. We make a smart thoughtful adaptation to the THC hemp marketplace that the federal government would have otherwise foreclosed. Again, businesses that are investing tens of million dollars in our state that has a strong consumer demand, it's a huge growth industry for Connecticut. This makes modifications to our program to allow for that continued development, that continued investment, that continued product availability. It is responsive to the numerous questions and concerns that people brought to us about modernizing our marketplace and why so many of our social equity ventures and our businesses were failing. We're clarifying a number of those pr/rr 351 rules. We're bringing safety and sanity to a lot of the marketplace. I know what the concerns are moving forward. The commitment that I've given to my ranking member, I extend to all of you. We will continue to have these robust conversations inside the General Law Committee and maybe even beyond moving forward to make sure the steps that we're taking here are responsible. They're backed up. The provisions that we're enhancing today, I know were the right direction for the State of Connecticut. But if evidence come back that I'm wrong, you have my complete commitment to revisit it. But I know we're doing the right thing here today, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

pr/rr 352 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5350 as amended by House Amendment A and D: Total Number Voting 144 Necessary for Passage 73 Those voting Yea 83 Those voting Nay 61 Those absent and not voting 7 pr/rr 353

Page 56, Calendar 152, substitute for House Bill No. 5225, an act prohibiting certain licensees and registrants from selling, dispensing, transferring, or delivering any drug or device to execute a court-imposed sentence of death. Favorable report of General Law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that was before the chamber last year. Folks may remember some conversations we had at that point in time. I think the bill does clarify a number of the concerns that were raised last year. Again, this bill is pretty straightforward. Not as complex as the one we just took out. May have a similar vote count, I'm not sure. But it simply says if you're a company licensed in Connecticut, you can't make or supply drugs or devices knowing that the person you're providing them to intends to use them in executions. That's it. It does not affect any other activity. It supports the position that the healthcare industry already takes. Medical professionals who we heard a lot from, healthcare companies have been clear. Their products and expertise are for healing, not for use in executions. Every pharmaceutical company that makes drugs sought for use in executions, including major employers in Connecticut, oppose the use of their products for executions. And pr/rr 355 this bill simply straightforward way gets us out of the execution game by making sure there's a simple attestation that you know that the products that you're making cannot be sold to any entity or state for the use in carrying out sentence of death of any individuals. Through you, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption -- I move passage. Sorry.

Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Connecticut is out of the execution game. We banned capital punishment years ago. We don't use these drugs. We don't put anybody to death. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is there any company in Connecticut that manufactures this product currently?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there were companies in Connecticut that were manufacturing products, drugs specifically that were used, as part of a component to carry out executions in other states. It is our understanding that those companies no longer manufacture or sell those products for use. This ensures that moving forward that no person, entity, or business can manufacture, sell, dispense, transfer, deliver any drug or devices if they know it will be used to carry out a death sentence. It applies broadly. Nobody can get involved in this. There are some explicit bans across the statute in our drug distribution laws, pharmacy licensing laws, controlled substance regulation to ensure that we apply an actual standard knowledge. The whole thing applies on an actual knowledge standard. A violation occurs only if the person knows that that's what that product is going to be used for, knowingly enters into the sale. And frankly, it takes us out of the execution business altogether. Yes. Yes. We personally banned executions in the State of Connecticut, but this goes a step further and blocks our medical and pharmaceutical system from engaging in the development of drugs pr/rr 357 that would potentially be used in other states. Through you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the good chairman's answer. It's unfortunate that he's right about one thing. Most of the bills that come out of General Law are well thought out and bipartisan, and we work together on. In the General Law Committee, when I was asking questions about the bill, it really wasn't so much about the death penalty. At the time, I was saying, hey, wait a minute, this is a Connecticut company. They employ people in Connecticut. They pay taxes. They're producing a legal product that we don't use, but my understanding was that it's possible that some veterinarians used it or it was used in the euthanasia of animals. And so there was some use for the product beyond that of the death penalty. So that was my argument at the time. pr/rr 358 My argument was, well, why in the world would we just single out this one company who's paying taxes, employing people, doing business in Connecticut? And so I opposed the bill. I'm like, well, why would I do that? And that's not even to talk about the death penalty. I freely admit that I struggle with the death penalty. That's a lot of power for the government to have. You know, I'm a little bit more of a civil libertarian at certain things. I don't like the government having too much power over anybody, to be quite frankly. I want the power. Right? I want to be able to protect myself, but I digress. So since the company no longer actually produces the drug, I quite frankly, sir, I don't know why we're here doing the bill anymore. They don't make it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, does this company still produce drugs that could potentially be used in animal euthanasia? And then somebody had brought up the point, like, are we also, if we're banning any drug that could kill somebody, essentially, are any of these drugs used in assisted suicide? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the clarification in law is that they cannot knowingly sell to any entity for the purpose of carrying out a sentence of death. So it's very specifically relegated restriction on any potential company in Connecticut. And the company in question that was supplying drug materials to other states no longer produces or sells to them. But this also prohibits future companies, drug development companies, who are engaging in chemical compounds and drug development from doing the same. This in future protects a real world impact that no longer is felt in Connecticut today, but could with any new drug company that comes online. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So through you, Mr. Speaker, and then in the public testimony on the bill, the Connecticut Hospital Association came out against pr/rr 360 this legislation. They said that it might stop some of the legitimate medical uses that the hospitals may use for this drug. I don't know if that's true or not. I know they testified in it. And through you, Mr. Speaker, have the concerns of the hospital association been addressed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, through that inclusion of that sentence, for the purposes of carrying out a sentence of death, that is the only applicable regulatory structure in this bill that cannot knowingly sell if the purpose is to execute a sentence of death. Through you.

