CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-08-13

Thank you, Madam President. It's going to be a long day, so I've got a short prayer. Dear Lord, help us to live a creative life and to lose our fear of being wrong. Amen.

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

Good afternoon, Madam President. It certainly seems that way for us. Maybe, hopefully, play ball, maybe a snowball fight. Who knows? There's a lot of snow out there right now. Madam President, working off our calendar. If I can, mark some items go, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On Counter Page 1, Calendar 5, Senate Joint Resolution Number 11, I'd like to mark that item go.

On Counter Page 3, Calendar 12, Senate Joint Resolution Number 18, I'd like to mark that item go.

On Counter Page 3, Calendar 13, Senate Joint Resolution Number 19, I'd like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President. And the last item on our mg/rr 3 go list right now for the moment, on Counter Page 8, Calendar 29, Senate Resolution Number 3, need to ask for suspension and mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President. And if we can go in that order, and then later on, I'll be adopting Senate Agenda Number 1.

Oh, yes, sir.

Please proceed.

Nick, welcome to our chamber. Thanks for visiting us. (applauding)

Senator Berthel, do you have a point of personal privilege?

mg/rr 5 Thank you. Let's welcome Nandani Patel. (applauding) And, Nandani, perhaps you will end up as lieutenant governor someday because I studied politics undergrad and went to law school, so you just never know. We hope you're here someday. All right. And with that, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Let's get that up on the board, and there it is. And here we are again, Senator Winfield.

Thank you. And will you remark further? The question is on adoption.

Thank you. Senator Kissel, will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further will you remark further? Senator Winfield.

Seeing and hearing none, we will begin the consent calendar. Mr. Clerk.

And Senator Winfield, please proceed.

Thank you. Will you remark further? The question is on adoption.

Thank you, Senator Winfield. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

Senator Somers, good afternoon. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Winfield.

And seeing and hearing none, we will move that item to consent. Mr. Clerk.

And we will discuss that nomination. There we go. Senator Winfield.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark? mg/rr 10

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? If not, Senator Winfield.

And seeing and hearing none, so ordered. Mr. Clerk.

And good afternoon, Senator Osten. Will you remark on the legislation before us?

Thank you. And the question is on passage. Will you remark further?

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

Thank you. Will you remark further on the resolution before us? Will you remark further? Senator Osten.

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

Have all the senators voted? Have all the senators voted? The machine is locked. And Mr. Clerk, would you kindly call the tally, please?

(gavel) Resolution passes. Mr. Clerk. Good afternoon, Senator Duff.

Good afternoon. Clerk's in possession of Senate Agenda Item Number 1, dated Wednesday, February 25th, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, move all items on Senate Agenda Number 1, dated Wednesday, February 25th, 2026 be acted upon as indicated. That the agenda be incorporated or referenced in Senate Journal and Senate Transcripts.

SB NO. 298 AN ACT CONCERNING THE REALLOCATION OF CERTAIN STATE FUNDS AND VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO EDUCATION, PUBLIC SAFETY, GENERAL GOVERNMENT, ELECTIONS, INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES AND WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS. SB NO. 299 AN ACT CONCERNING REDEMPTION OF OUT-OF- STATE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS. INTRODUCTION OF SENATE AND HOUSE LIST OF BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS LIST NO. 14– to be waived and bills and resolutions to be referred to committee(s) indicated.

So ordered.

An Act Concerning the Reallocation of Certain State Funds and Various Revisions Relating to Education, Public Safety, General Government, Elections, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Warehouse Distribution Centers. There are several amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'm going to take out the bill. I move passage of the emergency certified bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is a bill that has a number of sections of our emergency certified nature, and many of our mg/rr 16 colleagues on the Senate Democratic side will be explaining its various sections. We'll be yielding to each other on that. And I move for passage of the bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And, Madam President, my understanding is we stand here today on an emergency because it is an emergency certified bill. And, again, my understanding procedurally, Madam President, is that on emergency certified bills, it's emergency because we could completely usurp the otherwise understood important institutional legislative process that every other bill that we vote on has to go through. And so it makes a lot of sense that we have mechanisms in place procedurally as a Senate body, as a House body, as a state government body that would allow for what I would think extremely limited circumstances in which we usurp the legislative process. That means bypass public hearings, bypass committee votes, bypass opportunities for our constituents and advocacy groups to opine on these important pieces of legislation that will impact the three million plus people of this great state, that only in very limited circumstances we would do that. And so we do have a mechanism, as I do understand it, Madam President, that allows for us to address that as a And so my understanding, Madam President, is that the Senate President, in this chamber, and the Speaker of the House in the House chamber are the individuals that do have to certify an emergency to allow for legislation to usurp the legislative process. And this bill that's before us, Madam mg/rr 17 President, as I understand it, as Senator Duff described in bringing it out, addresses a plethora of different issues, none of which that I find to be time sensitive to the fact that it is an emergency, at least on first glance. But with that said, I do think it's important, considering the fact that we're usurping the entire legislative process, to understand how emergent this legislation truly is. And, with saying that, Madam President, through you, I would like to ask the proponent, as to how the individual that signed this documentation, why they declared this legislation before us to be an emergency. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Thanks, Senator Harding. I'm going to yield to Senator Looney for that response, please.

Thank you, Madam President. I do accept the yield for purposes of responding to the minority leader's questions. Madam President, through you to Senator Harding, Section 2-26 of our general statutes allows for emergency certification, when the "President Pro Tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have certified in writing the facts which are, in their opinion, necessitate an immediate vote on such bill." And similarly, under Joint Rule 9, there is similar language. Emergency mg/rr 18 certification requires the bill "be certified by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to be of an emergency nature." And the key phrase there is in their opinion. This emergency certification does provide that the Speaker and I believe that the circumstances in each of these items, does necessitate immediate action, and that the bill is properly before us for that reason, both under our statutes and our joint rules.

Yes, Madam President. I do thank the President for his answer, and I will just speak with the chamber, through you, Madam President, on the context behind why I don't believe this is an emergency. And I do appreciate the Senate President's answer and respect it. I understand that there is a process by which certifications are needed to be signed, and I have no doubt in my mind that that process was followed. And I think that is what Senator Looney did indicate to us, Madam President, and I appreciate that. With that said, I think it comes down to what the definition of emergency truly is. And we should take that seriously. And in my tenure in the legislature, when I was a state representative prior and now as a senator, I've seen this process take place. And I would argue that almost every single time, if not every single time, there was an emergency certification when I walked into this building. I truly looked at it and believed there was somewhat of a time-sensitive issue that applied to what we were voting on. I could at least look at it logically and see almost everything had some time- sensitive aspect to it, which I could appreciate. mg/rr 19 I may have disagreed whether it rose to the level of an emergency, but I could see the logical connection with how someone may interpret it to be an emergency. And this bill here today, with the plethora of concepts it has, I almost see zero nexus. Almost none. There are aspects of this bill, like earmarks to different organizations, that no one has discussed how it's emergent. This is millions of dollars of taxpayer money that is usurping the entire legislative process, usurping any level of scrutiny, usurping legislative and committee votes, usurping our constituents from being able to participate in the process. And I have no idea, nor does any other senator, at least in my caucus, have any idea as to why any of this is an emergency. And in the press, quite openly, at least in the other chamber, we have Democratic leadership telling us we're doing this because it took too long last session to pass the bills. That's not an emergency. Every single one of these solitary issues that we have in this bill could go through the legislative process, and it should. And just because you have the majority and a large majority doesn't mean that people should have to be taken out of the process. And these are our constituents. A hundred and twenty-five thousand people in all of our districts gave us the awesome responsibility of voting for them and advocating for them. And by declaring these things to be emergencies, you're basically telling those 125,000 people that you can't participate in the process. And again, if it's an emergent issue, I understand why. But it's not an emergency because you were frustrated that it didn't pass last session. That's not an emergency. I'm sorry. And so for anyone to think that is, it's wrong. And you're letting your constituency down by doing that. mg/rr 20 There are aspects of this bill, I'll give you an example, that we're voting on is one of the concepts in this omnibus bill that lets child abusers who are convicted of the crime off of the obligation of paying child support while they're incarcerated. Can anyone in their logical mind tell you how that's an emergency? We're rushing into legislative session to help out individuals that shouldn't deserve any help at all in paying their child support obligation? Who are convicted in some cases of abusing their child or abusing the parent of that child? That's in this bill. And we have a declaration that it's an emergency to address that concept today. Regardless of who's in power, we need to have more respect to the institution and more respect for our constituency to allow them to be able to participate in the legislative process. It's there for a reason. And I'll tell you something right now. The one thing I do find to be an emergency is affordability. The one thing I do find to be an emergency is that we have the third-highest tax burden in the country. The one thing I do find to be an emergency is the fact that we have the third-highest electric bills in the country. The one thing I do find to be an emergency is that I have 90-year-old women calling me and calling our other senators, telling them that they can't afford to pay their property tax bill this month. And we have the third-highest property tax burden in the state. Those are emergencies. And I'd be the first one to stand up here today and declare it an emergency and vote on things to actually help those individuals. But none of that, not one thing, is being done for them in this bill. Not one thing. Yet it's emergent enough that we have to give third-party organizations, well-connected to politicians in this building, appropriations. That's an emergency. But helping out that individual at home, that middle-class family for paying their electric bills, we have nothing to save for. mg/rr 21 The crisis we face in the state, with making the state more and more unaffordable every single day, is the real emergency here. And unfortunately, we have nothing in this bill today to address it. So I'm more than happy to have our caucus lead on that. Let's talk about affordability today. Let's address that today. That should be the discussion. That's the real emergency. So with that said, Madam President, I do call a point of order. And I would object to this bill based upon the fact that I do not believe this to be an emergency.

Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, Connecticut General Statutes, Sections 2-26 in our rules and case law, making clear that both Sections 2-26 in our joint rules have been satisfied, and thus this emergency certified bill is properly before the Senate. Section 2-26 allows for emergency certification when the President Pro Tempore of the Representatives have certified in writing the facts, which, in their opinion, necessitate an immediate vote on such bill. Similarly, under Joint Rule 9, emergency certification requires that the bill be certified by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House to be of an emergency nature. Additionally, it is worth noting that the mason's manual does not address bills raised by emergency certification. Neither the rules nor the statute set forth specific criteria for determining what facts are sufficient to establish an emergency. Our senate mg/rr 22 precedents therefore support an interpretation of these rules and statute as not requiring any specific facts to be stated to justify the existence of an emergency, but merely requiring that the president and speaker state that, in their opinion, the bill necessitates an immediate vote of the general assembly, i.e. "is an emergency nature." Of particular importance is Lieutenant Governor Gourk's ruling in Senate Precedent 12-1.2 on a point of order raised regarding an emergency certified bill that made various amendments to the state income tax bill, with the senator asserting that the bill was not properly before the Senate because it was not an emergency. "The rules require that the two leaders certify that, in their opinion, the bill is an emergency," which had occurred, and thus, "the bill had met the requirements of Joint Rule 9 and was properly before the Senate." Additionally, Lieutenant Governor Gourk emphasized the fact that this was a "flexible standard," where the opinion of the leaders is determinative. Similarly, in precedent Senate Precedent 12-1.1, a senator raised a point of order that the emergency certification, which was used to raise a bill to appropriate money to aid towns in removing snow, was improper because the bill did not necessitate an immediate vote and therefore failed to meet the statutory test for emergency certification. Lieutenant Governor Feliso ruled at the point not well taken, "the bill was accompanied by a written certification that additional funds are required to assist the towns of the state in meeting the increased cost of snow removal. The emergency certification complied with both the statutes and the joint rules." These senate precedents are further supported by limited case law on the issue, in particular, in National Shooting Sports Foundation versus Malloy, 986. The court made a point to acknowledge that the mg/rr 23 parties conceded that 2-26 contains no criteria for determining what facts are sufficient to necessitate an immediate vote. Supporting an interpretation of Section 2-26, they do not require any specific facts to be stated to justify the existence of an emergency. Thus, in this instance, the fact that the President and Speaker certified that emergency exists in their opinion satisfies the requirements of Joint Rule 9 and Connecticut General Statute Sections 2-26. Thank you, Madam President.

So, Madam President, is there going to be a ruling for Madam President?

Yes. Madam President, then thank you if I may have the floor.

I appreciate Senator Duff's answer, but I understand the standard is flexible, but there's a difference between flexible and illogical. And frankly, the fact that we're not addressing affordability, yet we're addressing a bunch of issues that none of them mg/rr 24 happen to be emergent in my opinion, is illogical. And therefore, I would, once again, ask the chair, Madam President, to find that this is not appropriately before the Senate chamber. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I do object to the ruling of the chair.

And ask for a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. We just want to make sure that people that the ruling of the chair is being appealed. So if you want to override the chair's ruling, you would vote green. If you want to sustain the ruling, you would vote red. Thank you, Madam President. mg/rr 25

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate regarding the appeal of the ruling of the chair. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate regarding the appeal of the ruling of the chair. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

On the appeal, the ruling of the chair: Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I believe we're now going to move to senators explaining their sections of the bill, and I would yield to Senator Osten. mg/rr 26

Yes, Madam President. I accept the yield. And my section of this budget is in a number of different sections. I'm going to start with Section 2. So Section 1 clarifies the intent that $70,000 in fiscal '26 previously appropriated through the judicial branch OE line item must be granted to the Village Initiative Program. The Village Initiative Project is a program that is in Bridgeport. Section 2 clarifies the intent that 2.5 million in FY '26 previously appropriated through OPM's OE line must be granted to Hartford for outdoor recreation activities. Section 3 as authorizing language for previously appropriated funds for neuromodulation therapy for veterans. This is housed in UConn Health in Farmington. Section 4 clarifies the intent of 2.5 million in FY '26 and '27. Previously appropriated through DSS's community services line must be used for school- based mental health funding in certain districts of Newington, Wethersfield, Cromwell, Rocky Hill, and Middletown. Section 5 clarifies an issue with previously authorized Windham High School language, allowing for reimbursement for a project that has already begun. Section 6 appropriates $330,000 in FY '26 through DECD's OE line to our piece of the pie. Our piece of the pie is a youth service organization in Hartford serving the greater Hartford region. Section 7 allows 750,000 in FY '26 from SDE's OE line to be granted to CREC for their existing teacher residency program. Everything in the CREC region, most, if not all, are in Hartford County. mg/rr 27 Section 8 appropriates 200,000 in FY '26 from DECD's OE line item to FreeAgent Now. It's a technology company that offers an educational interactive marketing platform for student athletes based in East Hartford. Sections 9 through 11 correct drafting errors for Mill Hill Elementary in Fairfield, Roxbury Elementary, and New London High. Hold on. Section 12 references Section 13. Section 13 addresses a unique situation in Cheshire, allowing the town to claim reimbursement grants against the lease purchase agreement. Section 14 increases the reimbursement rate for Region 13 by 15% points. Region 13 is Durham and Middlefield. Section 15 extends the effective date of previously authorized school construction projects in Hartford. Section 17 allows reimbursement to Cheshire under the school construction program for ineligible costs for existing or future projects. Section 18 allows reimbursement for the Middlefield Memorial School construction. And that ends my sections, and I would yield to Senator McCrory.

Yes, Madam President. I accept the yield. Madam President, I will speak to Sections 22 through 23 that speak to our multilanguage learners in the field of education. All these bills, all these pieces of legislation, were part of our aircraft carrier bill from last year. Section 25 speaks to establish a working group to address anti-citizenry in our public schools via mg/rr 28 developing recommendations and resources, which will be shared as a recommendation to the Ed Committee. Sections 26 and 27 speak to our kindergarten start age. We are phasing out the waiver of policy allowing children under the age of five to start kindergarten. Sections 28 through 30 talk about our racial and malicious standards. It fixes unintended consequences impacting some of our most integrated school districts. Sections 31 through 43 speak to budgeting and transparency. Sections 31 and 32 enhance budgeting and planning requirements by the board of education to improve two-year cost predictions. Section 35 allows our regional boards to move forward from the reserve fund for capital and noncurrent expenses to the reserve fund for educational expenses. Section 38 requires the board of education, who is not a member of the UN, to be certain in our negotiations. And Section 43 requires our state board of education to allocate funds to CERC as specified in the SDE budget. Sections 40 through 42 speak to our student and suspensions, expulsions requirements. It tightens up the ability for schools to issue outside suspensions for kids in K through 2. It changes the language from physical harm to serious physical harm. Sections 44 through 47 speak to our crisis response drills. It will improve schools' crisis response plans by requiring the Connecticut Center for School Safety and Crisis Prevention at WestConn to work with DESP to develop protocols for crisis response drills. There are a few other miscellaneous sections in the bill that I have not went over. I'll speak to a few of them. Section 34 requires updates of our MOUs between our school districts and our local law enforcement for the assignment of school resource officers. Section 36 allows the board of education to provide vision mg/rr 29 screening to students in pre-K or grade 2. And Section 37 allows Madison to participate in the Open Choice Program as receiving and sending districts from New Haven meet, will we get in school year '26 and '27? Madam President, I would like to yield to Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Madam President. I do accept the yield. I am going to review Sections 48 and 49. This pertains to the pension offsets. It makes changes to certain workers' compensation benefits that may be used when calculating a retiree's pension benefit in certain municipal pension systems. Generally, it prohibits the pension system from decreasing a retiree's pension benefit because the retiree receives a workers' comp benefit for permanent partial disability. Additionally, it requires the system to count an employee's work compensation, temporary total disability, and temporary partial disability benefits as wages when calculating the pension. Finally, it also requires the comptroller to study the considerations needed for a municipality that does not currently have a defined benefit pension plan to transition successfully to either CMERS, the Connecticut Municipal Employees Retirement System, or to another defined pension benefit plan that provides benefits comparable to CMERS. The next section that I'm going to discuss is Sections 50 through 57, and this is the warehouse workers bill. And this prohibits the use of quotas imposed by large warehouse employers from mg/rr 30 interfering with meal breaks, bathroom breaks, that are not achievable within the employee's actual time at work, or related to the performance of other employees. It requires large warehouse employers to give employees a written description of each quota that they are subject to and any adverse employment actions that could result from failing to meet quotas. It gives employees the right to the quota records held by the employer, and it allows employees to seek damages in court, should the statute be violated. And the AG could also seek damages in court for a group of employees. It allows the court to issue fines from $1,000 to $3,000, depending on prior violations. And I will yield now to Senator Winfield.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the sections of the bill that I'm dealing with are 58 and 59. We have a unique situation here where our chief court administrator, Justice Joan Alexander, would be stepping down in order to fully assume that role. The way that the law is set up, that is not really something we've contemplated. And so the sections that I am dealing with would allow her to step down, but finish out the portion of her role as a superior court judge for the remainder of her eight years. It seems to me to be a very important and timely situation, and something that we definitely should do immediately. And with that, Madam President, I would yield to Senator Gaston.

Yes, Madam President. I accept the yield. Thank you so much. Good to see you up there. I'll be bringing out Section 60 for the public safety bill. It deals with law enforcement training and essentially requires POSTC by March 1st, 2027, to provide police training regarding interactions with police with persons with mental and physical disabilities, including identification of these disabilities, and de-escalation techniques, after consulting with people, with autism, cognitive impairment, and nonverbal learning disorders, as well as consulting with a higher education institution, health care professionals, and advocacy organizations to ensure the efficacy of this bill. So it's very comprehensive, and I think it's a good step in the right direction for both law enforcement and the community. Thank you, Madam President. Now yield, Madam President, to Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am speaking on Section 61, which adds two members to the State Properties Review Board, one appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and one appointed jointly by the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate. That is my piece. If we can just stand at these for a moment while the next person comes in.

mg/rr 32 Thank you, ma'am. I'd like to yield to Senator Kushner.

Thank you, Madam President. I accept the yield. As pertains to Section 62, in 2025, the legislature imposed a five-cent monthly fee on cell phone bills to fund the relief fund for the cancer relief fund for firefighters. These are moves up the start date for when the fee will be assessed from January 1, 2027, to July 1, 2026. With notice of the fee amount and frequency to the subscriber now required by May 1st, 2026, instead of November 1st, 2026. And I now yield to Senator Marx.

I do, Madam President. This section, Section 63, removes the statutory language allowing developers of apartment buildings with sprinklers to use a single stairway in the state building code and fire safety code. Therefore, the regulations being submitted by the Department of Administrative Services may submit regulations without this provision. I yield to Senator Osten.

