CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-27

A light gavel on Monday morning. Give everybody a chance to ease into the week here. Will the House obviously come to order? Members, staff, and guests, please rise and direct your attention to the dais where guest chaplain, Reverend Dr. William Evertsberg, will lead us in prayer.

And Representative Rader of the 98th is going to join us for -- oh, no. No announcements or introduction. Sorry. I thought you were doing the pledge. My bad. But if you want to come join Representative Jacobson, you can. Representative Jacobson of the 148th will lead us in the pledge of allegiance, and he's behind me. Sorry about that.

All right, Representative Rader. It is now officially your time. My apologies for that.

Nice to be seen.

Thank you for joining us. Representative Zawistowski of the 61st, you have some guests as well, madam, it appears.

Good morning.

Thank you, Representative. And thanks for being here today. And it's a good reminder, you can do it on your driver's license if you want to. It's optional. And you can potentially save a life in certain situations. The Chairwoman of the Transportation Committee from Ridgefield of the 111th, I'll tell you all about the concert when I see you soon. Representative Berger-Girvalo.

You may proceed, madam. mg/rr 6

All right. Thank you. There aren't many of you in the room, but I'm going to remind you. You need Dress Down day, but we do have rules. There have been some people over the years that have probably gone a little too far with Dress Down Day. So just keep that in mind. We will let you know if you go too far. For example, James Albus wore an Aaron Judge jersey. Highly inappropriate as a Red Sox fan to wear an Aaron Judge jersey. So things like that, mg/rr 7 you will be reprimanded for and asked to change. Representative Gucker of the 138th, what do you have, sir? I hope Danbury treated you well this weekend.

So you're looking for two. I guess we'll let you proceed.

Can I interrupt for a second? Just do me a favor. Today is Southeastern Connecticut Day, and someone took my parking spot. mg/rr 8 Can you make sure Danbury Day just leaves the parking spot as is? I would appreciate that.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Gucker. That looks to be it. So last shot, because when we get going, we're going to get going. Tomorrow is Hartford Day at 3:00 o'clock for those of you who would like to come to that. That is typically rated in a nonpartisan survey as the best day of all the days. That's not my opinion. That is an objective survey that is sent out to members. So lots of food and freebies. Yard goats, the goat comes with the mascot. Biggins likes the goat, I'm sure. So it's fun. Yes. Business on the Clerk's desk?

The Chair will recognize the House Majority Leader Rojas representing East Hartford and Manchester from the ninth district. Representative Rojas, you have the floor, sir.

No objection. So ordered. (gavel)

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Chamber will stand at ease for a moment. We have an announcement. Representative Johnson of the 143rd, what do you have for us?

You may proceed with your introduction, madam.

Thanks for joining us today on this Monday morning. We appreciate it. All right. We'll stand at ease again. And it's Norwalk Day tomorrow from 9:00 to 12:00. They were smart not to try to compete with Hartford Day of three. Stu Leonard's is coming. That's okay. The aquarium. Nine to twelve. Interesting choice. Okay. We'll come back to order. I will give people one last chance for an announcement or introduction because we stood at ease there. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The Clerk, please Calendar 286.

The chair will recognize the Chairwoman of the Education committee from the 132nd, who is also celebrating her birthday, Representative Jen Leeper. Happy birthday. mg/rr 13

I hope it's not nine hours for you.

Question is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Madam, you may proceed.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4684? We'll designate it House "A" and that Representative be granted leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment.

Madam Chair, you may proceed with summarization.

Okay. So you'd like to move the amendment?

All right. So here's what we got. We got House "A" on the floor. I'm looking at the Ranking Member. Is there any objection to a voice vote to move House "A" and then we'll get to the debate on the bill as amended. Seeing there's no objection. Okay. So seeing no objection, I'm going to try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So, as many of us know who have either young children or work in education or talk with teachers or superintendents, cell phones have become an overwhelming part of not only our daily lives, but also those of our children. And what we are hearing is that these devices, while at times a useful piece of technology, have actually become an addiction for our young people. And they are becoming increasingly disruptive in the school day, interrupting learning, and also maybe even more importantly, taking the time from our young people where they get to connect with their peers, they get to form relationships with one another, they get to build relationships with trusted adults, all of the incredibly valuable things that our schools offer to our children. So what we have before us today is a bill that will remove that distraction from our kids while they're in school, bell to bell. We know that this is not a panacea, that technology will mg/rr 17 continue to be a challenge that we will wrestle with. But this is a meaningful step in the right direction to try to restore some balance where the technology our kids engage with in their school day is purposeful to further their learning, and it's removed when it's merely a distraction. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Happy to take any questions.

mg/rr 18 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, through you, I do have some questions. I would just like to say that I don't believe there's anybody in this building that thinks cell phones are not a distraction. Just look around the room. So whether you're an adult or you're a child, they are a problem, and no one would argue with that. However, Mr. Speaker, I have been in contact with many, many, many principals, many, many, many superintendents, not just mine, but across the state, and there have been no problems or complaints reported. Everyone has a policy. It was through the law that the recommendation that people had a policy put into place, and they did. When this bill first came up for discussion in committee, I asked the commissioner how many people they knew of did not have a cell phone policy. And this was months ago, and they did a survey, and there were three. I talked to those three schools, and they have a policy. And not one person has complained about it. And so to me, this is feel- good legislation. Again, we know that our children don't need cell phones, but, again, neither do our teachers. And this bill doesn't do anything to that, I don't believe. So my first question, through mg/rr 19 you, Mr. Speaker, is, does this apply to teachers and administration? Through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, teachers and administrators are not specified in this language. Of course, we direct all of our districts to create local policies, and it would be on the local boards of ed to determine what they think is the appropriate restriction for their educators or administrators. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate that because that's what we've done. We have instructed our folks in the district to mg/rr 20 create a policy, and they have. So, I do have a couple of questions, if I may. In this bill, it talks about access, meaning possessing, and I know that was changed to holding. Could the good chair please, just talk about why that was changed from possessing to holding?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding some concerns were raised that perhaps possessing was a little too vague, a little nebulous. And so, holding was mutually agreed upon to be more specific to target what we were really trying to avoid, which was our kids using their phones during the day. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, going down, it talks about social media has the same meaning as in Section 10-231. What does that mean through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If I may read from that statute or --

Social media means electronic medium where users may create and view user-generated content, such as uploaded or downloaded mg/rr 22 videos or still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, or instant messages. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in here, the next couple of lines, it talks about that no student shall -- and as I had heard previously, we're letting the local districts make this policy, but yet we're dictating what that policy must be. So I just wanted to point that out first. In here, it says no student shall be permitted to access their personal wireless communication device on school grounds. And could the chair please tell me what is included in the school grounds, through you, Mr. Speaker?

mg/rr 23 Through you, Mr. Speaker. School grounds would be the perimeter of the school building. I think this was specifically included in case districts wanted to allow cell phones to go on a field trip, for example, or off school grounds. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So thank you. And the next question is it says during a regular school day, what is a regular school day? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 24 Through you, Mr. Speaker, a regular school day can be understood to mean from when the bell begins the day to the end of day bell. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. So if children come early, which some children do, and the bell hasn't rung yet to start the day, may they have their cell phones, through you, or their Apple watch? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, outside of the bell-to-bell day would fall under the purview of a local board of eds, guidance via their policy. Through you, Mr. Speaker. mg/rr 25

So am I to understand then, you may not have him on the school ground, but on the school ground only during bell to bell? Is that the understanding, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

mg/rr 26 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And does that mean -- because I know sometimes during the school day, before the bell has rung at the end of the day, there could be a track meet happening, or there could be, you know, something going on sports-related or other activities. Would the kids, even though they are on school grounds, be able to have their cell phones, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. They would. Assuming that the local board of ed policy allows for that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm confused because if this says they shall not be permitted to access their devices on school grounds mg/rr 27 or through a regular school day, bell-to-bell, but then we're saying they can, that doesn't make sense to me, Mr. Speaker. So how will these be stored? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This language does not specify storage. It could be through a locker, backpack, yonder pouch, or some other mechanism, but we don't specify the storage that must be used. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So, basically, we're saying in this bill, if I understand it correctly, you can have your cell phone. You can have your cell phone during bell-to-bell. You can have your cell phone on school mg/rr 28 grounds, but it has to be put away. Is that the understanding through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Thank you. Our policies already do that. So I certainly don't see the need for this again, except it just makes us feel like we're doing something. I go down through -- let's see. I believe it's Line 50. I didn't print out the new LCO, but I don't think it's changed. But it talks about a licensed physician or a physician assistant. Why are they included, and how will the school know that they've given permission, through you, Mr. Speaker? mg/rr 29

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The health plans are specifically an allowable use. In particular, for example, students who are diabetic and use their phone that is corresponding to their insulin pump, just as one example. And that communication and how that will work will be dictated through the school's policy, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We talk a lot about mental health in this building. And what if, for some reason, maybe a psychologist or somebody who's not listed here says that that child needs a cell phone for I don't know what reason, but comfort, through you, Mr. Speaker. Are they able to have one? mg/rr 30

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This language leaves that decision making to the medical professionals and the school district. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if I go down, through line 61, again, we're leaving this local to the local boards, but it says they shall adopt, they shall consider, they shall include. So just saying it's leaving it up to them. There are about three or four shalls right off the bat on what they must do. What is in Line 64? When they say the unique needs of teachers and administrators, what are those unique needs that they would have? Through you, Mr. Speaker. mg/rr 31

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That could be just how you want to conduct your storage, based on what your building looks like, well, how many points of entry you have, for example. It could be based on what is the discipline policy the school wants to implement for infractions of the policy. It could be whether or not they want to create a committee that continues to review the policy. We specifically specify that the policy has to communicate to families what happens in an emergency, and it could be a part of the school's existing school security and safety committee, and what that process will be. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 32 Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the good chair for that answer. So I have to go back to where we tell kids, do as I say, not as I do. That's basically what this is doing. So, teachers and administrators can rock around with their cell phones, but students can't. And that is, to me, not good role modeling at all through our schools. So when we heard testimony in the public hearing, there was actually a superintendent that came and was for this bill. And he said he literally walked into a classroom where they have a policy, but the superintendent walked into a classroom, and a kid came up to him on a cell phone and was going, look, I see you on Facebook. And they're laughing. And I said, you're not even enforcing it. You have a policy, but you're the superintendent, and you're not enforcing it. You're really encouraging it. And so my question is, how is this going to be enforced if schools don't do a policy, if schools don't abide by the policy? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 33 Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no statewide penalty contemplated in this language. Also, of course, any law is only as good as the enforcement, and that will be ongoing. But I think we heard from superintendents saying they felt like it would be helpful to have a state law as a backstop to enforce the policy. Similarly, we heard from our teachers that said while districts have policies, they have a wide variety of policies. And that our teachers thought this was the best policy for students and also for teachers, so that every single class period, they're not required to enforce their local policy because it happens at one point in time in the day, and then it's gone. Not every single class period throughout the day. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really didn't hear the answer because it's a little noisy. (gavel) Thank you. But I have to re- ask my question because it went to my second question, but my first question is, if now it's going to come into law that every school mg/rr 34 must have this piece of paper, this law, what if they don't? How is the State Department of Education, or who is going to enforce this law that every school must have a bell-to-bell, no-school grounds policy? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. First, I also just want to clarify. It's both no phones on school grounds from bell-to-bell. So it has to be both of those criteria. It's not an or. And there is no penalty contemplated in this language. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must have said or by mistake. I know it's and. So it's not enforced. So we're passing a law that mg/rr 35 you can't enforce it. The concern has always been and still is that teachers are going to have to enforce this. What is the practice going to be if some kid doesn't abide by it? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So our teachers specifically asked for this because while the vast majority of districts have a policy, there's a lot of diversity in what that policy is. So for many districts right now, every teacher, every period has to enforce the policy of put the phone in the pouch, put your phone away. Whereas this policy is one point in time in the entire school day, the phones have to be put away. So that takes a lot of enforcement off the backs of our teachers. So that it's one point in time. If they are in violation of the policy, quite likely, the phones then removed, and there's no phone to have to continue to mg/rr 36 enforce being put away in that school day. So that, I think, is a big reason of why teachers are in support of this policy. And also because we know there is no data that shows it is good for kids to have their phones in the school day. And we know that there is no data that shows it is good. It actually lots of data that shows that it's harmful for our kids to be filling all of those passing periods, study halls, lunch breaks, free time with their phones instead of connecting with one another. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I agree that cell phones are bad for kids. That's not what I'm debating here because we all know it is. I'm debating that it's also bad for adults and for teachers to have them. And if they can be on their phone in the classroom, that's bad role modeling. So that's why I think teachers and administrators, and in my school, quite honestly, we don't have a bell-to-bell policy, but no one can have it, not even teachers. If someone has their phone, they get taken away. So the policies that mg/rr 37 are in place are working. Again, the only one I heard out of the public hearing was the one gentleman, the superintendent, and I don't know how he's going to say, well, now it's a law, and so now we're going to not have a cell phone. And to the Good Chair's question, talking about a bell-to- bell, I believe this doesn't state where you have to keep your cell phone. So you could keep them in a locker or a backpack. And if they're in a backpack, when it goes to the room, the teacher is going to have to monitor it. So it is still going to have to be monitored by teachers. Everybody can't afford a Yonder pouch. Everybody can't afford to have a teacher standing at the front door every day taking everyone's cell phones so they could keep them. Lockers? I don't know. Most kids don't even have lockers or use their lockers anymore. So there is also a concern about if a teacher says, yes, you can have it in my class. Now we have to run to the front door, get our phone, and go back. The policies in place are working. The other just last point I'll make is that this is an unfunded mandate on our schools. So I do not like unfunded mandates at all. It is an unfunded mandate. This is a piece of legislation that when I've talked to people and mg/rr 38 superintendents and principals, they say, " This is silly. We already have a policy. We need teachers. We need special ed help. We need special ed funding. We need so many other things that this thing is not even a priority in the big scheme of what's happening in our schools." Yes. Cell phones are bad. No. I do not want cell phones in classes. They already have policies to do that. And this is just to make people feel good that they're doing something that already exists. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I probably have a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill. There's no doubt about it that I think people, in general, are addicted to their cell phones. And I certainly could appreciate children in school not mg/rr 39 having access to cell phones. By all means, if I had a young child today in school, I would probably not even send them to school with a cell phone, let alone having the schools allow them. Because I think the learning portion of it is very important. And I do believe people are distracted. There's no doubt about that. The obsession that we have today with cell phones truly is remarkable. If you think about it, when you go out to a restaurant, people are sitting there on their phones. They're looking at their phones. They're not having good dialogue with their family members or their friends during dinner. And what's really remarkable, Mr. Speaker, is that when a child is on their cell phone during the day, they're not paying attention to what's going on in class. No doubt about that. But let's just take a moment to pause, Mr. Speaker, and let's take a look around this room. We are all guilty of it. Take a look around this room at any given point during the day when we're debating, and look how many people have their heads down because they're looking at their cell phone. They are doing that. And I'm certain that at the end of the day or the end of debating a bill, if we had to give this chamber a test of what the debate was about and what the bill was about, I would be pretty certain that a lot mg/rr 40 of people in this room would not be able to tell you that. Because we are distracted by our cell phones. As the kids are in school, adults do it as well. It is my understanding, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Good Chairwoman of the committee, we adopted a policy last year, I believe, that every school has actually adopted a policy for their cell phone use in schools. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the vast majority, I think, last three districts, but maybe they have since implemented a policy did implement a policy. Those policies could allow for cell phones in schools. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, have those policies been working up to date? Do we know? Did we get any testimony from superintendents or schools that the policies that they put in place right now for cell phone use are working? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we got lots of testimony and support for having one statewide policy that removes phones from the school day for our kids, because there's no evidence that phones in the school day are good for our kids. So we heard from teachers, we heard from superintendents that they did support this policy. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. I couldn't understand what you said. Would you mind repeating that? Thank you. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. We did hear testimony of districts that said they're in support of this policy where there is no access to phones for students during the school day, less the reasonable carve-outs for special education health plans, et cetera. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question I had really was around the current policies that schools have put in place. Have those policies been working through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. We have heard from lots of people in schools where phones are still present that they do not believe those policies are working. From families, from students, teachers, superintendents. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 44 Thank you. So if a school today had put a policy in place, which I believe all of them have, and they are not working, it seems to me that it's a discipline problem. If there are no consequences for a student not following the guidelines and the rules of the school, there should be some discipline; whether they're suspended, they need to stay at their school. Whatever policies are put in place, those should be enforced, just like crime. We seem to put a Band-Aid over things and pass laws, thinking that it's going to change the behavior. But unless you are enforcing the policies that are on the books, nothing is going to change. And that seems to be a problem. We have schools that are not maybe enforcing their policies because they can't. So I'm just curious, through you, Mr. Speaker, how is passing this law going to change that? Through you.

