May 2, 2026 · 31,484 words · 21 speakers · 277 segments
Well, good afternoon, everyone. Will the Senate please come to order? Members and guests, if you would kindly rise and give your attention to our own Senator Reverend Heron Gaston, who will pray over us on this important day. Senator Gaston.
Thank you. Let us pray. Merciful and righteous God, we come to you this morning in the most humblest manner that we know how to say thank you for your tender grace and mercy. Thank you for the weight of responsibility that you have given to all of us to ensure that we be your hands and feet to communities across Connecticut. Help us to govern with integrity, with intensity, purpose, and passion. Give us the courage and the wisdom to withstand the wiles of all the things happening in our society and to bring us closer to the heart of you so that we might pursue justice. Grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference. Bestow upon us your gifts and graces to be used for the edification of your world and your greater society through us. We pray. Amen.
Amen. Thank you so much, Senator Gaston. And it is my honor to ask Senator Martin Looney to please come, Mr. President, and lead us in the pledge. gm/rr 2
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
Good afternoon, Senator Duff.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you today. Madam President, we have one item to go, which will mark our order of the day. Madam President, would the Clerk please call Calendar Page 38, Calendar 423, Senate Bill Number 1.
Page 38, Calendar 423, SB 1, An Act Concerning Affordability. There is an amendment.
Thank you. Senator Fonfara, good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you there. Madam President, I move the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.
And the question is on passage. Will you remark? gm/rr 3
I will, Madam President. At this time, I'd like to yield to Senator Osten.
Good afternoon, Senator Osten. Do you accept the yield?
Yes, Madam President.
We'll get the mics on. There you go. No?
No. Can you hear me? Okay. Can you hear me now?
Now, there we are. All right.
All right. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO Number 5762.
Let's get that up on the board so that we can have gm/rr 4 it as we are. There we go. Please proceed, Senator Osten.
I move the amendment and seek leave to summarize.
Thank you. The question is on the adoption of the amendment. Please do summarize.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, this is a strike-all amendment that brings forward our affordability budgetary changes for fiscal year '27 and deals with some impacts on fiscal year '26. Madam President, this bill is under the spending cap by $600,000. It's a 28.142 billion budget, and we do a number of things. This is actually, in my opinion, one of the best budgets that we have brought forward. It's one of the best budgets that we have brought forward because it deals with a lot of very needed issues in the state of Connecticut. We deal with education, with this issue. We deal with municipal aid. This budget is probably the best budget for municipalities that we've seen in decades. It deals with issues that we have long talked about, but finally have the resources to deal with them. It does a number of different things, and I'm just going to touch on a number of issues, but not the whole individual grants that are within the confines of this budget. It suspends the statutory sweep of the probate court administration, precluding revenue gain of about 13 million into the general fund. We have a number of carry forwards that happen as a result of programs that did not get completed in the current fiscal gm/rr 5 year, and it deals with the issues relative to that. We also have a number of grants that are within the confines of our budget now that are in the various grants line items when you look through the budget. So, that is something that we have in here. We deal with issues related to the -- one of our very big issues that we had this year was our hospital fix. That is within the confines of this, but we also had to deal with problems that were related to the prospect hospitals, and we have dealt with that issue in here for the three municipalities, Waterbury, Manchester, and Vernon. It was something that we all knew we had to make some changes to. We removed the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities from the Department of Labor, which it had sat there for administrative purposes, and now is a standalone agency. We closed a state agency. We closed the Office of Health Strategies, and a great preponderance of this bill deals with the unwinding of that and returns the parts and pieces of the Office of Health Strategies to the previous locations. Generally speaking, in the Office of Policy and Management and the Department of Public Health, although parts show up in the Department of Developmental Services also. We, in many ways, slimmed down some of the bills that sometimes show up in our implementer. There are very few actual bills that show up in the implementer. There are a couple. Senator Martin's looking at me in a scant. There are a couple, but quite frankly, there are not as many as there have been in the past. I think that's a good thing. We dealt with a lot of those based on passing said bills. We increased some of the payments for a number of different boards and commissions that have been stuck at decades-old payment structures, which impeded some of our volunteer access. We dealt with gm/rr 6 education, and we'll have others talk a little bit about the education, but we actually dealt with the foundation level. That was a great discussion that we had, not only in our Education Committee, but our Appropriations Committee. I think it touched on every single one of our committees because we recognized that not increasing the foundation amount since 2013 had led to some inequities, particularly in small towns, but we were not dealing with those issues. This year, we have a one-year-only increase in funding for municipalities, and I'm sure we'll debate that moving forward. We have an allocation of a $100 million. Now, a lot of people talk about the necessary increase that we need in education, but we really need to look at our municipal structures also. Our municipalities do great work for the citizens in the state of Connecticut, and we needed to make sure that they had the resources to do so. And we dealt in part with $100 million that was spread around through every municipality. We used a formula that we have used in the Mashantucket Mohegan Fund, which was a formula that provided some stability to how the funds were parsed out. We dealt with our normal, which other people will be talking about. This is a comprehensive package that includes the education implementer, the human services implementer, the tax package, the revenue implementer, the bond bill, and a school construction shows up here. We have that in 771 pages, which again, the preponderance of those pages are relative to the hospital deal and relative to the unwinding of the Office of Health Strategies. Because once you touch one thing, it touches a number of statutes that need to be upgraded. I got to step back for a quick second and, first of all, thank my co-chair in Appropriations. She and I and all of the members of the Appropriations Committee sat through hours and hours of testimony by the public and hours and hours of testimony by gm/rr 7 agencies to talk about the different things that each agency was doing and where we were falling short. And this budget deals with a lot of those issues. But Representative Toni Walker from New Haven and I have come from very different backgrounds, but we have a lot of the same thoughts on where we need to go as a state in education, in public health. In so many ways, we were in lock step with each other, and I want to thank her for her leadership and the other members of the Appropriations Committee who did not let the interests that they had fall short. It was truly something that we needed to do. I also want to thank the other committees that are a part of this product that we have in front of us today. I want to thank our nonpartisan staff, the Office of Fiscal Analysis, under Neil Ayers, the Legislative Commissioner's Office under Nick Bombace, and OLM who kept us all moving, made sure that this facility that we sit in was well taken care of and safe. So every part and parcel of nonpartisan staff allows us to move the work that we do here forward. We also have to thank our partisan staff on both sides of the aisle who spend hours and hours looking at everything that we put forward. And when we think we have come up with a great idea, sometimes they explain to us that maybe not quite so, not quite a great idea, but something that we need to be working on a little bit more. It's all important, work, and without them, we would not have a product in front of us today. We're actually a few days short of the end of the session, and many of us who have been around know that we have argued the budget on the last day of the session, not optimal by the way. I'm very happy to do it ahead of time so we can actually have a robust conversation, but I would remind everybody it's a Saturday. Just saying. And so, I can't thank people enough. gm/rr 8 I'm happy to answer questions on all the different pieces of this, because there's so much to it when we're talking about how we're moving education funding, how we made sure that all the different types of education are funded, whether it was our elementary and secondary schools, schools of choice, or our higher ed. We may need to do some more work relative to our higher ed in the funding side, but we think that we have touched the sweet spot, relative to the product that they put out. So, Madam President, I would like to see us adopt this amendment and move on to discussion, if that would be the way, or what people are interested in. And then we can get onto all the parts and pieces.
Let us try our minds. All in favor of adopting the amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the amendment?
So I'm going to yield to Senator Fonfara.
Good afternoon, Senator Fonfara. Do you accept the yield, sir?
I do, Madam President. Thank you, and thank you, Senator Osten. Madam President, I rise in support of gm/rr 9 the bill and to, hopefully, shed some light to the circle, with the circle on the revenue side of this bill before us. Madam President, I'd first like to speak to the revenue estimates for 2027. The major revenue generators withholding estimates and final sales in use pass-through entity have all been revised upward. Corporation tax is the only significant revenue generator that has shown weakness compared to the original estimates. Federal grants and transfers are up measurably. The STF revenues are up. Motor fuels and oil company revenues are up, as are transfers. Regarding policy for '26 and policy revisions for '27, Madam President, seven years ago, the governor and you made a commitment, and this body made a commitment to rebuild our relationship with Connecticut hospitals by committing to a reimbursement schedule. We've honored that commitment. Today, we're making a major step forward in that relationship. In this budget, we are agreeing to a plan that will support hospital revenue to the fullest extent possible, increasing the level of compensation for Medicaid services, and we're doing it without raising taxes or increasing spending on the residents of our state. Hospitals, Madam President, are major anchors in the communities they are located in. They are major employers. They invest in the communities that they are in. Their work is in the most important field there is, in my opinion, health. Without it, we have nothing. But if our hospitals aren't healthy, we should not assume that they will always be there for us. With a one-time, I'll say that again, a one-time adjustment of the volatility cap, we are addressing the affordability challenges facing many families in Connecticut. In 2026, for municipalities, I'm repeating a number of things that my colleague, gm/rr 10 Senator Osten, just mentioned, but I'll go through them quickly. A 162 million for increased educational cost-sharing funding, $100 million for increased support through the Mashantucket and Mohegan Fund. In education, 18 billion for magnet and charter schools, 300 million in early childhood education endowment. In 2027, a $5.9 billion exempting sales tax on school supplies, $2.5 million for sales tax free week, increasing eligibility from 100 to $300 in adding additional items for businesses, a five million dollars tax credit incentivizing employers to support employees to enter into individual health care plans, $26 million to allow certain pass through entities to earn research and development tax credits and 1.4 million to replace cannabis potency tax with an excise tax. Madam President, as I mentioned, there is no tax increase in this budget, but tax relief with significant investments in our hospitals, in education, in households, and in businesses. Madam President, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize someone whom I've gotten to know over the past two years. Didn't know her before. Don't know if we've even met before. But my co-chair, Maria Horn, as they say in the sports world, there is no holes in her game. She is an amazing, amazing person, and her work ethic is second to none. Her knowledge level, her experience that she brings to the job, and I joke about this, but I'm serious. Most people know on the committee that my least favorite job is running the committee, and she gladly takes the helm. And I'm grateful to her for that. Grateful to the support of the staff, Manny Mariolis, and Carter Oliver. Zoe Gluck, who's from the House, but she's been a great resource to me, and I'm grateful to her as well. And the 5th Floor, Kumisato, who we keep in our thoughts every day from LCO, Michael Murphy and Chris Wetzel, Evelyn gm/rr 11 Wisniewski, as well as Rupinho and others in OLR. Madam President, I will be ready for questions, if there are any, and I urge support for the bill.
Thank you so much, Senator Fonfara. Will you remark on the bill before the chamber? Senator Anwar.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to make a few comments on the bill in front of us. I want to specifically talk about the part on the CON, the certificate of need. I know this bill was passed almost unanimously downstairs in the House, and this was supposed to come to the and the request for from the leadership, it has been in the CON. But I do feel it's worthy to have a brief conversation on this important bill. Madam President, this is a Public Health Committee bill, and it took us about three years of hundreds of hours of coming together to look at how we can address some of the challenges that the state is dealing with. This is a bill where literally anybody who provides health care, whether it's health care systems, nursing care facilities, hospitals, physicians, or practices, everyone is impacted by this bill. And that's why it was important to try and do this right, and that's why it took us about three years to be able to get to this point. I wanted to recognize many of my partners and then associates who've been in part of this journey. So, I wanted to first thank Representative Cristin McCarthy Vahey, who is the co-chair of the Public Health Committee, who has been part of these hundreds of hours of these meetings, as well, and also the Office of Policy Management at the Governor's Office for making this one of the priorities. gm/rr 12 As Senator Osten had mentioned, the Office of Health Strategies is now essentially nonfunctional or removed, and the responsibility of the CON is being moved to our specific Department of Public Health. Now, as we look at that, I'd know that the Office of Policy Management has been working very hard, and I wanted to recognize Charlotte Mueller as well as Boyd Jackson who's been part of Office of Health Strategies who have worked in essentially nonstop manner in the last six months or so, completely dedicated to getting all the stakeholders and then get the stakeholders on as much as possible in one page. Madam President, it's usually said that when you have multiple stakeholders, the best decision that comes out is that everybody leaves a room unhappy and everybody leaves a room with some happiness. And that was the background, and that's what we were able to achieve. I wanted to also thank the Connecticut Hospital Association for being in the meetings, the Connecticut State Medical Society, the various independent medical practices and health care providers, and insurers who are part of the conversation as well in this effort. I wanted to thank Senator Heather Somers and Senator Jeff Gordon, who actually helped navigate some of these conversations, too. Representative Nicole Klarides-Ditria, who is the ranking member from the House, is very much part of these conversations. And I wanted to thank Molly O'Connor, who is part of our team for the Senate Democrats, and Kimmy Grove, who's with the House Democrats, Jared Pico with the Republicans. These were the hundreds of hours of meetings which allowed us to be able to do this, and I can just mention Eileen Lawlor-Parker and Nicholas Panzarella, who are the LCOs who have, in the last three years, written thousands of pages to be able gm/rr 13 to get us to this point. So as we move forward, this is going to help us frame the opportunity for growth of health care institutions, but make sure there's fairness around it. There's efficiency built in this. While we have not achieved perfection, we have achieved a moment where we can hopefully frame the conversations in such a manner that there will be fairness and transparency around all of those aspects. So, Madam President, this part of the implementer and/or the bill that we are looking at is very important to many of us, and I wanted to thank each and every one who's been part of this conversation, and I want to thank them. Thank you, Madam President. Back to you.
Thank you very much. Senator Miller.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning.
Good afternoon, I think.