Madam President, yes. I do. So I will talk a little bit about Item Number 64. And Item 64 is something mg/rr 33 that is very much needed right now to get done. It is increasing Medicaid rates for intermediate care facilities by 2% in fiscal year '26, 3% in fiscal year '27, 3.3% in fiscal '28, with an additional 3.3% effective 01/01/28. This increases state Medicaid cost by approximately 700,000 in fiscal year '26, 1.9 million in fiscal '27, 3.9 million in fiscal '28, and 4.9 million in fiscal '29 when fully annualized. Madam President, I would yield to Senator Anwar.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I do. Madam President, my sections are Section Number 65 and 66. Madam President, this is about the exemption of the certificate of need requirement for a state hospital for a short duration to be enacted before June 30th, 2026. Specifically focused on increasing the beds for mental health-related inpatient beds. With that, I'm going to yield to Senator Lesser.

I do. Madam President, I'm going to speak to Sections 67 and 68, which amend our child support statutes to allow for tolling of a child support while a domestic abuser is incarcerated. And I know that the distinguished Minority Leader did speak to this section and raised, what I think, are some legitimate concerns. Why would we be doing anything to help domestic abusers, people who've been convicted of domestic violence? I had that question too, of DSS last year, when they came to the Human mg/rr 34 Services Committee with this proposal. We asked some hard-hitting questions of them. And the answer is very simple. It's because the Trump administration is forcing us to do this. They sent us a letter that argues very strongly that Connecticut's law, which requires people who've been incarcerated for these offenses to pay child support, is in direct violation of federal law. Specifically, they say that it violates 45 CFR 302.56(c)(3). And in doing so, if we do not change our law, we are in jeopardy of losing our TANF funds, which at present appear to be $239.2 million of federal funding. Now, this threat seemed imminent last year when DSS was presented with it, and so they came to the Human Services Committee. We tried to fix it last year. This was not something we could do. I have real questions about the policy. I think the argument is, the reason the federal law says this, that as a practical matter, there are not a whole lot of child support payments being made by people who are incarcerated, but we had that concern. Why would we be doing this? But it is because of a direct communication from the federal department, and the administration for children and families in the US Department of Health and Human Services has corresponded repeatedly with our Department of Social Services, demanding that this change be made, or else we risk forfeiting federal funds. It seems like an emergency to me, given the scale and the threat that it presents to our state's finances, and it was something that was heard in a public hearing last year. And with that, I think that concludes my remarks on those sections.

Thank you, Madam President. Will the Senate stand at ease?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, just on the final few sections of the bill. This comes from the secretary of the state's office regarding election integrity and ensuring that we are doing everything we can to have fair and free elections and that we're making the justice we need before this November. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in opposition to today's emergency certification legislation. There certainly are two Connecticut's here in our state. There's a Connecticut in the state capitol where the prevailing opinion of what constitutes an emergency is the inability to quickly pass a long wish list of political priorities into law. But there's a Connecticut outside of the state capital that's felt every day by regular citizens, that is much more real and much more prevalent. It's Connecticut where people are having to pay the third-highest tax burden in the country, the third- highest electric rates in the country, confront rising health care costs, and generally see economic opportunity diminish at every turn. That is the real mg/rr 36 emergency in Connecticut. It's an emergency that has been imposed upon the people of this state by the failures of leadership in this state government over many years. It's an emergency that does not require us to suspend normal legislative procedures, to ignore public hearings, to ignore public input, and to push through 95 sections of laws, most of which the public had never had an opportunity to comment on. Today, we will be voting on legislation that is well over a 100 pages and 95 sections of often totally unrelated legislation. Most of which never had the benefit of public hearings or public input. Many of which are being brought to us very, very recently and haven't had any opportunity for public debate. There is a litany of different spending line items that will go to politically connected organizations, some of which might be very worthy organizations that need funding. But many of those spending line items never had the benefit of rigorous examination. And that comes in the context of scandals over misuse of public dollars in this state that have now invited federal investigation as well. The administration has introduced a proposal for more vetting of many of these earmarks in our state budget to make sure that there is not money being spent frivolously or fraudulently. We know we are already wasting so much of our taxpayer dollars in this state, and having procedures and guardrails in order to protect the taxpayer is more necessary than ever. And yet, in this proposed legislation, we have millions and millions of dollars going to at least a dozen organizations outside of the state government that have not received the scrutiny that certainly everybody outside this building understands is now necessary. There are major changes to a variety of educational regulations, health care regulations, voting regulations, and so on. You saw at the start of this mg/rr 37 debate that the bill had to be introduced by half a dozen different senators who have committee cognizance over many different subjects. All of those being put into one big, not so beautiful bill, 95 sections, most of which never had the benefit of the public's input or a public debate. Over the last 30 years, the direction of our Congress in Washington, DC, under both parties' majorities, has gone down a path where there is more and more centralization of decision making and less and less input from individual legislators in committees with expertise on different subject matters. In state governments across the country, there is still, in most places, been a semblance of the bottom up legislative approach. Just as we all watched on Schoolhouse Rock, individual legislator introduces a bill idea. It gets debated. It gets changed. It gets passed through the committee and voted on the full House and Senate floor. The bottom up organic collaborative approach to legislating that was envisioned by founders of this country and founders of this state as well as most other states across the country and still generally lives in state governments and state legislators all across the United States, but has left the building in the US Capitol. Unfortunately, here in Connecticut, the majority of this state legislature is taking its cues from the congress of the United States over the last few decades and jamming dozens upon dozens and millions upon millions of dollars and bills and policies into one vehicle without the benefit of public input and passing it after it had only been released to the public hours before the final vote takes place. Let's not live by Nancy Pelosi's adage that you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. But that is what we are doing here today. And for what? For mg/rr 38 what is the question? Is there an emergency? Is there an emergency that requires us to suspend normal legislative order to pass 95 different sections of law that nobody could name off the top of their head. No one could even summarize as having a specific purpose to the betterment of Connecticut residents writ large, most of which is not time sensitive in any way. Legislation and policy that is good can be time sensitive even if it is not of the most important nature, but much of this is not time sensitive at all. There is one organization after another that the Good Chair of the Appropriations Committee mentioned as receiving dollars. There are major labor regulatory changes related to our municipal governments that will have a substantial cost to property taxpayers, who are already paying one of the highest property tax burdens in the country. There are health care changes in regulation, some of which I actually have been a proponent of to ease certificate of need laws. In other words, there are going to be valid and worthwhile elements to this piece of legislation here today. How could there not be? There's 95 different sections of 15 different omnibus bills being put into one. Nine of which never had a public hearing either this year or last year, most of which are not time sensitive, almost none of which could constitute emergencies by any stretch of the imagination. The true emergency in this state is the affordability emergency being felt by our constituents every single day. Just this morning, I stood with a small business owner who owns an auto mechanic shop in Meriden, who highlighted the sky high increases in his energy bills that is making it difficult for their small family business to make mg/rr 39 ends meet. Addressing those high costs, cutting our electric bills, eliminating the public benefits charge, that is worth an emergency certification. All across this state, I meet seniors, particularly who do not understand how they will be able to retire in this state for the rest of their lives, the state that they love and that they grew up in and made a life in with the skyrocketing property tax burden that they feel. That is more than double what the average American has to pay, which keeps going up and which as a result of this legislation will go up even more, which is, I think, going to be a question eventually for one of my good colleagues, just how much. That would constitute an emergency certification to cap property taxes or alleviate property taxes in some form. Over the last eight years, Connecticut has the fourth lowest rate of economic growth in the country. Connecticut lost 2,200 jobs as a state last year, while the rest of the country saw 800,000 jobs be created. That constitutes an emergency certification to provide economic relief, to generate economic growth, to deliver a large middle- class income and working-class income tax cut that will help increase incomes and wages and jobs in the state of Connecticut, where they are needed as much or more than any other place in this country. I meet and my colleagues meet at every turn people who are hurting in this state, in a way that people are not hurting across the country. With a state economy that has been stagnant for many years, in a state where we have lost thousands of jobs in the last year, while the rest of the country has seen the job roles and the economy grow. I believe that Connecticut should have high standards for itself. I believe that this legislature and state government should have high standards for itself. I believe that the long- standing procedures and rules of deliberation and mg/rr 40 debate and public input work in the United States of America and work in the state of Connecticut and should not be abandoned because it is difficult or challenging at times to find consensus, to pass legislation. Because the checks and balances written into our state constitution, written into the rules of this Senate, and that have been customary for many generations are not always convenient to the immediate passage of what exactly we want. Those principles, those customs should not be readily abandoned for convenience purposes. But that is sometimes what the consequence is of one side having the ability to pass everything they want over a long period of time. An alienation from the needs of regular residents and constituents who are hurting. The prioritization of a political wish list over affordability and opportunity and economic growth for the state of Connecticut, which needs it more than any other place in this country. We as Senate Republicans are not just here to cast stones, as much as they deserve to be cast. We are also here to offer alternatives. To offer a better way and a positive path towards affordability and towards economic opportunity for regular residents of our state. This state can do better. It should expect better. And it should have leadership that addresses the true opportunities which are felt by the residents of our state, which is, the cost of living an economic emergency, the emergency of the unaffordability of Connecticut. And that's what, even if we are not in the majority, we as Senate Republicans will continue to advocate for. And that is why, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO Number 2239. And I would ask the Clerk to kindly call that amendment.

Got it. LCO Number 2239, Senate Amendment "A".