pr/rr 361 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate that answer. So through you, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, it would have to be a court-ordered sentence of death for this legislation to apply? Through you.

Yes. And there's an actual knowledge standard applied as well. So it's twofold. You have to know that the entity plans on utilizing this drug and or device to carry out a court-ordered sentence of death. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the good chairman for explaining. I actually think he did a great job. I listened to all pr/rr 362 the testimony. He actually informed me of something I didn't know. So I appreciate that. It makes this bill much more palatable, quite frankly. And that ends my questioning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, some questions for the proponent, if I may. Thank you, sir. What is actual knowledge? I don't see it defined in the statute. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, actual knowledge is standard that the good LCO attorneys and caucus attorneys and both Republican and Democrat have explained to me is a well-articulated, well- understood, well-defined legal axiom, that's included in numerous pr/rr 363 statutes throughout the Connecticut General Assemblies and has applicable meaning in this statute as well. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as the language sits before us, when must it be established that actual knowledge was within the possession of the individual that is charged for violating this statute? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

The violation occurs only if the person knows the drugs will be used for an execution at the time of sale. Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 364

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I guess the problem, one of the many problems with this legislation before us is sale doesn't happen until after manufacture. So if actual knowledge is actionable at the time of sale, are we saying you can manufacture this product in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill is quite clear on this, and the types of drugs that are used have other applications. We did not want to hinder the development and manufacture of products that could be used for numerous purposes, but these are drug cocktails that in combination are utilized for carrying out a sentence of death in many other states. And so we pr/rr 365 put the limitation on the, again, the person knows that by sale of these drugs to the specific entity that they will be used for the purposes of carrying out an execution sentence of death.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's good to know because my understanding is that some of these products do have purposes other than that. So you support this legislation. You are not supporting the banning the manufacturing of these products, and that's good to learn. But devices, what is a device? Because we know about drugs. Right? We heard a lot about drugs today. What is a device that's contemplated under this language? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 366 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Device is already defined in Connecticut General Statutes in this regard under Section 21a- 92. We don't alter that definition. The device means instruments, apparatus, including the component parts and accessories intended for the use and diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals or to affect the structure or function of the body of humans or other animals. And the application, that we're talking about, this would only be, again, devices that are used to carry out a sentence of death. And again, you can manufacture whatever you want. You just can't sell any product that you knowingly know is going to be used to carry out a sentence of death.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer, but within the answer is another of the problems because we are not just addressing devices that could be used to carry out the death pr/rr 367 penalty, we are dealing with components also, so which could be wires, springs, things that go into, potentially, go into a device that would go into one of these apparatuses, if that's a word. But I must ask, because I'm looking at the statute, what's a contrivance? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I mean, I hate when I get in this position where I want to look up a Google definition of a commonly used word. I don't know for purposes of this section what contrivance means. I believe it's a component part of a device. And again, this whole thing is only triggered if you not manufacture these products, it's when you knowingly sell them for the purposes of carrying out an execution of death. This doesn't prohibit any traditional normal business activities from the development, manufacture, or sale of any instruments, devices, component parts, contrivances, at all. All this essentially says is you can't do it if you know that the pr/rr 368 entity intends to carry out a sentence of death. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we didn't hear what a contrivance was, but let's deal with sale. So we're not banning the manufacture of these drugs or these components in the State of Connecticut, although some may think that we are. But the sale itself, what due process or what due diligence, I guess, is the proper term, are we employing on the manufacturer of this products, components, drugs to ascertain whether or not at the time of sale these products, drugs, things are going to be used possibly for a death? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of words in there that are not included in the bill, including possibly the use for death. They have to know. It is a knowledge standard. Actual knowledge standard that I've seen you apply on numerous issues before the Judiciary Committee, and before this building on other bills. The knowledge standard is you have to have actual knowledge of violation only occurs if the person knows the drugs or devices will be used for an execution, and that's the simple prohibition. It, again, extends Connecticut's current system. We don't have the death penalty here in Connecticut. This extends Connecticut's medical pharmaceutical system from enabling executions in other states. States like Texas and others are actively seeking chemical cocktails that are being developed in other states to bring in and import to their community to carry out executions of death. If a Connecticut-based company or individual is manufacturing those for the purpose, the knowing purpose of helping an entity carry out a sentence of death, that would be the only instance in which they're violating this law. Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 370

