CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-05-06

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon, Madam President. Thank you. And for our prayer for the final day of the 2026 session. Lord, please bless us with an inner strength so that our lives and our work may be a blessing on others. Amen.

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

I do believe we're ready to play ball.

Please proceed.

And our first item will be Calendar page 31, Calendar 460, House Bill 5001.

Followed by Calendar page 22, Calendar 327, Senate Bill 307, as a go.

Followed by our third bill to go Calendar page 36, Calendar 528, House Bill 5340. Madam President all items to go. Thank you very much. And if we could just stand at ease while our chair comes into the chamber.

Thank you, Madam President. If the Clerk can now call the first bill, please?

And good afternoon, Senator Flexer. Let's wait till the legislation is up on the board. Senator Flexer, good afternoon.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Yes. We have. We are all tired.

Yes. Fumes is exactly right, Madam President. Thank you for your understanding. But Madam President, it, protects privacy of voters. There's provisions in here that will ensure, as has been conversation we've heard, with the implementation of early voting, it does have provisions with the new schematic for absentee ballot voting that will protect an individual voter's privacy with a privacy sleeve. The bill also makes a number of revisions with regard to security and safety, around our elections, Madam President. As you know, many people in our state are concerned watching what's happening in other parts of the country, concerned about the rhetoric at the national level with regard to our elections. And so this bill before us represents an important update, that I think will protect our state and the elections that happen in our state from any attempt at federal interference. I suspect that, that may be a point of debate here, this afternoon, Madam President, but I have to say that, I think this is an example of the legislature being incredibly responsive, in anticipating the dramatic shifts that are happening with regard to the use of federal power, and making sure that here sn/rr 7 in Connecticut, voters can have confidence, that our electoral system will be protected, that it will continue to be that locally run system that Connecticut voters have great confidence in, and have great reason to have confidence in. And it also seeks to protect, the key people who serve as election workers in a variety of different roles, Madam President. Madam President, the bill before us also includes something that I have to compliment, the ranking member of the Government Administration Elections Committee, something that has had broad bipartisan support over many years, and we're finally going to see this over the finish line with the implementation of risk limiting audits. It's another update that Connecticut can make, to our election system that I think can add to the confidence that voters have, in our electoral system here in Connecticut and making sure, that our systems, are running away that voters can have additional confidence in. And I want to thank, Senator Sampson for his leadership, in that arena in particular. Madam President, there are a number of other, provisions in here. This, bill seeks to study a few issues with regard to access to absentee ballots. Madam President, one of the things that's been frustrating to me in recent years, as we've had this decade long effort to expand access to the vote, through early voting, and now here today through absentee ballot voting is, that there are many things that we vote on here in the State of Connecticut. And most of my towns in the coming weeks, there will be budget referendum votes, and there are situations here in the state where absentee ballot access hasn't been as accessible for all elections that happen in our state. sn/rr 8 And so this bill will study that and make sure, that as we're moving forward with this critical reform for all, state and municipal elections, that we're looking at some of those other elections that take place, to see if there's a way to open up access to those local decisions to more voters by allowing the use of absentee ballots. And the bill also works to encourage broader participation among all voters in our electoral process. Madam President, I would say in this part of the debate summation that, again, I think that this measure, is here before us because of the incredible hard work of so many advocates, over the years, working to get Connecticut to the point where we could change our state's constitution, and have a bill like this before us here today. And it's here because of the overwhelming support, of the voters of the State of Connecticut. And I am pleased that we are debating this here in the senate today to enact this key update and reflect the will of the voters of the State of Connecticut. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you up there on the final day of the legislative session. I just want to disclose for the folks watching that this debate is taking place on the final day of the legislative session. It is about quarter after three. I want to also note that, this is coming immediately after a lengthy overnight debate. In fact, I took, part in a multi- hour debate that finished just this morning about 8am. sn/rr 9 And, there was an effort by the majority to try and roll us right into this debate immediately after. And our leadership was effectively forced to make an agreement to limit debate on this particular bill just to allow us the opportunity to go home and get cleaned up after being here overnight, debating bills. And, I think it's a travesty, the way this process is working. I noticed that there's still a bunch of stuff in the center of the senate chamber right now, which I'm sure people on CTN can see bunch of chairs stacked up. You think that our state government, our state legislature would be operated in a way that was with a little bit more respect, and a little bit more decorum than the way it has been. I couldn't be more frustrated by the past couple of days and the way this place has operated. I've have always operated in good faith with my colleagues. I try and debate the issues one by one on the subject matter at hand. I do not try and drag in outside of issues. You just heard the good chairwoman who I do respect and work very well with. But she felt the need to interject federal politics and Trump and this and that. And I hear it constantly. What's going on, across this country. There is a narrative that's being generated to pull the wool over the eyes of the people across this country, and particularly in the State of Connecticut by the majority party, that somehow national politics has something to do with what's happening in this room, and it doesn't. The bill that is before us, is the culmination of years of effort on behalf of the majority to get to mail in voting in the State of Connecticut. Back in 2014, they tried to pass, mail in voting, which requires a constitutional amendment. sn/rr 10 And they asked a question, shall the constitution of the state be amended to remove restrictions concerning absentee ballots and permit a person to vote without appearing at a polling place on the day of an election? And you know what happened? It failed. And it failed because those two words were in the question without appearing. Fast forward to a couple of years ago, when that question was put forth in front of the voters again, but it was modified on purpose. The new question, shall the constitution of the state be amended to permit the general assembly to allow each voter to vote by absentee ballot, which I will point out is the law. It was already at the law at the time that the question was asked. So based on that, of course, people have voted in favor of it. I'd also point out it wasn't an overwhelming victory. I think people consider our voting process in the State of Connecticut somewhat suspect. They've seen the news. They've seen Wanda from Bridgeport. They know about the ballot stuffing in the drop boxes. This particular bill that is in front of us is 73 Sections long. It's 116 pages. The only thing that has anything to do with the ballot question is Section 1. If Section 1 was here by itself, I might even find my way to supporting it. But no. A lot of other things are inserted into this bill. There's a lot of negative things inserted into this bill. In fairness, there are some positive things inserted into this bill. I, commend my colleague who mentioned a moment ago about risk limiting audits. That's something we work together on. I'm delighted that, that's in there. But there are plenty of other things that should not be in there. And because I am sn/rr 11 limited to only two hours’ worth of debate time today on a bill that ought to take a week, a year to debate. I'm going to have to move fast, and I'm going to just try and go through amendments to make as many points and changes to this policy as I can. I want people watching to pay very close attention to each policy point and each vote. And I want you to watch who's voting for what? Who actually cares? The debate is trying to be directed by the majority, to be about voter access and voter suppression as if Republicans are trying to suppress the vote. I'm here to tell you I want every lawful eligible voter to vote and I want it as easy as possible for them. The difference is, I don't want people that are not eligible to vote to be able to vote. I don't want people voting twice. I don't want people voting illegally. I don't want people voting in multiple places. I don't want illegal aliens voting if they're not eligible. I don't want any of that. I want our elections to count. I want them to be accurate. I want them to be reliable. I want the people across the State of Connecticut to look at our election and say, I trust the results. Just like I did growing up in this state. I got to tell you, in the last few years, I don't always trust the results. Now, some people will go out there and say, oh, you're an election denier. I'm not saying that there's tens of thousands of faulty or erroneous or fraudulent votes. I'm just saying that there's definitely some. I don't know how many that is, but there are elections decided by one vote in the state. There's a state representative serving that won an election just a couple of cycles ago by one vote. sn/rr 12 And that was an election that was decided with a great many mail in ballots, which is certainly ripe for concern. My point today is if the voters knew when they voted on that constitutional amendment at the ballot box that they would be enabling this bill, if this bill was the question, I sincerely doubt that there would have been a majority in support of this. Let's just talk about some of the Sections. I'm going to start with Section 57. This is a Section of the bill that restricts federal agents from coming within 250 feet of the polls. Why? You might ask. Because they're trying to, I mean the majority, to create a narrative that somehow there's going to be intimidation at the polls. And that there are going to be federal ICE agents there wearing masks, and scaring people away and preventing them from voting, and they're going to round up anyone that is brown or black, and they're going to go ahead and lock them up. This has never happened in the State of Connecticut. To my knowledge, it hasn't happened anywhere. I certainly wouldn't support any kind of abuse from our federal government. I'm a civil libertarian. I would want to stand up and protect the individual rights of every person in our State of Connecticut if our government was out of control like that. I don't think that's a true narrative. That's a false narrative. And what are they doing is they trying to distract from what is actually happening, which is a massive loosening of our election restrictions so that there are the ability for shenanigans to occur. In fact, I was going to refer to this as the shenanigans bill throughout because there's lots of shenanigans associated with it. So this bill would sn/rr 13 restrict ICE agents or actually any federal or state police from being within 250 feet of a polling location during an election. We could go on for a day about all of the intricacies of this policy and whether it applies to them when they're on duty, off duty, whether they're actually in pursuit of an investigation, whether there's something going or they just happen to be in the store next door that's within 250 feet of the polling place. But it's not worth it. It. The point is that it's being inserted into this bill for political purposes and it ought to be removed. So through you, Madam President, I have an amendment. It is LCO 6030. I ask that the clerk please call this amendment and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO 6030. We designate Senate Amendment Schedule "A".

Thank you very much. Madam President, this is a very straightforward amendment with strike Section 57 from the bill. And it would strike Section 57 for the bill because it is a wholly political Section designed to inject divisive federal political narratives into our state election system. It would restrict legitimate law enforcement personnel from being near the polls, where they sn/rr 14 might actually be there to protect someone. All based on this narrative that somehow ICE agents are somehow the gestapo. It also would empower a moderator to restrict someone from being able to vote because they're wearing a mask. And I've asked these questions before. If that person was wearing a medical mask because they were sick or they didn't want to get someone else sick, that the moderator could actually restrict them from voting. They could say you are not eligible to vote because you're wearing a mask. I find that offensive. If the person pushed that issue, and presumably the moderator would call the police and then the police would come there, and then it would be up to the police to decide whether the person could vote. I am sorry, but setting up a set of circumstances like this to create this type of conflict at the polls is actually the exact problem that they claim they're trying to stop. We don't have a problem now. I think moderators use good judgment when they're trying to verify the identity of people, but they only have the tools that they have. And we will talk more and more about the tools that they have and how they need more in a moment. I move adoption of this amendment. This political Section of the bill should be removed, and I'd ask for a roll call vote.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I encourage my colleagues, to reject this amendment as you'll hear here today, perhaps most vociferously on these particular Sections. sn/rr 15 There are many people in the State of Connecticut, Madam President, who are concerned, for their safety and security in a wide variety of settings, unfortunately, in this day and age in our country. There are people who are concerned that when they're taking their children to school, their safety may be in jeopardy. There are people who are concerned when entering a church that their safety may be in jeopardy. And so, Madam President, we'll just have a very respectful, I hope, disagreement on this. But there are a number of people in our state who are concerned with being able to exercise the normal course of their lives, that due to overreach, what I would describe as overreach by the federal government and a federal government that is intent, in my opinion, on intimidating some members of our community, that showing up to vote is another point that has become a point where people are concerned for their safety. So, Madam President, I would strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. I think if you talk to people, in our state, the people who have their children detained with no warning, have had their mothers detained with no warning, I think you might have a different perspective on these Sections, and I think it's important, that we do everything we can in the State of Connecticut to make sure that the actions of the federal government don't have an effect on people turning out to exercise their most basic and most important constitutional right, which is voting in our elections. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the senate. We vote on Senate Amendment" A". Immediate roll call has been ordered in the senate.

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

Thank you very much, Madam President. That was the first in a series of amendments that I will be offering today, and I just want to note for the record that it did indeed fail on a party line vote. Every amendment that I am offering, I would argue, is good policy. Good policy that should go with the bill that is before us. Part of the problem with this bill is not necessarily what's in it, although that is indeed a problem. The last amendment is a good illustration of that. But the bigger problem is what's not in it. Other states that have significant amounts of absentee or sn/rr 17 mail in voting, they adjust that. They change their policies. They structure their laws on purpose to make sure that those types of elections are still fair and still honest. Not here in Connecticut, all of the tools that are used by other states to make sure that they keep their elections secure, utterly ignored in this bill. Year, after year, after year, after amendment, after bill proposal, you name it. I'm trying all the time to get these things incorporated into our laws. All I get from the majority is you're just trying to suppress the vote. You're trying to keep people from trying to vote. That is a lousy garbage narrative, and the people of Connecticut are smarter than that. They know it. And this next amendment is designed to illustrate that. Several of the things that are in this bill, automatic sending of absentee ballot applications. You signed up once, and those things end up getting mailed to you forever into perpetuity. And when I say you, I don't really mean you. I mean whoever lives at your address. We're going to talk more about that one in a few minutes. People want the voter rolls audited periodically. How about every year we audit the voter rolls to remove people that actually have passed on or moved away? Nope. Not in the bill. How about voter ID? How about a signature verification process or some type of identity process that they use in other states to track people who vote by mail. Nope. We don't have that either. We got the makings of it in this bill, but it is nothing more than the establishment of a number on the paperwork, but nothing tracks anyone or anything sn/rr 18 to make sure that the bad person's only voting once and that they're an eligible voter. That's the difference. So through you, Madam President, I'd like to offer another amendment. This one is LCO 6005. I ask that the clerk please call this amendment and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize it.

LCO 6005 will be designated as Senate Amendment Schedule "B".

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is an extremely straightforward amendment. When the moment I start to describe it, people are going to know what it's about, and they're going to know that overwhelmingly across the State of Connecticut and this nation, people are in favor of this policy, and yet the majority refuses repeatedly over and over again to take up a bill on the subject, to have a public hearing on the subject, to allow votes on the subject, to, vote in favor, either in committee or in this chamber or the House of Representatives where I have personally offered this amendment many, many times before, and I'm going to do it again right now. And that is photo identification for voting. Overwhelmingly, people across this country know that you really should have photo ID for voting. And I know that a lot of people that might be watching sn/rr 19 this say, well, they do ask for my photo ID when I go to vote in my town. In some places, they do. They try and they do a very good job, including the towns that I, serve. But the fact of the matter is there's no requirement in the law for that. You have to provide some sort of identification, but it could be an envelope that has your address on it. That's not identification in any world that anyone is familiar with. You need a photo ID to cash a check, to get on a plane, to get prescription drugs, to buy liquor. I could write a book about all the things you need photo ID to have access in our society. The one thing that's not required in Connecticut is voting. You can vote without any verifiable proof about who you are in the state, and that should change. This amendment simply requires a photo ID requirement for both in person and absentee voting. It's a really good idea. And before my colleague gets up and says why this is a bad amendment, I'm going to tell you what she's going to say. She's going to say, first off, that this is somehow going to suppress the vote for certain people because they don't have the ability to get a photo ID. But we factored that into this amendment. This amendment says that if you are, poor and you can't afford one, the state will provide that photo ID to you, for free. If you need to have a photograph of your identification to vote by absentee, we will set it up for you that you can go to any library or anything like that to get it. And then they'll bring up the fact that there's a random person that is disabled, they can't leave their home and so forth. But it's a ridiculous argument. These folks never leave their home. How do they get their groceries? How do they function in sn/rr 20 the world? They don't have any family. They don't have any friends. There's no social work. There's no nothing. It is a ridiculous argument. It's a ridiculous it.

And the question is on adoption. We will have a roll call vote. Senator Flexer.

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

Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk.

Amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

Senator Sampson, we will ask all of our guests and sn/rr 23 staff, to please direct their attention to you and to Senator Flexer as we debate this bill, because we do want to be respectful. So, Sir, please continue.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 26

Senator Sampson.

