CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-05-01

Thank you. In these difficult times, may our leaders turn to you for guidance. Give them wisdom to do what is best for the people of Connecticut. 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 afternoon, Madam President. And I rise for a very special introduction, Madam President. And so proud today to have with me in the chamber, in the circle, the leadership and some student representatives from the Brass City Charter School in Waterbury. The Brass City Charter School is a very, very special place. It's a home. It's a community. It's a connection of learning, and love, and leading, bringing our young people to leadership positions. It was founded, Madam President, in 2013, and it serves about 400 students from pre-K to eighth grade. And they have repeatedly outperformed, academically and are a standout in the State of Connecticut. The core beliefs that this school was founded on, is that transformational power of education, is the way to end the cycle of poverty. And it is an environment of supporting and connecting, not just with the students, but with their families who are very much a part of the whole environment and ecosystem. It's rigorous instruction, but it's premised on the basis that all students can learn, and they can learn in each of their own and most successful ways. And so if I might, just identify some of the founding members of this institution. And, of course, I have to start with the Executive Director that is, Barbara Ruggiero. And a footnote, Barbara and I go back some years, decades probably. Is that what it is? Decades? From the time of all being in the neighborhood to the school carpooling, to the time that Barbara then, took on leadership positions, first with the Children's Community School, and then was the leader sn/rr 3 in forming Brass City Charter School, which has endured now, as I said, since 2013, in such a distinguished way with an amazing waiting list, and a very coveted educational environment. Also with us today, is a co-founder, and that is Nancy Ladona. Nancy's so pleased that you're all here with us. And founding teachers are also here, and they are Sarah, Carrie, Sylvia, and Lily. And Madam President, we say it takes a village. And this school and this community is a village, but there's a village behind the Executive Director, Barbara Ruggiero. And that village happens to have traveled here today, from New York and all parts of Connecticut. And so David, Barbara's spouse, is upstairs for the bird's eye view. David Whitehouse, Doctor David Whitehouse and brother Mark, who is a cardiologist in Waterbury and sister Lynn who has come from New York to be with us today. Thank you so much and their spouses. And also, my favorite peeps, are Meredith and Jeffrey, and their kids are here. And then Jeffrey, who was part of my carpool. So don't say anything, Jeffrey. Don't give up my secrets. And then Gabby and her family and her children. And so, Madam President, if I might take a moment to present one of our state citation, which I will note, we put in a gold frame. That the top of the line. We're so proud of it. And this is in recognition of Brass City Charter School, for your outstanding contributions to family and the Waterbury community founded in 2013, a beacon of education, achievement, and community in the City of Waterbury. It has changed the lives of so many for the betterment, generations of children's family with them. sn/rr 4 The power of holistic education at Brass City Charter School has been truly transformative. And Madam President, I would also like to recognize at this time, one of the--, and I'm not sure if it's an official she's an official board member, but she is a worker, an advocate, and has been so supportive and instrumental to the leadership in the City of Brass City Harvest. And that's Mel Larkin, who she's going to faint right now, but that's Mel Larkin, and she's in the back there. So congratulations. And we have our eighth graders, and then we have some sixth graders here from Brass City, and they're sporting their school color. And so we're so happy to have you here to see Connecticut State Government in action and to hopefully, inspire you to some days populate these seats right here. Congratulations to you all. Thank you for the work that you do, [clapping] and thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, is Agenda 1, on the clerk's desk?

Mr. Senator Duff.

So ordered, Sir. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, as our first item of business today, we would like to ask for suspension.

On Calendar Page 45, Calendar 481, House Bill 5003 as a go, please.

Page 45, Senate Calendar 481, Substitute for House Bill 5003, an act concerning workforce development, workforce conditions in the state, as Amended by House Amendment Schedule "A".

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the house.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that contains many wonderful Sections, which will create great law for working families in the State of Connecticut. There are many Sections, and I would be very pleased to answer any questions that anyone might have regarding those Sections.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate everybody giving me a chance to actually even get in the room and put my papers down before we got started. And forgive me, but this is a bill that's a couple of 100 pages long. It has 75 Sections. And I believe that the proponent of the bill, who I appreciate very much, and we work well together on a lot of things, but I think that if you're going to bring out a bill that's brand new to this chamber, that is a culmination of multiple committees around the legislature and dozens of individual separate bills. In fact, separate bills that ought to take many hours to debate, individually, All placed into one omnibus bill. A legislative buffet, if you will, where we have gone around and, like, said, oh, we need a little of this from the Energy Committee. We need a little of this from the Environment Committee. We need a little of this from the Labor Committee. And put it all into one giant soup. And now they're making a stew and stirring the pot. And I will acknowledge there are some items in this bill that are very, very good. Things that I'm actually frustrated because the bad items in the bill are sn/rr 11 going to prohibit me from being able to vote in favor of them. But this is apparently how the majority now operates. They are down to only a handful of days left to go. So the answer is, let's not try and actually do this the right way. Let's not use time management. Let's not actually, debate each bill individually. Let's just cram them all into one giant super huge omnibus document that I have to go ahead and navigate with only a few minutes to spare. So forgive me when I walk in and it's already underway before I even get to put my papers down. A little courtesy would go a long way to us working together here in this legislature. And I'm extremely frustrated that, that courtesy seems to be disappearing and waning with every minute as we get closer to the end of the legislative session. As was pointed out, this bill has a lot of Sections. And I appreciate the fact that the good chairman indicated that she's willing to answer questions. So the first question I have is about the process. How did we get here? Why do we have a 75 page bill that is a container effectively, for many, many bills that ran as individual bills themselves and now just end up as a Section or two or three throughout this huge document? And how did we get to a point where we're including lobsters and double utility poles in a labor bill? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. The good senator, I sn/rr 12 think, understands that it's not uncommon in this chamber, in this legislature to have omnibus bills such as this. I will say we haven't had very many in the Labor Committee, but it is not uncommon, and it exists throughout this legislature. Each one of these bills touches the cognizance of our Labor Committee and is appropriately before us.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Well, I appreciate the gentle lady's answer, except I couldn't disagree more. This is not common. I mean, sometimes we will put a couple of different bills from the same committee into one document, especially if they have some connection with one another. And frankly, the double utility poles has nothing to do with the Labor Committee. That is a bill that went through the Energy Committee. In fact, I might remind everyone that's why we have different committees. That's why we have an Energy Committee, frankly, and why we have a Labor Committee. So that the Labor Committee can take up labor bills, and the Energy Committee can take up energy bills. And the lobster bill, I don't know that it ever actually went through a committee, but if it did, it would have gone through probably the Environment Committee. I know nothing about lobsters. I don't live near the shore. I do know I like a good lobster roll. And I'm fearful that the section about lobsters actually, might be harmful to that end. But I will digress and suggest that we don't normally do this. And the idea that we do, this is akin to what I would call a baby implementer. sn/rr 13 Anyone that's ever been involved in the Connecticut General Assembly knows that, normally what happens in a budget year is, we have a budget document, which is nothing more than a collection of numbers. How much is going to be distributed throughout our state government to the various agencies? And then there's a bill that goes with it, called the Implementer Bill, which is the policy that goes behind it. And in recent years, that Implementer Bill has become the catch all, for the majority. Anything they don't manage to achieve through the normal process, the process that respects the people of Connecticut, the process that is as most people imagine, that we have public hearings, the public is invited to come and participate in the process and share their views on things. Those things are all falling by the wayside as the majority becomes more and more arrogant, and more and more willing to go ahead and skip the rules, skip the procedures, skip any respect for the process in favor of getting whatever they want through, no matter what. And this bill is symptomatic of that. It's appalling, frankly. And I guarantee you, if we went out on the street and we grabbed people regardless of their political affiliation and asked them, how do you feel about the legislature taking up a bill with a few days to go where they took a 100 other bills and slammed them into one thing, gave almost no notice to the opposition and expected it to be debated. Let's start at the very beginning. Section Number 1, through you, Madam President. Can the gentle lady tell me what Section Number 1 is about?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Section 1, deals with the situation where, health care providers and teachers or teachers are assaulted by someone while they're carrying out their duties at work.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I understand that, that's what it deals with, but what does Section 1 do? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. This will provide that workers' compensation will be adjusted to provide replacement of a 100% of their wages.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I don't want to continue to come across as antagonistic, because I do want to get to the bottom of this for the people of the State of Connecticut. That is my obligation. But we're going to have to do better with our responses than the short quick responses that I'm sn/rr 15 getting, because the Section of the bill is several pages long, and if it was a little smaller, I might hold it up for the world to see, all the underlying text is brand new. It says a lot more than what we just heard. And there's a few pages of this. So I understand that this Section deals with both healthcare workers. And presumably, I noticed the word volunteering. So maybe the good chairman can tell me whether a simple volunteer for a hospital is included in this. And it also looks like people that work as teachers, but it also would include members and other employees of schools. So it's a pretty broad group of people, but basically, those folks in the health care field and the education field are going to be given additional benefits for workers' comp. versus people that work in other occupations. Am I correct about that? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill does in fact, give 100% replacement of wages and provides for health benefits and through the workers' compensation system, and it is specifically meant to cover all of the workers in a health care facility who engage with patients or members of the family of a patient, or in educational setting deals with students, and all of the workers that deal with students in those situations if such employee is assaulted while carrying out their duties. And there have been provisions for this in the past. In certain circumstances, this is comprehensive and making sure that we're taking care of the people sn/rr 16 that we know are put in these kinds of situations. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President. Certainly, I don't want to begrudge, folks that work in the healthcare or education arenas from being compensated, God forbid they are ever harmed while on the job. But what I'm confused about, Madam President, is why we are singling out these two occupations, so that they would receive substantially more workers compensation than people that work in other jobs. The standard workers compensation provides 75% of the average weekly wage, for total incapacity with a floor of 20%. This now gives folks a 100% if they are in the healthcare or education fields. Also, it covers all their medical bills, wages for court appearances, and would include a number of other benefits that are not allotted to people that are in other professions. So, can I just ask, Madam President? I'm for this. Okay. But what I'm trying to understand is, why are we treating these two types of professionals different than everybody else? Are these types of people more important than people that work in other jobs? Is that what the majority is saying? We're going to give workers compensation benefits that are extra special for healthcare workers and for teachers and everybody else, they can go back to having the minimalistic work comp that everybody else gets. Through you. sn/rr 17

Thank you, Madam President. Throughout our statutes, there are special Sections that deal with similar situations for different kinds of employees. So while we are addressing in this bill, teachers and health care workers, we know and teachers and other educational staff and health care workers in these facilities. Throughout statutes, there are other parts of the statute that provide extra benefits for particular types of work.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I believe the answer was, yes. I believe the answer is, yes. The Connecticut Democrats believe that if you fall into these two categories, that you are more important when it comes to your workers' compensation, than people that do not fall into these two categories. I have a problem with that. As much as I want to help health care providers and teachers, I do not believe that it is appropriate for this legislature to be putting people into categories and suggesting merely because of the type of work that they do, that they're more important than someone else or entitled to something different. And I say this, knowing that I have people in my family that work in those professions. I was recently married, and my wife is a teacher. And I guarantee you, if I asked her, she would agree. She sn/rr 18 would say, like, why would we give special benefits to people because they're teachers? Teachers are definitely important. And workers, excuse me, health care folks are important. But so are everybody else. So are people that work as first responders or people that manufacture things, or frontline workers in a retail store. Everyone should be treated equally under our laws. And to be making these arbitrary decisions at the cost of taxpayers and by the way workers compensation premium payers, to me is unfair and concerning. And there's probably a lot more to this Section. Through you, Madam President, I was just notified that this bill was going to be here in front of us, as a possibility late last night. And only informed that we were starting with it within the hour. 200 something pages. So I have not read every word of it, and it infuriates me, because I tell my constituents all the time. I read all the bills. But I can only read all the bills when I know which bills I'm supposed to be reading, right. There are thousands of bills floating around in this building. There's four days to go. And I don't know how many of those bills are actually going to come before us. I don't know which ones. I don't know if they're going to look the same, because notoriously, the majority likes to change the bill at the very moment that it's brought to the floor for debate via some sort of amendment. And in fact, this bill is a product of numerous changes. And as I mentioned, none of this came out of committee the way it appears now. And we could have a conversation about what Sections received a public hearing and which did not. sn/rr 19 Although, I don't think it would really tell us much, because even the Sections that did get a public hearing probably don't look the same. And Sections that got a public hearing in the Energy Committee means nothing to me. I don't serve on the Energy Committee. I didn't hear the testimony. I don't know what the concerns were. Just like I don't know anything about lobsters. Thankfully, I think we're going to hear from one of my colleagues that does. So let's go on to Section 2, which is about wage transparency. Can the gentle lady, through you, Madam President, explain to me what Section 2, is about?

Thank you, Madam President. And I did want to make one correction just to make it clear if I wasn't clear. Relative to the teachers that are covered under workers' compensation, they've always had a 100% reimbursement. This does two things. It consolidates it under the workers' comp statute, and it also is intended to allow teachers to receive workers' compensation in this way, without having to prove the intent of the student was to harm the teacher. And so it's a cleanup and it's something actually that teachers have had for decades. But moving on to Section 2, wage ranges. This is intended, to require employers to, upon a request of the employee and certain other circumstances to provide the information regarding not only wage ranges, which we already have in statute, but also benefits that would be associated with the position, either when they're first applying for the job or sn/rr 20 whether it's applying for a promotion in that workplace. So it expands our current statute, to require the employer to give a general description, and it repeatedly says general description of benefits that they would be receiving in that job. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, since we touched back on Section 1, which has to do with the workers' compensation, I would just make one final point that I did not make, that's quite clear listening to the description of what's going on, and that is that, these are benefits that in most circumstances would be collectively bargained. These are things that ultimately would be negotiated. These are things that the union would have a negotiator dealing with the state or the municipality, or the hospital, and whatever situation it is. There would be something going on that would make sure that these things were properly negotiated. What's happening here is the majority party is taking one side of that negotiation, and choosing to negotiate on their behalf, without a negotiation at all. Basically, just putting things into statute, so that they can no longer be negotiated. And I will point out that there's a danger in that for both sides, which is that when you start to eliminate the ability for the parties to collectively bargain, even if you're giving them the thing that they might have bargained for, you're sn/rr 21 denying their ability to negotiate, or maybe for something else that they would have preferred. And, it's a danger that cannot be overstated. I did not, hear a detailed explanation of Section 2, and that's what I'm looking for, which is to understand what problem we're trying to solve with Section 2. What does Section 2 actually do, and what problem are we trying to solve? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. As I, said, this is a Section of the bill that will require employers to be transparent about the wage ranges and the benefits associated with positions that are being applied for. And the intent here is to make sure that workers who are in these positions are not come in, in a way where they're not aware of what the range is, so that they could perhaps accept something much lower. We really are trying to address the situation where we're trying to reach more pay equity, in the workplace. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Are there any complaints to justify the need for this? Or, I might say this level of intervention in what is historically a private negotiation between an employer and employee. Through you. sn/rr 22

Thank you, Madam President. I'm sorry. I have to ask the good gentleman to repeat the question.