That's true. You're right. It is afternoon. Madam President, I'm here to speak on the bond package, which is a part of the bill. I'm happy to say that the Bonding Subcommittee, our package is 84.27% of the debt limit, which is two million dollars under the 90% threshold. And so we're pleased with that. In the package, we've done several things. The package represents an ongoing commitment to making prudent, long-term investments in the future of Connecticut. These capital investments are designed to modernize state facilities, enhance public gm/rr 14 infrastructure, support local communities, and reinforce the services that residents depend on. The package allocates for state capital projects, which encompass facility enhancements, technology upgrades, public safety investments, and educational infrastructure. These investments will ensure that state agencies, public colleges, technical schools, and correctional facilities possess the necessary tools and infrastructure to function safely, efficiently, and effectively. A significant aspect of this package focuses on investing in modern systems and safer facilities. This includes funding for security upgrades within the Department of Corrections, electronic health records, deep technology to facilitate permitting and environmental reviews, and a public-facing DCF dashboard to enhance access to information regarding statewide services. These are pragmatic investments aimed at improving government operations for both residents and employees. We are amplifying our state commitment to support vital local and community projects. This encompasses funding for public safety facilities, neighborhood infrastructure, veterans memorials, municipal police crisis response tools, and enhancements to the American School of the Deaf. As a state, we bear the responsibility to assist our towns, cities, and community institutions in undertaking capital improvements that might otherwise be challenging to finance independently. I want to close with this, Madam President. We could not have done this work without our staff. But first, I want to acknowledge my co-chair, Representative Ron Napoli. I want to thank him for all of his wisdom that he's assisted us with. Honestly, I'm the bad cop. He's the good cop. So, he's always talking me off the ledge. But I do appreciate him very much because he cares about this state, and he cares about his responsibility as the gm/rr 15 co-chair of Bonding. I want to add that he goes and inspects the properties. He tours the properties to see exactly what the needs are. I also want to thank our policy staff, Zoe Gluck and Manny Mariolis. Manny, thank you. Zoe, thank you for all the hard work because I know the two of you are balancing between the budget and bonding. So thank you very much. But most of all, I have to thank the nonpartisan staff. We couldn't have done it without Eric Gray and Claudia. And so I want to thank them because they're the ones, as my colleague from the Appropriations Committee stated, that gives us the information that we need. And it just amazes me how well they know every aspect of our budget. The expenses, the agencies, not just the budgets, the agencies, and the history that we're given. So I want to thank them for their guidance under the guidance of the leadership of Mike Murphy. And so, again, I want to thank our chairs. I want to thank Senator Fonfara for trusting me and entrusting me to create this package. And the sentiments, the words that you uttered regarding Maria Horn, I have the same sentiments. You couldn't ask for a better partner. So again, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak on the bond package. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill before the chamber? We'll stand at ease. Senator Lesser.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in support of the bill as amended. And I specifically want to talk about some of the critical parts of the Human Services budget, which are here and are prioritized, in the budget document, which is before us. As the chamber knows, last July, the gm/rr 16 federal government enacted, perhaps, the cruelest, most stunning shift of costs from the federal government onto states, in our nation's history. Historic unfunded mandate, slashing our SNAP program, slashing a trillion dollars out of Medicaid, and shifting the cost with an unfunded mandate onto states. And so what we are seeing in this budget is a first significant step by the state of Connecticut to help manage the response to HR 1, the so-called big beautiful bill, ensuring that the residents of this state get access to the food benefits and to the health care benefits that they are entitled to. And so we have an extensive series of steps in this bill to DSS to ensure that, as mandates like work requirements come out, requirements on reenrollment, enormous barrage of paperwork, that the recipients in Connecticut are now being subject to, that we are managing it with compassion, that we are engaging stakeholders, and that we are doing what we can to make sure that the residents of the state don't lose the benefits that they have earned. Additionally, we are working to make sure that we are not just playing defense, but going forward, making sure that we're making real investments in affordability and access, that we are bringing down the cost of health care, and that we're doing more to support our neighbors in need. So I want to just talk about a few highlights of that section. So we have a major investment in Medicaid rates, building on the $45 million that we set aside for increases last year. We're adding additional funding to Medicaid rates. We're helping support our nursing homes as they are transitioned from one payment methodology to another, with pools of funding, to support them. We are making an important stride forward in the area of health care reform by creating a stakeholder process to enact and develop a Connecticut option to make sure that health care is more affordable and gm/rr 17 that we are making it available to the people of the state. We are looking and wrestling with the fact that the federal government, the President, and the majority in Congress allowed the enhanced premium tax credits for the exchange to expire at the beginning of this year, by creating a process directing the Office of Policy and Management to develop a plan to extend made health care affordable for a lot of people, in this state. We are developing a plan to create a basic health plan for people under 200% of poverty and hoping to extend the 1115 that makes Covered Connecticut. That is our bridge program for people who make a little bit too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to have affordable coverage on the exchange, to extend that so that promise continues. We are working to bring down the cost of health care and figure out what we can do to help support the people. This bill makes an important step forward, and I urge the members to support
Thank you, Senator Lesser. Will you remark further on the bill? Good afternoon, Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I just have a couple of quick questions regarding a couple of sections in the underlying bill, and so perhaps I'll direct them to Senator Osten. And just for the point of clarification, because it touches upon a judiciary matter, and I don't recall that there was any public hearing on this underlying concept. So, through you, Madam President, it's regarding Sections 250 and 251, and it's the creation of an innocence project revolving loan account. And first gm/rr 18 of all, I'm just wondering regarding that, it's supposed to, by the language of the underlying bill, address concerns regarding individuals who may have been wrongfully convicted. And so, just as a predicate to my question, we, in the judiciary committee, understood that there are some individuals that believe they were wrongfully convicted, and their matters are percolating through the Claims Commissioner's Office. Indeed, this year, we actually had some substantial awards that were given by the claims commissioner. I mean, multimillions of dollars. And what we've learned on the Judiciary Committee over the last few years is that there are these individuals in various communities that will go up to individuals that are in that process and say, " Hey, I heard you might end up with a big award because you were wrongfully convicted. I believe in you, my friend, and I'm going to give you a $40,000 loan," but they charge an exorbitant amount of interest, and it's almost predatory in many of our opinions. And so, Attorney Dykas and I came up with a proposal in the last couple of years, and we had some researchers in our caucus that assisted us as well. And we wanted to base our idea, our solution, on bank rules and regulations. And if an individual wants to be your personal banker, they would at least have to follow the rules and regulations of a bank, not so that we have a lot of paperwork, but that the interest is reasonable and within a range that any other lending institution would have to follow. So that, again, we didn't want people out in the community to essentially be preying on the anticipated windfall that these individuals were given awards to make up for lost years that they served inappropriately and unjustly incarcerated. And so I think these two sections attempt to get there, but they seem inordinately vague to me. And gm/rr 19 so my first question is, what is the idea behind this program, through you, Madam President?
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, this section, Section 250, which talks about the Innocence Project revolving loan account, is relative to money that was in the budget from the last budgetary cycle that we put in because there was no implemented language, the judiciary did not expend those dollars. So this is allowing what we had said we were doing in the current year that we are in right now, allowing the judiciary to actually use those funds. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President. So in Section 251, it talks about the branch's legal aid account. Is that what Senator Osten is referring to when she says money was put in the budget? What is she referring to this legal aid account? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
That is correct, Madam President. gm/rr 20
Thank you. Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much. Through you, Madam President, it's my understanding that the judicial branch is utilizing these funds for outreach, informational purposes, and other programs, that they act in a way like legal aid attorneys in assisting with evictions and the like for indigent individuals. If I could, and I think the allocation in this bill before us this afternoon is $400,000, how much was the original grant to the judicial branch in last year's budget? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. The sum of 400,000 of the amount appropriated in Section 1 of Public Act 25-168 to the judicial department for legal aid for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2026, and the sum of 500,000 of the amount appropriated in Section 1. I can get, but I don't have the total amount that was in Section 1, 400,000 of that is being used now for the purposes we just talked about, and 500,000, it is to the judicial department for legal aid. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much, Madam President. So I'm trying to understand, and I'm still not clear. I understand gm/rr 21 what the bill says before, as far as allocating. It looks like a reallocation of what was originally delineated for legal aid. It's my understanding that those funds are being used. Is this a repurposing going forward, such that if there are programs ongoing by the judicial branch regarding legal aid funds, that will be eliminated, and those funds will now be used for this, essentially, revolving loan fund? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Can the chamber stand at ease, Madam President?
The chamber can stand at ease. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much. I apologize, Senator Kissel. I want to make sure that I'm explaining this exactly correctly. So in the current budget that we're in right now, that we passed last year in '25, there was 400,000 for the Innocence Project. If you looked at the budget book, it's in the budget book that came out last year, that was stuck in the legal aid line item, which is much larger. So this 400,000 is being extracted for its own line item because judicial was saying, while it's in the budget book, we don't read it the same way, and so, we are now pulling that 400,000 out. We're not saying that the legal aid line item is going away, but the judicial department are very strict with how they spend their money. I don't blame them. I don't know. You might know them. There are a lot of lawyers in that group, and they all read everything, which I'm very happy about. But gm/rr 22 that's what happened. But it was in the budget book, as the Innocence Project for 400,000 in appropriations. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much. And I totally agree with Senator Osten, and she's done a fabulous job. Having served for a number of years in the past on appropriations, no easy climb to be on appropriations. So, my understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, which wouldn't be the first time, will all be the last time, but I believe the original total appropriation last time was four million dollars. This Innocence Project Fund may have been in there, but judicial may have felt somehow it wasn't clear enough, so they were frozen. And now it's being pulled out and made very clear that, hey, $400,000 of this $4 million is supposed to be for this Innocence Project loan fund. And so that confusion is now being addressed, but the intention had been there all along. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I concur with the good gentleman's analysis of that. In the budget book, it talked about the Innocence Project in the last budget that we did, and it has 400,000. It was added to the larger four-million-dollar line item for legal aid and is now being pulled out. Now, legal aid does a bunch of things, but the 400,000 was designed just directly for this, and we need to gm/rr 23 be clearer on what we are doing. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Kissel.
Thank you very much. And one last question, because I did not anticipate starting, but took an opportunity. There was a low. My last question is this. I think it's fabulous if this is the direction we want to go to address these, perhaps, predatory loans that are being perpetrated on the street with these individuals that were wronged, and the state is now working on a formulaic basis to compensate them. It's very unclear to me from these sections. And I'm just wondering, is there any guidance to the judicial department anywhere as to how to establish this revolving loan account? Who might be eligible? How much money they could actually borrow from the loan account? Or is this something that the judicial branch will have to come up with on their own? And that's just, my last sort of area of inquiry, and it doesn't have to be elaborate. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. The judicial department will come up with the parameters of how these dollars are used. Through you.
Thank you, Senator Kissel. gm/rr 24
Thank you very much, Madam President. I want to thank Senator Osten for helping to clarify that situation. And, again, this has been a problem in the past, and I'm looking forward to the judicial branches putting this together so that these individuals are not perhaps preyed upon by individuals that look at them as walking cash cows so that they could give them a loan at an exorbitant rate and then thereby take advantage. So, thank you very much, Madam President.
Thank you. Will you remark further? Good afternoon, Senator Harding.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I do want to rise first to thank Senator Osten for her work, and we may not agree on everything in the budget. But nevertheless, I don't doubt the work and the time and the dedication that goes into compiling, what is, a budget adjustment, but nevertheless, probably one of the most critical functions that we as legislators vote on. It is hundreds and hundreds of pages. And it's a lot of time to conduct the work to make that happen. And I do want to thank all those that involved despite the fact that I may not agree with aspects of it. Madam President, I do rise with one question, if I may, to the Good Chair. Could the Good Chair please, tell me, through you, Madam President, what is the underlying fiscal note for this fiscal year in this particular budget adjustment?
Thank you. Senator Osten. gm/rr 25
Thank you very much, Madam President. If the Senate could stand at ease, please.
The Senate can stand at ease.
Madam President.
Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, for fiscal year '26, appropriated line items were 27,000,180,000.5. For the original appropriation for fiscal '27, 28,000,000,635.1. Our changes from '26 are $962,000,000, by my calculations from the fiscal note. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. So, the reason I ask, and maybe this is a better way to ask the question, does the chair know what the spending cap threshold number is, currently, as it sits, for what is allowable under the spending cap for the budget adjustment year in which we're adjusting? Because I'm trying to understand what the spending cap limit is under current law and what we're currently appropriating. gm/rr 26
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much. The amendment results in the budget being under the spending cap by 0.2 million in FY '26 and 0.6 million in FY '27. This calculation incorporates the governor's declarations of the existence of extraordinary circumstances dated November 12th, 2025, and May 2nd, 2026, which exempt 500 million and $413 million, respectively, in appropriations from the spending cap. I apologize for reading this, but I don't want to get the numbers wrong. Per the May 2nd, 2026 declaration, 80 million of appropriations in excess of the cap in FY '26 are carried forward into the subsequent years' spending cap calculation. So it leaves us 600,000 below the spending cap when you add all the numbers together. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. So I understand if I understood the chair correctly, and I thank you for your descriptive answer to the question. If I'm understanding the chair correctly, it's under the spending cap only because the Governor declared an emergency today to let us spend beyond what the preexisting spending cap was. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten. gm/rr 27
Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes.
Thank you. Senator Harding.
So thank you, Madam President. So I guess that my underlying question is how much are we currently in this budget now spending over what was in the preexisting spending cap that the governor changed today? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. So we were under the spending cap when we passed the budget last year, and the governor declared an emergency declaration. And now we are under the spending cap again, by exempting 500,000,000 and 413,000,000 respectively, in appropriations from the spending cap. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. Again, I'm sorry. So maybe I'm misunderstanding. I guess the basic question is, so what is the differential between currently what we're spending and what the preexisting spending cap was that was unchanged up until yesterday by the governor? How much are we spending beyond the spending cap that was previously gm/rr 28 set? That's the number I'm looking for, through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Madam President, could the Senate stand at ease?
The Senate can stand at ease.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Senator Osten.
I was trying to explain myself to my colleague in a cogent way so that I would provide the correct information. So we were under the spending cap in the budget that we passed last year in both '26 and '27. We are under the spending cap today. We have exempted 500 million and 413 million. So that's $913 million, but it's off by a couple of million dollars just based on the fact that we were under the spending cap then. This isn't exact math right here. So that's why I'm trying to make sure that I'm answering the question correctly. So we're under the spending cap last year. We're under the spending cap now. So by whatever we were under the spending cap back then, and I'd have to go back and pull my sheets out. We are under the spending cap of 600,000 now. We have exempted $913 million by adding the two numbers together. Through you, Madam President. gm/rr 29
Thank you, Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. So, are we spending over the previous spending cap by $913 million? Is that what I'm understanding, through you, Madam President?
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes.
Thank you. Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm done with questions. I think the Good Chair for her answering my questions, and I will speak further on this. I just wanted to understand that aspect. I do find it concerning that we're spending nearly a billion dollars, beyond the previous spending cap. I think that that is fiscally responsible in my opinion. It's the same exact type of practices that put us in a position where we were voting. I voted against it, but the majority was voting in record tax hikes to address the deficits we were facing, just 10 years ago, because of these types of budget gimmicks that allow us to spend nearly a billion dollars past the spending cap. It is not what we were sent here to do for our constituents. They want fiscally responsible budgeting, and that's not it. So, I will speak further on this if I may, Madam President. But for now, I will yield to Senator Somers. gm/rr 30
Thank you. Senator Somers, do you accept the yield?
I do, Madam President. Thank you. And I rise this morning with very little sleep and a lot of agitation, the fact that we have a rule that we're supposed to at least get 12 hours to review a budget that we got and that hit the system last night at 3:30 a.m. And here we are, before 12 hours. It may be fine for the majority that knows exactly what's been going on here and exactly what bills are in here, but for those that represent over a million people in the state of Connecticut, it's not okay. This is over 717 pages, double-sided, that we're supposed to be able to come out here and vote on and ask questions in less than 12 hours. I don't know why we have the rule. In fact, I think this chamber should just pass one big unilateral bill next year, and we'll be all set. This is a disservice to the citizens of Connecticut and to those that are representing minority communities, that you don't even give us the opportunity, not even 12 hours, to look at this. I'm somebody who's the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and has spent countless hours in those committees, in the subcommittees, but yet what we have in front of us is a document that puts in bills that I'm not even sure had public hearings, special requests, and everything is shoved into this document that contains everything now. So I am very frustrated in the process. Why do we have a process when we don't follow it? I don't think it's fair. I know that the governor today did an emergency declaration. I wish he had done an emergency declaration for the taxpayers of the state of gm/rr 31 Connecticut, giving them some real relief that they deserve for every hardworking person that's in the state of Connecticut. But that's not what we got. We got gimmicks to be able to have us spend more this year so we can spend more next year. Yes. We're giving some relief in this document in the form of increased payments to municipalities. But overall, for people that are actually looking at this and have the time to go through it, you would clearly need more than 12 hours to go through this. I think it's a disservice what's happened here today. So with that, Madam President, I do have a few questions that I would like to ask the proponent of the bill.
Certainly. Please proceed.
So through you, Madam President, I would like to know if the proponent of the bill could tell us what exactly or how much direct tax relief in this document is going to go to every household in the state of Connecticut. If I am a middle class person working at electric boat, my wife's working a job, I've got two kids in daycare, I'm struggling to put gas in my car because gas prices are so high, property taxes are out of control in this state. What am I going to see for tax relief that's included in this budget? Through you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
I'm going to actually yield to the good Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee who handles taxation. But I'm also going to say, property taxes are not gm/rr 32 decided by the state legislature. They are decided by local municipalities. And we have increased revenue to municipalities by more than $270 million on an increase that is when you add all of the funds that the state every year puts in for municipalities, we are well north of billions of dollars that have gone into municipalities. When the bond package is taken into consideration, when school construction is taken into consideration, when all of the pilot payments are taken into consideration, when the Mashantucket, Mohegan, Pequot fund is taken into consideration. When you add all of that up, that's helping out every one of our municipalities. And the people that came and spoke to us in the Appropriations Committee are taxpayers. We are all taxpayers. The people you represent, the people I represent, the people every one of us represents are taxpayers. I have yet to find a single person that comes up and talks to us that is not a taxpayer that is not saying we need help. This budget does that. This budget looks at helping people respectively to the question that you asked on taxation. I would ask Senator Fonfara if he wants this yield.