mg/rr 45 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think there are two issues at play to the Good Representative's question. One is that districts have policies that allow for cell phones in school. So it's not that the policy is not working. The policy could be working, but people don't agree with that policy because they don't think it's best for kids. It's not data-supported. So I think that's one piece. The second piece is, of course, any policy we pass is only as good as the implementation. That is true. We've heard from superintendents and teachers that they think the backstop of this being a law will be helpful and meaningful in better enforcement for the districts that currently have this policy. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, have we learned anything from the schools that already have this policy in mg/rr 46 place? Do we know what policies that they have in place that are working that seem to be effective? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. From our districts that have adopted a bell-to-bell ban, we have heard overwhelmingly that it's been an incredibly positive experience, more positive than even anticipated. And even the students who said before it was implemented, they were opposed to such a ban, now see the benefit because their cafeterias are loud again. There are more opportunities to actually engage with their peers instead of everybody sitting around the lunchroom table on their phones, as one example. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear that they are working, and some of the students are receptive to it. And I'm sure some parents are, and I'm sure some are not. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Good Chairman would know, would you be able to give me an example of any of those policies that they have in place that could possibly be encouraged to other schools that are working? I'm sure every school has a different policy, but would we know any examples of exactly what they're doing bell-to-bell? Are they just putting the phones? Are they shutting them off, putting them in their desk? Are they putting them in a pouch? They have to keep them in their locker? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, I was able to visit New Haven Schools as an example, as a district that's adopted this policy. I believe New Haven is using the yonder pouch. They've had a very mg/rr 48 good experience with that. The students came and spoke to us also about what a positive experience it's been. Many districts have implemented this policy. Some districts, they don't do Yonder Pouches. Their policy is just off and away. As long as no adult sees the phone, if you're not on it, that is sufficient to meet the criteria for the policy. I will note that different schools are made up differently or in different sizes. So, a locker off and away in a locker might work in some districts. Some high schools are really big or a campus, for example. And maybe the locker is where you have your first period, but you don't go back to that wing of the school again. So maybe in that case, there's a different type of policy. But we've been hearing from almost all of our districts who have adopted this policy that it's been a really positive experience. Parents have been really happy with it, and they're seeing fewer discipline issues, more engagement in the classroom, all the sort of things we want for our students. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. I'm glad to see that they're working. Schools and the board of educations are really good at what they do. They certainly know their students best. Through you, Mr. Speaker, do we know if there have been any complaints of maybe cell phones going missing? Any complaints about any damage to the cell phones that maybe have resulted in a complaint to the school? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't heard any complaints of that nature. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I have seen that some schools are using what they call these pouches. If this bill passes, will the state board of education dictate to them exactly what the policy will be, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This policy is specifically created and enforced through each local board of ed. So there's no one statewide policy for enforcement or storage, as an example. Those all will be crafted at the local board of ed level. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And I thought that's what was happening now. Our local boards of education have already instituted a policy. So the difference between them voluntarily instituting a policy for their students and this one is that this would be more of a mandate or a state law, we'll say. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Right now, our local boards of ed don't have to have a policy. That's not required. But they could have a policy that allows for cell phones during the day. We are specifically now saying you have to have a policy, and that policy has to say no phones on school grounds from bell to bell. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, and I'm listening to the debate, with our good ranking member and yourself. And it is my understanding that all the schools have already adopted a policy. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't collected the data on our district's policies on this, but the Good Ranking Member indicated that all but three. And then she followed up with those three, and it sounded like those three did have policies. But, again, those policies could be anything and allow for cell phones during the day. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, if all the schools have already adopted a policy, which the good ranking member said and did her homework on it, I'm just curious as to why we need this law, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is sort of opinion, I guess, but we are saying that there is no data that says cell phones in schools are good for children. So we are saying we don't want policies that allow for cell phones in schools. We are requiring a policy that says there should be no cell phones in schools. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to be honest with you. In my heart, I absolutely believe that. I don't believe there should be cell phones in school. But that's just my own personal opinion. Because I want my child or my grandchildren to pay attention in school. But like I said before, we have to set an example. And again, if you look around this room, at any point in a given day, people have their heads down. Why? Because they're on their cell phones. They're on their computers. They're not paying attention. And I think, as adults, we should set an example for them. Well, I agree with this whole concept a 100%. Where I really come short is that we are making a mandate on our boards of education in our towns. And I feel that they know their students best. They should be able to have control of the policies in their schools. Very similar, Mr. Speaker, to this body here. Many times, we pass laws because we don't want the federal government telling us what to do. We do it here all the time. And I agree with that. We don't want the federal government telling us what we want to do. We want to have our own control, just like I firmly believe mg/rr 55 that local schools should have their own control. That's really where I fall short on it. But I also believe that, Mr. Speaker, we as adults and parents should set an example for our children. And that's not being on your cell phones. If you don't want your child on a cell phone in school, when you're out for dinner, don't be on your phone. When you're home, and you're having a discussion, don't be on your phone. Those kinds of examples set the tone for your child. But it's also for our teachers as well. If we are going to institute this and this is going to pass, which I don't agree with, I think we need to set an example. So with that, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, and it's LCO 4832. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

mg/rr 56 House Amendment Schedule "B", LCO Number 4832, offered by Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate that. So, Mr. Speaker, this is really a simple amendment, and it really has our staff, our administrator, and our teachers setting an example for our students because we don't want them to use cell phones in school. All this does is change one of the sections to be that no student, teacher, or administrator shall be permitted to access or use such students. Same thing. So while we are taking cell phones away from students in class, this also takes the cell phones away from teachers and administrators because I truly believe that they need to set an example. And when kids are in school, they're looking at their mg/rr 57 teachers for guidance. I think this is a really good amendment. It'll certainly set an example for them, and it'll show the teachers that, you know what? We don't want you to have cell phones in school, but guess what? We're not going to have cell phones either. So, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption, and I would ask that when the vote be taken, it'd be taken by roll.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. First, I'll acknowledge that I appreciate the sentiment of the opponent of the amendment. I don't think anybody wants teachers on their cell phones while they are teaching their class. And I can't imagine any school across our great state where that's allowed. So I'll say that. The reason we have not carved out teachers is because it is a part of the safety plans for a lot of districts that if something mg/rr 58 is happening, the teachers have their cell phones so they can immediately call 911. Or immediately call the administrator if they see something happening from a safety perspective in the school. And we wanted to maintain that layer of quick communication, through you, Mr. Speaker. And for that reason, I'll ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this. I had mentioned in my opening remarks and questions about the importance of do as I do, not as I say. And there is no reason that teachers should have cell phones in classes. There's no reason. There are speakers in their classes. If there is a safety concern, they can immediately get hold of somebody. I have been in many, many, many, many, many classrooms, and instantly, there'll be communication coming into the room. So, I don't think there is mg/rr 59 a need for teachers. I have seen and heard people have told me they'll be taking a test, and teachers are on their cell phones. That is not a good precedent to set. So, again, I encourage everybody to support this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And people can go after me. I just wanted to share my thoughts on this amendment. I understand the comments about a safety plan. I had an interesting conversation this morning from an individual that came to me and said that the superintendent went into a school in a neighboring town and had witnessed teachers and students, all on their cell phones, and there was a bell-to-bell policy. And so what the superintendent did is ban all technology for the entire week for that school, which was an interesting result. I think there might be an mg/rr 60 interesting week at that school because you have employees now that are in the parking lot having to do their job. And so at first, I thought this amendment had an issue potentially with the school safety plan. However, I think the language in it changes access to holding. So I think that teachers could still have a phone in their desk drawer, and they could take it out when they need it. But I support the amendment for that reason because I think even the schools that have these policies, the teachers aren't following them. And so what we're seeing in this particular district is a superintendent putting their foot down, trying to ban all technology, and I don't think anyone's better off. So, I do rise in support, and I wanted to share that story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 61 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I rise in strong support of this amendment. It's not because I agree with the bill. Like my colleagues who spoke about cell phones in school, I agree that cell phones are not good. I don't disagree with that. But what I oppose is the fact that each town should make the policy that works for them, not being dictated by the state. Furthermore, if this bill should pass, and I'm assuming it will because it was brought to the floor, I believe that this amendment partners well with the bill with regard to our Good Minority Leader just speaking out with the fact that teachers need to be an example. And we know that teachers, like the rest of you in this room, and I'm looking around, I can see several people on their phones, we need to be an example. We need to be an example to our students. And if we're saying that these phones and the use of these phones are not good for our kids, and they're not good for us either. We're not engaging in the students. We're not listening to them. We're not paying attention. It's just not right. While a teacher might have a phone in their desk for an emergency situation, get that. But the teacher should be following the same policy. No usage during bell-to-bell if this policy is going to pass. I accept this amendment. Think it's a good amendment mg/rr 62 that partners well with a bill that I really don't agree with, but I think if we're going to pass it, we all need to be role models to our students and what we're asking them to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think in this chamber, on our side of the aisle, we introduce a lot of amendments knowing that for the majority, they're going to fail. But I do also think sometimes we offer up amendments, and the other side can see that there's some merit and value in it. I think this amendment is one of those that has merit and value. As you know, this underlying bill basically puts a bell-to- bell ban on cell phones during the school day, but allows the local district to come up with the policy on how they do that. If we mg/rr 63 were to accept this amendment and say, yes, we are going to include teachers and administration in this, which I think is fair. I think that is an absolutely fair ask. We would then also allow the local district to come up with the plan that would have the ability for a teacher in an emergency situation, or when they need to get a hold of administration, to pick up the phone and make that phone call. I do think there's a very big distinction between a phone call and texting or being on social media or just kinda scrolling. So if you were to take this amendment, and even if you say, okay, we like the majority of the amendment, but we'd like to work on some of the language of it, to have a good faith negotiation to say, how do we include teachers and administration in this from the perspective of where we know cell phones are harming our students. And it does harm our students if teachers or admins are on their cell phones. It's the do as I say, not as I do kind of thing. So I do think there's merit to this amendment across the board. I think there is some compromise to be found in here to say that teachers or admin can't have their phones from bell-to-bell also, with the exception of the emergency. Because they're the mg/rr 64 adults in the room at that point, and policy would then dictate that they would have the ability to use their phones during an emergency. Not throughout the day as they wish, but as an emergency. So, while I know the overall sentiment is always, it's an amendment. I urge my members to vote against it. I'm asking, where's the compromise on that? Where is the place that we can find that meets both of these needs, which would be eliminating the usage of cell phones from a bell-to-bell perspective for teachers and admin, but giving them the ability to utilize it in an emergency situation? So, actually, I ask people to support this amendment and to truly think about what we're trying to do with this policy here. And if you think the only way to achieve this is by taking a cell phone away from a kid and not taking it away from the people who are overseeing those kids, I think we've got a little bit of a discrepancy in how we're ruling here. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple more comments before we vote on the amendment. And I know there are a couple of my colleagues that want to speak on it. Passing a law to ban cell phone use in schools is not going to change the behavior of people because you just can't legislate behavior. And if you even look into the private sector, a lot of private jobs, you go to work, they don't want even the workers using their cell phones during work hours because they want them paying attention. This amendment would allow the teachers to keep their cell phones in their desks should they need it, like our Good Majority Leader mentioned, which I think is obviously important. But I do feel strongly that, you know, as a mother and a parent, we always try to set an example for our kids and we need to just set an example for them. And I think that's good policy. I think that's good governing. And I would hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree. Listen, we need to practice what we mg/rr 66 preach. That's the bottom line. If we want to change something, we need to change it ourselves as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This particular amendment I stand in very strong support of, and I actually do have a tangible reason why. In the past, out of this chamber and also out of the Senate chamber, there have been special interest-influenced groups that have tried to change school security. Mr. Speaker, may I have some quiet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. We've experienced things in our schools where special interests try to take little pieces and parts of policy out to suit certain special interests. Of note, over the past several sessions, I have been put into a position to defend the presence of school resource officers in our schools. And what I'm doing here actually does have a point, and I will reach it. And it is going to be a point that very strongly supports the comments of the House Minority Leader. In addition to that, we've had individuals that have proposed and brought to a vote in this chamber a policy to eliminate school preparedness drills, which, coming from a district that probably knows more about security than all the rest in this entire state, alarmed me. The fact that it was held to the last second was actually quite offensive. But I'm reminded of a story. And this is a story that is not a made-up story. It's a telephone call that I got from a parent. And that parent at an elementary school in Newtown relayed to me that her daughter was unable to return to school after a school safety drill. I asked why. And the answer that came back was that the children were sheltering in place. They were following the mg/rr 68 direction. And when my daughter looked up, her teacher was in a small circle with a handful of other teachers, and they were staring at one of their cell phones. And as the children were sheltered in place, it occurred to this sensitive young student that the drill didn't mean a whole hell of a lot to those teachers. So we do lead by example. And I think the reason why this is a very reasonable, and I might say a very high-impact amendment, is to force the behavior and not have individuals that go out into a hall during a fire drill or a school safety drill and start surfing the web or texting with their friends, or laughing over a meme. It took counseling intervention to bring that student to a point where she could return to school over the course of months, I might add. I do support that a teacher should have a cell phone in their desk or possibly in their possession. But the use of it during school hours is no different. Actually, it's far worse than if a teacher were to be using it during coursework or during a security drill. So, I stand in very strong support of my colleagues' House Amendment "B". Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment. And if I may, just a couple of quick questions, to the good proponent of the bill, as opposed to the amendment. If I may, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Please proceed.

Representative Leeper, do you care to answer?

Representative O'Dea.

That's the Red Bull.

Representative Leeper.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, Representative O'Dea. Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule "B"? Will you remark further on House Amendment Schedule "B"? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? If all the members voted, will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And Clerk take tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The amendment fails. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Linehan on the 103rd. You have the floor, ma'am.

Please proceed.

mg/rr 76 Representative Leeper.

Representative Linehan.

Thank you, Representative Linehan. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Ackert to the 8th District. You have the floor, sir.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

mg/rr 86 Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Ackert.

mg/rr 90 Thank you, Representative Ackert. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Redington-Hughes of the 66th. You have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Romano of the 113th District. You have the floor, ma'am.

Here we go.

Representative Romano.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Romano.

mg/rr 100 Thank you, Representative Romano. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Howard of the 43rd. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Howard. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Comey of the 102nd, you have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Representative Comey. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Scott of the 112th, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Scott. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Courpas of the 149th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas. mg/rr 112

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper. mg/rr 115

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas. mg/rr 120

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

mg/rr 122 Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper. mg/rr 124

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper. mg/rr 126

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Courpas.

mg/rr 131 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Buchsbaum of the 69th, you have the floor, sir.

Please proceed.

mg/rr 132 Representative Leeper.

Chamber will stand at ease. Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum. mg/rr 136

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Representative Bucksbaum. mg/rr 139

Representative Leeper.

Representative Buchsbaum.