Hold on. sn/rr 27

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment and make a few comments on the amendment before us. Madam President, as was noted by the good ranking member, there was a lot of debate in the house of representatives. I think the compromise that they reached on this issue, is an attempt to recognize that right now, under our existing law, there are people who meet the definition under existing law for having access to an absentee ballot, people who have a permanent disability or illness that limits their ability to get to a polling place. Right now, they can have access to an absentee ballot by being on a permanent list. So this provision is trying to take that and carry it forward for those voters who have relied on those provisions for many years, voters who, under existing law, are eligible to vote by absentee ballot. The provision that will ultimately become law if this, senate does what I predict it will do over the next, what is it, 10 hours, will allow voters to be on a list to get an application for an absentee ballot. So not to get a ballot, but to get an application for an absentee ballot. And I think that strikes the right compromise for respecting the voters who already get their ability to vote through being on that that list where they have, access to the absentee ballots and not sn/rr 28 disenfranchising them by making a sudden change in the law that they might not know is happening. Madam President, I do think that the way, this has been negotiated carefully does represent a compromise and making it clear that this is just about getting an application and not getting an actual ballot. And, Madam President, I'm sorry, I would have to also just respectfully disagree, with the good ranking member on a few statements that he made. And I'll let Senator Looney speak for himself, perhaps, when this debate is over, as to his opinion about absentee ballots. But I have heard repeatedly, the comments and the quotes of a former State Senator in this chamber, a State Senator that, frankly, was probably the person I've served with that I respect the least, a State Senator who was convicted of federal crimes with regard to his election in 2018. So to hear arguments he made on the senate floor as being a reason to vote for this amendment, is frankly offensive to me, given the actions that, that person took, and the federal crimes he's convicted of, multiple offenses and is now, I believe, awaiting sentencing for, that is not an opinion that this chamber should respect, and I hope that this chamber will reject this amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I apologize for interjecting one time, but if we're going to get into a little debate, we're going to get into a little debate. I just want to cover a few things. sn/rr 29 First and foremost, with regard to this amendment, I appreciate the good chairwoman trying to describe that this is just a ballot application and so forth versus an actual ballot, but it's one step away. The ballot application gets sent. It's already prefilled. Anyone can scribble anything on it because we've not done anything to actually have signature verification. They don't have to apply, attach a photocopy of their license or anything to it. So, I mean, again, all of these security things that you would want to include are not included. And the big difference, the big difference, which she can argue with me if she likes, but the big difference is that when we allow people to go on the automatic absentee ballot list now, it is because they have a disability or some other reason that makes them eligible. This is any voter, any perfectly able-bodied person, they can get on the voter rolls forever to get an absentee ballot in perpetuity, and that will be sent to that address forever. How many apartment buildings in Bridgeport will they go to? As far as the colleague that we refer to as Senator Bradley, and Senator Bradley represented the City of Bridgeport. I'm sure he is very, very attuned to understand what is actually going on with elections in Bridgeport. And, yeah, maybe he's got less than a stellar reputation at this point, but I don't doubt the veracity of what he said on this floor when it came to how people cheat in elections in Bridgeport. Pretty sure he was telling the truth about that. And finally, as far as the President, the Senate, he said, now we all, this is on May 8th, 2019. Right here in this chamber. Now we all one of the reasons sn/rr 30 why I think that this proposed constitutional amendment should be broadly acceptable, and this is about early voting. And I would hope that it would get the kind of vote, that it receives in the house of representatives where it passed with 125 votes, 11 more than 75% threshold needed. Is that a provision that many regard as problematic because it was removed before the house took up the issue? That is the opening process potentially to the universalization of absentee balloting. Speaking in opposition to what's happening right now. And I think that is legitimately controversial because in reality, we never really know for sure who is casting an absentee ballot. We hope it's the person to whom it was sent. We believe in most cases it is, but we don't actually know. And that is an issue. If we open up absentee balloting for the convenience for those who are ill or disabled or out of state on a given day, but, obviously, the number of absentee ballot cases of fraud that we've had over the years well documents the flaws in that system, and he goes on. So this is the President of the Senate's view back in 2019 that you never really know who is casting an absentee ballot. I urge adoption of this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would respectfully request that, perhaps, this debate, we allow senators who are still serving in this circle to speak for themselves. sn/rr 31 And, again, I just want to strongly reject the notion that anyone in this circle should take seriously the opinion of a convicted federal felon whose felonies were related to election crimes. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "C" of House Bill Number 5001. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. This is Senate Amendment "C" of House Bill 5001, an act concerning absentee voting for all and various other reforms related to the administration of elections as Amended by House Amendment Schedule "A". An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the senate on Senate Amendment "C" of House Bill Number 5001.

number voting 36. Total voting, Yea, 11. Total voting, Nay, 25. Absent, not voting 0.

Thank you very much, Madam President. As you just heard, the amendment fails. Another 25 to 11 vote, a party line, the Democratic super majority in the State of Connecticut, once again, rejecting another common sense policy to improve the veracity of our election process, to make sure that our elections are fair, that they are secure, that voters across Connecticut could have confidence that when they cast their vote, that it counts, that it's not being canceled out by a fraudulent vote, by a ballot stuffer in Bridgeport, or anywhere else. That was the idea behind that amendment, and that is the idea behind the next amendment as well. I started by saying that the problem with this bill is only partly some of the items that are contained in it beyond the expansion of absentee voting, but also the things that are not in it, like the recent amendments that I've offered. And this is another thing that is not in the bill. I want to acknowledge the fact that I do appreciate that throughout this document in Sections 2 and I think in Section 9, there are some mentions of the creation of a unique ballot identifier, which is a code that would allow the town hall to basically match a ballot envelope and a ballot. These things ultimately get married together with this identification number, which allows the voter to remain anonymous. That's a good thing. But that is not enough. Because what is missing is a mechanism to verify that it was a legitimate voter and tie that voter to that number and to that ballot so that each voter who is eligible and only voters who are eligible are allowed to vote, and they only get to vote once. sn/rr 33 So through you, Madam President, I have an amendment. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 6012. I ask that the Clerk please call this amendment, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize it.

Oh, Mr. Clerk.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark?

Thank you. We will have a roll call vote. Senator Flexer, will you remark on the amendment?

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

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

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, would you give us the tally, please, Sir?

Thank you. Amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 39

LCO number 6004, Senate Amendment "E".

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's a very straightforward amendment. This would place a requirement in our statutes to go very, very closely and properly with the bill before us, expanding absentee voting in the state. If we're going to be allowing people to vote remotely, and we're going to be sending out ballot applications and ballots to them, shouldn't we know whether they're truly eligible voters? Shouldn't we know that? And I want to point out that one of the problems with this whole system is that in our state, anybody can send out a ballot application to anybody. So what we've witnessed is in recent years, political campaigns engaging and sending out ballot applications to loads of different people. So you're getting one from the Democrat candidate. You're getting one from the Republican candidate, the Green candidate, the Independent candidate. So you're overwhelmed with these things. sn/rr 40 People are confused about them. They don't know whether they actually go vote in person again. I've heard the most crazy questions because people are not being properly informed on what should be happening. And as a result, I believe that the best solution is a), prohibit the practice of allowing all of these outside folks to be sending out absentee ballot applications, willy nilly. But number one, if they're going to do it, we got to make sure they're only sending them to legitimate voters. So this amendment adds after the bill another Section 501, that would require the secretary of state to annually cause a search of the computerized voter registration records to identify electors and verify that they are legitimate voters. Everybody knows this is a problem. If you were alive in 2020, you know this is a problem. When the state sent out absentee ballot applications to every registered voter on the voter rolls in the state, they spent millions of taxpayer dollars mailing those ballot applications for one thing. What a complete waste. But not only in the process of doing that, we discovered that were so many tens of thousands of them were returned in the mail. Proof, proof that all of these people were on the voter rolls that shouldn't been there. And I know some work has been done. I don't want to act like nothing's been done. They've done some work to clean it up and take care of some of those. But the fact of the matter is that if you listen to some of the, voter integrity advocates that exist in the State of Connecticut, they will tell you that there are still countless amounts of dead voters, and duplicate voters, and people that do not belong on the voter rolls. sn/rr 41 This needs to be fixed. And again, if I went out on the street right now, if I could take this microphone, I don't think the cord is long enough, but if I could go outside and just start grabbing people off the street, should we clean the voter rolls in Connecticut to make sure only actual voters get ballot applications and ballots. I bet you I'd have a tough time finding someone to say no. But in this room, I got a feeling we're going to find 25 people to say no, and that's a shame. That is a shame. This is something that should happen, just like all of the other amendments that I've offered and will heretofore offer. I move adoption. Madam President, I'd like a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment. We have a lot of conversation in our committee, about these issues, working with the Secretary of the State's Office and the registrars of voters. And I think, we are making good progress, on making sure we update our voter rolls in a way that, can give people confidence in the voter rolls for each individual town, but also ensures that people won't be disenfranchised because they're removed from the list. And I, again, would encourage my colleagues to reject Senate Amendment "E". Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the senate. Vote note, Senate Amendment "E". This is not the bill. This is Senate Amendment "E" for House Bill Number 5001, an act concerning and absentee voting for all and various other reforms related to the administration of elections. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. We're now voting on the bill. This is Senate Amendment "E" of House Bill Number 501, an immediate roll call vote in the senate.

number voted, 36. Total voting, Yea 11. Total voting, Nay 25. Absent, not voting 0.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Unfortunate. Again, predicted, not surprising, but disappointing. This is not a controversial policy. I'm not trying to argue the most fierce, conflicts we have as political parties in our ideologies. I'm talking about cleaning the voter rolls, folks. Come on. I want to, say very quickly that I have a lot of respect for the people that work in our town sn/rr 43 halls across Connecticut. Registrars of voters. Town Clerks. I know a lot of them personally. A lot of them are emailing me and calling me regularly about some of these policies and expressing their concerns, and wanting to make sure that those things that they deal with on a day in and day out basis are actually addressed in our laws. And I keep trying. I keep trying to bring those things forward to make sure that they are addressed. But watching these amendments go down one by one on party line votes is rather frustrating. Another thing that has been a concern of me and some of my Republican colleagues in recent years is that, there doesn't seem to be any penalty for people that engage in crimes involving elections. You know, we've seen it reported. And by the way, the majority will have you believe that somehow there are no election crimes. That's a mystery. That doesn't really happen. And I used to argue about it in this chamber all the time. And thankfully and I hate to say it in those terms. But the Bridgeport issue came to light. Terrible thing. Shouldn't have happened. But that's what actually woke up the public to say, hey, you know what? There actually is election fraud going on. There are people that are trying to steal elections. That's a real thing. We should do something about that. But there are loads of other examples. One of my favorite is an article from the Waterbury Republican American. I think it happened in 2019 or 2020. And it's just page after page after page of every incident that's happened in the state regarding election fraud. I've got a whole stack of articles here. If we were doing a proper debate on this that wasn't limited by time, sn/rr 44 I would spend a long time getting into the meat of all of these individual crimes. How they occurred, why they occurred, and what we could do to prevent that from happening again. But suffice it to say, the number one thing we need to do if we want to prevent people from trying to interfere in our election process is we got to have penalties, folks, we got to actually do something. We got to actually find a way to discourage people from engaging in this behavior by creating a real penalty for them. So with that, Madam President, I hate to bother the clerk once again, but I have another amendment. This one is LCO 6007. I ask that this amendment be called, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize it.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. The question is on adoption. Will you remark? Senator Flexer.

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

Thank you. The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, kindly give us the tally, Sir. sn/rr 46

Amendment fails. Senator Sampson.

Let us do it.

LCO Number 6002. Senate Amendment "G".

Thank you very much, Madam President. Forgive the faux pas. I've been up quite a few hours straight. It's hard to keep, my thoughts clear and not distracted. This amendment, very straightforward, does as I just mentioned, would add, language in the bill. Would basically say that no person, including any state or municipal official, shall mail applications for absentee ballots to any person unless such mailing includes etcetera, etcetera. The whole situation here is that they should not be unsolicited. People should have access. They should initiate that process. I move adoption and I ask for a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. President, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment. This is a subject that the committee has had good conversation on, and I hope we will have good conversation on, this particular issue in the future. But as it stands in this debate, in this moment with nine hours left eight, nine well, I'll leave math to somebody else.

But, I would encourage, again, my colleagues to reject the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the bill. This is House Bill Number 5001. We are voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "G" of House Bill Number 5001. This is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the senate. We're voting on the senate. sn/rr 52

number voting 36. Total voting, Yea, 11. Total voting, Nay, 25. Absent, not voting 0.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Another 25 to 11 party line vote denying my efforts to improve the bill before us by providing more protections for the veracity and integrity of elections in our state. It's quite disappointing. So far, I've offered seven amendments. The first one was about removing an overtly politically motivated Section trying to inject partisan federal politics into our election law. And it's a frustration for me because one thing that I always say when we start talking about these election bills, is that this is the rules of the game. We can argue about the big topics. We can have debates about guns. We just did. I spent most of the morning arguing about our differences on the second amendment. We could debate abortion. We could debate a lot of social issues. We could debate a lot of things about the size and scope of government, the cost of things. But the one thing that we ought to try and keep within sight as bipartisan as a priority, and that is our election law because those are the rules of the game. That's how we decide who gets to be here to represent the people of our state and our sn/rr 53 country. It's so important. If we cannot agree on the rules of the game, if the majority wants to put forward policies, which in my view, benefit their party in elections over making good policy that we all agree on, that is disconcerting. That is a problem. That should change. I'm going to just offer one more amendment. It's a little bit different than the other amendments that were primarily focused on. What's not in the bill as far as election integrity issues, this is something related to the bill, however, because the bill does bring up early voting in a sense that the section that prohibits federal and state law enforcement authorities from being within 250 feet of the polls is all about early voting. But early voting is an unbelievably contentious issue in this body as well. Not just absentee voting, but early voting as well. And that's because I think that the majority, frankly, messed up. When they did early voting, they made the time period for early voting way too long. It is now 14 days before election day, and they would argue, yes, well, there's some states that were 21, everything else. It's funny though because a lot of the states that started out with really long periods for early voting have been shrinking them little by little. And I've always had an issue with having a long period of early voting for a lot of reasons. The number one being that the election really is about a point in time, a snapshot in time about who's the best candidate for any particular office at any given time. And if you're voting way in advance of that time, something could change. You might discover something about one of the candidates after you've already put your vote in. Maybe something really significant happens. Maybe there's a war. And you're like, oh, I was going to vote for this guy, but maybe I should sn/rr 54 vote for this other person because of those circumstances. So, early voting kind of skews what you're talking about. It also makes it very difficult for campaigns to be able to get their message out. And don't we want voters to be able to understand really where the candidates stand on the issues so that they can compare the candidates? Well, if you're voting before you ever even hear from one of the candidates because they haven't even reached out to you, you haven't seen any advertising, you haven't received any mail from them, that's a disservice to the process, in my view. But I'm not against early voting. Since we first debated it in this building, I've said, yes, let's do early voting because it provides a level of convenience to voters. But it doesn't need to be 14 days. Why don't we just set it up so that we accommodate people's schedules? Not everybody's available on a Tuesday from 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Maybe if we add a few other days, maybe a Saturday, that gets a few more people into the polls a little easier. So, I've always advocated for some short period of time, whether it's three days or five days. Those are all fine with me. And right now, I'd be willing to accept almost anything less than 14 days, frankly. But as a result of this, Madam President, I'd like to offer an amendment. And that amendment is LCO 6026. I ask the Clerk to please call this final amendment for me on this debate, and that I'd be given leave of the Chamber to summarize it.