If I may respond, Madam President, to the good, gentle Senator.
Certainly. Senator Somers.
gm/rr 33 I understand that. I was a municipal leader. But we put mandates on municipalities that drive the property tax up. There's no denying that. This chamber is great as it's downstairs on requiring different mandates. We can't even get something passed in here so they don't have to print notices in the paper. There's mandate after mandate after mandate that causes property taxes to go up. And 49%, I believe, of people in Connecticut do not pay tax to the state. So thank you. I'm waiting to hear for the yield.
Thank you. Senator, would you like to respond to that, Senator Osten?
I would, but I respect Senator Somers' opinion. I disagree with it vehemently. I disagree with it. We didn't have 49% of state residents come in here that don't pay taxes. It's just not true. It's not true. We had people come up who pay taxes every day who say, we need help. We had mayors and first selectmen from all sides of the aisle, Independents, Republicans, Democrats, we stood side by side, and they said, we need help. This does that. Senator Fonfara.
Senator Fonfara, do you accept the yield, sir?
I do, Madam President. Thank you. And briefly, I'll say -- and I know Senator Somers was speaking more generically, but everybody pays taxes in this state. No one escapes them. People pay sales tax. They pay tax on their rent. They pay gas tax and several other taxes in everyday life. gm/rr 34 Unfortunately, they're inescapable. But as Senator Osten said a moment ago, in this budget, the $162 million for educational cost sharing, that's education, supports for education of every child in this state. $100 million for increased support through Mashantucket and Mohegan. That's support for municipalities, sustaining, maintaining, or lowering taxes to the residents of the state and to businesses in the state, $18 million for magnet and charter schools, $300 million for early childhood education endowment to lower the cost for early childhood education to increase the number of children in early childhood education, $5.9 million exempting sales tax on school supplies, increasing the sales tax free week from 100 to $300, and adding additional items. We encourage through a $5 million tax credit to incentivize employers to support their employees to enter into individual health care plans to lower the health care costs on their employees. Those are just some of the cost of the tax reductions in this initiative, Madam President, through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Well, I appreciate the good Senator's answers. What I was trying to get at is 30% of the people in the state of Connecticut pay no state income tax, and that's a fact. You can go look it up. I want to know if I'm a hardworking person at Electric Boat, like I just described. What am I personally going to see from this budget? We're giving increased funding to the towns in the form of ECF, not increasing really the baseline, but giving an extra grant. When am I going to be able to tell the people that live in our districts tangibly what are they going gm/rr 35 to see for a tax relief? I'm not saying there isn't tax relief in this budget. I never said that. I'm trying to look for when you go home and I go home, what do I tell that working class person, yes, this is what you're going to get from the state of Connecticut? We're adding. We're increasing spending. But you know what? We're providing some significant relief for you. The childcare credit, there's a cap. There's a cap on property tax deductions. So what's the answer for that when we go home to our constituents? How are they tangibly going to see that tax relief? I think that's really important for us to be able to describe to the our individuals when we go home. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
I believe that tax discussion -- I'm not certain. The ranking member of Appropriations is delving into the finance revenue and bonding side of the issue. I want to make sure that we're trying to stay within the confines of our respective --
Very good. We can go to Senator Fonfara if you would like to.
Through you. Madam President, what I was going to say is, this has relief to every person that they asked for. We want more in education cost-sharing. We want more in municipal aid. We want to make sure that our Medicaid rates are being addressed. We want to make sure that our prisons are safe. We want to make sure that any number of things that are within gm/rr 36 the confines of this budget are helping out our residents. And we all know that under Governor Lamont and this legislature, we have had the largest tax decrease in this state's history. So I would yield Senator Fonfara.
Senator Fonfara, do you accept the yield, sir?
Through you, Madam President. In this budget alone, we have $41.7 that's in this revised budget in relief through ECS, through municipal aid, and early childhood. And every child who's being educated in the state is benefiting from lower ECS cost. That's cost to that town and taxpayers in that town, and everyone in town spend pays taxes. If you own a home, you pay property taxes. If you rent, you pay property taxes through your rent. Anyone who thinks that someone who is not paying taxes in their through their rent is not living in reality. So municipal aid, early childhood education, these are all critical investments in the residents of our state making Connecticut more affordable. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
And I appreciate that answer. I still didn't really get the answer. I'm looking for a number. I want to be able to go back to constituents and say, if you're making $70,000, a family of four, struggling in the state, trying to make a mortgage payment, trying to pay for health care, you're going to see relief in all these numbers that you're hearing thrown around. I can guarantee you that you're going gm/rr 37 to pay x amount less in taxes to the state of Connecticut? And we talk about the things that we're doing here, and we're providing this tax relief. And I understand more money coming in for education. I was a mayor 12 years ago. We always whined about having more money for education because it's never enough. The state does not do what it should and fully fund education. They just don't. So that's left to the taxpayers of that community. So they're always going to come here and ask until we fully fund education and fully fund special education, but that doesn't mean that the people in that town are going to get a tax reduction. That just means that you're helping fund education and maybe they won't receive a bigger tax increase, but it doesn't mean that their taxes are going to be impacted and go down. What I was looking for is a direct number. If this number with all these programs that we have, this is what you would be guaranteed to see from the state of Connecticut. And while one hand we're saying we're providing tax relief, the other hand, we have bills that are adding surcharges to things like property and casualty insurance if you have a pipeline to businesses. So we know that five percent charge that's now going to be on those businesses to fund climate change is absolutely going to go back to the people that are paying for that. Anything that that pipeline is producing and moving to people, the people that are purchasing their, fuel or their gas from that company, it's just going to be passed on to them. So on one hand, we're providing tax relief, and on the other hand, we're creating bills that hasn't been signed yet. I hope the governor doesn't sign it. Though we're adding costs in someplace else. So when you put everything together that this gm/rr 38 legislature is doing, what I was looking for is being able to return to my district. And I know my colleagues, in my senate, in their district, to say, yes. We really are moving the needle for you, the citizens, and we really are trying to make things affordable. I'm not saying there's not good things in this budget. There are good things in this budget, but there's an awful lot of spending that we don't necessarily have to have here in the state of Connecticut. And we are adding things to this budget that I don't think had public hearings, that I don't think we're going to pass without even a blink of an eye. So I do have a few more questions. I'm sorry, Senator Fonfara, because there's a lot of tax questions in here. But I didn't know if we had an estimate on what the number of relief. So tax relief would be from increasing the tax-free week, which we have from $100 to $300.
Excuse me. Senator Fonfara, would you like to respond, sir?
Yes. If I could ask a good Senator to repeat the question, please.
Senator Somers.
What I'm trying to ask is, normally, we had tax-free week where you a $100 was the limit. You've raised that to $300, which I think is great. I'm just wondering if we have a total number on what that tax gm/rr 39 relief would be for the citizens of the state of Connecticut.
Thank you, Senator Fonfara.
$2.5 million. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And was there a reason, through you, Madam President? I was just curious why backpacks were added to that list. Is that because it would help parents that are maybe purchasing backpacks for their kids going back to school? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fonfara.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
And I'm not sure who's going to answer this. So, through you, Madam President. I was wondering, when we look at the end of this budget, when this budget passes, how much money in the state of Connecticut is going to then be used to pay down pension debt gm/rr 40 when this is all said and done this year? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fonfara.
Through you, Madam President. $1.5 million.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Thank you, Madam President. Okay. Again, I'm not sure who this is going to go to here, but in Senate Bill 2, there was a one percent meals tax that was going to be split between the tourism fund and the municipality in which the meal was purchased. Is that language actually in this budget or implementer? Through you, Madam
Thank you. Senator Fonfara.
Through you, Madam President, no.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Thank you. So that bill did not make this even though it was a priority for many of the caucuses, through you, Madam President. That is not going to be in here in any way, shape, or form. Is there any gm/rr 41 language in here? Is it not one percent, or is that entire senate bill tourism going back to the municipality in which it was originally promised when that bill passed, that meals tax, that money was supposed to go a portion of that money was supposed to go back to the municipality in which the meal was purchased, and that has never happened. So is there any language in this bill? Because I haven't been able to read all 717 pages before in less than 12 hours in this bill at all addressing that. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fonfara.
Through you, Madam President, no.
Well, that's very disappointing. That's a bill that I think has had bipartisan, bicameral support for a number of years. There was even a previous bill that took a portion of that that again was promised, so don't ever take the state's promise as good because they don't hold true to the promise. And there was an opportunity to actually use some of that fund to help those that were facing food insecurity. And when we have a bill that is really embraced by not only the tourism caucus, but all four caucuses, members of all, and we can't get that through. Yet there are bills in here that some caucuses have never been seen that made it into this budget. That's really disappointing. I hope that's something that can be revisited in the next coming years. gm/rr 42 So through you, Madam President, I would like to confirm, and I don't have the section in front of me, but I could try to find it, that the Connecticut option language that's in here is just a study. I know there's, I think, a million dollars associated with it. I think we've been studying this for years, but I would like to know if that is in fact just a study. Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Lesser.
Through you. Yes.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
I'm sorry. That was that a yes? I couldn't hear you.
Senator Lesser.
It was. Through you.
Thank you. And through you, Madam President, could the good proponent of that section tell us explicitly how a Connecticut option would make health care more affordable?
Thank you, Senator Lesser. gm/rr 43
Yes. Thank you. The bill contemplates a number of different ways, focused on plan design for plans offered on or off the exchange, as well as leveraging the state's medical assistance program, as well as potentially coming up with narrower networks or different compensation structures. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Thank you. So what I heard was narrowing options. So limited options, limited reimbursement. And we currently have a partnership plan that runs at a deficit every year. So how do we feel that the Connecticut option is going to be solvent or even able to kick off the ground? And what impact will that have to our other health care insurers here in the state of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Lesser.
Well, insofar as the Connecticut option, leverages qualified health plans. That would be a plan design of operated by private insurers that are licensed by products on the market regulated as other products are. The question is how do we make a more affordable products available to people with current affordability challenges? Nothing I think gm/rr 44 contemplates opening up to state employee plan or leveraging the existing partnership plan. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Thank you. And I appreciate that answer. When we're looking at making health care more affordable in the state of Connecticut, is there a reason that associated health care plans were not included in this budget? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Lesser.
That provision did not receive the support necessary to see it enacted. I will say that those plans were popular under the first Trump administration, but have seen dwindling support apparently around the country in the last few years. Through you.
Thank you. Senator Somers.
Yes. Through you, Madam President. I didn't bring up anything federally. Associated health plans have been around for quite some time. So it's not a federal issue. It allows small businesses to pool their resources together, to have larger buying power, to be able to -- instead of being five people, you can be 500 people when you go to look for insurance rates, and it helps you leverage those resources. gm/rr 45 As a small business owner myself, years ago, this would have been something that would have been extremely welcomed. It would have really helped not only reduce my portion of the health care that I would provide, but also my employees. And I find it really disappointing that we can't even at least give this an opportunity to be looked at. That is, I believe, one of the number 1 ways that we can help reduce health care costs here in the state of Connecticut. And instead, we're moving to a Connecticut funded Connecticut option, which currently, under the partnership plan, is losing money. So that doesn't make any sense to me, and I just wanted to get that on the record. Through you, Madam President, I have some other questions concerning -- in section 218 on hospitals. I'm not sure who's going to answer this one. I'm wondering, through you, Madam President, if the proponent of the bill could define exactly what a utilization review is in Section 218.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
I apologize, Madam President. Could my colleague repeat the question?
Absolutely. Senator Somers.
Yes. In Section 218, I'm looking for the definition of the utilization review. This is something that I know our current hospitals have great pause with, and that's why I'm wondering, first of all, why it gm/rr 46 was put in here. And second of all, what exactly do they mean when they talk about utilization review in the Section 218?
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, what section number are we talking about right now?
Section 218.
Thank you. If the Senate could stand at ease while I look up 218. Madam President.
Senator Osten.
If we could come back into discussion. So my understanding is that if we are referring to Section 218 in subsection 2a, the anti-steering clause means any provision, including but not limited to any utilization management provision in a health care contract that restricts the ability of the health care or health plan administrator from encouraging an enrollee to obtain a health care services. So what this is saying, we want to make sure that people have options and that those options are not making them spend more money on a service that they could get from somebody else. Through you. gm/rr 47
Senator Somers.
Okay. That's not how I believe utilization. Utilization review is when a nurse or doctor reviews procedures to see if they're medically necessary, and then they can start denying the access to that procedure. And if there is a cost burden that is put on the hospitals by implementing these utilization reviews standards and boards, so I'm wondering if this is put in -- and so if so, what is the projected savings for requiring these utilization review boards?
Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a utilization management provision, not a utilization review.
Senator Somers.
Thank you. I don't think I'm going to get any answer, so I'm going to move on. Through you, Madam President, in Section 196, what does efficiency in DOL operations actually mean? Is that staff, automation, cuts? What service changes? Could we have a little bit better definition of that on196?
Senator Osten. gm/rr 48
Through you, Madam President. Which subsection are you referring to in 196?
Senator Somers.
Through you, Madam President. I'm going to have to go back and look. I only have up the page. I have to go back and look. So in the meantime, I know other people want to ask questions. I have a lot more, but we have limited time to debate this budget. So I'm going to yield my time now to Senator Fazio.
Senator Fazio, do you accept the yield?
I do, Madam President.
