CT House Floor Session — 2026-05-04

Good morning. Sn/ak 2 DEPUTY CHAPLAIN "AJ" JOHNSON: Just really quickly, I want to share with you a quick story. There's a story of a master builder finishing a bridge. And as the final section approached, the workers tired and ready to be done, wanted to rush. But the builder stopped and said to them, the strip of this bridge will be judged not by how we started, but how we finished. They slowed down, aligned every piece with care, and secured it with excellence. When storms came, the bridge stood because it was finished well. Just really quickly, can someone just look at your neighbor and shake their hand and say, let's finish well.

Here we go. DEPUTY CHAPLAIN "AJ" JOHNSON: It's kind of lonely up here. Let's finish well. DEPUTY CHAPLAIN "AJ" JOHNSON: Alright. Let's finish well. Let us pray. Let us pray. Gracious god, we thank you for sustaining the members of the Connecticut General Assembly through this legislative session. As they approach these final days, grant them wisdom, clarity, and courage. Help them not to rush decisions, but to act with integrity and purpose. Let every vote reflect justice. Let every action serve the people. Let every decision be guided not by pressure, but by principle. Remind them how they finish matters and that their work today will impact generations to come. May we finish strong, united, and faithful to the responsibility entrusted to them. In your name, we pray. Let everybody say amen. Sn/ak 4

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

Sure, Mr. Speaker. Just a quick housekeeping item to announce that the Calendar is now the go list.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purposes of an introduction.

Sn/ak 6 I have Juliana Simone with me from Barkhamsted. She's been involved in Connecticut public policy and politics for at least two decades. Today, somewhat of a homecoming. She has worked for the House Republicans and Senate Republicans. She has been a candidate for state representative and worked on campaigns, congressional, legislative, and statewide. For 14 years, she hosted a community TV station and did many interviews with sitting congressmen, legislators, and notables. And now, just recently, she stepped down after serving 15 years with the Barkhamsted Republican Town Committee as the chair, previously for many years as in other positions. I'm sure she's not done with her service yet, and we're looking forward to what she's doing next, but please give her a warm welcome. [applause]

I work my way around my guests here. Mr. Speaker, for a point of introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Sergeant Cynthia Torres and canine service trained police dog, Jules. Cindy is a senior law enforcement administrator with the State of Connecticut. She's involved in victim services, public trust, accreditation, professional standards, peer support, officer wellness, and a firearms instructor for the national, I'm sorry, for the police academy, and also a graduate of the FBI National Academy. She also serves as the director of emergency management and a select woman for Deep River. Sn/ak 8 Now you know why I have notes. Together, they respond to critical incidents across the state to offer peer and victim support and improve police legitimacy through community outreach and engagement. But warm welcome. [applause]

As was my high school football number as well.

Not even close. Sn/ak 9

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today, to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the couple 100 students who participated in the Connecticut State History Day competition held at Central Connecticut State University on Saturday while the budget was being deliberated here. And I was fortunate enough that we went into session late enough in the day where I was able to make it and speak at the event. Sn/ak 10 But more importantly, I'd like to congratulate all of the students who participated, the champions, and the winners in each of the categories now move on to the national competition held at the University of Maryland in the second week of June. And included in that is my son, Jacob Brown, and his partner in research, Charlie Guida, who will represent the State of Connecticut in the senior group, exhibit project, in June down at the University of Maryland. So congratulations to all of the students, their teachers, and the families who supported them, at the Connecticut State History Day competition.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a point of personal privilege.

Today, we lost a sports icon. Today, John Sterling, the voice of the Yankees, passed today, at the age of 89. You want to talk about dedication to sports. He called 5,060 consecutive Yankee games, and that's an amazing attribute to his dedication to his trade. So, today, I'm not sure if I'm going to ask for a moment of silence because there's probably others that don't really care about the Yankees. But, we just look at dedication to your job and you look at what John Sterling did and that voice will resonate with me forever. So thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the point, of personal privilege.

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

Thank you. I have today with me, a constituent from Prospect, Audrey Grove, but she's also our own Kimmy's mom and our representative from the 68th's mother-in-law. And just so excited to have her here. We have a lot of things in common that we chitchat about, but it was just a pleasure to see her here. And I wanted everybody to welcome her to the chamber. [applause] Sn/ak 13

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the point of a personal privilege.

I guess I should first acknowledge the many guests in the room. This is my daughter, Leona Foster, and she is standing here today to help me present a citation on behalf of the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. Sn/ak 14 I have with us the Executive Director of Save A Suit. This is Alex Carrera. And as you all may remember, we have a suit drive every year for Save A Suit. And this year, we have added an additional event for the suit up event. So there are going to be 100 veterans who are looking for employment today, trying on suits downstairs with 25 volunteers from Save a Suit Foundation. The setup downstairs is beautiful, and I'm sure a lot of these veterans could use the encouragement from the prestigious members of this chamber as they pursue their future. I want to just say the Save A Suit Foundation has been a wonderful partner and both, Kevin and Alex have been wonderful to work with as we've presented this event. So it's an honor to present this citation to Alex on behalf of the entire general assembly and to thank them for their partnership. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [applause]

Good morning.

You did. You did. Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

67th. I'm sorry.

Nice to be seen.

[00:11:03 - inaudible].

My daughter, I think, is dressed as Leila today. They had a dress down day at Noah Webster in Hartford, but I had to leave early. Mom was trying to get the hair in a bun. Hopefully, they got it done before they all went to school and work today. Representative Dathan of the 142nd from New Canaan and Norwalk, you have the floor, Madam. The chairman of the GAO Committee. Chairwoman of the GAO Committee.

You want two. Alright.

It will cost you, but that's good.

The first point of personal privilege is my son, Will, my oldest boy, turned 23 yesterday. And this is the time of the year where the Dathan boys all have their birthdays. And I would love if everyone here would give him a round of applause to wish him happy birthday. [applause] Thank you so much. The second point of personal privilege is for everyone who started, in the year 2019. We would like to redo our 2019 entry Sn/ak 19 class photo tomorrow, between 11:15 and 11:30 during introductions, hopefully. And we will try to do it outside if it's nice on the same steps that we did the original photo. If not, it'll be in the well of the chamber. Thank you so much.

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

Sn/ak 20 So, Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on my eight years of service to the assembly, you know, as a background, I was born in The Bronx generating some sarcasm and hopefully some wit. And at all the years in finance that I spent, I came up here with some trepidation. I was wondering what I would see and what I would find. And I want to take this moment as we get through the end of the session and get through the bills. First, shout out to the office, the OLR, the OPM, and the OFA, the Office of Fiscal Analysis. I expected to have wrestling matches and challenges, and I found myself outgunned at every step of the way with an incredible group of talented people who lend so much effort and work to us to accomplish our job. So for all the people who've interacted me from state government and the efforts they've given us, just a big shout out in recognition of the tremendous job they do for all of us here in the assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you so much. I just wanted to let the chamber know if they weren't aware already that today is International Firefighters Day. So when you get a chance, just please reach out to your local firefighters and just express our extreme gratitude. They get up every day and put their lives on the line, and we owe them everything. Thank you.

Just the daily Calendar, Mr. Speaker.

On page 38 Calendar 492, Substitute for Senate Bill Number 4, as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4531, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER PRIVACY AND PROTECTION. Favorable report of General Law.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we had a great week last week. Congratulations on another bipartisan budget. But we still have some work to do this week as you mentioned. And with that, I move the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage in concurrence with the senate.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today we're considering legislation that meets a very simple expectation from the people that we serve, that they should have real control over their personal information. In a world where personal data is constantly collected, bought, sold, and used in ways that they cannot even imagine, Connecticut residents deserve a right to control how we proceed. Right now, a Connecticut resident in Trumbull or New Haven or anywhere else in this state who wants to protect their privacy faces an impossible task. Their data may sit with hundreds, if not thousands of companies that they have never heard of. To delete that data, they must track those companies down one by one, navigate confusing websites, hope for a response. Sn/ak 25 For most people, their personal data privacy is not a meaningful right. It is an illusion of one. This bill begins to change that. It creates a straightforward centralized system where a resident can make a single request and have their personal data deleted across the data broker industry. One request, one place, real results. That is what it means to make a privacy right usable in practice, not just in theory. It also brings transparency to an industry that has operated largely in the shadows. Companies that profit from buying and selling personal data will now be required to register, disclose what they collect, and be accountable for how they respond when a customer says delete my information. That is not an unreasonable burden. It should be a basic expectation of doing business in a modern economy built on data. The bill also begins to address a growing concern for customers, that the use of personal data may be used to quietly manipulate prices. People should not be charged more simply because an algorithm has determined they are willing or able to do so. This Sn/ak 26 legislation draws a clear line. Pricing should be fair and transparent, not hidden or individualized in ways that consumers cannot detect. As you heard me articulate last week, in support of our AI regulation, This bill is about finding balance, though. What is that right balance? How do we incorporate realistic timelines? How do we give this industry an ability to comply with the changes that we seek? S.B. 4 is carefully constructed in that regard. It includes exemptions for federally regulated sectors like financial institutions and health care. It allows legitimate uses of data for fraud prevention, research, the fulfillment of contracts, all while targeting the practices that raise the greatest privacy concerns. And it gives our department consumer protection, the authority and tools to implement this system responsibly. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that this bill has received broad support in each of the committees it's gone through. I'm glad to have, worked closely with, Senator Maroney who's seen again, as a leader in the space nationally. Sn/ak 27 This is S.B. 4 for a good reason. It's time we protect Connecticut consumers and make sure that their personal data history is really truly theirs to control. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you also. And thank you to the good, chair, general law for a great synopsis of the bill. So unlike last week when we were passing the AI bill, this was new regulation, new legislation. We were trying to solve a new problem. This bill sort of expands upon a bill we passed a few years ago to protect consumers' data. So the focus, I believe, or at least this side of the aisle was, we wanted to make sure that the bill actually, pertained to who we wanted it to. Sn/ak 28 We didn't want to inadvertently get a small business caught up to this who maybe isn't necessarily in the data business, but maybe was just conducting, simple online transaction. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask a couple of clarifying questions, so we could be sure that our local small retailers or small businesses who happen to have an online presence aren't considered data brokers and aren't subject to the fines and the regulations through this bill, Mr. Speaker. So if I could begin--. [00:20:58 - crosstalk].

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A small business owner such as a restaurant, a retailer, or tradesman, they collect consumer data, of their customer data, names, emails, addresses through their own website and their own marketing or scheduling. If you're scheduling work for, thing, it can be considered. Can the proponent confirm that this business owner is not a data Sn/ak 29 broker and has no obligation for the disclosures in this legislation? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the good gentleman is correct. That individual and that business would not be covered as a data broker under this legislation. This clearly is articulated to address that very concern, that the good ranking member, members of the General Law Committee, raised during a public hearing. This only covers entities, that are buying and selling or licensing personal data on a broad scale. That person is exempt, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 30 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are times where small businesses use a third-party provider. I'm not disparaging them, but it's like Mailchimp or Constant Contact or something like that. And they turn over their customer data to those entities to contact them or to market to them. But somebody within those companies misuses the data. They don't do the right thing. And even though the customer may have given that company the information, are they liable under the bill for the misuse of that, contracted company? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Another great point raised during the General Law Committee process. No. That individual would not be liable for the misuse, of the data by the third-party individual. Through you. Sn/ak 31

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer from the good chairman. Mr. Speaker, Item 9, of the broker data definition covers any information that would allow a reasonable person to identify a consumer with reasonable certainty. It's great words in the bill. Anyway, a small business website clicks, names, ZIP codes, arguably, that meets the standard. Can we confirm whether or not that small business would be liable under this bill? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 32 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That business would not be liable under that term. Through you.

Excellent. Can the good proponent of the bill explain what the detection mechanism is for consumers? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sorry. My fault. I meant to say deletion.

My glasses aren't on and I'm doing the best I can.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the automatic deletion mechanism is a major, component of this bill, and what we think helps Connecticut, consumers have an actual right to their privacy. Like I indicated in the opening, right now, your responsibility would be to try to track down a whole bunch of data privacy brokers, request to have your information deleted. Maybe they would follow-up. Perhaps they wouldn't. You'd have no idea whether or not they're operating, in accordance with our current data privacy protections. This creates a very accessible deletion mechanism. And this is a single state portal on the department of consumers website, Sn/ak 34 where any consumer will be able to go in, request deletion of their personal data from all data brokers in the state, at once. Quick and easy. I think of it as, a no call registry for personal data. You can make that request and say, you're collecting, you're sharing, you're distributing my personal information. No. Not me. You go on to the database, you hit no, and you can have all of your information, refused to be shared by data brokers. They'll track status on this site so you know that when you made your request, when you issued that deletion request, how companies are responding. And the actual data brokers themselves have to check this website once every 45 days to see all folks who've, again, entered on to that portal to suggest that they want to not be covered. We think this is an important component of the bill to actualize, the idea of data privacy. It models what we've seen in other states. There are a number of states who've got this proposal in the works this year. California was the first to move forward, but we expect numerous other states to go as well. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 35

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to argue that there's a mechanism for a consumer to go in there and try to delete all their information. I think that's a good thing. Just for clarity, one of the mechanisms that's being used is a user's driver's license. The state stores it. I guess the question that some had was, if the state uses a third party vendor to help them with this deletion mechanism, are they subject to the same rules as a data broker because all up there? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 36 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. When it comes to the verification component of this, the DCP commissioner must verify that consumer actually submitted the leasing request, and they would submit their driver's license, and then update the deletion mechanism, based upon confirming that the person who requested it matches the individual identified in the license. And then also if the commissioner cannot verify the request, they must specify that all the data brokers, try to comply with the request. I think your specific question was, if the mechanism by which the [00:26:43 - inaudible] motor vehicles or the [00:26:45 - inaudible] consumer protection must delete that data? Was that the question?

Thank you, Sir. Yes. Either delete that data or if they do hire a third-party vendor that helps them manage that data, is Sn/ak 37 that third party vendor subject to the same rules as a commercial data broker? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's a lot going on over here. Again, if the good gentleman could repeat his question.

Mr. Speaker, it's tough because, you know, you're alone on this side. The Department of Consumer Protection takes your driver's license, and that's how they verify whether or not your information is deleted. Sn/ak 38 But the bill also says that they could hire a third party vendor to help them with that. We just want to confirm that, that third party vendor would be subject to the same data privacy rules as a commercial or a nongovernment entity? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes. That person would, that entity, that third party vendor would be subject to the same regulations as proposed under this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 39 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that concludes the questions for Sections 1 through 10. It's sort of hard to argue why the state wouldn't put a mechanism in for you to get your information off the Internet if you wanted it off the Internet. We're trying our best, I believe, through this legislation to come up with a mechanism. We're using the Department of Consumer Protection. We're using your driver's license for identity verification. It seems reasonable and prudent, and at least we're starting that process. So through you, Mr. Speaker, the next Section talks about surveillance pricing and price setting devices. This is Section 11. It is probably the most confusing part of the bill. So I thought maybe just a couple of clarifying questions, through you, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarity, what exactly is a price setting device under this bill? Through you.

Sn/ak 40 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, under this bill price setting device is, any back office work like a algorithm that's used to determine a price by utilizing your personal information such as your IP address, your geolocation information or any personal information they can gather by using, an internal, database that they have at their disposal. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it's safe to say a price setting device has to do with an online or an Internet transaction, and a surveillance price would have to do with some sort of camera or facial recognition? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That's exactly right. The pricing device is largely for your Internet applications. We've colloquially used sort of like the airline industry if you're searching for flights or fares online and on the back end, somebody is adjusting those fees or prices based upon your personal information that they've been able to gain, that would be covered under a price setting device. Surveillance pricing is sort of when you walk into a store, what can they see about you and then make a reasonable determination about your ability to pay. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I really appreciate the clarification. Mr. Speaker, I do have some notes that I'd like permission to use. The topics, there's big words, and it's a new Sn/ak 42 subject matter. I just want to let you know that I am working off the notes, if that's okay with you, Mr. Speaker.

No. That is okay with me, Mr. Speaker. Through you.

I was looking for you to give me permission, Mr. Speaker, but that's okay. But I appreciate it. A small--

Thank you, Sir. A small retailer in Connecticut who sells online uses customer through a vendor. They have a vendor. So you have a little shop, you hire Shopify or some other online service, and they use your browsing data. That third party vendor uses your browsing data to automatically adjust prices and have the transaction to mark. Which person in that transaction does this bill apply to? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill applies to that third party vendor, the one who's actively using the price setting device. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we may have answered this question already, but just to be clear, the disclosure because, I guess that, the bill states that if the price goes up and they use some sort of online device to do that, they have to disclose it. But I want to be clear that this disclosure mechanism only applies to an online transaction. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That disclosure only applies to an online transaction where the price is going up. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I'm trying to frame the next question. This is really just clarifying questions from me, just to make sure we know who exactly this bill pertains to. So the idea was that we're not going to try to suck in small retailers or restaurants or supermarkets who aren't really selling and misusing data. They may use a vendor that does that. We just want to be sure that the vendor is the one that's responsible. So, I have lots of notes and questions, but really what it boils down to is, the third party delivery service definition in the bill. The largest third party delivery person in Connecticut is Amazon. Amazon, they do consumer goods, household goods. Under this definition, are they covered by the surveillance pricing prohibition, and are they subject to the online device provision? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. The third party vendor in that circumstance would be covered under the definitions. There are specific exemptions for certain, issues, but in general, for most products, they are covered entity. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I apologize for the clumsy question. I think the good chairman was sort of understanding what point I was getting to. A neighborhood restaurant or a supermarket uses DoorDash, Uber Eats, or InstaCart, many of the larger online delivery services. Sn/ak 47 The business has no control over DoorDash's pricing algorithm. They could change the price of things. They have that ability. Under this bill, the third party delivery service bears a surveillance pricing prohibition, not the business. Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. The third party vendor that engaged and utilized, that software would be the party that's covered, not the restaurant or the retailer, who has no ability to influence the price that shows up in someone's cart. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 48 I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a level of impressions or interactions with a business that sort of has a trigger. You have to reach a certain level before you are subject to the provisions of the bill. Can the good proponent discuss these limits and whether or not credit card transactions are included in the count for impressions? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we'll cover, the second portion first because it's the easiest part, which is no, credit card transactions would not be a transaction that made you eligible, for this. Again, the actual definitions, do you have a--. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I'm searching for the line number that articulates fully, and the good gentleman may have it, actually. For some Sn/ak 49 reason, with the numerous papers in front of me, that line item is a little absent.