LCO No. 6026, Senate Amendment "H". sn/rr 55

Thank you very much. Madam President, I appreciate that. This is a very straightforward amendment. It's going to simply change the timing of our early voting. It's going to keep the same structure, which is that it's days leading up to election day, but not including the Sunday or Monday before the Tuesday. And it would change from the 14-day time period for general elections to five days for general elections. It would also require three days for primaries and two days for special elections. There are so many reasons to support this amendment. Not the least of which is the fact that in most of these elections, and it does happen, we had significant turnout for early voting in the last presidential election, but most of it still happened within the last several days. But I will tell you that in primaries, we've had elections where almost nobody showed up at all. You have towns where you had the entire staff there at town hall ready to accommodate voters, and they get two votes in the whole day. Folks that are serving in our town halls to take care of this, a lot of them didn't sign up for this extra amount of work. And I don't believe they've been properly compensated for it either. Those are important things. Those are things that really ought to be addressed. For me, the simplest thing to do is to recognize that we gave the public 14 days of early voting, and they were like, well, we didn't really need 14 days. So, give us a little bit shorter period of time, let's make it a little easier on our town hall sn/rr 56 staff, and let's also make it so it doesn't cost the taxpayers so much to run these early elections. I have one final note about it, and that is that the whole idea of early voting is a bit disingenuous to me because the majority put this forward as if they were providing all this additional access to voters. But in the process, they didn't bother to properly fund it. So, in a small town, say, that has only a couple of voting precincts, it's probably not a big deal. People end up going to town hall. But in places like New Haven and Bridgeport that might have 20 or 30 polling locations, they did nothing to accommodate the fact that people normally vote at such and such a school. No. So, those towns are having one precinct, one polling location, and that's it. So yes, you get a few extra days, but you're not getting the same level of access as you've had before. That should have been addressed. I would have rather seen shorter number of days and more polls open and accessible to people. And I'd also say that we ought to have some policy to address the long lines at the polling locations. If this debate was as long as I'd like it to be, if it covered as many topics as I'd like it to, we would be talking about that, too, because that's something I've long advocated for, which is the idea that we should have something to protect people from going to wait in long, long lines and being discouraged about voting. It can be fixed. It just requires the will of this body to act and recognize that that is a real problem. That is a real problem that affects people in the inner city, and may deter or suppress voting. But as long as I've been trying to get that done, the majority has been ignoring that also. But back to this amendment, it's a simple change. We're going to get rid of the 14 days, and we're going to do a more reasonable time frame that I think almost everybody recognizes as a necessity today. sn/rr 57 If you ask almost anyone in town halls across the state and voters themselves, they will agree 14 days was unnecessary, too costly, and too burdensome on local town governments and the people that are responsible for running those elections. So, changing to five days makes a lot of sense. I move adoption, Madam President, and I'd like a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I'd like to make a few points about the amendment. First of all, the one point I do agree with the good ranking member of our committee on is that I do wish we had allocated more resources to our towns to support early voting. We've allocated some resources, but I do believe that our towns need more to be able to administer early voting and, frankly, the new process we're outlining here as well. Madam President, I would say that I think when we look at these measures, we need to put, first and foremost, in our thoughts the experience of the average voter. The average period of early voting in our country is more than 21 days. The existing law for early voting here in Connecticut with our 14-day period actually puts us at the bottom of the pack, if you will, in terms of the length of period early voting is accessible to people. And early voting, as we all know, is new for the state of Connecticut. And, again, I think we need to emphasize the perspective of the average voter. This new process is in place. They've gotten used to in two elections, the 2024 election and the local sn/rr 58 election last year of having this two week period. And if we adopt this amendment today, we're going to pull the rug out from under people, a process they just started to get familiar with and used to, and change it all over again. I think it's important that as we debate in this Chamber making it easier and more accessible for more eligible voters to participate in our elections, that we also keep the rules consistent and allow voters to have some familiarity with what the process is. I think it's very hard for those of us in this circle and in this building overall to remember what it's like to be an average voter, someone who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe politics and elections. I believe the period we have right now of 14 days is the right period for our state. I know that it has been hard in some of our smaller towns to staff the process, but as long as we have the centralized town by town election system that we have, it's important that the rules be consistent across communities for those average voters, first and foremost. So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Early voting has expanded the franchise to more voters in our state. I think we're going to continue to see that this year and in the years to come as will the provisions of the underlying bill. And I believe the more voters who are eligible to participate in our democracy and cast their ballots, the better the outcomes of our elections will be. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the sn/rr 59 in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "H" of H.B. No. 5001, AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're not voting on the bill. This is Senate Amendment "H". We're voting on the amendment to H.B. No. 5001. This is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's remarkable that some folks in this building refer to me as a heavy hitter because I'm zero for eight. Eight amendments, zero passed. All of them failing on a party line, 25 to 11. And just to take you guys down memory lane, the first amendment was about eliminating the overtly politically charged drag the controversy over ICE agents into Connecticut for no reason, just for politics. sn/rr 60 This is not happening in our streets. And if this type of drama does begin happening at our polls, it's going to be precisely because of that kind of thing. The fact that the majority is stoking the fire, constantly trying to create this controversy. I don't believe it exists, at least not in Connecticut. Photo ID, something that the people of Connecticut overwhelmingly support. All across the country, poll after poll after poll after poll. I've seen polls that are upwards of 90-plus percent. I don't think you can get 90-plus percent agreement on how much of anything. Pink is a nice color. Probably only about 60%. Photo ID is wildly popular and wildly effective at making sure that your election is accurate. It ought to be the law in Connecticut. It should not be rejected summarily on party lines year after year after year by the majority. The people of Connecticut want it. They should know how this vote went down today. They should know who voted for photo ID requirements for voting, and who voted against them. We had an amendment to remove this, what I consider a help me Wanda amendment that was added to another bill that would allow for the permanent distribution of absentee ballot applications to people, and have them already filled out. Talk about making it easier for people that would want to commit crimes, to commit ballot stuffing, to overload our drop boxes with fraudulent ballots. My amendment to create an anonymous voter verification system, like they have in other states, that do a lot of mail in voting, denied. Party lines. Auditing our voter rolls to make sure only people that are legitimate voters are actually eligible to vote and are on the voter rolls, denied. Rejected. Party lines. Prohibiting the unsolicited mailing of absentee ballots. We talked about this at length. It's a sn/rr 61 little bit of a quirky issue. You got to understand what's happening. But this is another thing that leads to a lot of unnecessary and confusing situations for voters who are even good people, who are legitimately trying to do the right thing, but also opens the door for more fraud, rejected. Mandatory minimum sentences for people that would commit election crimes. Can't we agree that we need a deterrent to stop people that want to defraud our elections? Can't we agree on that? No, we can't. Rejected, 25 to 11. Early voting. Again, if I went and grabbed people on the street, I don't know that I'd get 100%, but I'm quite confident I'd get a significant majority if they knew the facts about the cost to communities to hold these additional days of elections, and whether or not it's really necessary to have 14 full days. Could we get by with less? Does it have to be five? Not necessarily. Rejected. I really do respect my colleague, Senator Flexer, and what she does on the Elections Committee, but there are a few things that we just happen to disagree about. And one of those things is the way this process works. We work very well together on some things, yes. On the things that we agree on, that she likes, they happen no problem. The things that we disagree on, the things that I like, they never happen. And when I say they never happen, they don't get a hearing, they don't get a legitimate debate. Occasionally, one of those items might be offered as a hearing in a committee, even a debate out of the committee. But that's a token gesture. It doesn't mean it's ever actually going to be brought forward as legitimate policy. These items that we're describing today are items that are not just my opinion. These are things that are going on in other states, blue states and red states, that are actually improving the accuracy and integrity of sn/rr 62 their elections, and they are being disregarded in the state of Connecticut. I think the gentle lady said that we shouldn't be making vast changes nine hours before the end of the session. Well, we are. The bill that's before us is making vast changes nine hours before the end of session. And the topics that I'm bringing up have been debated ad nauseam in this Chamber and beyond. These are things that are happening in the public sphere. And if the argument is, well, we never had a proper hearing on that, Senator, well, that's because the majority didn't allow the hearing to happen, not because I didn't try. So, that's not really a fair characterization of what is going on. I lament the fact that we have only a short period of time to address this bill. There are so many other things in this bill. I barely touched a handful of the 73 sections that are in this bill. There are countless other things that are worth conversation about inside and outside envelopes. There are good things, like allowing the AG to work on investigations with the SEEC, the State Elections Enforcement Commission. A good thing. It's a shame that we didn't get to actually go through all of that. I tried to spend my time today covering the things that I think are important, which is making sure people understand how the world will change when this policy is enacted. And also, what we're failing to do in partnership with this change. We're making a significant policy change. You would not give your teenage son or daughter the keys to the car without teaching them how to drive first. And I feel like this bill is a lot like that. We're going to open up the floodgates for this new type of policy without actually any guardrails or protections associated with it. And those are sn/rr 63 important guardrails and protections to make sure that our elections, at the end of the day, are honest and fair, and that people trust them, as I said, like I did when I was a kid. When I was growing up, if you told me that there was election fraud, I would have laughed at you. I'd say, our elections are as tight and as well- monitored and regulated as any in the entire world. Those are other countries that have crazy election problems where you can't trust the results. I'm embarrassed that my home state was made a national story because of the events out of the city of Bridgeport, not just once, but multiple times over several years. And to date, I can tell you nothing of any significance has been done to address that. My amendments today would have went a long way to repairing those problems. So, ask yourself, who really cares about making sure that there's accuracy in elections, that there's true respect for the value of voters and their rights to cast a vote? Ask yourself who cares about protecting elections? Who cares about stopping fraud? The votes that are on the board are quite clear. This is not just about whether we're going to expand absentee voting for all. That happens in section 1 of the bill. There's 72 other sections. And there's at least eight other missing sections, in my view. I cannot support this bill in its current form, Madam President, but not because I don't believe in expanding access to voting. I do. I believe in doing it the right way with respect for the people of Connecticut. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I believe we're closing in on the conclusion to the conversation on the bill before us. And I just wanted to briefly stand to express gratitude to a number of people who worked on this particular bill and on this issue over the years. I want to start with thanking our nonpartisan staff for their incredible work on this, our attorneys in the legislative commissioner's office, and our analysts and attorneys in the Office of Legislative Research for the incredible amount of work and time and effort that went into the bill we're debating. I also want to thank some of our colleagues and our previous colleagues who this has been a long time coming. As I said at the outset of this debate, this has been a 10-year process to catch Connecticut up with the rest of many states, and having expanded access to absentee ballots. And so I want to thank my former co-chair, Representative Dan Fox, for his work getting us to this point; former Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill; our current Secretary of the State, Stephanie Thomas, and her office's work on this proposal that's here today. I want to thank my great co-chair and partner, Representative Matt Blumenthal, for his work on this legislation. And lastly, Madam President, I want to thank Senator Duff and Senator Looney, for their work and their commitment to making sure that this debate on this particular bill happened today and all of the debate and work that was necessary to get us to this point where Connecticut is on the brink of making accessible voting a reality in every way for every eligible voter. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. Thank you. I do want to thank the chair for detailing the bill and her work. I also want to thank the good ranking member, who is a heavy hitter despite what he said, Senator Sampson, for his effort. He highlighted it perfectly, and I think he summarized it in the same exact fashion I'm going to summarize it. I generally support the concept of no-excuse absentee ballot voting. The concept itself, I have no issue with it. I think it does expand ability for all those to vote, and gives individuals more options to vote. That's a positive thing. What is not positive, and the reason that I will be voting against this measure is, again, not because I don't agree with theory of the concept of no-excuse absentee ballot voting, but the fact that there is a lack of safeguards surrounding this here in the state of Connecticut. Democracy is the bedrock of our country. And in order for democracy to flourish, individuals have to be provided great access to be able to participate in that democracy. They also need to be provided great confidence in that democracy as well. The votes that are being cast are being cast properly and legally. And unfortunately, in the state, albeit isolated incidents, we've seen some really glaring, terrible incidents that have occurred just in the past few years. In Bridgeport, multiple times, we've seen individuals convicted of fraud as it relates to absentee ballot voting. And so, what Senator Sampson's amendments hit on that I do wish many passed is safeguarding those elections, safeguarding absentee ballot voting. What he is saying and what I am saying in summary on the bill is if we were to pass this, again, sn/rr 66 legalizing this no-excuse absentee ballot voting, at the same time, by expanding it, we have even more reason to put in common-sense measures, which many of those measures in those amendments were, to safeguard this now expansion of no-excuse absentee ballot voting. Copy of identification, basic common-sense measures that would ensure that when the vote is counted, it's counting legal votes and it's done properly. That's all. It shouldn't be that much to ask. It really shouldn't. And so, what I'm saying in my vote against this measure and what Senator Sampson is saying and what many in our caucus are saying in a vote against this measure is, again, not a vote against the concept. But in my opinion, the logical theory that if we're going to expand this, which this is what the bill does, we need to, at the very least, address the fraud that we've already seen in the state of Connecticut, crack down on it, and put in real common-sense practical measures to ensure that it does not go on again, that the loopholes aren't there for those votes to be fallen through, and that all of the voters in the state of Connecticut have great access to the polls and have great confidence across the state in every municipality of confidence that the vote is proper and legal. And, again, I do wish those amendments passed today, and I could be in support of this measure. But, unfortunately, based upon the lack of safeguards with now this expansion of the absentee ballot voting, I cannot be in favor of it. And that's why I'll be opposing this measure and urging my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 5001, AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR ALL AND VARIOUS OTHER REFORMS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS. We are now voting on the bill. This is H.B. No. 5001. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on H.B. No. 5001. We are now voting on the bill.

H.B. 5001: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 25 Total voting Nay 11 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to PT the next item once you gavel down on this bill.

22327307, Mr. Clerk. That's PT. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.

We can stand at ease, sir.

Page 36, Calendar No. 528, H.B. No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION." (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A"). There's several amendments.

Good evening on this lovely Senate. Hey, Madam President.