You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Senator Somers, for your very important questions and points made about this budget. For those of you at home, if you want to know how your state government works, we received a 717 page budget adjustment bill at roughly 6:00 a.m. this morning that includes tens of billions of dollars of spending of your taxpayer dollars that nobody had a chance to read, who's going to vote on it here today, that the public didn't have a chance to read, who is going to see it gm/rr 49 voted upon today in a state with the third highest taxes, some of the lowest economic growth and job creation in the entire country, and it is considered acceptable to vote upon a 717 page budget, $28 billion of taxes and spending just a few hours after it is released to the public and to legislators who are voting on it. This is not how democracy is supposed to work. This is not how Connecticut state government should work. This is not why and how voters expected us to act when they voted us to come to our state government. And the proof is in the pudding. It was written wisely that by their fruits you shall know them. Well, this is the fruits that we have to show for our tax and spending policy in the state of Connecticut. We have the third highest tax burden in the entire country of any state according to the tax foundation. Over the last eight years, from 2018 to 2025, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Connecticut has the fourth lowest rate of economic growth of any state in the country. This budget today is the perfect bookend to eight years of economic failure under the Lamont administration and large Democratic majorities in the state legislature. This administration and these majorities in the state legislature inherited one of the best bipartisan policy innovations in the state of Connecticut in many decades, the fiscal budgetary guardrails. Those guardrails recognized the failures of the past in Connecticut. The borrow and spend and tax policies of the past that kick the can down the road to the next generation expecting them to pay, raising taxes year after year in order to meet those promises and strangling economic growth and making the state so unaffordable. Well, in 2017, when this senate was tied 1818 between Democrats and Republicans, there was a gm/rr 50 bipartisan agreement even without the original assent of the Democratic governor to pass budget guardrails that limited how much we can spend as a state government, that limited how much we could borrow as a state government, and hopefully would result in paying down billions of dollars of unfunded liability and debt. Well, at the end of eight years of those policies that pay dividends to the state of Connecticut, we are being left with a budget that essentially shreds them. The perfect bookend of eight years of this administration and the majority's in this state government is ending the one good economic and budgetary policy that we have seen passed in the last generation in Connecticut. And even amidst all that, even after those eight years, we've still seen our taxes increase by hundreds of millions of dollars. We saw taxes increase by about $800 million in the 2019 budget. We saw taxes increase on Connecticut residents by $500 million in the 2019 Senate Bill 1. We saw tax increases like the highway use tax in that subsequent time. We saw tax increases on small businesses in the form of the business tax surcharge in that time. All of which have added up to hundreds of millions of dollars of tax increases in those last eight years on top of the gradual erosion and elimination of those budget guardrails. So let's just take perspective. Once this budget adjustment document is passed that maybe a couple of people can actually understand what's in it. And certainly the public had no opportunity to know what's in it. We are going to eviscerate the budget guardrails to the point that billions of dollars of debt will now be incurred on the backs of Connecticut tax payers that wouldn't have otherwise. In addition to taxes being locked in at such a sky- high level in Connecticut. So $300 million endowment gm/rr 51 fund, an off budget fund that the state government can spend above the spending cap. A $500 million emergency federal response fund that could be spent not only above the spending cap in the state government, but without even the active approval and involvement of the state legislature giving one man, the governor, the power to spend hundreds of millions of dollars without any checks or balances. I thought it was no kings. But I guess I might have read it wrong. Those are the violations of the budget guardrails we already have passed. That's $800 million in new debt and higher taxes in the future that you who are listening, who pay your taxes on time and honestly, are going to have to incur. There is in this budget document, another $400 million increase in the spending cap, above the current levels, which already allow this state government to increase spending by like four or five percent year-over-year. So that's not enough to this state government. They say that we have to spend an extra $400 million above the four or five percent increase that we're already allowed under the existing budget guard rail protections. Not enough. Not enough for the state government. It's never enough. $28 billion never enough. Third highest taxes in the country, never enough. On top of that, in this budget, we're raising the volatility cap by $800 million. So that means $800 million of less debt paid down, of less liability paid down. And that liability that you owe as a taxpayer, you -- think about it this way. You're a taxpayer in this state. There's about $90 billion of bonded debt and unfunded pension and other state employee liabilities. And there are, I think, 1.6 million workers in the state. So that means that you have a debt burden personally. Your household has a debt gm/rr 52 burden personally of over $50,000 because of the state government. And according to the supporters of this legislation here today, they think that's not enough. They actually think it should be higher, so they're going to increase the volatility cap and other borrowing by hundreds of millions of dollars more. Not to give you a tax cut, by the way, but to spend more money. Because you owing $50,000 to the state government, meaning your tax can go up more in the future, that's not enough according to the leaders of the state government. I'm already passed $1 billion of more debt and more spending above the spending cap and those budget guardrails, and I haven't even got to everything that's in this document. So now there's going to be $300 million of more endowment funds, and then there's going to be $900 million of hospital reimbursements and spending off the budget. So if you add that up, it's about $3 billion of more spending. And in the long run, more debt and taxes that you're going to have to pay sooner or later in addition to the fact that you have to pay the third highest taxes in the country currently. It's just the facts. Every single day, taxpayers, families, residents, all across this state have to tighten their belts because of the policies of this state government that imposed upon them the third highest taxes in the country, the second highest electric bills in the country, health care costs going up 10% year over year, third highest property tax burden, the list goes on. And the state government, while they're forcing you to tighten your belt at home, refuses to do so here. It's never enough for the state government. In the good times, they spend and borrow more. In the bad times, they raise taxes. But they never have a gm/rr 53 strategy to cut your taxes and to reduce the long term debt burden. Even in the years where we had the fiscal guardrails in place, the unfunded liabilities of the pension promises went up more than any of the pay down. So we still had an increase in our overall unfunded liability, and we still had an increase, I think, in our overall debt burden too. So even when we acted in a bipartisan way in this state to try to pay down some of our debt, it still wasn't enough to reduce the aggregate unfunded liability and debt burden. So even when we were doing okay, we were just doing okay. This budget document leaves us with no long-term strategy to grow our economy and to reduce taxes on middle class and working class families. There's no off ramp here. It's actually going to get worse. This will not only lock in the current high tax regime in Connecticut, it will guarantee that if the policies written into this document continue, that the tax burden will only go up in the future. This guarantees more future tax increases. When you're increasing the debt and the spending by billions above where they are now, you are guaranteeing future tax increases. It's going to take one blip for another billion dollar middle class working class tax increase. There's no two ways about it. Altogether, this budget increases total spending on budget and off budget in fiscal year 2027 by 8.1% over fiscal year '26. How many of our constituents out there are able to increase their family budget by percent year-over-year? I don't think any. Virtually none. But this state government thinks it's fiscally responsible to increase their spending at percent year-over-year. gm/rr 54 You can repeal and pass all the laws you want. You can't repeal the laws of economics or physics. Eventually, someone's going to have to pay for the spending and the promises. We're just a week after the fact that we raised the state employee pay by four and a half percent year over year too, incurring billions of dollars in new liability and obligations. This state does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. It has a spending problem. That's why it has high taxes. Everybody knows it. Everybody acknowledges it. Everybody goes out on the campaign trail and says they're for affordability and tax cuts, but then they pass an eight percent spending increase. There is no possibility of us reducing the long term tax burden in this state when we're increasing spending by eight year over year. And that eight percent year over year is an increase from what the enacted budget was. So this document today is increasing the 2027 fiscal year spending by 2.6% over what was enacted last year. Again, on a party line vote. It was a very bad budget last year that was passed. It was really bad. I was surprised because there is flexibility to find savings or moderate the growth of government in order to cut taxes. And that was bad, but it was not even bad enough. They had to increase spending by another 2.6%. So hundreds of millions of more over what was passed last year. I mean, eight percent spending increases, obscene. It takes very little time past that. I don't know my exponential growth off the top of my head to double the aggregate size of government, and significantly increase taxes going forward. Should be no surprise that we've seen job losses while most of the country experiences job increases. gm/rr 55 Just last year, we, as a state, lost 2,200 jobs while the country as a whole gained over half a million jobs. Over the last eight years, Connecticut has experienced the fourth lowest rate of economic growth in the country while it had the third highest taxes and while this governor and state legislature were increasing taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars more. What's the definition of doing something over and over again and expecting different results? No one goes around this state and talks to their constituents and people say, no, my taxes aren't high enough. This state is affordable. It's too affordable. It's easy to create jobs. It's easy to get ahead. If I just graduated college or high school and I'm looking for a job, it's easy to find it. It's easy to pay my electric bills. It's easy to get health care and afford health care. And if I'm a small business, it's easy to get health care for my employees. Nobody is saying those things. And yet we're doing the same exact things we've been doing for the last several decades, my entire lifetime of promising more, spending more, kicking the can down the road, and increasing taxes time and time again. What are we doing? No one can afford this. No one can afford eight percent spending increases that will have to be paid by taxpayers. The next generation cannot afford $90 billion of unfunded liabilities and debt. It's a generational theft. It's not just bad economic policy, it's wrong. And when you obliterate the volatility cap to raise spending, not to cut taxes, when you create all these off budget accounts so you can raise spending by more than five percent, more than four year over year which should be more than enough, you're just guaranteeing that this system which is already bad and already too costly, is going to get worse. There are good and important parts of this budget that there would be bipartisan agreement on. We need gm/rr 56 to invest in education. This provides more funding for our public schools and for our towns and cities to invest in that, and that's something that Republicans across the board support. There are 717 pages and billions of dollars of spending in here, and I'm guarantee you that everybody agrees with some of it, and nobody could agree with all of it. And it would be, to the benefit of the entire state, if we had passed this in parts where we had bipartisan agreement, where the return on the spending would be to the benefit of the public interest. It would meet the needs of our social services, and public education, and so on. But at a certain point, enough is enough. The spending cap is generous enough. It says that you can grow the size of government and spending in the state of Connecticut by household income growth plus inflation. Which makes sense, because ultimately, our families and our workers are paying for this in their taxes. And the state government, in its spending and promises, shouldn't increase in size by more than the people who ultimately have to pay for it, are seeing their paychecks grow by. If anything, the spending cap is too high at household income growth plus the rate of inflation. If anything, it's too high. Because we should expect better of our state government, and it's already too big when you're paying the third highest taxes in the country. But the supporters of this legislation, the supporters of this budget, the administration think that that is enough. That you, the taxpayer, being too greedy, and that the state government and the state leadership spending your money need more. It's wrong. It's bad economic policy, and it's ensuring decades to come of economic stagnation and an exodus of more families, more jobs, and more opportunity from this state. gm/rr 57 We can do better. We as a Republican caucus are not here to cast stones. We are here to offer an alternative. And so for that reason, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 5764. And I would ask the Clerk to call that amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
LCO Number 5764. Senate Amendment B.
Thank you. Senator Fazio.
Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the amendment, waive the reading, and seek leave to summarize.
And the question is on adoption. Please do summarize, sir.
Thank you, Madam President. This is the Republican the original point of this state budget and the proposals made by our democratic colleagues. We strengthen the budget guardrails. We invest in education, and we provide hundreds of millions of dollars of middle class tax relief. This is a budget that is responsible, that provides needed tax relief, and invests in vital services gm/rr 58 that our state needs. First, it finds several $100 million of spending reductions. It acknowledges that we can find savings in various departments where there isn't needs to continue to hire more and more members of state government. It cuts politically-oriented earmarks out of our state budget. It cuts tax payer funding for people in the country illegally out of our state budget. And in doing so, fines several $100 million of savings in our state budget for tax payers. It moves more of that off budget spending back into the budget, so that this state government and its policy makers are forced to make tough decisions just like you, your family has to. This state government needs to do the equivalent of cutting out the third vacation they're taking every year. And that's what we're saying that when you spend and tax, it should all be in one place on the budget underneath the spending cap. So we're taking some of the off budget items and putting it within the general fund under the spending cap. We invest in education at similar or higher levels as this existing budget, including the ECS investments that we do think are necessary. And in the process of all of that, finding spending reductions, prioritizing the most important investments in the state, strengthening the fiscal guardrails compared to where this proposal is from the majority. We are then able to provide over $700 million of middle class tax relief and a little tax relief for farmers and other businesses in need. $750 million is what we're proposing in middle class and working class tax relief. To the tune of over $1,000 for the average family making a middle income in calendar year 2027 while strengthening the budget guardrails while limiting wasteful government spending. gm/rr 59 This is a better alternative, and this is a compromise. This doesn't start from the ground up. This doesn't eliminate that much of what is originally being proposed by our Democratic colleagues, but this finds a way to strengthen the guardrails to protect taxpayers in the long-term, limiting wasteful spending, and delivering middle class tax relief to the tune of over $1,000 per family starting in calendar year 2027. Madam President, I would ask for a roll call vote when it is taken, but there needs to be a better alternative. There needs to be leadership in defense of taxpayers in this state. It's long overdue. We deliver lasting, significant middle class tax relief in Connecticut, and this proposal does it. Thank you.
Thank you. We will have a roll call vote. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill --
-- or the amendment.
Please proceed. Prepare yourself, Senator Fazio.
Senator Fazio, you'd spent about the last 30 minutes gm/rr 60 or so talking about not receiving a bill in time. You've had several months. You sit on the Finance Committee to submit your own bill. How come I am only seeing this bill 30 or so seconds before you bring it out as an amendment? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fazio.
Thank you, Senator Osten and Madam President. We only received the final legislation at 6:00 a.m., and our proposal was intended to work off the base of the budget that was produced. And so because we only received this budget document at 6:00 a.m., it only gave us hours to work off of it and find an amendment that ultimately could be published onto the system subsequently. Thank you. Trough you, Madam President.
Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. And through you. The fact is that you've had all of this budget all session. We've spent hundreds of hours between Finance Revenue and Bonding and Appropriations. And each one of the committees going through all of the tenants of this bill that we put before you. And you, Senate Republicans, had all year to come up with a budget of their own. And yet, we didn't get anything from you. No ideas, nothing public, nothing in writing. The House Republicans came up with a budget, but the Senate Republicans did not. And we got this just a few minutes ago, literally just a few minutes ago. There's a couple of things that I gm/rr 61 have questions. Relative to undocumented people, you said people, but really you're talking about children. Correct? Through you, Madam President?
Thank you. Senator Fazio.
It's the Husky plan, as you well know in the budget. So it's mostly younger people. Yes.
Yes. It's all younger people or pregnant women. Through you, Madam President.
I'm sorry. I apologize, Madam President.
Sometimes I get ahead of myself. Jumping in front of my skis. Through you, Madam President. Would it be accurate to say that this is for children under the age of 15? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fazio.
gm/rr 62 It would be accurate to say that it's noncitizens who are not in the country with documentation or legal status under the age of 15. And as you well know, money is fungible, so it changes the aggregate of family budgets overall. But it is for people who are not in the country, legally funded by Connecticut taxpayers.
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. And through you. But it is for children under the age of 15. I have a hard time with that because I'm a mom. You all know that. I'm a great grandmother. I have a great grandson. He's a year old. They have health care. I don't want any child. I just can't. There are things that I cannot abide by. And I don't like to see people go hungry. I don't care where they come from, how old they are, how they got here. I don't like people to go hungry. I can't stand to see children not get appropriate health care that are here, for whatever reason they are here. They may be undocumented, but they are children. So I would very much like to continue giving health care to children. I just don't understand the cruelty of all of that because we all know if children are well taken care of, they get less infections, they get less consequences as they become adults. And so children should always have health care, no matter where they come from. Are you aware of the policy of hospitals to handle all people who come in their doors? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fazio. gm/rr 63
I beg your pardon, Senator Osten. Could you please repeat the question? Through you, Madam President
Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. And are you aware of all people that go into a hospital, no matter who they are receiving care? Through you, Madam President.
Thank you. Senator Fazio.
Yes. That's been the case since the 1980s, and that is an emergency option. And likewise, there's federally qualified health centers that provide emergency care. Listen. I very much agree that families are hurting in this state, and that our legal citizens here in Connecticut who are hurting so much need relief. They're struggling to get by. I meet people all across the state who get emotional at the fact that they can't make ends meet. They can't pay their bills. And yet, we're asking them to see increased spending on budget by eight percent, including spending for people not in the country legally. That's just wrong. The Connecticut taxpayer can't be forced to make ends meet for people all across the world as much as we'd like to see that. There are normal kind of standards that need to be set for state policy. Thank you. Through you, Madam President. gm/rr 64
Thank you. Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
Madam President?
Senator Duff.
Thank you. Would you stand at ease for a moment?
We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.
Thank you, Madam President. I would like to yield to Senator Osten, please.