Representative Leeper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any more questions. Thank you to the good Chair for those answers. I'm rising in opposition to this bill today for a variety of reasons, and most of them have been stated. But primarily, in Subsection D of the bill, it says a board shall consider the unique needs of teachers, administrators, parents, and guardians, and students in the school mg/rr 141 district. But then the bill goes on to prohibit the board from actually doing any of those things. Every school in this state is different. Every town in this state is different. And we just discussed a very important situation, at least to me, where you have a safety issue, a safety plan and we're telling districts that they can't allow something that they used to be able to allow in the past if it's in the best interest of that particular student. I'd like to join everyone in this chamber. I think this chamber is unanimous on not wanting cell phones in schools. I think the intent and purpose behind the legislation is good. I think it's important. I have two kids. I have a middle schooler. I have a high schooler. I think the smartphones and devices are problematic in our schools, and I think we should try and limit them and our local schools should try and limit them. But I think that this is an individualized concern based on each district, and we should not be mandating what each municipality and each school district in our state does up here in Hartford. And that happens time and time again, where we keep having these sort of one size fits all statewide mandates and not respecting the unique needs of our towns. And this bill literally mg/rr 142 says when developing this policy, we're supposed to respect the unique needs of teachers, students, and whatnot, but then we failed to do that. And I think that's important. So for those reasons, and the many others that have been mentioned here today, I would urge rejection of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I probably have more comments. I'm not sure if I have any questions. I think most everything's been covered for the last -- I don't know how long we've been talking about this bill. And I think everybody in this chamber believes and agrees that cell phones are not in the best interest of our children or even adults to be consumed with them, using them all day, not seeing the environment around us, distracted from our schoolwork. I could go on and on and on. But that's not the issue. mg/rr 143 I know many of you stood up and tried to give statistics and data about that, and we all know that. There's nothing to be discussed with regard to that. I think this bill really interferes with the ability for every town to make a policy that works for them, for their own school, in the interest of what the parents' concerns are, the children's concerns are. I think the good Representative from the 149th talked about their policy. They all came together and worked on their policy that worked well for them. And now the state is going to interfere with that. Having a policy is not good enough. We have to dictate to everybody what to do. It's over and over and over again. This state continues to take everything a step further. You must have a policy. Okay. We have a policy. Well, your policy is not good enough. You have to have x, y, and z in your policy, and this is how you have to implement it. And this isn't freedom. This isn't local control. This isn't parents being heard. Parents are heard at their local boards of eds. Somebody said they were a board of ed member. I have boards of ed members who have said to me, why is the hammer of the state always coming down on us, always making another rule, another mg/rr 144 mandate, another regulation. Why can't we just figure this out ourselves? It's over and over and over again. Parents have said to me, they don't want the state's interference over and over and over again. So while some of you, your towns may like that, my towns and others that have been mentioned here earlier don't. But now we have to follow the ruling of the state. And finally, I just wanted to mention one other colleague said they think that it's a good idea that children don't have their cell phones in school because then they'll have to rely on going to teachers, administrators, and staff. And I would argue that some of those children don't trust their teachers, their administrators, and their staff. Parents have removed their children for several different reasons that I highlighted when the homeschooler bill with regard to sexual assault, bullying, sexual trafficking, on and on and on. And now we're stripping them from their ability to contact somebody that they feel safe with in an emergency and say, you can't do that. And I think that's wrong. mg/rr 145 I don't like telling the towns what to do. I think that would have partnered up well with being a role model to our students. Teachers, you can't use your phones for social media, just like we're asking all of you not to do. But unfortunately, that was not passed. So now we're going to dictate to you, do as I say, not as I do. Mr. Speaker, I am a hard no on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions for legislative intent.

To the good proponent, we hear the phrase bell-to-bell a lot over the last few hours. Does this include ban on cell phones include school buses? Through you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, a school bus is neither on school grounds nor occurring during the bell-to-bell period. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I beg to differ. At least in my towns, the school buses actually drive to the school on school grounds with the mg/rr 147 students in them. So, just to confirm with the good proponent, are cell phones banned on buses?

Through Mr. Speaker, no.

Thank you. If a student is in the building and the final bell of the day has already rung, is a student permitted to use their cell phone? Through you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That would be the decision of the local board's policy. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Just so I'm clear then, this does not prohibit the use? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct.

Thank you. And we've talked a lot about 504s and IEPs, but many districts, students in need of additional help will sometimes be put into the intervention program. If a student is in one of the levels of intervention, may the district allow phone use from bell-to-bell? Through you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.

Wow. Thank you. That is shocking as we talk about our schools needing to meet the needs of each individual student. I have no mg/rr 150 more questions. I've actually heard enough hours ago, but I do have some thoughts, sir. Our five-year olds are very different than our 18-year olds. We trust our 18-year old seniors in just a few months to go to work, to learn a trade, to go to school, and some will join the service. But we don't trust them to keep a cell phone off in their bag. What are we teaching them from k through 12 if we can't trust them to follow that very simple rule? I agree with the proponent. I don't want children using cell phones in school, but I tend to think that's where our agreement to end. Because in my district, I trust my board of eds. They are a bipartisan body in each town, and they can manage this quite well. They've already done it. Our 18 year olds should be managed by a policy very different than our kindergartners. Ladies and gentlemen, my schools have enough to do. They're trying to educate my kids. They're trying to keep them safe. And just as important, they're teaching them to be good citizens. If cell phone banks are so important, perhaps we should ban them in the chamber, because if it's good enough for our kids, mg/rr 151 should be good enough for us. Ladies and gentlemen, we don't need this. Leave my schools alone. They have enough to worry about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a couple of clarifying questions for the proponent of the bill. And I think for the most part, these have been asked. I just want to make sure that I have them right. I think there's one that hasn't been asked. And if that's the case, that'll be pretty outstanding, just to make sure. So one of the things that I had heard is that this is also going to be looking at banning social media during the school day unless it's required for instructional purposes. Could the good chair of education please tell us how is that going to work. Sir, through mg/rr 152

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think the details will be determined by the districts, but most districts already have those types of prohibitions on their Internet. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir. I struggle with that a little bit, because I hear a lot about kids on TikTok or kids on Instagram or Facebook and that. So if a school, already has this provision. Maybe some schools don't have it and some do, and this is now going to be standard that there's no social media allowed anywhere on the school campus from bell-to-bell? Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think when students are accessing the Internet through the cellular network, the districts can't control that. They can't put those same limits as they can on their Internet. So if students are on the computers accessing the Internet through the school network, those are the places where those limits can be put on. I hope that answers my good colleague's question. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, sir. That does. That's helpful. And in relation to a lot of conversation has been about the 504, the IEP, or a doctor's note. My question on this is, how do we ensure that -- so you're going to have a population of kids who are going to be allowed a mg/rr 154 cell phone to have that on them. How do you ensure that that is not then being abused? Sir, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's not a blanket. Any child with an IEP will be allowed to have a cell phone. It's only in the instances where it's determined, as educationally required through the IEP, that students would have access to a cell phone as an example, similar to 504 in a medical plan. I think that each district will have to determine on a one-by-one case in the same way that they do for IEPs and 504s about whether or not it's the appropriate technology for the students. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 155 Thank you very much. So I don't think I have any other questions. I will say though, as I've sat here and listened to the entire debate that we've had on this -- I've read this bill. I've talked to people on both sides of the aisle, and this is one of the hardest votes that I think we've had thus far this session. I went out when this bill came up, and I talked to not only my superintendents, but I put out polls. I put out questions on all of our conversation boards and all of my towns to say, where do people want this? And I had almost every teacher and almost every superintendent say, we want this banned across the board. We do not want this. And I say for my parents, it was half and half. A bunch of people were very vocal online saying, don't ban this. We don't want it. But then I had a bunch of parents stopping me in the grocery store or texting me or calling me to say, we want you to ban them. So this is the first time I think I have had equal opposition on both sides for a topic. And I don't like being in that position because I really like to listen to my constituents and say, what do they want? How would they want this? I like to say I am just one of my 25,000 constituents, and I don't like to impose my will on people. But this is very problematic for me because I probably have a good split of people mg/rr 156 who say, yes, we should do this and people who say, no, we should not. So then I went a little bit further, and I talked to some parents of high school kids. And I had this one parent who was great, who said every time her daughter gets in trouble at school, she has an app where she can turn off everything on -- somebody's cell phone is ringing. Somebody's cell phone is ringing. There we go. She has an app on her daughter's phone where she can turn off everything with the exception of the ability to make a phone call or to text the parents, her specifically. And I was like, well, that's great. Why aren't we looking at employing something like that? And then probably a week or so later, I was in the Vernon School District, and I was talking to the superintendent there. And he told me he was walking down the hallway one day, and there was a kid on their cell phone. And he said to the kid, hey, who are you talking to? And she said my mom. He's like, give me the phone. And he took the phone from the student and he said hi. This is the superintendent. Can I ask you why are you calling your child right now? And she was like, oh, I just wanted to remind her about mg/rr 157 something. He was like, she's in school. Why are you calling her? This is not an emergency. So I've got a superintendent who is then saying, well, a good portion of the problem is the parents. Parents calling in that. But then I've got the parents saying, yes, I can call my kid if I want to call them. This is my right and my ability. It's my child, et cetera, et cetera. And then I start to go and think about as this is going to really date me, but smoking in restaurants used to be okay. I hated it. I'm a nonsmoker in that. And then the state of Connecticut came and said no, no. Nobody can smoke in the restaurants. Now, could we have left that up to the local restaurants? Sure. But it wouldn't have been consistent in smoking in restaurants. Smoking in general is really bad for you. It made sense for the state to say no, we're not going to allow smoking in restaurants. So I'm really struggling because the intellectual part of me knows cell phones are bad. And I would take this a bit further and say I don't think we should be giving kindergartners iPads. I don't think we should be giving kids in the lower school district other devices that is doing the same thing a cell phone is doing. mg/rr 158 We are permanently changing the pathways of our children's brains by giving them this technology. I read one study where they said an average child or young adult today needs to be stimulated every 10 seconds in their mind just to keep interest. It's like 10 seconds and they need to be restimulated. We've done that. We've trained our brains to be a 10-second gap of understanding, and that's really scary to me. It's problematic. So cell phones as a whole in the school system, I think, are absolutely horrible. But then I think about what if something happens? I go down the same pathway as any other parent would. I don't have kids in the school system anymore, but I'm about to have my first grandchild. And thinking about that, what would I want for her when she's born? What do I want her school experience to look like? So I will honestly say, in just this debate -- and this is another reason why I think everybody should have to be on the floor during debates all the time, in just this debate, my opinion has changed four times. Somebody gets up and says something, I'm like, yes, that's right. A yes. And then somebody gets down like, yes, that's right. I'm a no. I'm going back and forth here. And I think this, again, mg/rr 159 is probably one of the toughest votes that I'm going to have to take this year. So I hope there's more people on the board because I don't think I've gotten to the spot that I'm a 100% comfortable with yet. Because ultimately, I do believe the government you have the most control over, and the government that is most impactful on your lives is your local government. And when people elect boards of ed, they feel they have more access to their local board of ed than they do to the state or to the federal government. And I think at that level, they're asking their boards of ed to reflect their voices and what they want from a cell phone policy or basically any policy. So I'm struggling with, do we say that the schools are doing enough on their own, or do we have to come in and lay a blanket over it to say we respect that what you're doing, but we think we need a little bit more, hate to use the word, but guardrails around how you're doing it, and giving them the ability to enforce it as long as they meet these qualifications. So thank you for letting me ramble on here. I'm trying to work out this process in my head. And as you can see, I'm very conflicted within myself. So, I will continue to listen to the debate. I thank the good proponent for answering my questions, the mg/rr 160 majority of which have been handled through the debate here. And I'm hoping that however long it takes us, I can get myself to a decision before you ring that bell, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a question or two for the proponent. If I may please proceed. Mr. Speaker, again, listening, trying to make sure I have full comprehension of where everyone's at. There's been a lot of great questions asked today, and it's an important bill. It's an important consequence when it's done. So I just want to understand the intent, Mr. Speaker. This is to primarily be ensured that the children don't access social media during the school day. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The intent is to have kids not accessing their cell phones, not just social media, through the day. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. So children now when they're in school, our board of ed hands them a laptop. They may have a tablet, whatever it is. So wouldn't that same messaging or phone call or social media be accessible through those devices? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, not every district does one to one. I think that changes also by the grade. And generally, you can't access phone calls through a Chromebook for example. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. So not every district is the same, yet we're proposing legislation that treats them all the same. That's part of my concern. I think the question earlier that we had was we can take a cell phone and put it in your backpack, which is acceptable, but there's no Internet for that child to use their tablet to get on to social media, but nothing preventing them from turning on their hot spot and charging their friends a couple of bucks to join in on their hot spot, which opens a whole other can of worms with a lot of those kids who now have find a way around things. mg/rr 163 And I think that's something that we've all seen over the years. Mr. Speaker, kids are smarter than us when it comes to all the technology. I don't think anybody in this room would challenge that. They're going to find loopholes and ways around this. And in the meantime, here we are trying to have a one size fits all piece of legislation that we've heard a lot of the loopholes today. We've heard there's a ton of loopholes with this, yet schools can do it now. I'm not sure why we're not offering those school districts, hey, let's hear your best ideas by 2027, so this is in place, and let them tweak to emulate each other. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about the people that we not only trust the most, but some of the most educated people in our districts. Our superintendents, our administrators, our teachers. The teachers who are working with them every single day that might have a better idea that is missed by this. Some of them give testimony. It's great. I'm all for local control. We've heard that argument all day today as well. But I just have a tough time that we're handing the student the electronics that they need to do it and every opportunity to do it. But we're going to tell them you can't have your phone though. mg/rr 164 You can have these other devices that will do the same job, but just not your phone. I am all for students paying attention to class. I am all for put your cell phones away. I am not all for unfunded mandates that tell the town you have to do things the way that we say we're doing them, when you may have a better solution on your own. And to hear what some of my colleagues said prior, yes, I'd love to see more people in this room, like my predecessor just said. We just had all these people here and phones are going off in this room. Could we imagine one day in this chamber where we look around and see legislators with no phones in their hand at any spot? I can't do it right now, Mr. Speaker, and we're not even halfway full of the of the chamber. So I just think, again, we need to pump the brakes a little bit. We're trying to rush to judgment on legislation, all well intended. I think it's all very well intended that children are protected and they're educated and they're kept in the loop. All of it makes sense. But we're going about it the wrong way. And again, this is, the way I see it, us forcing a square peg into a round hole. We're going to make it work. We're going to force this mg/rr 165 into work. People don't have a choice. They're going, this is how we're going to do it. When we have better solutions that are there, and they're going to step around this the minute it's in place, I just think it's begging for problems. I think it's a lot of Swiss cheese. I really do. I think it's got a lot of holes in it. Like many cheeses, it stinks. So I'm going to be a no on the bill, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the intent of what this is. I just don't see it as a proper solution. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to good chairwoman from Education. As my colleague said, yes, my head is spinning because I have heard this, that, and everything in every which way. And mg/rr 166 I'm still very confused. But I just have one question for the good chair lady. So we're going to ban cell phones in schools. Now, we know that our kids use Chromebooks in school. Recently, I was in a public school, and a student did not have their Chromebook. So the teacher said, use your cell phone for today. Through you, Mr. Speaker, how would that work going forward with this ban?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, students would not be able to use their phones. Through you.

mg/rr 167 Thank you. I guess I find that a little bit concerning because if our kids are using their Chromebooks and someone doesn't have theirs, and the teacher is saying just use your cellphone today, that means that student is going to use lose that opportunity on that day to participate in the classroom work. So I just wanted to note that, I too am very concerned about this bill and I do go back and forth with it. I have to say that this is a mandate. Yes. We all heard that. But my concern is that there -- and we heard today from a previous speaker how the grades have gone up in her particular district and it's wonderful. So they don't have a ban in that district, but it's working. So that means the school district there is doing something right. And I feel, my personal opinion, that we should continue to let our school districts handle this on their own. In many, many districts, it is working. I've talked to a number of student superintendents, and they are making it work. They are finding ways. Who knows their schools and their kids better than the local superintendent? So as frustrating as may be, and as people have said, we've heard from a number of parents, but it's mixed. And quite frankly, parents have to work into the mix of this, whether students should mg/rr 168 have their cell phones or not. I am concerned, and I had this conversation recently with one of my superintendents, and we're not going to know if a child has maybe tucked their cell phone into their UGG boots or wherever the case may be. How are you going to know? How is that going to be enforced? What parameters? I just don't think it's spelled out well enough here. I think we just need to let our school superintendents do the work that they have been doing in each of their districts. And I will not be supporting this bill today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I've talked with my superintendent. I've had many conversations with parents in my district. I understand the issues with cell phones, and I have kids myself. So I'm really happy to see cell phones come out of the classroom. I'm happy to see my kids using them less. mg/rr 169 We went for so many years not having any kind of cell phone in the classroom or even just on the person. And I think we forget what it was like to have your kid go to school, and you actually have to call in and leave a message and have the message go to a message board where the kids come and pick up that information. I am very supportive of this concept. And I will say I even had a very tough conversation with my daughter who's now in college, so she didn't ever have to deal with a ban. But I said I support not having cell phones. And she said, but mom, don't you want to get in touch with me during the day? I said, well, sure I do, but I don't really need to get in touch with you. That's okay. And she said, well, mom, what if something happens in the school? Don't you want to know if there is an emergency or a gunman or something? Don't you want to know? Don't you want to hear from me? We had a little moment where we were crying together because I said, actually, I don't want all the parents in the district to hear from their kids. I want the emergency personnel to hear from their kids, and I want you all to be really safe. So I think it's more important that you all have safety first. The other thing that I like about how this is rolled out, in general, I'm not for usurping local control. So this is actually mg/rr 170 a hard vote for me as well. But I would say one thing that I believe is good that has happened is that the State Department of Education, one of their bright lights of things that they did is they put out a policy suggesting to the schools what they should do. So many of the schools have already been through this, have put pilot programs. Many of the schools are already doing it. I understand from my colleagues, and I feel a lot of sympathy for some of the school districts that maybe have gone through and implemented a policy that doesn't seem like it's going to be covered here. And they really worked very hard to implement that policy. Again, that is a struggle that I see. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I do have just a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill. And my sincere apologies if she may have answered these. I did have to step out for a little bit, but these are important things that I would like to understand before I'm able to vote yes today.