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard the response. It was nonresponsive. The answer is there is no due diligence that's required under this. So we don't ban the manufacturer. We only ban the sale if they happen to know. We don't require them to ask, which brings me to the next part. What's the difference between selling and dispensing of the drugs since I've heard the death penalty, we don't do it in this state, so how would an entity in this state dispense the drug as contemplated to be banned for this language? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose if Connecticut were to reverse its death penalty statutes and allow pr/rr 371 for that, this statute would similarly need to be reversed. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, nonresponsive. These entities don't dispense. They are not pharmacies, so I don't know why dispensing is in there. But it brings me to the probably the most major point here. We all agree that the death penalty is no longer in Connecticut, and I really doubt that it will ever come back. What we're saying to Connecticut businesses is you may be able to manufacture, you may be able to sell, but we don't use it in the State of Connecticut. So the only point place you could sell is to another state, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unconstitutional. It's a violation of the commerce clause. The federal government determines whether or not commerce can happen amongst the states. We are the State of Connecticut. We have no power to say to a private business that you can't sell to pr/rr 372 another state. Now, more than likely, not going to be challenged, because I'm hearing it doesn't happen in this state anyway. Any action by the legislature is deemed to be constitutional until challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. This is a direct violation of the commerce clause. We have no power to do that. So I think we've established here today that we're not banning the sale. We're not banning the manufacturer. We don't dispense. These entities don't dispense, and it's in violation of the commerce clause. That's what we have here tonight, beginning of two and a half weeks of session on the short session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to clarify that last remark, this bill in no way conflicts with the commerce clause. The situation in which federal courts have found that the commerce pr/rr 373 clause has been violated do not exist here in any form. In fact, the bill clearly does not discriminate in favor of any in state commercial interests. It treats all companies seeking a license in Connecticut exactly the same. And the bill provides significant benefit to Connecticut and its residents. It protects drug safety and public health. It does not impose anything close to significant burden on interstate commerce. The trade for execution drugs and devices is minuscule. It's hidden. It's largely illicit. And it's not part of the business model of pharmaceutical companies, the wider healthcare industry, or gas companies. All of the applications where the federal courts have held that the commerce clause has been violated, none of them apply in this circumstance. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any questions for the proponent of the bill. I would just like to point out a simple pr/rr 374 irony. We just passed a bill lessening regulations on a legal drug to help businesses be more competitive. And the very next bill that we take up, that we're taking up now, is putting more regulation in banning a legal drug from being sold for purposes that will hurt businesses and make them less competitive. I just had to point out the absolute irony that in the last bill, we were specifically told we need to pass this because this will be, you know, the businesses are hurting because other states are doing this, and we are not allowing them to do it. So, again, two legal drugs. One, to supposedly help these businesses. And this one, which if a business were still making this in Connecticut, would be harmful to them. So it just felt remiss to not get up and point out the absolute irony of the two bills that we are discussing right now, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of questions, if I may. pr/rr 375