I think you must have been waiting on that for quite a while. We are all a bit delirious at this point. sn/rr 69 Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Madam President, I'd like to give a brief summary of the bill. In the last decade, we've made a committed and concentrated effort to drive our energy policies towards a focus on reliability cost and sustainability. This solar bill is another step in the right direction, and builds on the success of our current programs while maintaining our dedication to lowering the costs of all these programs for Connecticut ratepayers. Majority of the people in our state support the broad long-term goals of cleaner air and water, energy use that is sensitive to the impacts of climate change, and an overall cleaner environment. However, what needs to be embedded in these ideas, and what drives our work on the Energy Committee is the real-time impact that our policies have on our people. This balance makes energy complex and delicate, especially as factors outside of our control, like wars, pandemics, and federal policies continue to upset this balance. Despite the enormous toll that these outside stressors take on our energy framework, we have maintained a policy course that now reflects real cost benefits for ratepayers and measurable environmental progress. We anticipate that by this summer, electric rates will finally decrease to the levels we had before the pandemic and the war in Ukraine began. Starting May 1st, ratepayers will begin seeing up to a 15% reduction on their next bills. And by July sn/rr 70 1st, we're hopeful that the electric rates will be approximately 40% lower than they were at their peak in 2023. Some people may point to the very high numbers and the public benefits at points during the last few years as being indicators indicative of long-term trends, but that might be a bit misleading. In fact, these numbers have been steadily coming down as the volatility in rates have decreased over the last couple of years. Relying solely on these past numbers fails to recognize the stabilizing impact renewable energy programs and energy procurements, like Millstone, have had for the grid. In fact, the often villainized public benefits charge had become a credit as of May 1st. That's money going directly back to ratepayers in Connecticut. However, our work is not done. This bill is the next step in ensuring our successful solar programs, paired with battery storage where possible, continue to sustain our efforts to lowering costs for Connecticut ratepayers, and ensuring sustainability and reliability. There are three main programs impacted by this bill: Residential Renewable Energy Solutions, otherwise known as RRES; Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions, otherwise known as NRES; and the Shared Community Energy Fund, SCEF, now named Community Solar. These programs will result in an across-the-board commitment to solar, paired with battery storage when possible, and are cost-effective. This bill additionally incentivizes the use of solar at the discretion of PURA in low-income and distressed municipalities, allowing PURA to set rates appropriate for these communities and individuals. We are focused on long-term reliability by setting tariffs that have terms up to 20 years, and these tariffs will be offered through 2035, providing some stability to the programs. sn/rr 71 Residents, businesses, municipalities, all utilize the benefits of solar. And these programs only increase solar's value and drive down the cost, as we implement more solar on the grid. It's critical that we continue to invest in these programs thoughtfully and prudently, which the bill does. We'll continue to look forward to our energy goals as we increase transparency in our energy investments, maintain accountability over the entities we entrust to deliver energy in Connecticut. With the same diligence and prudence that went into crafting this bill today, we will remain dedicated to energy policies that achieve the critical balance between reliability, affordability, and sustainability. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I hope you do not find my remarks shocking today, but I rise in strong opposition of H.B. 5340. Over the course of my remarks, I'd like to make four points that I think are extraordinarily important to residents all across Connecticut. First, that electricity rates are and remain too damn high in the state of Connecticut. Second, that state policies from the legislature and the administration bear responsibility for our sky high electric rates. Third, that this bill will make our state and our energy costs more unaffordable. And fourth, that there is a better way to make our state more affordable, to drive down the cost of energy, and create more economic growth and opportunity for everyone in our state. First, we all know, we all sn/rr 72 feel that electricity rates are far too high in the state of Connecticut. According to the latest EIA monthly report from the federal government, Connecticut's electricity rates are the second highest of any state in the country after only Hawaii, and ahead of our neighboring states, ahead of California, and other states all across our country. It's not as if it has to be this way, but rather, policies and decisions made in this state Capitol have contributed to those high rates, making Connecticut far less affordable than it needs to be. It's not as if it's simply statistics either. No matter where you go all across our state, people feel the pain. They face difficulty and horrible decisions about whether they can fully pay their utility bills, their electric bill, and still have money left over to pay their rent, their mortgage, their property taxes. And not only that, not only our seniors and working class families struggling to make ends meet, but our employers' investment in our state, especially our manufacturing sector, is continuing to leave for greener pastures, and new investment is hard to come by. We used to have a brilliant, world-class, and growing high-tech manufacturing sector here in Connecticut. But as energy rates were inflated in part due to the policies of the state government, over many years, those jobs and that investment has had to leave for other states, for greener pastures where it's more competitive. When you can purchase energy at less than half the cost of what it is here in Connecticut and other states, in the middle of the country, all across our country, in fact, you're far more likely to build the factory, to employ the workers, to grow the wages elsewhere, especially when energy costs can amount to 25% of the entire bill for a manufacturing firm. For some, maybe even higher. sn/rr 73 It's more than clear that with these sky high energy rates, with the second highest electric rates in the country, Connecticut's economy cannot succeed in the long run. Something needs to change. Something needs to change so that seniors and working class families can afford to pay their bills every month, and something needs to change so that we can bring the jobs and opportunity back to our state and grow the economy for all. Intuitively, I understand that people all across our state know this. They don't have to look at the charts, they don't have to look at the rankings. They feel that it doesn't have to be this way, and they're right. Maybe Connecticut and New England's energy rates will always remain higher than the national average. I think that's entirely plausible. And maybe the sky high energy rates here in Connecticut will fluctuate from month to month, from year to year, and there are many other factors at play than just state policy. I submit all those things to you. I do believe them. But at the same time, the policies that have been passed here by this legislature and this administration over the last eight years have contributed to higher than needed energy costs, and have made this state more unaffordable for regular residents. Let's go through many of those policies that all the facts point to making Connecticut unnecessarily unaffordable and driving our energy costs through the roof. On its face, in our electric bills over the last several years, we've been able to see it for ourselves. Yes, the public benefits charge oscillates. It can fall to as low as 0% of our bill, and climb to as high as 25% or 30% of our bills. But for the entirety of 2024, the last year that I have complete data, public benefits costs amounted to over $1 billion statewide paid by the average Connecticut family. sn/rr 74 That means roughly $700 in average costs in hidden taxes imposed by this state government on our residents through our energy bills. That pays for over 50 different government programs that are discretionary in nature, passed by the state legislature and administration unnecessarily. They aren't necessary to deliver electricity to your home, to power your AC, to turn on your lights. And some of those programs do have justification, and some of those programs probably meet a cost benefit in order to benefit the state as a whole. But in totality, they have cost our state and our residents billions over a long period of time, and they will continue to in part because of this proposal today, assuming that it passes into law, which unfortunately, I do. In addition to those public benefits charges, which yes, oscillate year to year, but in their totality have cost our state billions in recent years, cost our residents billions in recent years, amounting to $600 or $700 for the average family, there are other hidden taxes that are imposed by the state government buried into your electric bill that is raising your electric bills by hundreds of dollars more than they need to be otherwise, supported again by this state legislature and administration. They include the renewable portfolio standard, which is hundreds of millions in dollars in special subsidies, paid through the supply charge in our electric bill, mostly for for-profit energy companies that are making money on the backs of middle class and working class Connecticut residents who are paying too much already. But we talk a lot about fairness in this building and in this Chamber. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk a lot about helping people with lower incomes, working class families. What is fair and how does it help working class families to subsidize to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars private for- sn/rr 75 profit corporations on the backs of seniors on a fixed income and working class families who are struggling to get by in the state of Connecticut? But that's what the renewable portfolio standard does, that's what hundreds of millions of dollars of the costs in our public benefits charges do, and that's what this bill proposed today would do years into the future. In addition, there's tens of millions of dollars of buried costs in the supply portion of our bill in the form of the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative, which is a regional cap and trade program, an implicit tax on power generation, which is transferred to and paid by consumers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars more. In totality, it's been less than the public benefits charge and the renewable portfolio standard tax in our supply portion of our bill, but it's growing. And it's growing at an alarming rate. And I've gotten messages from people in the energy industry shocked in recent weeks that the cost of the regional greenhouse gas initiative is spiking through the roof. And that's something that this administration, this state government could withdraw from tomorrow and save our residents tens of millions of dollars. The point is that state policies are clearly, have clearly, and will clearly continue to drive up the cost of electricity by billions of dollars more than necessary without providing clear benefits to the public, and continue to starve our economy of economic growth and investment into the future. But don't take my analysis for it alone, although it is entirely straightforward. It just takes peeling back a couple of layers to see those tens of billions of dollars of costs over the last 10, 20 years. But far more sophisticated onlookers have identified these costs as exactly part of the reason that Connecticut and similar states have such high sn/rr 76 electric rates compared to the rest of the country. For instance, there was an Office of Legislative Research report issued in 2025 that looked at, analyzed some of the reasons that Connecticut has such high electric rates compared to the rest of the country. Three of the reasons they found were state-mandated energy procurements, including the types of procurements contemplated in this legislation today, state renewable energy policies, including the RPS, the RGGI, and other public benefits charges that amount to hundreds of millions of dollars more, and six system benefits charges which they would identify as things like the state-subsidized energy efficiency programs, some of the social and redistributive programs embedded in the public benefits charge. Altogether, this Office of Legislative Research report, nonpartisan report from our state government, clearly identifies that state policies that I was just discussing and similar to those in this proposal are driving Connecticut's electric rates up, to the point that they are among the highest in the country. Again, there are other exogenous factors. Absolutely. And maybe we will not be as affordable ever in terms of our energy costs as Nebraska or Oklahoma, but we do not have to be the second highest cost state in the country. And we can save families hundreds or thousands of dollars into the future if we have the right policy. This bill today brings us down the wrong path. It doesn't correct the problems of the past. More importantly, there was a 2025 report from the Berkeley National Laboratory, which got a lot of attention nationally, identifying causes of differential electric rates state by state all around the country. This was a very important report because electricity costs and energy costs have been sn/rr 77 identified as a more and more important issue facing states and different regional economies. And it should be no surprise that their findings in this extraordinarily thorough statistical report was very similar to what we were discussing just earlier in this speech. States experiencing the greatest price increases were heavily reliant on subsidized behind the meter solar, on renewable portfolio standards, and decreasing loads, meaning lower demand on the electric grid, because many of those policies are driving prices through the roof, and because other costly policies imposed by this state government, the high taxes, the constricting regulations, starve us of economic growth, reduce the load growth because there's no manufacturing firms coming to Connecticut, because people aren't coming to Connecticut, people are moving out of Connecticut, and the high prices are causing a downward spiral where those leaving are left to pay more and more. Do not interpret my remarks here today as being in opposition of any type of energy in particular. I am not pro or anti-solar. I am not pro or anti-wind. I'm not pro or anti-nuclear or gas or hydro, any of the main components of our energy grid here in Connecticut. What I am in favor of is affordable, reliable, and relatively clean electrons. Powering our homes, our economy, keeping the lights on, the electricity running, the AC running in the summer, and the heat running in the winter to protect our safety, our standard of living, and our entire economy. I want all these industries to succeed, whether they're solar companies, or wind companies, or gas companies, or nuclear companies, and so on. But like any other industry, and like any other companies in our economy, they should compete and grow on their own merits, rather than be subsidized at the direction of the state government through implicit sn/rr 78 taxes on residents who cannot afford to pay so many of their bills as is. One of my favorite and the most interesting findings in the Berkeley report is that in states that did not have major policy interventions subsidizing solar and wind, but that had a large proliferation of solar and wind, there weren't the same price increases as in the states that heavily subsidized their solar and wind and other renewable industries. As I've said before, you can repeal any of the laws on the books that we have here in the state of Connecticut, but you cannot repeal the laws of physics, you cannot repeal the laws of economics. And you'll be burned if you ever try to do so, and that's exactly what's happening here in Connecticut. We have the privilege of living in a very beautiful state but one with a lot of trees, a lot of hills, and a very high latitude. In other parts of the country that are very flat, that are very sunny, that are very windy, it's much more affordable to generate wind and solar power. It's very interesting that, for instance, in the state of Texas, you've seen the highest proliferation of wind power in the entire country without much subsidization, even more so than places in the Northeast that heavily subsidize it, California and other states. I firmly believe that industries and companies are far better off in the long run when they are forced to stand on their own two feet and compete by earning the business of consumers, driving down costs, ensuring reliability, and high-quality, not by going hat in hand to government every year when the legislative session opens. We should not be sending the signal as a state government that the way to profit and get ahead in Connecticut is corporate welfare at the cost of regular residents who do not have the benefit of a sn/rr 79 lobbyist or an activist advocating for them every day in the state Capitol. We should be sending the signal that every company is free to come to Connecticut, compete in Connecticut, hire in Connecticut, and sell their product in Connecticut, earning their business. That is the best way for all these companies to succeed in the long run, and it is the best way for our state economy to succeed in the long run. And yet, we have chosen to go down the road of centralized control and high costs. And by their fruits, you shall know them. That is why we have the second highest electric rates in the country. These are the facts. There's no two ways around them. Whether you look through the public benefits charges that have all been itemized for us, whether you look through the supply charges in the bill, whether you look at reports from independent nonpartisan agencies like the Office of Legislative Research or the Berkeley National Laboratories, everything points to one answer, that state policies in places like Connecticut have driven up our energy costs to the point that we have prohibitively high electric rates, that are putting families in the most difficult of situations having to choose between paying their electric bill, their other utility bills, their rent, their prescription drugs, their property taxes month to month, year to year, and forcing jobs and opportunity out of our state. This bill today, unfortunately, will double down on the mistakes of the past, and raise public benefits charges by billions of dollars into the future. There, currently, over the last, I think, 10 years or so, has been renewable energy solutions programs operating on the books. What they do is very similar to what's contemplated in this bill, but they were set to sunset recently after 10 years of issuing subsidized long-term contracts for private companies to produce power. sn/rr 80 Those amounted to hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars in the long-term of cost that will be borne by our ratepayers. We are now probably 20 or so years into residents, consumers in Connecticut having to pay for subsidies for private energy production. This was a successor program to other subsidy programs, and now we're discussing another successor. But when does it end? The argument from many of my friends on the opposite side of this issue, and they are my friends, and I do respect them and we have an honest disagreement, but on an important topic, their argument is that we need to provide benefits to an industry to stand it up. And once it does, it will be able to compete, and we can let those subsidies paid for by our consumers trail off. Well, we are now 20 years or so into these state- sponsored policies and subsidies. And when is enough? When can we stop? When do seniors and working class families get off the hook for paying for the profits of private for-profit companies. There has to be a point at which private industry is expected to stand on its own two feet. But now we're discussing legislation that would give the authority for the next 10 years to sign 20-year long contracts on the backs of ratepayers in Connecticut. So, it's not as if it's tying us into another 10 years of costs. It's tying us into another 30 years of costs which could be enormous. Now, there was some discussion of the fact that there was a fiscal note placed on this legislation by the Office of Fiscal Analysis which said it could have no ratepayer impact. It was a couple sentences from a great agency of the state government, which is in no position to make ratepayer impact statements. But what we do know is that this proposal today is very closely fashioned off the existing program, which has been in existence for nearly a decade, a little bit less, that in the year 2024 resulted in sn/rr 81 roughly $110 million of public benefits cost paid for by ratepayers in order to support the program. That's above the wholesale market for electricity. If I were to explain how exactly this program works, maybe I'd use a more commonly purchased or more visible commodity that we all buy, gasoline. Obviously, you go to a gas station, maybe you fill up your car with regular $4 a gallon is the wholesale rate. It's a competitive market. This would be the equivalent of tying us into 20-year contracts at a multiple of what those wholesale prices are. So, in some cases, it would be the equivalent of us forcing consumers and families in Connecticut to purchase gasoline, not at $4 a gallon every week, but to tie us into purchasing gasoline for $12 a gallon for the next 20 or 30 years. As my friend, the good Chair of the Energy Committee said, this bill contemplates several programs within the overall bill, the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program, the Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program, the successor of SCEF, which we're now calling Community Solar, and then a SolarPlus Battery Program, which is new. And they're all interesting. This is an interesting industry that has a lot to offer, that I want to see succeed, that has succeeded in other parts of the country, where the policy is better and where the geography lends itself a little more to producing affordable renewable energy and solar energy, in particular. And even within this bill, as I have said on the energy committee, oftentimes, there are parts and programs that, I think, are less objectionable, and others that are more so. So, start first with the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program. That is the highest cost of all four of the programs in this bill. Roughly, if you are a power generator in the wholesale market, selling energy without any sort of direct sn/rr 82 government subsidy or support or price fixing, you can expect $0.05, $0.06, $0.07 per kilowatt hour. It's gone up a little bit in in the last year or so. If you're Millstone, the power plant that was given a long-term contract, which in some years was subsidized by ratepayers, and in other years was profiting ratepayers, including in this past year, which is part of the reason that the RAM adjustment showed up as a credit or will show up in the near term as a credit to consumers because the Millstone contract that, in many of the press releases and communications from the Senate Democrats in the recent years, I've read was all the Republicans' fault. It wasn't all the Republicans' fault. Some of the Democrats voted for it, some of the Republicans voted for it. But now it's profiting our ratepayers big time, big time, because the wholesale rates on the market have gone up. So, now, that hedge, that long-term purchase is in the money, and in other years, it's been out of the money. Overall, it's been in the money because electricity rates have gone up. But that was $0.05 per kilowatt hour. Long-term fixed price contract. The current market, the wholesale competitive market, as if you were going to a gas station and purchasing gasoline for electricity, is probably $0.06 or $0.07 per kilowatt hour because it's gone up a little bit. But in the recent past, the predecessor of this program that we're debating today has forced consumers in Connecticut to purchase electricity through the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program at roughly $0.30 per kilowatt hour. So, that's over four times what the wholesale market rate for electricity is. It's six times what the cost of electricity from Millstone's Power Plant is. Holy moly. Those electrons are the same. It's a commodity. It's doing us all the same good, and we're paying four or five, six times for the energy sn/rr 83 produced from the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program. The Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program is a behind the meter solar production program that is a little larger scale, because you think warehouses and businesses with bigger buildings and bigger roofs, obviously, can get a little more economies of scale. And so they'll bid into that program, and I believe that the prices in recent years have been something like $0.16 per kilowatt hour. So a little bit lower than the residential, but still much higher than the wholesale market rate for electricity, a little more than double, a little more than triple what Millstone currently costs. Then there's the successor program of SCEF in this bill is Community Solar, but it was previously SCEF, which I don't know what that stands for. But basically, it's grid scale solar. It's the larger solar fields, which is a subject of concern, especially in North Central Connecticut. And it's still subsidized. It's subsidized at a little lower rate, but it's still subsidized. And there's parts of North Central Connecticut that if these programs didn't exist, probably wouldn't be covered in as much solar fields as they are currently. Because again, the ratepayers are underwriting it at above the market rate, at above the wholesale market rate. But those programs are going off at $0.10, $0.11, $0.12 per kilowatt hour. Again, compared to $0.05 for Millstone, $0.06 or $0.07 for the wholesale market currently. So, not quite double, almost double. So, still a large subsidy. That's probably to the tune of tens of millions of dollars per year. In the data that I have for the FY 2024, the SCEF program cost ratepayers $16 million in public benefits, the Non-Residential, the NRES program cost ratepayers $29 million in public benefits, and the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions Program cost ratepayers $65 million in benefits. sn/rr 84 And remember, these are not just one-time things. These are long-term 20-year contracts, and the authority exists for them for 10 years out into the future, which means that we could be paying for this in 30 years, what we passed today, 2056. The effects of what we vote on today will still be paid by ratepayers. Sometimes when we discuss legislation and some of us make proposals that might have an effect on the state budget or the state policy in a couple years to come, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, when they object, they say we don't want to bind future legislatures to the decision of the current legislature. And today, we're about to pass a bill that will bind the decision making and the costs of residents in Connecticut 30 years into the future. Maybe we shouldn't be using that argument about any legislation that comes before us going forward. Going back to the Millstone contract. I understand why some would want longer term purchases of energy and electricity. But it needs to be at a competitive rate. Now, for instance, in the wholesale market for electricity in New England, it's really a short-term market. So, if you are a power generator, whether you have solar, whether you have fuel cells, whether you have a gas plant, whether you have any other number of electricity generating assets, if you don't have a special contract with the state subsidized by the ratepayers, then you will be selling into a volatile near-term market. And I understand why certain companies and producers want long-term contracts. Okay, maybe we should have that conversation as a state. Maybe as a region, on the ISO level. But those programs can still be competitive. They can be done in a manner that benefits ratepayers, not that subsidizes private companies' bottom line. They're looking for stability. We can have a conversation sn/rr 85 about trading off between stability and affordability. We, as a state and consumers and residents, should get a benefit for providing private companies with predictability, because that helps them with their lenders and their investors. They can anticipate rather neatly what exactly their P&L looks like. So, I understand that. In the case of Millstone, you had a long-term fixed price purchase that turned out to be profitable to residents, especially profitable now that the wholesale market has gone up a little bit. Not enough that the RRES and NRES and SCEF programs are in the money making money for consumers, but enough that the Millstone contract is making money for consumers. Why not have one big long-term procurement authority that doesn't just help solar, or doesn't just help wind, or doesn't just help nuclear, or doesn't just help whatever else, but says all sources of energy can bid into an auction for long-term contracts. And when you have all those companies competing against each other, you'll be able to drive down costs. And the long-term contracts that we would give in the state of Connecticut would be at a much lower cost. Instead, we have these siloed programs that are aimed at picking winners and losers that cost enormous multiples of what the wholesale competitive market rate for electricity is. I appreciate the dialogue that we have on the Energy Committee across party lines. I have enormous respect for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of the Energy Committee. I have enormous respect for the members of DEEP and the administration who work on energy, from the governor, to the commissioner, and to the entire department in DEEP. I have enormous respect for my colleagues on the Energy Committee, especially the chairman. sn/rr 86 And we have an honest disagreement and a passionate disagreement, as you can tell from the remarks I'm making on the floor today. And I genuinely hope that in the future, we can find policies that meet all three legs of the stool that my good friend, Senator Needleman, often discusses, reliability, environmentally friendliness, and reliability. I think that this proposal and this policy does not do that, and that's why I object to it so strongly. I also have concerns that overly aggressively subsidizing certain intermittent sources of electricity, on the basis that it might be more environmentally friendly, won't actually yield those exact results. For instance, you might not know this, but Connecticut has actually seen its carbon emissions drop by about 50% over the last 20 or 25 years. Maybe you're thinking that it's because of the proliferation of solar or wind or other renewables or even nuclear, but it's not. The nuclear was online, and the solar and wind has only increased from, I think, 4% to 7% or 8% of the entire New England electric grid. It's mostly because we've had innovation that is making natural gas much more affordable in comparison to coal and oil. So, 25 years ago, the New England Connecticut electric grids were very heavily reliant on coal and oil, which burn a lot less clean, which have much higher emissions, which have much higher particulate matter than energy generated from natural gas plants. Because of the innovations in fracking, especially in the Marcellus region, Pennsylvania and Ohio, we, as a region, now have access to a lot more affordable natural gas, which has helped New England as a region reduce its carbon emissions by half in the last 25 years. Wow. Shocking. Without government directive, without the state saying that we must do so. It's not as if the intentions of policies we pass always have the same effect. Sometimes they can have unintended consequences. sn/rr 87 Again, I want solar and wind and battery to compete and drive down costs, and I am interested, for instance, in seeing how the solar and battery program can do, because battery is something that needs to work in concert with solar and wind to drive down costs and solve the problem of intermittency. We all know quite well that solar and wind only generate energy when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, which is not always. For solar, the capacity factor, as it's called in the industry, really, the amount that those facilities are generating energy compared to how much they could generate is only like 25%. And for wind, it's a little bit higher, if it's offshore wind. But the cost of building the offshore wind are higher than building the solar. So, battery power needed to fill in the gaps could be a positive development, and I hope that industry succeeds. I think that's the most interesting of the "renewable sources." I think battery makes a lot of sense because you're going to have to deal with intermittency problems into the future. But currently, in New England and across the world generally, when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining and areas are reliant on those sources of electricity for energy, what has to fill in the gaps is something that is dispatchable, immediate, reliable that you can count on. And in most places, that's actually coal or oil. And so, in the coldest months, what we see in New England is that reliance on oil power plants goes to sometimes 40% of all the energy production in the region. Whereas on a normal day, it might fall to 0%. Germany is one of the countries that has most aggressively subsidized wind and solar, and by comparison, a place like Ontario, Canada is much more heavily reliant on hydropower and nuclear power. sn/rr 88 We know France, for instance, is very reliant on nuclear power. Well, they all clearly have an interest and a desire to protect environmental considerations and reduce emissions. But despite the fact that they both all have that intention, greenhouse gas emissions in Germany are something like 5 to 10 times higher than what they are in Ontario, Canada. Even though they're both actively supporting zero carbon sources, one wind and solar, and the other nuclear and hydro. Because nuclear and hydro are much more reliable, they run much more consistently. They do not require something to fill in the gaps immediately in a reliable fashion, which economically and technologically is coal or oil. And so, this is why I like competition rather than government choosing winners and losers, because the Nobel Prize winner Friedrich Hayek said that the curious task of economics is to teach men how little they know about what they imagine they can design. Basically, what we say here and write on paper is not necessarily what happens in practice. It actually feels like it's rarely what happens in practice. And so I think we can design an energy policy that can drive down costs, protect our environment, and prove more reliable. And so, for that reason, I want to begin to discuss some of the alternatives that we, as Republicans, have authored as amendments to this proposal today. Madam President, the clerk is in possession of LCO No. 5892. I would kindly ask the clerk to call that amendment.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark?