Thank you very much. Madam President, there is a debate going on in this chamber, and I noticed there's a lot of side conversations. I've seen a couple of tours, go through, and a lot of distractions. And I also noticed that my colleague that I'm asking questions to, seems to be engaging in a number of sidebars. I don't want to be standing up here having to repeat my questions because the majority is not interested in answering my questions or even hearing them. So frankly, I'll do this a few times, but I'm going to get more and more aggravated. We have to operate with a level of respect. I walked in here indicating that I don't feel respected. And it's not me that I'm worried about. It's more about the 100,000 people that I represent back home. They elect me to come here, just like they elect all of us to be here, exercising their freedom and their rights to make sure that we're on the record about things. I deserve to make sure that I got the information in front of me, in a timely manner. I should be warned sn/rr 23 in a proper manner. And when I'm asking questions, I deserve to be listened to. So I asked if there was any data to justify this extraordinary level of intervention into what is typically a private negotiation between an employer and an employee? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And just for the record, I understand my good colleagues' frustration, and we'll pay very close attention. But I do have other colleagues in the room who I wanted to make aware there may be Sections that they have something to offer on, in response to your questions. And so that was the purpose for the distraction. To your question, I'm not aware of any studies or data that has been put forward other than things that might have been mentioned in the public hearing. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate your remarks and the chairman as well. And hopefully, we can stick to the debate and keep it respectful and get to the bottom of what is being proposed here. sn/rr 24 My concern with this Section, which I will just explain as thoroughly as I can, is a Section that would require employers before there's ever a negotiation with a potential new hire, to disclose the salary range for the job. Now in a vacuum by itself, that doesn't sound unreasonable. In fact, a lot of people do post job postings and suggest what the range for the job is. Makes perfect sense. The thing is, that not everything is created equal. Not every employee is created equal. Not every job is created equal. And very often, especially when you talk about small businesses, they're not exactly sure what they're going to get for applicants. They may be looking for one particular position, and they might end up with an applicant that they feel fits a different role, or might take on some of the responsibilities for the role they were advertising for, and some different responsibilities for another role that could be created. Who knows? So the idea that we must fit everyone inside a box, it also concerns me that the majority tends to look at employees as if they're interchangeable COGs in a machine. That you can just take one out and plug another one in. People are not like that. Some people are more skilled than others in different areas. And you take any business that has multiple employees that allegedly have the same position, I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, if you start asking the employer and those employees, they're going to say, well, you know, Mary's really good at customer service, but maybe her math's not the best. You got to go talk to John if you want to make sure you get the right answers on the spreadsheet. Even though they might have the same exact occupation. So the idea that somehow people are the sn/rr 25 same, and they ought to be compensated the same for the same job is not true or fair. Not to mention the fact that people are often compensated based on a lot of other factors that might not even be about their work. It might be about the length of service, or how reliable, or responsible, or loyal to the company they might be. Like, this particular employee and this other employee might do very much the same work every day, but one of them, the business owner or management trusts, to actually unlock the door in the morning, or to take the bank deposits. And the other one, they don't. So who's worth more to the employer? I'm just throwing out some things so people get an understanding of why these policies that are allegedly protections for employees are not protections for anyway. They're violations of the rights of both parties to engage in a free negotiation. It's a constant frustration. Almost every day, we're here because the majority claims to be protecting someone, or helping someone. Well, when you're denying their freedom, when you're taking away their rights to decide for themselves, you are not helping anyone. People are smart. I got faith in them to figure it out. Through you, Madam President, does the proponent of this Section of the legislation and again, we're on Section 2 of 75. Our job's actually uniform. Does the proponent believe that every person hired into a roll, has the same value? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. No.

And thank you very much, Madam President. And if there was a job posting, and there were multiple applicants, and one of them had no experience at all, and another one was coming from the business's greatest competitor, and had 25 years of stellar experience, and could offer so much more than even just doing the job, would they very likely end up being offered the same amount? Through you.

Not necessarily. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So if all that's true, then why is it that we would require the employer to put a uniform salary range? Through you.

sn/rr 27 Thank you, Madam President. Through you, it does make a person aware of what the range is, but it does not require the employer to either offer them those wages or benefits or hire them, and it doesn't require the employee who's applying to accept an offer if it doesn't fall within that range. It's simply to make them aware of what the range would be.

Thank you very much, Madam President. In other words, it's pointless. It's utterly, completely pointless, except for the fact that what it's going to do is it's going to create an expectation. It's going to create an expectation for the employee. And for example, if I was hiring for a certain position in my company, and I said the wage range is 50,000 to 75,000. And then someone came and applied for the job, and then I offered them the job at the 50,000. Through you, Madam President, can you see where that might create a little bit of friction? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe that's a subjective, question, and I don't think I can answer that. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll answer it. Yes. It's going to create friction. That's what's going to happen. So when you create bills like this, where you're stirring the pot between employers and employees, I'll just share something with everyone, which is that the Labor Committee, which I serve on with my good colleague, the chairman, to me is, one of the most frustrating places to ever be. Because when you're sitting there in this committee, generally speaking, everyone in the room is divided up. We're on the side of the employers, and we're on the side of the employees. I'm not on anyone's side. I want everyone treated equally under the law. I want everyone to have opportunity to negotiate their contract with the other side on even terms, on an even playing field. But you can't do that in there. They won't let you. It's just like, no, no. We're going to do a bill for the employer. No. We're going to do a bill for the employee, and because of the makeup of the committee, and the fact that the Democrats have a majority, and their focus is constantly on pushing the envelope for collective bargaining. They're always on the side of organized labor, and that doesn't mean they're on the side of the organized labor employees. Don't mistake that. They're on the side of organized labor, and they are always antagonistic to employers. So for me, it's extremely frustrating, because I end up defending the employers all the time, which is not my goal. I go in there trying to be fair, but when I'm being told that the bill is going to un- level the playing field against employers, I end up having to take that side. sn/rr 29 Nothing is more frustrating. Trust me when I tell you. So this is just another one of those examples, And this is a bill all by itself. Section 2 was a bill, all by itself. I don't know the bill number off the top of my head, but we debated this bill. We had a hearing on this bill, and it went through the committee. But here it is. It found its way into this giant omnibus. I had to put it in a binder, because I couldn't find a chip or a clip big enough for this document. Thank heavens for my outstanding legislative aide, who was helpful in putting this together, so I might have some ability to make some sense out of it at this point. But here it is, put into this giant chock full of nuts, smorgasbord bill that contains soup to nuts, you name it, lobsters, utility poles, and salary ranges, apparently. I'm opposed to this Section, and I think it's a big mistake. Who determines the salary range? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, the employer.

Are there any limitations, through you, Madam President, on how wide the range can be?

Through you, Madam President, no.

Is there anything that prohibits an employer from putting 0 to $1,000,000? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. It's hard to answer that question because of the fact that it is not something that I think would ever happen. But if an employer were trying to circumvent the law, which one might think they were doing in that case, I imagine someone could bring a case against them. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We got to where I wanted to go, which is someone may bring a case against them. So here it is. You have an employer who's honestly got a broadly defined position at their company. But they may be looking for someone that might be doing outside sales, or inside sales, or customer service, and they're exploring and interviewing a sn/rr 31 wide range of people. And the amount of compensation that any one of those people might be offered could be wildly different. But yet, you're creating an expectation by telling the company they have to put this, data out in front of people. And now, if they're offered a job on the lower end of the spectrum or something that doesn't conform with what was actually advertised, there is a cause of action created. Now, people can start to sue employers for failing to properly disclose a salary range. It's an absurdity, frankly. We already proved that the thing is more or less meaningless anyway, and all it's likely to do is to create strife between employers and employees. Now, who wants that? Not me. I'll tell you who wants that. People that like to make laws that create that strife so that they can use it for political purposes to play this group against that group. Instead of recognizing that very often people in business and industry get along very well as employers and employees. I have had employees and I have been an employee. And when I was an employer, I treated my employees well. I made them understand that the better off we did as a company, a corporation, a group, the better off they would, be as well. And guess what? It was true because I meant it. And I've worked for companies that felt the same way too. And to the point of the majority, not every situation is so fair and reasonable. I've worked for people that are real jerks too. And you know what I did? I quit. That's what I did. Because I wasn't going to work for people that I didn't respect or appreciate. And that's the beauty of living in a free country, is that all of that is possible. You can be an employee. You can be an employer. You can work hard. sn/rr 32 You can achieve anything in this great, land of America. What does the impact, through you, Madam President, that we see on lower end candidates? Do you see any potential that we might discourage people from even applying for a job based on the salary range? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. I don't think that will be a major concern. I don't think that will happen.

Thank you very much. Madam President, you don't think it will happen, or it will not happen. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Again, it's a subjective, you're asking for a subjective opinion on this, and my subjective opinion is I don't think it will happen.

Yes. I'm asking for a subjective opinion about a bill that was drafted without any data or common sense entirely. It's completely and utterly subjective. It's ridiculous on its face. So all I've got to respond to it with, is more subjectivity. That's all I can do. And it's common sense to say that if you're going to put a job listing out there, and the range is between 60 and $70,000 for X, Y, Z job. And there's somebody who's fresh out of school, who's never actually worked in that field anymore, and they've been competing for jobs that were paid for less than that. They may just look at that listing and go, you know what? I'm never going to get that job. I'm never going to get that job because they're not going to pay me 60 grand. There's way more qualified people in the world. Forget it. I'm just not even going to go. And that's terrible. Because Madam President, I'm going to tell you as somebody who's worked in the industry of hiring people, I've done it in real estate and in insurance. The fact of the matter is, sometimes somebody walks in your office applying for a job and you're like, you know what, I can't give you that job, but I could give you a different job, or I could give you an entry level position that might become that job in a year. But the busy bodies in Hartford, who think they know better, and we're not smart enough to figure it out on our own, they want to have this bill, which might just discourage that person forever walking in to apply for the job. sn/rr 34 It's dangerous. Not to mention the fact that we're talking mostly about the employees, but this bill seems to think that everyone is a big corporation. Everyone. We're going to have some corporate mentality, and we're going to sit around the boardroom, and we're going to do a job posting on Indeed, and we're going to do this. There are plenty of other ways that jobs are posted. There are small businesses that are still grappling with what they even want their employees to do. They're maybe hiring their first employee ever. They're not even sure what they need from them. How do they comply with this? I fully expect this to generate lawsuits and at the very least discourage some people from applying for jobs. And frankly, even if it's one, we often say, if we save one life, well, if we discourage one person from getting a job through a meaningless, busy body mandate on businesses in the state, which is a whole other subject, by the way, and I encourage people that are watching to pay attention as we go through all 75 Sections of this bill one by one. How many of them are likely to discourage businesses from wanting to operate in the State of Connecticut? Knowing full well that the states around us don't have any of this junk. And there are places like Florida that are completely open and willing to take people that want to work and create industry and opportunity, unlike Connecticut, where we just want more regulation and more strife. I also believe that this bill will lead to something that I would refer to as market distortion, Because now you're going to have employers out there who are compelled to do job listings that show a certain salary range, and that's going to mean that their competitors are going to see that, and they're going to have to go ahead and do the same thing. sn/rr 35 So all of these job listings are going to get, screwed up. I believe that's the technical term. It doesn't make any sense to go ahead and put these requirements on businesses not understanding the fact that they are not in a cookie cutter, ones and zeros world. Jobs are different, things are malleable, things change. Somebody might post a listing for an employee, and then they have someone show up and they're like, no, I'm going to recreate the entire job for that person based on their skill set. And then that whole salary range thing's, out the window. Or they might decide they're going to hire two people instead of one, because they realized in the process of interviewing that it probably would work out better. These are real world situations that have not been contemplated by the majority, despite the fact that we've had this bill and similar bills in previous years, and I bring this stuff up every time. And this bill, when it passed out, the committee passed out on a party line vote. There was no compromise. There was no bipartisanship. There was no effort to accommodate the views of the minority, including this kid here. We just passed it out, and now we're putting in this omnibus bill because we can. So let me just ask one final question on Section 2, and then we can move on. And it's basically just a core philosophical question. And that is, do you believe that compensation in the private sector should be determined by government mandate or a structure created by government for how jobs are listed or should it be negotiate by the parties, without any intervention? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And, I've interacted with the good senator for a number of years now, and I'm pretty sure he knows how I feel about this, that it is the responsibility of government to set into law, standards, to really make sure that as a state, we can thrive where we're making sure that workers are treated well and fairly in the workplace, and a lot of that is done through statute. Yes. I do believe that's appropriate. Not only appropriate, but I believe it's our responsibility. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate the gentle lady's, answer. I knew what it was already. But I asked because I wanted people who were listening to ask themselves the same question. And I would venture to guess that the majority of people, and I'm certainly not all of them, I'm quite certain many of them will agree with the chairman, but I really do believe that if we started asking people on the street, most of them would say, I think people can figure this out. And it would be far better for the parties to negotiate the terms than to have the government set up such a structure as we are in Section 2. And with that, Madam President, because I'm so confident that the people of Connecticut are on my side, I'd like to offer an amendment.

Oh, I do apologize, Senator Sampson.

LCO 5544 will be designated [00:53:22 inaudible] Schedule "A".

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a very straightforward amendment. All it does is strike Section 2 of this 75 Section bill, which is the Section we've been debating, which has to do with a mandate on businesses in the State of Connecticut, requiring them to post what I consider to be a meaningless salary range because that's not how the world works. I move adoption, and I ask for a roll call vote. sn/rr 38

Thank you, Madam President. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Through you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the senate.

Total number voting 36 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent 0

Thank you very much, Madam President. That concludes our discussion of Section 2. I'm disappointed the amendment, failed, but not surprised, of course, that it failed on a party line vote. It looks that, my arguments that, I thought were, very pointed and very accurate that, such a requirement for a salary range is not really a workable thing, out in the real world for industry. It is just a concept, developed, by political minds for some sort of daring policy adventure, and not necessarily something that ought to achieve any benefit for the people of our state, which is what I'd like to remind everyone, is our purpose here. It is to make policy that is conducive to the benefit of the people of Connecticut. And in my view, we should stay in our lane number one, and we should emphasize individual liberty first and foremost. And, not more regulation, more rules, and more impediments to success, which is what this bill is in many respects. I will repeat once again, out of the 75 Sections, there are a number of Sections that are outstanding, and I am extremely disappointed and even aggravated that I'm going to end up voting no on this, omnibus bill at the end of the day, because I wanted to vote yes, on a number of these things. I would have cosponsored these items. I would have been the biggest cheerleader for a number of the items in this bill, but they are sandwiched together with a bunch of things that are not so hot, to say the very least. It's like somebody's made you your favorite deli sandwich, and then they put your least favorite ingredient on it, ruining the whole lunch sn/rr 40 experience. My experience is similar today. So Section 3, Madam President, I'm hoping the good chairman can tell me what Section 3 is all about.

Thank you, Madam President. Section 3 establishes a work group, to study the ability and the feasibility of putting together an electronic database that will manage health care systems to provide information when a patient enters a hospital or a health care facility. If that patient has a previous record of having, or a documented history of having been violent, toward a health care provider that will begin to gather that information. And this is really to make sure that, the people who are going to care for this person, this patient, have all the information they need to make sure they can care for the person safely. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The first question I have about Section 3 is whether all of this language that is here, looks like three paragraphs, a, b, and c, is all of this language new? And the reason why I'm asking is because normally, right after where it says the Section number, it would say new. And this one says effective from passage, which may imply that, the whole thing is new. But I just thought it was interesting that throughout this sn/rr 41 bill, sometimes we have new written next to the Section, and sometimes we don't. But I do believe this Section is all new, and I'd just like to confirm that. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, yes. It is new.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm sympathetic to the notion that we need to protect people that work in the healthcare field, particularly from violent patients. And I suspect this may stem out of a tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago where a woman was out delivering medication to someone who was extremely dangerous and was murdered in the process. I don't know if that is affected, under this language or not, but, it certainly does beg the question, what are we doing to improve that situation to make sure that something like that does not happen again? I'm a little confused about what we're doing here. It sounds to me like we're creating a database of violent patients. Is that right? Through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. What we're doing here is creating a working group to examine all of the issues that might arise in creating an electronic system that would provide, histories of a person who has a documented history of violence in these settings. And I think that this working group, will examine all of the concerns and questions that might arise, and take into consideration, what would be the best way to accomplish this. But the goal is clearly, to make sure not only that the caregiver is safe, but also to make sure that they're prepared to ensure the safety of the patient. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. If only it were true. If only the response we heard matched the words on paper. That's what I would say we should be doing exactly as the chairman did, which is, we should be putting a working group in charge of coming up with a plan, to assess this problem and develop a solution. But that's not what's happening. The bill creates a working group, but the working group is very specific in its instructions on what it should be doing. And under, Section (a), 2, which I believe begins on line 226, it says, that alerts a health care provider with such electronic health records, which is, the aforementioned violent incident, when the provider accepts a new patient or has scheduled a visit with an existing patient who has a documented history of any such incidents. sn/rr 43 So it is explicit in the language of the bill before us, that the working group is going to figure out how to track and create a database of so called violent patients. Am I reading that incorrectly? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. As I said before, the intent, I believe that we're on the same page. The intent of this piece of legislation is to put together a working group that will look at what it would take to put together a database that would provide this information to health care providers when a patient enters for care. And I think the working group will be charged with that responsibility.

Can we pause for a moment?