Starting on lines 44, it talks about students that may have access to a personal wireless communication. And one of it, it mentions, well, individuals with disabilities. It also mentions students with individual education programs. So are these the official IEPs, or can this just be in general students that may have individual educational programs? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. These are your official IEPs through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I guess my question is, if a kid has ADHD -- these are questions that I got from my school. So if a kid has something like ADHD and they use their phone for reminders, and we do have students that do this, but they don't necessarily have an IEP, will they be allowed to continue to use their device in that controlled manner within the school setting in agreement with the teacher in the school? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Often things like that are covered under 504, but a student would need a 504 for there to be an allowance for cell phones in that instance. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you so much. That's a little unfortunate. It wasn't exactly what I was really hoping to hear. One of the other things that I've talked to my school district about is, they started off and they did the K through eight ban, and they were really working at the high school level to find that right balance. And so they have a ban now for the freshmen, sophomores and juniors. And with the seniors, there's a little more leniency. They have a ban mostly, but the seniors are allowed a moment during the day where they are able to have access to their device. Would this be allowed through this bill? And the idea of having the seniors having that small bit of leniency, really, in their minds and in my mind, understanding is teaching self-regulation. As we know, these seniors are going to be out in the world very soon and having to understand how to utilize something like social media or a phone during everyday life. So through you, Mr. Speaker, would that be allowed that my school district be able to continue that? mg/rr 174

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if they decided to continue it anyway, what are the penalties that will occur? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There are no penalties contemplated in this language. mg/rr 175

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was just going to be full on support of this bill. I'm a little disappointed because I was hoping that my school district, I think, they want to do they want to do the right things. And I think they're trying to do the right things, and I really like the thoughtful manner with which they have moved forward on this. I really appreciate the State Department of Education and their guidance, And I am a sole believer that cell phones cause so much damage in our kids' lives. But now I'm a struggling on this bill. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear, and the jury's in. This experiment that we've done in our schools over the past years with bring your own device, allowing the cell phones in the school, hasn't worked. The IQs are down. The test scores are down. The bullying is up. The stress, the suicidal ideations, every bad thing that could happen has gone up. In my entire legislative career, I have never voted for a mandate. I don't think we're supposed to have mandates on our local towns. I don't think we have unfunded mandates on our school until now. This has to be done. It's almost an emergency. It's a health emergency. Our young people are struggling. When we were talking the other day with a group of people, the older people said, oh, how dare you? How could you do this? And all the young people said, please get this out of the school immediately. It really is that important, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any questions for the good proponent. I just wanted to let you know that I feel so strongly about this legislation that I put my name on it with her. I really do support it. I think it's important. I think we need to get back to mg/rr 177 some sort of sanity in our schools. And these devices do everything from social media to bullying, to having kids get together to do things they shouldn't do for -- my God, they can gamble on them at this point in time. I think it's best if we all recognize that what we've done over the past 10, 15 years has not worked, has been a detriment to our young people and our learning environment, and that we need to adjust. I support it even though my town has a policy, but I have to be honest with you. It's not good enough. It's just not good enough. They did the grammar schools and they did the middle school. They didn't do the high school. I actually think if it was up to me, the bill would go a little further, I would take away all Internet connected devices including the Chromebook because these kids figure out how to go around them. They're watching videos all day and they're on sites they shouldn't be on. So I just wanted to stand up from a person who doesn't believe in mandates is supporting the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply rise in support of this bill. I just wanted to offer some context and reference for my colleagues in the chamber. I represent Guilford and Branford. Branford, about a year ago, implemented no cell phones in any of the schools. They were ahead of the curve a little bit, and they actually got a grant to -- their decision was to lock the phones up in pouches. And just to give you an example, in the high school, I spoke to the principal, the superintendent recently. And there was a lot of anticipation that there would be a lot of community pushback, a lot of communication to the superintendent, a lot of online social media complaints. And he said to me, he was, Moira, I didn't get one phone call complaining, but what I did get is a lot of parents thanking me. He said, you go into the cafeteria now. It is so noisy because the kids are talking. They're socializing. They're regulating mg/rr 179 themselves. They're eating their food instead of just sitting on a phone and not eating. So that's one good example. Then in Guilford, I just finished eight years on my board of education. And last year, we decided to take an entire year to study this issue. We created a task force. We had parents, students, community members, administrators, educators, boards of ed members, and we really dug into the data, and we really dug into the opinion of some of our kids. And of course, some weren't in support of it. But in the end, after that, we put it to a vote, and we have passed a cell phone bell-to-bell ban that will start in September. And so I'm really grateful that the co-chairs of this committee and hopefully this chamber will support this legislation. The data is irrefutable. Cell phones are really damaging the educational opportunities of our kids, their social development, and there are so many negatives to it. Of course, they will use their phones after school, and they'll use them to communicate and for all the important things that we know they're valued for. But I really do hope others will support this bill and the great impact it will have to our children and their educational futures. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. mg/rr 180

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to echo my comments from my colleague from the 53RD. I've gone back and forth on this, although. I'm leaning towards supporting it at this point. I do agree with my good colleague from 123rd. This is an epidemic. Kids are not able to socialize the way -- I used to say us, who grew up in the 70s kids did, but few of us there's less and less of us here in the chamber. It's getting younger and younger, which is a good thing. A quick question. I understand that the superintendents -- well, I know that my New Canaan superintendent had proposed a change in line, I believe, it's 53 to 56, which was incorporated into this bill. Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that's correct.

And I will say without using his name because I don't want him to be poached, but he is the best superintendent in the state. I truly believe that. And so if I see any of you writing to him or taking him from us, I'm going to be upset. But was there any superintendent's testimony? I tried going through the testimony in its entirety, but I'm not on education. Was there any superintendent opposed to this piece of legislation? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, there was.

Thank you. And with the concerns that those superintendents had generally addressed, if the good proponent knows. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would say that our superintendents are also like this body. This is not a partisan issue. This is a tricky issue. And we've seen that actually across the myriad of states who have already passed this. It's not really a Democrat, mg/rr 183 Republican issue. The testimony we received was about two to one in support of the bill. But there were supers who were opposed, and it was pretty consistent with some of the things about local control. They wanted to allow their students to have access to the phones at lunch time that are passing periods. But it wasn't anybody who thinks phones are good for children. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And I tried to listen to the entire debate, but I was called out for a couple of things. But was the question asked whether or not this would apply to field trips? In other words, I know the question was about on the bus to field trips, but if you've got an elementary school going to a museum in Manhattan, for example. And I know Life360, my wife was a big fan of that when the kids were younger. Does this apply or would this apply to field trips, not on the bus because that's already been answered, mg/rr 184 but on field trips outside or off school grounds? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This does not prohibit cell phones off of school grounds, so on field trips. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the responses, and I look forward to voting yes on the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize to the chamber for that, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I'm going to take a different angle here. I'm in the same place my good colleagues from the 53rd and the 69th are. I am fence sitting on this bill. I've talked to probably the most people this session over this bill and had the most phone calls and emails. The question I have is funding-related. I do understand, Mr. Speaker, that in this bill, we are allowing the districts to have the students use lockers or their backpacks. If the districts choose not to, and they do choose to use the pouch system or a locking system that is purchased, was there contemplation of funding, whether it be grant funding like we handle for our school security or, for example, allowing the districts to use the new DRIP funding that we allocated last year or the year before. So through you, Mr. Speaker, was there any sort of funding contemplated for this bill? Through you. mg/rr 186

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that question. And surprise is the first of this debate. So thank you. We did contemplate funding. And what we contemplated was making some bonding dollars available for districts who chose to go that route to help sort of ease the cost. We haven't secured that yet, but it is under discussion. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. I'm struggling with this. Philosophically, I agree with the ban of the cell phones for the students in school, like probably 90% of this chamber does. I struggle with the financial piece of this. We passed so many mandates that are unfunded in this chamber. And I think if there mg/rr 187 was truly a grant component in this, it would ease a lot of the district's concerns in this particular mandate to the districts. So through you, Mr. Speaker, just a brief clarification on the DRIP funding, would that be a possible vehicle, if you will, for our districts to use to purchase these pouches? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I had not contemplated specifically the DRIP funds for this purpose. My understanding of the DRIP funds is that they are more for school infrastructure improvements, but I'm happy to look a little more closely into that for my good colleague. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 188 Thank you for that. I know there is a limited parameters around that spending. But if these are going to be fixtures and they are going to be attached and secure, I think it might be a really good avenue for grant funding for our district. So I will continue to listen to the debate. I'm still very much fence-sitting like so many of my colleagues, but I do thank you for the answers to the funding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a quick question to you, to the proponent.

Obviously, review in line 76 to 78, where it talks about procedures for communicating between boards of education and parents and guardians of students in the event of an emergency occurs. I'd like to see that in there because I think it's critical. Even in committee I stated, one of my concerns is I will hear first from my child when there was an emergency or anything that she perceived to be an emergency before I even heard from the school. And I'm glad to see this in the bill, but it talks a little bit about develop. They need to adopt. Are there any guidelines that we're offering through this bill for the schools to provide us, at least, a glimpse of what is it that they're going to adopt? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 190 Through you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that question. It's a very good question. We made just a point to specifically add this, thanks to the good representative suggestions. We already have required in every school district a school safety and security committee that includes parents, school professionals, mental health professionals, law enforcement that are all working together. And so I view that group within every community as being the ones to develop this plan. And then we also included the requirement that districts continue to share that plan with families every year so they can understand exactly what they can expect in an emergency from their school. In terms of a statewide guidance on the plan, I think we would look to our State Department of Education. While we didn't specifically charge them with that, I think that's a great conversation to have. And I know how receptive they are when we ask them to provide us guidance. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

And I thank the gentle lady for those answers. Thank you for putting that language in there. I think it was very important. I do stay in strong support. I've seen other district that have adopted it, the pouches and how it has worked. We see more children working together with each other, collaborating. We see how they're more engaged in their education. So I think this is a great bill and ought to pass. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally, I've been chomping at the bit.

So it's interesting because almost all the legislation I've put in for this year have not been in any of the three committees that I serve in. It's really stuff like this that gets my juices flowing and makes me really motivated to use this platform. We've heard from every different possible angle of this issue. One in particular that I want to emphasize more though than any other thing, is that of our children's, our next generations social development and mental health. That is a ticking time bomb that I don't think all of us, whether it's in this room or outside this room or wherever, fully appreciate. Not all of us at least. A few do. I am a millennial, but close enough to Gen Z, that I've seen every part of this technological spectrum that we are transitioning into. I remember a time before cell phones. I remember a time during cell phones. And hopefully, I will see a time after cell phones. When I was in elementary school and middle school, cell phones existed, of course, but nobody thought in a million years that they would become a device that would give you access to all sorts of things, AKA, the Internet. mg/rr 193 And when iPhone came out with the first ever smartphone, again, people didn't really think that it was really -- it had the potential to be harmful in any way. It was just the newest, latest gadget, piece of technology that everybody wanted to have. And then, of course, the next year they came out with a new model, and the year after that with another model. And it's like cars. You buy a 2024, next year the 2025 comes out. That's not what I want to talk about. The consumerism aspect of this isn't really important. What's important is that very soon afterward, behavior and the understanding of what these devices meant and our behavior around them changed drastically. And it's almost compounded, I would say, every single year. Now, anybody can get up here and make that statement or disagree with what I said. And it's really hard to prove one way or the other. It's really hard to prove what I said. It's really hard to disprove what I said, I guess. But we do have some indicators. We do have some statistics. We do have some numbers that we could attribute a correlation between cell phone usage and mental health decline amongst the youth, anxiety, autism. Not too long ago, I heard that the Amish community actually doesn't have any instances of autism. Well, I wonder why. They mg/rr 194 don't have smartphones. They are still living the way humans were meant to live in the real world, not in this digital world that we created. They're still communicating with people face-to-face. And if they have an issue with someone, they're not texting emojis. They're going up to that person and letting them know how they feel. You know how many times we have conversations with each other through text about serious things and people will use emojis? That thought just like makes me cringe. I definitely will not ever do that. At least not for a serious conversation. Actually, it's not an innocuous thing as it might appear to be. It actually is a symptom of a greater issue. There was a French philosopher and writer by the name of Jean Baudrillard, who wrote an interesting, very fascinating book called Simulacron Simulation. I read it a few years ago, and it had a very interesting concept. He talked about the creation of this hyperreality. Hyperreality is essentially this digital world where we are not able to distinguish the real from the phony. We are totally immersed in this phony world, as many of you are aware. Whether that comes in the form of fake news that we can't distinguish from real news, AI that we can't distinguish from the real. The dystopian future that many science fiction writers wrote of is mg/rr 195 actually happening, but we don't see it because we're in the middle of it. It's like the boiling frog analogy. We're not going to notice it until we're dead, and then it's too late. We can definitely do something about it. We can. We're not the boiling frogs. We're humans. We have an ability to recognize our mistakes, observe our course, our trajectory and change course. I realize I'm going very deep into this, but it's very important because the reason why the idea for a cell phone ban even has any legs is because we are seeing the negative consequences of over usage of cell phones and particularly social media, which is accessed through these cell phones, smartphones. We are seeing the negative consequences in the younger generations. It is not normal that kids these days can barely hold a conversation. It's not normal that so many people can't just stand there and be and observe, as one of my colleagues previously said, the birds and the cars that drive by without having to check their phone every two seconds. You know what's another really interesting term that has developed in our lexicon these last few years? They're called mg/rr 196 phantom texts. Does anybody know what a phantom text is? You don't have to stand up, Mr. Speaker. It's a rhetorical question. A phantom text is when nobody has texted you, but you feel or you think you hear that somebody has. That's not a healthy position to be in, where you have become so conditioned to expect communication via that medium, that now you are feeling as if somebody is trying to text or call you or whatever when they're not. There's a whole laundry list of new terms and conditions that have come out in recent years that could be attributed to our immersion in this digital world that we've created. Can't get into all of them, but I think I've made my point on that. Another thing I wanted to very briefly touch upon is this jurisdictional fight that that we have, not just on this bill, but on other bills as well. And just generally speaking in the chamber, where we don't know whether it's our responsibility as the state legislature to tackle a particular issue or to defer to local government. Sometimes it reminds me of a bad cop movie where the FBI, the local police, and the state police all arrive at a crime scene, and they're flashing badges at each other. And, no, it's my jurisdiction. No, it's your jurisdiction. No, get out of here. I'm mg/rr 197 the feds. You're the local guys. Honestly, why does it matter? In so many instances, it really just doesn't matter. This is not a perfect bill. I actually like my colleague's amendment. I think we should ban cell phones for teachers and principals as well, except for in situations where there's an emergency or a crisis of some kind, and the fastest form of communication needs to be accessed. Of course, that's common sense. We could all agree on that. So I'm not sure why we didn't adopt that. But regardless, this is still a decent bill, and it's very -- the best thing about it is the conversation that it starts and where it can lead to taking this topic seriously, that is so sort of ambiguous and fuzzy and cloudy and doesn't really have a name. And we address it by addressing the different components of what we all see and feel, but don't really quite have a name for it yet. I'm sure sociologists and anthropologists years from now are going to be able to label it something, this era that we went through. The damage that social media and this digital world that we've created has caused us. But we could all feel it. We could all see it. We could all hear it. It's like the definition of obscenity. mg/rr 198 I think there was a supreme court justice that said I can't really describe it, but I know it when I see it. And sometimes that is a good enough standard. It's good enough for me. And I don't care whether it's state government that addresses that issue or local government. And if there are some local governments and some boards of education that are addressing this issue right now, bravo. Good for you because you are recognizing this issue. And as a good Representative said, there's 28 other states who have issued a statewide ban. So why does it really matter that much whether it's us taking it up or the town of Plymouth, the town of Cheshire, the city of Bridgeport. Kids are unique, but there's also some commonalities. And nobody is immune to the destructive power that over usage of cell phones and consumption of social media has on all of us, whether your children, adults, rocket scientists, or just anyone else. And we have the numbers to show this. A question for the proponent of the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard correctly that there is no fiscal note. There is no fines. There is no punishment for essentially not complying with this bill, this future law should it pass. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On that note, I could talk about this issue forever. It's an issue I'm super passionate about, not specifically just banning cell phones, but some of the other mg/rr 200 tangential issues that I brushed up upon in my comments. But I will leave it at that because -- perfect way to end, this bill does no harm. Many school boards and towns and districts are already implementing the spirit of this bill. Let's codify into law and show that we mean business. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to confess. I originally came into the bill expecting that -- and I was inclined to vote no on the bill, concerned about local control, mandates, et cetera. But the charge we have in this chamber, and we'll all see it differently in the interpretation, is to take care of our most vulnerable residents. Those are our elderly at the end of life, and those are our children. When I started my career in banking, the cell phone looked like a 1945 walkie talkie. It was not very mg/rr 201 portable. It was not in the hands of our children, and there was no major development of social media. I've gone around the chamber as I want to do, and people think I'm either just telling a joke or taking the temperature. And I think the statement that politics makes strange bedfellows is probably most accurate at this point. And I've gone around the room and asked people that I expected to be a yes and they were no, and people that I expected to be a no and they were yes. And I think the commentary from a couple of legislators on both sides of the aisle talking about how they wrestled with the issue, and we're going to listen to the debate. I think this has to be one of the most fruitful places we've gotten to in this session, and having an honest conversation about who we are and where we're going. But I think ultimately I fall on the line of I have a responsibility under my sworn oath to the state and the constitution, and as a father of three people, three children, to consider the impacts. And I heard across the aisle from a noted restaurant tour about ideations and his concerns. And I think those are the signs that ring true. You can rest at ease. I just wanted to say that you can expect my support on the bill. I think I would like us to mg/rr 202 come back in a year's time and see if there are more at the margins of unintended consequences and need for some tweaking and trimming to make sure that the one size fits all fits everybody. There is the glass slipper problem that I think Cinderella faced. And in 169 communities, we probably will face that at some point. But I think the intent and the legislation is good, and I stand in support of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 203 So this has been an interesting discussion, but many school systems already have rules in place. I take the example of South Windsor. We were on the forefront of coming up with rules and how the cell phones could be used and how they're stored during class time. And just a couple of comments here. Prohibitive use. Students are not allowed to use cell phones during regular class periods, assessments, presentations, assemblies, or in restroom and locker rooms. So they've touched upon that huge issue of prohibited use. Storage, Students are required to place their phones in designated areas at the front of the room before class begins so that they know if there had been an emergency where the cell phones would be, yet they're not accessible during classroom time. Permitted use. Phones may be used before and after school, during passing times, and in the cafeteria library. They may also be used in class if a teacher explicitly authorizes them for an educational purpose. Again, common sense at work in the rules at the school. And lastly, study halls. High school students generally have more flexibility and are permitted to use their phones during study mg/rr 204 hall periods. Again, common sense. The kind of things that you could think about, have a work group, and decide to do. So my question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent, we have in South Windsor a workable policy. One that addresses the issues that are important to the schools, the superintendent, the teachers, and the students. Would this bill require the rules to be substantially changed from what they are and where they are today? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I first apologize if my good colleague, who has one of the greatest superintendents in the state, very lucky to have, that superintendent. But if you detailed your policy, I apologize, I missed it. But what this bill likely does, that's a change from existing policies, typically, is that it does not allow phones for passing periods and lunch. That's usually the big difference between what districts who have a policy mg/rr 205 that does not bell-to-bell versus this one. If the South Windsor policy is one that allows for cell phone usage during passing periods, for example, this would require an adjustment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the proponent of the bill. Follow-up question. And this goes to the heart of the matter of what I've heard a lot of discussion about today, cost, unfunded mandate, et cetera. We have a system that works. We have a system that has the material to stow the cell phones away. And we have a substantial level of control to make sure that the phones aren't used when they shouldn't be and when the phones can be used when they should be. Would that require South Windsor School system to purchase some kind of special containment that would prohibit the phone from being able to get a signal out? And what would that cost be? mg/rr 206 Or would it be okay if say, we have a policy in place, and do we not have to do that or spend that money? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There's no fiscal note in this policy because we don't require districts to adopt any specific storage. So whatever storage is happening invert working very well in South Windsor would continue to be fine under this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the proponent of the bill. So just to boil it down for clarity, a town like South mg/rr 207 Windsor would be okay. They have the equipment to maintain, not to preclude utilization of the cell phones in a bad manner per se. And just to be clear, to hear it twice, would there be any cost? Because we've already got the material in place. We've already got the policy in place. We already have the training in place, and the students are up to speed in what the expectations are. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No additional cost.