Thank you, Madam President. This first amendment that I'm offering today includes a major proposal that has been made by myself and many of my Republican colleagues over the last few years, and that's to sunset and ultimately eliminate the public benefits charge from our electric bill. Now, if as my good colleague is saying that in the near term, those costs are falling towards zero, it should be no problem if he and others are confident that it will remain low into the future, that we can sunset those costs. And that the costs and programs that we determine should remain can be funded through the state budget, the general fund underneath the spending cap and compete against other important government programs for the appropriations process. I simply think that if programs, like infrastructure and schools and health care, have to be subject to the appropriations process every two years, where the public has a chance at input, where there are hearings and cost-benefit analysis, and we examine trade-offs, that we, as a state, will be far better off in the long run, not only limiting costs, but also making the right decisions on energy policy and energy programs, and making sure that the energy sn/rr 90 programs that remain, and I contemplate, for instance, many of the energy efficiency programs needing to remain, can be administered in the most effective way possible, this would call for the public benefits charges sunsetting in FY 2029. So, it gives us more than a couple of years lead time to begin winding down some of those costs, and that, which we determine should remain, can be funded through the general fund of the state budget in a manner that requires it to go through the public hearing process and so on and so forth. This will save consumers money, hundreds of dollars for the average family per year, many decades into the future. It will, I believe, result in better energy policy as well. We can make the state more affordable. We can cut electric bills by hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands of dollars, for families in our state, if we cut these public benefits charges into the future. And we can also make our economy grow for all. When the vote is taken, Madam President, I would ask that it be taken by roll. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Nice to see you up there. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. And this is a cornerstone of not only Senator Fazio's work in this Senate Chamber, but the work of all of those in the Senate Republican caucus, and has become a huge initiative for our caucus. The question is, why? Well, it's pretty obvious why. I think Senator Fazio did a great job of elaborating on it. But the why for me personally is, and I've shared this story many times, is I had a phone call sn/rr 91 recently, well, it's been six, seven months ago, with a constituent of mine. She's a 90-year-old woman from my hometown of Brookfield, and she called me understandably very upset. And the reason was her electric bill has been skyrocketing. And when she was able to parse through her electric bill, thanks to Senator Fazio and others' work on the Energy and Technology Committee and see this public benefit charge, it was hundreds of dollars on her bill. Had nothing to do with delivery of that electricity to her home, how much she was using. It had everything to do with programs outside of her electric bill. And it was heartbreaking to hear her tell me how she was considering leaving the community that she raised her kids in, that her grandchildren lived in. And she was doing it because it was so unaffordable here, and that public benefit charge is a huge aspect of that. And I think it's not only the 90- year-old woman in Brookfield, it's every constituent we have across the state, affordability has become a crisis. We have the second highest electric rates in the country, and that's on top of being the third highest property taxes. We need to do far better. And this amendment alone would set us on a path towards affordability surrounding electric bills. For many families across our state, it would take hundreds of dollars off their bills a month. It also would remove what I view and others in our caucus view as one of the most regressive forms of taxation we have in our state. As I mentioned, many of the programs that are paid out of the public benefit are simply a hidden tax, because it should be collected as tax revenue in the budget, not baked into your electric bill. And why I say it's regressive is it's fairly obvious. That 90- year-old middle class woman on a fixed income in Brookfield is paying the same exact amount of money sn/rr 92 as a billionaire living on the coast in Darien. That's not fair. And when it comes down to the affordability crisis that we face, that should be the first thing we're taxing is helping those in the middle class where every single cent, every single dollar counts. So I don't accept, I don't think we should accept. Okay? I've said that many times on many different bills that we've tackled this session. And I feel that by rejecting this amendment, we're accepting okay. We're saying we've made some steps to help reduce this bill, but it's just too hard right now to tackle the rest. And I believe in our state, I believe in everyone in this Chamber, and I believe it's high time we do something about this public benefit charge and remove it from all of our constituent's electric bills. So, please join me in that effort and not accepting okay as the answer to the affordability crisis that every single one of our constituents faces here. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes. Through you, Madam President, I did really appreciate that long explanation of my good colleague's view on energy policy. And I do want to remind him that in that OLR report in 1998, we were the second highest electric rates in the country. We've been fourth, second, fifth, sixth, probably by beginning of July, I think we'll probably still be in the 10 worst. But I need to say that New England, including New York, is always in the top 10 for a bunch of reasons. One of the things that people point to frequently is not a diverse fuel mix. And I promised myself that I sn/rr 93 would not get into the weeds on power in the state of Connecticut, but there was a lot there to unpack. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and have enjoyed working with him on the committee. We do have a fundamental disagreement in this. As someone who does own a manufacturing company in Connecticut and in Michigan, I understand the difference in the electric rates. I also understand the difference in air quality and environmental policies in both states, and can appreciate both. I have come, in my many years of being in business and living, to understand that there is a great deal of difference between price and value. Sometimes going just for the lowest price doesn't provide the best long-term value. I think there's no solution, there's no perfect fix for energy policy either in Connecticut, in New England, or globally. We've found in this session that there were many, many reasons why communities and individuals don't want things. They don't want them near them. They don't want them in their towns. They don't want them in this state. We went through 40 years of a nuclear moratorium in the state of Connecticut after Millstone was built. I happened to be out fishing on the day that Three Mile Island had its meltdown. And I swear, I remember the guy I was fishing with looked at me and said, "We're going to die." So, nuclear developed a really bad name. Today, it's in vogue. We lived through Chernobyl, we lived through the Fukushima in Japan. We do believe that nuclear can be a safe and effective source of energy, but we all know that we've had a major problem with getting rid of spent fuel for nuclear. There's a pile of spent fuel in my district in Haddam Neck, there's a pile of fuel sitting at Millstone, but it does provide great base load power. I've supported removing the nuclear moratorium in the state, and passed legislation sn/rr 94 twice to loosen it and to incentivize other communities to do that. I believe in a diverse set of energy sources for our state. One thing I do know about renewable energy, energy derived from running water or wind or solar, is the fact that once you build it, the energy is generally free. You have to pay to move it around a little bit, but you're not paying by digging or drilling and dealing with commodities that are globally set, not set by consumers in the state of Connecticut. That's what led to the volatility. And I listened to my good colleague, Senator Harding, talk about the pain that was caused, not by our energy policies, but we are a victim of circumstances, in some cases, beyond our control, being in the Northeast, being in New England, being totally dependent on natural gas. And when the weather gets cold, oil, which burns so much dirtier that two weeks of burning oil in a natural gas or a dual fired power plant generates more solid emissions that really poison people and affects the quality of their lives in inner cities and in rural areas. So, we don't want to go back to oil, we don't want to go back to coal. We want to move forward. Connecticut's energy policies are solid. They should always be reviewed. And in my four years of working with Senator Fazio, I've had a very enjoyable time. I know that we've worked on arrangements, deals that we felt we could find common ground on. On this issue, I think that moving forward on this bill and saying no to this amendment is important, so I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A" of H.B. No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. This is not the bill. This is Senate Amendment "A" of H.B. No. 5340. We're not voting on the bill. We're voting on the amendment. Senate Amendment "A" of H.B. No. 5340. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I am disappointed the amendment failed, but I would like to offer other amendments that I think would make our energy policy better, and make this program more palatable to the public limiting costs, perhaps not delivering all the energy policy solutions that I'd prefer, but at sn/rr 96 least making things, marginally more cost effective, including this policy, in particular. I think this next amendment would actually make this bill much more palatable, much more beneficial to the public, while also providing what many supporters of the solar industry want to see and would make this bill a better product in the end. So, Madam President, the clerk is in possession of LCO No. 6103, and I would ask the clerk to please call that amendment.

Senator Kissel.

The Chamber will stand at ease. Senator Fazio.

And the question is on adoption? Will you remark?

A roll call vote will be ordered. Will you remark further? Senator Needleman.

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

Have all the senators voted? If all the senator have voted, the machine will be locked, and clerk, please announce the tally.

The amendment fails. Senator Fazio.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 100

Senator Fazio.

Please summarize.

A roll call vote will be ordered. Will you remark further? Senator Needleman.

Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk, please announce the vote, a roll call vote.

Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? If all the members have voted, the machines will be locked. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The amendment fails. Senator Fazio.

LCO No. 6094. That's Senate Amendment "D".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. When the vote is taken, sn/rr 104 I would ask for a roll call vote. This amendment would strike the majority of the bill but leave the sections of the bill which would give a moratorium to certain solar development in communities, especially in North Central Connecticut, which have been unfairly overburdened by much of this development. Again, I believe in an all of the above energy approach. I want all sources of energy to compete. But I think there needs to be balance and there needs to be limitations. And North Central Connecticut has been significantly overburdened by much of this solar development with so much farmland and other land turned over entirely to solar fields. This would provide them some reprieve, a moratorium for a period of time from that development, which has been strongly supported by the residents of North Central Connecticut. And so, for that reason, I think that this bill would get bipartisan support on that basis if that was the primary focus of this legislation today rather than the costs and the subsidies embedded in the bill that are far more questionable. So, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment for a moratorium, for reprieve for the residents of North Central Connecticut from the excessive solar development and remove the costly portions of this bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Great to see you up there with about seven hours left to go until we finish this short legislative session. I want to sn/rr 105 thank Senator Fazio for bringing this amendment forward. And yes, indeed, it does strip away the vast majority of this bill but for the moratorium that is in here that is specifically to assist communities in North Central Connecticut, one of which is the largest community in my 7th Senatorial District, the town of Enfield. But it also assists the town of East Windsor as well. I believe that's the good doctor's district, to my left. And I want to specifically commend my colleagues in the House, Representative Carol Hall and Representative Jaime Foster, who worked in a collaborative, bipartisan, nonpartisan fashion to address the concerns that we have in North Central Connecticut. We are blessed in North Central Connecticut with what we call the Tobacco Valley. It's wonderful alluvial soils that are in the Connecticut River Valley and they're fabulous for farmland and growing a variety of crops, not the least of which is our world-famous shade-grown tobacco. But that being the case, it also means that we have large fields that are perfectly suited for solar arrays. And our communities have stepped up as these proposals have come forward, and we have a huge amount of solar arrays that have now taken the place of our beautiful fertile farmland. And my constituents have said, hey, if this is great for the people of Connecticut, we want to share the wealth. Why don't other communities step forward? And as much as we've been trying to get other communities to do that, we've been sort of singing into the wind. This is a wonderful step forward in creating a one- year moratorium delineated as far as population and the amount of kilowatts that they are now participating in through solar arrays. And if one does the mathematical extrapolation, one would find sn/rr 106 that it's at least East Windsor and Enfield that would benefit. The last part of this statement I want to make is this. I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns that were raised so articulately by Senator Fazio. I am not a climate denier, but I have always fundamentally felt that human beings and our participation in whatever is happening to the climate is de minimis. I'm not against trying to reduce carbon emissions. I think ultimately there's a lot of ancillary good benefits from trying to shepherd the resources we have as a nation. But I would say that you don't have to look very far to find that we are just small components when it comes to mother nature. I would just hearken you to just go and check out what's called the Year Without a Summer. The year was 1816. And one volcanic eruption, it's Mount Tambora. At that time, it was the Dutch East Indies. Now we call them Indonesia. In that one year, crops didn't grow throughout Northern Europe, and they didn't grow in North America, and they didn't grow in Connecticut. And there were famines, and there was real problems during that year without a summer in 1816. I stumbled upon that by accident by walking through a graveyard one time and I started to see certain individuals had died all around that year. And I wondered what was going on that year. It wasn't the civil war, it wasn't the revolutionary war. And so, I did a little digging, and that was the year without a summer. Amazingly, in a town like Enfield in North Central Connecticut, you could put a pitcher of water out at night in July, and it would freeze solid. That's how cold it was. And that was by one volcano on the other side of the world. You don't have to look too far historically to find what's called the little ice age. When our colonial sn/rr 107 settlers first got here, look around, you can say that they were economizing, but the ceilings were all very low because heat was so precious and it was so very difficult to keep their cottages and houses warm. Because in the little ice age, several hundred years ago but when our part of the world was first settled in North America, it was proportionally much cooler and colder than it is now. And the signal that one was very wealthy were tall ceilings because they could afford to waste energy. The notion of a windfall comes from when a storm would blow through a forest and they would find all this wood on the ground and they could shepherd it and use it to create heat. That was a windfall because they didn't have to go and chop it down. We have lots and lots of things we can look to, but my concern is that we tend to think that we are the be all and end all as human beings. And in so many respects, it's vastly important what we do. But I think in the great scheme of climate change, there are forces far beyond us. So, that when we get to issues regarding green energy, there's a huge cost associated with that. And while there are people in our society that have the wherewithal that perhaps they can go down that path, we have to understand that for a society as a whole, even in very rich societies like we have here in North America with the United States of America and Connecticut, to go down these paths seeking climate change and modification just through our own mortal means, that sometimes, in my humble view, that cost in dollars is outweighed by the fact that we're rather insignificant when it comes to these things. So, I have some issues when it comes to the other parts of the bill. This amendment takes those out of the equation. I think Senator Fazio did a much better job than I did in articulating the nuts and bolts of why following these paths down green energy sn/rr 108 lanes doesn't necessarily get us where we need to go. That the portfolio is not as diverse as it could be, even if one is holding green energy as the highest standard attainable. And that we need to do a cost benefit analysis that is not just pie in the sky but is real world and understands that there are costs to all our choices. And that when we go down these paths, we have to take in consideration the high cost of living here in the State of Connecticut, and the fact that not everyone is prospering in the State of Connecticut. There are just a lot of constituents that I have that are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and making tough decisions between medications, a roof over their head, or food on the table, or heat in their homes in winter, and the chance of cooling in the summer. And we have to put all of those things into consideration. And for that reason, I am thankful to Senator Fazio to bring out this amendment that protects my communities, and that portion of the bill that creates a moratorium in North Central Connecticut, because we've done our fair share, but takes away these other aspirational things that don't make a lot of fiscal sense for my constituents. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Although I absolutely was fascinated by the idea, the little ice age, and I believe that that might have been caused by a plague that killed off a lot of people on the planet, I still would urge my colleagues to not adopt the amendment. But I am very, very sn/rr 109 sympathetic to that region's problems with being the perfect location for lots of grid scale solar, and we are trying to fix that in this bill. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "D" of House Bill No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. This is not the bill. We're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "D" of House Bill No. 5340. We're voting on the amendment. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Amendment "D". Immediate roll call vote in the