Thank you, Madam President. As I was saying, this working group will have as its instructions to establish, to consider what it would be to study the feasibility, it says very specifically, and sn/rr 44 considerations necessary to implement this system. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes. It does say that, but it does say what it's supposed to be doing. Create a database of violent patients. And for me, that's a bad idea. Is this database going to stick with people through their entire lives? Is this database going to be able to be sold by a hospital network, for example? Is this information going to be shared with law enforcement authorities? Is this database going to create a situation where someone might be impacted for the entire rest of their life on earth? I don't know. I think it's a dangerous thing to do to start putting people in a database, based on the circumstances of one incident, which may be in dispute, in fact. So, on the one hand, I agree. Let's come up with a solution. Let's try and prevent what happened as a terrible tragedy a couple of years ago. Let's prevent, any unnecessary risks that health care professionals might have to take when they come in contact with patients who might be violent. And more importantly, why on earth are we, still utilizing a system where we send people out on the errand of delivering medication to some people that might be actually dangerous in the world? It just blows me away. This is a result of a major shift in how we handle mental health in our state. You know, there was a move a number of years ago to eliminate, the institutionalization of certain types of patients. sn/rr 45 And while I think that there was some merit in the idea that we didn't want to lock people up, in a facility, I also think that maybe there's some people that are better off there, not only for the safety of the people that have to treat them, but also for the patients themselves. And I think it's a mistake. We should have thought twice about it. We should have found a way to create a balance between these ideas, so that the people that really did need to be institutionalized because of their danger to themselves and to others was recognized. And maybe, just maybe, that unfortunate incident that I've referred to a couple of times may not have occurred. So, this Section is important to me. And I'm disappointed, once again, that I didn't have any input in what this Section says. It's just put in the bill, we going to create a database of violent patients and that's, that. No conversation about, modifying the way we, handle patients with violent historical past, people that, the healthcare provider who is going to visit them, particularly if they're traveling to their home, how those things should be handled, what kind of notification they should have. So while I can see the potential benefit on one side of this, I don't know that it's going to be handled in a way that, will be ultimately beneficial or truly fair, from a civil liberty standpoint to people that are involved. And that concerns me. Madam President, through you, the working group that is in, Section 3, I believe, has got to provide some sort of findings back to the General Assembly. I just want to confirm with the chairman that at the time that, that happens, that we will indeed sn/rr 46 consider more avenues than simply creating such a database, which might be concerning from a civil rights perspective for the people that are in the database. Through you.

Through you, Madam President, the legislation would require that the working group report its findings, not later than January 01st, 2027, to the Joint Committee of the General Assembly having cognizance over matters relating to public health. I can, certainly say that if I am in this legislature, I know that the Labor Committee will take a great interest in this report as well and that any findings of that committee would be, probably the basis for legislation in the future. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm just hopeful that when that report does return to the General Assembly and the Labor Committee is contemplating legislation, God willing, I will be here, to be part of the conversation, and I am hopeful that the majority will take into consideration some of my comments here today, and that we can work together to come up with something that is policy that is truly beneficial to the people of Connecticut that might prevent, similar tragedies and keep people safe, while also protecting their civil rights. sn/rr 47 For me, those are important and not mutually exclusive endeavors. And we should try and do both of them. Let's move on to Section 4, out of this 75 page omnibus bill. Section 4, I have in my notes deals with employment promissory notes. Through you, Madam President, can the chairman explain to me what an employment promissory note is, and what is happening in this Section? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. In Section 4 of this bill, the existing statute is modified, there is a definition in statute currently of what the promissory note entails. This piece of legislation, modifies the current existing law. Previously, it would have only applied to employers who engaged more than 26 employees. Now this would apply to all employers. Through you, Madam President. But the definition of promissory note is in the existing statute. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I can read the existing statute, but I'm trying to engage the chairman in a debate that is a public tool for informing the people of Connecticut and the press and anyone watching, including our colleagues on what's happening here. So could the good chairman explain to us what is meant by an employment promissory note? And maybe sn/rr 48 beyond simply the language that's indicated here. I'm trying to understand what the goal of this section is. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. In the State of Connecticut, we have existing law that prohibits an employer from requiring an employer signing a promissory note upon employment that they would have to repay the employer, for certain trainings in particular, is what's usually focused on, if they would leave the employer. And this is, as I said, in statute already, and I think anyone who's interested in the public can certainly look it up. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that answer. And I appreciate the definition, from the perspective of the chairman that an employment promissory note is a situation where an employer may, take on an employee and agree to pay for their training, or their equipment, or their tools for the job and may stipulate that they, have got to work through a certain period of time. Otherwise, that employee might be required to pay back some of that, advanced expenditure that the employer has made. What I also had asked the chairman, which I did not receive an answer to, was what are we trying to achieve here? Why are we restricting this activity? And why are we changing sn/rr 49 the requirement from businesses with more than 26 employees down to any business? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe that what we are trying to do here is to make sure that this section of law that is currently in statute, that we make sure that we are now covering all employees, that we think it's good public policy to protect employees in the instance where, an employer might try and exact a promissory note that is unlawful under current statutes. And I think that oftentimes, we start with larger employers and then move to smaller employers, as we see how it works and if that would be workable with the smaller employers. In this case, we think that it would be. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The first thing I would see is let that answer be a lesson to anyone negotiating labor legislation in this building here to for, that very often policies come before the Connecticut General Assembly that stipulate only businesses that have 500 employees or more, 50 employees or more, 26 employees or more. But invariably, inevitably, they always come back to affect everybody, down to small entities that have one employee, for example, much like we did with the, paid sick leave legislation, a couple of years sn/rr 50 ago, which I know has put such an unbelievable cramp in the ability of a lot of small businesses. I have a friend who runs a business who has one employee, and that person has got the key to the store. And the paid sick leave legislation, basically allows that employee to just call in or not even call in. I think they can even, under the law, call in after. No doctors, no nothing. So the store just doesn't open that day. Yeah, that's what the State of Connecticut creates with their mandates and their policies. That's the first thing I would caution people, is when you see something that says 50 or more, don't assume it's going to stay that way, because it's not going to. It's ultimately going to expand, into more avenues. This is what this type of policy ultimately signals when you see it. But what's more interesting is that in this particular case, we heard the chairman suggest that this is good public policy that protects employees. And remember what we're talking about folks. We're talking about a policy that basically allows people to get a job, training for a job, or materials and equipment to do a job, in advance, from an employer, based on the understanding that they've got to make a counter commitment to the employer that they're going to stay on the job, for some period of time, or they might have to pay it back. That's the employment promissory note that we're referring to. So, can I just ask very, very simply, protect employees how?

Thank you, Madam President. It protects employees sn/rr 51 from having to, as a condition of employment, agree to repay for instance, training prior to taking the job. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I hope people are listening. They're paying attention, that they're comprehending what's going on. The majority has got Section 4, and this giant omnibus, Italian sub, that includes protections for employees, meaning preventing them from getting a job and training for a job. That's what they got here. We're protecting employees. We are going to stop you from learning how to be a mechanic. We are going to stop you from learning how to be a machinist. We are going to stop you from having a set of tools to be an apprentice on some sort of job. We are going to stop you for becoming an airline pilot. We're going to stop you from learning a skill set that might take you through a career in the future. That's the majority's way of protecting employees. It's absurd. It is utterly absurd. And it's another example where they have declared themselves, the majority party in this state, as the decider of what's best for you, as a citizen in Connecticut. You're too stupid to figure it out yourself. They're going to tell you, you couldn't possibly be smart enough to go to work for a machine shop and have them send you to school that costs thousands and thousands of dollars to get you started, because they don't want you to make a foolish mistake where you might actually get that opportunity. sn/rr 52 This is like one of the worst things that I've seen in this building. This policy has been floating around for a while. And the idea that somehow the majority thinks, a) that they have the right and ability to do this is the first shocking thing. This is something that should be negotiated between the parties. If I own a business, and I want to hire an employee, and they come to me, and they got no tools to do the job. And I say, well, I'll tell you what. I'm going to buy your tools. It's going to cost a few thousand bucks, but all I expect from you is that, you put in an effort, and you work here for six months. If you don't, you're going to have to give me back those tools, or you're going to have to pay for them. This bill says, no. You can't do that. That's what it says. It's ludicrous. Why would we stop that? How is that protecting employees? The only people you'd be protecting is employees from themselves, which means you have no confidence that the employee can make up their own mind, whether it's a good arrangement for them or not. What if an employer says, we're going to send you to college as a condition of employment, but only as long as you're an employee here. If you don't stay an employee here, guess what? You're going to have to take care of the bill yourself. Is that so terrible? Is that so wicked that we have to stop that from happening? It's nuts. It's frankly nuts. I'm going to ask one more time. I want to hear one solid argument about why this is a good idea, and why we have to protect people from themselves? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. I do want to point out to the good senator. I'm sure he already knows this, but this existing statute has been a law since 1985. We have functioned extremely well as a state and been very productive with this law on the books. It only, I think it's good public policy because now have just seeing it work for so many decades, I think it's good public policy, to ensure that every employee has access to these protections. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I didn't hear any strong argument. I heard this law has been on the books in some form, and it's not the same law. The current law affects businesses with 26 or more employees. It doesn't affect a small business, or a contractor who's taking on an apprentice, or a small insurance office that wants to get a new insurance producer licensed with the State of Connecticut, and all of their skills, to take on the job. It doesn't--, a real estate company. I mean, you can just name a whole bunch of things of where you might run into this. A veterinary office where they want to send someone to school to be a vet tech. You could just come up with a thousand ways that people could get involved and have new careers and new experiences and become productive members of our society with an actual occupation, a job, a skill set that this bill says, no. Those opportunities are illegal. It's madness. And when asked for any evidence to the contrary, any sn/rr 54 suggestion that this is good policy that actually protects people, the argument is, well, it's been on the books. We've been fine. It's only been on the books for large companies, which it's wrong there too. And in fact, we ought to repeal that entire Section of statute. But for now, I'm going to just attempt to take this piece out of the bill. Through you, Madam President, I have an amendment. It is LCO 5577. I'm hopeful that the clerk has that in his possession, and he can call that amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Sampson.

Thank you. We will have a roll call vote on the amendment. Senator Kushner. sn/rr 55

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, Mr. Clerk.

Have all the senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally on the amendment.

Amendment fails. Will you remark further on the bill before the chamber? Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. The question is on adoption. We will certainly have a roll call vote. And Senator Kushner, would you like to remark on the amendment?

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further, excuse me, on the amendment? If not, I will open the voting machine, Mr. Clerk.

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

Amendment fails. (gavel) Senator Duff.

And Senator Hartley, do you accept the yield for an introduction? sn/rr 73

Thank you, and welcome to you both. Senator Gaston, would you like to take a point of personal privilege?

And Senator Lesser, do you have a point of personal privilege, sir?

Senator Duff.

We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Very good. Will you remark on the bill before the chambers?

The clerk who needs to call it, and then Senator [crosstalk] bring it back out again.

Page 45, Calendar Number 4817, for House Bill Number 5003, An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in the State. There are several amendments.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We are just coming back after the conclusion of the vote that we had on my amendment that would have made changes to Section 7 regarding the portal-to-portal coverage that is referenced regarding workers' compensation coverage for members of the public works department. And I just want to be very clear that I support the concept here. And I believe that folks should have access to workers' comp, and people that work for the public works department, particularly when you're talking about snow plow drivers, and people that might get called in, and dangerous weather, where other people are actually excused from work, are even more deserving than anyone. So, it's not about whether or not they're deserving, it's about when they're deserving, and whether or not we're drafting a public policy that is sensible. And my frustration on this one is I really don't think that too many people disagree with my concern about the way this is drafted, and what it should be written as, and yet, the majority, I don't think, is making a cogent, or even attempting an argument to suggest I'm wrong. They're just saying, no. We like it the way it is, and we're going to do it that way. It doesn't matter when this republican member, the minority, points out an imperfection, will just go through it, and if we decide maybe sn/rr 77 later to fix it, we might. As a reminder, the concern is that this broadly defines work comp to be available simply when an employee is subject to emergency calls. It doesn't even require them to be actually responding to one. And I'd just like to ask the good chairman through you, Madam President. Is there another example where we provide such broad workers' compensation protection for any other class of employee in the state? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. This portal-to-portal coverage is provided to police officers and firefighters, and to employees of the Department of Correction, and also for telecommunications. Through you, Madam President.

I'm sorry. Madam President, I got called away for a moment. But, I did not hear the answer from the proponent, and I am sincerely apologetic because I know I made an issue of this earlier, but it could not be helped in my case. Through you.

Through you, Madam President, this section of the sn/rr 78 bill, there's underlying statute, and the underlying statute, this type of coverage is portal-to-portal coverage, is provided to police officers and firefighters, departments of correction employees, and telecommunicators. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the gentle lady's response. And all I would suggest is that going forward, when we are crafting this expansive level of protection for workers' comp, that we keep in mind the very clear meaning of the placement of the commas and the uses of the words and/or, to signify when coverage is really appropriate and when it is not. And while I do firmly believe that public works department employees deserve every benefit that is already afforded to other classes of employees in the state of Connecticut. I do believe that in every case, simply being on call is not enough. You should be on call and be being called in, for that coverage to go into effect. But rather than beat a dead horse, I will simply move on to Section 8, which I believe is specific to teacher terminations. Through you, Madam President, can I ask the good chairman to describe what is happening in Section 8? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Section eight modifies existing statute to provide that in the case of sn/rr 79 tenured teachers who are terminated, they would have access to a hearing officer whose decision, after taking all the evidence, would be final and binding on the parties. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Okay. So this is strengthening the protections for teachers if they are subject to termination. And there's essentially two pieces to this, if I'm correct. The second one, very clear to me, which is that we're going to leave this decision no longer up to the local school board, but we are going to put it in the hands of arbitrator. And the first question, I guess I would ask for clarification purposes, to understand if this reference to just cause would mean that there are any other circumstances where teacher might be subject, more or less determination before or after this bill is passed. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I would ask the good senator to point to the line which he's referencing.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is sn/rr 80 Section 8, which I believe the language that is substantive begins on line 606, where there is some new underlying language, which refers to the standard of review for reasons of termination. And the final section has to do with the different classifications of teachers, effectively discriminating between those with tenure and without. But what I'm trying to understand is, are we strengthening protections for teachers here with regard to what they can or cannot be terminated for? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I was asking that because I heard the good senator ask about just cause, and I didn't see those words in here. But if you're asking about what this does, it provides for a neutral hearing officer to render a decision that is binding on the parties. The reasons that are listed in existing statute for a teacher to be terminated have not been changed. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and I appreciate that clarification. As I pointed out numerous times today, this is a bill that contains 75 sections, many of which were individual bills. And we had a Just Cause Protections for Teachers Bill in the Labor Committee. sn/rr 81 And I fully expected that this language in Section 8 included the entirety of that bill, and maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is only the final section that was preexisting has made it into this document. And is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Like so many other bills, there have been changes made to the language that received a joint favorable recommendation out of the committee. So this language has changed since we discussed it in committee. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Color me shocked that we've got new language all of a sudden that we didn't see before that we're debating in front of the few visitors that we have that would ultimately change the policy for the state of Connecticut. And there's just not enough participation for people to really flesh this out. It did not go through a hearing in the manner that we are seeing it. So it's a very difficult thing to get around to determine whether we're making good policy or not. But let me just ask this question, which is, what is unsatisfactory about the current situation that would require a hearing officer? Through you. sn/rr 82

Thank you, Madam President. And I do want to refer back to the concern that the good senator raised about whether this has changed. I do want to point out that the wording that is in this section was regarding what standard review will be used, which is what I think you were referring to by using the words just That standard of review has not changed since it was JF ed out of the committee. But, clearly, this will present an opportunity for all other public sector workers who are covered by collective bargaining agreements to have the opportunity that their termination will go before an impartial, trained, experienced professional arbitrator to render a binding decision. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the general lady's comments about the language of the bill, but I understand this was substitute language that was provided to us on the day of the vote, which is why I may not still be familiar with it. It's just an example of how bill language does evolve and change over time. And even those of us that are most informed, sometimes it's difficult for us to keep up, mostly because there are thousands of bills, and I don't know which one's coming next. It's kind of like swatting a swarm of bees and trying to make sure you don't get the one that's sn/rr 83 going to sting you. But sadly, a lot of this have a tendency to leave a mark. My concern with this is that I don't think there is a problem, first off. My wife, I mentioned, is a teacher. I know a number of teachers. She has a lot of friends. We're all friendly. I always run these policies by them. Like, what do you guys think? And I think that they would universally agree, and they're happy about it, that they have a pretty good deal. They got a lot more protections than the average person does in an average job. It's not easy to get fired from being a teacher. You have a union who is protecting you more often than not, and you're going to have them arguing on your behalf to protect you for any type of unfair treatment. This is something people in the private sector don't have. I mean, people in the private sector have at- will employment in the state of Connecticut. You can be terminated at any time for any reason. Period. End of discussion. Unless your civil rights are being violated, of course. But the fact of the matter is that, in the private sector, there's no such protection at all. And I don't begrudge teachers having protections. I think it's a hard job. I know what my wife goes through as a school teacher, and I certainly respect it. The thing is, that we're seem to be moving the ball, to create even more protections, when I don't know we have a problem to begin with. So that would be like the first question that I would have for the chairman on the substance of the hearing officer, which is, what's broken? What is the problem? Are there instances where teachers are being fired unfairly across the state of Connecticut? Through you. sn/rr 84