mg/rr 208 Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the proponent of the bill. I have no further questions, commentary, etcetera. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I can ask a question and then make a statement.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the component of the bill, Thank you for sharing a lot of the particulars that some people didn't understand. But I just want to make sure to some folk that might mg/rr 209 be watching and through some texts that I received, this does not mean that schools have to go out and purchase some of those things right away to put the phones in. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That's correct.

Thank you. And I'm just going to make a statement now so you can relax. I do meet with youth on a regular basis. I actually have a youth program that we call Teen Talk. And this became, at first, a very intense conversation with youth because initially, they felt the need to have their phones in school. But after mg/rr 210 talking about the details and the distractions that some of them had admitted to, many of the students, admitted to wanting to be on their phone just to get on TikTok, wanted to be on their phone just to send messages to their friends, and admitted that a lot of the times that they were on their phone that it was distracting them from what they were in school to do. But because they were allowed to, many of them enjoyed that opportunity. Last week, we closed out a meeting of teen talk. And the youth said or they acknowledge the need for them to put down their phones in school because they do understand that a lot of them are missing things by being distracted by their phones. And I was surprised that the meeting closed that way. So I just wanted to share that little bit and just share with my colleagues that I will be supporting this bill. And I hope that my fellow colleagues will also. And I thank everyone further back and forth today because a lot was understood from some that didn't understand. And I think this is a good bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions, if I may.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, do local boards of education already have the statutory power and ability to implement a cell phone policy similar to the one that's in this bill? Through you.

mg/rr 212 Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And when authorized by the local board of education, do the local superintendents of schools have the power and authority to implement a cell phone policy similar to the one that's in this bill? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And when authorized by the local superintendent, do the school principals have the power and authority to implement a policy similar to the one that's in this bill? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And when authorized by the school principal, do teachers have the ability to implement a policy similar to the one that is in this bill. Through you. mg/rr 214

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then in the infamous words of my colleague from New Milford, what are we doing here? The people that we have that our districts have elected as boards of education and the people that they have hired as superintendents, as principals, and as teachers already can do what we are trying to do, what we are trying to force them to do. If we don't trust them to manage the schools, we should fire them all, disband the boards of education, and micromanage all the schools in a Connecticut unified school system from this chamber. mg/rr 215 If we're not going to do that, then let's leave them to do their jobs. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Bill 5035, as amended: Total Number Voting 148 Necessary for Passage 75 Those voting Yea 117 Those voting Nay 31 Those absent and not voting 3

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, as I stand to make an announcement and also an introduction.

Today, we had Southeastern Connecticut Day 35 plus tables. And I just want to say thank you to everybody who participated in going down there meeting and greeting people. But also on this day, I want to introduce Jeffrey Zapata and his family, who happens to be my barber, but also who has taken on a herculean effort to do as many haircuts up here today at the Hartford Capitol to not only legislators, but friends and families that came for Southeastern Connecticut Day. And at the same time, in talking with the governor, Jeffrey Zapata, who is a master barber, has been appointed to the Connecticut Examining Board for barbers, hairdressers, and cosmeticians, along with his wife and children. And I want them to stand before us today because it's the first time that we had someone on the board with such skills and such education as Jeffrey. He has come a long way. He has always given haircuts out to the community members in our community during and before or after mg/rr 218 school. And I just wanted to introduce you to him and thank everybody, and ask people to give them a nice applause for all the work that they continue to do in New London and in the state. (applause)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise for purposes of an announcement.

As you all saw in your emails this morning, we'll be doing our annual dress down day this Friday, May 1, as we have another mg/rr 219 dress down day this week as well. We're just going to charge $10 this time. You can Venmo it to me or hand me good old-fashioned cash. And I hope everyone participates as you always do. Thank you.

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

As many folks are familiar, every year, we have a Save a Suit drive, where the suit donations benefit the veterans in our mg/rr 220 communities who may need a suit to prepare for an interview. This year, it's a double feature. On the 29th, if you bring in your suits, they'll get dry cleaned and sent away. And on the 4th, we will have veterans coming and preparing for suit interviews. And since this illustrious chamber is filled with so many competent and qualified professionals, you have the opportunity to meet with veterans who are preparing for interviews, give them feedback and coaching, and we would be very grateful for not only your donations of suits, but also your donations of mentorship and time. Please consider donating your suit prior to the 29th. I'll hold them in my office. I think I might volunteer. My ranking member maybe he'll take them too, Rep. Anderson. And then we will be very happy to make sure they get dry cleaned and prepared for the veterans to come on the 4th and try them on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On page 52, Calendar 76, House Bill Number 5142, An Act Concerning the Use of Technology for a Virtual Visitation and Monitoring in Nursing Homes and Residential Care Homes. Favorable Report of Aging.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

mg/rr 222 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. HB 5142. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 4331. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 4331, offered by Representative Garibay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill ensures that residentials and residential care homes can set up virtual monitoring systems mg/rr 223 so that their loved ones can feel safe and they can keep an eye on them. It mirrors the existing language that now applies in nursing homes. It's just in residential care. And I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the call. Nice to see you on this beautiful sunny day. I wish to ask the good Chair of the Aging Committee a couple of questions. Through you, sir?

Thank you. We know that some folks in the chamber are uncomfortable whenever we have a strike-all amendment. So, through mg/rr 224 you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to address the proponent of the bill and ask her, what is the difference between the original bill and the strike all?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill has been narrowed down to just being about virtual monitoring instead of virtual visitation. We also separated this bill from the nursing home statutes at the request of RCHs because the nursing home statue had sections that were not relevant to RCHs. We removed an exemption from the federal privacy laws in the nursing home virtual monitoring statue, and these improvements were made in response to some concerns in the industry. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the good proponent. Through you, Mr. Speaker, does this virtual monitoring bill require that the facility itself have responsibility for any of this electronic equipment? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

No. It does not require any responsibility onto the facility. The individual is responsible for the purchasing, installation, upkeep, removing if necessary, et cetera. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 226 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the proponent. One more question about this. In assisted living facilities and homes, sometimes there are actually more commonly two bedrooms. So my question would be, how are we handling the privacy issue amongst roommates? Is there a choice to be had. through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They have to get permission from their roommate. They have to sign paperwork, plus the roommate has to sign paperwork, and it can change at any time. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

mg/rr 227 Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the proponent. I would like to just say for the record, and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I strongly support the amendment because, in essence, what it does do is it relieves the nursing facility from all liability, and it addresses privacy concerns that were in the prior piece of the bill, so that there is the need for written affirmative consent amongst the parties, which is revocable based on changes of mind or changes of heart or changes of circumstances. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I do recommend passage of House Amendment A, and look forward to addressing the greater bill in a moment. Thank you, sir.

Aye. mg/rr 228

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to just observe that the proponent of the bill and the entire Aging Committee collaborated very closely with all the stakeholders on this particular piece of legislation, And both the industry, our patients and our legislators seem to have stricken or struck a very, very good core. So, I will leave this issue with my thanks to the proponent, and I will end by saying this is a good bill and it ought to pass. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Bill 5142, as amended: Total Number Voting 150 Necessary for Passage 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1 mg/rr 230

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a purpose of announcement. The Republicans will be caucusing in Room 110. Thank you very much.

Stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. mg/rr 231

Page 57. Calendar 266. Substitute for House Bill No. 5323. AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE EDUCATION STATUTES. Favorable Report of Education.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment LCO No. 4856. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4856, offered by Representative Brown, Representative Leeper et al.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a strike-all amendment of various changes to the education statutes, and I would ask if it's okay with my good ranking member that we adopt the amendment, and then I summarize the underlying bill afterwards.

Thank you. That'll be fine.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. We remark on the bill as amended, Representative Brown.

Thank you, sir. Representative Zupkus.

Proceed, ma'am.

Representative Brown, do you care to respond?

Representative Zupkus.

[Crosstalk] loud in here. Representative Brown, perhaps if you held the microphone closer, pass it closer to your head. Could you repeat that for Representatives Zupkus and the rest of us who couldn't quite hear it, please?

Representative Zupkus.

mg/rr 240 Representative Brown? Typically, it's a C average. From my understanding, it's C. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you for that. And then in Section 5, this to me almost seems like school construction. Would the good representative just please explain that through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's not funding or money issue here, it simply allows for swing space at the Fairchild Wheeler School to be utilized by the Bridgeport Military Academy while the construction is taking place at the Bridgeport campus. Through you, Mr. Speaker. mg/rr 241

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moving to Section 10, could the good representative -- I know when this was talked about, one of my concerns was more testing on our students because during committee, we always talk about how can we do less testing. And so, through you, Mr. Speaker, could the good representative just speak to that a little bit in this section?

So through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe the good representative, if she's referring to testing, that's actually Sections 8 and 9 -- or 7 and 8. Excuse me. And through you, Mr. Speaker, those sections are -- the intent of those sections is to reduce the broad assessments. So, broad school-wide based mg/rr 242 assessments that are typically given multiple times throughout the school year. This does not touch the state standardized testing typically given at the end of the year, but more so the broad- based school district level tests that are given throughout at -- multiple intervals throughout the year, to lessen that burden and to find ways to do more teacher-based and other ways of assessing students. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just have a comment. My last comment is that I know the last section was added, and we're grateful for that. In our schools, we've been seeing in the news a lot of teachers assaulting kids. There was another incident where someone was hired from a former place. So, I'm hopeful that the section in -- the last section that was just added will really help to curtail some of that because we need to watch and be sure who we're hiring are really who we're hiring and they're good. So, I just do want to thank the good representative and the chair for mg/rr 243 allowing that to go in. And I'll just end with a happy birthday to the chair of Education because it is her birthday today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill, but more than anything, I want to thank my colleagues across the aisle for their bipartisan nature and bringing, particularly, Section 11, the last section, forward on this bill. My town, particularly, I know many towns are having the same issue about. It was a big struggle in my town because we had a teacher who was caught doing inappropriate behavior in a classroom. And unfortunately, this teacher had been seen in what we thought was two other towns teaching. And we found out even later, it was a third town in which he actually had a conviction. mg/rr 244 This bill is so important in closing that loop and making sure there is transparency in hiring, because when we send our kids to school, we want to trust that everyone has had the proper vetting process. And the schools and the teachers want to do the right thing in making sure the hiring process is upheld, and this just gives them the tools to do that. So I am very thankful, and I am supportive of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Bill 5323 is amended by House A: Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 77? mg/rr 246

Representative Garibay of the 60th District, you have the floor.

The question before the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Garibay, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4566, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

The speaker seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Garibay, you may proceed with summarization.

The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Bolinsky of the 106th District, you have the floor.

mg/rr 249 Please proceed.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Bolinsky. mg/rr 250

Representative Garibay.

Representative Bolinksy. mg/rr 251

Representative Garibay.

Representative, can you please repeat the question?

Representative Garibay.

Representative Bolinksy.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Bolinsky.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Ackert of the 8th District. You have the floor.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Ackert.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment mg/rr 257 before us? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th District. You have the floor.

Please proceed.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay, you have--

mg/rr 259 Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

mg/rr 264 Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

mg/rr 266 Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Hughes of the 135th District, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Bolinsky of the 106th District, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Dauphinais of the 44th District. You have the floor.

Representative Garibay.