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 0 sn/rr 110

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the Clerk is also in possession of LCO No. 6143. I would ask the Clerk to please call that amendment as well.

LCO No. 6143, Senate Amendment "E".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This amendment would basically combine the Non-Residential Renewable Energy Solutions program with the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions program. They're both behind the meter programs, meaning sn/rr 111 they're not, you know, at scale on the electric grid, but they're at actual residences and businesses "behind the meter". So, they're smaller scale. But the non-residential, commercial, and industrial program has yielded lower cost. Yes, a subsidy, but a lower cost subsidy per kilowatt hour than the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions program. And my simple request in this amendment is that the two programs be combined. And so, whether it's residential solar production or non-residential behind the meter solar production, they all be able to compete in the same pool, in the same reverse auction process, which will drive down costs and probably equalize costs. I said earlier that the data from 2024 for the predecessor program of this show that the Residential Renewable Energy Solutions program had an annual cost of $65 million for roughly 320 megawatts of production, whereas the nonresidential renewable energy solution program had $29 million of public benefits subsidies for around 300 megawatts. So, the cost per kilowatt hour is roughly half to the public, to consumers, and this would simply require that all sources of behind the meter solar production compete together, which would drive down the cost of the subsidy somewhat and make the program a little less expensive. This is, I think, sensible. Again, it is a very modest compromise. I'm becoming more and more modest in my proposals to amend the bill as time goes on. I'm perhaps setting my sights and aspirations a little bit lower. But I am making proposals that I think will make the program more affordable than it otherwise would be. When the vote is taken, Madam President, I urge it to be taken by roll call vote. And I urge my colleagues to support it. sn/rr 112

Yes. Through you, Madam President, I urge my colleagues vote no.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Bill No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. Immediate roll call vote in the is not the bill. This is the amendment. This is immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 0 sn/rr 113

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to offer one more amendment formally, probably summarize the last couple of amendments because I'm beginning to anticipate that like Lucy and the football, I'm probably not going to pass any of these amendments. But I would also finally like to introduce LCO No. 5920. And Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of that amendment. And I would ask him to please kindly call it.

Thank you. Senator Fazio.

We will have a roll call vote, sir. Senator Needleman, would you like to remark on the amendment before the chamber?

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

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

Thank you. Senator Fazio.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open, Oh, so sorry. We're all tired. Senator Somers. Senator Somers, please.

LCO No. 6224, Senate Amendment "G".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment and waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a simple amendment that would allow the residents of the town of Plainfield, which are in a process, or I should say under siege as an environmental justice community, to allow for a vote as part of a distressed community, which is listed by the Department of Energy and Environment Protection as an environmental justice community in which there's a waste incinerator, there's a resource recovery facility, trash to energy facility, or renewable energy facility permitted by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection or other affecting facility that is located or is located outside of the municipality but within 15 miles of sn/rr 118 our proposed new affecting facility in such a municipality. This would give the people of Plainfield an opportunity to vote whether they would like to have yet another trash to energy facility located in their town. This is a small town in Northern Connecticut, Northeastern Connecticut. It already is home to a class I biomass facility. This proposed trash to energy facility is located on an aquifer in a residential area. The town has been asking vehemently to be allowed to have a vote, and that vote would be weighted and used when the Siting Council decides whether this facility could come there. I will note it is also in very close proximity to an incinerator in Lisbon, Connecticut. So, it's getting it from all ends. And I urge adoption of this amendment. And I ask that when the vote is taken, it is taken by role, Madam President.

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

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Bill No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE sn/rr 119 POWER GENERATION. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "G" of House Bill No. 5340. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "G" of House Bill No. 5340.

Yes. Senate Amendment "G" of House Bill 5340: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 12 Total voting Nay 24 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I just urge my colleagues to vote yes on the underlying bill.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the sn/rr 120 the Senate. We're now voting on the bill. This is House Bill No. 5340, AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. We are now voting on the bill. This is the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill 5340.

House Bill 5340: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 27 Total voting Nay 9 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Two items on our Consent Calendar, please.

So ordered.

So ordered.

This is Consent Calendar No. 1. Page 32, Calendar 468, House Bill 5323. Page 38, Calendar 537, House Bill 5153. Immediate roll call vote. Hold on. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate on Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Consent sn/rr 122 Calendar No. 1. We're voting on the Consent Calendar. This is Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Consent Calendar No. 1: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that Senate Bill 375 be immediately transmitted to the House of Representatives, please.

Thank you, Madam President. And Madam President, does the Clerk have Senate Agenda No. 1 on his desk?

Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda item No. 1 dated Wednesday, May 6, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President. I move all items on acted upon as indicated, that the Agenda be incorporated by reference to the Senate Journal and the Senate Transcripts. And Madam President, I move for suspension for immediately placement on our Calendar, please.

HOUSE BILL(S) FAVORABLY REPORTED – to be tabled for the calendar. COMMERCE COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5244 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S sn/rr 124 RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE AGENCY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE CAP AND EMPLOYMENT PROMISSORY NOTES. ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5521 AN ACT CONCERNING STERILE CULTIVARS. (As amended by House Schedule "A" (LCO 6188))

Mr. Clerk. Good evening, Senator Gaston.

It is on the board, sir.

Oh, pardon me. Let's wait for the Clerk to work his magic.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Senator Gaston.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Yes. I move to adopt concurrent with the House.

Yes. Madam President, this bill expands the existing and creates new fire protection programs and requirements. It also makes technical and conforming changes. And in summary, the bill requires the sn/rr 126 registration of fire protection services to municipalities and the National Emergency Response Information System. It also requires municipalities to establish a local fire protection plan and review them every five years. And requires the state administrator to review and to rate these plans. It requires the Commissioner of the Fire Prevention and Control to recommend minimum standards for firefighter safety and emergency response protocols. It also requires municipalities to exercise the authority to provide fire protection if such services are discontinued or disrupted. It also establishes a Connecticut fire program to create a framework for the state to assist municipalities and fire authorities. It establishes a Connecticut fire grant program to incentivize regionalized services and resource sharing. It establishes a working group to develop the Connecticut fire protection program. It modernizes the standards. It modifies the contents and expands the entities that's required to submit quarterly reports. It also requires a study and report on the feasibility of centralizing public benefits and available for firefighters. Madam President, this bill does a comprehensive assessment of all of the different critical functions of the fire service. And it came out of the Public Safety Committee with 29 votes to 0, relatively unanimous, and support on both sides. And so, Madam President, I would urge adoption.

sn/rr 127 Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before I get to discussing the bill, I was going to yield to the good Senator, Senator Harding, for a brief comment and possibly an amendment.

I do accept the yield. Thank you, Senator Cicarella, and thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I've heard from a lot of municipalities that strongly support this bill, and I appreciate their support. I have heard from one that is in my district, Goshen, that has concerns. And this really more relates back to an incident with Connecticut OSHA and the Goshen Volunteer Fire Department. And so, you know, for that reason, based upon their previous concerns with Connecticut OSHA and the fire department, these great volunteers that do incredible work for the people of Goshen, I do want to give them an opportunity to be exempted because, again, many municipalities, if not every single one that I've spoken with on this bill, does support it. Goshen, because of some previous history, has significant concerns. So, I do have an amendment here, Madam President, to exempt Goshen. So, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO No. 6229. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the sn/rr 128 amendment, waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I do urge adoption. Again, the amendment's very simple. The entirety of the bill remains. It just exempts the municipality of Goshen, which is the one municipality that did raise concerns. And I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. We just need a voice vote.

The nays have it. The amendment fails. Will you remark further on the bill before the chamber? Senator Cicarella. sn/rr 129

Senator Gaston.

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

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Page 47, Calendar No. 193, substitute for Senate Bill number 444, AN ACT AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE, as amended by House Amendment Schedule B.

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

In concurrence with the House. Madam President, this bill Senate passes the last two weeks. The House put the amendment and sent back to us, and nothing changing. Just this is allowing the town employed, if making less than $10,000, they can work for the board of finance. But they are changing $10,000 salary to the -- Yeah. That's changing the $10,000 salary in a status believed to the structure of the underlining bill, create by allowing only municipal employees that receive a stipend to qualify for the serving their board of finance, board of commission. Thank you, Madam President. And I urge adoption of this bill. sn/rr 132

Good evening, Madam President. And I think the changes that were made in the House on this bill, which I supported out of committee, is a good change, and I think it's a good bill. And I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 444, AN ACT AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE, as amended by the House Schedule "B". An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 444. An immediate roll call vote in the vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 1 sn/rr 133 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, before we mark the next item, I would like to -- since we now have three and a half hours to go, I would ask members to please either stay in the chamber for votes or to be very close to their computers for votes as well because we will be closing the machine, so we can get onto all the business that we have worked so diligently on since the beginning of our session. Madam President.

Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Can the Clerk -- Madam President, if the --

Thank you, Madam President. If the Clerk can now sn/rr 134 please call Calendar page 22, Calendar 327, Senate Bill 307.

Page 22, Calendar No. 327, substitute for Senate Bill No. 307, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE COMMERCE STATUTES. There's an amendment.

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

Yes. Yes, indeed. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, there is an amendment. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 6114. I ask that the Clerk please call, and I be granted leave to summarize, Madam.

Thank you. Senator Hartley. sn/rr 135

Thank you. And the question is on adoption. Will you remark further? Senator Hartley.

Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. sn/rr 139 (MEMBERS): Aye.

Thank you, Madam President. And I'll try to be brief. But there's no way that we could do this bill and I didn't say anything. So, I just want to say that while I will vote for this bill because of what it does for HEDCO, I don't like the fact that we even have this bill. I don't like the fact that minoritized populations are disappearing out of our statutes. They're disappearing off of our websites. They still exist. We talk about this as an opportunity fund. The Minority Business Revolving Loan Fund was the opportunity fund. This is something different. This is an attempt to erase, to make invisible, to act as if we didn't have a problem we were solving with the creation of the Minority Business Revolving Loan Fund. That's what this is. This is to figure out a way to try to get back to what we were doing, but you cannot get back there. That's what this is. And yet, we need HEDCO to be able to do what it does. And so, we will do this thing, but make no mistake, it is not the right thing to do. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'm going to line my remarks with my friend from New Haven, Senator Winfield. Let me tell you something. As long as y'all know me in this building, I have never, never cried race or any piece of policy or racism or any of those isms or any piece of legislation that we have ever been brought here, and I'm not doing it here. But I say this. I am sick and tired of always having to compromise to make other people happy. I'm sick of it. It's what has been happening in this country since people have been brought to these shores. For 400 years, we've been compromising, compromising, compromising to make others happy, so others could feel good. We had something good here. Now we're going to change it. We're going to change it because some people, some communities going to have to compromise for things they have never done to them. Some of you know what redlining is. Some of you don't. Learn it. Some of you know there are areas in the communities around this country and around the state where people of color live and have been living there for a long time in uncomfortable conditions. They've been created unbankable. I'm going to say it again. They have been created unbankable by federal government, by state government, by local government, by realtors. They are unable to get loans. They were unable to get opportunities. Since 1865 to 1877, we had what you call reconstruction right after the end of slavery. And for 12 years, we had a democracy. We had everybody involved in the political process and the economic process of this country, and things were going very well. Black folks built their own schools. They built their own institutions. They built their own banks. They built their own schools, and everything was sn/rr 141 fine. And guess what happened in 1877? There was a compromise. The Tilden-Hayes compromise. If you don't know what it is, go Google it. And you know what happened? All that progress we had, all that good things we had about this country that was going on, it went away. It went away because of political compromise. Because some people were unhappy about what those people were doing. They were minding their own business. There was equal Americans. So, what we turning to? After that, Jim Crow. Okay. Those compromised individuals, even through Jim Crow, they built their own hospitals. They built their own schools. They built their own communities. They built their own banks, and they suffered through that. And then when the country needed to go fight wars, foreign wars, oh, we're going to compromise. We're going to allow you to fight the wars, but you're going to be segregated. You, as a matter of fact, in World War I, they said we're not even going to train you. We're going to let France go train you. But I need you to fight for me. And you know what those people did? They did it. They did it so they could be a part of the American dream. They fought and came home in the summer in 1919. Read about it. The Red Summer. They're hung with their uniforms on. What happened further? We had another world war. They said, okay, now we're going to desegregate the ranks. We need you to fight again, but you're going to be in segregated units. A matter of fact, when we have nurses here, the Black nurses can only treat the Black soldiers. These are facts. These are facts that you need to learn about. They were compromised. They were heroes. They fought. They trained. They did everything they were supposed to do, but yet they had to compromise. I'm sick of compromising. And this bill says compromise again. Because what we created for you, sn/rr 142 the opportunities that were redlined, we gave you opportunity. We was giving you some resources. But now we want to change it. We want to change it. I want your community to compromise again. I'm not all right. You don't have to ask me. I'm not all right. I'm unhappy because I got to compromise again. You know, I was taught, no one can ride your back unless you bend it over. I'm standing up. That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to stand up. But I want to make sure every last person around this circle vote for this bill. I want you to vote for it. And yes, I did work on this bill to make it better because I know that if we don't, even the opportunity for HEDCO and other CDFI might be able to get these resources through those non-bankable communities. Those who are suffering at the bottom of the web when it comes to economics, when it comes to education, when it comes to health care, when it comes to over-representation in our prisons. Those folks who need the opportunity, you're going to have to compromise some more. And then you guys, y'all figure it out. So, if you feel a little uncomfortable tonight because you have to hear from me, man, I've been uncomfortable for a long time. I've been brought up to be uncomfortable. Read about this guy named James Baldwin. He said, if you got any sense of consciousness when you wake up in this morning, you should be frustrated and angry. But I wear that smile, even though I know I have to compromise. And the community that I represent have to compromise for opportunity. So, yeah. Great. We're going to fall in line with what's required of us from DC. We're going to erase the uncomfortable word minority from the websites. We're going to do all that so we can get the opportunity to lend. Nah. I'm going to stop so we continue to do our business, because I know we have other folks who need business done here. And I want to get this downstairs so sn/rr 143 everybody can be happy that we did something. But trust and believe, everyone is not happy, and I'm one of them. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate.