Thank you, Madam President. And we did hear from a number of teachers and their representatives that, in fact, there are problems with the system that currently exists, and that is why we chose to make sure that, like all other public sector employees with unions, and I would note also on almost virtually every union contract in the private sector as well. These are the standard procedures for discipline and discharge. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Can I just ask the good chairman how that standard of having a hearing officer got to be in those contracts? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, there are two things, the good senator mentioned, the standard that's in the contracts. The standards are separate from the procedure. The procedure is having a neutral arbitrator make a render a decision. The standard of review is something separate. Both in those instances and in the instances of all these public sector workers, those are negotiated between sn/rr 85 the parties. And, in fact, this language references that when it suggests that the standard of review will be the reviewed standard used that had been negotiated between the parties, that would be the board of education and the teachers. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, just to clarify, my question was really focused on the standard of having a hearing officer. I wasn't really referring to the standard of review, but you did answer that question. So I appreciate it. But the answer to my question is very simple, and that's collective bargaining. That's how that got there. The fact is that the parties negotiated those terms. The representatives of the teachers' union and the municipalities decided to enter into an agreement with one another, and they negotiated those terms. And ultimately, in the case of other types of unions around the state, they have indeed, in many cases, the unions have won the opportunity to have an impartial hearing officer arbitrate any dismissals or terminations. That doesn't exist for teachers, but what's happening here is that the Connecticut General Assembly is putting their weight on the scale by suggesting that they're not going to allow the teachers' union and the municipality to negotiate these terms. They're not going to allow them to collectively bargain. They're going to just put it into the statute. And I've mentioned this a number of times, which is that on one hand, I think it's somewhat concerning that the legislature would take a position in favor sn/rr 86 of one of the parties versus the other. I think that's problematic by itself. I think that you ought to be careful about putting your weight on the scale in what is in private negotiation effectively, even if it's for a service provided to the public. But the other thing is that, when you do such a thing, you are denying the parties the ability to negotiate that away. So, sometimes, when you are making sure that you're protecting the teachers in this case by giving them these additional benefits, this is one less thing that they can negotiate, and therefore, it's one less thing that the municipality can negotiate as well. So it's just like any negotiation, like, if I was going to make an agreement to take some kind of employment, and they're offering me health insurance, but I'm like, I don't want the health insurance, because I'm on my wife's health insurance, for example. But you could pay me more. And they're like, no, no, no. You got to take the health insurance. And it's like, well, that doesn't help me. So I'm just suggesting that the constant desire for the state government to insert itself repeatedly over and over in every transaction, public and/or private, to get itself involved in every contract, is not helping people. It might have the appearance. It might have a result of, in the net helping some people sometimes. But overall, what you're doing is interfering with the party's ability to actually have the freedom to negotiate better benefits for themselves. And in this particular case, my concern also is that I think the teachers are in a pretty good spot already by having union representation, by having the ability to have a set of standards that determine when they can be terminated, that people in the private sector don't have. sn/rr 87 They don't need the addition of this arbitrator. And what this is going to do is, in the case where a municipality does want to get rid of a teacher, which I think is extremely rare, and I think generally happens at a certain significant point of conflict, it's going to make it that much harder for that school district to operate. And the school district, when I say that, is the elected body of the town representing the people of the town in the decision-making about who works in the school district. So, this effectively is a policy that undermines the will of the people of every town in Connecticut when it denies the right of their representatives to make a determination. That's what it does. And that is not just rhetoric. That's a fact. And what will happen as a result is that in a case where a teacher legitimately should be terminated, they are going to have an extra level of protection that will cause a tremendous delay, first off, because the school -- first off, this also changes the entire environment in which we're operating, because now this school is going to realize that it's not as easy as it once was, so they might not bother even attempting it. So we'll leave a less-than-desirable teacher in place. But if the case happens that it does reach that level, and that teacher really, truly should be terminated, it's going to take longer. You're going to have a situation where they're going to have this ability to call into question the standards, they're going to be able to use the hearing officer, and the board of education, the superintendent's office, everyone that is on that side of the disagreement, are going to be put aside. And in the meantime, this is going to cause an increased expense for the town and that school district, and ultimately the taxpayers that live in that town. And that's my concern here, which is if I sn/rr 88 thought for a second that there were quality teachers being terminated left and right across Connecticut for unjust reasons, I'd be the first one jumping in front I'd be the first one jumping in front of the bus to save them. But I just don't think that's happening. I think what's happening here is just a power grab. And it is the majority coming along, once again, to say, oh, we're going to stick our nose in, and we're going to unlevel the playing field in favor of our friends at the expense of everyone else. But the net result is not good policy, and that's what we should be focused What is the best possible policy? And the best possible policy, in my view, is not to tie the hands of the administration in every town across Connecticut when it comes to choosing their teachers. I would like to see those administrators have the power to actually make sure that they are keeping good teachers employed and bad teachers unemployed. And I think that this -- well, the potential is here, and I acknowledge it, and this isn't an easy thing to talk about. Because I guarantee you, whatever I say here is going to be misconstrued or twisted around in some other way. But the fact of the matter is, I'm talking about good policy and fairness. And there's going to people tied up in this policy. There's going to be good teachers tied up in this policy unfairly, and there are going to be bad teachers tied up in And what should happen? And in my view, the good teachers should be protected, and the bad teachers should go. I think that this protects bad teachers. I think that's what this policy does. And not only does it protect bad teachers, it protects bad teachers at the expense of taxpayers. sn/rr 89 And for that reason, I'm concerned about it. Through you, Madam President, does the chairwoman have an alternative viewpoint that maybe she could encourage me to see the light to understand that I'm getting this all wrong, and this is not going to protect bad teachers? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, there is much that the good senator has said that I disagree with, that I think is inaccurate. But I do feel like it's important to correct the record on this instance because the reference that's being made about government putting the thumb on the scale on the side of the teachers in this instance is really quite the opposite because the statute has put the thumb on the side of the superintendent and the board of education for decades, and we are correcting that because, in fact, this statute prohibits the ability to negotiate with your employer for a neutral arbitrator rendering a binding decision that has been in statute. And what we're doing is saying that now these teachers will have the opportunity to go to binding arbitration like every other public sector employee that we have that has access to that. We prohibited that. The government decided that. And now we're deciding that was bad policy, and we're allowing for neutral arbitration. I recognize that, in fact, in many of these cases, there may be a case that the superintendent will prevail. And in other cases, maybe, the union will prevail, but the whole basis for binding arbitration and a just cause standard of review, the whole basis for that is to make sure sn/rr 90 that there is nothing, that -- it's to correct mistakes or perhaps intentional wrongdoing. I don't think that's happening all over the state of Connecticut, but I don't know how anyone could think that there is never a mistake made by any administrator in any school in the state of Connecticut. That's unfathomable to me because people make mistakes. Good people make mistakes. And so this isn't about demonizing boards of education or demonizing superintendents. In fact, I think we have outstanding superintendents in our state. I happen to be fortunate that in my district, we have three wonderful superintendents and very good board of education, but people make mistakes. And everyone, I believe, should be entitled to due process and a neutral decision maker. And I firmly believe that. I think it's good public policy, and I think we know that as a state, and that's why we've extended it to every other classification of employee in our state. We don't say that the mayor is the only one that gets make the decision on the people in public works. We don't say that. We don't say that the mayor is the only one who gets to make a decision on our police, law officers, police officers. I think that was unfortunate that it took us this long to get to this point. But I'm very, very proud of this piece of legislation. It's something I've advocated for years because I think it's fair, and I think it's just, and I think it's good for the state of Connecticut. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate sn/rr 91 the passion in which my colleague expresses herself on this subject, but this is a matter of perspective. And I have to tell you that the perspective that we're hearing is one that does not recognize the reality of the world that we live in, that the vast majority of people are not public employees, and they don't have any of this benefit at all, nor should they. We live in an at-will state. And at-will employment is the only thing that protects the viability of enterprise to exist. It gives the ability for employers to choose who their employees are. And in the case of public sector employees, the fact of the matter is that we have boards of education, which are allegedly the employers on behalf of the people who are the real employers of a community that hire and fire the staff, including the teachers in our school districts. And this is tying their hands. It's telling the actual employers, which are the people that live in that town, that they don't have the authority to determine who the teachers are. That authority is going to be shifted to a third party. And I understand that the good chairman thinks that that's fair and everyone should be entitled to that, but I just think it's a matter of perspective to recognize that only people who live in their government-centric worldview agree with that. The rest of us that live in the real world who had to make sure we worked really hard to keep our jobs because we live in a competitive environment where your job is not guaranteed the next day, don't see it that way. So if you're out there and you're in the private sector right now and you have a real job, and your employer is the one that decides whether or not your employment continues, think about what we're talking about here. Thinking about someone, expecting to sn/rr 92 have the right to be able to tell their employer that they don't have the ability to make decisions about who their employees are any longer. And it's a little frustrating to hear the moral authority of the statement that somehow, anyone who disagrees that there should not be parity in this case, because it is the townspeople that are ultimately the deciders of what a school district looks like. And this is the feeling that prevails in my mind on everything to do with education, which is, teachers work for the school district, and the school district works for the people in the town. And in my view, it's the people in the town that should decide what the school district does. They should decide not just who the teachers are, but they should be deciding the curriculum. But this majority doesn't agree with any of that. They believe the government should dictate everything and that the people should just sit back and take a back seat. And we're hearing that type of arrogance in these arguments. And I don't mean to be rude or discredit my colleague in any way, but that's the perspective. But we know better than the people on the street perspective. Well, in the case of teachers or school districts, the people on the street are the boss. They're the ones paying the taxes. They're the ones funding the existence of the school. They're the one paying the salaries of the superintendent and the teachers. And I believe they should have the right to dictate who they employ. I don't think it's a crazy idea at all. So we just have a fundamental disagreement here. Now, this section of the bill, I'm not trying to make it out as if it's the most terrible thing on earth because I'm not even necessarily opposed to this section, but I did think it was important for sn/rr 93 us to hash out kind of this different perspective on the world view we have here. I believe good teachers need to be protected, but I also believe bad teachers need to go. And I don't think there's a problem in Connecticut where good teachers are being let go unfairly. I just don't. I'm not seeing that. It's not coming across my plate. I've never actually heard from a single teacher in my district saying I was fired for unjust reasons. It's never happened. But I do hear from parents. I'm aware that there are certain teachers that, I think, the school districts across the state would prefer that they didn't have in their employ. And they don't have a way, a mechanism to get rid of them. And this is going to make it even harder to get rid of teachers that they don't agree with, that they don't believe should be employed there. And I believe that this is absolutely -- there's no way to deny that this is actually putting weight on the scale. That's what this bill does. You may agree with where the weight is being placed, but I don't. It's not the end of the world, but the net result, even in a case where justice is prevailing, the taxpayers will pay more. The taxpayers will pay more because of this. Because nothing will happen on the timeline that it happens now. It will cost money, attorneys, and court dates, and waiting for arbitration. And meanwhile, the school district is in a state of flux, that they do not control their own destiny. And the teachers, excuse me, the people of the district, are at the will of an arbitrator who is just a disinterested third party. Now, you could say that like it's a good thing, but sometimes I don't want disinterested third parties making up decisions for me. And this is a decision that I believe is the school district's decision. sn/rr 94 It's not a decision that should be decided between the teacher and the school district. It's the school district's decision. So with that, let's move on to the next section, which, by the way, Section 8, which we discussed, in comparison to Section 9, is one of the better sections in the bill, because Section 9 is possibly one of the worst policies that we will see in this legislative session. This is an extreme overreach of our state government. We have witnessed it all, folks, in the last several years, and especially in this session, where the majority continues to interfere with the individual property rights of its citizens. It is regulating industry to the point where they don't get to make their own decisions anymore. We're telling school districts that they don't get to decide who they employ. And now we're going to tell businesses that when they purchase another business or simply purchase the property location of another business, that they must maintain the existing employees. So they don't get to decide who the employees that they have are. The state's going to tell them. It's madness. What rights do people have anymore in our state if the state government can come along and start dictating stuff like this to people? Can the good chairman describe in her words for me the policy that is contained in Section 9 and the problem it proposes to solve?

Aw. Thank you, Madam President. It's good to see you up there. I can describe a situation that occurred sn/rr 95 in the town that I live in, Danbury, a couple of years ago. There's a company in our community that works for the defense industry and for many years had contracted out janitorial services for that workplace. And with two weeks' notice, workers were told that the contract was being -- that it had come to the end of the contract, and they were going to use a new contractor for janitorial services. And people who had worked there for as much as 20 years were given two weeks' notice that they were going to be out of And I went and met with those folks, and it was really horrible. They had to feed their families. They have kids in school. It was extremely hard on them, and no one said you're not doing a good job. No one was under discipline. They simply said we're going to bring in a different contractor, and I thought that was the wrong thing for our community. I thought it was bad for our community to see workers out of work and suffering under those circumstances. This bill would change that. This would say that, in fact, the new contractor would have to retain those workers for up to ninety days. There's all kinds of built-in protections that during the period where the contractor who's being terminated can still discipline and discharge workers, in accordance with good cause, and that a contractor can still, with cause, get terminated employee who they feel is not doing the job, then the successor contractors. There are protections built in there. But what doesn't happen is we don't see people thrown out of work on short notice and left in our community without the resources that they had had for some of them for many, many years. sn/rr 96 I think this is a really important piece of legislation because it will protect these workers and give them an opportunity to show the new employer that they are able to do the work. There's lots of protections built into here that require that it be similar work that is being contracted for, and I think that it was really well thought-out legislation. So to me, this is very fundamental about giving people opportunities, that you so often speak about, good senator, about giving people the opportunity to prove themselves to a new employer. So I think it's important legislation. And you asked me why I sought this piece of legislation, and you got my full story. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Again, I appreciate the sincerity in which my colleague approaches these things, but I hope people are paying very close attention to what they're hearing. The policy that is before us pretends that those who vote for it are creating opportunity. That's kind of what we just heard the good chairman -- and again, I don't mean to be impolite, but she's trying to take credit for the idea that this bill would give people opportunity. And the fact is that this building and this policy does not create opportunity. It doesn't do that at all. In fact, government only has the ability to take things away. It doesn't really have the ability to create much. And in this particular situation, I'm as sympathetic to anyone else if someone loses their job with little notice, but that does happen. sn/rr 97 Companies go out of business. Companies are taken over. Things change. Entire industries fail. There used to be horse and buggy industries in this country. Things change. This legislature picks and chooses winners and losers all the time. And I'm the guy stopping them, trying to say, no, don't do this. The Uber and Lyft folks came along, and they were like, no, no, no, we know that there's existing laws for taxis, but you know what? We're just going to create an entirely different set of rules for people that actually do the same thing. Because we can. This building is responsible for more businesses disappearing and people being unemployed than the private sector itself. And to take credit for creating opportunity is a joke. And you're not creating anything. What you're doing is you're forcing a new business that might be purchasing that establishment to hire employees. Maybe, maybe the reason why the previous business failed and had to fold is because they couldn't afford the employees they had, or maybe their employees were bad. Who knows? I just want people to ponder the notion of what made us the most successful country on earth. And that is freedom of association, number one, which is what this bill conflicts with more than anything else. You can decide where you want to work. Now, I understand people have limited choices, especially depending on their skill set and their needs in life, but you can also work to improve those things. That's what America's about, is to get yourself in a position to succeed. And frankly, if people out there feel like they're victims and they're not succeeding, I bet you anything that one of the biggest impediments you're dealing with is government. Because this government sn/rr 98 has a tendency to interfere with the ability for people to succeed. The reason why I'm standing here, the reason why I ran for office, is because I want opportunity for my constituents. I believe in the American dream, that I learned about as a kid. And I believe that still exists. I know it's harder to attain than ever before. We ought to reverse that. I also remember America being number one on every list. In our kids in school, smartest kids in the world, best productive manufacturing in the world, best scientists, best doctors. And I know we've slipped in some of these areas. And that hurts. But the way back is to peel back the layers and layers of interference in the free market that this government, in this state and nationally over decades, has eroded. This bill is offensive to freedom. This section of this bill tells you that if you are going to purchase a business that doesn't belong to you, that it belongs to the state of Connecticut, that the chairman of the labor committee and her friends are going to tell you what your obligations are. So you worked your whole life, saved your money, put yourself in a position to buy a business entity, not just for yourself, certainly you're doing it because you want to succeed and become successful, and maybe become wealthy. But you also want your employees to succeed side by side with you. No, no. That doesn't matter what you were trying to do. It doesn't matter the effort that you put in. No. The democratic majority of the state of Connecticut is going to tell you what you have to do. And they're going to tell you who your employees are. You don't get to pick. They will pick for you. This is a very broad-based bill as well. It applies to multifamily residential dwellings with 50 units sn/rr 99 or more, commercial centers, municipal office buildings, public and nonpublic schools, museums, convention centers, arenas, shopping malls, bank branches, industrial sites, pharmaceutical labs, train stations, warehouses, and on and on and on. So if you are some entrepreneurial spirit and you're in Connecticut or you're outside Connecticut thinking about coming here, you're going to have to ask yourself, do I want to go and invest in Connecticut where the state of Connecticut majority party thinks they have the right to tell me who's got to be employed by I got to tell you, as a bit of an entrepreneur myself, that's a bit of a red flag. I want to run my own company, thank you very much, Connecticut Democrats. I don't need you to tell me how to do it. And I'm here shaking my head because I just can't even believe that we're having this conversation. It's shocking to my I grew up in this country recognizing the notion that when I get up in the morning, I'm a free citizen. And that I get to do certain things as a free citizen. I get to make my own choices. And sometimes they're good, and they're bad. And we're a product of our experience, and our degree of success is based on our choices. And sometimes a bit of luck as well. But the fact of the matter is, you're allowed to make bad choices in America. If you make bad choices, you'll have bad results. Make good choices, chances are you'll have better results. And that's a good thing. But I would imagine, just based on common sense, that I saved my money since growing up in high school, so that I could enter into some sort of business arrangement and take over the contracting at some facility, for example, then I'd be able to pick and choose who I'm going to hire to work with me. sn/rr 100 What if I want to bring my employees with me? What if I got a bunch of family members that are all worked up, ready to start this business with me? Maybe we're going to all work for free for a little bit to get ourselves off the ground. Nope. Can't do You're going to have to take on the existing employees and pay them at the current rate of pay. Can I ask through you, Madam President, how this would encourage a potential investor in industry to make a purchase of a affected business entity in the state of Connecticut? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, would the good senator reframe the question? It's very broad, and I'm not certain what answer he's looking for. It certainly isn't written into the statute. If I understand you, you're asking my opinion. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. When we rate policy, we should also consider the effect and impact of that policy. I don't think that's a foreign idea to anyone. So my question is about the impact of the policy. So I'm asking if the senator agrees with me that the impact of this policy would be to disincentivize financial, entrepreneurial activity in Connecticut. Through you. sn/rr 101