Representative Dauphinais.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment mg/rr 274 before us? Representative Pizzuto of the 71st District. You have the floor.

Representative Garibay.

mg/rr 275 I mean, through you, Madam Chair, I completely support the concept. I think it's great. And to my good colleague, Anne, eight hours may be excessive, but if it's every two years, that may work. But thank you for the input. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and mg/rr 276 guests please come to the well of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally, and the Clerk please announce the tally.

The bill passes as amended. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 54?

Representative Parker, you have the floor.

Before the chamber -- the question before the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Parker, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4266? House -- designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Parker, you can proceed with summarization.

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Callahan of the 108th District, you have the floor.

Please proceed. mg/rr 281

Representative Parker.

Representative Callahan.

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

Thank you, madam. So just a thank you to all the advocates that worked on this bill and the folks, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, that have advocated for it and had conversations. We're proud to be able to do meaningful policy that helps keeps conversations going, and we look forward to everyone that's going to serve on this working group, some of our colleagues in legislature that will be leading it. And we can't wait to jump back into this one next year. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just briefly, this was a collaborative effort, and I do appreciate always having a collaborative effort with the leadership of the Environment Committee. And I think we can come out with a good product here because all the right participants are there. And since the mg/rr 285 amendment is now the underlying bill, I do support it, and that's the end of my comments.

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

House Bill 5155 as amended by House A: Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

On Page 26. Calendar 320. House Bill No. 5525, AN ACT CONCERNING A RAPID RESPONSE PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES. Favorable Report of Environment.

The question before the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and the passage of the bill. Representative Parker, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4498, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A". mg/rr 288

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative Parker, you may proceed with the summarization.

The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Callahan of the 108th District, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So what this does -- we have a problem with hydrilla on our inland water bodies, rivers, lakes, streams. And what this does, and I'd like to say on the record legislative intent, is not -- some people think hydrilla treatment, how do we get rid of it, is always chemicals. It's not always chemicals, there's also harvesting techniques that are available. And what this does, since hydrilla and other invasive species have a time when they drop their seeds, hydrilla being mid-September, this gives us an accelerated path to mapping it out and getting through the Ag Station DEEP out there to treat it before it drops seeds in a 10 by 10 area becomes a 100 by 100 area the next year. So this is to get our state agencies involved in making sure that that doesn't happen, so we have a bigger problem year after year. And, again, it could be different methods being employed, not always chemicals, but other means to treat that. It's just mg/rr 292 getting to it before the problem becomes worse. And I think we've taken a step towards doing that with this bill and this amendment, and there's a lot of people collaborating. We heard the people during the public hearing, and we moved to change a few things in the amendment. And I think it's a good bill to allow for the beginning of some rapid response to deal with this, so our lakes and rivers aren't choked out by these invasives, not just hydrilla, but Eurasian milfoil and others. So, a good step forward to helping get the problem under control. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hydrilla and other invasives have really been a disaster to my district. So on behalf of the 36th District, I'd like to thank the Environment Committee chairs and members on both sides of the aisle who are willing to work on this mg/rr 293 issue with me, as well as the agencies who are going to operationalize this bill, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, specifically, its Office of Aquatic Invasive Species. So as my colleague pointed out, this bill isn't about cutting corners. It's about cutting delays to our readiness to respond to these plants. It allows us to move faster, cut unnecessary delays, and act when it most matters. And importantly, our local partners and our agencies can work together, and we can start to maximize the federal money that is available to treat invasive species. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A question to the good proponent of the bill as amended?

Thank you. So I have -- the district I served has many lakes with, unfortunately, many species in it that we don't want in it. What makes -- how is the response going to be more rapid than it is now? Through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 295 Through you, Madam Speaker, thank you for the question. I'm going to point to lines 68 or so in the bill. I'll jump up to 58. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station's Office of Aquatic Invasive Species in consultation with DEEP, shall develop a state rapid response protocol. So there's a lot to still be worked out here, but we're trying to get the right people in place to make those decisions and figure out how they can actually move this forward more quickly. And so just jumping down the such steps may include public education and outreach, containment strategies, treatment methods, associated timelines, and any additional actions deemed necessary. So there's some broad latitude in the bill to try to empower the folks that are dealing with this, sounds like including you, the folks that you work with, too, in your communities, to figure out what that protocol ought to be and then how to operationalize it. So there's still a little bit of work to be figured out, that this bill contemplates. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, and so right now, is the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Sation not involved with this process today with DEEP, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. It's a great question. They are certainly involved, but the bill expands their role in a way that aligns with their current practices and intentions. So, for instance, as the bill says, the Ag Station shall assist rapid response efforts related to newly discovered hydrilla and newly introduced aquatic species identified, and I'm not going to keep reading from the bill. You get the idea here. So, Ag Station and OIAS is certainly involved with this work, but they have the opportunity to really step in and provide additional expertise and to more effectively partner with the department, who's also working mg/rr 297 on this and, as we know, has a lot of other priorities as well. Madam Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the answer. Because what I've struggled with that I hear from -- you know, lake association groups that contact me, and they go, Tim, can you help them just approve our permit? We're ready to go. We're going to miss the treatments, the treatment time season. Hydrilla is one of those that you have to come back, matter of fact, the Coventry Lake is a 10-year plan just to try to maintain and to -- it's for 10 years of cost and investment that the town has to submit, which typically does. There is some offset with some grants, that's competitive grants. Is there any additional grant process in this legislation? I don't see anything, but forget to get any answer on that through you, Madam Speaker, for the assistance to communities to help battle these invasive species. mg/rr 298

Through you, Madam Speaker, no. The bill does not have any new grant opportunities for communities, though I suppose if and the development of this plan. There's a identify need for additional resources. We'd be happy to hear about that next year on the committee. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And it looks like there's quite a bit of information being provided to the public. Is there a process to help the municipality work with DEEP with this legislation to help do -- make their efforts stronger and more rapid, I could say, to fit the legislation. So, is there any of that type of mg/rr 299 coordination to help the communities that want to get into the rapid response program with this DEEP? Thank you.

Through you, Madam Speaker. I don't believe the bill yet. The bill in front of us explicitly outlines what those partnerships would look like with the municipalities. I welcome, if there's a line in here that the good representatives is considering. But it's certainly my understanding that in the development of this overall rapid response protocol, ways to interact with municipalities would be high on the list, in order to figure out. Through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 300 Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think that what strikes me the best and strong support of this is it falls in where they're actually saying that expedited permitting occurs. And I'm hoping that's what comes out of this because I think just a regular process would have been better than where we're at now. I do appreciate the work that DEEP does when we get to that level. So if that helps our communities to help fight these invasive species and control the spread in our lakes and from lakes, now rivers, how it's throughout the rivers now too. So I thank the good gentleman for his answers, and I look forward to hoping that this actually is a key that we can help our lakes and our communities. So thank you for the work of the Environment Committee, and you and the good ranking member. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 301 Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to speak on the bill as amended. I think it's a great bill. I think we ought to pass it. In my district, we have lakes, we have reservoirs, and we have the Connecticut River. And there is particular interest in the Connecticut River and its hydrilla problem. And the fact is, is that we have boats that go in and out of rivers and lakes and back and forth. We have seaplanes that land on the river, and then they get land on the lakes. There's so much of these invasive weeds that go back and forth between these water bodies, and then we really do have to act fast when we see a bloom. So this is a great bill. I believe that the agencies who want to work with the local municipalities to make sure that they deal with these weeds, but it has to be done exponentially quicker than it normally is the process. So if this can speed up that process, this is great. So I urge all my colleagues to make sure you vote for this bill because we really do need it. We need to get rid of these things. Otherwise, we're going to have any kind of recreational boating and living on a beautiful lake. It's just not possible anymore if we don't do something. And we need to control it. We need to control it quickly. So great bill ought to pass. Thank you. mg/rr 302

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just brief, thanks again to my colleagues on the committee and to my colleagues that as a newbie to the legislature, did a lot of great work to push this forward. It's not an easy one. A lot of folks involved, and so I really appreciate your leadership, representative. And a big thanks to the agricultural experiment station and the Office of Aquatic Invasive Species for stepping up, helping us find a way to make sure there's no fiscal note on this. We don't have the question, but it's clear, and looking forward to this moving forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

House Bill 5525 is amended by House A: Total number voting 150 Necessary for passage 76 mg/rr 304 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1

On page 16, calendar 233, substitute OF House Bill No. 5243, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM PLAN FOR THE GREATER MYSTIC AREA. Favorable Report of Commerce.

mg/rr 305 Thank you, Madam Speaker, from the great city of Meriden, the Silver City, I believe.

The question before the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Meskers, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4426, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to the summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Meskers, you may proceed with summarization.

The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Meskers, you have the floor?

Representative Aniskovich of the 35th District. You have the floor. mg/rr 308

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

mg/rr 309 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this is my second bite at the apple as it were. We established a working group in the last session. I would humbly recognize that I think I invited too many people to the party, and we were trying to get to the fine points of the bill. And we basically got a summary report, but didn't give us the right level of direction. So the bill, as amended, establishes a working group to develop a plan for economic development in tourism in the Greater Mystic area. We want to study potential for sources of funding for breakwater restoration in Stonington Harbor, to open, option to ease traffic and parking pressure, and potential easements and infrastructure improvements to enhance accessibility and coastal resiliency in the area. Currently, the breakwater in Stonington Harbor essentially rests at high tide and at flood tide level. In the occurrence of a storm, the breakwater will be overtopped, and the entire harbor will suffer tremendous damage. Inclusiveness of that is a recently appropriated 500,000 from the state and 500,000 from the federal government to rebuild the only commercial fishing pier in the town of Mystic and in the state of Connecticut. So it's an active working pier. We're working to rebuild it. We're looking to get some funding for the breakwater in addition to the other activities mg/rr 310 there. The Mystic area is also experiencing accessibility issues, including a lack of parking spaces. There are various other projects that need that Mystic needs and ought to be addressed to improve tourism and resiliency. And this working group will better help, and to better collaborate and organize those plans. Mystic, as everyone knows, is a major tourist destination compromising the towns of Stonington and Groton. Right? And so our hope here is that we can move forward and grow the Mystic economy if we can establish the proper sources of funding in the future. I urge passage.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I concur with everything that he said. I think it's wonderful that the working group that will kind of reorganize, get some new voices, get some new people mg/rr 311 involved so that there are different voices of people in the area so that they can bring better new ideas that we may not have thought about before. And also just the area. It's a big economic development area, and I think the things that we'll be doing with this working group, with the new membership, we'll be pushing this stuff forward so that we can make some decisions that would make Mystic more accessible through some parking, which is obviously a big problem and a big struggle down there. But overall, the area and the improvements that we can make to the area to make it better for our state. So with that, I urge adoption.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. mg/rr 312

House Bill 5243: Total voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent, not voting 2

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, on House Bill 5155, House Calendar No. 52, I'd like to note in the journal in the affirmative, please.

Page Nine. Calendar 137. Substitute for the House Bill No. 5286.

mg/rr 314 Page Nine, Calendar 137, substitute for House Bill No. 5288, AN ACT CONCERNING UTILITY CONNECTIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. Favorable Report of Joint Standing Committee of Planning and Development.

Good evening, Madam Speaker. Nice to see you. Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

mg/rr 315 Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. As we did earlier in this session with a separate bill, this bill refers to special act towns. Unfortunately, they have to come to us as the state in order to get some of the same provisions in zoning that other towns have. And the other most important part of this bill is that we are changing around some definitions with some LCO cleanup around accessory dwelling units, instead of accessory apartments or affordable accessory apartments. So a lot of this bill, even though it looks long, is cleanup. And again, I would just draw everyone's attention to the substantial change being the first line of Section 2, when it says or any special act towns. That's the piece that is the most important. And I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good evening. Yes. According to the proponent, which she's absolutely right, this is just really under a special act for New Haven, and the New Haven delegation, they're mg/rr 316 trying to add water sewer -- water connections for the ADUs, and they can't do it without our permission. So we're here to give them permission. Happy to support the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a quick question for clarification to the proponent of the bill. Back in 2021, I know we passed a bill to approve excess dwelling units for as of right, and they've municipalities had to opt out by a certain date. Does any of that affect this bill at all? Did it expand it a little bit more? What is the diff -- how would that affect this bill through you?

Through you, Madam Speaker, this would not affect that at all. This is really very highly specifically for special act towns. We think there are around seven. However, the one that really we've actually had responses from some of those towns saying, no. Actually, we're not special act towns. So in this case, it really is about New Haven being able to do what they want to do with zoning and the sewer lines around ADUs, but they have to come to us as a special act town in order to get that done, through you.

Thank you. That's all I had. I just wanted to get clarification. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just briefly, if I may, the special act towns, if the good proponent can, tell me generally, are they over certain signs? What are the special act towns? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, this is basically about New Haven. That is a special act town. Supposedly, we have others, but when you call them, they say, nope. That's not us. So we're talking about New Haven today. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I'm just going through it. There's some buzzwords here that concern my towns that I represent. And as I understand it, then the only town that's affected by this legislation is in New Haven. Correct? Through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is what we believe. Yes.

mg/rr 320 Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Question to the proponent of the bill?

Because right now, maybe this is more of a -- and I guess it's just a certain town, because I know right now, I do a lot of this work. We actually have a lot of people taking advantage of ADUs, I guess, it's a good accessory dwelling unit that you can put on your house. And we've run utilities to them. So this in no mg/rr 321 way negatively affects what we're doing now. This is just a carve- out for a given town, I guess, here. But right now, this is something that people are taking advantage, now because I know that one of the testifiers at the Homebuilding Remodelers Association that really want to make sure that this is an opportunity for people to have their in-laws and or family members get a section. So in no way does that obviously affect what we're doing now through you, Madam Speaker. Is that correct?

Through you, Madam Speaker. That is correct. We are not trying to impinge on anybody's ability to do that.

mg/rr 322 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Appreciate that. Thank you to the good chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just actually was going through this bill, and I just actually had just a couple more questions if I can.

Thank you. I'm looking through the bill. Current law right now talks about I'm looking just online for accessory apartment. We're taking that out and changing it to an accessory dwelling unit. Through you, Madam Speaker, what is the difference on that? mg/rr 323

Madam Speaker, we are just trying to clean up in statute. The accessory dwelling unit is now more commonly used than accessory apartment or affordable accessory apartment. So it's basically an LCO cleanup. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I know the reference of New Haven has come up a few times, but I don't see anything about that in this bill, and I don't see any testimony referencing New Haven. And I wonder if the good chairwoman can clarify, through you.

Through you, Madam Speaker, this was put in by a member of the New Haven delegation. As I had mentioned previously, if you look at lines 20 and 21, you will see that is the big change, which would encompass them because they are a special act town. So it says any zoning regulations adopted pursuant to Section 8-2 or any special act shall. That is the big change is that now New Haven will be able to use this in a way that they had not had access to before, and unfortunately, have to go through us as the state because they can't do it on their own. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And just one more final question. I don't see -- I know we mentioned New Haven that their delegation, but I don't see any public hearing testimony coming in directly from them mg/rr 325 saying that this they approve this. This is what they want. Is there any public hearing testimony maybe that's not filed that we can't see? Did they send in any communication at all, through you?

Through you, Madam Speaker, their Representative from New Haven is on the Planning and Development committee. I am not aware of any other testimony that was submitted, but as their representative, that was the bill that he brought forward to the committee and that we chose to run with. So I think that is testimony enough for New Haven. Through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 326 Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I get their Representative is on the planning committee, but that doesn't give us here any information on something that we're voting on. So I just wanted to see if there was anything else. I have nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to the proponent of the bill, my concern is Litchfield is one of my towns that I represent, who seem to oppose this strongly, saying that the bill, as they argue, would prohibit municipalities and water pollution control from charging sewer connection fees for accessory apartments. They explain how removing this revenue stream would weaken the financial position of Litchfield's water pollution and control authority, which could lead to higher user fees in all the residents or deferred maintenance. mg/rr 327 Additionally, they believe that the bill would be removing local discretion and that a one-size-fits-all mandate isn't realistic for Connecticut towns similar to Litchfield. Through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, is this incorrect?

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. And I don't want to disparage them, but I think they may have incorrectly read that because, again, this applies to special act towns. So it would not be an issue for them.