Thank you, Madam President. Will Senate stand at ease for a moment.

Madam President, would the Clerk please cancel out the vote because I do believe we have another amendment to present.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, sn/rr 144 the Clerk is in possession of LCO 6249. I ask that the Clerk please call, and I seek leave to summarize, Madam.

LCO No. 6249, Senate Amendment "B".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, this is a simple amendment which simply says that no institution of higher education may reduce the amount of financial aid awarded to a student who receives a federal Pell grant, or under the Roberta Willis scholarship program, cannot be reduced by having received a private scholarship. Madam President, the purpose of this is to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can to help students with their financial aid, knowing the exponential cost of education and how important it is to have students complete so we can get them into the workforce, and into all of the job workforce areas. Thank you, Madam President. sn/rr 145

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I want to thank the good chair for working with me regarding the amendment and the underlining bill. I urge passage. I want to tell Senator McCrory, we hear you and thank you for bringing that how you feel about what was done in this bill. Just thank you for your comments. I urge passage of the amendment.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Will you remark on the bill as amended? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Where's Hochadel?

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. I move for immediate transmittal to the House of Representatives, please.

Thank you, Madam President. The next item, please. I'm going to mark a few items. Calendar page 35, Calendar 515, House Bill 5442, mark go. sn/rr 147

Followed by Calendar page 47, Calendar 411, Senate Bill 292, marked go. Followed by Calendar page 36, Calendar 524, House Bill 5432, mark go. Followed by Calendar page 35, Calendar 520, House Bill 5518, mark go. Followed by Calendar page 25, Calendar 355, House Bill 5333, marked go. Thank you, Madam President.

Page 35, Senate Calendar 515, House Bill No. 5442, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR AND TAX AGREEMENTS RELATED TO CERTAIN CLASS I RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, as amended by House Schedule "A".

Senator Fonfara.

The question is on passage. Will you remark? sn/rr 148

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Fazio.

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

Have all the Senators voted. The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Good evening, Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Senator Berthel.

sn/rr 151 Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 152

Senator Anwar.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Somers.

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

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Lopes, good evening.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Senator Harding. sn/rr 155

Senator Lopes.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Harding.

Thank you. Senator Lopes.

Thank you. Senator Harding.

Thank you. Mr. Clerk, go fish. The machine is open.

Have all the Senators voted? I know. Have all the Senators voted? Thank you. The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please.

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Senator Duff.

So ordered. Off it goes.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Senator Duff.

Page 38, Calendar No. 543, House Bill No. 5563, AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW PROPOSALS, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A". There are two amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is a bill that as the title would suggest, deals with various criminal law proposals. I'll explain a couple of them. It deals with retail theft, and expands the crime of retail theft. It specifies when a person is guilty of accessory to organized crime. Deals with sn/rr 160 two new larcenies. Madam President, in addition to the bill as it lays, we have an amendment in the system. It's LCO 6252. I'd ask it be called, and be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Winfield.

Thank you. The question is on adoption. Will you remark? Senator Kissel.

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

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Osten. sn/rr 162

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

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

sn/rr 163 Thank you, Madam President. Will the Senate stand at ease for a moment.

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

Madam President, maybe we can just vote the bill if there's no other comment. Thank you, Madam President. All in favor.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW PROPOSALS, as amended. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Bill 5563: sn/rr 164 Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, since this is a disagreeing action, I move for immediate transmittal to the House of Representatives, please.

Thank you, Madam President, and we'll stand at ease.

Thank you. Mr. President. Good to see you. Good evening. I'd like to yield to Senator Harding for some introductions, please.

sn/rr 165 Thank you, Mr. President. Good to see you up there. Thank you, Senator Duff. I do want to rise today for a point of personal privilege. We've had the fortunate opportunity over the past two sessions to have Devin Cavallari working with us in our research department. We have the entire research staff over there. They've loved working with her. She's an incredible mind and has got a great intellect and knows policy inside and out. She is graduating from Quinnipiac Law School, I believe, on Friday. She's going to be an incredible attorney, far better than I, but I want to thank her for her time here. Our entire staff really appreciates all you've done with us, and I'd like to have a big round of applause for all she's done for Senate Republicans.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, our next go item is Calendar page 25, Calendar 365, House Bill 5282.

Page 25, Calendar No. 365, substitute for House Bill No. 5282, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONTINUING LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING THE STATE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

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

Yes, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE CONTINUING LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING THE STATE PLAN OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Madam President, under the current law, state it must be consistent with the state POCD, as in of the $200,000 to acquire improvement, development or transportation. But this bill, under this new bill, threshold changing from $200,000 to $1 million, removing the requirements from the transportation, equipment and facilities, and increasing the threshold from every five years. Also, remove the Section 2 and 4 removing priority funding. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. And I rise in support of this bill. It's a straightforward bill. The description does what it says it's going to do. And I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you. sn/rr 167

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill No. 5282. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House Bill 5282: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, our next item, please, Calendar page 35, Calendar 519, House Bill 5354, please, as a go.

Page 35, Calendar No. 519, substitute for House Bill No. 5354, AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAID PROVIDER AUDITS, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A". There are two amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

Yes. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 6136. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I be granted leave to summarize.

Please do summarize, sir.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Perillo, good evening.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Senator Lesser.

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

Thank you, Senator Lesser.

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment that is before the chamber? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye. sn/rr 171

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill No. 5354, AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAID PROVIDER AUDITS, as amended by the House Schedule "A". An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on House Bill No. 5354 as amended.

House Bill 5354. Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Madam President. sn/rr 172

Thank you, Madam President. Next go item is Calendar page 26, Calendar 376, House Bill 5259.

Page 26, Calendar No. 376, House Bill No. 5259, AN ACT CONCERNING THE EDUCATION OF HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH.

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

Yes, Madam President. This is a very straightforward bill. We are codifying the federal law McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act into our state's law. We're just codifying the federal law. sn/rr 173

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the CONCERNING THE EDUCATION OF HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill No. 5259. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

House Bill 5259: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Our next item is on Agenda No. 1, House Bill 5521, please. sn/rr 174

Yes. Mr. Clerk. Agenda No. 1. I don't know what happened to it.

Senator Lopes.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Mr. Clerk sn/rr 175

Senator Lopes.

And the question is on adoption. Please do summarize, sir.

Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Harding.

Thank you. Senator Lopes.

Thank you. Senator Harding.

Thank you. Senator Lopes.

Thank you. Senator Harding.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. (MEMBERS): Aye.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on House Bill No. 5521 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING STERILE CULTIVARS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on House Bill 5521.

House Bill 5521: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. There are two bills that require further House action. I would move to immediately transmit, please. sn/rr 179

Madam President, our next bill will be Calendar page 33, Calendar 496, House Bill 5256.

Page 33, Calendar No. 496, House Bill No. 5256, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROCESS FOR INITIATING LOCAL LEGISLATION IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this bill eliminates a statutory requirement that a unit of local government that seek to change its special act powers file a copy of the request with the Secretary of State's Office before the legislative session begins. I urge adoption. Thank you, Madam President. sn/rr 180

Good evening, Madam President. I rise in support of the bill that is before us. I appreciate my colleague, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox, in her comments. She is spot on. This is a very straightforward. More or less a deregulation bill, I would describe it as. I know this is something important to my fellow ranking member, Devin Carney. And basically, what it does is it effectively eliminates a requirement for the Secretary of the State to be involved in the process for initiating legislation. It was unanimous out of the committee. There's no fiscal impact. And I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Bill No. 5256, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROCESS FOR INITIATING LOCAL LEGISLATION IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

sn/rr 181 Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Voting on House Bill 5256.

House Bill 5256: Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Madam President, would we stand at ease for a moment.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it's sine die. And generally, on sine die, it's my birthday. But it is not this year, thankfully. But it is one of our staff members' birthdays today. I wanted to wish him a happy birthday, one member of our legal team. Legal, legal team. And we wanted to sn/rr 182 -- the camera should keep just pointing to a wide shot right here. But we wanted to wish Bret Kupfer a very happy birthday today. (applause) We're very fortunate to have him working for Senate Democrats, and he does a great job. And thank you for spending your day with us, Bret. Thank you. We'll be right back after these messages, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we have more items for our Consent Calendar, please.

Thank you, Madam President. I want to make sure everybody can hear. Madam President, Calendar page 35, Calendar 516, House Bill 5343, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 39, Calendar 548, House Bill 5557, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 37, Calendar 531, House Bill 5352, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 39, Calendar 546, House Bill 5385, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 37, Calendar 530, House Bill 5493, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 38, Calendar 535, House Bill 5331, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 24, Calendar 349, House Bill 5287, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar. sn/rr 184

Calendar page 25, Calendar 366, House Bill 5165, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 25, Calendar 360, 5509, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 39, Calendar 544, House Bill 5145, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 32, Calendar 474, House Bill 5247, I'd like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

sn/rr 185 Thank you, Madam President. Will the Senate stand at ease for a moment, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it is 5:11. Madam President, if the Clerk would now please call Calendar page 31, Calendar 466, House Bill 5211 as our next go item, please.

Page 31, Calendar 466, substitute for House Bill No. 5211, AN ACT CONCERNING COMMERCIAL FINANCING, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A".

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

Yes, Madam President. I'll make my remarks very brief. The bill we have before us today, it builds sn/rr 186 on existing law by strengthening consumer protection for businesses, small businesses, and increasing accountability in the commercial financing market. The bill removes caps. The bill also prohibits the nondisclosure clauses in finance contracts, and protects borrowers' rights by making sure they cannot waive notice, a hearing, or a court order prior to a creditor pursuing prejudgment remedies like freezing or seizing assets. Overall, Madam President, this bill is requiring clear, straightforward disclosures, including an estimated APR, that's the annual percentage rate, and protecting basic legal rights. This bill brings greater fairness and transparency to a rapidly growing segment of the commercial financial industry. Madam President, I would like to thank Senator Lesser for bringing this issue to my attention in 2022, and Representative Jacobson for the work that he's done on this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Good evening, Madam President. Just quickly on the bill before us, I thank the good chair for the summarization. This is indeed something we have seen for a number of years in a row, and I believe that this is maybe not an agreeable solution to every stakeholder, but certainly something much better than we had seen prior to today. And I think that maybe we're back to make some fixes to this going forward, but this is, I think, in a good spot for us to be in tonight for accomplishing what was the sn/rr 187 overriding need here with this bill. So I urge support of this legislation. Thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 5211, an act concerning commercial financing, as amended by House Schedule A. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on the bill. This is House Bill No. 5211. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on House Bill No. 5211.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the vote, the machine opened prior to having an amendment that will be submitted by one of our members in the circle. So if we can cancel that vote, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I yield to Senator Harding.

I do accept the yield. Thank you, Madam President. So, Madam President, if I may, through you, I did not get an opportunity to hear the dialogue previously from the good senator. Could senator speak to the importance of this bill and why this should be moving forward? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the reason why we are bringing this bill forward is because the small businesses have been preyed upon with this financial product that allows people -- and I shouldn't say allow. When an individual comes to the providers of this product, they don't know exactly what they're going to pay because the payments vary and it's based on their sales. And I've read article after article after article that individuals are losing their businesses because of this. One of the things that happens is their assets are frozen or seized. And Connecticut has this strange law that any business provider can hire an attorney here and sue a person from another state in Connecticut without even notice to them. So it's really important to protect businesses, not only in the State of Connecticut, but in the country nationally so that they don't use our prejudgment laws to sue individuals. And so this bill is allowing individuals borrowers to make sure that they receive notice, to make sure that they have court orders, that they notice what's going on, that they know that there's a hearing. Some of them don't even know that there's a hearing until their assets are frozen. So providers can freeze a person's asset without their knowledge. And sn/rr 189 so what we're asking here is that we're asking for transparency. Individuals should know what it costs. When you get a traditional loan, you know that you're going to pay a certain amount of money. But with this product, you don't know. And so we're saying, hey, slow up. Give them an average, an estimate. And if you don't know the actual amount, you won't be liable for that, even with the estimate. We put a layer on here where the commissioner would also, the commissioner would have oversight over this product. And so what we're asking is just for fairness, transparency, and to make sure that small businesses are not preyed upon. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And so through you, Madam President, is this only applied to small businesses? I know that that is a big aspect of what the proponent is looking to address, which I greatly appreciate. Or is this a law that generally would apply to any individual who would take on this loan? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. It applies to all commercial financing transactions. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. So through you, Madam President, my understanding would be any commercial, which means, through you, Madam President, that big businesses as well, so any commercial loan? Through you, Madam President.

Again, all commercial financing transactions. So small businesses, whatever it is, there are no caps. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate that. And understanding that the reasoning behind it is small businesses, and so I totally appreciate that. Even though there may not be a cap, many of these bills are targeted towards addressing issues that are involved in, certain communities are being hurt the most by it. And so I totally understand what the good senator is looking to address. She's a great champion for her district, a great champion for small businesses, and we don't want to see businesses, particularly small businesses in our community being hampered by unfair lending practices. And I totally understand why we're doing that. There's been a significant effort in this building for good reason, through you, Madam President, to address predatory interest rates. And so I sn/rr 191 understand an aspect of this bill is requiring an estimated APR based upon the loan. Is that due to some of the predatory lending practices that we see here in this or we see here across the country? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. And so I know that there was a lot of bills that they were proposed this session to address this particular issue regarding predatory lending. Predatory lending, I think, and the proponent would likely agree, does not only apply, I think, to commercial loans. In fact, I think that probably what is more common for predatory lending, frankly, is lending to even individuals as well. And so I understand that this is related to commercial loans. Therefore, it relates to business entities, much more than it's focused on individuals themselves. But unfortunately, we have a crisis in the country in some respects towards individuals that are having much difficulty paying their bills. It's an affordability crisis. And that affordability crisis is not only hitting us across the country, but isolated here to Connecticut, we have the third highest taxes, second highest electric rates, third highest property taxes. I mean, when you compile all that together, we're an unaffordable state. And I wish we could be doing more to address that issue. sn/rr 192 And again, I appreciate the fact that the senator has this bill here before us to address an aspect of this. So I do understand, through you, Madam President, that there was a House amendment to this particular bill, which was different than what came out of committee. So if the good proponent could tell the chamber, through you, Madam President, what the House amendment did to this particular underlying bill? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, I do not know. I was not in the House.

Thank you, Madam President. I mean, I would like to know, and I could review here the notes. And, unfortunately, we've seen a lot of different iterations of different bills coming through, so it's hard to follow at times what came out of committee. Oftentimes, as Madam President, you know, and all the senators in this chamber know, when a bill comes out of committee, and we see a party divided vote, and then all of a sudden it comes out of the House with a different vote count. You ask why? And so that's one of the reasons I was asking because it does seem to have somewhat of a party line vote at a committee with JFS language as well. So one of the aspects of the bill I was looking at is disclosures. And so through you, Madam President, I know that there's requirements for APR sn/rr 193 disclosures. I'm also presuming, through you, Madam President, there are other disclosures that these lenders are going to be required to provide commercial entities. Does the proponent know, through you, Madam President, what some other additional disclosures would have to be provided? Through you, Madam President.

So the provider shall provide the recipient with the total amount of commercial financing, the disbursement amount, and the finance charge, as well as an estimated APR.

Thank you, Madam President. And so, one of the things that I'll be start doing tomorrow morning at 9 AM is, you know, a real estate attorney, and I'm proud to do a lot of closings for a lot of first time home buyers too, some of the proudest moments of their lives. And one of the things that I oftentimes see is that these men and women are having more and more difficulty paying those closing costs on any loan. And it's quite astounding. When you look at some of these closing disclosures in a real estate transaction, it is not out of the realm to see a first time home buyer buying what I think many of us would consider quite a modest first time home to be putting up as much as $25,000 or $30,000 in closing costs. And for many individuals, despite how hard they may try to save, considering how expensive the state is sn/rr 194 and then the affordability crisis we're trying to tackle across this country as well, that $25,000 is unaffordable for many. I know we do have some subsidy programs at the federal level. We have some subsidy programs at the state level, particularly for first time homebuyers. But, again, closing costs are sometimes insurmountable for individuals being eligible for loans, et cetera. And so I'm assuming when the good proponent mentions finance charges, I presume that that would also mean disclosing certain closing costs associated with the loan? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Yes.