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

Thank you, Madam President. Before I summarize, I would like to ask for a roll call vote on the amendment when, in fact, that vote takes place.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment would address the true emergency being felt by Connecticut residents, which is the emergency of an unaffordable state. Connecticut faces the third highest tax burden of any state in the country and as a consequence over the last eight years we have experienced the fourth worst economy of any state in the country. This amendment would go a long way to making Connecticut more affordable and generating economic opportunity for working-class and middle-class mg/rr 42 families. The first part of the amendment is the largest working class and middle class income tax cut in state history. It would reduce the income tax burden for those making under $50,000 among single filers and those making under $100,000 for joint filers by 40%. It would reduce income taxes by 16% for single filers making under a $100,000 and joint filers making under $200,000. It would eliminate the income tax for single filers making $25,000. Altogether, it would provide roughly $1,600 of income tax relief for an average middle-class family making around a $100,000 per year. Not only that, it would also eliminate occupational licensing fees for professionals so that working class skilled workers, especially on the first rung of life's economic ladder, have an opportunity to succeed in Connecticut, work in Connecticut without a fee being imposed upon them annually by the state government. It would eliminate occupational licensing fees for electricians, HVAC professionals, plumbers, teachers, realtors, speech and language pathologists, among others. This is a policy proposal that I've been pushing with Senate colleagues for the last four years, and this would make reality a more affordable state for working class skilled professionals who are looking for a leg up in Connecticut. It would reduce the payroll tax by 20%. Currently, there is a 500 to $600 million positive balance in the paid leave program. And it's also running a surplus of tens of millions of dollars per year, meaning we are over collecting taxes from residents who have to pay a one half of 1% payroll tax up to a 130 some thousand dollars of income per year. That means that the average family in Connecticut is paying roughly $670 per year. mg/rr 43 In payroll taxes when there is a $500 million balance in that account and there is tens of millions of dollars in surplus being collected in that account. This would provide over $100 of relief to them paid for. And finally, this proposal will include a car tax credit from individuals' income taxes up to $300. This proposal addresses the true emergency felt by Connecticut workers and families and small businesses every day. The inability to make ends meet in a state that has been made far too expensive by the failure of state government and state leadership and state policy. If, and only if, we declare an emergency for legislative purposes in the State of Connecticut, it should be addressing the true emergency being felt by everyday Connecticut residents who are hurting so much. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would in fact go a long way to making Connecticut more affordable. And when the roll call vote does happen, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in strong support of the amendment that is on the board. I want to thank my good colleague, Senator Fazio, for his very illustrative remarks and the detail in which he went into what exactly this package of tax relief offers the residents of Connecticut. I'm tempted to get into the conversation about why we are here today and whether or not the majority's bill that is being offered is truly worthy of being emergency certified, but I will reserve those remarks for a separate conversation. mg/rr 44 Right now, I just want to speak very much in favor of what has been identified as the true emergency facing Connecticut residents, and that is the lack of affordability of living in the State of Connecticut. Everyone within the sound of my voice recognizes that Connecticut is one of the most difficult places to survive financially in our entire country. Maybe only challenged by California, which is an entirely different type of entity. And I have a good friend, Senator Fazio, who likes to say that while Hawaii and Alaska are detached from the Continental US, California is detached from reality. And I always think that's a great comment and so true. But Connecticut is also detached from reality. And it's become more and more detached as the majority party has been reelected year after year, now culminating in decades of one-party rule in the State of Connecticut, whereby policies are advanced that continue to grow the size and scope of government and the cost to the people that live here. Enough is enough. The bill that is before us is a collection of, I don't know, 17 or 20 individual items, not a single which, and I would challenge anyone to prove to me that any of them rise to the level of an emergency, particularly when we are in the middle of the legislative session. In fact, we're at the very beginning where bills are just being raised as concepts, where there are public hearings going on almost every day. I was in three public hearings simultaneously yesterday, including one in labor where the labor items that are in this bill could have been addressed. What really matters right now, what the real emergency facing the people of Connecticut is affordability and their ability to be able to survive in the State of Connecticut. This amendment would create an unbelievably large reduction in the tax burden that Connecticut residents face. I just want to state for a second, you know, that we heard mg/rr 45 over the last couple of years that the Lamont administration passed a $500 million tax cut. And I disagreed with that statement when it happened. I said so on this floor. And the reason why I did is because at a time when you are putting forth a budget that increases spending to the tune of billions of dollars, huge percentages increase in spending, it is very hard for me to understand how you could call that a tax cut. You might be adjusting a rate here or there, but ultimately, if the State of Connecticut is spending more money, that money comes to the state in the form of taxes. So, taxes definitely went up. Also, contained within that supposed $500 million tax cut was a huge portion of that money dedicated to the earned income tax credit. And that money is not a tax cut at all. That is an entitlement payment effectively. It is almost like welfare. It is the state government using taxpayer dollars that they've collected from taxpayers around the state, and they're giving it back to another group of people, in some cases, who have not even paid taxes at all. That is not a tax cut. That is a welfare program on the back of other taxpayers. And to say it's a tax cut is absurd. This plan is a genuine tax cut, and it is a direct result of our ability to provide a tax cut because of the massive over collection of revenue in the form of taxes levied by this majority party. Our tax plan would eliminate the car tax, not by the way that the majority has proposed doing it over the last several years, which would effectively shift the property taxes folks back in their towns pay on cars over to homeowners by simply changing how a town is going to collect the same money. Ours does it in a totally different way. It still allows the town to collect those dollars to run their town budgets, but we would use the state's over collection of taxes to provide a tax credit mg/rr 46 against your income tax for those property taxes paid on your car, effectively eliminating your car tax that you pay to your municipality, a far better plan that is not some mischievous shift in responsibility. It's an actual tax cut. We also intend on reducing the income tax burden for state residents by a billion dollars, a billion dollars. And that's a 40% reduction for single filers making $50,000, and joint filers at around $100,000. Then there's also another reduction for single filers that are making $100,000 or more. So, we are providing tax relief across the board, but focusing it on the people that are being hit the hardest, which is people that are middle income, hardworking folks all across the state who are being asked constantly to take more and more money out of their pockets. There's also, as Senator Fazio mentioned, relief for people that are working in industries that require occupational licenses. Think about it. Why are we making it more difficult for someone to become a HVAC professional or to be a teacher or a realtor or even a speech and language pathologist? Why are we asking these folks to pay a license fee for the privilege of going to work? We should make it easier for people to go to work, to start a small business, or to enter into an industry and make a living at it. And so, we would like to eliminate the occupational license fees for various professions. And then finally, the other last part of this is a reduction in the payroll tax that was imposed on us on a party line vote by the majority a few years ago by the creation of the paid family leave benefit. And, of course, that's a program that probably does provide benefits to some people in need, but it should not be a mandate. It should not have been applied to every person working in the state whether they wanted to or not. mg/rr 47 That is a half a percent of your income that is being taxed and put into this program whether you want it or not, whether you have your own mechanism to take care of yourself in a case where you might need a benefit that is similar to that. This is not necessary. And in fact, as was pointed out by the good Senator, we are collecting so much more in tax revenue than is actually needed that there's a massive surplus in that program also to the point where almost every day when I get in the car, I hear another radio ad trying to advertise to people just how easy it is to get benefits from this program. That's an absurdity. The thing should never have been passed to begin with in my view. People who want to purchase insurance products should be ready and able to do so, but they should not be mandated by the State of Connecticut against the will of the individuals. Not to mention the fact that that program has completely undermined the short-term disability insurance industry. The fact of the matter is the State of Connecticut is flush with money right now. And the reason why it's flush with money is because the majority is taxing you too much. They're collecting too much of your money in too many different ways. They brought us here on the opening day of session, which is normally just a day where it's more pop and circumstance and celebratory than anything else. But no, not this year. They brought us here this year so they could find a way to take hundreds of millions of dollars in another emergency certified bill with no public hearings and no input and no committee debate to find a way to empower the Governor by effectively giving him a blank check to spend hundreds of millions of your tax dollars. What we want to do is we want to go back to using the legislature the way it was intended with public input, with a legislative process that makes sense, with actual mg/rr 48 committee meetings where the members debate the merits of legislation. And what we want to do is we want to find ways to make it easier and better to live in Connecticut. I don't like the idea of even offering an amendment on today's bill because I don't think we should be here doing this. We should not be circumventing the legislative process. But since the majority has brought us here under this grand claim that there's an emergency, let's remember what the real emergency is. The real emergency is whether or not our neighbors can afford to live in our state. I have constituents reaching out to me nearly every day struggling to make decisions about whether they're going to pay for their medication or their electric bill. I'm talking about senior citizens. I'm talking about veterans. Recently, I met with a senior citizen who lives in my district who called me over to his house for an entirely different issue. But in the conversation, I learned that this man is struggling to have his boiler serviced, to pay for his medication. He lost his wife recently. This is a gentleman who's a veteran. He was very proud to say that he's never taken one nickel of government assistance, that he has paid his way his whole life. And now he is faced with maybe losing his home because his property taxes continue to rise every year. His responsibilities continue to rise. This is a guy who bought his house probably four decades ago. The amount he paid for his house is probably only slightly more than his annual tax bill now. That is not right. Something must be done about it. And our amendment is the first step in doing something about it. It's about taking the fact that the State of Connecticut is now holding on to taxpayer's money it doesn't need to because they've collected too much, and finding ways to give it back. On opening day, we offered an Amendment as mg/rr 49 that the Governor was granted in the form of a blank check. We offered an amendment to just give it back to the taxpayers as a rebate. No. Failed on a party line vote. And we're about to take another vote right now, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to vote right now on whether or not we're going to provide more than a billion dollars of actual tax relief to the Connecticut citizens who are struggling because this state is so unaffordable when the state is flushed with money. We're going to take that vote. And it's a very simple vote. If you think affordability is the real emergency in Connecticut that ought to be addressed and that people deserve to have some of their money come back to them, then you vote yes. If you think that the state should be spending money on new projects and expanding government with complete and utter disregard for how people are struggling, well, I guess then you vote no. And I encourage the people watching to pay very close attention to the board at the end of this vote, and you will know who's on your side to make Connecticut more affordable or not. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in support of the amendment. I would associate my remarks with those that have already been made by Senator Fazio and Senator Sampson. I think we have a genuine opportunity right now in this emergency situation that we're in to do something really good and to actually provide some relief to the citizens of our state from all four corners that are telling us they cannot afford Connecticut. mg/rr 50 Our lack of affordability, as much as there have been recent attempts to blame that on Washington DC, we can look way before November of last year, November of '24, excuse me, and see that there was a large affordability problem in Connecticut way before the new resident in the White House took office. So, I urge support of this amendment. I hope that my legislative colleagues will feel the same way. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise in strong support of my good colleague's amendment. Like others have said, you know, this is the real emergency. And I am proud to stand here today and address this as an emergency. As I mentioned before earlier, Madam President, we were addressing issues that I don't think have any direct correlation to emergent issues, even time sensitive issues, frankly, before us. And we are not doing our constituents a service. We're, in fact, doing them a disservice by not addressing the real emergency for them. Every single one of us around this circle, in every single district in the state, has heard from their constituents. They've gotten that terrible phone call talking about how they can't pay their electric bill. They've gotten that terrible phone call talking about how they can't pay their property taxes or their car property tax. They've gotten that terrible phone call talking about how they can't pay their income tax here in this state. How crippling it is to their small mg/rr 51 business. How their middle-class, working-class families just can't make ends meet. And that's the real emergency, because we've all heard about it. And I would argue to many, on most of the issues that we're voting on this "emergency bill", the underlying bill, Madam President, I don't think a lot of my constituents have contacted me on. Some of them maybe, some of the concepts, but I would say I haven't had a constituent contact me about an earmark. I can tell you that much. But I know that I've had a constituent contact me about their electric bill. I know I've had a constituent contact me about their taxes. I know I've had a constituent contact me about making that difficult decision about paying their medical bill or their mortgage because it's just so unaffordable in this state. We've seen every metric, every statistic to point to the fact that this state, something that we control within our state government, is the third highest tax burden, third highest property taxes, third highest electric bills. That's an emergency, Madam President. That's the emergency. So, I ask my colleagues to please adopt this measure. This would provide $1.5 billion in tax relief to the people of this state that desperately, desperately need it right now. Let's just send a message to our constituents back home. We care about them. We're here to help them get through this affordability crisis we have here in the State of Connecticut. Let's adopt this measure and address the real emergency. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President. I would mg/rr 52 urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. But I do welcome my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to the affordability agenda that Senate Democrats are putting forward this session. And I don't blame them for putting forward legislation to help ease the affordability issue here in our state because it is impacting Connecticut and impacting all the other states across this country. When we see prices have gone up for the average family $1,700 over the past year because of these illegal tariffs that have come through from our federal government, that raises those prices very high, whether it's for electricity, whether it's for groceries or health care, all number types of things. So, in that vein, I welcome them and I welcome their support on our agenda and hope that we'll have bipartisan votes when it comes time for that later this session. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the 298. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Amendment "A" of Senate Bill No. 298. This is not the bill, this is Senate Amendment "A". An immediate roll call vote in the