Thank you. My intention wasn't to ask a question that stumps the good chairman, and I'm sure it was my clumsy question that did it. So I thought one of the better parts of the bill was because our idea was we weren't going to capture businesses that aren't involved in this business. So there's 100,000 impression or 100,000 click, that you have to reach before you're subject to the bill. So many restaurants, supermarkets, retailers, that credit card transaction could count towards that. The bill exempts those transactions, which makes it really difficult for a small business to get to 100,000. I actually thought that was a protection mechanism. I think that's one of the better compromises in the bill. Sn/ak 50 I was just asking the good chairman to confirm that, that was true. I'm sure my question didn't do that, so I'm hoping he could just reply to this statement. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the good gentleman is correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And to further confirm that we appreciate that the bill carves out loyalty programs, veteran discounts, senior discounts, student discounts, can the proponent confirm for the record that a solid small business running a standard rewards card program, or has discounts that Sn/ak 51 expire has no exposure under this section? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The good gentleman is correct. There's no liability associated with offering those programs. The provisions do not apply to such circumstances, and the good retailer is allowed to continue to offer those, unencumbered by any provision in this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So furthermore, just like the credit card transactions, it's the loyalty transactions or the loyalty impressions. We're trying to keep the counts down, so it Sn/ak 52 doesn't inadvertently encompass small retailers, restaurants, other things that use these programs so they would be subject to the data broker when they're really not a data broker. So I actually appreciate this part of the bill. It's slightly confusing. I get it. I understand. I thought the good chairman did a good job. And just to be sure, we're going to talk about just the surveillance piece for just a second, because there's surveillance piece in here we have to disclose whether or not you're using facial recognition technology. It does ban you changing the prices for using that technology. But, if the first question I might ask, if a small retailer with a basic security camera with no facial identification software and no matching database has no obligation under this bill, and it's not subject to them? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 53 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. No. Under that circumstance, that is not a covered aspect of surveillance pricing. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, new basic security cameras come with facial recognition software. A small business may inadvertently, not even know that their security system has this capability. Is there a threshold or an actual use or activation below the signage requirements that would apply to this small business if they're still not storing or using the facial recognition, but the camera actually just has that ability? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If they are not actively using it for those purposes, they are not covered under the provisions of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, to further, in this sections, we could type put a bow on it. And Sections 14 and 15 prohibit controllers and third parties from selling precise geolocation data. But there are many small business that use delivery services and payment processes that collect this data as part of their normal operation. One of these platforms sells the geolocation data. Are they subject to this bill? Is the retailer subject to this bill? Who is actually, clarify who the liability is assigned to? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 55

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. If you're utilizing geolocation data as a purpose of the app and the person is entered into, that is not a covered person. The sale and disclosure or licensing of the geolocation data is a covered activity. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think we've covered it. I had other questions like that. I think we've made the point that if a small business is using a third party person, listen, if you're using Uber, Uber uses geolocation. It even tells you where the driver is. We just want to make sure that, if they fall beyond the parameters of the bill, it doesn't go Sn/ak 56 back to the company or the merchant that used Uber, that it would fall on Uber. And I think we've maybe slightly clumsily, we've sort of made that point that who this bill really intends to target is the larger data brokers and only the data brokers that are up to no good, not your basic supermarket who might be using InstaCart, who tells you where the driver is all the time, tells you how far away they are, tells you everything. It really shouldn't be Stop and Shop's fault if InstaCart decides to sell your data and do other things it's not supposed to do. So with that, I'm going to move on to the genetic testing portion of the bill, which is Section 17 through 19. My understanding is this is reaction to a company called 23andMe who filed for bankruptcy, and part of the assets was everybody's genetic information. So they were actually looking to sell it off, or they may have sold it off as part of a bankruptcy, which I thought was crazy. So the bill tends to rein that in a little bit, but we had a couple of questions that came up, small business questions related to genetic information. Sn/ak 57 Through you, Mr. Speaker, would this bill protect consumers who didn't want their information sold? Is there anywhere in here that forces, a genetic testing company to ask you whether or not they could sell your information? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yeah. Section 19 is all about the affirmative consent to disclose, data. And thankfully, the good gentleman references, a very specific scenario which alarmed, I think, everyone in the country, with the bankruptcy of a genetic testing company, and what they may or may not do with all of the personal data we have may submitted over decades of our relationship with that company. Thankfully the worst case scenario did not occur, in that situation but this bill seeks to protect people from future leaks of genetic information, and gives consumers a property Sn/ak 58 right and control over their biological samples, that are given to direct to consumer genetic testing companies. It's a very limited application of what we're protecting here. It doesn't implicate, health systems and others like that. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the good chairman may have answered my next question because there was only a couple of small business angles in this Section. And one of which is a small wellness business or a gym in Connecticut that offers genetic testing sort of as a predictor of health and wellness. Does that small business bear any compliance obligation or exposure under Section 17 through 19? And does the obligation sit entirely with the testing company that they use to get the information to perform sort of like a health analysis, or is it, with the gym? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 59

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the company itself is still bound by data privacy protections that apply broadly. They cannot disclose that information. But, but, this bill and how it applies, in this specific instance, the obligations contained here within are applicable only to the testing company and what they do, and they [0:43:05 - agree?] with that data. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So my next question was about a physician who might do it, but I think the good chairman answered the question. They have some responsibility with the Sn/ak 60 genetic data but, ultimately, they're using a third party, and it would have to be at a level where it, exceeds the minimums in the bill. I think it's something we should all be comfortable with. I think it's only practical that we have control over our genetic information. It's bad enough when our phone number gets out there, but I don't know if I want my DNA sequence out in the world. So Section 20, Mr. Speaker, if we want to move on, is probably the best Section of the bill. That's the advertisement volume while streaming. I know. You could laugh. But you know what? The federal government got involved 20 years ago and said that the commercials cannot be louder than the program you're listening to on cable. It's a pretty good idea because it's kind of annoying. It wakes you up. It does all sorts of things. But we didn't do that for streaming. Streaming the commercials could be, as you probably know, way louder than the program you're watching. So I like this part of the bill, but I just want to be clear about a couple of things. We're going to ask a couple Sn/ak 61 clarifying questions. So through you, Mr. Speaker, to be clear, this would fall on the streaming service, not the actual advertiser? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, similar to the COM Act, ultimate that the good gentleman references, this obligation falls on the streaming service to maintain the proper controls to ensure that the advertising is not at a volume higher than the projected, volume of the actual, show that they're watching. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 62 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. So the last question in this Section would be, is there a provision in the bill where that if the federal government finally gets it together and subjects these streamers to the same, COM Act that they did for cable companies, does Connecticut law, sort of take the federal rules, or do we have to come back and update our own rules? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. We have to ensure that our relations are consistent with the regulations that come from the FCC. In February, of last year, the FCC actually began a rule making process, to look at this issue. They have not because, we work a little bit better and more quickly, at our level. The FCC has not updated or given, guidance or rules on this space. So if the FCC were to pass Sn/ak 63 laws, we would have to be compliant with those. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I truly hope that the chamber found our conversation helpful and informative. It is different than AI. AI was a completely new, provision or new regulation. I thought it deserved in-depth discussion. This is really just an update on the landmark data processing privacy bill we passed a few years ago. It is already Connecticut law. We're just adding a few things to it. We're adding the right to delete, which I think is a good idea. We're telling you exactly who's responsible for this bill. We're telling you that if you're getting an algorithm in there that's raising your prices, we're going to let you know that, that's what's happening to you. If they're lowering their prices, there is no notification, which is good. Sn/ak 64 We added in the streaming part, which I think is good. So I don't have any more questions for the good proponent. I think we've done enough for this bill. It's not particularly long, but, it is useful. I will be supporting it today, and thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And with that, I move acceptance and passage of S.B. 4, as amended by Senate "A", LCO Number 4531.

Sn/ak 65 Good morning, Sir. How are you? Thank you for the time. Couple of questions to the proponent.

Thank you. So we had, as always, the good chair and the good ranking member really dive deep into these to give us the information that we really need to understand them. But a couple questions, starting in Section 5, in areas of Lines 331 and on. Granted, I do see the dates are pushed off very, for a while, but it deals with the data broker shall at the expense of them get a triennial audit, I believe. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could you speak to that? Could the good chair speak to that Section? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. We think it's important to ensure compliance, with these Sections that the data brokers themselves engage in independent audit or every three years, and that, that report, must be retained for six years and submitted to DCP upon request. What that does is it introduces a formal accountability mechanism. Sort of what we wish we had, with a no call registry to make sure folks are being compliant, with all the personal requests that come in. And it moves beyond the complaint based enforcement, and instead a regulatory structural component where they're completing an independent audit that ensures compliance on their end as well. That way we all know whether or not folks are complying with the law, and ensuring that all of our data brokers are protecting their customer's interests and it's not just on the individual consumer to articulate whether or not they feel like the business has complied, but the business themselves will Sn/ak 67 internally recognize whether or not they have complied. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to touch base on the 45 day, and having that actually posted. Is that correct through you? How many people have decided to opt out of that data is actually posted on a website? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That is correct.

And I'm curious as to the intent. Is it to say, okay, that, they want to track or publicly announce how many people are actually opting out of that service or that being in there? I'm curious as to the intent of that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. So it's two provisions. I may have not gotten the first one. I think the second question is what I was trying to get to. Every 45 days, a data broker company is required to check the website to ensure, there weren't new folks who've come in. So every 45 days, they're going to check. But it's once every year, where they have to post, what they've done and keep Sn/ak 69 people up to date on how the progress of those deletion requests are going. Through you.

I thank the good gentleman for the clarification on that, Mr. Speaker. And then I got to dive in a little bit on Section 11. I think that's the area that probably concerns a lot of the retailers out there, regarding pricing. Nowhere in this legislation does it inhibit a retailer from doing electronic pricing. Is that correct to you? Through you Mr. Speaker.

No. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we did have a public hearing on a component of that. That, issue did Sn/ak 70 not advance out of committee. We do not prohibit electronic, pricing or updating of prices in a store. This Section really deals with, two components. The first is which is increasing prices using an algorithm if you're online, and surveillance pricing which is recognizing an individual when they walk through the front door and trying to determine a specialized price for that individual based upon, whatever technology you have in space. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I get the individual part, and I appreciate that Section of it. But let's say, I'm going to bring up an example. You look at the gas prices changing right now, and I'm not sure how they're pricing that. It seems to be that, there's a scare in the market and the price changes. Without actually that product that's in the tank Sn/ak 71 that they paid for, all of a sudden they paid more for it. They've already paid for it. And all of a sudden, boom. Hey. Gas prices are too much. So now if by chance, without an individual pricing, the store says, okay, we have an issue with the egg pricing that we need to update. And all of a sudden, not because of an individual, but I go, okay, the market says I'm going to change the pricing on egg, and it's at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and I change the prices on eggs. Is that prohibited from doing that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, no. That just sounds like good old-fashioned capitalism. We do not in any way inhibit, the practice of traditional market-based economics Sn/ak 72 and price raising in any way in this bill. Through you Mr. Speaker.

Because I can imagine that, here's the snowstorm coming. And all of a sudden, everybody runs out. And I don't know why they run out and get eggs and milk and bread, but they do. I might have a different choice as to go out, when there's a storm coming as to what I'm going to purchase. But in no way does it say, in this legislation that, okay, listen, I made too many loaves of bread, and I realized I have a lot of loaves of bread. People are going to come in for dinner. I can lower that price also through you, of course. This does not inhibit any lowering of prices through to the fact that I need to move some product. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 73

Mr. Speaker, yes. The good gentleman is correct. You can lower prices any time, hour that you want. In no way is it inhibited or you're required to use a disclosure, in service of that effort. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because I think that's one of the areas that we, yes, Capitalism. But also, you need to move your product, and that's important. I believe that if you violate the Section in here, though, it becomes a CUTPA violation. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. If you do violate the components of this bill, that would be a CUTPA violation. And I did a kind of flippant response earlier to the question, but you might be relieved to read, Lines, 517 through 520, which does a better job of legally articulating, your continued ability to update prices. If you want to look at that Section, you can increase the price of a good, or consumer service to such consumers, when there are justifiable differences in consumer selections, delivery distances, delivery times, or justifiable temporal differences, including but not limited to justifiable temporal differences, due to price fluctuations based on supply and demand as a core aspect of it. That may be the more technical and legally accurate way of me saying capitalism works. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the good gentleman. And as you can hear, because of that way this building is structured, I have my earpiece in, and I love Section 20. Just because for somebody that has to turn the volume up to hear the TV, more than the other people in the room typically. And then the commercials come on, and I have got to lower that, very quickly. So I do, support that Section. I'm not sure how we're going to implement it. I know it was been rightfully done decades ago with the regular TV stations. You could not have a higher volume. And I think I had another question, but let me just look at my notes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Give me one moment.

Sn/ak 76 And I guess it was, I think the--.

For some reason, I have Section 14. I believe the good ranking member asked some good questions on Section 14, but I have it highlighted. And I'm just going to go to that Section for a moment. I think one of the things that is important in that Section, with today's day and age, I just got a purchase, and you can track anything. I mean, they literally give you the app. Hey. Track the truck. In no way does that negatively effect affect that kind of an App. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. We do not impact the use of that app in any way. It's the selling of geolocation data to another entity that would be covered, transaction under this bill. But if you're using it to manage your workforce or you're using it as an app to track your driver that you've contracted with, or if you're using it as part of a traditional app like Dunkin' Donuts knows to offer me a special price when I'm on the highway. They don't want to, miss the opportunity to sell me more caffeine. They can offer me a special price to stop in. You can use all of that. You just can't sell my personal geolocation data to a third party who requests it. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 78 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. It just becomes just a value when you're trying to track your package or delivery or, your own vehicles, for your own business. So, then back to Lines 926 to 929. Just looking at that Section. Can you help me understand what that refers to? It's a utility metering infrastructure system that, I guess, it does not, apply to that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the utility companies made a good point about the use of their technology and how they send out bills. They might, contract with a third party person to collect that information, and we wanted to ensure that their processes were not impacted by this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that's all the questions I have at this time. I thank the good gentleman, for his answers and the good work that the ranking member and the chair do on this and the committee itself. So thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. So I'm going through this bill, and I've been listening to the debate, but I just have a couple clarifying questions, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. So when we look at, I think it was Section 11. It talks about the online price increases due to algorithms. What kind of data is being used for these online price changes? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Section on price, what is the technical word here? Price setting devices. Usually, those are back end applications, algorithms or databases that are used by a company that track you individually whether using your IP addresses, or past uses of the application itself and then issue you a specified personalized price. And they may in that circumstance, I know I've used it a couple times like an airline industry being able to track your IP address and see that you've searched a flight from here to Cabo San Lucas for the day after session ends. Sn/ak 81 And the closer you get to that day, you keep searching it. The concern is that, folks are raising prices based upon their ability to track you individually. And if you're using it for those purposes, you must disclose that this price was set using a price setting device using your personal data? Through you.

Okay. Thank you. And that makes sense. If you go through and I'm trying to look through some of the deletion mechanisms. So this looks like something that the state's going to set up, that you can go in and say, I don't want anybody to use my data. If you're using that, can someone, I understand that, companies might have your data from being on their website, but will they have any information to set data based on the fact that you've already said that your data should be deleted? Through you. Does that make any sense? Sn/ak 82

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Section 5 deals with data brokers specifically and those who are registered, with the department consumer protection. And if you're maintaining large sets of personal data enough to qualify you for coverage under the Section and individual requests, that you delete it, then on the back end some other company likely won't have that much data. But this is only updated once every 45 days. There could be windows of time, period where a private corporation could have accumulated data on your search history. And so they might have that data and they may be using it internally, to utilize a price setting device. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And is this something that is currently being done? Do we know, that maybe companies like DoorDash or something are already using algorithmic pricing for their customers? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there's a limited certainty in this space, because of the proprietary nature of the internal databases and algorithms that are used by private corporations. But we want to ensure moving forward because we have received some concerns, there have been complaints, there has been some evidence that suggests that there is internal price setting devices being utilized, to impact prices on your Sn/ak 84 personal data. We want to ensure that if that happens, that they're conforming with the law and the use of that data as outlined in the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. That makes a lot of sense. So, really, this is just making sure that there is, transparency, which I think is very fair. I think I will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my friend, Mr. Speaker. I just have a quick question. But before I ask the question, I want to thank the Sn/ak 85 chair and the ranking member for really working on this bill and making it better for the consumer, but also for businesses. So through you, Mr. Speaker, my concern early on was, and I have a business that--, it's a market based business. And I have a physical location, and I sell on Shopify, which I think thousands and thousands of Connecticut businesses use Shopify. It's a tremendous platform, it's worldwide, obviously, and nationwide. So my prices fluctuate. So through you, Mr. Speaker, as long as I manually and I do lots of transactions, thousands of transactions. Could I manually adjust those prices up or down? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the good gentleman can, increase the price of tops chrome when it becomes the most popular product, in the country. Sn/ak 86 The good gentleman can lower it, based upon the market conditions and traditional supply and demand needs of that product anytime, any day, he wants. What he, good gentleman could not do is use surveillance pricing to see that I walked through the first door and he knows I really need that product this year because Roman Anthony, is in it, and my kids love the Red Sox. And he's like, ah, ha, I got them. Roland, based upon my personal information, will pay $300 for this box because his kid needs to get that rookie card. Can't do that, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer, and I do agree with the good chair. You should not be able to do it. I'm totally against it. I think I mentioned in a committee, I watched many videos on surveillance pricing, which is, I didn't realize how egregious it was or it is actually. Sn/ak 87 So it gives me clarification, and I will support this legislation. But again, I want to thank the good ranking member, all his hard work, and the good chair, and the whole committee. And, thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple questions for, just clarification and some legislative intent.