Thank you, Madam President. Now I understand the question, and the answer is no. I do not agree. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Can I just ask how? I'd like to know how the chairman can disagree that telling a potential employer that they do not get to make their own hiring decisions is not going to disincentivize them. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I do want to point out that this bill is very specific as to which categories of employees it covers, and it is identifying the situation, where the employer, the company that made this major investment in the state of Connecticut and brought its business here, they are making the decision to contract out that work. They are not prohibited from hiring employees and have complete control of how those employees are treated aside from any statutory requirements we might have, but that is still their prerogative. And in fact, it used to be that most employers did hire these services and manage them themselves, and sn/rr 102 we have moved to time in our nation where most of these companies now contract this out and then change contractors. So we're talking not about prohibiting the major investors that come into this state to build, for instance, an aerospace defense, business here, and, in fact, it goes to the contractors that they hire and the opportunities we want to see secured for the workers who maybe served in those positions as they had in my community for so many years without being discarded, very brutally after just a few weeks’ notice. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate the additional information that I didn't ask for, because I'm trying to get not to the detailed of the bill. I'm trying to get to the policy here. This is what's missing from our conversations, in the legislature, I think, which is that we don't have conversations. We don't actually debate the policy. I ask a question about the policy, and I don't get an answer. I get an answer about, well, this bill affects this group of people. I'm like, no, is it going to work? Is this going to help? It's If I buy a business, am I not the owner of that business? Most people would say yes. Well, as the owner of the business, should I determine who I should get to hire? Most people would say yes. Only a few select people would be like, no. Actually, you shouldn't. You should hire the people we tell you to. sn/rr 103 The fact of the matter is that in the circumstances that this bill intends to cover, I think it's extremely likely that someone that's moving in to take over the contracted help, at some facility, probably would rehire the vast majority of the people there. But why obligate them? Why force them? And believe me, that's what this is. Because government only operates by one thing, and that is force. There is no may here. This is a mandate. This is a requirement using the force of law that you have got to comply. Your freedom is denied. You have got to do it the way we say. That is the concern with this policy. That is the concern with this policy. The good chairman opened up with, well, I'm trying to help people. I'm trying to help the people that got laid off. I got it. Then you should hire them, is my answer. Then you should give them a job. You shouldn't tell someone else --

Thank you, Madam President. Can we stand at ease, please?

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

Thank you very much. Madam President, I want to apologize if I came across as if I was mimicking my colleague. I had no intention of trying to mock anyone or make some sort of derogatory comment. I certainly respect that we have a different worldview, but I don't agree that that worldview is legitimate, not in America. And that's what I'm concerned with. And I don't want to give it credibility as a worldview. I'll respect my colleague, but not the idea behind the policy, which is that this state government has the ability to dictate to private entities who they should hire. And I will go back to what I was saying, which is that if you're so concerned about these employees losing their jobs, and that's a perfectly natural thing to feel, and I would feel it also, then you should hire them. Or you should give them charity. Or you should allow them to live in your home or your apartment building if you own one. What you should not do is use your position in the state government to go ahead and tell some other innocent bystander that now they're obligated to give them a job. That is absurd. That is as bad as telling people that we're going to let illegal immigrants into the country, and we're going to tell them that they can live in your home. Mr. and Mr.’s Smith, by the way, we have some new residents, and they're going to take up your third bedroom because we understand it's not being used. The government doesn't have the right to tell free people that they have to use their resources and their abilities to do things like that. And there's a good reason for it. And we actually have constitutional protections on the subject of freedom of association. And this bill ignores that. sn/rr 105 It tells this employer that is making this purchase that they don't have the freedom to determine who they want to hire for a business. And frankly, I got to tell you, if that's the law, then you don't own the business. It's not your business. It's the state's business. You're just borrowing it. If that. What is the logic, through you, Madam President, on denying the employer the right to choose their own employees? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, the bill provides that they will have to retain employees for 90 days. And as I've said earlier in my remarks that the purpose of this and it anticipates that, in the jobs that are specified here that the new contractor would find, that those employees, would have the opportunity to find that those employees can perform the work adequately as they've been doing it for, in some cases, many, many years, and that would be a good transition for the employees, and we think that it would result as it does in many, many instances. I think the part that may be missing here is that a lot of the contractors in these fields, they don't have workers sitting at home waiting to be put on a job. They get a contract, and then they hire people to fill that contract. In this case, we're saying use the people that are there. Give them an opportunity to show you that they can do the job, and that obligation is for 90 days. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the answer. What we're missing here is that it's not up to this democratic majority in the state legislature to decide that. That's what we're missing here. And there is nothing stopping the new employer from taking job applicants, including the people that already work there. Do these people that are held over, for lack of a better term, through you, Madam President, do they apply for the new job? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, there is language in this section of the bill that provides all the mechanisms that would be used to notify the employees, and I think if you give me a moment, I'll find the line. If you look at line 844, it begins to describe the process of that 15 days prior to the commencement of the first performance of service under the successor contract. There's information provided to the employees, and it's very detailed. It doesn't require that you use exactly this format, but it suggests that it should be like this format. If you want me to find the specific words for that, I can. It says on line 848 shall hand deliver a written offer of employment, and substantially the form set forth below. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The word that I used was apply for a job, and nothing in here says that they actually apply for a job. Nothing. It basically requires the successor employer to provide the job and also potentially a permanent job, but it doesn't suggest that the employee has to do anything. It doesn't require them to apply for anything. They're just awarded the job. And what this is called in plain language is forced hiring. That's what it's called in plain language. That is what we're talking about, forced hiring. That is what's happening. The state is forcing this business to hire people. They don't have any choice. Can I just ask, what if it's not working out? What if the reason why the previous business was failing is because they had bad employees, and now we've required, through forced hiring, the new business to go ahead and take on the same people? How can they measure whether or not, within the 90 days, that person is performing to the degree that they determine is satisfactory? Or is there some other standard that says whether or not the employer has to maintain them? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, if you look to Section 7 and 8, it does provide an opportunity for the employer to discharge an employee during that period through you, Madam President. sn/rr 108

Thank you very much. So instead of having the rights of every other employer in the state of Connecticut that can hire what employees they choose and terminate employees at will, now it says that they can discharge -- the successor employer shall not discharge without just cause. And so now, just cause is required, although just cause is based on the performance or conduct of the particular employee. But it doesn't give the employer any other reasons, like they have a better applicant, a different applicant, or a family member they want to give a job to. Nope. You don't get to do that. Not your business. Belongs to the state of Connecticut. We make all the choices around here. You are just the lowly business owner who doesn't get to decide what to do with your own business anymore because we know what's better, and you can't handle it. It's shocking to me. This is such a provocative section. I was thinking that this is like the meat of the debate that we would have today, that this is the subject matter that really ought to get out in front of people. Just the immense amount of arrogance that this majority has, that they think that they can go ahead and start forcing behavior like this. And this is an insane amount of power that is being taken from the people of Connecticut. And if you are somebody who is not a business owner that is in the position of making purchase, like one of these particular business entities that is being referred to in this bill, and therefore you look at it like, no big deal. sn/rr 109 Believe me. It's a big deal to you, too. Because when the state government decides they're going to start having the ability to tell people who they have to hire or what employees they have to retain or taking away their ability to dismiss people at will like every other employer has in the state, they have reached way, way, way beyond any notion of what the limited role of our state government should be. And that means that they also are poised and ready to start interfering in your life in some way that you would never imagine that they would have the ability to do also. It's very concerning. This section of this bill is shocking. It is shocking to the point at which the majority seems to think that they -- because they think there's a better idea, that they were elected to tell free people that they must follow their guidance. We have people across this country, and I think even right outside today, we had people protesting no kings. Well, that's king like behavior. The idea behind no kings is that we do not want government officials dictating our freedom and telling us how to live. And this whole bill is telling people how to live. One thing after another. And this is just an extreme example. When you talk to people on the street, and you tell them the state is going to tell businesses that when they buy another business, they have to retain those employees, whether they want to or not, the first reaction I get from people is no, they can't do that. Well, I got news for you. They're about to. This bill has already been through the House of Representatives. If it passes through this chamber today, which I presume it will, then it's only a signature of the governor away from being the law. sn/rr 110 And what an unbelievable power grab we will have witnessed at that point, folks. This bill applies to employers with as little as only two employees. It's not that I'm saying it would be okay if it was limited to large corporations, but it's not. This affects tiny, tiny mom-and-pop operations, too. Mom-and-pop operations that might want to bring members of their own community. I keep thinking of like contracted service workers because that's just really what this is about. Although it reaches far beyond that in the letter of what's before us. But I can just imagine, I have a friend who runs a cleaning company. And I know that she has her own crew. She knows these people, they've worked with her for years, she trusts them, she knows that she can trust them with their equipment that they have, she knows that they're going to perform the job satisfactorily, so that she's going to please her customers. And this bill takes all that away. This bill says that you don't get to decide that anymore. You're going to have to take on some employees that are completely unknown to you. That may have been the reason for the previous business failing or choosing to abandon what it was doing. We should be here preserving choice. That's what we should be doing. We should be here preserving the freedom of our residents to be able to enter into contracts and take on new entrepreneurial activity, and we should be supporting them by suggesting that they have the right to come up with new things and great ways of doing stuff and become wildly successful. That's what we should be doing. We should not be dictating to them, micromanaging them, and suggesting -- and I'm talking about people, a lot of them, who have never had a job or owned a business or let alone done something in the sn/rr 111 private sector that required risk. They got to do it the way the state government tells them to, including dictating to them who they must employ. It's shocking. And with that, Madam President, I'm going to offer another amendment. Thank you very much, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 5578. I ask that the clerk please call this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark?

A roll call vote will be ordered. Will you remark further? Senator Kushner. sn/rr 112

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

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

The amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson. sn/rr 120

Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson. sn/rr 121

Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson. sn/rr 122

Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson.

Senator Kushner.

Senator Kushner.

Thank you. And Senator Gaston, do you accept the yield, sir? sn/rr 126

Thank you. And please proceed to summarize the section that the senator was asking about, or senator, would you like to ask Senator Gaston a question?

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Sampson. sn/rr 128

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you, senator. Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Do you accept the yield, Senator Duff?

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Duff.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Duff.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Do you accept the yield, Senator Gaston?

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Senator Sampson.

That's what I didn't hear. Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that went through the Labor and Public Employees Committee. The real thinking behind this is that it's really important that we have daily logs of who's on these construction jobs. And it really comes from a concern that, when there have been accidents in the past, unfortunately, sometimes tragic accidents, it's been very difficult to know who was actually on that job. sn/rr 155 And so we believe this is a matter of health and safety and will actually -- it's not a difficult thing to do, and every contractor and subcontractor on a job should know who's actually on the worksite on a given day. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I am fearful that I am not doing full justice to some of the sections of this bill, just because it is so extensive. And I just would encourage everyone to remember that almost every one of these individual sections, and there are 75 sections, And I will grant that there's a couple of them that might take up two sections. But these were all standalone bills. So while I've been standing here a long time, and so as my colleague, we're not debating one bill. We're debating 25 bills, maybe more. I don't know. I didn't sit down and determine the exact number of individual items that came from the various committees that made its way into this one omnibus package. I'm going to share some of my commentary on social media and other places about what's going on here, where we've packaged this all together. And I'm going to predict that my constituents are going to be up in arms. They're going to be like, what are you talking about? How is that possible? Why would they do that? And And one of the frustrations is that this mere Section 54, while on its surface doesn't sound like too much of a significant change in the statute, may, in fact, be a significant burden on certain sn/rr 156 employers and may create the potential for certain problems. Particularly because the penalties exist. And those penalties may be significant. Maybe the mere existence of the penalty may lead to the future work of this particular contractor being impacted. There's a lot more to get into on each one of these sections. And when we're doing them one at a time, we can do that. We can have a lot of conversation, and we can dig in, and we can find out more about what's happening, but we're being limited in that ability because there's just not enough time to do it. And I understand the frustration that the majority has. They want to see their bills move. Me, my obligation is to my constituents and making sure that what comes through here is vetted properly, that we've looked at it, we've understood it, and at the very least, if it's objectionable, we've cast a no vote to mark it for eternity that at least somebody said we shouldn't be doing this. And I would also remind people that the status quo is no. Everything that's happening that is a yes vote is a change to what's going on in the world. So if you're not frustrated with what's going on in the world in any of these areas, I would suggest a pause before we start making significant changes. So let's move on to sections 55 and 56. This is another area that I do disagree with that I want to spend a little bit of time on, and that is the notion of contractor wage liability. And I believe Section 55 is just the definitions. No, no. It actually gets to it. But Section 56 is really the meat of the concern. But they are connected because we have to have these definitions to understand what's happening. sn/rr 157 But what is going on here is that we are going to change the understanding of the average person when it comes to what is common sense in a contract negotiation. Typically, if I hire somebody to do a job for me and I don't pay them, I'm responsible. In this bill, not only would I be responsible, but the guy that hired me is responsible too. Even if he's got no idea about the people I hired. Do I have that right through you, Madam President, that that's what this bill does? Or this 55 and 56?