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to make a few comments about the bill before us and the process by which we got to this point in time today. Madam President, yesterday, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, delivered his second State of the Union address. He highlighted real successes in making America more affordable again. The facts are indisputable. The facts are also indisputable about the cost of living increasing in Connecticut way before November of 2024. Under the Biden administration, we saw a 9% inflation. We saw some of the highest cost ever for gasoline. I could go on. As articulated by Senator Fazio, today, our constituents are pleading for relief from the high cost of living, taxes, and more in Connecticut, in a Connecticut where the government is controlled by the majority Democrats. They're pleading with us to make Connecticut more affordable. And here we are today to pass an emergency certified bill that quite honestly does very little to make Connecticut more affordable. mg/rr 54 If we were here simply to talk about making changes to making Connecticut more affordable, I would agree wholeheartedly with the majority leader and the president of the Senate that that would be an emergency. Our session began on February 4th. It continues through May 6th. We are very much so in the regular process of the regular session, yet here we are exercising what's has been clearly explained in statute and in rule No. 9, the ability to pass a bill by E-Cert. And I think if we believe what has been stated by our democratic leaders, we are here in part because last June, Senate Republicans used the time-honored tradition of unlimited debate to stop what we believed was a bad bill. But today, according to the Speaker of the House, we face "consequences" for using unlimited debate. To my colleagues and me, this seems like revenge, like how dare you stop us when we have all the power? And that's a sad position for us to be in today. But here's the facts, Madam President. You were on the dais. I was standing here. Senator McCrory, the good chair of the Education Committee, was in his seat when we got notice in June that the education omnibus was going to be called. It raises some concern, and it did in that moment in time, as to why that bill sat on the Senate calendar marked go for more than four weeks. The Senate Democrats, who control what bills to call in this room, waited until there were only six hours left in the regular session to call the bill. That's a fact. And the question needs to be asked, Madam President, that needs to be asked is why. I won't ask the good chair of the Education Committee to offer an explanation. But it was very clear to me, at least in that moment back in June, on our last day with six hours on the clock left before sine die, that perhaps the Senate Democrats didn't like the education omnibus bill either. mg/rr 55 And as a matter of fact as well, I sat in the good Senator Anwar's seat next to the good Senator McCrory and spent more than an hour as the clock moved towards the midnight deadline attempting to salvage the omnibus bill. Senator McCrory and I agreed to about 12 sections of the bill that we thought our caucuses would be okay with. We could have had it redrafted, and we could have easily passed with little debate. When the compromise was discussed with the House Chair of the Education Committee, the Chair said, I quote, "It's all or nothing." And the rest is history. Parts of this bill that include the education component have been bouncing around this building for more than three years. They have gone through the very appropriate, deliberate, and traditional time-honored process of having been screened, having gone through a public hearing, being accepted by the members of the committee of cognizance. But they didn't fail -- they failed here in this Senate in Senate chamber. They didn't pass because there wasn't support. Today, those same pieces that have been bouncing around for all these years, some of them, get passed with no input from the public or legislators prior to a vote that we will take some time before the day runs out. And bills that were simply reconstituted from the pile of dead bills from prior sessions. And today, by declaring these bills emergencies, we see the most crucial parts of the legislative process deliberately and completely disregarded. The silencing of the voices of our constituents with no opportunity to testify for or against any of these policies and with no opportunity for legislators to be heard. All voices have been silenced. I don't want to hear, oh, it had a public hearing last year. When sine die happens, bills die. They don't just automatically get reconstituted at the convenience of the majority party. That's not the way it works. mg/rr 56 To me, it feels like legislative bullying, and it's an abuse of power and it's wrong. If these topics and ideas are so important that they need to be declared an emergency today, they should have been made a priority and pushed through the full and appropriate process of allowing all legislators to comment, the committees of cognizance to conduct hearings, and to do what is appropriate, and to allow feedback from the people that we represent. Today, the Democrat leaders demonstrated that the process of actually hearing the voices of all legislators and the people they represent simply doesn't matter. We have been silenced. Without it being spoken, the message to my Republican colleagues and the more than 1.2 million people that we represent across Connecticut is that you really don't care what you or your constituents have to say. It's a consequence of us exercising the Connecticut legislative tradition of unlimited debate in this institution. What a sad day for the people of Connecticut, truly. Madam President, in the spirit of affordability and a real reason to be here under an emergency certification, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 2242. Madam Clerk, I ask the -- Madam President, excuse me, I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

LCO No. 2242, Senate Amendment "B".

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is very simple. We're talking about affordability, and I will find it so incredibly discouraging if we cannot find a way to accept a simple amendment like this. This amendment would remove the sales tax that we collect on school supplies. Does not include electronic devices. It very simply reads backpacks, lunch boxes, notebooks, pens and pencils, crayons, erasers and paper purchased for school use. It does not include electronics such as computers or electronic devices. Madam President, we talk about unaffordability. We disagree on how we got to the unaffordability. I don't disagree. I know how we got here. I've been here 12 years. This is something that we can do. By the way, we already have a fiscal note from OFA. The amendment results in an estimated revenue loss of $13 million annually to the state by establishing a sales and use tax exemption on these supplies. $13 million, $13 million. When you look at our budget, it's a drop in the bucket and it saves some of the people that we care so much for and those that are pleading with us, pleading with us to provide us with a little bit of relief. School supplies, paper, pencils, the things that every child needs when they go back to school. And to take that sales tax off of it, $13 million loss in revenue. Madam President, I urge adoption of mg/rr 58 the amendment. And when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by roll call.

Thank you, Madam President. I do want to thank my good colleague, my good neighbor in the 32nd District for proposing this very important amendment. You know, Senator Duff, in his comments, he did allude to the fact that, you know, the Senate Democrats have an affordability plan. This is actually one of their measures that we agree with. You know, in addition to the $1.5 billion tax relief plan that Senate Republicans just filed an amendment on or called an amendment on, and unfortunately, did not foresee a positive vote. We all voted yes, but unfortunately, did not pass. However, you know, as Senator Duff mentioned, you know, they have a number of proposals. They want to address the affordability. We believe, as the Senate Republican caucus, this is a real emergency. The affordability is the real emergency in our state. And we join with them in offering to reduce and eliminate the sales tax on school supplies. It's nice that everyone that was at the press conference on the Senate Democrat side just the other week promoting this provision, we would hope that we would all join together in a bipartisan fashion to address the real emergency, which is affordability, and remove the sales tax on school supplies. I would urge all of my colleagues, whether they were at the press conference or not, to stand behind what they have promoted and vote for this proposal to reduce or eliminate these sales tax on school mg/rr 59 supplies. It's a commonsense measure, as I said, to address the real emergency, and that is affordability. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I thank the Republican leader and Senator Bethel for this amendment. This one doesn't violate the revenue cap. So, it's a good measure that we have here. And so, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this one because of the fact that it is in Senate Bill 1 this year as the Senate Republican leader did say, my good friend. And that I would hope that when we do budget adjustments later this session, that we will receive their yes votes on it and we can make it a bipartisan agreement on sales tax reduction on school supplies. So, Madam President, I welcome them to this idea that we've already announced and look forward to their vote later on in the session. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "B" of Senate Bill 298. Again, this is not the bill. This is Senate Amendment "B" of Senate Bill No. 298. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the mg/rr 60 298. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'm disappointed that --

Oh, my apologies.

Madam President, I'm disappointed the amendment failed. I guess I'll hold out hope that perhaps as we move through the legislative session. Madam mg/rr 61 President, I'd like to yield to Senator Perillo of the 21st District.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it. It has been stated that we are here to deal with an emergency. And I have no problem with that because there are some things that are truly emergent. There are problems in the State of Connecticut that need to be tackled, and that's our job. But when I look at the bill that's before us today, I see a lot that is hardly an emergency. The emergency is affordability. The emergency is that folks who live here right in our communities are finding it difficult to get through the day, the week, the month financially. And I'll tell you what doesn't help them. What doesn't help them is what's in this bill. It doesn't help our neighbors, our constituents to spend millions of more dollars in earmarks on organizations we know nothing about. Again, that's their money, not our money. But we're here, and we have an opportunity. And I hear from all of my constituents, but especially senior citizens, that they're having a hard time, Madam President. That they're finding it difficult to pay their bills every month. And we have an opportunity to do something about that. We have an opportunity to help senior citizens. And with that, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO 2244. I ask that he please call, and I be granted leave to summarize.

LCO No. 2244, Senate Amendment "C".

Madam President, thank you very much. The amendment is very, very simple, but it has tremendous impact on one of our most vulnerable communities, our senior citizens. We have, in the past, eliminated some of the taxes on social security here in Connecticut, but not all. But not all. But we can do that. We can alleviate the burden of taxes on social security for all of our senior citizens here in the state. And Madam President, that is what this Amendment does. It eliminates all taxes on social security for every single senior here in Connecticut. And the beauty, Madam President, is it's not expensive. $54 million in the current year. $54 million in our budget of billions and billions is nothing. We would absorb it. We'd barely know it as a government. But I'll tell you what, we'd barely feel it, but our constituents certainly would. Our constituents certainly would. They would feel that benefit in their everyday life. Madam President, that is what this amendment does. It gives seniors the opportunity to gain a benefit to make Connecticut more affordable for them. Madam President, I would move adoption.

Madam President.

You will have a roll call vote, Senator Perillo. Senator Sampson, take a breath.