Sn/ak 88 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in Lines, 1041 and then 1087, the intent, my understanding, is to get at the 23andMe genetic testing. Is that correct? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes. This is to directly ensure that Connecticut consumers are protected, in a scenario similar to what happened with the bankruptcy of a direct consumer genetic testing company. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, again, for legislative intent, we want to make sure that this doesn't prohibit medical providers from sharing information. So for example, if I have a Sn/ak 89 test ordered by my doctor and he's diagnosed me with MS, I want him or her to be able to share that information with another medical provider. Is that the true intent of this bill? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The good gentlewoman is correct. This does not apply to those situations. You can, easily share that information without being covered by the provisions of this bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, thank you for clarifying that for me. Sn/ak 90

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to rise after that colloquy. And I understand that piece of the legislation. We certainly want to go after this sort of 23andMe and make sure that when genetic material is collected, that it's not used in a proprietary way for profit. I am concerned that this provision could impact our medical community. So if I go for lab testing and that information needs to be transferred, we want to make sure that it doesn't impact that process. And I think, those answers clearly, make that clear that, that's not the situation. But one thing I think there's a gray area that I just want to put on the table, I did put in legislation last year, and testified on a bill, actually, a number of times. It might not have been last year. Sn/ak 91 And my concern about when certain entities, in particular private equity, is in the health care space to profit for themselves. And we saw that during COVID when, Sema4 got a contract with the State of Connecticut. They didn't bid it. They were awarded it, and there was no data privacy protections for our residents in the State of Connecticut. What ended up happening is if you red the--.

No. Thank you. And this isn't for the purpose of wrap up. I just want to make that clear. I want to make this point about this bill because, this was an issue that was important to me. When the Sema4 contract was entered into and people would go to labs to get tested for COVID, If you read the fine print, we're all emailed these documents. The company actually collected the genetic material. They supposedly aggregated it so your identity might be protected, Sn/ak 92 but ironically, it's your genetic material. So I don't know how they protect your individual identity, but they claim they did. And that company, after collecting millions, and millions, and millions of samples of genetic material in the State of Connecticut, under the guise of doing a health care service, turned around and sold that business, and made, I think they sold it for $2,000,000,000. After that had happened and after I realized that so many people, when I spoke to them, didn't realize that their genetic material was actually being collected. That was where I asked that we start looking at contracts and start protecting people's data. And I think I don't want to impact the health care space. Certainly, it's very important for our labs and our hospitals to be able to collect data, transfer it to third parties. I just got a blood test. I wanted those samples, obviously, to come back to me. The only way to do that is to be able to send it out and bring it back. But I think the bill kind of misses the mark on this issue where you have a 23andMe sort of, operating in a space that is Sn/ak 93 quasi, health care. And so, I think the underlying bill is laudable, but I think it's an issue that we should be addressing because nobody should be profiting in that way off, of the State of Connecticut when there is a pandemic. 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.

Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 6 Absent not voting 4

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of an introduction and acknowledgment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, thanks for that because it helped me not to get choked up right now. So I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, the general assembly this year is losing some giants. Mary Mushinsky, the Dean of the House, Senate President Marty Looney, and we are losing another giant in the Public Health Committee, our beloved administrator, Beverly Henry. Sn/ak 96 Though I am speaking today, these sentiments come from Senator Anwar and Senator Somers, Rep. Klarides-Ditria, and the hundreds, literally hundreds of legislators and others that Beverly has supported and guided through the Public Health Committee and this process. As committee leaders, we know Beverly to be a trusted friend and comforting presence. Our quarterback, the glue who holds our committee together, her strength, selfless leadership, and warm smile have carried us through many difficult days. Her love of fashion is a joy she has shared and tried to teach me, at least. Beverly has been both the heart and soul and the backbone of the Public Health Committee for decades serving as our administrator since 2000. She has been a constant carrying wisdom from watching the building of all of not just the process, but the people behind it. What makes her so special isn't just what and who she knew, but how she has used that knowledge. Beverly has been fiercely protective of our committee, guiding it with the professionalism, steady hand, and institutional knowledge that allows us to focus on the work at hand. Sn/ak 97 What we do here on the floor, and in the senate is just the tip of the iceberg, made possible by all Beverly has done behind the scenes to get us here. Beverly, the combination of strength, grace, humor, and kindness is not something we all come across often, and it is a standard for all of us to live up to. You have left a mark on the committee and on this institution and on us as humans, one that will not fade. This is true for me and countless others whose life and lives you have touched. As you begin this next chapter, we want you to know how deeply we appreciate you, not just for what you do and have done, but for who you are. Thank you, Beverly Henry. We will miss you more than our words can express. We wish you joy, good health, and plenty of time to enjoy whatever comes next. And please come back to visit. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 100 On page 10, Calendar 192, Substitute for House Bill Number 5229, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING. Favorable report of General Law.

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, only 10, 12 more bills I have before us today. Mr. Speaker, I move the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us reflects, the committee's work on the gaming industry Sn/ak 101 this year. It has six Sections, that we'd like to consider, before the general assembly. We worked really closely with Lottery Corporation, our tribal partners, our universities and colleges, and we spoke for the better part of a few months working through a number of issues before us. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 5832. I ask the clerk please call the amendment and I be granted--.

House Amendment Schedule "A". LCO Number 5832 offered by Representative Lemar, Senator Maroney at all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We consolidated our request before the committee, to six issues. One, establishing a toll free line to help alleviate the burden that's being felt by our problem gaming line. This is really helping folks who are having access entering their accounts. It's overburdening our problem gaming. Folks who need real help and real assistance are not able to get through. This creates a mechanism, and requirement for our FanDuels,, and DraftKings and Lottery Corporation, to offer an avenue for folks to get additional help. Two, we restrict gaming ads during children's television shows. This is a pretty important aspect of this. We've long had a history of ensuring that children's programming, whether it be cartoons, commercials, things that are targeted towards children are free from advertisements, from specific entities and we think gaming, qualifies as one of those businesses that should, no longer be allowed to advertise during those timelines. Also, no gaming ads for students on the campuses of our universities, particularly athletic facilities. Next, we have a Sn/ak 103 study on the predictive markets, in our community. You've heard them, the Kalshi's, the poly markets of the world. Those predictive markets have ability to negatively impact everything we've worked on in the consumer protection space, around problem gaming. They exist in Connecticut in a way that jeopardizes the financial integrity of our relationship with our tribal partners, but also does not have any of the protections and restrictions that we place. You can do a number of things, on the sports betting sphere that we ban outright through our partners. And so getting a handle on what's happening in the predictive market, places, the core of that study and work group that will encourage over the summer to have, strong recommendations before the committee for us to consider next year on how to regulate that industry. There are challenges in that space. The federal government has indicated that they wish to preclude our actions and activities there, but we need to step forward. And the next two Sections have to do with a request from a Connecticut lottery association. Sn/ak 104 Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have, my good ranking member who's been really interested and engaged on this issue, and help get this to fruition. I look forward to continue to work in this space. This is the great challenge, that we're going to confront, I think, in this committee over the next two years. When we all return, next January, it is my hope that this becomes the primary focal point for our committee's work. Problem gaming, the explosion of risk associated with problem gaming, has become something that has, severely jeopardized so many of our residents here in Connecticut, particularly, young men, throughout Connecticut who are really struggling and showing signs of dramatic increase in addiction and problematic behaviors. We need to get a handle on this. This is the first step this year. There'll be a lot more to come next year. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

On the amendment. If not, is there an objection to voice vote? Hearing none, all those in favor, say, Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I had a few things to say about the bill, but I have to be honest. I thought the good Sn/ak 106 chairman did a great job. I don't have anything more to add to the conversation. I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes. 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 5229 as submitted by House 8: Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 145 Those voting Nay 4 Absent not voting 2

On page 53, Calendar 276, Substitute House Bill Number 5476, AN ACT CONCERNING OVERSIGHT OF EFFORTS TO PREVENT HUMAN TRAFFICKING. Favorable reports Government Oversight.

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

Thank you very much. Currently, Connecticut has made lots of efforts and progress to identify and support victims of human trafficking. Despite all of these improvements in these efforts, we still have a very decentralized approach, and this bill aims to rectify that by coordinating these efforts within, OPM. The clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5771. I ask the Sn/ak 109 clerk call the amendment, and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A". LCO 5771 offered by Representative Dathan, Senator Gadkar Wilcox at all.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This amendment establishes a framework to strengthen the Connecticut response Sn/ak 110 to human trafficking by creating a human tracking prevention effort within the criminal justice policy and planning division in OPM. I move passage. I move adoption. Excuse me.

Hi. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just one question through you to the, good chairwoman of the Government Oversight Committee. Does this amendment eliminate the fiscal note that was on the bill previously? Through you.

Sn/ak 111 You're absolutely right. That's one of the things that came out of this amendment, was eliminating the fiscal note. Through you.

Okay. Thank you very much to the good chair, and I support the amendment.

Sn/ak 112 On the amendment before us? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying, Aye.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The good chair, did a good job, summarizing, what the bill does. We heard, a lot of testimony, regarding human trafficking. There's also a Section regarding, corrections and a policy, for a confidential crisis hotline to report incidents of sexual violence. That's both available to those incarcerated and the corrections officers. Sn/ak 113 We did hear, some testimony, regarding that as well. Hopefully, this legislation will improve those conditions and give more oversight of efforts to combat, human trafficking efforts so, that terrible thing can get reduced, in our state. So I would certainly encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Bill 5476, Amended by House "A": Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

Page 48, Calendar 557. Substitute for Senate Bill Number 9, in concurrence with the Senate as Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4071, and Senate Amendment Schedule "B", LCO 5584, AN ACT SUPPORTING COMMUTERS AND MOTOR TRANSIT SERVICES. Favorable report of transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate Amendment "A", LCO 4071, and Schedule "B", LCO 5584 in concurrence with the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is another one of our collaborative, endeavors, supporting commuters this time around. S.B. 9 includes tax credits for certain employers, extends a very successful micro transit pilot program, appropriates funding to shoreline east rail operation, sets parameters for the process to increase versus decrease, mass transit fares and sets administration parameters for the Department of Ed to administer a grant program to provide grants to local boards of Ed for the purchase of state owned controlled bus public transit for students and veterans. And I urge passage.

Sn/ak 117 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We have some quick housekeeping to do on this bill, so I move that we pass this bill temporarily.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have addressed the issue. I move we suspend our rules for meeting consideration of Calendar 557.

Page 48. Calendar 557. Substitute for Senate Bill Number 9, AN ACT SUPPORTING COMMUTERS AND MICRO TRANSIT SERVICES. As amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A" LCO 4071 and "B" LCO Sn/ak 118 5584 in concurrence with the senate. Favorable report of Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, Appropriations, and Finance.

Good afternoon again, Mr. Speaker. I thought today was supposed to be Star Wars day. Turns out it's Groundhog Day. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A", LCO 4071, and Schedule "B ", LCO 5584 in concurrence with the senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And ladies and gentlemen, let me know if you've heard this one before. This is an act supporting commuters, tax credits for certain employers, extends a very successful micro transit pilot program, appropriates funding to shoreline east rail operation, sets parameters for the process to increase, mass transit funding versus decreasing and sets administrative parameters for the Department of Ed to administer a grant program to provide grants to local boards of Ed for the purchase of state owned and controlled bus, public transit for students and veterans. And I urge passage.

Sn/ak 120 Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon.

As the good chairwoman said, this bill makes necessary changes for all of our commuters, those using all of our different transportation systems. We had a lot of testimony during our public hearing on the micro transit for folks, that do use these, services quite frequently. Just a couple of quick questions for the good chairman, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

In Section 1, we start out where this is giving, tax credit to employers. Is that correct? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 121

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, if the good chair lady could explain, how are those employers going to get those tax credits? Is it through application, and how is that done? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 122 Through you, Mr. Speaker. So the idea here is that these are federal tax advantage plans that they're providing. Employees can put pretax money into an account. The employer gets credit for matching contributions while an employee puts, pretax and funds into the account. And the state is not going to be double exposed here. It is a capped credit at 7,500,000. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moving on to, Section 2. And in Section 2 and this is I applaud the, Department of Transportation. They do a lot of work, getting our word out to our, public and through awareness campaigns. Is that essentially what this Section does? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes. This is just ensuring that employers know that this program exists.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And moving on to Section 3, we are essentially expanding the current transit oriented communities that we have? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is just a report.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a report.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that report is of the current, transit oriented district that we have? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. It is. Through you. Sn/ak 125

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the good chairwoman in Section 4 could just tell us a little bit about what we're doing, with Shoreline East. That's, appropriations to the Shoreline East Rail service. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could you just please clarify which Section? I believe--

--you mentioned Section 4, but that is micro transit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That would be Section 4. And I apologize, that is not. That is Section 5. My apologies. I erred.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So this is not actually an appropriation. This is just, there's a reserve amount, of the rail operation will be directed to increase service. There is no change to the budget here. Through you. Sn/ak 127

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Moving on. As the good chair said, there's a lot of just changes in there. Section 6 and 9, are those just--, can the good chair lady explain what those changes are in there? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. So these are, conforming changes essentially, and it talks about notice requirements for DOT. When there's an increase, they must notify in order to be able to effect that increase. If there's a decrease, they no longer have to notify, which basically means, it's a super commuter friendly concept. Basically means that part can be done much faster than an increase would be. Through you. Sn/ak 128

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I do, appreciate that, and hopefully, it'll save some money to our Department of Transportation. Moving on to Section 7,S is a new section with a new program. Could the good chair lady elaborate a little bit on that new program? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, the good ranking member will recall that last year we passed legislation that would allow for, this very program to take place. Now what we're simply doing is ensuring that it is there in the budget. Sn/ak 129 So we're going to be requiring the State Department of Education to administer a free bus pass program for students, as well as to the Veterans Affairs. The budget currently has 1,000,000 for the Veterans Affairs and the remaining 2.5 will be allocated by SDE. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And is it each school district that applies for this funding? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, only districts that choose to apply will. Sn/ak 130

Thank you, Mister and I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through clarification, that's all districts in the State of Connecticut. Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, they are eligible too, presuming that there is, some sort of bus service that serves that space.

Sn/ak 131 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And moving on to Section 8, that is for our veterans. If the good chair lady could clarify, is that just a change of the definition of a veteran? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is actually creating the official bus pass program for veterans.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And how do veterans go about applying for this free bus pass. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That would be through the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, I would imagine that through our departments that they would advertise this, so that people would know that this program is available? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 133 Through you, Mr. Speaker, that would be through the state VA.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, moving on to the last sections. Section 9, if the good chairwoman could just explain, this Section is my understanding if you're reading this, that it repeals inactive DOT administered traffic. I'm in Section 9--, traffic, sorry, reduction. Could she explain what's being repealed here, if you could? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, Section 9 is just a conforming change in order to be able to implement Section 6. Sn/ak 134

Thank you. And then just for clarification for everyone else that isn't on transportation, clarify what we're doing since just going back in Section 6? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear. Am I asking to explain what's going on in Section 6?

Sn/ak 135 Yes, please.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this is the fare increase versus decrease notification, Section that we discussed before. So it simply means that when, DOT wants to decrease fares, they will no longer have to take the steps that they take when they increase fares, so that they may implement a decrease immediately. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sounds a little confusing, but it does get the job done. And again, as the good chair lady said, essentially, this is just making things easier for our commuters Sn/ak 136 in the State of Connecticut. And, I have no further questions for the good chairwoman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Sn/ak 137 Yes, Sir.

Representative Berger-Girvalo, do you care to respond?

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea. Sn/ak 139

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea. Sn/ak 141

Representative Berger-Girvalo?

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea, want to clarify --

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Berger Girvalo.

Representative O'Dea.

Thank you, sir. The gentleman from the 134th, Representative Keitt. Oh, well. Gentlemen from the 8th, Representative Ackert.

Thank you. The pushing out of the microtransit pilot program, has that program, been started to date? I know because it was supposed to be reported out in 2025, and now we're moving Sn/ak 151 it out. Is that micro transit pilot in process? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It has been in process. It has been running for over a year now.

Thank you. Yeah. It's something that we would love to have our way, an opportunity to have. We have a perfect location to have something come out in that average, not just the one bus pops in the morning only comes back at five at night. So more of a consistent opportunity. And then just touching base on the passes that a student can get in high school. Is that correct? Sn/ak 152 It's a high school pass. A student could get through you, Mr. Speaker, for bus pass.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And also, a veteran can also get a pass? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Thank you. And I think my key to the question is, absent a pass, could they use a student ID or their license that may mark on it that they're a veteran? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, we did consider that, but the cumbersome nature of that for the drivers themselves to be able to determine what was a valid piece of identification, versus Sn/ak 154 not, was too much for the drivers to be able to be expected to process. So this will be done strictly through the VA.

Thank you. I know that for me to get like, so my license actually specifies I'm a veteran. So, without getting a pass, does the pass -- is it record you getting on a transit? Does it record that? If you bring the pass goes in, you record it so we know how many people are the ridership. Is that why the need for the pass?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is specific to the program that is created and not part of the language of the legislation. Sn/ak 155

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But I'm just thinking that I'm a veteran. I know I can go use a local transit. I show my license, and I get on rather than have to apply for a pass. So that was only my question on this, and I thank the good chair of transportation for her answers and to work on this. 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. Sn/ak 156

concurrence with the Senate: Total number voting 150 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 137 Those voting Nay 13 Absent not voting 1

Sn/ak 157 Will the clerk please call House Calendar 540.

Representative Berger-Girvalo, the 111th, you have the floor, madam.

Sn/ak 158 The question for the chambers is acceptance of joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. As amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A, LCO 5199. Representative Berger- Girvalo, you have the floor.

Thank you, representative. Will you remark on the bills as amended? Representative Kennedy of the 119? You have the floor, madam.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Just a moment. Through you, Mr. Speaker, 234 is An Act Concerning Passenger Restrictions for Youth Instruction Permit Holders. 412 is An Act Concerning the Offering Price of a Motor Vehicle and Provisions of the Franchise Act governing agreements between automobile manufacturers and distributors and automobile dealers. House Bill 5237 is An Act Implementing Recommendations by Department of Motor Vehicles. And House Bill 5465 is An Act Concerning the Towing and Storage of Motor Vehicles. Through you. Sn/ak 162

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the good chair when I say thank you very much. So let's just take a look at this. In Section 1, we're talking about handicap placards. Through you to the good chairwoman, has a criteria to apply for a placard changed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This bill actually is specifically requiring DMV to redesign placards, so the expiration date is prominent. And then it is specific to the accessible parking advisory council's duty to make educational materials, which would include videos or online trainings. And, Sn/ak 163 it's, actually came from our very own house minority leader, from constituents right in his district. This was a concern largely because people couldn't read whether or not a placard was expired. And when an expired placard is being used, there's a spot that's being used that should be used for someone else. That really is the most important piece in this section. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, yes, we did have some very passionate testimony from individuals that rely on that handicap spot when they have to go park. And people don't realize also with a handicap van that it opens out. So you really need to have that space there, and it's very important. Just a quick question on the placard. So it's going to be redesigned. Will it still be a placard that hangs from the Sn/ak 164 rearview mirror? Will it be a sticker? I'm not sure I see this in the definition. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is the same placard. It is just making sure that the expiration date is much more prominent and easier to spot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In us, line number 118, These recommendations, as I recall, came, yes, from our good minority leader, but also from the accessible parking advisory council, who I understand met, I want to say monthly, but they did, and they really did a lot of work. Sn/ak 165 So, through you, Mr. Speaker, the placard will now have expiration dates on it. Will those be monthly expiration dates? And will then the person that has these stickers, will they have to go to the DMV each month? How will that work? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, each placard will still have the same information that the old placard has in the process for DMV has not changed. Through you.