Thank you. I'm most concerned with the issue of devices. And I'll ignore the drugs for a moment. Through you, Mr. Speaker, what is a device?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked and answered already. Device is already defined in that definition in this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I looked at 21a-92, and it doesn't seem to cover a lot of the devices which one would think are being used in an execution. So if I may, the means of execution in The United States currently are lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia, firing squad, electrocution, lethal gas, and hanging. Each one of these seems logically to use some types of devices. So for example, in lethal execution, one would imagine that there is a table with restraints. There is a room of some sort with glass windows. There's a lot of things that make up an execution chamber. One would imagine that there are hypodermic needles and things like that that are being used. Are all of those things considered devices? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've clearly defined what a device is. And by referencing 21a-92, this focuses pr/rr 377 on drugs and devices knowingly used in executions to carry out a sentence of death. Any table or device that you reference the absurdity continuum of that relationship would not be intended to affect the structure or function of the body as clearly the definition of device expresses here. And again, any of this was only predicated on a simple knowledge, actual knowledge standard that it would be sold to such prison for the purpose of carrying out a sentence of death. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Firing squad. A device used for firing squad would be rifles, bullets. Bullet is certainly something that is intended to alter the function of a body. Would that be covered under the definition of device in this statute? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If a Connecticut company knowingly sold bullets to the State of Texas and knew that those bullets were intended by the State of Texas to be used to carry out an execution by firing squad, yes, that would be prohibited.

How about the rifles? Through you.

pr/rr 379 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the sale of the rifle to the State of Texas for the express purpose of carrying out a sentence of death by execution via firing squad, I believe would be covered under this bill.

Okay. How about hanging? Hanging is still an authorized method of execution in this country. If I make rope in Connecticut and I know that, let's say, Utah is going to need rope for the hanging, and I sell them rope that they're going to use in an execution by hanging. Am I now in violation of this statute if it were to become law simply because I manufactured and sold a piece of rope? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking up the states that still allow for hanging as a method of carrying out a sentence of death. It appear there are a few. Yes. If the company that produced rope knowingly sold it to a state which told them they were going to use their rope to carry out sentences by hanging, yes, that would be a prohibited sale.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And what would the penalty for the rope manufacturer be in such an instance? Through you.

pr/rr 381 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pulling up the bill again to make sure I remember the penalty here.

Representative Dubitsky. pr/rr 382

Representative Lemar.

Representative Dubitsky.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The good gentleman raises an issue where that's exactly what's contemplated. Like, the average rope manufacturer is never going to be implicated by this bill because they're never going to be someone who's selling this material for a medical purpose. If they were selling the rope that's specially constructed or modified or developed for the purpose of carrying pr/rr 384 out an execution, they would be a registrant under this system. But in that, the average person who manufactures rope is not manufacturing for those purposes. They're not required by law under federal protections to be a registrant. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So either the good representative's previous answer is incorrect or his recent answer was incorrect. Because before he said that a rope manufacturer will be subject to a fine for selling a piece of rope to a state who is going to use it for an execution. It does not appear that that rope manufacturer is a registrant. So is it true that only registrants would be fined? Through you.