Thank you, Senator Sampson. Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Duff.

We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Senator Duff. Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, a roll call vote has been requested. The board is open. Mr. Clerk.

No problem. Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, would you kindly give us the tally on the amendment, sir?

Amendment fails. Will you remark further on the legislation? Senator Sampson. Yes, Senator Sampson, mg/rr 67 you have the floor. And I will ask our Senate colleagues if they would please direct their attention to you, sir. You have the floor.

Senator Sampson, I'm just going to stop you for one moment because we're going to get the amendment off the board. There you -- and we'll let you continue. Sorry about that. Please proceed, sir.

I think that would be Senator Osten, so we may have to stand at ease while we find her to do that. So, we'll stand at ease. Senator Sampson, proceed. And Senator Osten, prepare yourself. We'll get your microphone on. There you go.

Thank you. Senator Osten.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Senator Osten.

Thank you. Senator Sampson. mg/rr 78

Thank you. Senator Osten.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Osten.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Osten. mg/rr 81

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Osten.

We can have Senator Sampson re-ask that.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'd be delighted to repeat the question. I'm now on page 2 of the 121-page document. Under Section 11, which specifies that $330,000 hard-earned dollars taken in the form of taxation from the residents of Connecticut will be used to go to provide a grant to an organization called Our Piece of the Pie. And I'd just be curious what this organization is, what activities are they involved in, who once again asked for this legislation? And finally, how is this money going to be used, through you?

Thank you very much, Madam President. Our Piece of the Pie is a youth service organization. It's actually been in many parts of the state right now. It is mostly in the Hartford area. It's a youth services organization. It works with a lot of at- risk youth to get them through, and sometimes educational shortfalls that they may be having. And they used to be down in Norwich. They don't happen to be down in Norwich anymore, but they used to be in Norwich. And this $330,000 is to extend programming to other youth in the Hartford area serving the Greater mg/rr 83 Hartford region. And so, sort of to talk about the question that's relative to who, when, where did this come from, this is looking at questions that agencies have had for our biennial budget. And those items could have come from the Governor's office, they could have come from the House, they could have come from the Senate. So, I don't know exactly where these individual items came from on any one of these questions, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I think that was very informative. Well, maybe it was very instructive rather than informative. I mean, we know that this organization, Our Piece of the Pie, was no longer in Norwich. That was very helpful. We don't know where they're located now, though, do we? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. They're in the Hartford region. Hartford and the surrounding communities. They serve students in the surrounding communities based in Hartford, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I want to just quickly pause and say I mean no disrespect to the mg/rr 84 recipients of these dollars, by the way. They may do tremendous work. You know, the question is not whether or not these are legitimate items, although that question has come up and I think it's going to come up a whole lot more as we begin to dig into these a little bit more thoroughly. But the issue is not whether they are actually doing good work. It's about whether or not we know what the heck they're doing before we cast a vote, whether we've actually done our homework, whether we've actually represented our constituents. That representation requires that we know, in my view. I don't like to cast votes on legislation I've not seen. If anyone's followed me over the years, I make a big stink when we are given legislation moments before we are requested to vote on it. And this is a similar situation. I got this bill last night. This is the first time I've ever heard of Our Piece of the Pie. And now I may be asked to vote yes or no about giving them $330,000. These might be the most magnificent people in all of America, but I don't know that. We also were informed that the money was requested for this organization by maybe someone in the House or maybe someone in the Senate, maybe someone from the moon. We don't know. You've got no answer. And again, no disrespect to my colleague, but that's not good enough. That is not good enough. Before any money comes from the hardworking people that I represent back home, and that's Republicans and Democrats, that's everybody, they deserve to know how we're spending it. They need to know who asked for it, who approved it, what it's for in some element of detail other than, "Well, it's being used for good, Senator. We promise." Because we've been down this road so many times in recent years, this is almost like a repeat of last February 25th as I started my remarks. In mg/rr 85 fact, if you want to go on YouTube and go watch the debate from February 25th of 2025 about earmarks, you're going to hear me asking a lot of the same questions and complaining that I'm not getting the answers. We've also held several press conferences in this building in front of the media explaining our dissatisfaction with the lack of answers and the concern over the fact that this money could not be using for corrupt purposes. Does that make sense? Could be used for corrupt purposes, could not be? You get the picture. We don't know what it's being used for. And the fact of the matter is we deserve to know. But you see, the majority, frankly, they don't care. They didn't matter that I questioned this last time. It didn't matter that we held several press conferences. It doesn't matter that we're here today making a big argument over it. It doesn't matter. It's only going to matter when the people of Connecticut are tired of it. I don't know when that's going to happen. I don't. I hope it happens today. It should have happened a long time ago in my mind. People need to start caring about what their representatives are doing. And guess what? When that happens, those representatives are going to care about what those people think. Until then, they're going to do things like this because they can. So, with that, Madam President, I'm going to make an effort to improve this situation. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 2258. I ask that the Clerk call this Amendment, and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO No. 2258, Senate Amendment "D".

Thank you very much, Madam President. This amendment is entire -- well, actually, the amendment title is the same as the bill title. I apologize. We refer to this as our earmark improvement amendment inside the corruption. It's designed to improve transparency. It's designed to allow the people of Connecticut to make sure that they have the necessary information about what is happening in their state government. I will just briefly go through some of the requirements that are going to be initiated with this amendment, which is that if there are future earmark requests similar to the ones we've been talking about, the information will have to be submitted by the member of this legislature asking for it to the Appropriations Committee with a written request that includes the amount of funds requested, the necessity for those amounts that are requested, a clear description of the public purpose for which this money is being used. And I'll just make a side note that some of my concern is that I feel that some of this money is being directed to organizations that are not using it for a public purpose. They may, in fact, be using it for political advocacy, which would be a complete and utter misuse of taxpayer money. mg/rr 87 That request should also include the requester, the person who's actually asking for it. It's one of the biggest concerns I have is that the few items that I asked the good chairman about, we did not find out who actually asked for this money. There's an investigation going on right now about a similar earmark that may result in some sort of significant, I don't know what to refer to it as. A finding of fact in a court of law is probably the safest thing I could say at this point. But there's a concern over who's asking for these things to determine whether or not they're actually being directed or misdirected. We don't want that. And there should also be a certification by that person requesting it that they, their family members, or in any business which they are associated have no financial interest in where this money is being directed. There's going to be a requirement that there will be a public hearing associated with each one of these requests. And if a third-party recipients receives the funds, ultimately not the person necessarily listed, then they have to enter into an actual contract that states the provisions, which are identical to everything that we've just discussed. The grant recipients would also have to state whether or not they have any convictions of its officers or board members or anyone else associated with the organization about any financially related crimes. And finally, they would have to submit to random audits of that money to make sure that it's actually being used for the stated purpose. For me, this is the baseline of what ought to be required. This is not some tremendous overreach, digging into people's private business. This is the bare minimum of what the people I represent deserve to have before their tax money is being used and given to someone else in my view. And with that, Madam President, I would mg/rr 88 move adoption of this amendment, and I'd ask for a roll call vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would urge my colleagues to vote no, though I would say that this is an area of particular interest to legislation. And as we've talked about today, this concept, there's a bill already that's moving through the process, through public hearings and will be voted on by this chamber at some point before the legislative session ends. And I would hope that there would be a bipartisan vote on this idea as well because it is something that is important to our caucus, this side of the aisle as well and one that we feel does deserve to go through the process so we can hear from the public, we can hear input, we can make the idea better, and one that we feel is very important as well. So, look forward to having a strong vote when the bill makes its way through the process later on this session. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the mg/rr 89 been ordered in the Senate on Senate Amendment "D". This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "D" of Senate Bill No. 298. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "D" of Senate Bill No. 298. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Let me practice it again. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Total Voting Yea 11 Total Voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 0

Thank you very much for the recognition, Madam President. I'm disappointed, though I have to admit I'm not surprised that we saw yet another 25 to 11 vote, which coincidentally is the makeup of the line decision once again. I appreciate Senator Duff rising to express his desire for continued work on this topic, although I find it a little bit hypocritical, frankly, and a little ironic to be saying that these are good mg/rr 90 ideas, but not right now, when in fact we're voting on emergency certified bill that I would say maybe these are good ideas, but we should have the hearings due. So, I suppose what's good for the majority is not good for anyone else. It goes back to my arguments about because they can. And I just want to close on that note, which is, you know, emergency certification. Any person on the street, and if you just told them without any direct knowledge of the legislature, just their expectation as an American, as an American citizen, knowing that they vote for people, they send them to a legislature to work on their behalf, if you just asked them and said, hey, you know, the legislature is meeting to pass bills under what's called an emergency certification. You know, what do you think their reaction would be if I told them that there's no natural disaster, there's no financial collapse imminent, there's no deadline for compliance with the federal government, there's no impending legal crisis. There's nothing going on. The legislature's in session. They're having other hearings and meetings, like everything's going on. And these are a bunch of random bills which, by the way, we were informed that most of these items were selected because they were items that did not materialize in the last session. In other words, they made it through the legislative process. They were voted on by one chamber or the other. But then they ultimately stalled and were not passed by the other chamber. There's only one reason why that happens, Madam President, and that is because the majority did not prioritize these items. The legislative cycle is a specified amount of time. It starts on a certain day. It ends on a date certain as well. We call it sine die. And we have a back and forth about the legislation that's going to pass every cycle, and it mg/rr 91 involves the majority party determining what their priorities are, and the minority determining what our priorities are as far as what we like and what we don't like. And certainly, we're going to stand in the way of legislation that we don't agree with. And sometimes we're successful in that regard by stopping what we would consider to be bad bills. Think about just how much in defiance of the spirit of the legislative process that recognizes the minority's ability to speak and use time as its only tool for preventing the majority from advancing policy, to come back almost like a slap across the face to say, you know what, you guys were really good last session by stopping some of the bills that we wanted because we couldn't prioritize them well or we wanted to do more than we had time for. To come back and slap it in an emergency certified bill with no hearings and just jam it through. And that's what today is, folks. It's jam it through because we can day. We should have no more jam it through because we can days, Madam President. I certainly hope that people are watching, for once. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Great to see you once again. I have two matters that I've been charged with following up on. The first one has to do with the warehouse portion of the underlying bill. I had spoken earlier outside the chamber with Senator Kushner, and I have a couple of quick questions to be directed at her. So, Mr. Majority Leader, can we just stand at ease. mg/rr 92

Thank you, Madam President. We'll stand at ease for a moment.

Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Thanks, Senator Kissel, for his indulgence, and I yield back to him.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you, Mr. Majority Leader, Senator Duff. This is probably appropriately directed towards Senator Kushner as she brought out the portion of the bill having to do with the warehouses and the individuals located therein. And I was informed earlier today by one of my constituents and colleagues, Senator, I mean, Representative Tami Zawistowski, who represents Suffield with myself and indeed not that long ago, the good Lieutenant Governor. And Representative mg/rr 93 Zawistowski and myself were there for National Milk Day. But Rep. Zawistowski informs me that within our district in Suffield, and actually a portion thereof, not contiguous, obviously, but actually encompassing land and facilities in Senator Osten's district. It is essentially a large greenhouse facility employing folks associated with agriculture. And so, I would direct Senator Kushner to line 1330 of the underlying bill regarding warehouse distribution centers. And my staff has taken time this afternoon to check with the North American list of industry classifications, went through that and could not find anything touching greenhouse, large greenhouses, within the areas that are touched by the underlying bill. And so, I just want to get it on the record that to the extent that she may or may not know, but is it her opinion that these agricultural employees and large-scale facilities that are classified as agricultural for greenhouse or greenhouses, are not covered in this underlying bill, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, a warehouse distribution center or complex as referenced in this bill I think is further aided by certain of these NAICS codes. And I don't believe any of them specify in their coding anything in relationship to agriculture. However, I would say that it would most likely depend on the specifics of that particular operation. It wouldn't be known to me or probably to you whether or not they actually warehouse agricultural mg/rr 94 products. And I think that might be required that someone in an official position, maybe if it ever came to adjudication, that a judge would determine that. But the bill is very clear that it covers warehouse workers, and they are most often found in these codes, although I could imagine there could be other codes that could cover them as well. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and thank you Senator Kushner. That's exactly my reading of the underlying bill and the codes. My staff, I want to thank them. Went through probably about eight different codes. They don't encompass the greenhouse facilities and the agricultural employees. But I agree with Senator Kushner, the enterprise that's being referenced here, which I won't mention specifically, they have staff attorneys, I'm sure, or outside counsel that they can go and do their research and determine whether this encompasses them or not. But based upon the response of Senator Kushner and my crack team of researchers, I would say no. And would be happy for my colleague, Representative Zawistowski in the House, to further examine that issue when this bill is taken up down there. So, that's it. That's the extent of my questions regarding that portion of the underlying bill. And again, thank you, Senator Duff and Senator Kushner. The other area that I wanted to touch upon briefly, because I know we've been debating this for a while, has to do with that portion that was brought out by Senator Lesser. And I don't really have questions for Senator Lesser, but I'm going to posit my view of the underlying bill this way. It's the portion of mg/rr 95 the bill that has to do with incarcerated individuals. And since, I believe, 2006, this legislature said that incarcerated individuals are responsible for child support. Now, at that period of time, there was a carve out of individuals where they could appeal their child support obligations citing their incarceration. But this legislature made a policy decision that inmates that are serving time for assaulting either a minor child or their spouse or their partner, because the concept of husband and wife has moved forward in the last 20 years, that we weren't going to allow those individuals to step away from their child support obligations. And that was a public policy decision. And I want to thank Attorney Dykas for bringing to my attention that when that was decided in 2006, that concept passed unanimously through this legislature, both the House and the Senate, as well as the committees on judiciary, banks, human services, and public safety. Very few bills pass through that many committees, but that one did 20 years ago. And we said, listen, that is just fundamentally unfair. We're not going to tolerate that in the State of Connecticut to do a harm to an individual and then as a result of that, part and parcel being incarceration, that you get to step away from your obligations of child support. It's also my understanding, based upon the research, that now, fast forward to the Obama administration, that they did put in a regulation that stated that the fact that you're incarcerated could, under the federal guidelines, be used to make the argument that I want to have my child support payments modified. And so, the Federal government decided to go down that path under the Obama administration. But Connecticut was still free to go along its own path as it saw fit. And again, thank you to Attorney mg/rr 96 Dykas for bringing to my attention that, and I believe that was 2016, that the very next year, this legislature addressed that entire federal set of regulations and specifically did not address that portion. So, there was a whole slew of changes. We as a state said, yes, Obama Administration, we acknowledge this one, this one, this one, this one. We're going to respond to that in some way, shape, or form. But on this one, we decided no. Again, our public policy was you don't reward people for bad behavior. And let me just take a step back. I've been lucky enough to be either Ranking Senator or for one period of time in 2018, 2019, one of the tri chairs of the Judiciary Committee. Not only in that capacity, but prior to me becoming a State Senator, I had a role as a special public defender for a number of years. And you're probably familiar with the fact that you can get a contract from the State of Connecticut. It may be done differently now than it was 34 years ago, but I did that for a number of years, and I represented people that were charged with various crimes. In fact, during the prison riots of that era, I represented individuals that were already incarcerated doing time for other offenses that ended up rioting, damaging buildings, assaulting other inmates, or assaulting corrections officers. It's hard to go to prison in Connecticut. We have more diversionary programs that you can shake a stick at. And we give many bites at the apple. So, if you find yourself incarcerated, you've clearly done that underlying crime. And so, we firmly believe that attacking a child or one's partner, whether it's one's spouse or live-in partner, and we make no moral judgment. And we went through a lot of debates regarding all of that, and we've gotten to a point where those issues are primarily settled. But we have clearly stated as a legislature, and proudly so, that we are not going to tolerate mg/rr 97 domestic violence. And I have worked with Senator Flexer and others in this circle where we can honestly say across party lines, we are one of the foremost states in the nation to combat domestic violence. And we, just a few years ago, said we're not going to go with a dual arrest where upon a domestic dispute, that everybody gets arrested. We weren't doing that anymore either. And so, I take great pride in our bipartisan, nonpartisan efforts over the years to address domestic violence and say we have a zero tolerance for individuals that assault children and harm them and are found guilty and sentenced to prison for doing that. And we, as a legislature, said, you can't dodge your obligations for child support by stating, "I'm in prison, I can't pay." And by the way, even though you may be in prison, that doesn't mean you don't have access to funds. You may have a commissary account. You may have a job within the corrections department. And indeed, whether you can pay it fully or not while you're incarcerated, that obligation can remain outstanding after you are released so that you have to pay it back. So, this isn't something where you say, "Oh, I'm broke right now. I can't pay." Someone who's not incarceration can't do that to dodge their financial obligations for child support. And again, this isn't something that we feel is like a low rung on the ladder. This is something that you as an adult, a responsible human being, whether incarcerated or not, you helped give life to this other individual, this child, and we have judged it's a huge important policy that you pay support. And if you don't have the money now, it will accumulate to when you indeed do have money. For a couple of reasons, not only do we feel that that's fundamentally fair and morally appropriate, but if we allowed an individual to dodge their responsibilities by merely being in prison, then mg/rr 98 that child or the guardian or parent of that child would have that burden thrust upon them. And if they don't have the wherewithal, then it's thrust upon us as taxpayers. That is the last place it belongs. It belongs with the individual that is morally and legally obligated to support the child. Not only that, but I would also state that I've had the great honor of working on these issues, as I said, with folks like Senator Flexer, but others in this circle. And even most recently, we worked on the creation, very similar to the Juvenile Justice Policy and Oversight Committee, to create the Domestic Violence Criminal Justice Response and Enhancement Advisory Council. And that is quite a mouthful, but that was an agglomeration of various working groups and long-standing committees and councils into one place. And it is now co-chaired by our friend and colleague, Senator Flexer, along with Meghan Scanlon, who happens to be the wife of our comptroller, Sean Scanlon. But also Meghan Scanlon is the head of the Connecticut Council Against Domestic Violence, CCADV, a champion committee, a group of individuals that are committed to reducing if not maybe someday eliminating domestic violence. They ever had a chance to weigh in on this provision that says, oh, we got a letter from the Trump administration, they're threatening to withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars from Connecticut, unless you go along with this underlying regulation. First of all, I'm quite surprised that anybody in the Trump administration would be threatening any state to do what that regulation that was promulgated under the Obama administration said to do. In a colloquy earlier with my friend and colleague, Senator Lesser, who very passionately and very straightforwardly said he was concerned about the funds from the federal government, and that is why mg/rr 99 this provision is being put forward in this large bill. But he had said that we had received a similar threat previously by the Biden administration. So this has been kicking around for a long time. Now it's the Trump administration, and I haven't seen the letter that was talked about. At some point, maybe I'd love to get my hands on it, because assuming this bill goes forward today, I don't think this issue is going to be over. Because I think when my constituents and folks that are against domestic violence, and folks like the CCADV, and individuals on the council, and prosecutors and others, I think they're not going to be so happy about this initiative. But let's take it for what it is before us this afternoon. If indeed the Administration, or whoever is acting on behalf of the Administration, says this is a priority, the reason it was proffered by Senator Lesser, and he may want to clarify it, but what I understood is that we are afraid that the administration will withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars. And so that's why, at the last minute, the last week or so I became aware of it, that this provision was put in this legislation. And that, if you just looked at it on its plain face, the four corners of these provisions, it was distasteful, to put it mildly. Whereas my caucus leader, Senator Harding, put absolutely appalling that we are essentially rewarding incarcerated individuals for their bad behavior against their spouses, their partners, and children. In this day and age, this is amazing. Now, even if all of those predicate facts are accurate, and even if we really have to be concerned about the Trump administration pulling hundreds of millions of dollars from Connecticut because of this one lying regulation, which I can't in my worst nightmare dream would ever take place. We went through a whole mg/rr 100 debate not that long ago creating what we call a slush fund, but it's a fund that says, well, we feel as a state, the federal government is doing something we do not agree with. We want the financial wherewithal to fund those programs as we see fit. I voted against that in its last permutation in particular because I felt that it gave the governor too much leeway and didn't have enough guidelines on it. And especially because it went way beyond this session, it went way beyond even the election, it went all the way to 2027. But myself and some of my colleagues lost that debate, lost that vote. So we have this giant fund out there that, to my knowledge, still has an excess of $200 million. If we really think that the federal government is going to go and take all that money away from us for this one regulation, we have enough financial money to back it up. Maybe not 100%, but substantial amount. So I am saying this afternoon and imploring folks that this is a bad portion of this underlying bill, that it is highly unlikely that this letter, the second letter from a second administration saying, hey, follow this regulation, although there's no law that says we have to follow the regulation, but that we have a financial backstop to protect us. And to the majority that is not hesitant in standing up either in this circle or outside this Chamber and saying, we disagree with policy A of this federal government, policy B of this federal government, policy C of this federal government, and we are not afraid to fight them on these grounds. And even if they threat us financially, whether it has to do with undocumented aliens, illegal immigrants, or some other hot button issue that is felt passionately by all of us in this Chamber, whatever it is, we're not afraid to stand up to the federal government and say no. Heck, it wasn't that long ago, probably close to 20 years ago, I and mg/rr 101 several others, but I took great pains and efforts to help champion medical marijuana in our state. Why? Because it came through the Judiciary Committee, we had to change criminal laws, and I saw dozens of moms and dads with their children that were suffering 10, 20 times a day, epileptic seizures. And marijuana was one of the only items that changed that. And I had to learn after going to hearing, after hearing, after hearing. No, they're not giving marijuana cigarettes joints to children. No, it was a liquefied form that was stridently made by pharmacists, and it was given to these children that came to the hearings. And it stopped those people from seeing their children suffering from seizures multiple times a day. And when you meet those people and you look them in the eye, I wondered when I went home, how do they even live for a week in that situation? And my kids were little then, and I hugged them, and I thanked my lucky stars that they didn't have to deal with those problems. And I saw hearing after hearing, individuals that were benefiting from marijuana, and it was still a level 1 drug classified just like, I don't know, heroin. And you know what? We champion that medical marijuana law, and we passed it in this state, and you know what? The federal government didn't bend over and accommodate us. And I still had colleagues on both sides of the aisle say, hey, John, how can you champion that? It's in the face of the federal government, and they have the right to control it. And you know what? I felt so passionately about it, and my colleagues did too, that we said, you know what? We're just going to do it anyhow. And if the Feds want to come in here and start taking our money back or threatening us, well, we feel so important about this policy, especially because this policy is going to help the kids. mg/rr 102 And if you're on the other side of some of these other federal issues, how often do you champion it because not only are families affected, but children? Well, I would suggest that this provision has that kind of impact as well. And so I don't minimize the threat of the federal government financially. How likely it is, I think it's highly unlikely. But that being the case, I think that we're a strong New England state that's not afraid to stand up for what we believe in. We felt that way over 100 years ago when abolitionists here in New England, here in Connecticut, here in Hartford, were champions in changing things that were happening nationally. Whether I agree with you or disagree with you on national events, national policies, one thing I will always agree with you, I don't want any of us to be afraid if we believe that a moral decision would lead us to one event or another. That's why our constituents elect us to stand up and be heard. So, Madam President, given that, I would ask the clerk to please call LCO 2293, waive the reading, ask leave to speak on it, and I would ask for a roll call. I'd ask its adoption.