Thank you, Madam President. And I'm sure it doesn't come as a surprise to the good senator that I would characterize this bill very differently. This is a bill that will require contractors to assume responsibility for the subcontractors and the sub- subcontractors that they, hire. And I do want to point out that this is something that is already required on a construction project when it's a public works project. And in fact, I think that's good practice. And, unfortunately, we've had way too much wage theft in the construction industry occur, and this will help us correct that, and make sure that not only are workers getting paid correctly, but also that the state of Connecticut is getting all of the -- both taxes and all the payments for workers' compensation and everything that we rely upon on projects. Additionally, I want to point out that this is something I think that will really, really benefit the good contractors who are operating in our state, and there are many, many good contractors. And unfortunately, when they're bidding out a job, and they're hiring reputable subcontractors and sub- sn/rr 158 subcontractors, they're actually bidding, sometimes against some of the bad actors who will low-bid, because they know they're going to cheat the system and not pay all the workers or not pay the workers the appropriate amount of So this is something that I think really does benefit the good, and there are many good players in the construction industry, contractors that do abide by the law, and they take all the necessary steps to be in conformance with our statutes. So this is a bill that really is addressing wage theft and a very effective way to make sure that contractors are hiring subcontractors that will pay their workers in accordance with our labor statutes. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the good chairman's description, which I didn't find was inaccurate in its initial summation, although I think the notion that this is somehow a solution to wage theft is inappropriate. And I think it puts the mischaracterization of who's actually doing the theft into play. Because the fact of the matter is that the contractor themselves is not the one doing the wage theft. It is the subcontractor that is engaged in wage theft in the scenario described. And in my world, we punish the person who's actually responsible. We do not punish an innocent third party when someone else engages in wrongdoing, and that's exactly what this bill does. And I don't know why, for the life of me, we are not actually attacking the problem, which is that if you engage sn/rr 159 in wage theft, we have to make you responsible, and we've got to protect the employees that are impacted and find a way to make them whole. I understand what's going on here, which is that the pockets are involved. Who's got the deep pockets? And that is, let's go to the general contractor who has no control over the hiring of the subcontractors' employees, to make them whole, but it's just not fair to them. I don't understand why we would think that punishing an innocent party is somehow a solution to a problem. So, through you, Madam President, how can a contractor be responsible for wages they didn't pay? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. When a general contractor takes on a job, they obviously make a bid on that job, and they determine which subcontractors they're going to hire. And those subcontractors make bids that the contractor knows in advance and determines which subcontractor he's going to use for And I'm told by people who work in this industry that the types of bids they get are generally very close. There isn't any great disparity between the bids because the costs are pretty standardized for a particular type of job. When somebody comes in really low, then you do have to start to wonder, well, are they saving all that money because they're going to not pay their employees correctly? And I've heard that this is where the source of the problem comes in. It provides an opportunity for the contractor to come in lower when they hire a sn/rr 160 subcontractor like that. I've talked to a lot of people in this industry who believe that this is going to make a difference because now the contractors will have to have some responsibility of making sure they're hiring reputable subcontractors. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The question I had asked is how are we making one party the general contractor responsible for wages that they were not responsible for paying? And I didn't hear an answer to that. I heard another argument in favor of how this fights wage theft that is based on an example where there is someone trying to commit the act of stealing their employees' wages, by misleading them and the contractor. So, again, the solution is some bad guy is going to lie to his own employees and to the contractor. What are we going to do to solve the problem? We're going to make the contractor pay. This is the problem I have with this legislation. I also believe that in the process here, what you're doing is creating an artificial mechanism that is going to make the cost of these contracts rise because these contractors are going to have to find a way to protect themselves now for their enhanced liability created by this legislation. What we should be doing is finding a way to penalize the actual wrongdoer, the subcontractor in this scenario that is failing to pay the wages that they are obligated to pay. What authority does a sn/rr 161 contractor have over the subcontractor's payroll practices anyway? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I am not sure I completely understand the question. If you could reframe.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We're talking about the contractor and the subcontractor. I understand this bill could get a little more complicated than all that, but for our purposes, do you have a contractor who hires a subcontractor, who hires an employee? That employee is unpaid at the end of the day. The subcontractor failed to pay them. This bill makes the contractor who had hired the subcontractor responsible. Even though they're not the person that hired the employee, and they are not obligated to make those payments. And in fact, the whole point of the notion of having subcontractors and contractors is for that reason. Otherwise, you'd have one contractor hired all the employees, and then they'd be responsible to pay all those employees. So, I'm just curious, since you're making the contractor responsible for what goes unpaid by the subcontractor, what control does the contractor have over the payroll practices of that subcontractor? sn/rr 162

Thank you, Madam President. I don't believe this is really about what control the contractor has over the payroll practices of the subcontractor. But when a subcontractor fails to pay its employees, then typically what happens is the employees report that failure to pay, and there's an investigation and a determination. And in that case, the subcontractor would be required to pay properly. But what has happened often in this industry is the subcontractors disappear, and you can't find them, and they don't pay their workers. And in those instances, if a contractor becomes responsible for that, and as I said at the outset of this discussion, this is the practice, this is the law, this is the requirement on public works projects. And now we are saying that this should be extended to the private sector because it does work. It does help to make sure that people are going to get paid, and it does put a responsibility. And that's why we talk about it as the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the subcontractors that they hire are paying their workers. So I hope I answered your question. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. My question was what control does a contractor have over the payroll that the subcontractor has with his sn/rr 163 employees? And the answer is none. That's the answer to the question. They don't have any control. If I'm a contractor, I hire a subcontractor. I'm paying the subcontractor. My assumption is that he's going to properly pay his employees, but I don't have any way of knowing that. I can't see inside of there. And it's also not my responsibility until this bill becomes law. And that's what this bill is designed to do, is to shift that wrongdoing, evil onto somebody who has no part in it, who's actually done their job. Is there any allowance made for the fact that the contractor made full payment to the subcontractor before we make the contractor also liable to the subcontractor's employees? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I think if you look at lines 2679, you'll see that there is in this legislation, provision that nothing prohibits a contractor from including in their contract with the subcontractor a provision establishing a remedy for any liability. I think these are called retainage, and it's common in this field to have retainage, so that, in fact, they are holding back a certain amount of that payment that would be due to the subcontractor. And it can be used. It's not required that it be used for this purpose, but this provision allows that it could be used to make up for those lost wages. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I do appreciate the language for clawbacks and retainage, and I do understand that. And I do understand that those are very common, particularly in public works projects, as was already mentioned. But the one thing that my colleague is not mentioning when she keeps repeating that the public works projects it works there. We use it all the time. It's said that it's that public works projects cost substantially more than private sector projects that are similar. And there's a reason for that. There's all sorts of requirements on those contractors, including what we're referring to here today. So if what is going to happen as a result of this policy is that contractors, in an effort to protect themselves, are either going to consolidate, which means that subcontractors will lose opportunities, even if they're good subcontractors, even if they're honest subcontractors, even if they're contractors that would pay their employees, they're going to lose opportunities because either A, contractors are not going to trust that they're going to pay their employees because they do not want to be on the hook for that liability, or B, the subcontractor is not going to be able to do the job, because the contractor is going to require That is money that they are not paying out yet for the job that the subcontractor can't even take on the job. And all of this creates one result at the end of the day, and the result at the end of the day is this is going to make every job cost more. It's also going to mean that there are less opportunities for contractors generally. There will be consolidation in the industry, and a significant increase in costs for every project that is completed. And I am so sympathetic to the arguments sn/rr 165 that keep being made by my colleague here about wage theft and employees deserving you to pay. I agree. I agree. I agree. But making the contractor, who's not guilty of anything -- they paid the subcontractor. Making them guilty, making them responsible for something they didn't do, is not the answer. It is not the answer. And if the state of Connecticut and the Department of Labor, whoever else is involved in the enforcement of this type of situation, can't handle this, then we've got to improve that. That's what we have to do. We have to improve enforcement on the subcontractor level for these employees. The answer is not to go and make an innocent party guilty. Madam President, I have an amendment. Forgive me for digging. I skipped over a few, which should make everybody happy. Okay. This is LCO 5550. I ask the clerk to please call this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO Number 5550. Senate Amendment E.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a very straightforward amendment. In this giant, omnibus, 75-section bill that's got everything from lobsters to cranes in it, some of the labor policy that's in here is very good, and some of it is very bad. And two of the sections that are very bad are sections 55 and 56. sn/rr 166 As I just described, what they do is they make someone who is innocent responsible for someone else who is guilty. That's bad, no matter what the circumstances are, and we should come up with a better way to make people whole. I'm as concerned about wage theft as anybody else in this room. I want to see the people that are engaging in it penalized. I want them to not be able to participate in the industry, for crying out loud, if you commit and act like that. But trying to make the contractor responsible, when he's already paid the subcontractor, that's an absurdity in my mind, and as a result, I would like this amendment to advance, which would very simply strike sections 55 and 56, which are the two sections having to do with contractor wage liability. I move adoption. I'd like a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment E. This is not the bill. We are voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment E for House Bill sn/rr 167 Number 5003, an immediate roll call vote in the This is House Bill Number 5003, as amended, An Act Concerning Workforce Development and Working Conditions in the state.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 12 Those voting Nay 24 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the recognition. Once again, disappointed that, on a more or less, although not entirely, partisan line, the amendment failed. And that's disappointing because the policy that is being debated in sections 55 and 56, to me, is a miss when it comes to the stated argument for why it exists, and the stated argument is that we have folks working in the state as subcontractors and employees of subcontractors that are ultimately sn/rr 168 being harmed because they are not being paid for work that they've performed. Let's solve it. Let's come up with a solution. Let's empower the Department of Labor. Let's create more wage and hour inspectors. Whatever has to happen for us to start enforcing this situation, so that that kind of thing doesn't continue, I am a 100% in support. But I am not in support of taking and applying the guilt and the liability of some bad actor to an innocent party. And that's what that does in the two sections that I attempted to remove from this bill. And as a result, I've got to continue suggesting that this is not a good bill that is worth voting for, even though it does contain a number of excellent provisions, the bad provisions are significantly bad, and they outweigh those good provisions. So just moving on, sections 57 through 61 are about a number of things. Internship quality standards, a tax credit study. 62 is a tax abatement for a fallen first responder domestic partners. This is another one of those sections honoring people that have sacrificed in the line of duty, for the people of Connecticut. I would have liked to support that one as a standalone bill. Section 63, volunteer firefighter tax incentive working group. This is about creating a tax incentive for volunteer firefighters. Sounds like a good idea. And then we get to another tricky section, and that is Section 64. Remember this is a labor bill, folks, but we've talked about cranes and utility poles, and now we're going to talk about lobsters. Yep. I love a good lobster roll as much as the next guy, but I do think that we have an obligation to the people in the state of Connecticut to have sensible policy about the restrictions for harvesting lobsters, and I sn/rr 169 believe that this section undermines that sensible policy in a grand way. And grand, I don't mean good. I just mean big. Through you, Madam President, can the good chairman of the Labor Committee instruct me on this section of the bill, 64, about lobster sales, which clearly did not go through the Labor Committee. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President, and I will yield to the good chair of the environment committee, my friend, and Senator Lopes.

I do, Madam President. And just want to reiterate to the good senator. Can you please specify the question?

I will re-ask the question. I didn't hear exactly what he said. Can I please specify?

Understood. Thank you very much, Madam President. The question is simply, provide me an understanding of what Section 64 does. I've read through it a couple of times, but not being on the Environment Committee, not being a lobster or fisherman, not being a restaurateur, I don't know how all of this affects what's going on in the world, and I would like to. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll start off with this. This bill did receive a full hearing in the Environment Committee, and it was deliberated voted out of the committee, favorably. And I am also not a lobsterman for all the lobstermen in New Britain, Connecticut. I don't hear a lot from them. But in essence, the lobster haul in Connecticut waters, or non- restricted Connecticut waters are smaller than in other Northeast states. So the lobsters we have to catch in Connecticut are larger than the lobsters caught in the remaining Northeastern states. This would bring us in parity with those other states, which would, theoretically, help the restaurant industry get lobsters more affordably and bring down the prices of lobster for these restaurants in our state.

sn/rr 171 Thank you very much, Madam President. Let me just digest what I just heard and kind of connect it to what I am getting from reading the underlying bill to see if I'm understanding this properly, which is that Connecticut has, like probably other states do, a size rule on the size of lobsters that can be harvested by Connecticut fishermen off the shores of Connecticut. And what this bill would allow is for restaurants to purchase lobsters that do not meet that requirement from outside the state and sell them in their restaurants. Is that correct for you?

Thank you, Madam President. That is correct. The difference between Connecticut and other states is 1/16th of an inch.

Thank you very much. I'm going to resist any attempted humor, adjusting the importance of a 16th of an inch. But let me just suggest that I can tell from the reaction that we've gotten from this section of the bill in just the last 24 or so hours that it's been publicly known that this Section 64 having to do with an environment policy about the size of lobsters, and made it into this omnibus bill, that there's people that are definitely concerned about it. And maybe it's a 16th of an inch, which doesn't strike me as a lot, but it sounds like it's an awful sn/rr 172 lot to the people that are impacted. And I can understand what the concern is, really, which is that if there is a size restriction within the state of Connecticut, the purpose of that is to prevent undersized lobsters from being harvested and sold in Connecticut, and if other states are allowing things that are not allowed in Connecticut, if those are now allowed to be imported into the state of Connecticut, that obviously undermines the fishermen who are operating under the Connecticut law. So, for me, I don't care one way or the other about the restrictions. What I care about is putting our own lobster fishermen in the state of Connecticut at a disadvantage to out-of-state competitors, because they cannot achieve the same ends, based on the environmental factors of what's available off the shores of Connecticut, and the fact that they have to comply with the law that their competitors are not. So I don't want to spend a lot of time debating this section, because I know I have a colleague who's very invested in this section, and I have no doubt that Senator Somers will join us to enlighten us about all of the ramifications of this section shortly. But I do want to express my concern as well, because I am just beginning to understand what's going And this is a question of why we're putting certain regulations that prevent our own fishermen and our own state from being able to compete with folks that are going to bring in lobsters from out of state. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and as a result, I wouldn't support that section. Just moving on, Section 65 is about first responder recruitment benefits. That goes through Section 72, Public safety recruitment, 73. The police and firefighter career pipeline plan, 74. And 75, that brings us to the repealer at the end of the bill, sn/rr 173 and we have completed these 75 sections in record time. In record time, I believe we have achieved success. I want to just state as a closing argument, once again, that there are parts of this bill that I like very much, and I am extremely upset that I am going to cast a no vote that encompasses the good parts of this bill, along with the bad parts of this bill. And I'm upset about that for a number of reasons. I'm pleased that those items will ultimately pass and become law more than likely, but the fact is that I will have cast a no vote against them, and my political opponents will likely use that against me in the election that's about to happen. And maybe that's part of the design of this bill, which would be an extreme frustration for me. And I think it would be a huge overreach and abuse of our system if that were to occur. And I'll certainly speak up if I see it. But the parts of this bill that are bad are really, really bad. I offered several amendments, and they were focused on repealing the dangerous and toxic sections of this bill. I just want to revisit them very clearly and very briefly. Section 2 about wage transparency, we went through a whole conversation which pointed out the fact that people are different, and they should be treated that way. And the majority's desire to put regulations on industry doesn't change the fact that the best solution when it comes to an employer and an employee coming together and working together through the hiring practice is the freedom of the parties to negotiate the terms. And that requiring these posted pay range disclosures and so forth is only going to lead to confusion. It's going to lead to expectations that are not met and ultimately, probably lead to litigation, and make a bunch of trial lawyers sn/rr 174 wealthy, and ultimately not lead to anyone getting a better job or a higher-paying job or any of That's a bad section. It should not be advanced. Section 4, employment promissory notes. As I described earlier, this is a section that would prohibit the practice of people being able to take an advance, in training, in education, in equipment when they take a job. And I'll use the example of someone that goes to work as an apprentice in some industry, or they go to work for a machine shop, or something like that. And the employer has got to make an investment in this employee because they're new, they're inexperienced, they need to be properly trained, and sometimes that requires education, maybe that requires even sending them to college. Who knows? But what is the problem, I asked the majority, and didn't get a viable answer, with allowing this freedom for an employer to offer an employee something that will benefit them in their future life experience, and maybe give them a career in exchange for suggesting that you've got to stay employed with us, or you're going to have to pay it People who are going to offer these opportunities, and that's what they are. Their opportunities are not going to offer them anymore. That's the result of this section of the bill. It's a tragedy. It's a tragedy. It shouldn't happen. The portal-to-portal language I tried to change to make it so that it was uniform and made sense that we're offering workers' compensation coverage to valuable employees of the state, but we're offering it when it's appropriate and not when it's not appropriate. We talked about teacher terminations. We talked about service contractor work or retention. This is the section of the bill that says that if you buy a business, you have to keep the employees. It's absurd. If I buy a business, guess what? It's mine. sn/rr 175 I should be able to decide who works for me. I shouldn't be told by the Senate Democrats that I have to hire a certain group of people. I should be able to decide who I'm going to hire on my own. And of course, in the real world, that's what happens. When people buy a business, they very often open the door to allow the existing workers to apply to become part of the team. But to suggest that because you buy a business, you are also buying the obligations of the previous employees, even if those previous employees or the staff structure or the way that Company was run was the reason why they ended up not being successful and had to sell it to you? It's nuts. The idea that this body will think that they even have the right to dictate to free citizens that companies have to hire anyone is absurd. That should be a decision that's made by those people and those people alone. I'm looking over some of this stuff that I'm very frustrated to vote no against. The Fallen Hero Fund, for example. We talked about cranes. Paycheck transparency. Another section that I don't think actually does what they intend. This is only going to be a, effectively, a requirement to make companies buy into a payroll service, which will ultimately eat into their ability to pay their employees. And then finally, the contractor wage liability, which we just visited, in the last few minutes, so I won't go too crazy, other than to suggest that this is a situation where we have a real problem in this state, and it's called wage theft, where certain employees of subcontractors are not being paid. And now the solution the majority has come up with is we're going to make the actual contractor responsible. The contractor who's already paid the subcontractor, who did everything right, the majority feels like we sn/rr 176 should punish that guy. We should make that guy responsible for something somebody else did. And I just don't live in that world. I live in the world of personal responsibility, where if you're the person who makes the problem, if you're the person who's guilty of the evil deed or the wrongful act, then you pay the penalty. You're the one who's responsible. And, unfortunately, that's not way this policy reads. This policy reads that we're going to make the innocent party who did the right thing responsible, and that's wrong. 75 sections. 75 sections of unrelated policy that came through a multitude of committees. Probably not all inclusive, but environment, lobsters, public safety, I think we heard, public health bills, and probably more. This is not the way our legislature should operate. We should be voting on these bills the same way they left the committee. One by one, one topic at a time, so everybody can understand and everybody can have the ability to vote up or down on each policy item. Not have them all jam-packed into a giant smorgasbord sandwich, which is what we got. Over 100 pages, 75 sections of unrelated policy, good, in fact, great policy, and bad, and even toxic policy. Running the gamut A to Z, one out of ten and ten out of 10 policy, all in the same document, and I've got to make one vote. It's not fair. It's inappropriate. And I did my best to carve it up. I did my best to offer amendments to take out the sections that I thought ought to be voted on separately. The majority doesn't care, though. They simply want to put this in front of me for an up or down vote. That is not just disrespecting the members of the minority that deserve the opportunity to cast their votes on these individual bills. It's also disrespectful to the majority members that should have the right to do the same thing. sn/rr 177 And it's most disrespectful to the people we represent back home. Because that is not what their expectation of what we're doing is. Their expectation is that we're actually up here working together to make good policy for the people of Connecticut, and that we're thoughtful about it. We're respectful about it, and we include them in the process. None of those things are true, Madam President. This is the majority using their ability and the fact that they're in an extreme majority to get away with the fact that they can put together and assemble this giant document with very little notice and put it in front of us for an up or down vote. Well, my up or down vote is down, Madam President. Thank you.