Senator Osten.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I think I've made my point, that we are not going to be cruel toward children, and we all know that hospitals have to take care of anybody who graces their doors. Through you, Madam President. No further questions for the proponent of the bill. gm/rr 65
Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment that is before the chamber? Senator Sampson, when you get to your desk, sir.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise in strong support of the amendment that is before us, which is the Republican alternative to the budget adjustment that's been offered by the Connecticut Democrat majority, which they have named an act concerning affordability, which is about as insulting a statement as possibly could be made. It is so hypocritical and untrue, it shocks the senses, in fact. And what's interesting here is that we're about to have an important vote in this Chamber, which is going to very clearly define and lay out the differences between two very divergent views of how to manage our state's finances. On one hand, you have the arrogance of the Majority that does not seem to recognize that people in our state are suffering. They are suffering under the weight of an unaffordable economy in the state of Connecticut. One of the worst economic situations that we have from a standpoint of being able to simply afford goods and services for the average person. Some of the highest housing costs, third-highest electric rates in the country, second-highest taxes in the country, and this is just piling on more and more. There is very little respect for the taxpayers. There's very little respect for the minority members of this Chamber, and there's less respect, in fact, for the people that we represent when we come up here and speak on their behalf. Because you would think that at least, at least, there'd be an acknowledgment that even if our views as individual lawmakers aren't respected, the fact that we represent 100,000 people each in this gm/rr 66 Chamber should be. There is contempt for business. There is contempt for success. There is contempt for people who have achieved success and wealth in our society. Alternatively, you have the Republican view, which is respect. Respect for the people of Connecticut, that they are our bosses. They are the people that send us here. We are supposed to be here doing what they are asking us to do. And I haven't received an email in the last five years, I think, where someone didn't, at some point in their message, say to me, gee, can you do something about the cost of living in our state? People are struggling. I'm dealing with folks who are calling, potentially going to lose their homes because they can't afford the property taxes that they're going to be faced with after this upcoming revaluation changes the outcome of the way their towns manage their business. The document that we're looking at is absurd. 700 pages. And this is not a budget, folks. This is an adjustment to a budget. We do our budget in the first year of every biennium. And sure, that document's a 700 or 1000-page document too. But to make an adjustment, a little tweaking around the edges, and it has to be 700 pages also. Some of the policy that is in the 700 pages can only exist because the governor of the state of Connecticut had to declare an emergency to make it so. In my view, the only emergency is the lack of affordability that's going out -- going on Main Street. Not an emergency which allows the Majority in the state to exceed the spending cap and spend more. The document contains not just changes to the budget and a bonding package, but dozens of other items, bills, in fact, that should be going through the legislative process. We are a few days from the end of the legislative session, and there are still bills making their way through this building, through both Chambers, but somehow, some of those items are right here. There are fixes to bills that gm/rr 67 have not even passed yet. There are sections about labor policy, about guns, about energy policy. There are sections about lobsters. Yes. Double poles and lobsters from yesterday. We debated a bill for many, many hours yesterday that was supposed to be about labor policy, but it had sections about double utility poles and lobster fishermen in the state of Connecticut. And here they are again, showing up in our 'an act concerning affordability.' No cranes, though. What's going on here is a very, very simple question. If you vote for the underlying bill, what you get is an increase in spending of $750,000,000 in fiscal year 2026. And if you combine it with the next year, you end up with an increase of $2,200,000,000, an 8.1% increase in spending. How many people back home are seeing an 8.1% increase in their income? Very few, I would gather, while their expenses continue to rise. That amount is $400,000,000 more than the spending cap. Now, I don't want to go into a big speech about the guardrails and all of the different meanings of things, but I think the average person understands the term spending cap. The spending cap is a very simple rule that says that we're supposed to not exceed the amount that we spent in the previous year by too much. Obviously, it's a little more complicated than that, but that's the gist of the thing. And this is a proposal that dramatically exceeds that spending cap to the point where we need the Governor to declare an emergency to allow us to do it. And what's going on here is that basically, you taxpayers of the state of Connecticut have been overtaxed. I don't know if you were overtaxed on purpose or by accident, but either way, you have paid an extra $1,370,000,000 in taxes. Now, some people might say that that's volatility revenue or use a technical term, but the fact of the matter is that's what's going on. The state of gm/rr 68 Connecticut has changed our tax structure over and over again. The majority has rigged it, so the receipts, the money coming in is exceeding our needs. Now, normally, you would say, gee, what do you do with that money? I would say, you give it back to the people who gave it to us because it's extra. Just like if you gave your neighbor a $100 when you already owed them $50, they should turn around and go, by the way, here's the other $50 because you didn't owe me that. Not the state of Connecticut. No. They've come up with this document to find out not only how to spend the extra money, but an additional $750,000,000. The guardrails, by the way, are not an invention simply of Republicans who demand accountability and transparency and fiscal sanity in the state of Connecticut. This is something that was agreed to initially back in 2017 during a bipartisan budget, and then it was tweaked in 2018. But I want to remind everyone in this Circle that back in 2023, we stood here and voted on a standalone bill to reaffirm our commitment to those guardrails, including the spending cap. How long did that last? How long did that last that we were going to respect those fiscal guardrails? Our amendment that Senator Fazio just did a great job of bringing out honors the guardrails. We respect the fact that we need to stay within the lines. We still manage staying within the guardrails to offer a majority of the items that are contained in the act concerning affordability that the Majority is so proud of. We still manage to provide the same exact education funding that they do. We're not losing anything. The same ECS funding money is in there. The same aid to municipalities are -- is in there at the same levels. But we do find ways to cut spending. And sure, we cut spending on health care for illegal aliens. And what an unbelievably disingenuous conversation I just heard about that gm/rr 69 subject to try and make it seem like we don't care about children. The fact of the matter is the Majority invited those undocumented people into the state of Connecticut with their policies. And, yeah, they should pay for it, but the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut shouldn't have to. And our budget alternative for this adjustment actually reduces taxes dramatically. 750 million years, excuse me, dollars $750,000,000 in fiscal year 2027 and even more than $1,500,000,000 in 2028. That's what we should be doing, folks. We should be voting for this amendment that'll put Connecticut back on a proper course with fiscal responsibility and fiscal sanity. There are so many things that are in this underlying bill that I just cannot abide by. The one thing I can tell you that's not in it is affordability, but it is in this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. It's a very easy vote, folks. If you believe in the spending cap, you believe in accountability. If you believe in returning money that doesn't belong to you because you overtax the people of Connecticut, you vote yes. If you believe in fiscal insanity and irresponsibility that are just going to lead to deficits and out-of-control budgets in the future, well, I guess then you vote our amendment down. But the people of Connecticut should know either way on which side you stand. Thank you.
Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment that is before the Chamber, Senator Perillo, and then Senator Lesser will follow, sir?
Madam President, thank you. I rise in support of the amendment that's before us. But I say that, and I think we need to acknowledge, though, that in the gm/rr 70 underlying bill, there are some things of value. We can agree on some things. We can agree that a $170,000,000 in new education money going back into our communities helps when it comes to keeping property taxes down. We can agree that taking a portion of taxes collected by the state of Connecticut for meals and giving that back to our communities helps to keep property taxes down. But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that an 8% increase in spending is not good for the residents of the state of Connecticut. We can agree that all that new spending keeps us from doing something very, very important. And that's something that's done in the amendment, and that is $750,000,000 in tax relief. The amendment before us does all those good things and more. It provides additional ECS funding. It provides money from the meals tax back to our communities, and it saves taxpayers $750,000,000. That's real relief. That's real affordability. And this amendment provides that level of support to our taxpayers at the state level and at the local level of property taxes. It's an opportunity right here, right now, in the amendment that's before us to truly provide that relief. The underlying bill does a little, the amendment does a lot. And I think that's an opportunity for us. I think it's an opportunity we should jump at, and that's why I support the amendment that's before us here today, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Perlilo. Senator Lesser.
One question to the proponent of the bill. May I? gm/rr 71
Please proceed.
So the Connecticut Constitution, Article 28, requires that the Legislature pass -- adopt a balanced budget. Reading the fiscal note, it looks like this amendment would result in a revenue loss of $750,000,000 in '28, and $1,600,000,000 in FY -- sorry, FY27, and $1,600,000,000 in FY28 and thereafter. How do you square the fiscal note with our constitutional obligation to balance the state's budget?
Senator Fazio.
Thank you for the question, Senator Lesser. Thank you, Madam President. This presents a balanced budget for the budget in question, which is the fiscal year '26 and '27 budgets. Out into the future, we obviously will need to come back as a state government next year, and craft a fiscal year '28 and '29 budget. And there will need to be balances made. So if there is a few 100 -- for every 1% you decrease the growth of spending, you're going to save about $300,000,000 to provide tax relief. There's also $10,000,000,000 of this kind of special carve-outs in the tax code. Tax expenditures is what the state government calls them, and we can find maybe a few $100,000,000 of those as well that are -- have a bad cost-benefit, that only benefit large corporations, kind of at the expense of the middle class. So those are two of the ways where I personally, I don't want to speak for everyone in my caucus or in the Circle. I personally would look to find savings in order to provide the gm/rr 72 middle class tax relief, and fund vital programs and investments, for '28 and '29. But this balances the budget in 26/27, which is the budget in question, and I'm confident we could find balance in '28 and '29 when we pass a budget for those years, which is not until next year.
Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Harding.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise in strong support of the amendment, and for the reasons that have been laid out by many of my colleagues that have come before. This amendment does generally most of everything that is important, that you do have some members here in our caucus and both caucuses supporting. We agree we should increase ECS funding. We agree that we should increase Mohegan-Pequot funding. This budget right here before you does exactly that to the cent, to the cent. So every community that receives increased municipal aid, whether through ECS and education or whether through -- be through Mohegan-Pequot or any other municipal aid to the cent, the town receives the same exact money in our budget. And so what is the underlying difference? Two very important things. It spends within compliance of the spending cap, not with the Governor's emergency declaration today. It spends underneath the prior existing spending cap, abides by our guardrails in the spending cap in that regard. And what we're saying is the modification made to the volatility cap, which has been made in the underlying budget instead of using it for more spending, which is being used for in this underlying budget, which blows us by our spending cap. Instead of doing that, we're returning it back to the gm/rr 73 taxpayers in the form of tax relief. Income tax relief of $750,000,000 in income tax relief. We can do both. And what this budget before you says is we should do both. The Governor ironically declared the emergency today to blow by the spending cap. What we're saying in this budget before you is the real emergency is the affordability crisis this state faces. The real emergency is that we have the third-highest tax burden in the country. The real emergency is we have the third-highest electric rates in the country. The real emergency is we have the third- highest reliance on property taxes in the country. People are crippling at home to afford to pay their bills. Every single month, they sit down and crunch that budget and wonder how am I going to pay for everything. And what our budget does is provide the municipal aid that we all agree to, and we all want for our towns and our communities, but ultimately sends almost $1,000,000,000 back home in this fiscal year to the people that need it now. That's the emergency. And by voting for this budget, you're saying that is the emergency we need to address, and it addresses it. And not only this fiscal year, this volatility call change that this underlying budget has, instead of spending more, which is what this underlying budget does, we then send another over $1,000,000,000 in tax savings next year. $1,600,000,000. So overall, this budget is a $2,300,000,000 tax cut for the people of this state and still funds the municipal aid that is under -- in the underlying budget. I don't know how you can vote against this. It's not logical. So please join me in supporting a $2,300,000,000 tax cut that the people deserve and vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Harding. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk. gm/rr 74
An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate, voting on Senate Amendment “B”, a substitute for Senate Bill No. 1, AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABILITY. We're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment “B” for Senate Bill No. 1. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment “B” for Senate Bill No. 1, AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABILITY.
Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, please give us the tally, if you will.
Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those Voting Aye 11 Those Voting Nay 25 Absent and Not Voting 0
Amendment fails. Will you remark further, Senator Fazio?
Thank you, Madam President. I'm disappointed in the failure of the amendment. I truly believe that it was a middle ground and essential -- sensible budget alternative that would have strengthened our fiscal gm/rr 75 guardrails compared to what was proposed, delivered real middle-class tax relief, and found some savings for taxpayers in the state budget. I understand that there are many positive aspects of this budget document today. There are investments that I support that other Republicans support. We need to invest in our public schools. We need to support the vital social programs that support those who are down on their luck. And we also need to find savings and reduce taxes in the long run. While I understand that there are positive aspects to this budget document today in its totality, it represents a failure of economic leadership in this state, and it bookends eight years of higher taxes, less fiscal responsibility, more unaffordability, and lower economic growth. And for that reason, I will be voting no on the underlying budget proposal today. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Fazio. Will you remark further? Good evenings. Good evening. Good afternoon, Senator Hwang.
It is indeed afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam President. This will be the 18th year that I will have an opportunity to cast a vote on a budget or budget adjustment. Arriving in the General Assembly in 2009 and arriving into the Circle in 2015. It's been an honor and a privilege. And we've seen this process over and over again, but I think it's important for us to remember that back in 2017, when it was an 18-18 tie in the Circle, that we lasted nearly into October, if not into October, in deliberating, collaborating, and bipartisanly working together, Democrats, Republican, House, and to this day, that we continue to refer to as the beginning of the flourish of our fiscal surpluses. gm/rr 76 That was 1818. But in each progressive year, we have seen the ebbing of that parity to a majority and now a significant majority. And what I have seen in the past number of years is a devolution of a democratic process. This is a budget adjustment following through a budget last year, which received bipartisan support even though there were major concerns in regards to what we have repeatedly cited as a fiscal guardrail consideration. We, in the years before, in a unified and unanimous decision, said to the public and said to our bondholders, said to the people that we make the budget an impact that we're going to honor and follow and live within our means of the fiscal guardrail. But there was always that consideration of temptation. Temptation creeping in where when you have power and when you have one party majority. I've always used this quote: " Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The problem I have with this whole process is the only loser in this whole process, and I know many of my Republican colleagues are going to be very emotional and be very upset in not being part of the process. We cited the process in which the bill of over 717 pages was released to the public at 2.37 AM today. And we're debating a document that is 717 pages and with 490 sections that not only includes the budget, but what would have been normally a separate line item, the implementer, and another separate item, the bonding package in which I serve proudly on the subcommittee with the good leadership of Senator Miller. We have now combined those three major budgetary and policy impact decisions that will affect every single citizen in the state, and we release it at 02:37 AM, and we're going to have a vote on this, yay or nay. Many people will say, " This is just theatrical." The script has already been written. The decision has already been made. You know, the only loser in gm/rr 77 this is not only the Republican Senators that will voice vehement objection to this. And I'm going to explain to the general public why we are so passionate and vehemently frustrated with this process. It is because the people that we were elected to represent never had a chance to be heard. I think it's critically important that we may, in the Circle, take offense and fight and just debate. But let us not forget, each one of us, Republican or Democrat, were elected to represent the people. And the people lost in this debate because the process is broken. We can do the dalliance. We can present. We can say we live within the fiscal guardrails. We live within the bonding guardrails. But the reality is we inch closer and closer to a day in which the guardrails are no longer relevant. I use that as an example in the sense that in Bonding, in working as a subcommittee, I have, again, I'll repeat, great respect, great collaboration, and great joy in working with our subcommittee. We've had numerous meetings. We had agencies. We had advocacy groups. We work closely together in a bipartisan collaborative basis. The gentlewoman who sits in the a consummate collaborator. We passed that bill out of the Finance Committee, as Senate Bill 85, and it was unanimous. It was unanimous, and we proudly supported it by saying it was under the cap. It lived within our means, and we valued every investment infrastructure as the good Chairwoman of the subcommittee articulated earlier. But now, in a budget that appeared again, 02:37 AM, 717 pages, we added another $350,000,000 in bonding. Didn't go through the process, disrespected the committee members that worked extremely hard. Again, disrespectful of the process and the people we represent. Another example is we've now included an implementer into this emergency legislation. Well, there's 490 sections. I've got to be honest with gm/rr 78 you. I'm a pretty good speed reader, but I can't imagine how many concepts, how many bills that did not pass the muster of the committee review process? That because someone in a room that holds power, but did not allow a democratic, transparent process of one, raising a bill, raising a concept, hearing the people whose lives will be impacted by it, and having the legislators understand the issue and joint favorably prove it out of the committee. No. No. No. We're going to slip it into an implementer. We're going to pass out concepts because someone had better connections. That's disrespectful to the voters we represent. But when you have the power, it's easy to make things work. Yes. We're getting this budget done four days before sine die. It's great. But guess what? You've neglected to include opposing viewpoints, contrasting viewpoints. We've heard repeatedly on good bills that we've debated in the Circle that when compromises are reached, when collaboration is sincere, we come away with legislation that everybody leaves a little bit unhappy, but they're appreciative of being part of the process. There are a lot of people that don't feel a part of this process. We're going to put lipstick on something that somebody decided was good for everybody. We talk about the fiscal guardrails. I think it's important to point out the appropriations in this budget has surpassed our fiscal guardrails. But wait. Wait. We now have, through the Governor, which I have not yet seen yet, an emergency proclamation. Emergency based upon what? Now, earlier this past year, or the last year, we had an emergency because there was a real concern about federal cutbacks impacting SNAP, as well as reimbursements and enhanced support for health care subsidies. That was an emergency we came up, and we created an emergency fund in November 25, where we had a hearing, we had a deliberative process, and we gm/rr 79 allocated $500,000,000 as an emergency in case something happened. So we can do right by the people. We actually had an emergency with justification. Now it came back that we only spent a $170,000,000 of that 500. Now I supported that bill, but make no mistake about it. If you refer back to the records, there were many, many people who said, wait a second. This is the potential of a potential slush fund. A reallocation when an emergency no longer exists, but we're going to parlay that into a supplemental account to use as seen fit without the constraint of the appropriation fiscal guardrail. Now, the best of intentions says no. We wouldn't do that because that's suspicious. That's untrusting. That brings out the worst of expectations of the political process, where government says, watch what I say, but not what I do. But guess what? And I voted for that bill. But guess what we have seen in this budget? We now will convert that 330 remaining million into a supplemental account. Not an emergency account, but a supplemental account. And now we're going to add $50,000,000 more into that account, but it's not part of the appropriations. And they will say with a straight face, we are under the fiscal guardrail. And another example, we've now created an endowment fund for child care. Incredibly important. Fully supportive of it. But wait a second. We created a $300,000,000 endowment account that is outside of the budgetary process again because you have the power, and the majority, and the will to do it, and you can justify any which way to do it because you know what's right. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Where is the respect for the process? So we now add $300 mil in 2025. Now initially, I said, it is a good idea. It's important. Child care is critical. It is a commitment that we need to make to ensure that every gm/rr 80 child has an opportunity for a fair starting point and a level playing field. I supported that bill. But wait a second. We're now going to add another $300,000,000 more in this budget as part of an endowment plan. Wait. It's not in the appropriations. But we're going to spend $300,000,000 more beyond the 300 last year, but we're not exceeding the cap. You know what? If I ran that kind of math in my household, the bill is going to come due, and I'm not going to be able to say there's a supplemental account. But you know what? When the legislative body, when the Republicans who are the minority party do not have a say, and this would be the only chance that we have to put lipstick on something that people will say, " This looks great." Because guess what? The narrative is going to be, we're under the budget of the fiscal guardrail, We're under the bonding, and we didn't raise any taxes. If you start breaking it down, there's an awful lot of money that's outside of the budget that someone's going to have to pay. I think it's important to note. The process is broken. The disrespect for the voters who are represented by Senators that sit in this circle that were never part of this discussion is wrong. But it's not our egos that are getting -- that you're seeing from the emotionality and the challenge. What you're seeing is they are fighting for the people that elected them, and those people never had a chance. So again, there are many good parts in this bill, and I agree that there are many others that could have been had. But the problem at hand is there's one side picking winners and losers. And ultimately, whatever the end result of this, the narrative is no taxes, living under the cap, and everybody is happy, kumbaya. And for the people that are objecting about transparency process and representation, well, they're just sore losers. But again, dig a little deeper. An emergency gm/rr 81 proclamation that no one's seen yet that allows you to bypass this budget. A bonding increase that allocates specifics that most of the subcommittee did not know. But ultimately, we're going to put together a budget adjustment from a budget we put in last year that, unfortunately, was flawed. And it was represented back then as the perfect, perfect balance and collaborative solution. But when reality hits, and we're challenged with real decision-making and a real reckoning, ultimately, it is the people whose voices weren't heard that are going to pay the price. So as a result of that, I grant that there are many, many good things in here for education, for economic development, for judicial, for environment, many great things. But there are many other good ideas that never had a chance. Because again, the powers of absolute will decide that I know what's best, not the people that elected them. So I urge that we respect the process moving forward, that my no vote will be a challenge to how this process came to be, and throw a caution into the wind that should we continue along this path, we will get to the same, same deja vu moment in which the people of this state will pay the price for our unwillingness to stay principled, transparent, and respectful of due process. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Slap.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of this bill and our budget adjustments. And first, I want to thank Senator Fonfara and Senator Osten for their hard work, for their tireless work, and hours and hours they spent on public testimony, listening to folks come in. And oftentimes, with one kind of central concern is how can we make Connecticut more gm/rr 82 affordable? And that's what this budget adjustment does. And we have some real headwinds. We face some real challenges. What has happened in the last year? Not just in Connecticut, but across the country, to drive up costs. Right? And to make life less affordable. We have the Republican and Trump tariffs. We have the Republican Trump war in Iran right now. We have the Republican and Trump HR 1, that has slashed funding for Medicaid, that has attacked higher education, and I'll get to that in just a moment. It has cut, as an example, $50,000,000 of research funding from UConn, which has a huge impact on our economy, not to mention our research funding. So our constituents are smart. They get it. They know what has happened this past year. They know why costs are being driven up. All you have to do is go fill up at the gas station and look at the prices, and we all know why they're sky high right now. It's not because of this General Assembly. That's for darn sure. This budget will make life more affordable for the parents who are buying school supplies for their children this fall, with the revenue changes, and the tax changes, and lifting the limit. It is going to make childcare more affordable for parents who are desperately trying to find a safe place for their child to go during the day, so they can go to work. It is going to make life more affordable for the homeowner and for the renter paying property taxes because we're sending millions of dollars back to our communities to strengthen our schools, and as has been said, to help with property taxes. So those are just some of the ways that the budget adjustment really going to, I believe, help families make ends meet and help make life more affordable in Connecticut. I do want to focus on two things specifically though from my perch as Chair of the Higher Education Committee. There are two changes that we made in this budget that are very important gm/rr 83 and are going to help when it comes to cost and accessibility for higher education. The first one is we increase investments in our finish line scholarship, our finish line grant, and we created that last year. And for those of you who aren't familiar with it, we extended our debt-free community college program into the CSCU system. So you can begin debt-free in Connecticut Community College. And once you get your associate's degree, and that's one of the changes in this budget, as we said, get your degree, get your associate's degree, and then you could transfer and go to one of the CSCUs, and you can continue debt-free. That is incredible. It is going to help lift thousands and thousands of students into the middle class. It's going to expand opportunity, and it's going to ensure that our graduates are not buried in debt and they're able to pursue their dreams. Most of the graduates from the CSCU system, as you know, stay here in Connecticut. So it's a great thing for our economy. There is no larger driver, no bigger engine for the economy here in Connecticut than higher education. So investing in higher education is a smart move, and that's what this budget adjustment does. The second thing that it does is fight back against the Trump administration and HR 1. And in HR 1 that was passed last year, it added insult to injury when it comes to our nurses and our teachers, our mental health workers, and our clinicians because it changed the classification. So they were labeled professional, now not labeled professional. And in our public hearing in Higher Education, we heard from dozens and dozens of teachers and nurses who were insulted, who were offended by this change. And it's not just in name only. The impact is real because by making that change in HR 1 in the federal legislation, it puts a cap on their access to low-interest loans. gm/rr 84 So it makes it harder for them to pursue their education. On top of that, the federal legislation eliminated the grad student loan plus program. That's a big deal in Connecticut. That means that July 1, if we do nothing, $90,000,000 of low- interest loans for graduate students in Connecticut. And we're talking about, again, teachers, nurses, mental health clinicians, professions by the way that we need to fill. Right? We have a lot of openings here. So if we do nothing, July 1, $90,000,000 worth of low interest loans going to thousands of aspiring teachers and nurses vanishes. Thank you, National Republicans and Donald Trump. That's what they did. So let's talk about affordability and who's to blame. That's what they did in HR 1. In this bill, we will be one of the first states to create a grad student loan plus program. And I want to thank the folks at CHESLA for coming forward with a very solid proposal. I want to thank Governor Lamont and his administration, who got right out of the gate at the beginning of session, supporting this plan and putting some funding for it in his proposed budget adjustment. And I would say we worked very well across the aisle, my good Ranking Member, Senator Martin, and, in the Higher Education Committee, we worked on this proposal, and it is in this bill. It was Senate Bill 8, and now it becomes part of this. And what this will do is ensure that thousands of students who are pursuing their graduate degree can have access to low-interest loans, essentially subsidized loans. Of course, they're going to have to pay these back. But the alternative is that either that they pay hundreds and hundreds, potentially thousands of dollars more each month in interest on their loans, or they quit and they don't become a teacher or don't continue their education. So this is a critical program. And we heard from these teachers and nurses in our public hearing. They were scared. They were offended. They were gm/rr 85 upset. They were saying, " Please, Connecticut, do something." That's in this bill, and it is just one more way that this budget will make life more affordable for Connecticut residents. So I appreciate the collaboration that we had, again, on this program, but on many of the other parts of the budget adjustment. And I think we got to a good place, and we can go back to our districts and our constituents, and we could say it's under the spending cap, under the bond cap. We're helping with your property taxes. We're improving your public schools, and we're lifting up thousands and thousands of students all across the state and giving them more opportunity. That is something I certainly can support, and I hope my colleagues can as well. Thank you very much, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Slap. Will you remark further, Senator Cicarella?
Thank you, Madam President. And I rise, for a few comments. I was hoping that our amendment would have got some legs, and it could have addressed the concerns that I have. When we talk to our constituents, we hear a lot of different issues. Could be about a street. It could be about a state agency, unemployment, DMV. Could be about something that is a challenge in their life, and it's our job to try to help them out. It could be about public safety. It could be about a lot of things. But the majority of the people I talk to talk to me about affordability. It's too expensive for everyone. People that work their whole lives, they retire, they're on a fixed income, it's too expensive. Young professionals trying to move out of their family home, it's too expensive. Businesses that are doing gm/rr 86 business here, it's too expensive. And we need to find a way to address that. We need to be able to reduce the cost of living, and it's hard to do that when we don't reduce our spending. And we heard here today that taxes will not be increased. We heard here today it doesn't violate any of our guardrails that were put in place. But when we grow government, somebody has to pay that bill. And maybe right now, it doesn't violate our spending caps and our volatility cap and our guardrails. And maybe right now it's not going to increase taxes. But I am sure it will. I'm sure it will. And also, what it doesn't do is provide any relief from the high cost of living. But what it does do, and the parts that I've gotten through, it's a very, very big bill that's just half of it, couldn't even lift up the whole thing at once. What it does do is something that I've been advocating for with a lot of my colleagues, and that's making sure our kids have the resources they need to get a good education, a great education. And we've been talking about needing to fully fund special education, double-funding ECS, giving them those tools. And we've talked about this many times, and I see, especially for my district, that we are bringing some money back. And I'm happy about that. I am thrilled, and I would support that all day long. It's a great idea. We've been saying it for a very long time, wish we did it a while ago. But it also does many other good things. There's no doubt about it, But there is also a lot of -- a lot in this bill. I didn't fully get through it, but there's a lot of good things. A lot of great things. And I think it's going to help a lot of people. But I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think we're doing the job we need to do when it comes to reducing the cost of living, which is a big problem. I've put in bills since I've been here for bringing back program review and investigation, specifically made to find waste, and gm/rr 87 fraud, and abuse, and minimize that. See where we're not utilizing all of the money in a very efficient way, and pull some of it back. That bill hasn't passed. It's on the calendar. I hope we could get it called. But it does do a lot of good things. So I'm torn here today on do we support the bill or do I not. But I do see things that I am concerned about. We heard, again, very expensive, bringing people to food pantries, and I see that Connecticut Food Share has a reduction of $3,000,000. That's a concern of mine, a big concern. We talk about affordability, and a lot of people want to blame Washington DC for all of their problems. But we can't do that. Other states are more affordable. They have the same federal government we do. What's the difference? The Majority has been in control here for a very, very long time, and we have to start tackling issues at a state level and doing what we can to address the problems we have here. We can't blame someone else for our issues. So I always love to work in a bipartisan fashion. We work here together as Connecticut legislators. We need to address Connecticut problems and not blame other people. And when we grow government, and we don't give money back, it's more expensive. It's just common sense. And I will summarize and wrap up, but there's something else that I've seen pop in this very large piece of legislation before us. And last night, good, good Representative, Representative Joe Zullo, spoke on the floor about Tweed Airport, and he spoke very eloquently and laid out the concerns that he hears from our constituents. And again, that's what we're supposed to do. And the bill was PT'd. But I find it back in here. And when you look at it, it actually says, if something happens, Connecticut is going to provide some cover for the damage that may come to that town, that great town where I grew up. gm/rr 88 I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think there's enough protections. I think we should get more. It will change the trajectory of that town and the makeup of that town for a very long time. And I don't think it goes far enough, but it frustrates me more that my residents didn't get a chance to have their voice heard. It didn't have a public hearing. And for years, even before this came before us, when we talked to them, they were like, we know we live near an airport. We know this. But we want to know what else is coming. We hear this, but no one answers our questions. There's closed door meetings. We don't get to be in there. They want to have transparency. And when I see that in there, it's really hard for me to see that because I'm like, wow. They're right. I mean, this no public hearing. It's shoved in this big, big piece of legislation with yet a lot of very good things. I'll repeat that again. But that's not a good way to legislate when you shove everything into one vote, and I can't repeat that enough. And I share the concerns of my residents, and I will take the section and bring it to them and be able to say what we think it does, but it has specific language. It talks about if construction starts, they're going to be given some money to alleviate the concerns and what they're going to need for public safety, the roads, and many other things. There's very specific language in there. It talks about parking spots. 2,000 and something parking spots. If we have 1,900 parking spots, do we not get the money? Those are the concerns. Those are the things that would have been great to get flushed out in a public hearing, but we didn't have that chance. And we have to do better. We have to do better with transparency. We have to do better with affordability. And I look forward to listening to the rest of this debate, and I'm going to go back to my office and finish reading this bill to decide what I'm going to do. And if there is a greater positive impact on my community, or if it's going to gm/rr 89 do more negative. So I thank you for allowing me to make those comments, and I look forward to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. And good afternoon, Senator Gaston.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I rise today to offer a number of comments regarding the olloquy that we just had around the Circle. But I want to, first of all, give strong credence to the proponents of this piece of legislation that I think is a landmark piece of legislation at a time where our country is dark. Folks don't want to talk about what's happening at the federal level and how that trickles down to the state level and have an impact on our residents across the state of Connecticut, regardless of where you live. But especially in some areas that are hard to reach populations, are feeling the sting of this more. When you talk about affordability, you have no other choice but to look at what's happening nationally, where SNAP benefits are on the chopping block. Housing benefits are on the chopping block. Health care is on the chopping blocks. Public safety is on the chopping block. Child care is on the chopping block. And the list goes on and on and on. Where education is on the chopping block. And how have we responded here in the state of Connecticut. The democrats have stood up and have fought back against the tyranny of what we are experiencing at the highest levels of our government. Madam President, I want to talk about the city of Bridgeport because that's the town that I represent who also is feeling the deep impact of what's happening at the federal level. I think that people are going to look back in this state and they're not going to judge us by what we say. They're going to gm/rr 90 judge us by what we do. And I believe that the have been impacting the people across our state. And so Madam President, for too long, Bridgeport has been asked to do more with less. Our school serves a student body where 90% of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals. 30% are learning English as a new language. 20% receive special education services. These are not statistics. These are our children, and they deserve a budget that reflects what it actually costs to educate them. Madam President, this budget does precisely that. It includes $25,000,000 in new investment for Bridgeport through increased education cost sharing and direct municipal grants. That is $25,000,000 that goes directly into our classrooms, our school buildings, and the city services that hold our community together. I want to be clear about what that means. ECS determines whether Bridgeport schools can keep their doors open with qualified teachers, updated materials, and the support staff our students need. When we underfund ECS, we're not making a budget decision. We are making a decision about which children matter. And this budget says, Bridgeport children matter. And the municipal grant increase matters too because it has carried real financial pressures in recent years. Pressures that fall the hardest on families and neighborhoods that have the least cushion to absorb it. This investment gives the city resources to deliver services to the people who need them most. I fought for this funding from day one of this session because that is what I was sent here to do. I did not come to Hartford to watch my city fall further behind. I came here to fight every single day for the people of Bridgeport and Stratford. And I will not stop. To every parent, to every teacher, to every principal, to every resident in Bridgeport and Stratford who have been waiting and wondering gm/rr 91 whether this legislation and legislature sees you. I want you to know that we see you. This budget is proof of that. You can't tell me that roses don't grow from concrete. I have watched this city fight through challenges that would have broken communities that didn't have our spirit. Today, we deliver something real. And I will keep pushing every single day until every dollar reaches the city of Bridgeport and our residents get what they deserve. I want to acknowledge the hard work of our Senate Democratic Caucus. Senator Looney, Senator Duff, as well as every one of you in the Circle who are pushing back on all the external pressures that we are receiving, and making sure that we're standing up, not just for our constituents, but for every constituent across the state of Connecticut. Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Berthel. Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you on this, fine Saturday, almost approaching evening. Madam President, that's a tough act to follow with that bellowing voice of the good Senator, from Bridgeport, but I'll do my best. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the budget. [laughs] The title, AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABILITY, spending more money, I would call SB 1, adding real insult to injury. We stand today on the verge of violating all of the rules that we established over the last many years in this Chamber. I was here in 2017, my first days, when we had an 18-18 Senate, we brought out the bipartisan budget. We established those guardrails and caps and all of that. And here we are in a situation that I'm fearful of because I was also in this building, prior to that time when we dealt with uncontrollable gm/rr 92 levels of debt in our state budget that ultimately produced, as has already been mentioned, this afternoon, two of the largest tax increases in the history of our state. We don't ever want to be in that position again. And, as I've listened to the debate this afternoon, we hear from both sides of the aisle talking about affordability. I understand, and I see how spending certain money on certain things offsets or changes the way in which we're paying taxes. But I'm tired of hearing this lame excuse of blaming Washington for Connecticut being unaffordable today. Unaffordability was a habit and a strong habit here in Connecticut, way before Donald Trump took office. In fact, our memories seem short apparently because inflation was the highest in 50 years during the Biden administration. Let me repeat that inflation was the highest in 50 years under the Biden administration. Truly unaffordable. So the hypocrisy is actually comical when we talk about blaming the president of the United States for the unaffordability in Connecticut, and that this bill is going to make Connecticut more affordable. But I guess back then, as long as Joe Biden was spending and sending, all was well. So I don't understand how a budget that increases spending by, if I've read it correctly, billions of dollars over the next couple of years, makes Connecticut more affordable. We talk about the increase to ECS. Of course, we want to increase the funding for ECS. Of course, we want to do that. But the argument that it's going to somehow make things more affordable is disingenuous. Whether you take that money to pay for our schools out of my Watertown tax pocket -- payment pocket, whatever you want to call it, or you take it out of my state of Connecticut payment pocket for taxes, you're still taking the money out of my pocket. So don't tell me that increased ECS funding for the seven school districts in the 12 gm/rr 93 towns that I represent is going to lower the cost and make things more affordable in those 12 towns. That is disingenuous, and it's not true. All we're doing is deferring the cost somewhere else. That money has to come from somewhere. I don't know about you, Madam President. I don't have a money tree in my backyard, and we don't print money in the basement of this building. It has to come from somewhere. If we defer it and we take it from somewhere else, we still have to get it from somewhere. So let's stop the argument that increasing the ECS formula, yes, it provides more, more money from the state of Connecticut and helps to possibly lower property taxes in our towns. But somewhere that money has to be paid for. Wow. It's just a shell game. And I see as I stand here, and I don't get animated in this Chamber, on a regular basis like some of my colleagues do, but this stuff really gets under my skin. This is a shell game, and I am terrified that we are going to return to the bad habits that got us into the situation we were in pre 2017, pre 2018. I have my senior parents here. I have my young adult children here. We all want to stay. But every day, I hear constituents saying to me, I can't afford to live in Connecticut. I can go to almost any other of the 49 states, and I can live more affordably. And I don't pay the taxes that I pay in Connecticut. And I don't have to go and have the highest of everything. So we know we're last or first, depending on which way you're looking at it in terms of lack of affordability or the most expensive place to live. Madam President, I worry for the future of our state. I can't even imagine what our budget process is going to look like when we come back here in January. And we now have to deal with what we're doing today with this budget, this 717-page document, what we're going to have to deal with to finally make the payment for what we're doing today. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to reject this gm/rr 94
Thank you. Senator Berthel. Will you remark further? Senator Martin.