Representative Redding-Hughes. mg/rr 328

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the second time. And just to clarify it, to the good proponent, now I understand much better. I apologize in reading it quickly. Only one working eye right now. So, Section 8-20 is the section that's being replaced. mg/rr 329 And so any municipality that opted out is not going to be impacted by this legislation. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct. And, also, again, it would only -- if you're a special act town and you opted out, it's a double. Absolutely not.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And my understanding through a quick Google search is the only towns impacted by this are New Haven, Montville, Salem, and Stonington. Could be wrong, but that's generally my understanding. Is that does that sound about right, through you, Madam Speaker? mg/rr 330

Through you, Madam Speaker, that does sound about right. I will say that we had done some time -- spent some time researching this prior to this for a different bill, and we actually think it might even be fewer towns than that. But for the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to say yes. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. That's all I have. And I appreciate the good proponent's responses and the chair's indulgence -- the speaker's indulgences for the second time. Thank you.

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

House Bill 5288: Total number voting 148 mg/rr 332 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 135 Those voting Nay 13 Absent and not voting 3

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for suspension of our rules for immediate consideration of Calendar 231.

mg/rr 333 Calendar 231, substitute for House Raised Bill No. 5508. Favorable Report of Joint Standing Committee on Planning and Development. AN ACT CONCERNING HISTORIC DISTRICTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

Good evening, Madam Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

mg/rr 334 Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4687. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO 4687 designated House "A" and offered by Representative Kavros DeGraw.

mg/rr 335 Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment will turn the bill into a task force. The first section of the bill becomes a task force to study the laws governing historic districts and preservation. Section 2 will extend the opportunities for the historic preservation tax credit to rehabilitation projects that are residential for two to four units. I move acceptance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Due to the fact that this basically amends the bill, we'll just wait till the bill goes through and then we'll make comments. Thank you.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Haines.

Please proceed.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Haines. I'm sorry. Representative Haines.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Haines.

mg/rr 342 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Wood of the 29th District, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Yaccarino of the 87th District, you have the floor.

Please proceed.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative O'Dea of the 125th District, you have the floor.

Representative Chafee. mg/rr 347

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Chafee. mg/rr 348

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Chafee.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Comey of the 102nd District, you have the floor.

Please proceed.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Comey.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Will you remark further on this bill as amended? If not, will staff --

Okay. Quot in time. Representative Courpas, you have the floor.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Chafee.

mg/rr 354 Representative Courpas.

Could you repeat that, Representative Chafee?

Representative Courpas.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Courpas.

Representative Chafee.

Representative Courpas.

mg/rr 357 Representative Chafee.

Representative Courpas.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

The bill as amended passes. (gavel)

On page 56, Calendar 199, substitute for House Bill No. 5375. AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE WORKING GROUPS. Favorable Report of Insurance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk has amendment LCO No. 4411. I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4411 offered by Representative Wood, Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment just expands Section 1 regarding the feasibility study. What we're doing here is we're implementing the recommendations from working groups held over the summer, fall, and winter. Section 1 is regarding the nonprofit liability working group, and we are looking to expand the insurance policies, allowing nonprofits to pool their liability insurance, establish a captive insurance company. And in Section 2, we held a working group on pharmacist compensation, and the language in Section 2 gives them a path to mg/rr 362 get reimbursed through their insurance here in the state of Connecticut, and I urge adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve my comments till after the amendment passes.

All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

You may proceed.

mg/rr 364 Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. mg/rr 365

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

mg/rr 373 Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Woods.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Will you mark further on the bill as amended? Will you mark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will all members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the Clerk please take a tally? Will the Clerk please call the tally? mg/rr 376

The bill passed as amended. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 284?

Representative Bumgardner.

The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorite Report and passage of the bill. Representative Bumgardner, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Callahan. mg/rr 379

Please proceed.

Representative Bumgardner.

Representative Callahan.

Representative Foster. mg/rr 381

Thank you, Representative. Representative Nuccio.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Piscopo.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take your seat? The machine will be open.

mg/rr 387 Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will all members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk please take a tally. The Clerk please announce the tally.

The bill passes. (gavel)

On page 20, Calendar 263, House Bill No. 5247. AN ACT CONCERNING A TEST BED TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM AND THE JOBSCT TAX REBATE PROGRAM.. Favorable Report of Energy and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

mg/rr 389 Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we've heard before in recent years with regard to test bed. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment and I'd like to call the amendment and be granted a leave of the chamber to speak. It's LCO 4405.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4405 offered by Representative Steinberg.

mg/rr 390 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For those of you who've been paying attention, we've had this bill before us a couple times now. The amendment to this bill this year really gives the executive branch the full discretion on whether or not to exercise this tool that we are providing them. For those of you who are not familiar with the test bed bill, this bill enables state agencies to consider new technologies, which could be hardware, software, you name it, that could benefit the agencies, particularly to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. We recognize that our agencies are heavily burdened by their full tasks, and sometimes they just don't know what they don't know. There are technologies coming down the pike all the time. We have an excellent model for this particular type of tool Connecticut's successful Connecticut Innovations Program, which has worked very effectively in helping Connecticut businesses gain access to state agencies to help them with improving products. It's great for Connecticut, but it doesn't help us with companies from different states or even international ones. This is a tool which enables us to take advantage of a CI type program, mg/rr 391 but for all other states and for all other countries, I move adoption.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. This bill before us has had an interesting life. It has been before this committee before as many of us may remember. In the past, it's been vetoed by our Governor, and it came about again last year, and now here we see it again today. I have a couple questions, through you, to the proponent of the bill to kind of discuss some of the issues of this bill.

You may proceed.

Representative Steinberg.

mg/rr 394 Representative Marra.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Marra.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Steinberg.

Thank you. I will wait until after the amendment passes for my comments. Thank you.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

mg/rr 399 Representative Steinberg.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Demicco.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Demicco.

Representative Demicco.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Demicco.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Demicco. mg/rr 406

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Demicco.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Demicco.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Steinberg.

mg/rr 411 Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Yaccarino.

Representative Steinberg.

Representative Yaccarino.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Buckbee. mg/rr 415

Good evening.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Woods.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Ackert.

Please proceed.

Representative Steinberg.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought and there's a whole lot of maze in here this time. And I just wanted to make sure that we understood that, hey, listen. For the test bed process is at 30 to 60 days, as you put that app, that technology in, that them putting it in, the cost to put it in, the cost to remove that is all born by the applicant. And that's one of the areas I wanted touch base on and make sure I was reading that correctly. And then even if, which is amazing, that the may is really, you know, that the piece here. Even if the technology is something that they would actually like, mg/rr 419 they still don't have to purchase that technology. Is that correct, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate that question because it does highlight the process continues after that initial vetting. It's still up to the agency to determine through its normal process how they want to go about doing that. They may find that with the vetting already done that that process is a lot easier for them. But they can still pursue it, make sure they've got the bidding that they're supposed to have as per law. Through you.

mg/rr 420 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've supported this in the past. I think that if we found out that the technology was actually doing a better job than what we had, it should probably be a shall there. But, as it stands now, maybe as we get to move forward and we find out one of these technologies is truly valuable, that we go, "Hey. Wait a minute. This is probably something that we should have and implement in the state of Connecticut." So, I thank you for the good work, and I will be supportive of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Question to the Chair, if I may.

The lines 95, 97, proprietary information that is derived is not subject to FOI. Now proprietary information has been exempt from FOI since 1975, from the very beginning. But this derived I'm kind of confused. What are we covering here that the FOIA doesn't already cover?

Representative Steinberg.

And I'm a big FOI fan so that's kind of it's one of my things. If it had just a proprietary information is exempt, which would be a cut and paste from the original FOI Act, I'd be okay. But I just don't understand the statutory construction of adding the additional words. It bothers me, and I may vote no. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. mg/rr 423

House Bill 5247 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 3

On page 16, Calendar 229, House Bill No. 5501, AN ACT EXPANDING PERMISSIBLE USES FOR TOWN AID ROAD GRANT FUNDS. Favorable Report of Planning and Development.

Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

mg/rr 425 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill expands the permissible uses for town aid road grants to include the purchase of maintenance and various types of equipment. I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to just say that this bill came out of committee unanimously as a formal municipal leader in order to do a lot of the maintenance of the roads in our local towns. Sometimes we have equipment problems, and when we don't have the funds, if we have the tar money, that will help us either maintain the equipment or buy new pieces of equipment, new adjustments to the sweepers or to the roadside mowers, whatever the case may be. This money to be able to expand it to the use of that particular purchase would be really serve the towns well. So, it's a great bill. We ought to pass it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. mg/rr 426

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

House Bill 5501: mg/rr 427 Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 148 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 3

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 302?

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

We'll pass it to the bill.

Oh, using it differently? Give me the thing. I move for acceptance of the Joint Favorable Report. I pass it to the bill.

Madam Speaker, once again, the Clerk has amendment LCO 4662. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4662 offered by Representative Berger-Girvalo, Senator Cohen and Senator Hwang.

Good. Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is a result of months of collaboration with multiple stakeholders, including agencies, municipal leaders, advocates, and committee members. We address safety, state facilities and right of way, infrastructure, traffic congestion, certain registrations, vegetation, noise pollution, freight rail, as well as some technical and conforming changes. And if I may, we adjusted the committee policy of only naming roads and bridges on the longer session years so that we could name one space for our friend and one of our own Representative Kevin Ryan. I can't figure out if he would be tickled by this or irritated, but I do know there would be a joke at my expense in this very moment, and I sure would love to hear it. There is something in this bill for every single municipality and every single Representative in this room, and I urge support.

The line go. All right. I'm going to --

Are we going to adopt the amendment first, Madam Speaker? She did? I'm sorry. I didn't hear. She didn't adopt it. Right?

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Kennedy of the 119th District.

mg/rr 433 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy, can you please repeat the question?

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy. mg/rr 435

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo. mg/rr 437

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo. mg/rr 439

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo. mg/rr 443

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvallo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy. mg/rr 446

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

mg/rr 448 Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Yes. So, I was being fresh. But through you, Madam Speaker, if the good chairwoman could define what a service animal is. Is it dog, cat, a bunny? What is a service animal through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, we are pulling up the reference to the federal law.

mg/rr 453 Through you, Madam Speaker. It is not specified. Federal law does allow for the determination to be made within reason through a particular owner of the animal's needs.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the good chairwoman. And a lot of this came about because of safety reasons, and that's why, if you see in Section 10, we define sexual assault. Section 11 is a service animal. So that was done after an abundance of caution and abundance of information that we received from various constituents and others to provide safety when those are using, especially a woman using an Uber late at night. So I thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to go back for one quick session, second, to Section 16 and 17, and that's regarding the DOT -- the UConn study and the DOT vegetation. Sorry. It's late. I seem to recall that we've been looking at this for a couple years now. We've already had -- is this a second extension to have them file that report, through you, Madam Speaker? mg/rr 454

Through you, Madam Speaker. The interim report was already submitted, but yes, this is the second one. Through you.

I'm sorry. And it was an interim report, and we're waiting for additional information. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 455 Through you, Madam Speaker. That is correct.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on. In Section 23 and 24, we're looking at traffic signals. And I believe, if I understand this correctly, this is a grant program. If the good chairwoman could elaborate on this program? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, this is the part of the bill that I believe that anybody who has multiple traffic lights in their community will be voting for. This requires DOT to give priority under the Traffic Signal Modernization Grant Program to projects located in heavily congested areas rather than to grant mg/rr 456 applications submitted by two or more municipalities, which was a previous requirement, and makes a technical change. But the most important thing to understand is this is not expanding the bond authorization. DOT has the money for this. Through you.

Again, and just for my education and clarification, so municipalities would submit to the DOT for this bond authorization. Through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. The process would remain as it does now. Yes. mg/rr 457

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving into Section 25, and we're talking about zero emissions. And I believe that a good part of this bill has been changed and talked about a real lot, and we've brought it down to what it is. I believe this is now a study and pushing out the dates for our zero-emission school buses. If the good chairwoman could elaborate, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Once again, very happy too. Obviously, we all heard from our districts, municipalities about their concerns about being able to meet the deadlines that we set. This does push them back, and it requires 90% rather than a 100% of school buses to be zero-emission by 2040, and 50% of school mg/rr 458 buses in distressed municipalities to be zero emissions by 2035. This eliminates the existing requirement that environmental justice communities fully transition to zero-emission school buses by 2030 and requires municipalities to submit plans outlining how they will meet the requirements. This also modifies zero-emission school bus grant program requirements, including broadening the purposes for which the grants may be awarded beyond providing matching funds for federal grant applications. If a town is in a -- pardon me. If a town is in a distressed municipality, the entire municipality counts as an environmental justice community, just to clarify that. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And as a good chairwoman just mentioned, environmental justice community versus a distressed municipality. It's just a kind of play on words. But if the good chairwoman could just describe each of those for you, Madam Speaker. mg/rr 459

Through you, Madam Speaker, a distressed municipal -- oh, no. I'm sorry. An environmental justice community is either a distressed municipality or a US census block group where 30% of the population is living below 200% of the federal poverty level. So, to distinguish as it relates to this bill, if a town is distressed, I don't know why I can't say that word. A distressed municipality, the entire municipality counts as an environmental justice community, whereas an environmental justice community may not also be a distressed municipality. Through you.

Clear as mud. Correct. Just so, in that same Section starting around line 1205, the commissioner of energy environmental mg/rr 460 protection, along with consultation from the Green Bank, will make the determination what school district, what municipalities will be eligible for a grant. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. We added Green Bank to the list of those who would review this, but that is accurate. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And could the good chairwoman tell me what funds we have available to municipalities? Through you, Madam Speaker. mg/rr 461

Through you, Madam Speaker, we do not have that information in front of us.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. I thought there was a number that had been discussed, that there possibly was as much as $40 million available from the Green Bank. If the good chairwoman could confirm or deny that, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. There is an authorization of 40 million in new general obligation bonds for the school bus grant program in the initial bill. Green Bank did state that they did not need new authorization.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if additional municipalities or school districts were to be able to qualify, are additional monies beyond the 40 million, would they be available? Through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 463 Through you, Madam Speaker, no. They are not at this moment. However, the money that Green Bank has set aside for this has not been used in any of the years coming forward. So the anticipation is that what is there is sufficient at this time. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to Section 26, Section 26 with the executive director of the Connecticut Port Authority is going to convene a working group. If the good chairwoman could elaborate what that group will be looking at or a study group, if the good chairwoman could explain what they would be looking at or studying? Through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 464 Through you, Madam Speaker. So this would simply require the Connecticut Port Authority executive director or his designee to convene a working group to study, among other things, freight rails impacts and policies to encourage its use to transport goods in the state. Really, what we're just trying to do is get as much of this freight off of our highways and move them onto the rails. And it is important to note as well where we additionally had this assigned to DECD. This was taken on voluntarily by Port Authority at no cost. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And this is a very laudable goal that we need to do to get some of these heavy-duty trucks and big rigs off of our highways. So I applaud the efforts to do this. Moving on to Section 27. Section 27 is a new Section and has to do with encampment removals. If the good chairwoman could elaborate on what this bill -- what the intent of this Section is? Through you, Madam Speaker. mg/rr 465

Through you, Madam Speaker. So this part of the bill has two elements to it. The first part is, it is simply codifying what the DOT already does in relation to clearing encampments when they must, and that is, giving them 14 days to clear the space. The other piece of that is we are putting together a -- with DOT and DEMHS commissioners. They're going to study and make recommendations on best practices for us to implement next year, and that's related to encampments, which includes collection and storage of people's possessions as well as biohazard material disposal, and any other related concerns. It is important to note that this relates only to DOT properties, DOT right-of-ways. This does not hinder municipalities on their own property from doing whatever they are currently practicing. Again, it is strictly DOT right-of-way properties. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, could the good chairwoman tell us what is the current practice of the DOT? Is it in fact 14 working days? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. It is currently 14 days as their practice. There have been moments where they have been asked by municipalities to shorten that window. However, in the majority of cases, they do 14 day. Through you.

mg/rr 467 Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just for clarification, so my notes and it looks to me that currently it's 72 hours, but there are times when the DOT has gone as long as 14 days. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker? Is it currently 72 hours? Through you?

Through you, Madam Speaker, no. The DOT has specified that they are typically giving 14 day notice. It is, again, only when they are being asked by specific municipalities to speed up that process that they are doing so. And in fact, it was -- this bill language was written in collaboration with a deputy commissioner who used the practices that they are already using in the language. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then through you to the speaker. So this request for 14 days came from the DOT, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. No. The initial request came through advocates. Yeah.