And I apologize. Just one other part to that question through you, Mr. Speaker. Is that a monthly or is that every Sn/ak 166 three months, every six months, that renewal? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure what monthly to what she's referring.

So as I understood the design of the placard, it's going to have, like, a punch, and that, it will be marked for -- is it a monthly or is it yearly? How will that work? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to tap into my knowledge as an ADA coordinator in my other job. I see these placards every day. They do list a month, and that is not changing. It will still list the month and year that they expire. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Got to move along. I think I've hit that enough. I think the most important part is that those folks, those individuals, who need those parking spaces that they are dedicated to them. Moving on to Section 3 in the bill, we talk about the Q endorsement. Could the good chairwoman elaborate as to what a Q endorsement is? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 168

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The Q endorsement is the endorsement that allows a person to operate a fire apparatus. And so by extending this reciprocity, it's just requiring the DMV to waive the skills test requirement for someone who has an out-of-state credential that is substantially equivalent, which is determined by the Commission on Fire Prevention and Control. So we have an expert in there analyzing what will qualify and what will not. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just to clarify, this is for someone that comes in from another state that may have been a firefighter in another state, or that was with the military and Sn/ak 169 had that training. And then would they submit their qualifications to the Commission on Fire Prevention? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a very long answer to that. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And we did have some testimony on this, and this will be a positive for our fire departments. So appreciate that. Moving on to Section 4. We have some changes from our previous and that is to the electric scooters. And we had lots of debate and discussion on that last year. Could the Sn/ak 170 good chairwoman explain what we're doing here in Section 4 with electric scooter? It looks like we're increasing the weight. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct. The language will be passed last year, allowing for these scooters to be part of the fleets that municipalities may use. We kept it at 100, but in fact, there are multiple manufacturers who make them that way just a little bit more. So this is basically giving municipalities broadened purchase power for the same, really barely heavier scooters. And this really addresses folks with disabilities. These are the tricycle scooters to help get around. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if the good chairwoman could just elaborate on that, did that request come from the agency, or did that come from law enforcement? Who did that request for the increased weight come from? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That came from representatives of New Haven who work directly with the population who orders or who needs these and would therefore order the kinds of scooters that were required by their constituents. Through you.

Sn/ak 172 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And moving on to section five, I believe something we talked about a lot last year, on car rentals and classifications. If the good chairwoman could give us a brief overall of an open-air, all-terrain, sport, or convertible, and what changes are being made there? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This was a request from the rental car companies, and it really just puts us in line with other states, regarding our recent policy, which allows certain fees to be charged. We did not include specifically all-terrain, sport, or convertible in the list of categories. And now we are doing so. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And no other changes to the current law that I see in this bill, if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Sn/ak 176 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo. Sn/ak 177

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy. Sn/ak 179

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Sn/ak 182 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Sn/ak 186 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy. Sn/ak 188

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo. Sn/ak 190

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy. Sn/ak 194

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Sn/ak 196 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Kennedy.

Thank you, Representative Kennedy. We remark further on the bill as amended. Representative O'Dea, the 125th, sir, you have the floor.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

This does not apply to real ID. Through you. Sn/ak 202

Okay. So, when you say it does not apply to real ID, through you, Mr. Speaker, what do you mean by that? Just for my edification, if I may. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this is simply giving the DMV commissioner discretion to waive the requirements to appear in person when renewing an ID card or issuing an ID card to a driver's license holder. But under real ID and state law, people need to get a new picture every other renewal, which is every 16 years. This does not change that. This is only for the types of ID and license that are not real ID. Through you. Sn/ak 203

Thank you very much. That's what I thought. And I printed out the section, it was 6 CFR 37, and I literally could not even with my magnifying glass, I couldn't read and understand it. So I appreciate the good chairs, response, and answering of that question. And then the Sections 29, through, I guess, almost 41. The towing consensual towing. I want to give a shout out to the good chairs and ranking members because this again was years of work, and very upset individuals on both sides. And my understanding is, isn't it true through you, Mr. Speaker, that the towing industry has agreed to these changes and you collaborated with them, thankfully, and this has been agreed to by all the interested individuals. Isn't that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would just like to say I'm very grateful for getting the opportunity to work with the towers so closely. I have a very old car, and I may need them at some point. So it's nice to have a good relationship with them. But with that said, we also worked equally with the advocates, and we worked with the DMV, and we worked with each of the working groups and councils that were formed as a result of our previous legislation, to come up with something that every stakeholder here could agree to and feel good about. Through you.

Thank you. And I see that this requires the DMV to establish a portal, which I know you talked about. I guess my Sn/ak 205 first question is the DMV amenable to this, and have they agreed to this? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You actually missed my comment earlier where I talked about how the DMV actually wanted to move up the time because they feel they're going to be ready with their porthole. I can't believe I did it. I did it. I kept hearing the joke, and I did it. Portal. They are very supportive of it. And in fact, they are developing it themselves. And now I feel like I need to talk like a pirate. Through you.

Sn/ak 206 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And if the good chair would like to borrow my eye patch, I certainly could lend it to her. Now the hearing date that it is shortened from ninety days to sixty days. Again, the DMV is good with this through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. This was all agreed to through you.

Thank you. That's all the questions I have, and I just want to commend the good chairs again and the ranking members for all their hard work on this, and working with the industry and stakeholders throughout this bill this bill. And I look forward Sn/ak 207 to voting yes when this bill comes to vote, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my comments sound very similar to Representative O'Dea's in two specific sections. One, I want to offer my most sincerest thank you, and congratulations to the great co-chairs and ranking members of the transportation committee, for taking on something that I personally could not get over the finish line and delivering an extraordinary compromise on behalf of the residents of Connecticut. This is a remarkable achievement. Conveyance fees in Connecticut are commonly some of the highest in the entire country. They exist in a space where consumers have absolutely no idea what they're walking into. When they walk into a Sn/ak 208 dealership, they're confronted with an extraordinary price they had no ability to predict. And oftentimes, they end up just wrapping that cost into a five-year financing plan and paying it off over time because they just had no idea that they're going to be subjected to 700, 800, 900. In some cases, I'm seeing still listed today over $1,000 conveyance fees. I worked passionately for years. I could not get to a compromise. Thank you both so much for your incredible work to get this done. It is a remarkable accomplishment for Connecticut residents. To this day, and probably for years after, I'm certain they hear it all the time, constituents would complain about the fact that they got confronted with this incredible fee, and they blamed us for it. They thought it was our fee. They thought it was a state fee that we are adding on. Thank you so much for getting this over the finish line. It is a remarkable achievement. And as Representative O'Dea said, there may be there in snowball fights in hell or whatever. Whatever he said, I tend to agree that pulling this off is a remarkable feat that deserves applause. Sn/ak 209 Similarly, on the towing movements, not applause. That's right. We can't applaud. But if you could, we should do that. But also, the remarkable movement in clearing out a perennial issue, which is satisfying the consumer protections that are necessary for safe operation and fair operation of towing procedures, particularly the nonconsensual towing space, franchise fees, and beyond. This bill is a remarkable achievement. I know it took hours, months to years to accomplish, and you deserve my sincerest thank you. And I know working with the commissioner of the DMV, to get us to this point, I think everyone involved deserves to be recognized. So, again, just wanted to say thank you and my sincerest appreciation for the work you're able to do. Thank you.

Sn/ak 210 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate a couple of good questions to good chair of transportation.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know we've talked a little bit about the collaboration with our good towing and recovery professionals. Can the good chair of transportation talk about some of the substantive changes that we actually made to this bill to accommodate those professionals? They did come to the table. We heard from many of them. I know personally, I met with quite a few of the tow companies in my district that had great concerns at the beginning of this bill, and I know we made some amazing changes. Can the good chair speak to some of those more substantive changes that we did make?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the changes that we made really, some of it is related, in fact, to the communication side of it, that portal, which will require towing companies, garage owners to upload vehicle information within 48 hours. We also are prohibiting DMV from imposing a civil penalty for violating the requirement if the information fails to upload because of a technological issue. So we looked at the value here, but we also wanted to ensure that we weren't setting anybody up to fail. We addressed towing rates through the recommendations that were made. We also addressed how rates would be changed and addressed. We looked at, let's see. We added a consumer advocate to the council, which didn't exist before, so that now we have some balance more balance there as well. Let's see. I'm trying to find just sort of the highest level, most important things here, so forgive me as I scan my list. We limited the time frame for filing consumer complaints about police ordered towing to two years after the date that the Sn/ak 212 vehicle was towed. That was heavily negotiated and agreed upon by all parties. We required that the DMV consult with the towing advisory council before adopting or changing internal policies, and we required the DMV to give 60 days' written or electronic notice to towers before implementing. This was a huge ask of the towers, and the DMV was, in fact, agreeable. We talked about some of the Tim training earlier. Let's see. Excuse me, another moment. We required towing companies to send the notice of tow through regular mail in addition to certified mail. A lot of times, you get that certified mail, and it's a little scary, and you don't open it. So folks may not know that their car was towed and what their rights are. By sending regular mail, this will help to limit the number of certified mail that a towing company will have to send, but it will also give the consumer, the car owner, one more opportunity to see that their car was towed and they can still redeem it, or they can still go back and collect their car. Sn/ak 213 And then we made permanent what was so successful in its temporary form with the towing advisory council and added some significant members to that. We added two police officers and two insurance industry representatives to the council. Specified that, towing representatives have to be selected with the advice and consent of an organization representing the majority of towers in the state. There's a lot of other really good stuff in there, all of which was agreed upon, but I'd like to thank the good representative for the opportunity to elaborate on some of that.

I do appreciate that summary. I think when our tow drivers and our garages came before us and had genuine concerns, especially on the time for the portal entries. That was one of our biggest concerns that we heard from our garages is they don't house people in offices in the smaller garages to input this information within a very short few hours. Sn/ak 214 So extending that time really gave them a huge amount of relief and is not going to cost them adding another person over the course of the weekend to input the information to the portal. So I do appreciate it, and I thank the good lady for the summary and appreciate all the hard work that this committee and the leadership on this committee have put into this bill. So I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation, and I don't have any questions. I just want to thank the chairs and the ranking members for putting together recommendations from the handicap advisory task force that we created a couple of sessions ago. I think I have a constituent in my town, Mary Caruso, and her children, Sam and Alex, her adult children, I would like to call them, who have created an advisory council in our town, Sn/ak 215 Peace, Love, and Accessibility, that is trying to bring awareness to the issues of handicap parking. And over the years, we've tried to address this issue -- decades and have really not been able to move that needle. We've had the lifetime placards that were set to expire, but they haven't all been sort of taken off the street. And we see a lot of abuses to handicap parking. I never really paid much attention to it. But when they start describing their experiences, they put the pictures on Facebook of how difficult their lives become when people abuse or violate these laws. And I know many times they have spoken as well to Senator Cohen on this issue, and we have been able to move the needle. And I want to thank the commissioner of DMV for also taking up this issue, to try to resolve it. So while these changes in the bill might seem small, I think they're going to go a long way to help improving the enforcement of our handicap placards. So thank you for putting this in the

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I arrive. I have a couple of questions to the proponent of the bill for clarification, if I may.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of bills incorporated into this one big bill. And I understand one of the bills is House Bill 5237. And I'm wondering if the language that is taken out of 5237, put into this bill, is the exact language that was voted out of committee. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the question. Yes. It is identical. Through you.

Thank you. And also on Senate Bill 234, the youth permit holders is the language exact language in this bill that was voted out of committee? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, yes, it is. Through you.

Thank you. And the same with Senate Bill 412, where it talks about the dealer franchises, the language exact in this bill as it was that came out of committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sections one and two are identical, and section three of that original bill is substantially similar.

Sn/ak 219 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You had mentioned Section 3 of the original bill is a little different in this bill. Can you let me know what was in the original bill and how it was tweaked to go into this bill? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the original --

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This just changes which sections were referenced because of the conforming changes that we made. It just consolidated some language. Through you. Sn/ak 220

Thank you. So in Senate Bill 412 was put into this bill 413. If I'm understanding you correctly, all the language is the same. There's no change in any of the language. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Correct.

Sn/ak 221 Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, that section dealt with the conveyance fee that was in that bill 412. And you're telling me that hasn't changed at all. I know that there was a lot of opposition, at least from my side of the aisle, on that particular section that has not changed at all in this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No. That has not changed. Through you.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. And then I guess the same question on House Bill 5465, there were some concerns from our Sn/ak 222 side of the aisle about the towing storage and the portal for motor vehicles. Is that language exact in this bill as it was in the original bill that was voted out of committee? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. No. That is the section that was changed thanks to the negotiations directly with the towers, DMV, and the advocates. This is all the language that was agreed to. Some of the changes that were requested related to the amount of time in the portal, and we extended back to what was requested by the towers because it was also agreeable to the advocates. Any of the changes that were there were agreed upon by all three of the primary stakeholders. Through you.

Thank you for that clarification. When the original bill that was voted out of committee, believe it or not, was 21 sections. I believe it was 24 pages. And then here we have a aircraft carrier bill, I guess, on the bus bill. It now has 42 sections, and it has 60-something pages. And there's some new sections in this bill, sections 22, 24, 29, 39, and 40. So, you know, we get these bill. You're trying to read them really quick while the ranking member and the chairman of the committee are trying to explain them. And a lot of questions, obviously come up, especially when you're combining bills together. I do have concerns about the conveyance fee with the dealer franchise portion. All of our members seem to have issues with it when you're telling me that that language hasn't changed at all. So it doesn't seem to be any compromise on there. Appreciate the section with the youth permit holders. I think that's an issue. And there are some decent things into this bill that I certainly would support. But thank you for Sn/ak 224 answering my questions. I will continue listening to the debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a brief, brief couple comments, and I do appreciate my good colleague from the 80th, having concerns. That's why I tried to stand up after the good ranking member to state that there was a lot of collaborative work on this bill in putting this all together. So, you may have heard on the last big transportation bill, I had some concerns with some of it. But this one is completely collaborative. The good chair worked very hard in getting the industry together. And as the former chair of transportation stated as well, we had a lot of back and forth with the industry and our agencies on a lot of these bills. Sn/ak 225 I got to give credit to the commissioner. I do think our current DMV commissioner is the best DMV has ever had. He's easy to work with both, not only our group, but also with industry. And he was the chair of transportation a number of years ago. He doesn't like me picking on him, too much, but being commissioner of DMV has aged him a bit. No. Just kidding. I don't know if he's listening, but he's done a great job. DMV, as I said, during a hearing process, used to be the agency to go get the most complaints with. Now it's the one I get the least complaints with. So I just wanted to give him a shout-out, and the whole agency. The last thing I wanted to do, with the good speaker's permission, I know we're not allowed to read without the speaker's permission, but I did want to read the hard work that went into the handicapped placards. It's 23 CFR 1235.2. If I just may read, six points as to the eligibility for parking permit through you, Mr. Speaker. May I read that?

Thank you. Persons with disabilities which limit or impair the ability to walk means persons who, as determined by a licensed physician, one, cannot walk 200 feet without stopping to rest, or two, cannot walk without use of or assistance from a brace, cane, crutch, another person, prosthetic device, wheelchair, or other assistance assistive device, or three, are restricted by lung disease to such an extent that the person's forced respiratory expiratory volume for one second when measured by a spirometer is less than one liter or the arterial oxygen tension is less than 60, per HG, on room air at rest, or number four, uses portable oxygen, or five, have a cardiac condition to the extent that the person's function limitations are classified in severity as class three or class four according to the standard set by the, American Heart Association, or finally, six, are severely limited in their ability to walk due to an arthritic, neurologic, orthopedic condition, end quote. Sn/ak 227 Then I appreciate the good chair allowing me to read that because every person that uses a handicap placard, according to a doctor, is physically limited in being able to walk. So if you see somebody that's walking easily, it looks like they should be playing in our basketball tournament that unfortunately, the other side of the aisle has won for, I believe, over a decade. Pains me to say it. And I thought we had kickball until the last two years. But in any event, it's important because our handicap population need those spaces, and they shouldn't be utilizing properly those that don't need them. And it's very passionate about it. I appreciate our good minority leader bringing that out, and I appreciate the good chairs putting this into legislation. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to my good colleague from the 80th, who had concerns about all these coming together. I assure you on this legislation, it was collaborative with both sides of the aisle. Thank you very much, 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.

Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 2 Absent not voting 2

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege. Sn/ak 230

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm honored to be here with Dylan Serpa from the town of Rocky Hill and his mother. Dylan completed his Eagle Scout project last year, and I wanted to share it with everyone in the chamber. He honored two former teammates, Andrew Sorrentino and Aaliyah Perotti, who unfortunately passed away. And they're two former teammates from his Challenger baseball team, and he made a space at the Elm Ridge Park to honor their memory. So I'm so happy and proud that we're able to say their names here today, and we can also share their memory for future generations. I hope you join me in thanking Dylan for his wonderful service to the town. (applause)

On page 57 Calendar 479, House Resolution Number 11 Resolution Proposing Approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the University of Connecticut Board of Trustees and the Graduate Employee Union Local 6950 International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Fair report of appropriations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move the House committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this resolution approves the agreement between the University of Connecticut and their graduate assistant employee union. It covers a four-year period beginning in July 2026, extends through June 2030. This is the fourth agreement by this bargaining unit in Connecticut at UConn. Mr. Speaker, this contains some modest increases over time, and the general fund impact is minimal because these employees are typically paid for out of research dollars and other tuition revenue from the University of Connecticut. There are some general wage increases, which are outlined in the fiscal note, and some fringe benefit changes. Notably, these employees do not participate in the state employee healthcare plan. They do receive healthcare through the state's partnership plan with a subsidy provided by the university. The employee share of that agreement is actually going to increase over the term of this to mitigate some of the additional compensation being provided in the agreement. Sn/ak 233 Mr. Speaker, there are about 2200 graduate assistants who do this work at the University of Connecticut. They are teaching assistants, they are research assistants, they are a very essential component of the university, the university community, and they teach undergraduate students, they provide critical support for research activity, and they contribute and generally to the culture of academic excellence that is the hallmark of the University of Connecticut. This agreement provides some fair, affordable benefits and compensation to these employees, and I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill, sir. Sn/ak 234

Thank you. And as the proponent had mentioned, I believe these dollars that are in here are covered through the UConn Research Grant funds. Correct, sir? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Research sup and tuition support.