Good afternoon, Madam President.
Good afternoon.
I'll try to calm things down. How's that? Got a couple of things broken here today. We have that. We have a little name plaque over there. We've got to call maintenance. [laughs] Madam President, thank you for allowing me to say a few words. I thought the Republican amendment was pretty -- a good one. I'm one for allowing our constituents to have the money instead of paying taxes and then us spending the money on their behalf. If we had an opportunity to give them back their money, I would have preferred doing that. But then it got overruled. But this bill, and within this bill, Madam President, there are some good things. I know for me, I represent Bristol Hospital in my area, and when I first arrived, I heard about the issue, the hospital tax, and how that process I learned. I learned it took me a couple of sessions, I think, to better understand how that worked. But this seems to help that. Helps the hospital taxes and the supplemental payments that go along with that. It also addresses a need, a request that the small businesses, those that do some research, who have entities, pass-through entities. It helps those little companies. It also helps our municipalities, and now we've all heard from our gm/rr 95 towns. You need to help us. Our ECS funding needs to be increased. We need to adjust the formula. I don't think that we adjusted the formula. The base, that is, and I think that's probably going to be a good discussion for the next session. They talked about special Ed, and it's off the charts, and we definitely need to fix special Ed. That burden that's on our municipalities, I think, needs to be resolved up here and probably most likely paid up here. In the business environment to help with child care for parents to allow parents to go to work. Getting to what concerns me, though, just one thing. Just going back to the pluses. This is sort of a little bit of a negative in that I know Food Share, and I know the good Senator Cicarella mentioned it, but Food Share was cut by $3,000,000, and I just questioned that. Of all places where we know that are -- there are people that are -- who have been going to the food pantries, and that has increased quite a bit. I just question that. But listen, overall, some really good things came out of that bill. But my concern is this, that with the setting up and moving things off of budget, creating endowments, we know we did it with the childcare, the $300,000,000. We took another $500,000,000 for the federal cuts. And I believe we created a couple more now. The hospital is now moving us over to a fund as well. I'm concerned about the diversion of monies that -- back when I arrived 12 years ago, that's all I heard: diversion, diversion. And it eventually became into a sort of gimmicks. I'm afraid that we're heading down that path again. My comments here are just sort of a, hey, I'm trying to shoot maybe an arrow across the bow. Listen, let's not -- let's refocus. I know that we need to help right now. Those needs we hope are going to help, and maybe, next year as well, and the year after that. But I'm concerned that we're going to try to solve the issues down the road by doing what we've did in the gm/rr 96 past and have some diversions and gimmicks again. We all know that we went up and down with our deficits. Revenues were good. One year, we spent up to that amount, and then we had the following year, the economy wasn't doing so good. And then we had a deficit. We tried to fix it. We've created the guardrails. We did a good job with that. We were disciplined for five years, and we renewed it. And now we seem to be taking our eye off of that. The purpose of that was to be more to spend within our means. And don't forget the credit card, the long-term liability. And by creating some of these endowments and moving stuff off budget, we've now taken our focus off of that. So we're still making a payment down there. But let me remind all my colleagues for every billion dollars we pay down on the long-term liability, we save $85,000,000 that we can use towards our, into our budget. So my purpose for me to just stand up here tonight, right now is just, let's not take our eyes off of this. I know what we're doing right now. We've had so much funding requests from across the state, from our municipalities to non-profit organizations. But I just don't want us to forget that we had some bad habits. I don't want to go back to those bad habits. I want to think about and stay focused on paying down our long-term liabilities and living within our means. So thank you, Madam President
Thank you, Senator Martin. Will you remark further? Senator Fonfara.
Thank you, Madam President. Briefly, there've been a lot of conversation here tonight about Connecticut's affordability, and it's a -- I think we all can agree that it's a challenge for many, many families across this country right now. But I want to put gm/rr 97 some perspective, if I could, Madam President, in terms of Connecticut's progress in the last half dozen years or so. And if first, I'd like to say that Connecticut is the third smallest state in the country. There are 46 counties in this country that are larger than Connecticut. 46 counties larger than the state of Connecticut. And you don't have to go to the mountain states or Texas or wherever to find one. There's a county in Maine that is larger than the state of Connecticut. A county in Maine larger than the state of Connecticut. It is appropriate for the state, you can consider us in some ways as a county. And it's appropriate for the state, in a state that doesn't have counties, to bear the burden and the responsibility that we would see in most states in this country that have county government. As has been said regarding the guardrails, we have retired $11,000,000,000 in debt. Remember, 50 years, 50 years in this state, we did not. We were not responsible about retiring or paying down teacher retirement and state employee retirement debt. 50 years. We've made $11,000,000,000 that we've reduced. It'll be a long way to go, but we've been committed, including $1,000,000,000 this year. That's projected. $1,000,000,000 this year. As Senator Martin just said, $855,000,000 so far in reducing ADEC payments. That's opened up nearly a billion dollars in our budget that we would not have been able to do if we did not embark down this path since 2017. That equates to about $21,000,000,000 in long- term budget savings. So far, $21,000,000,000 in long term budget savings. But I'd like to point to a few other things if I could, Madam President, very briefly. Under this governor and this legislature, there -- we've provided middle-class and working class family working family relief, income tax rate reductions, you recall, from dropping the 3% rate to 2% and the gm/rr 98 5% rate to four and a half for middle-class brackets, middle-income brackets. That's revenue of $415,000,000 that we pay for every -- that we forewent, since then. And income tax, and then earned income tax credit expansion, that's $200,000,000. Senior and retiree tax exemption, Social Security pension, and IRAs that we've reduced for many, many families and individuals in this state, with a revenue impact of $210,000,000 to $230,000,000 a year. Local property tax relief, if you recall, we did a car tax mill rate cap, 32.46, providing significant car tax relief for higher mill rate towns. That's a $180,000,000 a year. Property tax credit, another $70,000,000 a year. Free community college, some $36,000,000 a year. And not to mention the municipal revenue sharing fund of $600,000,000 a year. Those are just some of the efforts that we've made to make it affordable, the state affordable for families, for individuals. And in this budget today, we offer we provide relief additionally that I mentioned earlier, and others have mentioned. But in addition to businesses that we're providing, the Governor has proposed, and we are accepting, if this budget passes shortly, support for businesses to help their employees to lower their health care costs, support for research and experimentation for pharmaceuticals and other companies in Connecticut to lower their costs and incentivize them to stay in Connecticut and locate in Connecticut. These are tough issues. These are challenge -- significant challenges. We're a part-time institution that works hard for five months or three months of the year to do better for this state, and I know there isn't a person in this Circle that doesn't share in that view. I think this is a fair budget. I think it's a good budget and in tough times, balancing both our desires to continue to be responsible and how much we can do with recognizing the very difficult challenges that gm/rr 99 families, businesses, individuals are facing in our state. I urge support of the bill. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Duff. Good evening.
Good evening, Madam President. And I am glad that we're here and glad that we're about to take a vote on a historic state budget that has been negotiated now over the last few weeks or so. And I am internally grateful for the work that has been done to get us to this point right now. Grateful for the work of our Senate President, Senator Looney, Governor Lamont, and his team at OPM as chief of staff. Our speaker, our House Majority Leader as well, and our Chair Senator Osten, Representative Walker, Senator Fonfara, and our House Chair as well, of the Finance Revenue and Bonding Committee, who has worked extremely, extremely hard to get this budget together. And of course, our staff and our legal team and everyone else, our policy folks who have worked exceedingly, exceedingly, long hours today. But Madam President, I just want to take a moment because, anytime that there's a negotiation, it is one that takes a lot of work to get done, and different priorities are competing. And so we work together to try and come up with the best product that we can with the negotiations and the funding that we have as well. Thankfully, based on the work we've done over the last few years, we're at a point now, again, once again where we have -- we're saving, we're paying down pensions, we are spending appropriately, we are putting money where it needs to be, and we're able to, again, once again, show that to our pep -- show it to the people of the state of Connecticut. gm/rr 100 Madam President, this Senate Democratic caucus worked exceedingly hard over the last many months to highlight a number of different issues that were so important to us. We have highlighted the fact that in this budget that we are serious about spending more money on education to the tune of $180,000,000, much of which will be built into our foundation that has not been changed in a very long time. And mind you, that is two years after we put $150,000,000 into our ECS formula. So we have a track record of being extremely, extremely committed to more funding for education. We have tax cuts in this budget as well. Health care for people who need it. Madam President, we have municipal relief for our communities through the Pequot fund. That is extremely important. We've heard for many months, Senator Looney and I met with mayors and First Select folks from around the state of Connecticut. And they talked about the fact that the need for ECS, the need for municipal property tax relief that will go right towards residents. I mean, one of the reasons why we have high property taxes in the state is because we have a 169 separate municipalities that do a lot of the same things over and over again. And as Senator Fonfara just said, we could be considered a county compared to other places around the country, but we still manage to do things a 169 times, which is kind of the New England tradition and Connecticut tradition. And if there was the will to maybe make some of those changes, we could do that and lower property taxes, but there has been great obstacles over the years to try and change that and make more efficiencies in our communities. But hope springs eternal, and we'll get there. But I will just say that we have a responsibility in this state to educate our children no matter where they're from, no matter what zip code they live in, to fund education in the classrooms, to help our gm/rr 101 teachers have the materials they need, to make sure that our kids have the ability to get to the to the career, to college, or wherever they're going, to make sure that they are ready to go, to close the achievement gap, to do what we need to do in order to make the schools and a school environment the best that we can. That's what's important for us. We need to make sure that our senior citizens don't feel like they have to choose and make choices between whether or not they're going to stay in their home, where they feel like they are pressured to move because they can't afford their property taxes. This budget helps that. This budget is not done in its own line. It's done over the last few years, where we have built upon municipal aid year after year. We've built upon more education funding year after year. Those are the things that we think are important. We're taking another big step forward in our early childhood with our trust fund, putting in 300,000,000 there as well. Madam President, we're still paying down our pension debt that we had made commitments to since 2011, that we have been doing over and over and over again. And, yes, we are working to bring home money back to our communities in other ways too, whether it's for nonprofits, whether it's for organizations that all of us are familiar with. Those all are important to make sure that we are helping our communities. I can list a few of these for Norwalk as well, that will need -- that have some needed funds in order to help, whether it's mental health, whether it's senior citizens, whether it's for schools. That's why we are elected. We are elected to represent our communities, bring back the resources that we can, and to help bring down the burdens of the property taxes for the residents of this state. Madam President, there's also a number of other of our Senators who have been involved in, whether it's in Bonding or Human Services or Education or other gm/rr 102 ways, all of the Senators who've been involved in that, I say thank you. Thank you for the long hours you have put forward to get us to this point today. It means a lot. Thank you again to our Chairs of Finance, Senator Fonfara, Representative Horn, our Chairs of Appropriations, Senator Osten, Representative Walker, our leaders, our legislative leaders, my colleagues, and all those who will support this budget today. And thanks to the Caucus, the Senate Democratic Caucus, for standing strong, for saying that more funding for education was a priority, more funding for transportation was a priority, more funding for municipal aid was a priority, because without them telling us and sharing with us what they needed, we wouldn't be here today. So thanks collectively to everybody's work who's put this together, that we're able to bring this budget forward for a vote today and to help our communities all across the state of Connecticut, big, small, and in between. And I urge passage of this bill. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Duff. Good evening, Senator Harding.