Okay. So this request did not come from the DOT, who -- my notes state, is 72 hours, but when they have to, they're always mg/rr 469 willing to give the 14 days. I just want to make that clear. Through you, Madam Speaker. Is that correct?

Through you, Madam Speaker, one correction there. This is not in statute. This is not a written policy. And their policy is, in fact, 14 days, with the exception being the 72 hours, not the practice. And that is according to Commissioner Golido.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. But so moving along then, when we say DOT properties, does this include office buildings, rest areas, through you, Madam Speaker? mg/rr 470

Through you, Madam Speaker, no. It does not.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does this include train stations, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, no. mg/rr 471

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And the good chairwoman said we are codifying law. Could she clarify that statement, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, this simply means we are putting into law what is already in practice.

mg/rr 472 Thank you, Madam Speaker. And Madam Speaker, through you to the good chair lady, is the current practice that DOT has been using for a good amount of time now, I can't say the exact number of years, Is that not working any longer, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, the 14 days is working like a charm, which is why it was agreeable for them to be able to put this into statute.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In Subsection B, starting at line 1280, it goes into that notice will be left at an encampment and mg/rr 473 that it must be in English and Spanish. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker? And I have a follow-up to that.

Through you, Madam Speaker? Yes.

And could the good chairlady, through you, Madam Speaker, explain, is it placed on perhaps someone's tent? Is it left on a tree? I'm not sure. How was that notice left at an encampment, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it would simply be placed in a visible spot at DOT's discretion.

So, depending on where this written notice is left, there is always the chance it could possibly blow away or whoever is at that encampment may not ever see that. That is a possibility, isn't it, through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 475 Through you, Madam Speaker, of course, that is always a possibility. And in anticipation of the next question, I will just make clear that once it is posted, it is posted, whether or not the sign is still there.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So then, just to follow up on that, if DOT goes back and they don't find the sign and people are still there, does that start a new -- what's the word I want? Oh, new 14-day period, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, no. It does not. The day that it is posted is the day that the clock begins. mg/rr 476

And just for clarification, whether it is seen or not, it starts the 14-day period, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. That is correct.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I know for some, this may be long and daunting questions, and I know it's sometimes frustrating, mg/rr 477 but this is very important. In my town, I have a number of encampments, and I do have a lot of grave concerns there. Where does the personal property go through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, at the moment, that is determined with DOT in conjunction with the municipality. The second part of this Section of the bill is going to allow for that collaboration between DOT and DEMHS to determine what the best possible options are for municipalities that need this. So we are looking forward to hearing from them on their solutions to that very question. Through you.

Thank you. Madam Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence up there. I do greatly appreciate it. I just lost my train of thought. I apologize. So, when belongings and you know, I think a lot of times people think that it's just waste matter and other things. But for a person that is homeless, those aren't the only thing they have, those personal belongings. It's all they have. How do they find out where their belongings have been moved to, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Currently, there is no uniform way for municipalities or the DOT to address that. That will be part of the list of solutions that they will be searching for in their group together before they report back to us. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I promise I'm almost done. I just have one last question. So it's a 14-day period. It's 72 hours. Could be extended as long as 14 periods, but it is 72 hours. Extended out. Is it on the 15th day that DOT then goes in and takes away anyone's personal belongings, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it is following the end of the 14th day.

mg/rr 480 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on. And of course, we know the rest of the day, there is going to be a working group convened that will study and some of the things that we discussed, and hopefully, we'll get some more answers to that. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to Section 29, which is marine pilot license fees. It's my understanding that this is just a change in the annual fee that is long overdue. Is that correct? Through you, Madam Speaker. mg/rr 481

Through you, Madam Speaker. That is correct. There are only about 10 or and change pilots who have to pay this fee at a $105 annually. So this is not bringing in a significant amount of money. In fact, it costs more to process than they are pulling in by most report, through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I just may ask the good chairwoman, was this requested by the Marine Pilot Association, or by who was this requested by, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it was requested by the Port Authority.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to Section 31. Apologize. Let me just get my Section 1. We're talking about increased fines for certain violations of motor vehicles. If the good chair lady could define what those violations are and what those fines would be, through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 483 Through you, Madam Speaker. Happy to. So this increase is a fine that already exists from $150 to $1,000 per offense, and the primary goal is to come at the mufflers that sound like -- that are designed to sound like gunshots. This is going to increase that fine, as I said, again, from $150 to $1,000. And this applies not only to the person, but also to any shop who installs, which is already in the existing statute, through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And definitely, since I live on a state road, essentially, this is definitely I hear very, very what very often. My one concern is if a car goes by, a police car, let's say, and the muffler makes all the noise that it makes, and maybe this is not the question right now, but through you to the good chairwoman, is that police officer, are they going to be allowed to pull over that vehicle, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, existing law and the way it applies to police officers is not changed by this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that. And just out of curiosity, was this bill -- did this bill -- was it required to be referred to any other committee, through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 485 Through you, Madam Speaker, no. This did not go to any other committee.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Moving on to Sections 32 through 35, we talk in this Section regarding distracted driving, something that has been talked about a lot. Earlier this month, we opened up distracted driving month, trying to make sure that people are paying attention when they're driving, because we have a number of inattentive drivers. Through you, Madam Speaker, if the good chairwoman could describe what is meant, and I'll get the line item after. In line 1467, a mobile electronic device, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. That would be the very technical term, cell phone.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And many of the new cars have those big screens that are on their dashboard, and they are big, some of them. If that's turned on to a video, is that what's going to be a violation in this Section, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. That could be considered. mg/rr 487

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in the Zoom world that we have, a lot of legislators, we are on Zoom a lot. And a lot of times is why we're traveling up here to Hartford. If our screen, if a screen has the Zoom meeting that's occurring at the time, will that be considered a violation in this Section, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, it will probably frighten and disappoint many people in this building to know that is already in existing statute and is against the law to be having that screen up when you are zooming. Let me repeat that for everybody in the room. You should not have your screen on when you're zooming and driving. mg/rr 488

I greatly appreciate that reminder for everyone because we often see it a little too often. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm going to move on to Section 38. Excuse me. 36. I believe this may be our last Section. This is creating a task force regarding parking access for home health agencies if the good chairwoman could to define what a home health agency. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. There are many -- that apply many agencies that apply to the term home health agencies, but particularly, we're looking at visiting nurses, visiting health mg/rr 489 care of any mental and drug-related capacity. It is a broad scope of practices.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in the language, on line 1685, it does specify someone that is delivering home health services. So -- I'll leave that at that for now. It's interesting that we would have in this bill. I think it's personal. I think it's a little bit of an overreach, but this is now a task force. If the good chairwoman could, it's pretty much spelled out in line 1694, and briefly say, what would the exact task of this task force be, through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 490 Through you, Madam Speaker. So they're going to study and make recommendations on parking access for these health care workers related to these agencies who deliver to residential services, primarily because there are safety and ticketing concerns. There is very limited parking in many of these spaces where there's a concentration of these services, and either folks are being ticketed or towed, or they are being forced to park in places that are really far away from the people who they are serving. So we are looking at every option we can through this study to ensure their safety, their comfort, and to ensure that those who are at home waiting for this health care will be able to receive it.

Thank you. It all sounds vaguely familiar to a housing bill we had last year when we were talking about parking and the ability for those individuals that work a third shift, that are nurses or doctors or EMTs, police, and fire. Sounds very familiar to me, and mg/rr 491 it's just interesting that we'd be pushing this through now when anyways. That concludes my questions for the good chairwoman. Overall, there's some good points in this bill and some not so good points in my humble opinion. The bill does eliminate the diesel fuel. It does push out the dates. It does do some good for it. We have some penalties that are being put in place, increases for assistance for our Connecticut Airport Authority. Let's see. There's a lot more, but as much as there is good, there's just so much when you're combining nine big bills into one large aircraft bill. And admittedly, this is what we do in transportation. And I've only been on the Transportation Committee for four years, but it is how we've done transportation in the past. I don't recall there exactly being this many before, but it is how we do get the work done in the transportation. Apologize for one second. I believe that a number of my colleagues probably have a lot of questions. So I'm going to yield the floor to anyone else that has questions. What I would say that if you're looking at the bill, if you're looking at how the votes went, I would stress that how the vote tallies look were not indicative of the discussion. Because at the time, these bills mg/rr 492 were working bills and being worked on just literally until just days ago. So I would just caution if you're looking at the vote tallies. It's not necessarily indicative of how the vote really truly passed through. So, I yield my time to my -- certainly or not yield my time, but I encourage all my colleagues to work on this. I thank you very much, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just have some comments. No questions. If the chair wants to relax a moment.

So Sections 27 and 28 of this bill came from HB 5235. Section 27 sets a time frame for DOT to clear homeless encampments. Section 28 directs a study by DOT and DEMHS to set this policy. This study was all that was in the original bill, the proposed bill at the time of public hearing. Now we're all concerned about those experiencing homelessness, and we want to get them help. The majority of those homeless are experiencing substance abuse and mental health issues, and all I'm certain are in financial distress. And I know there is at least one other bill on homelessness on the calendar, and I'm looking forward to that discussion. Now, the way I read the DOT commissioner's testimony on 5235 is that current DOT practice is to allow at least 72 hours before clearing a homeless encampment, no mention of 14 days. The reason for allowing at least 72 hours is to allow social workers to interact with the homeless, to connect them with services, and for them to move their personal property. Now this bill imposes the 14-days’ notice versus 72 hours without even waiting for the study. Now, I received a call about this bill from a law enforcement officer who engages with the homeless in one of our urban areas. mg/rr 494 He was very concerned about giving more than 72 hours' notice. He persuaded me that the effect of this policy would be to allow long- term homeless encampments. My thought is that 14 days' notice is not really helping the homeless. It definitely won't help the quality of life in our cities. It affects says it's okay to trespass and camp on state property, and if we don't like where you are, we'll give you at least 14 -- we'll give you 14 days’ notice. We've all seen cities where these encampments are allowed. I've recently traveled to Los Angeles, San Francisco, last summer, even in Montreal. They're not a pretty sight, and I don't believe they're helping the homeless. And we certainly want to help them. There are many items in this bill that I'm in agreement with, but Section 27 takes us in the wrong direction. For this reason, I oppose this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Alright. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Through you, I do have a few questions regarding various Sections of the bill.

So regarding the lane dynamic lane, so, I'm just trying to understand this a little better. So, would that mean if there is severe congestion on part of the highway, at that point, the DOT, I suppose, could open up -- I mean, theoretically, could open up a breakdown lane as a dynamic lane. Is that accurate, through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 496 Through you, Madam Speaker, these would be preestablished, so there would not be a spontaneous opening of a lane.

I'm sorry. Madam Speaker, could the good chairwoman of transportation repeat that? I couldn't hear.

Through you, Madam Speaker. These would be preestablished lanes. So if I'm understanding correctly, I was asked if there was going to be essentially a spontaneous opening of a lane, which there would not be. This is all preplanned. Through you.

Okay. I appreciate that answer. So I guess if this does go forward and the DOT is looking at this, would it be possible then, if there is a three or four-lane highway, that the DOT would take one of those lanes and make them a dynamic lane, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, no.

mg/rr 498 Okay. I appreciate that. Then, I guess where would these lanes be? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it depends entirely upon the location and what DOT would need to do to create this lane.

Okay. So I think I'm understanding. So I guess if DOT would create another lane, would that potentially be a dynamic lane if they were to add a lane to that particular highway, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. If they did that, yes, that could be the answer. But this is using typically -- let me find the language. Just one moment. Excuse me. So this would be using -- you already have to have a lane available. Yes. But that would be determined in the moment that the flex lane was created. If they were creating another lane, which we are not trying to do here, because study after study shows that when you create more lanes, you create more congestion very soon down the road. So this has to already have a lane available, and it can be an HOV lane that's already designated could be used for this. A dedicated bus or rapid transit lane could be used for this. An authorized emergency vehicle lane could be used for this. Through you.

mg/rr 500 Okay. No. I appreciate that. And I guess going into the aspect of an HOV lane. So I know that in this legislation, we're looking at a camera system similar to what we currently use for work zones. So am I to understand then that it could be a speed camera, or it could be -- take a picture of a car that's in violation of, I guess, being in front of a bus, being in front of an emergency vehicle, or a single driver in the HOV lane. Is that accurate, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. Yes. That is correct. Okay.

mg/rr 501 Okay. I appreciate that. So, so how it works now, as far as I know, is with the work zones, unless I'm incorrect, that the cameras would take a picture of the license plate and not the inside of the car. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct.

I appreciate that. So then how would these cameras know that there was a single driver in an HOV lane? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, it could be used that way, but we're not -- we're not ticketing for HOV lanes.

With this technology.

mg/rr 503 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney.

mg/rr 506 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney.

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney. mg/rr 508

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Carney.

mg/rr 510 Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative O'Dea of the 125th District.

Please proceed.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea. mg/rr 512

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

mg/rr 514 Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Through you, Madam Speaker, line 1291 has those details.

And I wonder if the good chair had a chance to review the policy statement from the Connecticut DOT number EX0-40 dated September 29, 2022, through you, Madam Speaker.

mg/rr 519 Through you, Madam Speaker. I have -- the policy as given to me by Deputy Commissioner King, which stated very clearly our old written policy was 72 hours, but in practice, we cannot do it in 72 hours because we need to hire hazmat contractors, which takes at least 14 days to schedule. This spring, we updated our policy, and our current written policy is 14 days. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm sorry. That's not the policy I'm talking about. I'm talking -- is that the same policy? Is that EX0-40 dated September 29, 2022, through you, Madam Speaker?

mg/rr 520 Through you, Madam Speaker. I do not have that policy in front of me. All I have is the policy that was dictated to me by DOT themselves.

Alright. This policy is actually from the Connecticut Department of Transportation policy statement dated September 29, 2022. If the good chair could let me know what the date of that policy that she just read, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, Deputy King reports that it was updated in the spring of 2026. So I would imagine that would be within the last spring, was about a month ago. mg/rr 521

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you to the good proponent for that response. So as I understand, has DOT requested that this language be put in statute, or they asked to remain as a policy - - internal policy as they have currently, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker. They did not request this policy change. However, they collaborated with us and really wrote the language for us to codify the 14-day practice that does work best for them. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Would DOT prefer Section 27 remain or be removed from this legislation, if you know, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I cannot speak to opinion.

Has anyone articulated to you that DOT would rather Section 27 be removed from this legislation, through you, Madam Speaker? mg/rr 523

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would imagine that because DOT came to me to help rewrite the Section that they are good with the Section since this is their words. No one has asked for this to be removed.

So do I understand the good chair's comments to be that the DOT wants this language in this legislation and has requested it, through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker. Once again, they did not request this. What they did do was collaborate with us through our negotiations. They were able to help us get to exactly where this is, which is the practice that they are using and prefer. Through you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I would just note for those in the chamber, it's my understanding that DOT does not want this language legislated and in this Section 27 in here. But that's why I was asking the good chair if she had the same understanding, not opinion, but if she had any conversations with DOT about their desire to have this removed. And my understanding from her testimony or her comments here on four that she has not been asked to have this language removed. So I'll move on. As I understand lines -- and I want to drill down in lines 1274 to 1276, what the mg/rr 525 right-of-way does not include, and it does not include, as I read it, obviously, land controlled by the Department of -- DOT and improved with a safety rest area. So, as I understand, a safety rest area, I tried to find it defined in statute. Is this a good chair, aware of whether or not a safety rest area is defined, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, I do not believe we have a definition within this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the safety rest area, as I read it, I try to find it as well. My understanding is, it would be a mg/rr 526 typical rest area that you have where you can pull over, and it may not have any facilities. But if the good chair has the same understanding what like where you say, like a 95, there's a rest area. Where sometimes coffee is served voluntarily, and sometimes it's not. Service plaza, that's self-explanatory. I think Service Plaza would be, like, on 95, you've got the mobile service plaza that has food and whatnot. So I think that's pretty clear. Bus shelter, I think that's pretty clear too. Bus stop, any bus stop where it's got an enclosure is the good chair -- am I right in that bus shelter would mean like a bus stop that has an enclosure, through you, Madam Speaker?

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is not state right-of-way.

Thank you. Thank you. A question regarding the Stanford transportation center. That is not obviously a state right-of-way, and that would not be included in this legislation as well. Is that correct, through you, Madam Speaker?