Thank you, Madam President. If I may, through you, Madam President, I would like to yield to Senator Sampson.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'd be delighted to accept the yield. I've been interested in this conversation since it began. This is a fascinating bill on a fascinating topic, and I have a few questions for the proponent as well. I noticed the title mentions An Act Concerning Commercial sn/rr 195 Financing. But when you look at the definitions in the bill, this is a specific type of commercial financing, and it appears, referred to as sales based financing. Through you, Madam President, I'm wondering if the good chairman can describe what sales based financing is to me? Thank you.

Sales based financing, Madam President, is based on your sales. Whatever your sales are, a percentage of your sales that are taken either daily, weekly, or monthly. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So the folks that sell this type of financing product, it seems to me it's understood that the sales that a particular business might be generating may vary over time. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Thank you very much, Madam President. And because of that, this sounds like an actually very innovative and very exciting opportunity for entrepreneurs or new businesses or folks that are engaged in a business activity that may be unpredictable, who might otherwise have a difficult time finding financing options, to find a loan or a lender that would be willing to accept the fact that the repayment terms might go up and down over time. Am I correct about that? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Yes.

And thank you very much, Madam President. Could I just ask for a little more quiet in the room, by the way?

Thank you very much. You know what's funny is I just realized as we were talking that right in section 1 under item no. 8, it does indicate sales based sn/rr 197 financing means a transaction that is repaid by the recipient to the provider over time as a percentage of sales or revenue in which the payment amount may increase or decrease according to the volume of sales made or revenue received, and which is exactly what we are talking about. I know folks that are in different types of industries that really do fluctuate. I mean, certainly, you know, weather based types of industries. You might have various contractors that can only operate certain times of the year, other types of industries that rely on tourism, things like that. So I think this is a useful type of financial product, and I think it's very beneficial to folks. What I'm confused about is when you go to section 2 of the bill, there is a requirement for a disclosure. It says a provider shall provide to a recipient when the provider extends a specific offer for sales based financing the following disclosures. And one of those is listed as item 4, which is the estimated annual percentage rate or APR. And I'm just curious how you have an APR on a loan that we do not know the length of the term of payments or the rate of the payments because it's changing all the time? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, it states estimated, and there are two methods of determining that method estimation.

sn/rr 198 Thank you very much, Madam President. I do see in the bill there is the safe harbor method that is described and also the underwriting method. Is there a chance that I could get an understanding of each of these methods and how they differ? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, safe harbor is based on the volume of the sales of the revenue for a fixed period. The underwriting is based on projected volume. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. I guess I have a couple of concerns about this. Because even if the provider, the lender in this particular case, makes a projection, what is the variation that is allowed? They can't certainly know for certain the length of the term because they don't know that, and they don't know the exact amount of the payments. So how are they going to determine what the estimate is? Is there some sort of range that would be allowed? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, no. sn/rr 199

So are we asking the provider of this type of financial product to provide something that they can't actually produce? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, it is done in two states, California and New York, so it can be done. And so, yes, we are asking them to give an estimate, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's interesting that you mentioned California and New York, which are two places that I think are prone to create policy that I don't know is achievable by business communities. And I'm concerned here that what we're doing is we're trying to create a type of policy requirement that is not achievable. I noticed also that in section C, under section 2 of the bill, there is a caveat that says nothing in the subdivision shall be construed to impose liability on a provider as a result of the actual annual percentage rate charged by the provider differing from the estimated annual percentage rate disclosed by the provider in accordance with this subdivision. And through you, Madam President, doesn't that mean that the financial provider, the lender could just sn/rr 200 say anything about what the APR is? And again, Madam President, thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I am sorry if this conversation is not interesting enough to grab people's attention. I know digging deep into financial products on the moments before sine die is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is an important bill that is before us, and I do think we need to flush it out completely. There is a section in section 2, this is subsection C that says nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to impose liability on a provider as a result of the actual percentage rate being charged by the provider being different from the estimated annual percentage rate. And I'm asking, does this mean that they can just put any number that they want for an estimate? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, the expectation is that the provider would be honest and give an honest estimation. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So here we are. We have a bit of a quandary because I think we've already established that they cannot give an honest answer because no honest answer exists. If you do not know the length of term of a repayment schedule and you do not know the amount of the payments, you cannot calculate an annual percentage rate. That is just a fact. And since that is the requirement in this bill that they produce an estimate of that number, and I already asked whether there was a range specified and the answer was no, that means that they can put any number that they want based on the caveat that says nothing shall be construed to impose liability if the number that they say is different from what actually happens. So I'm trying to understand. I understand there's an expectation that someone's going to be honest, but the only honest answer is we don't know. Is that acceptable as a response? Can I put, and I don't know next to the APR and provide that in my disclosure? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, no, the provider's required to provide an estimate, and there is the oversight of the banking commissioner who would determine if that estimate is correct.

sn/rr 202 Thank you, Madam President. Did the commissioner weigh in on this bill proposal? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, no.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So we don't know whether the current banking commissioner has an opinion on whether or not this is even a legitimate process.

Through you, Madam President, the commissioner did not weigh in this year, but the Department of Banking did weigh in in the 2023 bill, which is similar to this. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I don't have the 2023 bill in front of me, so I don't really know what that was. But I do know what I'm looking at right now. And I am by no means a banking expert, sn/rr 203 but I have taken out loans in my life. And I do understand the importance of making sure that there are certain types of financial instruments for people to be able to borrow money, particularly, if they're in industries that are unpredictable. And for me, it's a benefit to have such types of financial instruments available to people that want to engage in commerce. And for me, I do not want to have policy that creates a chilling effect that might preclude or prevent someone offering these types of loans. I look at this and I see a whole bunch of potential outcomes that may not be intended, but I think are extremely likely. The first one is that when you tell an industry that they have to provide a disclosure, and they must put a number on something that you cannot put a number on, I think the reaction is to feel unwelcome in the marketplace. That's number one, and that's very concerning to me because I don't want these folks to be discouraged or prevented from trying to offer their product. Is there a reason, Madam President? Does the State of Connecticut, by offering this policy, is the majority attempting to send a message that these types of products should not be welcome here? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, no.

sn/rr 204 Thank you very much, Madam President. Are these products being actively used in the State of Connecticut? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, may the good senator please repeat the question?

Thank you very much, Madam President. I just wanted to know if the good chairman was aware of whether any of these types of products were actively being utilized in Connecticut. Are these types of loans in existence? Are people in these contracts paying them back? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, yes.

Thank you, Madam President. Are there any complaints from consumers regarding the failure of these sn/rr 205 companies to provide an estimated annual percentage rate for the term of the loan? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, yes. There have been articles, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That's interesting. Can I have a little more information? How many complaints? What are those complaints about? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, the data has not been taken. We haven't counted. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the gentlelady's comments and her willingness to try to answer my questions. But the fact of the matter is here, I think we are faced with a difficult build to proceed upon because what is being asked in sn/rr 206 section 2, subsections 4, and then A, B, and C is for an entire industry that is producing a certain type of financial product to produce a disclosure that is not producible. It's just not able to be done. The very nature of this type of loan, a commercial sales based financing loan, is that it is repaid to the provider over time. Everyone knows that if you borrow a certain amount of money and you're going to repay it back in one year, versus paying it back in five years, the annual percentage rate has got to change. Right? And that is further exacerbated by the fact that there is no required payment amount. There's no required minimum. There's no required maximum payment. So the payment structure could be all over the map. One borrower borrowing a certain amount, say $100,000 might pay it back in a year. They might pay it back in three large payments, followed by no payments, followed by another large payment. And another borrower might end up taking ten years to repay the same loan. And because of that, the annual percentage rate in each particular case is going to vary wildly. So I think that it's a little concerning when we're trying to put the onus on an industry like this to create some sort of metric that the state is requiring a regulatory requirement that I don't think is necessarily achievable. I guess I just have another final question on this, which is, if there is competition in this marketplace, and there are multiple entities looking to offer this type of financing to consumers, what is the incentive for them not to put the lowest possible estimated annual percentage rate when they advertise since they are not going to be held accountable according to lines 121 through 124, and there's no actual number that can be legitimized? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, there is a reporting requirement to the banking commissioner to ensure that the APRs that are being estimated or disclosed are reasonably accurate. So that adds another layer of oversight, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I don't have any more questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. So I heard the good senator say that the payments were going up and down and all around, and it's true. Not with this product. Average percentage rates tell the borrower exactly what they're going to be paying, even if it's an estimate. When there's a traditional loan, you know when you walk away from the table how much you're going to pay, and that's all we're saying. We're saying allow, disclose the amount so that the borrower would know exactly, even if it's an estimate that they could say what they're going to be paying per month. So that you, the borrower, as a business person can run their businesses efficiently. I've read article after article where individuals have been taken advantage of. One article I read, the company that was making millions of dollars, but sn/rr 208 because of the tariffs, he couldn't get his products from shipping, so he had to borrow the money and then he couldn't pay the money back because his assets were tied up. And that's all we're saying. We're saying be fair to individuals. Just disclose exactly what they're going to be paying. We're saying don't take advantage of individuals. Don't let force them to waive their rights because when they sign a contract, they're waiving their rights to a hearing, to a notice. So the provider does not have to even notify them that they're being sued. So there has to be a change. There has to be a change so that we can protect the small businesses. We say that small businesses are the backbone of this state, and that's what this bill is doing. It's protecting. It's a good consumer bill for small businesses. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we will need to mark this bill PT, please.

Senator Duff.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

We will stand at ease.

Senator Duff.

I'd ask our guests to please give your attention to Senator Duff. Mr. Clerk. sn/rr 210

Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda item no. 4 dated Wednesday, May 6, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move all items on Senate Agenda No. 4 dated Wednesday, May 6, 2026, be acted upon as indicated and that the agenda be incorporated by reference into the Senate journal and Senate transcripts.

HOUSE BILL(S) FAVORABLY REPORTED – to be tabled for the calendar. GENERAL LAW COMMITTEE HB NO. 5349 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE OPERATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER PROTECTION. (As amended by House "B" (LCO 6261)) sn/rr 211 ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5472 AN ACT CONCERNING THE SAFETY OF ENERGY GENERATION SOURCES AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. (As amended by House Amendment "A" (LCO 6240)). HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5426 AN ACT REQUIRING THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADVISOR DURING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. "As amended by House Amendment "A" (LCO 6183)

Thank you, Madam President. A few more items for our Consent Calendar, please.

On Calendar page 31, Calendar 457, House Bill 5467, I'd like to place it on our Consent Calendar, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Asking for suspension on Agenda No. 4, House Bill 5349, like to place that item on our Consent Calendar.

Thank you, Madam President. And on our Senate Agenda No. 4, ask for suspension, substitute for Senate Bill No. 220, like to place that item on our Consent Calendar, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Will Senate stand at ease for a moment?

Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. If the Clerk would please call the items on our Consent Calendar followed by a vote of our Consent Calendar, please. sn/rr 213

Mr. Clerk, I had one more at 31, page 31, 457 Calendar.

Okay. Good.

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

[gavel] Consent Calendar consented to.

It is, of course, difficult for me, but also I am just extraordinarily grateful to all of my friends and colleagues here. The 46 years of service in the General Assembly have, hard to say 46 years has flown by, but the closest you could say to it is that I really enjoyed every moment of it. My 12 sn/rr 215 years in the House, especially the 34 years here in the Senate, the friendships I've made, the wonderful people I've come to know, the fact and the reality of being able to be engaged in issues every day that are important to the people of our state, to my district and the sense that there has never been a day where even when the issues might have seemed repetitive over the years, there was always some nuance that made it fresh, that made it interesting, that made it new, and that kept it vital. And I'm just so grateful to everyone here and for the opportunities. My son, Michael, was here earlier. I don't know if he's still around. I think he was. And so many friends who come up tonight, my former chief of staff, Vin Mauro, whom most of you know, was up here earlier as well. And just that, one, it's hard to thank the people who have meant so much to me over the years and still do, but have been just a superb blessing. I just wanted to mention briefly our great majority leader, Senator Bob Duff, who has been my partner in the majority for the last 12 years. [applause] Since January 2015 when we embarked on this venture together as President Pro Tem and majority leader. Certainly the wonderful staff members I mentioned earlier, Vinnie Mauro, our former chief of staff, and of course, Courtney Cullinan, our wonderful current chief of staff. [applause] Courtney started here as a, she was an intern, a college intern and became a sessional and a legislative aide, and just about knows every single job in this building, every responsibility in this building, every nuance of the building, every aspect of policy, every finite detail of how a bill either does or doesn't become a law, that comes into effect on nights like these and just wanted to thank her so much and just this has been a blessing to me and to my wife, Ellen, to our family. I want to thank Joel Rudikoff, our chief counsel, and all of the other members of the council staff. I've known Joel since sn/rr 216 1997 when he first came to work here. Another new staff member at the time, was a young man named Chris Murphy, and I think Joel has actually had responsibility for more bills getting passed than Chris Murphy has because [laughter] Joel has been working for the majority for all of that time. I want to thank Dina Berlyn who has started out as my legislative aide, then went to law school and became our chief counsel in terms of healthcare and insurance matters, and she has been a dear and loyal friend all through the years. Also, Manny Merisotis, our budget wizard, Kevin Coughlin in our communications team, all who have been working so hard. My legislative aide Foster Hall, Trisha Deka, my administrative assistant, Rhonda Carroll, who manages to solve problems and fill in the spaces between things, in between. And I also wanted to thank all of my colleagues throughout the years. There are some, obviously, here who have served a long time. We've developed deep friendships and look forward, obviously, to maintaining those because my granddaughter Anna said to me the other day, said "Papa, when you're retired, what are you going to do?" She said, "I know you got money a few years ago to fix a pier in New Haven at Fort Hale Park. Are you just going to sit at that pier and fish all day?" I said, no, I don't think so, Anna. I'm going to find some other things to do as well. And Madam Lieutenant Governor, I just want to thank you for your dedication to our state, your service and the time that you were a state representative onward. I know that no one loves the State of Connecticut more than you do. [applause] Wanna thank our governor, obviously, anything we do, has to have him as a key partner and leader to get things across the finish line into law, and I know that his dedication, his sense of perseverance, and also his overall decency have really meant a great thing for the State of Connecticut for the last eight years. I wanted to thank our clerks, Mike Jefferson, Kehoe sn/rr 217 here, all of whom served in that capacity over the years. [applause] And want to mention also my colleague and friend, Steve Harding, the leader of the minority party, who is somebody -- [applause] We've often differed like 04:00 o'clock this morning, but I must say that that Steve is a straight shooter, an honorable man, and I think the minority party has done very well in choosing him as its leader. [applause] So again, I will open it up now to other people, but obviously, it has been just the greatest blessing for me to be here all these years. And as I've said before, every day, even now, from day one in 1981 when I was on my way here to be sworn in as a freshman member of the afternoon, coming back here, luckily driven by Foster, because I was so bleary eyed from being here all night. But, even at that, just seeing that gold dome gives me a rush. Whether it was 1981 or 2026, the sense of being engaged in something significant and having the trust of a 100,000 people to send each one of us here, and trusting our judgment, trusting our honesty, trusting our faith, trusting our intelligence to act on their behalf, it's a marvelous thing. Thank you all so much. [applause] And just one more person who will be with us when we have a little reception on the May 27, and I hope you'll all be there, of course, my wife, Ellen, without whom I would never have been able to do anything. She met me in the 1981, was a big year for me. I met Ellen and took office as a state rep. So, everything good that's happened in my life has flowed from that year. So, again, thank you all so much. [applause]

Senator Duff.

Senator Harding.

Senator Duff, I see you have a presentation.

Madam President, our majority leader suggested I'd have the last word here after spoken at the beginning, but I just, again, thank you to all of you here in this room, all who have meant so much. Apart from meeting Ellen and gaining her love, becoming a member of the General Assembly has obviously been the greatest honor of my life. So much of it came about by just a fortuitous circumstances, meeting Rosa DeLauro and getting to work as a staff member for Mayor of New Haven when she was chief of staff, getting an opportunity to run for the state legislature because the incumbent became chief of staff to the new mayor. That was Joe Carbone, who many of you know. Those paths were opened up for me, and then going to law school when I was in my early years in the General Assembly, not at any sense having a plan for those subsequent years, but just knowing that I loved it so much and loved it more every single year that I was there, and still do. So thank you to all of you. [applause]