Sn/ak 235 Thank you, sir. And these graduate assistants are not considered state employees from a pension or health care benefits perspective. Correct, sir? Through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That is correct. They are both students at the University of Connecticut earning postgraduate degrees, and also, employees who receive a stipend are not considered to be state employees.

Thank you, sir. So, this is a really good example for me on us being able to -- what I said against the whole union contract Sn/ak 236 packet when we get 35 unions and not being able to kind of look through all the different areas and what we're doing. This is a contract that I'm strongly supportive of. This is something that is the graduate students. These are dollars that are paid out of the research grants that they get from the federal government and other areas. They're grad students who are teaching and doing other activities at the school where they typically would not be being paid. And this is not a salary. It's a basic stipend. Also, in here, if you would note in the agreement, the amount that these graduates pay for their own health insurance is actually higher than what the state employees pay for their insurance, and it's increasing over the years. And there's actually a savings to UConn regarding that cost because of that. So this is a contract again that I stand in support of. I understand the grad students. You know, we want these doctors and nurses and PhD students to stay here in Connecticut. UConn has an excellent graduate program. They have good benefit in return, I believe. So this year is a negotiated contract by UConn, agreed to by UConn, and coming out of their Sn/ak 237 research dollars. So I stand in strong support of this contract, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of quick questions for clarification on the bill before us through the good chairman of the committee. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused as to whether or not -- I understand they are not state workers, and they do pay a portion of their health care benefits. Does the state of Connecticut contribute any money at all to this contract? For clarification. Through you.

Sn/ak 238 Through you, Mr. Speaker, well, you know that in our state budget, we provide a general subsidy to the University of Connecticut to cover their costs. Members might not know this, but that amounts to about 13%, only 13% of their total revenue, as the university. Generally speaking, that 13% of the revenue that we provide to them pays for their regular full-time staff and faculty. And it is exhausted well before their faculty and staff earn what they get. Again, we only provide about, I think it's somewhere between 20, 25% of the overall cost of full-time regular employees at the university. So our state subsidy is exhausted well before we get to employees like this. And so I would say that this contract is really falls entirely on what the university can generate in terms of other revenue sources from research, as Representative Nuccio mentioned, and also I think from tuition revenues. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. I was looking at this, and I was thinking, if the state of Connecticut wasn't contributing anything, why are we voting on this contract? But it appears that because we do fund UConn to some extent, and however they distribute that money could be part of their bargaining unit agreement. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding about why we are voting on this agreement is because we have a state law that requires us to vote on every state employee collective bargaining -- every collective bargaining agreement. I'll refrain from using the word state employee. Every collective bargaining agreement, and this is a collective bargaining agreement for sure. As a result of that law, we are required to vote on every collective bargaining agreement, Sn/ak 240 whether or not it costs the general fund anything or not. And this is an example of that. Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. So we are required to vote on every collective bargaining unit that's part of the state. Is that what you're saying? Through you. But we don't vote on bargaining unit contracts for the private sector. So if they are an umbrella of the state, those are the ones we are required to approve or disapprove. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. That's correct, of course. The University of Connecticut is an agency of the state of Sn/ak 241 Connecticut. They have negotiated this collective bargaining agreement with these graduate assistants, and as a result, fall under the requirement that we vote on their contract. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through the program there, is there tuition paid for as well through the state? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, most of the graduate employees do receive tuition assistance as well, as the stipends, contained here. I would mention that the compensation that's provided for a typical graduate student, or research assistant, or a teaching Sn/ak 242 assistant at the University of Connecticut is somewhere around 28 to $33,000 a year. Additionally, they have fee waivers and tuition waivers that help them earn their post-secondary degree at the University of Connecticut. Compensated enough to get by, I would say barely, on 28 to $33,000 a year. Nonetheless, they come out with a graduate degree at the end, and along the way, provide an important service to the university. Of course, courses that are being taught heavily with the assistance of teaching assistants relieves the burden on faculty and to have additional faculty members teach those courses. These folks tend to be great bargains in the grand scheme of things. They are well educated. They are quality students. They are very capable of serving in research roles and for teaching undergraduates. And they are essential component to making sure that the University of Connecticut's overall budget remains manageable. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So you had mentioned 28 to 33,000 in your remarks. Was that the tuition reimbursement rate that the average student is receiving? Through you?

No. I'm sorry if that was imprecise. 28 to $33,000 is typical compensation provided to graduate student employees when they are working as a teaching assistant or research assistant at the university. Additionally, their tuition is waived, and additionally a portion of their mandatory fees are waived, per this contract. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So their tuition is waived. Would the good representative have an -- maybe even an estimate of what that amount is of the tuition that is waived? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I do not have that information in front of me at this time.

Thank you. And I'm just curious also. We don't have that number. I guess I can get that later. But do we know if the state of Connecticut or the taxpayers, I was referring to the Sn/ak 245 taxpayers, are paying someone's tuition? Do they have to report that as income? Do they pay taxes on that? Would the good representative know? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. I don't think scholarship money or tuition waivers are considered to be taxable income.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you answering my questions. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was asking a question. I'll ask it to the good chair or vice chair. It's higher ed's chair. I'm sorry. I will save you as appropriations, and you -- never mind. Through you, Mr. Speaker, a question to the good chair of higher ed and appropriations member.

Representative Haddad. Sn/ak 247

Representative Acker.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Ackert.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Ackert.

Sn/ak 251 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on this resolution? Representative O'Dea?

Representative Haddad.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Sn/ak 256 Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Representative O'Dea.

Representative Haddad.

Sn/ak 258 Representative O'Dea.

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

Have all the members voted? Have all of them been resolved? Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine that your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. The clerk will please announce the tally.

The resolution is adopted. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar Number 59?

Representative McCarthy Vahey.

Sn/ak 261 The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative McCarthy Vahey, you have the floor.

Will the clerk please call LCO 5702, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A.

The representative seeks leave of the team to summarize the amendment, is there objection to summarization? Is there Sn/ak 262 objection? Hearing none. Representative McCarthy, you may proceed with summarization.

The question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule A, will you remark further on the amendment? Sn/ak 263 Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th? Gotcha. Will you mark further on the amendment? Will you mark further on the amendment? If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple questions for the good chair of the public health committee, and a comment and an explanation.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Just to confirm, this bill is now changed to a working group that will be convened by the Department of Public Health.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, yes.

Thank you. And Mr. Speaker, to explain simply in our fourth-grade terms what triple bottom line is, it has to hit Sn/ak 265 three criteria. Is it good for people? Is it good for the earth, for the environment? And does it create money or jobs? And that's one, two, three, triple. Kick it. Triple bottom line. Thank you. Triple bottom line. So you want to say three things people, planet, and money. That's the triple bottom line. And Mr. Speaker, it's about turning a problem property like brownfields into something that's good for the environment, something that's good for people, and something that's good for a community. I hope that explains it simply to everybody in the chamber. And Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Have all members voted? Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? We got three on our side. 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. The clerk will please announce the tally.

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the clerk please call Calendar Number 489.

Representative Blumenthal.

Sn/ak 268 The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Blumenthal, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you mark further on the bill? Representative Mastrofrancesco? Sn/ak 269

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Blumenthal.

Representative Mastrofrancesco. Sn/ak 272

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Representative Rochelle, of the 104th? REP. ROCHELLE (104RH): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise for a moment to thank the good chairman and the committee for this bill, and Sn/ak 273 particularly to thank them for including Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. We lost my mother to ovarian cancer, and I want to make sure that everyone who's watching, all the ladies in the room, are aware that your annual exam does not cover screening for this. You do need to, if you have any family history, get additional screening. It is so important that we're raising awareness. I want to thank you including in this

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. Sn/ak 274

Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

Page 38, Calendar 493, substitute for Senate Bill No. 157 in concurrence with the Senate as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A". LCO 3893, AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL CAMP SAFETY. Favorable Report of Committee On Children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance for the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage in concurrence with the

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The goal of this bill is to rather simple, actually. It is to clarify the requirements for those who are operating municipal camps and to improve the safety of children who are attending those camps. It also requires that the Office of Early Childhood compile a report compiling tendencies, best practices, and procedures from each of these types of municipal camps. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the good chair who just explained the bill a little bit. I do have a few questions, if I may. Sn/ak 277

Through you, can you just explain the -- I, as I understand it, there is going to be a mandated reporter training. Could you just explain that for us through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, I appreciate the question from the good ranking member, so I can explain this a bit further. What this does is it clarifies whether or not mandated reporter training applies to municipal camps that are both licensed and non-licensed within a state. And this bill clarifies that it does apply to both of those. So that would require that any paid employee age 21 or older would have been required to complete the mandated reporter training for each Sn/ak 278 licensed or unlicensed municipal camp. There is no cost for that training, and it is located online on the Office of Early Childhood's website, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that answer. I wanted everybody to know that there was no cost, while it is mandated. The training is mandated, which we believe is a good thing. There's no cost, and it would be online, so they can do it at their convenience. The other thing I just wanted you to talk about, which were concerns in committee, were some of the testimony given were that individuals were that many of the small camp have limited staffing. So their concern was is that some of this reporting is duplicative. Can you just speak to that? Because a lot of the questions in here are such as conduct criminal background checks? I think that's a pretty easy yes, and we know that it's the law, so they all do that. So it seemed Sn/ak 279 a little bit redundant and a little bit duplicative. Can you just speak to that through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, yes. This year and last year, within the committee, we heard testimony of a number of different types of camps and camp employees, and program directors. And what we found was that there wasn't a lot of uniformity between some camps, and on other aspects, there were. And so what this is hopefully going to be able to do is, within this report is to compile the information so that we can have an easily accessible best practices that can be shared with municipal camps, park, and rec programs. So if they are not doing something currently, they don't have to reinvent the wheel. They can look to this as a resource. There are a number of different points that are going to be compiled during this report. That is going to also include a Sn/ak 280 statewide association advocating on behalf of municipal park and rec departments, another for small towns, and another organization that works directly with municipal leaders, so we can ensure that all perspectives are brought to the table, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the good representative for that explanation. I think we've come a long way with the camp bill. We've tried to accommodate many of the concerns. I think this is reasonable, and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise just for a question of clarification, really, through you.

Thank you. I know this is regarding camps, but in a town that I represent that actually abuts the good proponent of this bill, there were some really big, terrible happenings that took place that we've been trying to work on. And I'm curious because I heard, more than municipal camps, I heard park and rec departments. And so I'm curious, will this and I believe -- I see the good proponent shaking her head so she knows what I'm referring to, will this have any authority or any change to the park and rec after-school care, before-school care through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, thank you for that question. I think it's an important one to address. Yes. It will in the same manner that it will require those employees who are over the age of 21 and paid to become mandated reporters. And as you may or may not know, if you're a mandated reporter, that means that there are certain types of reporting requirements. If there are any types of behaviors that are witnessed, seen or heard, that may be putting a child in danger, or impugning their safety. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm glad to hear that it would extend to that. And as far as I believe I just heard, something regarding background checks. And through you, Mr. Speaker, would Sn/ak 283 the background checks be effective for these before-school and after-school park and rec programs? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, the report that is looking at the background checks, what it is doing is simply gathering the information about whether or not each individual camp conducts a background check on their employees, either prospective or current. So it won't require them to do background checks, but merely will allow us to get an idea of whether or not that is something that the majority of camps are doing at this time, and whether or not it should be something that other camps look at if they are not, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And my last question is, would these before-school and after-school sessions had happened, are those considered municipal camps, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe they're considered a municipal camp. They are not -- it depends on who's running them. If this -- that would be my answer. If it's done through a YMCA that is using a local school building for an after-school program, then that would be considered a camp. But if it is something like the 21st century that is running by the school district using the school building, that is through the school, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I think that answers my question. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of quick questions for the proponent of the bill.

Thank you very much. I know the proposal last year looked like it was going to cost our municipalities quite a bit of money, and I had several meetings with the first selectmen and Sn/ak 286 also a very numbered of people from local organizations in my communities that were running municipal camps that could increase the cost of doing camps. Through you, Mr. Speaker, with these adjustments to this year's bill, will there be the same sort of impact that was contemplated in last year's bill, through you?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, no. There will not be. There is not a fiscal note, and there is not a cost to any municipality through you.

Sn/ak 287 Thank you very much. I did see that on the fiscal notes because our good folks over at OFA do an analysis for municipal impact, for such legislation, and I did note that. But I just wanted to confirm if that was my understanding. I think this is great that we are making sure that our children are in safe hands with background checks that'll be done. And finding that information and centralizing it within our state is going to be important. So thank you so much. I support the bill.

I just urge call and my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

Sn/ak 288 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just read through the amendment. I just want to just to verify, will there be background checks for counselors at camps? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that would be dependent on the individual policies of each municipal camp. Through you.

That's how I read it. I appreciate the answer. I thought for sure there'd be background checks on every counselor. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, is there a reason why there's not a background check for each counselor, through you, Mr. Speaker? Sn/ak 289

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I believe during the hearings, we received feedback that shared that there was a cost that would be involved in getting a background check done. There was also a timing involved. Often, these municipal camps are hiring counselors that are coming home from college and then going to work at a municipal camp for the summer. I know that my son is a camp counselor, and his camp chooses to do a background check on every employee before they are hired. So I think that is part of the best practices report that the Office of Early Childhood will be conducting, so that we can get a better idea if there are perhaps just a handful of outliers of types of camps and programs that do not do the checks and move forward, with that information, through you.

I appreciate that. I think my youngest -- yeah. My youngest, I was a camp counselor. And many times, there's high school kids or college kids. Obviously, the best practice is always to have like in Boy Scouts, two-deep leadership. At least two people together with the children. It's hard to administer all that, but I would hope that's the goal of these camps because it's important for kids to have the camp and outdoor play, but also to be safe at the end of the day. So I appreciate the good work of the ranking and the chair, and I'll continue to listen. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 291 The House of Representatives is voting by roll Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the chamber.

by Senate A: Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2 Sn/ak 292

Page 38 Calendar 494, substitute for Senate Bill No. 196 as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A". LCO 4504, AN ACT CONCERNING HOSPITAL SALE-LEASEBACK AGREEMENTS AND ATTESTATIONS CONCERNING LACK OF PRIVATE EQUITY CONTROL OF THE HOSPITAL AND CONTROL OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND CLINICAL DECISIONS OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. Favorable Report of Public Health

Sn/ak 293 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report for the bill as amended in concurrence with the Senate.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I speak about this bill as amended, I'd like to begin by thanking all those who have been part of this conversation. We here in Connecticut have certainly been impacted by some of the actions of the bad faith actors who have extracted funds from some of our hospitals and put us in a position that really put our hospitals, our hospital system, and our patients at risk. What this bill today does is that the results of work together with some of our union leaders, with our colleagues across the aisle Sn/ak 294 and upstairs in the Senate chamber with a number of folks who have helped to and I -- Mr. Speaker, if I--

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. I was a little distracted. This important issue, the issue of addressing private equity, we understand that our health care systems are under a significant amount of pressure with some of the changes in policy and funding that's available. We know that we will need outside, including private equity investments, but this bill will actually limit and make clear where we will not be able to have some of those investments. It will prohibit hospitals from entering into sale-leaseback transactions. Sn/ak 295 It will require our hospitals to annually submit an attestation that no private equity entity has a controlling interest in the hospital, and that no private equity entity is allowed to make clinical decisions or direct that the hospital adopt policies that impact clinical decision making for our professionals that will allow our health care providers to be the ones making those decisions. It will allow the Department of Public Health to issue a fine if that attestation does not occur. And again, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank all those. I'm sure I'm leaving people out who have helped to advocate for this. It's my expectation that as a chamber, and as a committee, and other committees, we will be continuing conversations related to how funding works in our hospitals. But I think this bill, as amended by the Senate, is an important step forward, and I move passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions for the proponent of the bill.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, is it fair to say that to understand a sale-leaseback is akin to you selling your house, and then you sell it to someone, but instead of you moving out, you are now paying rent to the person that bought your house. Through you.

Sn/ak 297 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes. I think that is a perfect explanation of what that sale-leaseback is, through you.

And through you, is this a complete ban of sale-leasebacks for hospitals, through you?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, yes. This bill will prohibit hospitals from entering into those sale- leaseback transactions. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. What specific problem are we trying to solve by banning the sale-leaseback agreements outright?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is a way to address the problem that we face with the Prospect Hospital situation. And while we are and have successfully navigated our way through that, there's been tremendous negative impacts with the extraction of capital that was not then reinvested into the patient communities, instead was paid out to shareholders. In this case, this action is an effort to ensure that we will continue to be able to invest and reinvest into our Sn/ak 299 patients, into our providers, into our health care, and our health care system. Through you.

And through you, Mr. Speaker, are there safeguards, one other safeguards for hospitals that are already engaged into leaseback agreements? And I should have asked this first. Are there any hospitals in the state that are already engaged, currently, in any sale-leaseback agreements? Through you?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, well, I should know this with certainty. I don't believe -- I'll answer Sn/ak 300 the question this way. This bill will not impact anything that has been done in the past. This is prospective, through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, under the controlling interest standard, who ultimately determines in that controlling interest whether -- I'm going to rephrase that. Who ultimately determines whether control exists? Is it DPH? Is it the courts? Or is it the hospitals themselves? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the attestation will be a statement made by our hospitals or by their hospitals to the DPH. And it's my understanding that the Sn/ak 301 DPH would then make that determination and us and ensure that this was accurate information, through you.