Good evening, Madam President. Thank you. There's a lot about this budget that I would agree with, Senator Duff said. Municipal spending in the budget is good. I see a lot of things in the budget that I can absolutely support. So I totally understand why one would vote yes for this budget completely. Just on its face, looking at the spending, there are some aspects of this budget, as I said, that do good things. I think we do address the issues with the lack of funding in ECS over the years and proper investments in municipal aid. So I completely understand why many may cast a yes vote. However, gm/rr 103 when I think about my vote, I think about 10 years ago. One of the proudest moments I had as a legislator was when I was a state rep, and I voted on a bipartisan budget that implemented historic fiscal guardrails. Spending caps, bonding caps, volatility caps that were to be abided by and followed by future legislatures to come that would provide fiscal stability for this state. And the reason I was so proud was because just years before, I stood in that state House Chamber voting against back-to- back historic tax increases to address deficits we were facing. And I thought to myself, isn't it great that we could come together in a bipartisan fashion and implement measures that will finally bring us to fiscal solvency, that will finally set us in a path in which we do not have to ask our taxpayers for more money when they can least afford it? Telling that middle-class family to dish out more money to your state government, when they could barely make ends meet to begin with. I was sick and tired of seeing that, as all of us were in a bipartisan fashion, and we implemented these measures. But I'm scared today, just 10 years later, to be standing here seeing the death of these guardrails. They're dying today. All that work we put in a decade ago is coming to a conclusion. I know how this is going to end. As I said before earlier, I've seen this movie. I don't like the ending. And that is why I'm opposing this today. We have a spending cap. We've been taking tons of money off budget, nearly $1,000,000,000, to skirt around it. But this time around, we're not even bothering to do that. We are taking a ton of money off budget in addition to that. But in addition to that, we're just blowing by the guard with the spending cap. $413,000,000, nearly half a billion dollars over the spending cap. And by voting for this, you are voting to do that. I understand that there's good spending in here. I get gm/rr 104 it. But I cannot support that. And so, again, we have these rules in place to be followed. If we're just not going to follow them, they're not there. And we all saw just 10 years ago what happens when the fiscal guardrails are not there. And again, my fear today is that we are now declaring the death of them. They're there, and we're just not abiding by them. We're modifying the volatility cap, spending well beyond that, modifying the spending caps, spending well beyond that. And again, there's no other way to shape this up other than this is going to lead to tax increases very quickly down the road. And we're once again going to have to go after those middle-class families and say we need more money to pay to your state government when they can least afford it. And so I will oppose this measure. I'm joining. I'm asking my colleagues to do the same. I would say stand by the guardrails. Stand for fiscal responsibility. And what's even more and frustrating to me is my Caucus, the Senate Republican Caucus, offered an amendment that could have done both here today. We could have abided by the spending cap, not blown by it. We could have funded the municipal aid that I referenced as a reason why many people would want to vote yes, and we could have provided real legitimate tax relief, $2,000,000,000 of tax relief to the people of this state. Think about this for a second. This budget we're voting on here today has almost $2,000,000,000 of additional spending beyond the previous fiscal year. Not a single solitary cent of that is truly going back to the taxpayers back home when they are facing an unbelievable unaffordability crisis in this state. Unbelievable. Third-highest in taxes. Third- highest in electric rates. Third-highest in property taxes. In order to turn that around, we have to strive for better, and that amendment was the better. If we gm/rr 105 continue to be satisfied with the status quo, if we continue to be satisfied with okay, we're going to continue to live in a state where our constituents and our residents can't afford to live here. And you know what? I'm not okay with that, and that's the reason I'm voting no. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you, Senator Harding. Will you remark further? Good evening, Senator Looney.
Good evening, Madam President. I am rising to speak with great enthusiasm in favor of this comprehensive bill, that so many people have worked on to bring it to us this evening. Madam President, this is our Connecticut Democratic version, and a much more humane, and positive, and enlightened version it is our own one big beautiful bill that we are now bringing forward, with a much more benign purpose than the federal counterpart, was brought forth last summer. Madam President, I wanted to thank our great majority leader, Senator Duff, for his hard work and comments earlier, just, absolutely, everyday hands- on on this. Our two fiscal chairs, of course, Senator Osten and Senator Fonfara, their work both in Committee and thereafter, their understanding of the nuances of tax policy, budget policy, and the guidance they've given to all of the members of our Caucus. Everyone who participated in this, their counterparts in the House as well. Certainly want to thank Speaker Ritter for his leadership, and our staff, of course, led by our chief of staff, Courtney Cullinan, and all of the other folks who worked on parts of this and helped us to appreciate the understanding and the implications of changes that were suggested by the House or by the Governor's Office. gm/rr 106 It all came together in this product. But, Madam President, this is a good budget and comprehensive bill for the state of Connecticut. It does meet our needs at a perilous time because we still do not know what might be in the offering from additional federal cuts coming our way in a way that may be unpredictable. We see that we were able to put an extra $50,000,000 in the federal response fund, which will help us, I think, and one of the things that we may request the Governor to do with part of that is to use some of that funds to provide assistance for those who are facing the SNAP cliff of the loss of SNAP benefits for those who may not be able to meet the work or volunteer requirements and they also will continue to need a safety net. Which we will be able to provide should the Governor make that choice to use some of those funds for that purpose. One of the things I wanted to commend the Governor on for leading on and making it a part of his proposal is the $300,000,000 second-year deposit for our children's endowment fund, our childcare endowment fund. That commitment that we made last year will be transformative in the future. And the reason that we all know is that one of the fundamental problems of our schools is that so many children come to kindergarten unprepared to be there because of the inadequacy of their preparation in daycare or other programs that they have had beforehand. Too many of these children come, and it's heartbreaking for the kindergarten teachers to see when the child doesn't have the rudimentary skills that are needed for success in kindergarten. Limited language, just limited socialization, and just being unable to cope. And these are the children who quickly become aware of their own deficiencies, and they turn off to school, and they become problems, disciplinary problems in school. And a couple of years later, they become truants. And then a few years after that, they may be in contact with the juvenile court. gm/rr 107 A few years after that, they may drop out of school at age 16, even though they're only in ninth grade, because they've repeated grades along the way, and their functional equivalency level in attainment is maybe fifth or sixth grade at best, and they are not in school. They're not employable. They are the lost youth out in the world, between 16 and 24 years old at the Dalio Commission, looked to address last year. But we will have generations and generations continuing of that lost youth unless we make the commitment to early childhood preparation. And when we do, those 16 to 24-year-olds will be productive in our society. They won't be lost, they won't be alienated, they won't have a sense of going through their school years without receiving what they should because they were prepared for school when they arrive there. That is the kind of investment that we need to continue to make. And what it will mean as we all know, is that, within a couple of years, all families whose incomes are under a $100,000 a year will get free childcare and daycare. Those whose incomes are over $100,000 a year will only pay 7% of their income and max for that purpose. So it will be reasonable, it will be accessible, and it will be high-quality preschool programs. These are all critical for us, and it's an investment that we continue to make in this budget. Also, Madam President, the issue of Medicaid is one that has plagued us for a number of years. We know that in many cases, because of the economic hit that we took back around 2007 and 2008 and continuing through many of the years since then, many Medicaid rates have not been increased in 17 or 18 years. And what has been the consequence of that? We have so many medical providers who are unwilling to see Medicaid patients. This is a crisis in our health care system, meaning more and more people wind up in hospital emergency departments as the gm/rr 108 default position for care. We've made a small investment to try to ameliorate that in the first year of the biennium budget with $15,000,000, a much larger investment. This year, we had, I believe, about $45,000,000 in the budget for the second year, and we've added another $30,000,000 to that. That I hope will begin to draw more providers back into the Medicaid program and will also, I hope, stem the number of people who just decline to participate because the reimbursement rates are so low. So these are really salutary elements of this budget. What was mentioned earlier, of course, was the significant increase in municipal aid, both in our ECS grant and in other aid that's going to be a portion through the Mohegan and Pequot Fund. We all know that the major struggle in our state is to provide sufficient municipal assistance that will provide relief of the local property tax. That has been our struggle. It's been our struggle primarily because the state income tax, frankly, does not raise enough money overall to truly provide robust municipal tax relief. We have made our income tax significantly more progressive over the years, and that is something to be celebrated from the flat rate of four and a half percent that we adopted in 1991, gradually building in tiers and taxing different levels of income at different tiers to what we have today in a couple of years ago, lowering the tax rate on the lowest couple of tax tiers. That is now, for moderate- income, middle-income, low-income, moderate income people. We now have a progressive income tax. We don't have sufficient progressivity at the upper end, where more money could be raised. And that's why we haven't been able to fully meet the needs of our cities in terms of property tax relief, but we are providing some increment here, some move forward in that regard. I hope that people saw the front page article in the Hearst newspapers yesterday, about the percentage of family income gm/rr 109 that goes to paying property taxes in some of the cities in this state. Bridgeport, it was at the highest level. New Haven was second. Obviously, Norwalk was up there as well as was Hamden. Many other communities are paying between 10% and14% of their income, their family income in their property taxes. Now, that helps to make sense of the fact that we see many statistics that point out that low and moderate income people in various studies, they point out that in Connecticut, low and moderate income people tend to pay a higher percentage of their income in state and local taxes than in other states. But that is not in state taxes. It is in local taxes because our state income tax is progressive at the lower end, but it is the property tax that is so burdensome to low and moderate-income people. So, there was one statistic that has shown that some low and moderate-income people pay in the aggregate more than 20% of their income in state and local taxes. And that's clearly understandable when you see the large figures for what people pay in Bridgeport, people pay in New Haven, and other places up to up to 14% or so. When you add to that the amount that people pay in sales tax, again, disproportionately paid by low and moderate-income people, plus their income tax burden on top of that. Easily, low and middle-income people in Connecticut pay more than 20%, but most of that is property tax payments. One of the dramatic elements of that study, which is not evident at first, is that if the wealthiest, the very wealthiest, are paying approximately 8% overall in state and local taxes, and yet they are paying 6.99% on their income if they are in the very highest level. It means that all the rest of their local and state tax obligations only amount to about 1% of their income, which means that their property taxes are a mere pittance, and their sales tax payments are a gm/rr 110 mere pittance. Even though they may buy items that are taxed under the luxury tax, and they have, they own valuable property, but they own that valuable property usually in communities that have very low mill rates. So, somebody who is fabulously wealthy and makes $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 a year, even if that person is paying $50,000 or $60,000 a year in property taxes, that is minimal. That is pocket change at that level of income, as is the amount of sales tax they pay. Looked at some time ago, a comparative figure between, say, New Haven and Greenwich, where in New Haven, you have someone who has a house worth $875,000 a year, assessed at a little over $600,000, that person is paying about $24,000 a year in property taxes and a mill rate of about 39. In Greenwich, to be paying $24,000 a year in property taxes, your property is worth $3,000,000 and yet you're paying $24,000 a year in property taxes. So that property tax is higher in New Haven as both as a percentage of the value of the property and certainly most likely as a percentage of the income and wealth of the owner of the property too. Whereas the person in Greenwich can afford that $3,000,000 house. So there, the inequities in our tax system are primarily focused in the property tax and in our incapacity to provide the kind of relief that we should. We are making some incremental progress in that this year, by our substantial increase in this budget in municipal aid, particularly education aid. Again, there are the people in the General Assembly, we are moving in the right direction. We are obviously moving, slowly. In some cases, the inequity is so great that we should be able to move a lot faster, but at least the movement is positive and in the right direction to create a greater equity. In this bill, we also have the provision that we had passed here in the Senate about allowing at the local option, a $50,000 homestead credit. So that gm/rr 111 the first $50,000 of value, that could be taken off the assessed value of an owner-occupied property, would help make the assessments in those communities more progressive, should the town choose to adopt that because, obviously, $50,000 off an assessment of $200,000 is substantially worth more than $50,000 off an assessment of a million. So again, we're making some effort to build some more optional progressivity in there. But, Madam President, I think that's why this budget is a good one. We have come through a turbulent year and a half since the beginning of the current federal administration. We don't know what's to come. We are actually fortunate, more fortunate than many other states, because we have built up a substantial budget reserve fund over the last 10 years, 10 to 15 years, and it has been -- it has required discipline, especially as what we've done since 2017. We are now in a position where we have that reserve, but we should not be afraid to use that reserve because life cannot be frozen in time. We can't think of -- we're not frozen in amber as the way the world was in 2017. It is now nine years later, and we have to recognize that some of the resources that we have saved during that time now have to be applied to the current emergencies of 2026, and not just held in reserve to preserve the world as we thought we saw it in 2017. So to that extent, I think, Madam President, this really is a budget for the people of Connecticut that is worth celebrating. I want to thank the Governor for his leadership in this, for recognizing the need to address these needs, our cooperation with the House, the cooperation and dialogue with members of both parties. And again, Madam President, I think this is something that we should be celebrating this early evening and hope the House will join us, later this same evening, in closing the deal. Thank you, Madam President. gm/rr 112
Thank you. Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open, Mr. Clerk.
An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill as amended. This is Senate bill number one. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the voting on the bill. We are voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the This is Senate Bill No. 1 as amended. We are now voting on the bill. Senate Bill No. 1. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.
Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, please give us the tally.
Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 30 Those voting Nay 6 Those absent and not voting 0 gm/rr 113
Legislation passes. Senator Duff.
Thank you, Madam President. I move for immediate transmittal to the House of Representatives, please.
Off it goes. So ordered.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, does the Clerk have Agenda No. 1 on his desk?
The Clerk is in possession of Senate agenda item number one dated Saturday, May 2nd, 2026.
Senator Duff.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move all items on Senate Agenda No. 1 dated Saturday, May 2nd, 2026, be acted upon as indicated that agenda is be incorporated by reference to the Senate Journal and transcripts. Any items immediately placed on our Calendar, please?
So ordered. gm/rr 114 No. 1 REGULAR SESSION the calendar and printing. FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 1 AN ACT CONCERNING AFFORDABILITY. HOUSE BILL(S) FAVORABLY REPORTED – to be tabled for the calendar. APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5485 AN ACT CONCERNING SUPPORTED DECISION-MAKING. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5639)) APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5460 AN ACT CONCERNING STATE-WIDE FIRE PROTECTION. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 4975)) FINANCE, REVENUE AND BONDING COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5354 AN ACT CONCERNING MEDICAID PROVIDER AUDITS. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5579)) gm/rr 115 PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5518 AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER STATUTES. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5666)) APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5447 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TRANSFORMING CHILDREN'S BEHAVIORAL HEALTH POLICY AND PLANNING COMMITTEE AND CONCERNING TEMPORARY FAMILY ASSISTANCE BENEFITS. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5638)) HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5562 AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS REVISIONS TO HUMAN SERVICES STATUTES. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5692)) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5312 AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF A SYNTHETICALLY CREATED INTIMATE IMAGE. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 4544)) JUDICIARY COMMITTEE gm/rr 116 HB NO. 5432 AN ACT CONCERNING THE RECEIPT OF FEES BY A PARTY TO A CIVIL ACTION AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE HB NO. 5491 AN ACT CONCERNING CENTRALIZATION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5480)) ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5523 AN ACT CONCERNING A TRIBAL WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ADVISORY COUNCIL. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5295)) PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5498 AN ACT CONCERNING REVISIONS TO STATUTES RELATING TO MUNICIPAL TAX COLLECTION. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5454)) ENERGY AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE HB NO. 5340 AN ACT CONCERNING RENEWABLE POWER GENERATION. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5450)) HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE HB NO. 5482 AN ACT CONCERNING TWELVE-MONTH COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION AND HORMONE THERAPY. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5206)) gm/rr 117 LABOR AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE HB NO. 5493 AN ACT REQUIRING A STUDY TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE STIPENDS FOR THE CONNECTICUT CIVIL AIR PATROL. GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5352 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE ELECTIONS ENFORCEMENT COMMISSION AND MANDATORY DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINTS. INSURANCE AND REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5373 AN ACT CONCERNING THE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS TO THE INSURANCE STATUTES. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5109)) GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE HB NO. 5250 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION FOR REVISIONS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5459)) VETERANS' AND MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HB NO. 5295 AN ACT NAMING THE CONNECTICUT NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER IN THE TOWN OF PUTNAM. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5406)) gm/rr 118 ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE HB NO. 5331 AN ACT CONCERNING THE AIR PERMITS OF CERTAIN CREMATORIES. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 4327)) HOUSING COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5362 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAJORITY LEADER'S ROUNDTABLE. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5432)) ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5153 AN ACT CONCERNING MINOR REVISIONS TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RELATED STATUTES. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 5674))
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it's our intention to be in on Monday at 11:00. And until then, I wish everyone a happy day and a happy Sunday. Be safe, everyone. Seeing no other announcements or points of personal privilege, I move that we adjourn subject to call the Chair.
We are adjourned. Go forth and govern. (gavel) (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 5:35 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the chair.)