pr/rr 385 Thank you very much. Depending upon the credential of the individual who's covered by this bill, that's where the penalties would apply. You were talking about the manufacturer of rope, I guess in a colloquial sense, like the average Joe's making fibers that building out rope. I was thinking of you using it in the application of carrying out a death sentence by hanging, which I presumed to be a different standard of material that was being made for that specific purpose. If a person is just making rope and, again, does not supply this rope to a state to carry out the purposes of an execution or used in that structure, they would not come under the terms of this bill in any way. They would never apply to them if they're not making a product that's used expressly for the purpose of carrying out a sentence of death that was administered by another state. It applies so narrowly that the individuals who are applicable under this bill have very specialized license and credentials through Department of Consumer Protection or through the FDA. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So just to be clear, going back to my other question with regard to the bullets or the rifle. A bullet manufacturer and a rifle manufacturer would likely not be licensed by the state and assigned a current Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Registry number as provided under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. So those devices, the bullets and the rifle, the manufacturer of those devices would not be covered in any way by this bill. And if they specifically sold their bullets or their rifle to a state specifically to be used in an execution, they would not be fined. They would not be covered at all nor would their devices by this bill. Is that true? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the construct of companies that are currently existing in Connecticut and how they develop bullets and or rifles, they do not serve the medical pr/rr 387 purpose that is identified and articulated and understood under the constructs of this bill. So no, it would not apply to a conventional rifle company who sold a traditional gun to a state even if they knew it was going to be used for that purpose. It would apply if you manufactured specialized bullets that carry out a specific function of ensuring that the death by firing squad is administered in the most humane standard possible, which is an obligation of that state. If they manufactured specialty equipment to carry out that purpose, that would be prohibited. If it was a FDA drug deliverance system, if they're shooting a bullet with that type of chemical componentry, or whatever it is, in the construct of that. I should have understood from the original structure of your questioning that you meant colloquially rifle makers or bullet makers. I thought you're making a chemical construct about potential development of a specialty medical equipment that could administer and shoot a chemical device that could carry out the death penalty via firing squad. I think that the bill is very narrowly tailored about drug manufacturers and wholesalers those who are engaged in this process and selling devices that are used pr/rr 388 for carrying out a sentence of death, whether it be by lethal injection, firing squad, rope, et cetera.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But even if the bullet manufacturer made a specialty bullet, they call it the executioner. It's only used in executions. That's what it's specifically made for. That bullet company would still not be covered by this bill because they are not a registrant. Is that true? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, under current law, all drug manufacturers and wholesalers have to register with Department of Consumer Protection. If you create a specialty bullet pr/rr 389 to help carry out a sentence of death by execution by firing squad and you do it through a drug delivery system of a bullet, you as a drug manufacturer would be required to register with the Department of Consumer Protection.

I did not see anything in this bill or in current law that would require a bullet manufacturer to register under the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Registry. Perhaps the good proponent of the bill can point me to something that would require that. Through you.

pr/rr 390 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will again answer very concisely, I believe. The direct question is about the development of a specialized bullet that would carry out an execution of death by firing squad in another state, and the mechanism by which would be administered is a drug based -- but we're in the lengths of absurdity at this point, I want to highlight. But under that construct, that being a drug manufacturer, because that bullet under this construct would be containing a drug delivery system, would require registration with the Department of Consumer Protection. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The good proponent keeps using the word drug. I'm talking about bullets. There's no drugs involved. These are not drug delivery bullets. They are bullets that shoot and kill people. And I'm wondering where in the bill or in current law would a bullet manufacturer be required to register under the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Registry. Is there anything pr/rr 391 in the bill, or is there anything in current law that would require it? And if there is, if the good proponent could point me to it, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the question I gave three questions or four questions ago specifically outlined that this would only apply if the delivery mechanism was a bullet that was carrying drugs to administer the death penalty. That was a very specific question you asked earlier. I answered it. That would only apply in that circumstance. That's the only circumstance in which there would be a registrant with the Department of Consumer Protection if it's the bullet itself was a drug delivery mechanism. Through you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now the bill indicates that the manufacturer or seller or dispenser of any drug or device, in order to be in violation, has to sell their drug or device directly to the person who is going to administer them in the sentence of death. So if I manufacture a drug or a device in Connecticut and I sell it to a distributor in Texas knowing that it will be used by the State of Texas in an execution, and then that distributor then sells it to the State of Texas to carry out an execution, would I still be in violation? Would that manufacturer still be in violation of this statute? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the good gentleman walk me through the series of transactions he wishes me to address, again? Through you, Mr. Speaker. pr/rr 393

I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I didn't catch --

Walk him through it again. Okay. So I make a device or a drug here in Connecticut, and I sell it knowing that it's going to be used in an execution. I sell it to a distributor in the State of Texas. The distributor then distributes it and sells it to the State of Texas who promptly uses it in the performance of an execution. Even though the manufacturer knew it was going to be used in an execution, he did not sell it directly to the State of Texas. Has that manufacturer violated the statute? Through you.