And under that attestation requirements under Section 2, what verification process will DPH have to ensure that the attestations are accurate, not just self-reported?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there will be a penalty for those who do not provide that attestation. And there is a process for the hospital to actually submit a request to the department if they have not failed -- have failed to submit that attestation, through you. Sn/ak 302

And thank you, through you, Mr. Speaker. And just for clarification, under the attestation part, I know it gives you, there's certain criteria that covers that, and they will be fined $2,000 per violation. But what if the hospital submits if DPH finds out that the information the hospital submits is inaccurate or misleading? Is there any penalty for that, through you?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I thank the good representative for clarifying. I don't believe that this section actually specifically designates as such, and really more Sn/ak 303 specifically designates a failure to file the attestation. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you. Why does--

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, why does this bill only apply to the hospital's main campus? Through you. Sn/ak 304

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill was part of a large conversation that we've actually had over a number of years. This was something that we worked through with the hospitals. Our hospitals did sign off on this language in the bill, and in part because, again, with those increasing pressures for financing, we have private financing, public or government financing, or some combination thereof. Those are the three choices for how we pay for our health care system. With the increasing pressures from that public or government funding, we see the need, and the hospital see the need to partner in some ways. And in particular, our health care providers have said to us that there are some innovative investments or innovative partnerships that they are looking to make as they invest in some of the perhaps those new policies or those innovative policies. They've asked that we not go there quite yet. Again, as I said in my opening remarks, I expect that Sn/ak 305 we will be having continuing conversations about how to review these transactions. We did address some of that through the Certificate of Need bill, but that was a compromise. That's the short answer after a long answer, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for that explanation. And through you, Mr. Speaker, does this bill apply to joint ventures?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important for us to note in lines 59 through 64, nothing in this bill or nothing in this section would prohibit a hospital or an affiliate from investing in a joint venture. Through you. Sn/ak 306

And through you, Mr. Speaker, does this bill align or overlap with the Certificate of Need bill that we just passed recently, the session?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the good representative for the question. I would call this bill a compliment to the Certificate of Need bill that we passed. The Certificate of Need bill, though not expressly addressing private equity, did have portions that will address reporting of transactions that we have not previously seen before. That's not addressed here. But, again, this is a compliment. The Certificate of Need bill also talked about a percentage of Sn/ak 307 controlling interest. But, again, they do not necessarily overlap in any negative way. I would suggest that they complement one another. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no more questions. I'll just make a comment with my closing remarks. We saw in Connecticut, we watched our trusted community hospitals pushed to the brink and over because they were treated like investments and not the true lifelines that they are. Prospect Medical Holdings showed us exactly what can go wrong, and SB 196 ensures that that won't happen again. That's the most important thing. This is about protecting access when people that trust us need it the most. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of this bill. There's a long story that I can tell about private equity and what happened to Manchester Memorial, Rockville General, and Waterbury. They were sold to a private equity entity. They ended up becoming a victim of this equity privateer. They went from being good hospitals to barely limping along because they were taken apart, basically. And that's my words, not another person's words. Manchester Memorial Hospital had been a great hospital. I actually had a couple of operations there when I was a younger person. I dare say when private equity came in and took it over Sn/ak 309 and basically sold the property to a third party, just like you hear of the three-card Monte in New York. That's basically what happened with those hospitals, with Manchester, Rockville, and Waterbury. We need to take a stand here, and we need to protect our medical facilities. I learned just how important it is to have good medical facilities back in December and January, and I dare say I wouldn't have gone to Rockville or Manchester or Waterbury had I needed to go to a hospital. And that was because of what occurred. The first indicator of having a problem was a data breach, and that pushed Manchester Memorial Hospital into a quandary. And then, of course, the leaseback of the property to a third party that is supposedly, and I can't attest to the truth on this, but I have heard that it was a shell corporation that was party to this entire three-card Monte. And those are my words. Whatever we do here today, we need to take a stand. We need to ensure that that never happens to a medical facility in our state. That is so important when you need to have hospital care. And what was done was just plain wrong. I rise in wholeheartedly supporting this bill because something has to be done to guarantee that we have medical Sn/ak 310 facilities that don't fall prey to this and to ensure that they're there for us, not for a third party that's basically trying to make as much money as they can from their acquisition. I think that this is a step in the right direction, and I think there's a number of other areas where we may be looking at next year with any luck. So in conclusion, this is an important bill. This bill answers a problem. This bill should ensure that we never have the debacle that happened to Manchester, Rockville, and Waterbury again. One very simple question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the proponent of the bill, is this bill going to protect those hospitals in the state of Connecticut so that we do not ever have that kind of situation occur? And we do not have our good hospitals turned into troublesome? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Sn/ak 311

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a critical step in ensuring that we are protecting our hospitals, our hospital systems, and our patients. It's probably not the end. And as the good representative said, there will be other conversations that we're going to need to have. The bottom line in health care needs to be the patient and the patient's well- being, not the bottom line in terms of making a profit. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And through you, thank you to the proponent of the bill. It's a long time coming, and it's a step in the right direction. And it's something that must be done to Sn/ak 312 protect other medical institutions from the debacle that occurred to the ones that I listed, Manchester, Rockville, and Waterbury. And it took quite a bit to get them out of the peril that they were thrown into. And again, I wholeheartedly support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you through you to the proponent of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill as well, and I thank my good colleague from South Windsor for raising those points. I represent Vernon and Rockville. Our hospital was a proud hospital. Our community is a proud community that was denigrated by a sale-leaseback agreement. And this is a critical first step to making sure that no other hospital, no other community has to go through that again. Sn/ak 313 Rockville General Hospital, now Manchester Memorial Hospital, Rockville campus, as I said, has such a proud history and serves a community that needs it, and we almost lost that. And our next closest hospital was Manchester. We almost lost that. People's lives are at risk when that happens, all for a profit margin, for a bottom line, that's unconscionable. So I thank very strongly the leadership of the Public Health Committee for their work on this, and I urge my colleagues in this chamber to support this bill so that nobody else has to suffer this experience again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a question or two for the proponent or anyone capable of answering the question, through you.

Can I ask a question?

Thank you. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the best of a the good chair's knowledge, as the law currently permits in a situation where one of these transactions goes through and the private equity firm buys the land that a hospital is on, including the building that the hospital business is in, do the proceeds would they go to the board, like the hospital, the business? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I may just want to repeat back the question to see if I understand. I think if I understand correctly, the good representative is asking when there is a sale-leaseback transaction, which would not be allowed upon passage of this bill. But if that were to happen, the sale -- where do the proceeds of the sale go is that the good representative's question, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes.

Sn/ak 316 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So if there is a sale, the purchaser would receive those proceeds and would do as they see fit. In the prospect case, $500 million was taken and given to shareholders rather than being invested back in those communities. So that would be determined by that purchaser, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate the good chair's answer. She cut straight to the point, exactly what I was looking to achieve through my question was answered. And with that said, I'm not going to keep this any much longer. I stand in strong support of this bill specifically because of egregious examples such as that. In any other situation when you're dealing with commodities, whatever, any other sort of business. Okay? I'm totally okay with that free market. Let the winners and losers get decided amongst in the free market environment. But when you're talking about hospitals, patients, Sn/ak 317 people that are sick, people that are all sorts of medical situations going on, that sort of situation can never happen. So I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much take the point that the terrible situation in Prospect Health should not be repeated. And the goals of the bill to make sure that those incidents are not repeated. But I'm a little bit concerned about the definition of private equity in here because I think the way it's drafted essentially removes the ability of any private capital whatsoever that's not either state-owned or a nonprofit, which is essentially state taxpayer-funded, to enter Connecticut's health care market. Sn/ak 318 So I will refer to a certain line of the bill, which does, in fact, define private equity. So, in line 13, it says, a private equity entity means any entity that collects capital investments from individuals or entities and purchases, as a parent company, a direct or indirect ownership share of a hospital. So, what if there's a publicly traded company that is clearly an entity which collects capital investments from individual or entities? Wouldn't that fall under the definition of private equity, as this particular definition is drafted through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the good representative raises a valid point. And this is been part of the difficulty in trying to get to agreement on this bill is how to define private equity. And I think for those of us who are not finance experts, I am not one. I am married to one, so I hear about this at home. And it is very difficult. This is a Sn/ak 319 broad definition intended to apply simply to this section, but arguably, the direct answer to the good representative's question is yes. And clearly, this is constructed so narrowly with respect to the hospital campuses as well as to the sale-leaseback aspect of the bill. To the conversation that I had earlier with the good ranking member, we recognize and acknowledge that our hospital systems do need to engage in other investments, whether it's private or publicly traded, and this bill will not preclude them from doing so, through you.

Thank you very much. I'm trying to think, and I've been trying to look up as I sat here and listened to the debate. Some of the bigger entities that own the hospitals in our state, aside from Prospect. And I did look at Yale New Haven. That is obviously a not-for-profit that owns a large hospital system. Sn/ak 320 But I was then thinking about some of the other ones down, my district's direction. Like Stamford Health is -- maybe I'm sure the good proponent doesn't know. I haven't even had a chance to Google it myself. But I am concerned that we are essentially cutting private capital out of Connecticut's hospital market. Not just the "Bad private capital" that has a more short-term orientation and it doesn't care for the long-term health prospects of our hospitals here in Connecticut, but the good private capital that is really a source of funding above and beyond the taxpayer in Connecticut. So if the good proponent could address that, I would appreciate it, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the good representative for the question because, again, I think it is a valid one. As I said earlier, we pay for our health care through public dollars, which is our taxpayer dollars, whether that's Sn/ak 321 federal funding from Medicaid or if that state funding, or even local support or through the private market, whether that's publicly traded or private capital, which is a different kind of vehicle. And to the good representative's point, that private funding, there are different mechanisms and different intentions, and different ways that that funding is used. This is why we have spent actually years in discussion around this bill and working in conjunction with our nonprofit hospitals, with our Connecticut Hospital Association partners, with the folks from the independent hospitals to make sure that we were crafting a bill that addresses the concerns that we're hearing expressed here today and that the Senate and I want to thank, Senator Anwar, Senator Gordon, others, Senator Summers in the But to make sure that we are starting to address a specific and particular issue, and some would say we're a couple years too late in doing so. Had our laws been in place then, it would could have prevented what happened in the three hospitals that we've been discussing here today. But it is not the intention of this bill to try and prevent our hospital systems, whether it is Sn/ak 322 Yale, New Haven, or anyone else, Stanford, or others, from being able to utilize those private dollars to invest in innovative solutions that will help promote the health and well-being of our residents, through you.

Thank you. I think that my read of this or position is that the definition is sufficiently broadly drafted that it's not clear to me that any private capital would be able to come into Connecticut to fund our hospitals and our health care. And that's about 11% of the total funding for health care. I just looked this up here as we were sitting. And it's not clear to me where the replacement capital to fund a robust health care system in the state will come from. So, I very much appreciate the good proponent of the bill's answers to help satisfy my concerns. And I look forward to listening to the rest of the debate. Thank you. Sn/ak 323

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you up there.

I'd like to thank the proponents of this bill for bringing it forward. I could tell you, as being a resident and representative from the city of Waterbury, what that private equity instrument did to our hospital. It is something that we needed to address, and I'm glad that we put something in place to address it. We in Waterbury are very fortunate that we have two hospitals. And with the acquisition of Waterbury Hospital by Prospect, it put them in jeopardy. It put them in jeopardy. And I could tell you that through the years, Waterbury Hospital was Sn/ak 324 very close to just folding, closing their doors. It's only due to the professionalism to those nurses, doctors, and staff that actually had a commitment to serve the public and hold on because they knew here at the general assembly, we are trying to put something together to help with this situation. And through the good graces of the governor's office and the comptroller's office and our delegations, from Waterbury and surrounding towns that we were able to get UConn Health to come in and actually acquire the operations that really saved us. I don't know how many days we had left for Waterbury Hospital. That's how close and dire this situation was. We cannot afford to let that happen again in any hospital in the state of Connecticut. And I also say that we have two hospitals, well, if that closes, what is the fallout on our other hospitals, Saint Mary's? Could they handle the overflow? No. And as a matter of fact, I mean, being in the smaller market, they don't get reimbursed for Medicare reimbursements like the larger organizations of Yale and Hartford Health. So they're actually just hanging on as well. So that's why we can't allow this to happen again, because it will be a domino effect. Between the two hospitals, they serve over 300,000 Sn/ak 325 people in a region in the state of Connecticut. We cannot allow this to happen again. So with that being said, I am so thankful that we are able to help with the collaboration of those that I mentioned before and UConn Health, for Waterbury Hospital in helping to keep them afloat and now hopefully be vibrant going forward, and for this legislation that will hopefully prevent that from ever happening again. So I'm very thankful for everybody who worked on this, and look forward to passing this so we can protect our health care delivery systems for the people we represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise for a couple of comments. I think what we're talking about here, overall, is private equity that owns hospitals. Right? Good representative from Vernon mentioned Rockville Hospital. I was born in Rockville Hospital. My mother was born in Rockville Hospital. Sn/ak 326 Two of my children were born in Rockville Hospital. And then Rockville Hospital was purchased and gutted. Now, there's hardly any services that happened there at all. And all that happened on the watch of private equity. If we're talking about private equity having the ability to invest in a into -- invest in certain items of a hospital, I can understand that. But when we talk about private equity, buying in a hospital system outright, this is the year of movie quotes for me, but I don't know if anybody's ever seen Pretty Woman. But Edward in Pretty Woman was considered something called a corporate raider. He would buy distressed businesses, chop them up, sell them, and make a profit. And that's what we saw Prospect do for these three hospitals across the state of Connecticut. They swooped in. They bought them. They took all of the money from those hospitals, and they sent it out to investors, and they gutted those hospitals. They left them with unpaid bills, unpaid workers, behind in taxes, and they put in jeopardy three small rural hospitals, or hospitals that helped people that really aren't even in that same position anymore. We're trying to find ways to kinda supplement them now. And, unfortunately, we're seeing this in Sn/ak 327 most rural hospitals in the state, whether it's the larger Hartford hospitals and Yale's buying up rural hospitals and closing services, or these private equity companies coming in and gotten them. The difference between a Hartford and Yale and a private equity is at least the Hartford and Yale they're just directing them to their higher cost of service buildings. Whereas private equity was just really taking the money and waiting till they died to walk away. So I stand in support of this bill today because it's important that we protect rural hospitals. It's important that we protect rural health care. And if people have the ability to invest in a hospital without owning that hospital as private equity, I think that's something that we should be able to get behind and ensure that our hospitals are really being stewarded and not being corporately rated. So thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 328 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill, but I want to begin by stating up front that I intend to vote for this bill because I think it's a great start. We in the aging committee have been trying to deal with private equity and its effect on nursing homes and assisted livings for several years. And we have not gotten as far as the Public Health Committee has gotten with this particular bill. And I applaud you. This is really, really a fantastic place to start. A couple of questions, though, through you, Mr. Speaker.

To the proponent of this bill, have we considered other methods, other ways to qualify investors? Because what we found and have continued to find in the agent committee is that there are qualified, very good operators out there, and we are precluding them from being able to acquire nursing homes, which then turn and fail. One of the frustrations that I keep feeling is that what appears to be predatory behavior, because it is Sn/ak 329 predatory behavior on the part of these bad equity companies, is that we don't address the base problem of allowing to -- of allowing our banking department or the federal government to regulate this type of predatory activity. So, to the proponent, what can we do to not preclude the good private equity from necessary investments in facilities that people depend on and may lose because we lose nursing homes every few months, and there are very good people out there that do want to buy them that have really great records? So, I could ask this question for the next 20 minutes. But what else have you found, and where do we go next so that the taxpayer doesn't wind up buying every hospital and nursing home in the state of Connecticut, which, by the way, is one thing that I am opposed to? I don't think the state should be owning these facilities, because that takes competition out of a market. So, there's four questions in there. But where we go from here would be my first question to the good proponent of this very exciting bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Where do we go from here? That's an excellent question. And if I had that crystal ball, I might be a very wealthy woman myself able to invest in all these things. But to answer the good representative's questions, I want to acknowledge as well that these questions around private equity investment are not unique to health care hospital systems. And the good representative alluded to nursing homes, where this is certainly a very significant issue, and I applaud the Aging Committee and other committees for working to address this. The question that was asked, specifically, I believe, from a good representative was how do we take a look at or perhaps screen those good faith investors versus those who are what we might call the bad faith actors? And one of the things that we have done in the Public Health Committee over the past three years is talk about doing some of that screening process through the Certificate of Need process. In fact, two years ago, we had a bill that would have the attorney general's office involved with the office of health strategy that will now be moving over Sn/ak 331 to the Department of Public Health would be looking at those investments. And in fact, even in this year's Certificate of Need bill, which has now been passed, we were looking at how to examine and find out if some of those private equity investments would need to have a Certificate of Need. We negotiated in that bill. We now have reporting. So that again is not in this bill, but that will give us some eyes -- that reporting mechanism will give us some eyes into what kinds of transactions we are seeing in health care. And that will then, we hope, inform us as to what kind of legislation we need to do going forward. However, back to this bill, the bill before us today, main campuses and specifically on the sale-leaseback. As well, it speaks to that governance, that control of the decision- making. So we're not saying in this bill that there can be no private equity investment in a hospital main campus. That's not what this bill is saying. What this bill is saying is that sure, we can have that investment as long as those investors and as long as the people making that investment are not controlling the decision makers and the health care providers. Sn/ak 332 In other words, our health care providers are making the health care decisions, and our finance folks are making the finance decisions, but we're not going to have the finance folks making the decision about what the best evidence-based course of care is for our patients, through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good proponent. I'm very, very excited about this bill and where it goes next. So I'm a yes on this today and look forward to, hopefully, participating and widening its application as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, thanks to the good proponent of what is a really nice start.

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

by Senate A: Total number voting 148 Sn/ak 334 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 130 Those voting Nay 18 Absent not voting 3

Hello, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for calling on me. I move for suspension of our rules for meeting consideration of Calendar 553.

Sn/ak 335 Page 47, Calendar 553, substitute for Senate Bill No. 321 as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A" LCO 5365, AN ACT CONCERNING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN EXCAVATION PROJECTS. Favorable Report of Energy and Technology.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report as amended in concurrence with the Senate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, some people have noticed that we have a problem when we dig holes in the ground. And I'm talking specifically about telecommunications and broadband companies that, from time to time, feel obliged to open a hole to go fix something. And our current rule suggests that hole needs to remain open for an extended period, which nobody likes. You got to detour around it. You got to drive over a metal plate. So, there's been some talk about fixing it. Just to review, we're talking about a wire in a hole and a hole in the ground, and the green grass grows all around it, around, the green grass grows all around. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. LCO No. 5365, I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment. I'd be granted the new chamber to summarize.

Just being you know, belt and suspenders. Okay. Thank you. This is a strike all amendment which requires a provider, whether telecom or broadband, when they are going to dig a hole in the ground, they need to give up to 30 days notice to the authority PURA such that PURA can then, through its means, notify other providers of the fact that the ground does have a hole in it and that they can do that work while the hole is open with the objective of shortening the amount of time that hole needs to remain open. I move adoption.