Good evening. I rise for a few comments and then possibly a couple of questions. I do believe the good senator ran through this very large bill, and I share some of the concerns that were before us just a moment ago as the good senator went through all of the sections. We see labor bills in here. We see public safety. We see environment. There are a lot of sections in this bill. And I do believe there is a lot of great sections. Things that needed to be done. The public safety committee was brought to our attention. Some serious issues when it comes to safety with cranes. And that bill was in public safety. I think it got out unanimously, but there was a reason we needed to act, and we put legislation forward to address it. And to the senator's point, it would be good to vote sn/rr 178 on them individually because there are so many great sections in here. The fallen officer fund. There are so many things in here that so many of us will agree on pretty much unanimously, and it would be great to have that opportunity. So if we want to vote no, on one part, it's just not there. It's not an option for us to do that. And it is frustrating because we have a lot of constituents that are very concerned about some of these bills or very excited to get some of these bills passed. And I've talked to a lot of individuals on so many different sections within this piece of legislation. So then we have to just vote yes or no on the totality of the bill. It's so hard to justify and explain to our constituents and advocates for or against a piece of legislation. So I share the frustration of the good senator. And now we're left with a hard decision to say, does this bill do more positive for our residents or more negative? And that's something that I really have to try to figure out, and I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate. But there are some, again, great sections in here. Sections that I've worked on in other committees, and for that reason, I hope it does go through because we're going to miss an opportunity, a whole year of work if this were to fail. And then on the other hand, I have great concerns that when we are trying to solve a problem, or maybe address a bad actor, our approach is a little flawed. And I've worked closely with advocates on both sides of issues. And we really have to start addressing the problem at the root cause. These are individuals that are taking advantage of employees, and we do need to be there to step in and sn/rr 179 say it is not right, and there has to be action. And I do believe there are laws in place that will be able to address that. And we've tried to deal with that in certain ways. We increased the amount of inspectors that will go out on job sites to make sure that it is safe. Make sure that if companies are bidding on a prevailing wage job, they're actually paying their employees prevailing wage. And sometimes, there are bad actors and they simply don't follow the rules. And that, in my opinion, hurts the good actors. It hurts some Connecticut businesses in multiple different ways. And one of the worst ways, some of these sections of this bill really harm not only the good business owners and the people that follow the rules, but ultimately the consumer. The person that has to pay more for goods because it's more expensive to do business when we start putting so many regulations and burden on businesses. And I think that we are going over the line where we need to get involved. And I think that we have to really start to look at the problem, who's causing it, and find a way to address that, and them, the bad actors. Not everybody. And there was one part of this bill that came up a couple of times, and it is the wage theft bill. It's in Section 55 and, I believe, 56. And the last time it was before us, I voted no. And I voted no because I had concerns that the good senator, I believe, brought forward. It's not fear. That if a contractor pays their subcontractor, and then the subcontractor is a bad actor and doesn't pay, then the contractor has to pay twice. And it's a simple way of thinking of the problem, and I do understand that sometimes it's not that simple. Sometimes you can't get these bad actors for the way that things are set up, and we have to find a way to address it. And I believe both industries on both sn/rr 180 sides of the issue had concerns, and I believe they worked on it. And I don't know if it's completely addressing all the concerns of both sides without having a negative impact on all the people that I said before in the industries, and I don't want to repeat myself. But I did some work over the last session till now, and I had a lot of conversations with the stakeholders. And what we see, especially on large projects, you'll have out-of-state companies come and bid on Connecticut work that could go to Connecticut businesses. And they come in and bid, and they bid low because they know they're going to burn their employees. And that's bad for a lot of people. It's bad for the employee that is going to work and not getting paid. But it's bad for our Connecticut businesses that are losing out on these bids because they know they're going to have less cost because they don't have to pay them. And then I say to myself, well, let's go after those subcontractors. But they could come back with another LOC. They could come back in another capacity and continue to do it over and over again. And I hope that we will find a way to address that solution, and not have to punish contractors that are paying the bill. Not once, but possibly twice. But when educating myself on this issue, we realize that there's not a lot of people doing this in the state of Connecticut. There are out-of-state bad actors coming in, and if a general contractor is going to continue to hire these subs knowing they're getting a reduced rate, knowing that they're burning their employees, then those general contractors do need to have some consequences. I firmly believe that. Because they're probably made aware of the low bid. They're probably scratching sn/rr 181 their heads, saying, how are they doing this? Are they stealing the material? Are they not paying their staff? So I found it very beneficial to talk to both sides of this issue, for and against it. And I was hoping we would have a little bit more of a balanced approach to address the concerns of punishing good actors. And I do think that certain contractors, that I was speaking to, have some protections in this legislation. And I just have a quick question for the good senator, the proponent of this bill, if she could prepare herself through you, Madam President.

So part of my concern was we were going to be punishing contractors, especially the ones that are building houses, building multifamily houses. And when we were discussing carve-outs to make sure that the people that are doing the right thing aren't getting caught up in this, we were going to try to carve out those type of builders. If someone wanted to buy a piece of property and build 50 houses on there, they wouldn't get wrapped into this. And I do believe, in Section 55, probably from 260, I'm sorry. 2646 through 2650. It addresses that carve out. And I'll give just an example, and if the good sender can let me know if I'm on the right track, and maybe go a little bit deeper to alleviate some of my concerns for those business owners doing the right thing. If somebody did wanted to buy a piece of property, build 50 houses, and they go into a contract with a subcontractor for a portion of the houses at a time, not all 50 houses, but if they go into contract for 14 houses, they would be exempt from this. Would sn/rr 182 that be a fair assessment? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. The way the bill is constructed, if a contractor is performing renovations or building across 15 or more units in a single project, then that's when this would go into effect. So if it was 14, as you suggest in your question, they would not be required to fulfill the obligations in this part of the proposed bill.

Thank you, Madam President. And just a follow-up question, because that doesn't completely alleviate the concerns of people that may be affected by this. But further up, I think it's in line, 2641. It talks about a subcontractor going into a construction contract with the subcontractor. And if they're only going to be building 10 or 14 of the houses at once, and they go into contract with the subcontractor for that small amount, not the full amount, but they go into that contract for just 14 houses, and then they'll do another contract when they're ready to build those other houses, they would not get wrapped into this because the contract is going to be for under 15 units or 15 remodeling, or repairs. And I just want to make sure I'm seeing that correctly, so that would be a way to make sure that these smaller guys that want to build 50 houses, and sn/rr 183 hopefully some of them are affordable, won't get wrapped into this and possibly be impacted unintentionally. Would that be a fair assessment? Through you, Madam

Thank you, Madam President. And it is my understanding, having talked to some of the people who work in this industry, that it depends on the way that the contract is written in terms of the project. And typically, in a situation that you described, there would be a project that would be submitted that would be for fewer than 15. And in those cases, then this would not apply.

Thank you, senator. Will you remark further? Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Nice to see you.

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Senator Anwar.

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

Thank you, Senator Somers. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Senator Kushner.

Nice to see you.

Thank you, Senator Kushner. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will the clerk please announce a roll call vote? The machine will be opened. sn/rr 206

Have all the members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Mr. Clerk, will you please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Please, please stop. There will be no applause in the Senate Chamber. There will be no applause in the Senate Chamber. Please take your applause, understandably, outside. Again, I would respectfully request that celebrations be taken outside of the Chamber. Senator Duff.

Senator Maroney, do you accept the yield?

Please proceed.

Thank you, Senator Maroney. Hard to believe that he's 20 years old. What a lucky man he is to have you as a father. Happy birthday to Jay. Senator Duff.

Please proceed, sir.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. sn/rr 209

So ordered.

Is there any objection to suspension? So ordered.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Cohen.

Good evening. Nice to see you.

The question is on passage of the bill. Will you remark?

LCO No. 5584, Senate Amendment "B".

Correct, Madam President. I would like to see adoption of this amendment, which is a strike-all of the bill, which I will likely explain after we adopt the amendment, Madam President. And hopefully by voice. sn/rr 211

All opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Senator Cohen.

Thank you, Senator Cohen. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further? Senator Hwang.

Please proceed, Senator.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Cohen.

Thank you, Senator Cohen. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen, good evening.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang. sn/rr 221

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Cohen.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

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

sn/rr 229 Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk.

(gavel) The bill passes. Mr. Clerk.

Good evening, Senator Gaston.

And question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

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

Very good. Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment before the Chamber? Will you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying, Aye. sn/rr 232

Thank you, Madam President. And just for clarification of what happened, so we just got this amendment address some concerns. And in my opinion, it makes the original bill better. I do have some questions, but just quick explanation. As this is amended now, there are certain penalties and fines that would go on property owners, in my opinion, that would increase the cost of doing business and then may raise the rent. There was a lot more reporting and a lot of concerns when it comes to trying to address a problem, but then making more. And I think some of the concerns were alleviated, but I do have some questions on the bill before us. I completely understand that someone that is in a wheelchair, someone that needs the elevator for whatever reason, that's a problem. And we did hear concerns in public safety. I know Representative Paolillo was mentioning some stories where just the landlords, the bad actors, were totally disregarding the concerns of people that needed to get to appointments, just general living, and there were issues. Again, I think that we need to find a way to hold accountable bad actors without creating so much burden and process, not only for the building owners, probably the ones that are doing the right thing. They're doing what needs to be done. They're fixing their elevator. They're taking care of their tenants, because if not, they're going to leave. sn/rr 233 The tenants could leave if they can, and I know there's situations where that might not be possible for people that have certain personal situations, financial situations, that might restrict that. But I think we should find a way to go after the bad actors. And when I look at this amended bill before us, and I had a quick time to scan it with the good help of our attorney, Melanie Dicus, I do still have some of those same concerns. So, currently, if a building owner is not fixing their elevator, is there any type of action a tenant can take to get that problem dealt with in an appropriate time? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, I believe that there is a mechanism of reporting. However, this piece of legislation is really and hopefully intended to ensure that bad actors are caught, and that bad actors are being responsive to tenants. This is in no way trying to punish good actors because there are people who actually do fix the elevator that's inoperable, and they do it in an efficient manner. However, in some instances, there are bad actors who do not swiftly or efficiently move to repair an inoperable elevator. And so, to assist the tenants to ensure that this happens, we believe that there has to be some level of enforcement mechanism to make sure that all folks are compliant, and that we are targeting the bad actors and not the good actors. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to Senator for answering that question. And what would be the enforcement mechanism or a way to address the bad actor? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us, this amendment basically would allow the owner to inform the tenants within 24 hours that an elevator within the building is inoperable, as well as to provide the tenants with information regarding when the elevator is expected to be fixed. And there will be notice placed somewhere in the building to inform individuals that's in that building about the elevator outage. And also, with this, would allow the local municipality building inspectors to be in conversation with the tenants. So, there would be a mechanism reporting to the local building code, and then the local building code folks would escalate it to DAS so that DAS is aware of what plans are being made with the landlord on when the elevators actually will be fixed. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And that part, I don't have a huge problem with that an individual that's not fixing the elevator or company, property owner sn/rr 235 not fixing the elevator, that the building department could then report and then be fine. I think that should be the bill. It should be that small. It should be the people that aren't doing it, a landlord is not fixing it, residential tenant calls this number. We empower DAS to submit a reasonable fine if it's out of the control of the property owner, maybe they can't find someone, they're waiting on a part, then we don't want to do it. But people are just totally disregarding the concerns and safety, sheer convenience of their residents should be addressed. In my opinion, this creates a lot of steps. It's going to be a notice. So, if there's going to be some type of quick service, before the service could just happen, they have to then notify everybody in the building. Then, if it's going to be out longer, they have to do another notification to everyone in the building. It talks about putting signs up, and when that might not happen for whatever reason, then there's going to be a fine put on -- good actors are just trying to get the thing fixed. Maybe oversight, maybe somebody took the sign down. So, I think that we could have addressed this a little differently, held the bad actors accountable with some real enforcement, if in fact they're just disregarding it, not making the attempts to get the appropriate people there. But instead, I see an additional burden, an additional cost on property owners. And then I also see an unfunded mandate. The original bill put the onus on DAS, DAS put a big fiscal note on this. So we're going to need all of this staff to make sure we could do this. So, we decide, okay, let's not do that. Let's put the onus on the towns. And that will also have another unattended consequence of more work and a burden put on the already stressed building inspectors, as well as the funding. Right? If the state was going to sn/rr 236 have to come up with money, now the towns are going to have to come up with money. And I did ask the good senator earlier, when I was trying to understand this, if there would be a penalty on a town, if they weren't able to get there, they were understaffed. And the good senator explained they wouldn't. For sake of time I'm just going to run through that. But all of those things are legitimate concerns that I have, and I think while trying to do something noble and address a problem, we still have some other loopholes. The state says, hey, it's too much work for us, let's throw it on the towns. But they also exempt state-owned buildings from this. And I also heard some of those stories, and some of those were state- owned buildings. They were housing authorities that had these problems. And we're going to then just let the state off the hook, and I think we could have done this better. I truly do. I completely appreciate the good representative for dealing with some concerns from their constituents, as well as the good senator proposing this bill before us. I just think that we could have addressed it in a more cost-effective and swift action, just to deal with bad actors, and not have all of these additional burdens and processes placed on so many people when it's a few bad actors, and some of which might even be state-owned buildings. So, unfortunately, for that reason, I'm going to be voting no on the bill before us, but I do understand the good intentions. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes, Madam President. I just wanted to clarify a sn/rr 237 couple of things. I do think that this bill does precisely what the good senator is saying. I think it's intended to capture the bad actors, and those are the folks that we would have the enforcement tool to really go after. We know that good actors are going to continue to act good. Good actors, I don't see that this is too onerous on folks who are already doing the right thing, by providing notice if an elevator is out. I believe that a good landlord would make sure that people in the building is made aware. I also believe that the local control is very important because they're more efficiently able to get out to those elevators that may be inoperable, faster and swifter than the state could. And so with that, I am articulating for local control. Right now, we don't know how absorbent the cost actually would be, or how many calls they're going to be receiving in some of these places, but I think this bill is a good work in progress. We've had great dialogue with DAS. I really appreciate them for their openness and their willingness to continue to make sure that the product that we produce is going to be beneficial. We know that in this building, bureaucracy is very messy. We don't always get it right, but that's why it's a work in progress. And hopefully in subsequent sessions, should this be an issue, we can make sure that we address it swiftly, and do what's in the best interest of everybody. So I just want to be grateful for my co-chair, as well as Representative Paolillo, and the great senator, who serves in the Public Safety Committee. I would urge my colleagues to support this very meaningful piece of legislation. It's going to help so many people, especially in our urban centers, and in our rural areas, that need folks to help articulate and advocate for them. Thank you. sn/rr 238

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. This is S.B. No. 369, AN ACT ESTABLISHING VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ELEVATORS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on S.B. No. 369 as amended, AN ACT ESTABLISHING VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS REGARDING ELEVATORS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

S.B. 369 as amended: Total number voting 34 Total voting Yea 24 Total voting Nay 10 Absent and not voting 2

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President for the next item, we need the PT, please. And if we can go to Calendar Page 8, Calendar 67, S.B. 123. sn/rr 239

Good evening, Senator Hochadel.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO No. 5644, Senate Amendment "A".