Thank you. It's always dangerous to make an assumption based upon half of the information. I'm sure this very scenario would have to be tested out in court about knowingly the actual knowledge standard, who was the recipient, who knew what when. It's hard for me to make a determinative answer to this situation that is not fully articulated. My understanding of that question and how the transaction would carry out is that the manufacturer would have actual knowledge that the product that they are selling would be used to carry out a death sentence by execution. And therefore, it would be a covered transaction that is violative of the law. If they know the product they are selling isn't going to be used for the purpose of carrying out a sentence of death, that would be a covered transaction.

pr/rr 395 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then, if that is the case, what does the word directly mean in line 164? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think directly, and this can be taken in its common usage, and that the person purchasing or receiving such drug or device directly from the applicant intends to use such drug or device to execute a sentence of death imposed by a court. If that individual, I think whether it's a third party or not, intends to have that product used to carry out a sentence of death, that'd be a direct violation. That'd be my interpretation. I'm sure the applicant himself who found himself a party to this may challenge that. But I believe that direct sale to an applicant who intends to use such drug for device to execute sentence of death applies in that situation as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So given the language in that line, in line 164, am I correct that the sale to a distributor would not be a violation? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not read it the same way. I read it as if that device is directly sold from the applicant and tends to use such drug or device to execute a sentence of death imposed by a court that that would be a cover. You know that person intends to comply with the contract terms of the State of Texas we use as the straw man here, that product is intended to be used to carry out a sentence of death, that would be the sale of a device directly to an applicant who intends to comply with those contract terms. pr/rr 397 Again, we've walked through a series of scenarios that are so remote and unlikely to occur that like we're bending any construct of knowledge to understand where the individual liability would extend. But I think directly in this circumstance can be used commonly to refer to anyone who is receiving that device who intends to comply with carrying out a sentence of death, whether it's through contract terms or the state itself or the individual. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, I thank the good proponent for that series of words. My interpretation of this is that anything sold through a distributor, unless the distributor is going to carry out the execution, which I'm guessing is not going to happen, then that sale would not be a violation. I don't think I have any more questions, but I'm just going to say, I understand the purpose of this statute of this bill. I think it is poorly thought out, and I think it's poorly pr/rr 398 drafted. I think it is drafted from with an intention, but without thinking through the consequences of it. The proponent seems to have interpreted the statute in a way that I would guess no court would do so. The courts would look at this statute and they would give meaning to the word directly. It's in the statute, it's got a meaning. And just having an intent does not write that word out of the statute. The word registrant has a meaning in the statute, in the bill, which references the statute. If this were to go to court, the court would look at that definition and say, the rope manufacturer is not a registrant, this doesn't apply. There are others that I, for brevity sake, have not addressed, but I'm not sure where this language came from, how it was put together, but it doesn't seem to mean what my good colleague thinks or hopes it means. So I don't think devices should be in here at all. If you want to ban drugs, they're a lot easier because there is a system of registration. So far, even in Connecticut, I don't know of any registration for ropes. We could go down the line into electrocution and nitrogen asphyxia. There's plenty of devices that are used in executions that are arguably covered, arguably not covered by this bill. Who knows? This bill came up last year, and I think maybe pr/rr 399 the year before. And we had a fairly similar discussion. I really would have thought that over this time if this bill was going to come back, it would have been fixed. It was not. It's maybe even less comprehensible than it was last time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to support it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, listening to the debate brings a lot more questions, especially with regard to devices. And lines 186 through 194 are especially troubling because that has to do with the registration. And what we're talking about here is when does somebody know that they need to register, it's a very broad situation. We look at 186 to 194, it talks about the commissioner should not issue a license to certain companies. But I think we've already established here that somebody could be manufacturing something. They don't know that it's going to be used for this purpose, but we're requiring through lines 186 to pr/rr 400 194 for the licensee to sign off at the time of applying for the license that their device or drug will not be used for this purpose. So, you know, I've never witnessed an execution. I've seen on TV and movie. I think John Grisham had a movie years ago, and I saw that. I mean, there's leather straps that are sometimes utilized for various reasons. So to my knowledge, we don't license farmers who end up cow becomes leather strap and all the way because we've already talked about that we're banning the components. Right? So the components that go into an electric chair or some sort of a gurney that's utilized in this process in another state, once again, that would be a component. And I look at the fiscal note, and we don't license these entities now. Fiscal note is silent as to that whole process. I would have to say that it would be expanding who would need to be licensed to create all of these components that potentially could be utilized in this product. It's a bridge too far. It's unreasonable. But with that, I do have some additional questions on another section of the bill, if I may. The bill contemplates, Mr. Speaker, the fine that we heard about before, the thousand dollar fine, which could be a cost of pr/rr 401 doing business. An entity could say, hell, I'm going to manufacture the drug. I'm going to sell the drug, might even try to dispense the drug. Pay a thousand dollar fine because I'm making $2,000 on this transaction. Cost of doing business. If you really think that you're banning it, some people think we are. Not really. Some businesses do that. But the question is, you have a multiple member LLC, five member LLC, who's responsible for the fine? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The registrant. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 402 So the registrant. So many times with a LLC, all of the entity, all of the officers of the LLC are equal. So when we say the registrant, is that, I mean, I've created LLCs for businesses. I've accessed the system. I've put myself down as the registered agent for the process of service. Would I be liable? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