Sn/ak 338 Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. As we heard throughout our committee hearings, it seemed like once upon a time, we decided that when we actually open the ground that we should make sure that anybody else that needs to use this hole in the ground would have an option to do it, so we don't have to keep digging these holes. Seemed like a good idea at the time, but we heard from our telecommunications and broadband people across the state that said, you know what? In fact, no one was ever using these, and we really need to shorten it up. So I think this is a great way for the government to just kind of get out of the way and stop trying to help. So this is a good bill. Thank you. I support it.

Sn/ak 339 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the chamber.

by Senate A: Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2 Sn/ak 340

Page 21 Calendar 328, substitute to House Bill No. 5561, AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAID RATE INCREASES FOR CERTAIN PROVIDERS. Favorable Report of Human Services.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO 5818. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A" LCO 5818, offered by Representative Gilchrest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment becomes -- it's a strike-call, becomes the underlying bill. Section 1 puts into place a process for the Department of Social Services to continuously evaluate and potentially update Medicaid rates over a five-year period. Section 2 adds individuals who practice dental care onto the Medical Assistance Policy Oversight Committee. Section 3 is looking at our prior authorization process with regards to biomarkers. Section 4 will require practitioners to consider the feasibility of using non opioids. And Section 5 will create a working group to see if the state of Connecticut can reimburse spouses for providing personal care assistance. I move adoption.

Mr. Speaker, let's adopt the amendment, and we'll work on the bill. I move adoption.

All those opposed? The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Case.

Representative Gilchrest.

Representative Case.

Representative Gilchrest, do you care to answer that question?

Representative Case.

Representative Gilchrest.

Sn/ak 347 Representative Case.

Representative Gilchrest.

Sn/ak 348 Representative Case.

Representative Gilchrest.

Representative Case.

Thank you. Representative Hughes.

Sn/ak 352 Representative Gilchrest.

Representative Hughes.

Representative Gilchrest.

Representative Hughes. Sn/ak 354

Thank you. Do you care to add anything else, Representative Gilchrest?

Okay. 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. Clerk will take a tally.

The bill, as amended, passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 310?

Sn/ak 357 Representative Comey.

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

Will the Clerk please call LCO 5857, which is designated House Amendment Schedule "A"? Sn/ak 358

Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection hearing none, Representative Comey?

Question before the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, is there objection to a voice Sn/ak 359 vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, this bill really cares for a subset of patients that are duly eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, and they are facing at this point some administrative barriers to hospice transfer. They could be pending Title XIX authorization and are in limbo. And we anticipate that this bill will be able to reconcile the need, at a cost savings to the state, for constituents seeking end-of-life care. And this is a pilot program to ensure that we have a specific and deliberate Sn/ak 360 approach to reimbursement for room and board within available funding for these end-of-life patients, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Winchester, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good bill ought to pass.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the proponent of the bill, does this, in your view, expand the presumptive eligibility that we passed last year for folks coming out of the hospital that are probably Medicaid and Medicare eligible, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the good woman, I am not sure about that, and I don't think so. But then again, maybe. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

To echo, my good ranking member, good bill ought to pass.

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 5481, 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

Sn/ak 364 Page 42 Calendar 526, Senate Bill No. 521, AN ACT CONVEYING A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE NORTHWEST RESOURCE RECOVERY AUTHORITY. Favorable Report of Government Oversight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Nice to see up there this afternoon. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and acceptance of the bill.

This bill is a conveyance bill, and it is conveying approximately four acres of parcel land in the town of Sn/ak 365 Torrington. And it includes the existing transfer station, and this conveyances to the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority at administrative costs. I move passage in concurrence with the

Alright. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just through you, a few questions to the good chairwoman of Government Oversight. So, as the bill states, this is for administrative costs. Does the good chair know what the fair market value of this property is, through you, Mr. Speaker?

Sn/ak 366 The city of Torrington assessor's card has the property appraised at 531,500 -- $500.

Thank you for that. And if the good chair knows what towns would this authority serve, through you, Mr. Speaker?

This is a conveyance to the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority, which serves a lot of our great municipalities up in the Northwest Corner, including North Canaan -- Let me just double-check here. If you can, give me a second, please, sir.

Thank you so much. This includes the towns of Goshen, Salisbury, Sharon, Cornwall, Norfolk, Torrington, and four more to be expected, which includes North Canaan, New Hartford, and Colebrook. Through you.

Okay. Thank you for that. And through you, Mr. Speaker, were there any towns that opposed this conveyance? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

In consulting the testimony, I do see testimony opposed from the town of Winchester, through you.

Thank you very much for that. And, since the public hearing that we had also the mayor of Torrington has also expressed her opposition to this conveyance. Torrington, of course, being the largest town within this authority, where the facility is, and the poorest community that this authority serves. So I think it's worth noting that the mayor of that town does oppose it as well. I don't have any further questions for the good chair, just some comments. And I know some of my colleagues will have comments both in support and in opposition to this conveyance. Being on the Government Oversight Committee, though in that public hearing, it was very apparent that this is not unanimously supported by the communities in the area. And I Sn/ak 369 think that we should not be tipping the scales at this point in favor of the authority, because we will be giving this land for administrative costs, which will not be a lot. When Torrington was willing to sell the property for $3.25 million to a private company that would have given the town additional funds because it would have been on the property tax rolls. So I think that's worth noting. It's also worth noting that we heard a lot of testimony indicating that this private company or another private company would actually save folks money in terms of the cost per ton, and the fact that we as a state did have Mira. Mira fell apart. So I'm not sure it necessarily makes sense for another public entity, such as this to take over a trash facility. We have had trash problems for a long time in this state. When I was much younger, I remember we had issues when Governor Malloy was governor, and there were working group after working group trying to figure out what we need to do about our trash problem. And I think that based on the testimony that we've heard, based on conversations with folks, in the air, particularly, as I said, in the largest, poorest community, that it would be a mistake to convey this land to this authority for administrative Sn/ak 370 costs. And, I will be opposing this. As I said, I know there are folks who have strong feelings in both directions, and it does not serve my area at all. But just based on what I have heard, I am going to have to oppose this conveyance today. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few comments, maybe questions. We'll see how it goes, if I may.

Again, I -- to him on the Government Oversight committee. We had a long day of testimony on all the conveyances, but I would say this one in particular, it took up the lion's share of Sn/ak 371 our public testimony that day. And I learned a lot about it. So I certainly have my concerns. I think the good ranking member already asked about some of my concerns. I have a question. Is there a reason why we're not asking for fair market value on this conveyance, through you?

Thank you so much. So the conveyance is it for administrative cost because it is going to be conveyed for use of a transfer station. If, for some reason, the Northwest regional authority does not use it for transfers a station, it does revert back to the state, through you.

Sn/ak 372 Okay. And again, the NRA is a new organization that has existed for this purpose only and has not run a trash facility at this time. Is that correct, through you?

That is my understanding.

And again, this was one of my concerns. The more and more we ask questions during a public hearing, the more answers we didn't get. There was no clear plan. I feel like when you ask for the state for land or conveyance, especially of this magnitude, you should already have a clear plan in place. They did not have one. As of that date, I've heard they have a plan Sn/ak 373 now. Are you aware of a, through you, Mr. Speaker to the good chairwoman? Are you aware if there's a plan now, through you?

So just for the avoidance of doubt, this is for a conveyance of land, and it does not contemplate any sort of commercial arrangement. Through you.

Understood. And again, this adds to my concern. We're going to permanently. And again, I know there they can take it back. But I believe in -- when we do things in this building, we should have all our ducks in a row first and not just roll the dice, give over a piece of land that's worth over $3 million, Sn/ak 374 and hope that the plan works when there isn't even a plan in existence yet. I think as extremely irresponsible and sets a bad precedent. I've been sitting in this chamber for 12 years now. And I don't recall us conveying a parcel of land without some type of plan. And even when they have a good plan, sometimes they have to come back to be fixed the next year. And again, you're talking about $3 million that was offered. Also, a potential tax revenue for the city of Torrington was estimated between $80,000 and $100,000. The mayor herself which is the town in which this facility resides, does not support this. Neither does the town manager of the town of Winchester, which I believe might be the second-largest town in that area. And we have heard from some towns and not from others. To me, this is like an uncooked cake. We're supposed to bake the cake in the committee, have the process, and by the time it comes here, we're supposed to have answers. I think we're set a really bad precedent if we're just going to approve this without a real plan. One second. And also, through you, is there going to be a state subsidy to help support this through Sn/ak 375

So this is just a conveyance. There is no commercial agreement as part of this conveyance of property, and that is not included.

So, how are they going to operate this property if they have no money to operate it with? My understanding, I've heard that they'll be money put aside. I've heard that the number of 1.4 million and 1.7 million. Do we have any clarity on that, through you?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to yield to the good chair of the Finance Committee, who is more familiar with the nuances of the agreement at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy to do so. So first of all, I just do want to echo the comments of the good chair that there is no money contemplated in this. And it is my understanding that the prop, although there is a short-term period because of the actions of DIS that will be a little bit difficult for the next few months, that the numbers are absolutely sustainable in the long-term. And the state will not be required to subsidize this transfer station that is fully backed by another well- Sn/ak 377 established agency, the Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority. Through Mr. Speaker.

You mentioned Housatonic Resource? What is their connection with the North Western Resource Authority? Those are two different authorities. Are they married in some way, or how is that going to work?

Again, that's not part of this bill, through you.

Well, that seems to be a big problem. We're going to convey a four-acre parcel transfer station with a value of over $3 million, and we don't have a plan. We don't know what's going to happen with it. That's just irresponsible. And again, it sets a precedent. Remember that if this passes and you have a conveyance in the future that you don't have to work too hard to get it and have a plan in place. So we're setting a precedent here. So everyone remember that when you have a conveyance in the future that you expect to get the same treatment. But hopefully, we don't do that today and don't set a precedent and be responsible with what we're doing. Again, it's just -- we're going to convey a land. There should be a plan in place. This is not an insignificant piece of property. This isn't conveying an acre for Botanical Gardens to beautify a city. You know, this is a serious conveyance. It should be taken serious. And there's no plan in place. We should have answers. I asked a lot of these questions in the public hearing. There were no answers. They were inconsistencies. Sn/ak 379 And if this is the best action, then let's put it on the shelf, get all those involved and come back next year with a solid plan. And if it makes sense to know, I absolutely support it. But I have not been convinced through these questions. Certainly not at the public hearing. Not in any interactions I've had since then. And I just have great concern. I think we're setting a really bad precedent here. I just, I know I've said that a lot. I feel like I'm missing something, Mr. Speaker. But I'll conclude my comments there and I'll listen to what everyone else has to say and, well, I stand against this conveyance. Thank you.

Sn/ak 380 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of thoughts and commentaries of the proposed bill. We, in this state, in every part of the state, are suffering from problems and capacity issues with both the facilities that originally burned refuse and the facilities that would have taken some of that refuse for recycling. The consolidation in the state is eventually going to force us to select throughout all regions of the state and elect to have transfer stations. Those are an essential part of moving our refuse issue into an ecologically, environmentally, and importantly, for those more concerned about their wallets, into a sustainable system. So, I think that when we step here to look for a transfer station, while all the questions may not have been answered, I think we have to move forward with process and look at establishing some transfer stations as collection points to make our recycling and environmental repurposing of waste productive and feasible on an economic basis. We cannot expect to do a reverse Amazon procedure where everything shows up at your door. We're going to have to figure out what collection sites the municipalities have, and where we Sn/ak 381 can get transfer stations established. You know, I think it's a start to what is a profound issue that needs resolution in the state. So, even without the complete set of answers, I'm inclined to support this. And given the fact that it's a transfer station, I think four acres is probably on key with what you would need. I don't think anyone is going to propose to put a transfer station on a quarter acre lot next to their house. So, I think this makes a lot of sense. So, I would be inclined to support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to first acknowledge -- as you all know, this involves the area that I represent quite intimately. And I want to acknowledge that this is not easy. This has been a challenging process in part because some of the Sn/ak 382 abrupt way that it began. So, I appreciate the concern and the thought process. But I am standing up in strong support of this conveyance, which at its essence is about local control. I want to first emphasize that the property in question was acquired by the state for free. So, we are not reimbursing the state for any money. And that this local control is about empowering municipalities to manage their solid waste responsibly and to allow and enable and ensure continued competition in the marketplace. This conveyance is also the only way forward for these to prevent a disruption or closure of this facility. All the other options would take time and require the facility to shut down. We all know that, take a look at the waste baskets next to our desk. The production of trash does not stop. And that disruption would be extremely costly for the municipalities involved. And this is why, at the hearing, the vast majority of implicated, affected municipalities testified in support. Not all. And in one of the towns in particular, there's been a change of leadership. The prior mayor was one of the founding members. The current mayor is asking some questions. Sn/ak 383 But currently, the NRRA has been stood up. It has six municipalities that have joined already, and there are four more that have scheduled to do so via town meeting in the next few months. The continued public ownership of this facility ensures transparency, fairness in pricing, and equitable treatment of all waste haulers. After this transition period in particular, the transfer station very much looks forward to having a competitive process. That's what this is about. Keeping it in local control so that we can have a fully competitive process and find the best rates for the municipalities involved. This process, again, has been challenging, but I want to express thanks for the people who have stood through the complexity and looked at the long-term picture for the towns and the cost that they're already incurring and the cost that they might incur in the short and long term. OPM and DEEP for continued support of the public policy of the importance of keeping these regional facilities in public hands so that we can ensure competition. Strong institutional backing. There was question before about Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority. That is the Sn/ak 384 closest thing the new NRRA has to a sister organization. Those of you who sit on the Environment Committee have heard from HRRA on a repeat basis because they're exceptionally knowledgeable about the handling, about the operation of transfer facilities and solid waste in general. They have provided full support for the NRRA, have got it stood up. And by the way, it's my understanding that HRRA has the lowest fees in the area at the moment, you know, in comparison with the private haulers. So, they are very competitive. In addition to support from HRRA, they're supported by the COG under question and also two other regional COGs that are nearby. Also, I will note, supported by a bicameral, bipartisan group of regional legislators who have stood by through this. I want to also note a couple of other points because they've come up in discussion that the NRRA will pay a fee to the host city, Torrington. So, Torrington is not going to be without compensation for the operation of this facility. That said, I think this is underpinned by good, strong public policy. There is a plan that is in place. It is fully sustainable as I've seen these numbers in the long run once the Sn/ak 385 -- I mean, it was a bit of an abrupt beginning. It took HRRA several years to get started, and NRRA has had to catch up fast. But they have done so. I very much support this, and I look forward to its passage. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I fully identify my remarks with the Representative from the 64th. The location in question here has been a key hub for regional waste management for almost 40 years. It's right next to a highway and rail. The Torrington Transfer Station was taken by eminent domain in 1987 by MIRA. It's state actions that have caused the uncertainty that we can't finish. We don't have the cake baked yet. DAS canceled the contracts effective June 30th for solid waste removal there. It's my understanding, from the public hearing, those contracts could have gone another year. On the Sn/ak 386 other hand, DEEP has been supportive, starting off with a $350,000 grant. And again, as I said, the Northwest Hills Council of Government supported the stand up of the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority. We've heard that 10 towns, including one of mine, New Hartford, have made a commitment to this new entity. It's state policy to support voluntary regionalization. It saves money, and this conveyance supports that regionalization policy. It's my understanding that the solid waste permit from DEEP for the facility does remain active. That's good. Now, let's talk about monopoly. There's multiple kinds of monopoly. One is exclusive franchise monopoly. Several towns in the Northwest have exclusive franchise monopoly with one company. According to questioning and testimony in the public hearing, the towns that don't have that exclusive franchise monopoly, that same company is the only one that operates doing contracts with individual households. So, we've got a combination of exclusive franchise monopoly and de facto monopoly. Keeping this property in public hands under a regional body will give participating towns the leverage to see competitive bids, to have a private/public partnership Sn/ak 387 rather than have it completely private. And I want to say last year, late in session, is when I believe we stopped the sale of this property. I want to make it clear that $3+ million wasn't going to the state. My understanding, and I could be corrected, it was going to the City of Hartford. Now, the Housatonic Resource Recovery Authority has been mentioned, and they're an excellent example of how a government body can run a place like this environmentally sound and fiscally sound manner. That entity supports 14 towns. Their director, during the public hearing, offered to advise NRRA as they stood up. As of last week, two members on NRRA were removed and two were added to this board. And those two members who were added are opposed to this conveyance. Well, the difference of opinion is okay on a board, then all voices will be heard on the future. It won't be just a rubber stamp going forward. Keeping this facility public controlled is consistent with its use for 40 years. Ultimately, this conveyance protects municipal choice and preserves competition. It keeps an essential piece of infrastructure accountable to the communities in the region. Sn/ak 388 This property is a critically owned, critical publicly controlled asset. Once it's lost, we will not get it back. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Three bills in a row, I get up in front of you. Here we go. Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments, and I'll have a few questions, if I may.

Representative Dathan. Sn/ak 390

Representative case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan. Sn/ak 397

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Thank you for that clarity, Representative Dathan. Representative Case.

Representative Dathan. Sn/ak 399

Representative Case.

Representative Case, would you be willing, sir, to reframe that question, bring it a little closer to the bill.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Sn/ak 403 Representative Dathan.

Representative Case, I think the Representative is saying it's fact specific. Does that get to the heart of the answer to your question, sir?

Representative, I think that question has been asked and answered. I want to give you appropriate leeway and respect your right to hold the floor. But maybe you could rephrase or ask a different question. Sn/ak 405

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Representative Dathan.

Representative case.

Representative Dathan. Sn/ak 409

Representative Case.

Sn/ak 410 Representative Dathan.

Representative Case.

Thank you, Representative. Would you care to remark further on the bill? Would you care to remark further on the bill? 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? 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. Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

Sn/ak 414 The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Mr. Majority Leader.

Without objection, so ordered. (gavel) House will stand at ease. House will come back to order. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 541.

Representative Haddad from the great community of Mansfield, chair of the Higher Ed Committee, proceed, sir. Sn/ak 415

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Haddad, you have the floor.

Sn/ak 417 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill. Representative Bronko proceed.

Proceed, Representative Bronko.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Bronko.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Bronko.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Bronko.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Bronko.

Representative Haddad.

Representative Bronko.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will 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 Sn/ak 427 machine will be locked. Clerk will take a tally, and the Clerk please announce the tally.

Bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 462?