Madam President, I move for adoption of the strike- all amendment, ask that its reading be waived, and seek leave of the Chamber to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a good bill, and I would like to quickly review the sections. Section 1 is language to require assisted living service agencies to hold a public informational hearing when an agency fee is more than 10% of the previous fee. Section 2 is language that came to us from the Department of Aging. The language replaces references to elderly persons with older adults, we have to be politically correct, and it prohibits municipal agents from having a conflict of interest. It also allows municipalities to share or jointly appoint municipal agents. Section 3, adjust the requirements for which multifamily housing projects must have at least one emergency power generator for the safety of the elderly tenants. Section 4 requires home health aide agencies to provide to their home health aide employees and contractors, certain personal protective equipment, PPE, at no cost. And sections 5, 6, and 7 comes to us from the Department of Social Services to allow DSS to grant exceptions to the nursing home bed moratorium, and to modify the minimum data set for audit purposes, and modifies the submission timeline. It is a good bill. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President. sn/rr 241

Thank you, Madam President. Just point of clarification. Are we discussing the approve amended bill?

I will wait till the amendment is passed, and make some comments, and ask some questions on the amended bill. Through you, Madam President.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the amendment? Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Moving on. Section 5 and the respective sections afterwards. We looked at bed sizes and the potential of increases and impact related to that. That being said, could we talk a little bit about the bed impact and the data collection related to that? Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 247

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. So there has been a nursing home bed moratorium that was established in 1991, and the reason was to lower overall costs of long-term care. The more beds we have, the more money that is being paid out from the state through Medicaid. And what we're looking for is to be around a 95%, occupancy would be ideal. But due to the pandemic and recent nursing home closures, the state believes that there is a possible future scenario where we actually need to add beds. So we want to be very, very thoughtful on how we do that, and we want to still maintain our optimal occupancy. So, this is a way to look at the data and make adjustments as needed. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. I want to thank good chair and the various committee members that have worked so diligently on this bill. Like I said, I urge support, and this could be as easy as one, two, three. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I just wanted sn/rr 248 to rise to ask a few questions about this bill as well. I understand that this is a strike-all amendment, and I don't know how long that amendment has been available, but I'm just looking at it for the first time right now. So can I just ask, what does the first section of the bill do? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. This section requires assisted living service agencies to hold informational hearings if their costs rise 10% from the previous cost. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I don't know that we're talking about their costs, are we? Or are we talking about how much they're charging? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Yes, that is correct. This is their fees.

I'm sorry, Madam President, I missed the answer, and forgive me. If the gentle lady would repeat it.

Through you, Madam President. Yes, we're talking about the fees incurred from the assisted living facilities.

Right. So does the amount of the costs the assisted living center is facing factor into whether or not they would be required to have this public hearing? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. No, it is more on what the fees were previously. And if it is 10% more, then it would require the informational hearing.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So I'm just sn/rr 250 trying to understand what the logic here is in requiring this facility to hold an informational hearing for the residents if the fees that they charge increased by 10% or more. Through you.

Through you, Madam President. And I thank the good senator for his question. It's really an opportunity for commentary back and forth between either the residents or residents family to talk about why there is a need for the 10% cost increase because a lot of these folks and most of these folks are on a fixed income, and they have to watch what their costs going out are. So it is an opportunity for them to talk about how they can or cannot pay these fees, and for the facility to explain why they need the 10% or less increase.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I understand completely that we would want to give the residents and folks that are responsible for paying the increase, whatever information they need. But that's a little bit different than requiring the facility to go on record in front of all of the residents. The way I see this is it looks like this piece of legislation is designed to embarrass the facility in front of its residents and its customers. And I don't know that that helps anyone. And since there is no factor included for their costs, which are obviously rising due to regulation coming from this state government, rising costs with operations, sn/rr 251 even the cost of utilities are factoring into the facility and their expenses. So, how is that 10% threshold factored? Through you.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. And I will answer your question, but I just want to point out that in line 6, it says the assisted living agency shall. So, it is actually up to them to decide when and where and how these informational hearings will be held. And again, it is the cost of the fees. If they go up more than 10%, that's what triggers the informational hearing. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. There's not much I can do about it at this point. I wish that I was aware of this bill throughout the process and negotiation that led to this point. I think that the majority of the bill probably is in the best interest of seniors and people that work with these facilities. But there are partners. There are partners out there in making sure that we're taking care of this community of individuals. And I think that the whole idea of putting them in a position where they've got to hold an informational hearing for the residents, which it's nothing else but designed to put them on the spot, to challenge them. How dare they do a rate increase? When, in fact, the world is filled with people increasing the price of things through no fault of their own. sn/rr 252 And the residents have the ability to inquire about those rating cases individually, they have the ability to question, and the facility would have the ability to provide information if they thought it was prudent. So, I'm a little concerned that we are getting in the business of trying to interject our opinions into something that I don't think our opinion is warranted. It should be more about policy that is fair to all the parties concerned, and that includes both the facility and the residents. So, I just wanted to say my piece on the bill, and I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in support of the bill as amended, just in general, I think this is an important bill to protect the rights of those who are struggling with age and disability and housing conditions and concerns about their overall economic well-being. And I just wanted to commend Senator Hochadel for her work, not only on this bill, but all of her leadership and work, as chair of the Aging Committee, during her tenure, and the fact that she sn/rr 253 has brought so many issues of care, concern, anguish, suffering, isolation, that people feel who often, as they age and are increasingly frail and disabled, often fear that they're alone in the world and need assistance at a time in their lives. And they're often somewhat limited in their capacity to reach out for that assistance. So, again, just a general tribute to her work. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the ACT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR CERTAIN RATE INCREASES AT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES.. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate of substitute for S.B. No. 123.

S.B. 123 as amended: Total number voting 34 Total voting Yea 34 Total voting Nay 0 Absent and not voting 2 sn/rr 254

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, would the clerk please call an item, previously marked PT, mark it go, Calendar Page 37, Calendar 416, Senate Bill 475.

Page 37. Calendar Number 416, substitute for Senate Bill Number 475, An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Operations. There are two amendments.

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before us is the annual court operations bill that comes to us through judiciary. This is a bill that comes with a favorable report. It deals with a lot of stuff I will name off. Some of them it deals with the chief court administrator establishing a sn/rr 255 procedure for the judicial branch to dispose of unclaimed, detainee property. It has annual report for the Connecticut Bar Foundation. It deals with juvenile matter proceedings and transfers to the court. Madam President, I did not talk about the first two sections because they are stricken in an amendment I would like to call, which is LCO 5719. I'd ask that it be called by the clerk. Yeah. The clerk and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Winfield.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Kissel?

sn/rr 257 Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your mind. So all in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended, An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Operations. An immediate roll call vote in the Bill Number 475 as amended, An Act Concerning Judicial Branch Operations. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Voting on the bill, this is An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 34 Those voting Nay 1 sn/rr 258 Those absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. Before we get to our final bill, which is a House Bill, I would like to move for immediate transmittal to any Senate bills that require further House consideration or action. Thank you, Madam President.

Page 46, Calendar Number 483, substitute for House Bill Number 5514, An Act Concerning Various Revision to the Public Health Statute as amended by House Amendment Schedule A.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House of Representatives.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, this is the Public Health Committee's various revisions bill. It does look at some of the minor fixes, and then some other requests, and it's an important bill. I wanted to thank a number of individuals who've been part of this. And as I go through the various sections, I will mention the people who have been instrumental and then have recommended some of this legislation. The section one is, Madam President, the definition of institution change. There is some educational institutions have infirmaries. Because of the existing legislation, they cannot provide the care to the family members, and this bill makes that technical fix so that the family members can receive the care. The second section is about assisted living working group. Madam President, this is the Department of Public Health will be working on this group to be able to help look at the licensure opportunities for assisted living working groups. We are one of the last few states in the country which does not have direct DPH equivalent licenses for assisted living facilities. Section 3, I wanted to thank Senator Kushner for her efforts in this bill. Madam President, the background is that we have some 727,000 children under the age of 18 in our state. And according to some estimates, about five to ten percent of them do have the vision problems that are uncorrected. What this bill does is it allows not-for-profit entities to be able to provide care to these children, but specifically in situations where the glasses are going to be provided to the children if they are not present in person. They can be mailed to those individuals through opticians. sn/rr 260 So that is just, a fix to be able to make sure that our children who have visual challenges that they are going to receive the care. This is coming to us from Senator Kushner. Wanted to thank her for that. The next section is coming to us from Representative Reddington-Hughes. This is about medical records. What happens is that, most of the time, the medical records are supposed to be held in an office for seven years or so, but many times, the patients are not aware of that. And this bill allows the patients to be informed. And, as new patients are going to become part of the health care system, they would have that information. So that addresses that. Madam President, the next sections five, six, and seven are just one bill, which is a very basic technical definition or name change. There's an entity by the name of LeadingAge Connecticut whose name has been changed to LeadingAge Connecticut and Rhode Island, and that is just a fix in various committees that they serve under. So five, six, and seven are going to address that. Section 8 is just expansion of DPH, DEEP authority, and the nitrogen standards. Madam President, this is in response to the recommendation of one of our committees that was created, a working group that has made some recommendations. We are following the recommendations, which basically is a simplistic way. DEEP has been in touch with new technologies to address the nitrogen, and now the Department of Public Health can actually benefit from some of those, and we are trying to make these two agencies be on the same page. Next, segment is Section 9 and 10, which is a veterinary licensure bill. There's a shortage of veterinarians. Madam President, this is a bill which is similar to the one in New Hampshire to allow foreign veterinarians to be able to get training, sn/rr 261 but also, while they're in the process of getting their licensure examination, they can work under the license of an existing licensed veterinarian. That allows them to be able to work in rural areas of our state. And Section 10 is creating the framework of a group, the working group that is going to look at the telemedicine options, for new patients that need care in emergency situations. Madam President, Section 11, I want to thank Representative Jaime Foster for her efforts. This is about nutrition and food-based intervention through the hospital association that is going to allow -- it's a permissive language which allows the hospitals and community to be able to receive specifically diabetes and congestive heart failure treatment at no cost to the patients. Next, section is Section 12. This is opioid use disorder emergency treatment. This is, this is an important section, Madam President. I wanted to just touch on the background of this. I wanted to dedicate this part of the section to one of my friends, Diane Santos, who's lost her beautiful son, Marky, at the age of 26. Marky had opioid use disorder. And as he was struggling through it, he was going through rehab. While he was going through rehab, the access to some of these medications was not there, and tried to go to the emergency room and no emergency room was able to help out at that time. Madam President, we have already had some legislation in other parts of the country where it is allowed to have emergency rooms provide care to the patients who are under treatment for opioid use disorder, but are also not only allowed to give the treatment, and they can make recommendations for the treatment. sn/rr 262 This is going to save lives. A major trial found 78 treatment engagement within 30 days of emergency room visit when somebody was receiving buprenorphine. And, this is helping in the referrals. When the referrals are made, patients actually end up receiving the care. This is going to be a life-saving bill. Many of the medical organizations actually recommend this as well. So, I wanted to thank Diane for sharing Markey's story, but also number of physicians who came and spoke about how this can be saving lives. Section 13 is about endometriosis working group. Madam President, I wanted to thank Representative Kennedy and Representative Jillian Gilchrist for their work in this. This committee was already working in the past. This is just formalizing that endometriosis working group to make sure that ongoing research, access to care, knowledge, and medication options, as well as ongoing biorepository work, will continue on. The next section, is Section 14, is CAR T and gene therapy council creation. Madam President, this is an advisory group that is going to look at our opportunity as a state of Connecticut to see how we would be able to find the best patients and also identify ways to be able to get the care. The background of this, Madam President, is worthy to note is that a few years ago, we would have never imagined that sickle cell disease is curable. Now, sickle cell disease is curable because of some of these new treatments that are available. There are so many more illnesses that are going to be cured because of the CAR T as well as gene therapy options, and we are just getting prepared for our state to be able to do the best that we can to help individuals out, and have the state be ready for this. sn/rr 263 The next sections, Madam President, our next section is 15, 16, and 17. This is about school health and cardiac screening. This is an important bill, Madam President. I wanted to thank Representative Nicole Klarides Ditria, as well as American College of Cardiology and Connecticut Children's Hospital, who have been able to make suggestions about this important legislation. We have athletes, and sometimes, some athletes are at risk of having sudden cardiac death. We have an opportunity to reduce that risk significantly for our ability to try and help out and identify the high-risk individuals so that appropriate management and prevention options would be available. Section 16 and 17 are conforming to the some changes that have been made. Section 18 is the menopause toolkit. I wanted to thank Representative Kai Belton for her work, University of Connecticut, Disparities Institute, and the YWCA, who have all been instrumental in raising awareness and working on this bill to help recognize menopause because the healthcare personnel are not as focused on ability to identify and manage, and there's an opportunity for education and having this toolkit available. Next section, Section 19, 20, 21, and 22, are sections of a bill, which is a minor safety plan. I wanted to thank Representative Biggins for his work for the last few years on this important bill. Madam President, this bill looks at our young children, boys and girls, who are admitted to the hospital for their mental health and behavioral health issues for about twelve days or so. Once they are back to school, there is a way of making sure that there's communication through permission and consent that school system is aware of the risks, so that we are in the best position to manage them. This is very vulnerable time for the children. It is important to have a safety net not only at home but also in the school, and having safe sn/rr 264 communication through using the technology in a safe HIPAA-compliant manner is very critical. I wanted to thank not only Representative Biggins, but also Connecticut Hospital Association, who have worked very closely with him to be able to work on this, and also the state department of education. Madam President, the next section, Section 23 through Section 31, this is Senate Bill 93. This is the governor's bill. I wanted to thank the governor for his leadership and working on this. And I also wanted to thank the Department of Social Services and Department of Public Health, who have worked collaboratively on this pretty important bill, which is looking at health care workforce readiness for our state, which includes getting nurses' aids ready and having a mechanism to make sure whereas the nurses' aides are going to be able to provide some support, there is oversight for them. There is abuse and neglect assessment, and also disciplinary authority that the Department of Public Health will be working on. And another area for the rural health is access for our EMS systems and EMTs. There is an entire part about making sure that we have a EMS workforce and EMS personnel planned for the EMS compact. Every time we have done a compact language, this is pretty long and complex language, which is in sync with the rest of the country. So this is a big part of the bill, but this is making sure that we are going to be ready as we try to make sure the services are available across the country, but across -- sorry. Across the state for us. And this is part of getting ready for the rural health grant that, as a state, we are hoping to be able to get the maximum amount that we can. There are other bills as well, which are locally important about water quality, that is, thanks to recommendations by Senator Gordon, Representative sn/rr 265 Nuccio, Representative Jaime Foster, and myself that we have to just look at those aspects as well. And then Section 32 is about extreme weather protocol. Madam President, this is a situation we had about 20 people who froze to death this year, because of the extreme weather that we had. We are trying to make sure that that would never happen again, and we are trying to have a safety plan in place in collaboration with all the stakeholders, including the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness, DESPP, DMHAS, Department of Housing, who are going to come together and make some plans about this. Madam President, the next section is Section 33 through 36, which is about the dentist and the dentist and their offices and their continuing education opportunities, but also, having some regulatory changes, which is going to allow them to be able to provide care, and injections for cosmetic purposes as well. And they are in sync with one of the bills that was passed already, but it's just changing some of the scope areas through legislation. So Madam President, these are some of the bills that we have been able to look at. These are bills which have bipartisan support. We are these are the bills that have been part of the efforts from many of our colleagues who wanted to have these bills be part of it, and we've had full support down in the House, and I'm hoping that we will get the full support in the Senate as well. With that, Madam President, I would urge adoption of this. Thank you.

sn/rr 266 Good evening, Madam President. I rise to support this bill. My good colleague, Senator Anwar, did a fantastic job going through each section. I would like to add that we need a protocol in here because it is freezing for weather. But other than that, I hope that the chamber will join me and support this bill. It's a good bill. It should pass. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on the bill, House Bill Number 5514, An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Public Health Statutes. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill Number 5514, voting on the bill, An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Public Health Statutes. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate, voting on the bill, House Bill 5514. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Bill 5514 as amended: Total Number Voting 35 sn/rr 267 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, for some general notations.

Thank you, Senator Hartley. Senator Fonfara, Senator Lesser missed votes due to business outside the chamber.

sn/rr 268 Thank you. We are adjourned. Go forth and govern. (gavel) (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 8:47 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the chair.)