The registrant with the Department of Consumer Protection would be the liable party. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But that's the problem. Because if we don't register all of these companies that could make a component pr/rr 403 that could be utilized in one of these devices, but then we find that a company is doing that, they weren't registered, so how would we find the registrant, which I guess is rhetorical. But next, we have possible imprisonment. Who would go to jail? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, through you. Again, this does not apply to random manufacturers of nonmedical things. This is a drug manufacturer pharmacy statutes that we're implicating. It has nothing to do with the random manufacturers. I took the prior gentleman's questions in good faith. I didn't recognize he was trying to have a different approach in this conversation. This only applies to drug manufacturer pharmacy statutes. So it took me a while to realize the good gentleman wasn't referring to medical rope that would be used to carry out a sentence, instead he was trying to make an insinuation about rope manufacturers generally and that it wasn't about the types of guns that would be due to deliver lethal pr/rr 404 injections via bullet, which is a common practice again, and that he was instead talking about Remington or another company in Connecticut. I took those questions in good faith. I probably shouldn't have. I should have understood where they're coming from. This question again, devices that we're talking about, IV bags, needles, gurneys that are used in that specific application, these folks know that they're manufacturing medical devices. They are required registrants with the Department of Consumer Protection, they know the process by which they are a registrant, and that is the individual that would be held liable. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate all the words. Many of the words didn't have to do with the question that I asked at all. It had to do with the prior speaker. But I must correct the chairman. You know, there are firing squads that are utilized pr/rr 405 for death penalty. I don't know if the chairman knows that, but that has been employed in this country. I'm not aware where it's still being employed. I think Utah, that is not utilizing a bullet to administer a drug. That is utilizing a bullet to go through a body to execute the individual. So I don't understand the disconnect when the questions are being asked and answered previously or two, but my question had to do with expressly who goes to jail under this proposed legislation, and it's particularly in line 254 through 255. And I didn't hear any sort of answer that was anywhere near to that. So that's my question, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all penalties are applicable to the registrant with the Department of Consumer Protection. Through you. pr/rr 406

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So once again, we have this issue with the registrants, and my scenario was an LLC that has five members. Some of us are involved with LLC. Sometimes you have a silent partner. Sometimes you have people that's on the paperwork. So am I to understand that somebody who has absolutely nothing to do with this business on a day-to-day operation, person that isn't involved in the manufacturing of the product, isn't involved in the sale of the product, isn't involved in the dispensing of the product, could potentially go to jail merely because they were the ones that registered the company with DCP. Is that what I'm hearing? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 407 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we've covered a lot of ground today, and perhaps the good individual would like to reorient themselves with the actual knowledge standard that's applied in this bill. Again, they're registering with DCP who has actual knowledge would be the one who's held liable. The process by which someone go to jail is extraordinary and with almost under any circumstance never occur. Again, drug manufacturer pharmacy statutes are the statutes that are implicated in this regard. The registrant is a registrant of record who's familiar with the process for which they must comply with DCP statutes and requirements. The scenario that the good gentleman outlines, I cannot envision ever occurring. But if the extremity was taken to the farthest reaches, you could end up with the scenario in which the registrant who had actual knowledge of this transaction could conceivably go to jail. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 408 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, if that's the intent, then you write it that way. It's not the way it's written. I'll read the actual language. It says any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months or both. It doesn't say the registrant with actual knowledge can go to jail. If that's what we're hearing today, that's not in this language. If that's what was intended, that's the way it should have been written. But the scenario I gave you was many times we create businesses, and somebody registers, their name is on the registry, they have acumen dealing with a computer that others don't have because they're busy manufacturing the others, and they register. The mens rea, which is usually required to be convicted of a crime, is supposed to be laid out expressly in the statute. What we've heard today is merely because you registered the company. It could have been a couple decades ago, but the company manufactures a product. The company sells a product. Person isn't the salesperson. The person isn't the manufacturer. There's no direct link up with actual knowledge. That person could go to jail. If that's the process that the balance of the chamber supports, I feel sorry for those individuals, those entrepreneurs, pr/rr 409 risk takers, once again, looking to create businesses in this state because that's not what this language says if that's the intent. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. In direct contradiction to the gentleman, the violation that is referenced in the section the good gentleman said is an actual knowledge violation. I think he and I may have a different appreciation for those words and how they're structured in this legislation, but is an actual knowledge violation that is referenced by the word violation. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