Representative Sanchez, Chairman of the Labor Committee from the great community of New Britain.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative Sanchez, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on the bill. Will you remark further on the bill. Representative Weir.

my sincere apologies, Representative Weir, especially as my neighbor. Proceed, sir.

Representative Sanchez.

House will stand at ease. House will come back to order. Representative Sanchez.

Representative Weir, do you care to rephrase that question for us?

Thank you. Representative Sanchez.

Representative Weir.

Representative Sanchez.

Representative Weir. Sn/ak 437

Thank you, Representative. Representative Ackert of the 8th District, you have the floor. Sn/ak 444

Representative Sanchez.

Representative Ackert.

Sn/ak 449 Thank you, sir. And also stop picking on those electricians, for sure. Care to remark further on the bill? Would you care to remark further on the bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

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. And will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Chamber will stand at ease. Good evening. The House will come back to order. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 204?

Representative Nolan from the great city of New London, you have the floor. Sn/ak 451

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Nolan, you have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 5943, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A".

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

Sn/ak 453 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 Weir from the idyllic community of Hebron.

We can do it that way, sir. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the good proponent of the bill pointed out two minor changes that were made. And basically, it was to kind of true up the ratio of appointments. And that was a bipartisan amendment. So, happy to have that. And we've seen this bill come through the past couple of years in the Labor Committee. Pleased to note that it came out of the Labor Committee unanimous, 13 to nothing, in favor of moving this bill forward. I think it's a great concept that, you know, if these delays are happening, we want to have an opportunity to investigate. And so, good bill, ought to pass. It has my full support.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you to the proponent. What is the rationale of limiting this to police and firefighters, through you, Mr. Chair?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It is the police and fire that came to me in regards to the issues they were having, and I decided to start with them. And if we need to go and work on others at another time, I would be open to that. But that's why it's police and fire right now because they brought it to our attention. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 456 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, through you to the proponent. Undue delay is a problem across the board in workers' compensation cases, having handled them for 30 years. I would hope that based on the results of this task force, that its findings could be applied to any worker who files a workers' compensation claim. But I certainly agree that it is a problem with the police and firefighters. And I do thank you for bringing this forward. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to thank all that participated in helping put this together. And Representative Quinn, if you would like to work throughout the summer after this or actually once this is done, I'd be glad to open that door with you. But for now, it's good bill. Let's see it roll.

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 5385 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 147 Sn/ak 458 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4

That's right. The greatest community, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement.

Sn/ak 459 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a reminder to the fine colleagues here in the chamber that tea and chocolate is beginning in just a few minutes. And this is a wonderful bipartisan event that we invite you to, myself and Representative Boyd, to take some time, have yourself some tea and chocolate, relax, and have a good time with your colleagues. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Page 55, Calendar 349, Substitute for House Bill No. 5145, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN WATER COMPANIES REQUESTING TO CEASE OPERATIONS OR DISCONTINUE THE PROVISION OF WATER SERVICE. Favorable Report of Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, good evening to you. Mr. Speaker, this will be my last House Bill coming out on the floor from this session. I do forewarn you there'll be a couple of bills coming out in the subsequent session or in the follow-up tomorrow that are coming down from the Senate. So, 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 5868. I would ask for the Clerk to please call the amendment, and that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize. Sn/ak 461

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5868, offered by Representative Meskers, Senator Hartley, Representative Aniskovich, Senator Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a strike-all amendment. It requires PURA to submit a report to commerce, public health, and energy on the dissolution of water companies, and to adopt regulations to provide instructions for expedited application in Sn/ak 462 review of those dissolutions. And I move adoption. Last one of the House Bills. Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Aniskovich from the 35th, you have the floor, sir. Sn/ak 463

Representative Meskers.

Representative Anastovich.

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

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Marra of the 141st. Ma'am, you have the floor.

Representative Meskers.

Representative Marra.

Representative Meskers.

Representative Marra.

Representative Meskers.

Representative Marra?

Sn/ak 470 Representative Meskers.

Representative Marra.

Will you remark further on the Amendment before us? Bill as amended. Bill as amended. Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Representative Johnson from the 49th.

You may do so, ma'am.

Sn/ak 472 So, under the current statutes, the transfer of property with a water system that has two service connections or services 25 people or more people requires a docket to be opened with PURA. And that's a docket -- this could lead to extremely long review processes. So all we're doing in this Bill is to require a hearing and a process and a conversation with PURA to, to review that, that process and to see whether it's -- it is solving extant problems or, or potentially creating unnecessary delays in, in commercial transactions. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So, we're talking about something that is owned by a municipality right now or a couple of municipalities, and it's in the one hand, it might even be an authority or a commission. And now they -- right now, they don't have to have any kind of oversight from PURA, but now this law will make them have oversight from PURA. Is that correct? Sn/ak 473

Through you.

Representative Johnson.

Will you mark further on the Bill as amended?

One more -- one more quick question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 476 Representative Meskers.

Representative Johnson.

Representative Meskers.

Sn/ak 478 Representative Johnson.

Will you remark further on the Bill? Representative Buckbee from the 67th.

Overwhelmingly joyful.

As one making this conversation without a bow tie, I still have a couple of questions, if I may, through you, to the proponent of the -- of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I know we discussed this in- Committee, I'm curious why, to start with, this wasn't referred to Energy, who works with PURA more so than, than Commerce does? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, it came to us late in the session. We are inviting if you look within the Bill, we'd be working in conjunction with Public Health and Energy and, and, and Technology to discuss the issues in the process as we hold hearings in the -- in the coming session. So, at this point, we as, as the Commerce Chairs, we felt it was essential just to expedite the hearing of the process, the understanding of the process, and then to move forward. And as it relates to water and energy technology, I would expect if there's purview, because this is -- this is related to the PURA docket, there's purview we will refer to the appropriate communities. Through you, Mr. Chair.

Sn/ak 481 I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The -- I guess the next question would be, I, I know, the good Ranking on Energy had asked about PURA's involvement, but I know as a Committee, we didn't hear back from PURA. They weren't able to give, obviously, any sort of word to us, and through leadership, you mentioned that that might have been spoken to, to the Chair, Mr. Speaker. But the -- would this have to go through as a docket, then, through PURA because that's how they work? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. As I, I, I stated, maybe not so clearly previously, the interpretation of the existing statute suggest, suggest that the dissolution of small commercial residential properties with two lines and 25 people, it -- so a property with an LLC that encompasses a water source would be looked at as a water company in the dissolution and in the standing up. So, the commercial transaction of the sale of a Sn/ak 482 property will give rise to PURA's intervention and a potential, and a docket and the standing up. Our concern is exactly that. We're not enacting any legislation. We want to further understand, and, and understand profoundly, the implications and to see if there are ways to re -- resolve that in, in the -- in the following year. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to -- if we can maybe Reader's Digest that version. So, it was a longer answer than I might have been looking for. Is it -- would this require, then, PURA to create a docket for each individual situation, or is this a one time for PURA? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It is on the conversation we had with PURA that the interpretation of existing legislation suggested a docket in the transfer of properties. That is the conversation we're looking to have during the -- this oncoming season to give rise to potential resolution in the coming session. This -- the Bill -- the Bill before you gives us space and room to have that dialogue. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't sure we needed legislation to create dialogue. That's a concern, but in those discussions with PURA that the good Chairs may have had, was it discussed, the backlog of dockets that already exist with PURA? Through you.

As the -- through you, Mr. Speaker, as the good Representative notes, that added to our concern, and that is why the subject matter is before us today to try to work towards a resolution in the -- in the subsequent session. The interpretation of existing statutes calls for that, and that is our concern. Thank -- through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm -- I believe I'm awaiting an answer from the good Chair on that last question. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could you repeat the question, please, sir?

We were discussing and thank you, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing PURA and how this would have to open a docket for PURA. And my question was, if we knew how backlogged PURA was at this point to be opening a new docket from the Commerce Committee. Through you.

Sn/ak 486 Through you, Mr. Speaker. To be clear, the issue is the existing statute is being interpreted in a fulsome way to cover the transfer of properties. So what we are looking forward to having is conversations through Commerce there. We've -- we've issued a request for the explanation -- the expedited the workflow such that we can work on legislation in the subsequent year. I hope that answers the question. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that it does quite answer the question. To me, this -- to have a conversation is to have a conversation. We can have those at any time with any state agency and whoever it may be. To go to PURA like this with a -- we don't need legislation for a conversation. So, I'm curious as to how long this will, will take from PURA and their backlog of dockets they already have existing since we didn't get a chance to talk to PURA. Through you. Sn/ak 487

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The conversation is about -- to going forward is to ex -- is to request an explanation of the expedited flow of their work on the commercial transactions that are now being captured based on their interpretation of the statutes. That's the conversation. I've asked them to outline the steps, the process for their interpretation of existing statutes, which apparently will capture more properties, and to see how that flows. I hope that answers the question. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I think we may be on just separate pages, the, the good Chair and myself, on, on what the Sn/ak 488 question would be. Let's just -- let's just simplify, I guess. Maybe just a yes or no is, would this require PURA to open a docket? Through you.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. To my understanding, the request is to get a workflow and study chart from PURA to understand their process and to look at potential reforms in the coming session with my good Ranking and with the Senate to look on resolution to potential slowdown in the transactions of properties. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 489 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I would bring the good Chair's attention, then, to Line 24 to 25, where it calls upon to initiate a docket for the purpose of adopting regulations. So, I'm curious that that does, to me, in, in legislation, call for a docket to be open. Through you.

Mr. Speaker, if I may have a moment. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. The request is that they open a docket to, to deal with the expedited process and explain to us, and to the public, what that expedited process might look like. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 490 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the clarity. I guess the, the next question would be on the backlog, which I don't believe we, as we mentioned that before, what the dockets may be. I don't know. Since the Committee of Cognizance with PURA would be energy, I didn't know if it would be too much to call upon the Chair of Energy to answer that question, to know how bad the backlog is for PURA? Through

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If the Chair of Energy and Technology is -- has knowledge of the docket backlog, I can't speak to that, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. To be fair, PURA always has a busy calendar of dockets. I don't know anything specifically that has changed in that regard, and I have not done a recent analysis of their calendar or their agenda, so I can't comment further. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I thank both good Chairs for the answers. I think that's kind of my, my point with this, that we might be in the wrong Committee. In the Committee of Cognizance, it should be the Energy Committee. So, I, I mentioned it in- Committee in Commerce that this might be in the wrong spot because the good Chair of Energy would be someone who would have time to have that discussion with PURA and would have that discussion with PURA if the Bill was coming forth. So, I, I do Sn/ak 492 believe this is a point of order for referral to the proper Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to withdraw my point of order. Technically, that should have been a motion to refer, which I'm, I'm not going to do at this point according to Joint Rules 12a. It should be going to the Energy and Technology Committee having oversight over PURA. That being said, I'm not going to call for that. We're going to go ahead and move forward with it. I'd like to just make sure going forward that we have all that information so that we're not putting more work onto PURA who's already overloaded. And this is my point I was trying to make previous to that.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just -- I think this is a -- this could have been avoided in-Committee had we had more of this discussion in-Committee as we started to. I brought up some concerns in Commerce, that we were kinda going about this the wrong way. And I, I, again, I appreciate the good Chair's intentions to this Bill, as well as the, the, the help from the, the good Chair of Energy and, and the input on, on this Bill. We need to be careful what we're doing crossing over between Committees, Mr. Speaker. That's our our concern. All good intentions aside, good intentions don't make for good laws, and we have to make sure that we're doing things the right way. PURA is backed up. PURA is way backed up, and we're waiting on a lot of those to start with. It could be two years before they come out with this docket, if we're lucky. And in the meantime, we could be having this conversation as a one-off. Be with the commissioner, be with some other people that work for PURA. With DEEP, we could have some of this conversation. I just think we're going about this the wrong way. So, I just hope Sn/ak 494 that going forward, that communication is what we look forward to endure so that we can have more of these conversations and do things the proper way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. -- Mr. Speaker, I think the Bill has got the proper intention. I think the attempt to, to expedite and to -- and get solutions will get resolved through this Bill. And so, basically, I, I hear the, the concerns of my good Representative, but I once again ask for, for support for the Bill. 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 5145 as Amended by House "A": Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Sn/ak 496 Those voting Yea 128 Those voting Nay 20 Absent not voting 3

Page 13, Calendar 227, House Bill No. 5453, AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY REGARDING STATE-WIDE ESSENTIAL WORKER AND FIRST RESPONDER JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. Favorable Report of Joint Standing Committee on Public Safety.

Sn/ak 497 Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, each session, we are confronted with a number of proposed Bills and questions to classify individuals as first responders or essential workers. Our statutes currently do not use the word first responder as a classification of any worker. We've tried various attempts of having committees meet working groups. We have not been able to come up with a definition of these two things. So, this time around, we're looking to enlist our professional partners in DAS and DESPP, to work and try to come up with some recommendations to legislature for us to define these important terms. I urge passage. Sn/ak 498

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. So I believe I heard the Chairman say that essential worker is currently not defined in statute. Is that true? Through you.

First responder is currently not used. Essential workers use, in a number of occasions, but it is not clearly defined, nor does it include some areas that some folks feel it should include. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Who does it include? Through you.

Who, who -- I'm sorry. There's a bit of noise. I believe the question was who does it include?

Representative Howard.

Representative Boyd.

Representative Howard.

Representative Boyd.

Representative Howard.

Representative Boyd.

Representative Howard.

Representative Boyd.

Rep. Howard.

Thank you, Representative Howard. Representative Boyd, are you good? Alright. Will you remark further on this Bill? Will you remark further on this Bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the will of the House? Will the Members please take your seat? The machine will be open.

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

The Bill passes. [gavel] Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 384?

Sn/ak 507 Representative Dathan, you have the floor?

Question for the Chamber is acceptance for the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the Bill as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A" LCO 367. Representative Dathan.

Will you remark further on the Bill as amended? Representative Carney from the 23rd, you have the floor, sir.

Sn/ak 509 Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on this Bill? Representative Carpino, you have the floor.

Thank you, ma'am. Will you remark further on this Bill as amended? Representative Dathan.

Will you remark further on this Bill as amended? Will you remark further on this Bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the will of the House? Will the Members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Sn/ak 511 Have all Members voted? Have all Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will call the tally.

The Bill as amended passes in concurrence with the Senate. [gavel] Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 523? Sn/ak 512

Representative Chaffee, you have the floor.

The question for the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Representative Chaffee, you have the floor. Sn/ak 513

What is that? Question for the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the Bill. Representative Chaffee, you have the floor. How did I just say that? Will you --.

Will you remark further on the Bill? Representative Haines. Sorry. Sn/ak 514

You may proceed.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee.

Sn/ak 516 The -- turn your volume up.

Representative Haines.

A little bit, please. Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee. Sn/ak 518

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines. Sn/ak 521

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines. Sn/ak 522

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Haines.

Will you remark further on this Bill? Representative Reddington-Hughes of the 66th, ma'am, you have the floor.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Reddington-Hughes.

Representative Chaffee.

Representative Reddington-Hughes. Sn/ak 528

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If the town charter prohibited the employee from serving on the board, they would not be able to. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. As a Selectman in my town, and recently having gone through a charter revision, is it not correct that through a charter revision that these practices could be voted on and changed? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Right now, they cannot, if it's a statutory town. Through you.

Okay. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that towns that were not chartered could change this through an ordinance? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Sn/ak 530 Right now under the state law, municipal employees are prohibited from serving on the Board of Finance. That's what this Bill intends to change. Through you.

Okay. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, then, there is no local control over the determination of whether or not this could or could not be done. If I am understanding correctly. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill is providing that local control to the municipalities. Through you. Sn/ak 531

So, through you, Mr. Speaker, does this give the towns an option or is this changing the law? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you. This is changing the state statute that prohibits municipal employees from serving on their Board of Finance.Through you.

Sn/ak 532 So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm unclear as to whether or not the towns would still have a choice of whether or not they were to implement that. I am unsure. So, could you please clarify? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If this Bill were to become law, a municipality could still have an ordinance prohibiting their municipal employees from serving on the Board of Finance. This is just allowing them to have that option. Through you.

Okay. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm, I'm joined going to go backwards now in time to a chartered town on, if this were Sn/ak 533 to go into law, then it would not be able to be implemented until the next time that the charter was opened. Am I correct in saying that, through you, Mr. Speaker, which is a very expensive thing?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It would depend on what the town charter currently says. But if the town charter doesn't currently prohibit that, then, yes, they would need to do a charter revision. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Just a commentary that I do believe that our small towns really do pride themselves on their ability to put in place what they see fits best for their small town. And this seems like it will be quite onerous for them if this goes through. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Both of my towns are neighbors to the one that the good proponent represents, but I do want to ask a few questions if the good proponent can hear them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My community borders the good city of Middletown, but our communities are set up a bit differently. So through you, sir, I'd like to ask some clarifying questions to flush out a bit of what this proposes.

I, I believe the Representative has questions for me, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In some communities, particularly one I, I represent, there is no Board of Finance. There is Sn/ak 536 simply a Board of Selectmen which takes their duties very seriously. How will this impact a community such as that where there is no separate Board of Finance? However, the elected Board of Selectmen is filling the same role of a Board of Finance and making those financial decisions on behalf of their constituents. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. My town of Middletown also does not have a Board of Finance. We have a city council that legislates and does the budget. Under this Bill, it's not going to change anything regarding those. Through you.

Sn/ak 537 Thank you. So, in that instance, anybody who works for the town and makes less than $10,000, should this proceed, will or will not to be able to make those decisions? Through you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It would depend on what your local charter ordinances said. This is specifically to Boards of Finance. Through you.

Thank you. And along those lines, in some communities, we have town employees on diff -- in different departments or different organization of, of town. So I, I don't mean to belabor this, but I really want to make this clear for some of Sn/ak 538 the communities. If a town has a separate taxing district, in my instance, our fire district, they're on the town payroll, essentially. It's taxpayer funded salaries, and they are -- we are very thankful for them. Does this impact that governing board? For instance, we have a fire commission that makes financial decisions for the fire district. How will this impact that organization and structure? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. In that particular case, it will not impact the fire commission. Through you.

Sn/ak 539 Thank you. Will this impact the Board of Education? Through you, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This Bill only impacts the Board of Finance. Through you.

Thank you. And just a few more questions. In the event that there is a private contractor paid exclusively for a contract that serves the board of -- serves the town. So, let me rephrase that. If there is a contractor that receives funds performing a task on behalf of the municipality and they live in town, how will this impact them? Through you, sir. Sn/ak 540

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That person is not a town employee, so it will not impact them. Through you.