pr/rr 410 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that under our statutes, person is the business. Individual has a different legal connotation. The language before us that I read to you previously says any person. That is the business. That implicates all of the officers, the members of the business. If it said any individual who violates, I would agree. That's not what it says. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just need to clear up one quick thing. The good chairman mentioned that the entity, the manufacturer would be registered with the Department of Consumer Protection, but that is not how the term registrant is defined in the statute. It references Connecticut General Statutes 21a-240. And registrant means any person licensed by this state and assigned a current Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Registry number as provided under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. So pr/rr 411 it needs to be understood that the term registrant does not mean, in this bill as written, does not mean a company registered with a person licensed and assigned a current Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drug Registry number. So if a person or entity does not have such a number and is not so registered, that person or entity is not a registrant. Registering with the Department of Consumer Protection is completely irrelevant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. pr/rr 412

I'd like my vote to be cast in the positive, please.

House Bill 5225: Total Number Voting 143 Necessary for Passage 72 pr/rr 413 Those voting Yea 85 Those voting Nay 58 Those absent and not voting 8

Page 18, Calendar 191, substitute for House Bill No. 5228, an act concerning electronic nicotine delivery system and vapor product dealers. Favorable report of General Law.

pr/rr 414 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. I did have a busy night. This one should be much quicker. I move the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of amendment LCO 4260. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule A, LCO 4260, offered by Representative Lemar, Representative Turco, et al. pr/rr 415

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is where the General Law Committee usually comes together and does some great work. We recognize that there's a serious problem with the proliferation of e-nicotine, vape shops broadly across our community. This is also the hub for a lot of the illegal sales of unregulated illegal products that we see throughout Connecticut. I work closely with my good ranking member to reach a, I think, a good bill that will crack down on some of the illegal sales that we see throughout the marketplace. This is going to be broadly supported by everyone I hope to hear tonight. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with the good ranking member of General Law. This is a good bill. It's exactly what the General Law Committee does. We see a problem, we try to fix it. I wanted to thank the good ranking member, the good chair, both Representative Turco and Representative Lemar, and Representative Carpino and O'Dea for their hard work on the bill. And I urge that we pass it because it's a good bill. Thank you, sir.

Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. [gavel] Would you care to remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members, take your seats, the machine will be open.

We will be in at 11:00 o'clock tomorrow, 11:00 o'clock sharp. Everybody drive safe. Thank you. Make sure you vote before you leave. 11:00 o'clock tomorrow. Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure your vote is properly cast. Alright. Patience is wearing thin. Have all the members voted? pr/rr 418

Nope, hang on. I got to do that after I lock it. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And I believe the Clerk can take and announce until we fix the IT issues. Please announce the score.

pr/rr 419 The bill passes as amended. [gavel] That will bring us to the end of our business tonight. Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, sir. Yep. Representative McGee.

Thank you, madam. And with that, Mr. Majority Leader, floor is yours, sir.

So ordered without objection. [gavel] Sharp 11:00 o'clock tomorrow. (On motion of Representative Rojas of the 9th District, the House adjourned at 10:03 o’clock p.m., to meet again at the Call of the Chair) pr/rr 421 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the preceding 431 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on Monday, April 20, 2026. I further certify that this digital sound recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of Datagain, under my direction. Kanchan Mutreja Datagain 1 Creekside Court Secaucus, NJ 07094