LCO number 2293, Senate Amendment "E".

Thank you very much, Madam President. mg/rr 103

Thank you very much, Madam President. So, I just feel very passionately about this. If we're going to go down this road because we're concerned about the Federal government, and by the way, if we got this letter over a year ago and nothing has happened, I would suggest nothing's going to happen going forward. But here's a chance, let's just strip this out of this bill. We can continue to address this issue in the Human Services Committee or wherever else in the building that we want to address it. We still have over two months to go in this short session. And I think it's the right thing to do based upon my view of this issue. And we have so much to be proud of regarding domestic violence and our fight against it. And we have so much to be proud of regarding how we feel that children, vulnerable children need our support. And we should not be about feeling intimidated or pressured or browbeaten or threatened into allowing incarcerated individuals to dodge their lawful responsibility to pay child support because they are convicted, not just of anything. By the way, the exception isn't if you're in prison, just being in prison. It's just this narrow area is if you're in prison for assaulting your spouse, your partner, or the child. That's it. That's the very narrow universe. I think that poisons this entire bill into a way where I can't even fathom supporting it. And so, for those reasons, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And again, Madam President, I would ask mg/rr 104 that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. And I appreciate the words of my good friend, the honorable ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I agree with him, that this is not a policy that we set out to do. It does permit downward modifications for people who have been convicted of very serious disturbing crimes of family violence. And those are not folks who deserve anything but condemnation. There's a practical question, which is, it doesn't appear that people who are incarcerated tend to be paying a whole lot of child support. But nevertheless, this is not something that I would have proposed. This is something that has come to us and we are responding to. My colleague did mention some of the legislative history that we did receive a letter from the Biden administration two years ago, advising us that Connecticut's law on this that, the gentleman mentioned passed in 2006. I wasn't serving in 2006. But the letter that we received from the Biden administration advised us that we were in violation of federal law. We reviewed that letter. We decided to do what the gentleman proposed, which is to take it under consideration, but we did not take further action. What happened then was there was a change in administrations in Washington, and the Trump administration decided to raise the stakes. And we discussed earlier, as the gentleman mentioned, they raised the stakes by specifically writing a four-page letter that describes in crystal mg/rr 105 clear English, all of the ways that this statute that we have that says, if you're incarcerated for family violence, you got to pay child support, why that is in violation of federal law. And specifically, they lay out what the federal government is going to do to us if we don't bring ourselves into compliance. As I mentioned earlier, they specifically say we will lose our TANF funds. That is, they mentioned the 2022 federal fiscal year block grant of $265,970,706. We've already discussed that. I think I used a different number earlier, but it was in the same ballpark. It's our TANF dollars that they have explicitly said this federal government will cut off to the state of Connecticut, which is a concern. We will lose that funding. But there's a separate issue, and this is where I have a question for the gentleman, because there's another threat that was in there as well that I neglected to mention earlier, which is the federal government's role in child support is very simple, which is, if you cross state lines in this country, the federal government assists states in ensuring that a family, a child gets the child support that they've been ordered, even if the parent is in another state. That is a vital role that the federal government plays to support families and to support children in Connecticut. Now, the federal government has said in this letter, they have threatened us very clearly. They have said that Connecticut was awarded federal performance incentive payments totaling, I believe the math is over $63 million. These are for families and children in Connecticut who receive child support. We will be cut off from that program. And so, my real concern with this amendment is if this amendment were to pass, children all around the state would lose or could lose their child support payments. What, through you to the gentleman, or the mg/rr 106 proponent of the amendment, is the mechanism to ensure that those children would be able to get their child support payments?

Thank you very much, Madam President. My response to my friend and colleague, Senator Lesser is this, the underlying regulation promulgated by the federal government was changed in 2016. It's been on the federal books for 10 years. We haven't had one penny taken away from us. We haven't had the lack of support of the Federal Government ever when it comes to enforcement of responses across state lines. I understand that my majority colleagues don't like the Trump Administration, and don't much like President Trump. Maybe some more, maybe some less. But I'm not going to run with my tail behind my legs wondering what if, what if, what if. All I know is what I've seen under Republican and Democrat administrations. And that is a regulation that the federal government changed 10 years ago, we stood our ground, and we haven't lost anything. And our children are being taken care of now. My question would be right back at Senator Lesser. If we get down this path, when does it end? I don't want to turn my back on our children now. What happens down the road, I think we can address that. But at this point in time, I'm playing my flag on this hill, and that's my response to the question. Thank you, Madam President.

And I appreciate the response. I certainly don't jump when the Trump administration asks me to. The issue here isn't what we're willing to gamble. Right? They make threats, we look at those threats, and we judge our response based on the credibility, based on our own moral compass, etc. But the threat isn't limited to the state's balance sheet. Certainly, we are threatening the state, but they're also threatening families in Connecticut who rely on federal child support payments. And that's where I really draw the line because I cannot, in good conscience, vote to take an action that could jeopardize child support payments to families in my district, to families across the state. There's no real other mechanism to make them whole. They don't get the funding from the state. They get funding that this federal government collects on their behalf from people who are behind on their child support all around the country. And I don't want to make it possible for someone who has a child in Connecticut to abscond across state lines and avoid their responsibility. The gentleman mentioned CCADV. There are certainly a lot of good organizations in this space. CCADV is the leading organization in this space, the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, we did speak to them. We vetted this proposal very, very carefully because we had the same concerns. The last thing we want to do is to support someone who's committed a heinous crime. And they said, look, they had no objection to it. They understood where this was coming from, because that was our concern. And then I also want to mention as well what this specifically does, which is, it doesn't do anything automatically. It simply removes a prohibition on a judge from ordering a downward modification. I believe the authority is mg/rr 108 still in the hands of our judiciary here in Connecticut, and I think that makes it important. But for the life of me, I cannot see this as a responsible amendment because of the potential impact on families in Connecticut who are relying on federal collection of child support payments. If we were to vote for this amendment, if we were to adopt it, it puts all of those families in serious peril. Although I have real concerns about the underlying policy, that to me seems like the far greater danger than simply doing what the federal government is telling us to do, thanks to the policy of this administration.

Thank you, Madam President. I think this dialogue between both of the good senators is exactly what is wrong with the legislative process today. Because what this amendment is doing is saying, please take this out of this emergency certification. That's all this amendment does. It doesn't say we can't revisit it during legislative session. It doesn't say that. So, we very well could go into session later on through the regular legislative process after this portion receives a public hearing, after this portion receives a vote favorably out of a committee, and then ultimately back here in session after all that's been done, and then make a decision with all the answers regarding TANF and other critical programs. So, all the things that Senator Lesser mentioned, we could do. But what Senator Kissel's amendment does is instead of rushing into an emergency session to protect child abusers and domestic violent criminals, instead of rushing in to protect them mg/rr 109 from child support obligations they should be paying, Senator Kissel's motion is, let's put the brakes on this and actually allow this to go through the legislative process and have a real public discussion about the potential implications, and ultimately figure that out. That's it. That's it. He's basically saying, let's revisit this another day. So, by voting against the amendment, you're saying that it's so emergent that we need to protect these child abusers and these domestic violence criminals, that we need to pass this right this very second without public hearings and discussion. That's what you're saying. What Senator Kissel is saying is let's not rush to help these individuals that frankly, I don't believe deserve help on paying their child support obligation. I don't. Allow this to go through the regular legislative process where we can weigh the consequences in a public hearing process in front of our constituents with our constituents' input from advocacy organizations, allow a committee vote after we hear from all of those individuals, weigh those consequences, figure out how we're going to address this issue, and then vote on it after we know all the facts. Not rushing into it to protect people that frankly I don't believe deserve any help on paying obligation they should be paying. Vote for this amendment. It only makes sense. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "E" mg/rr 110 of Senate Bill number 298. We're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "E" of Senate Bill number 298. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Amendment "E" on Senate Bill number 298. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Amendment "E" of Senate Bill 298.

Total Number of Voting 36 Total Voting Yay 11 Total Voting Nay 25 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. In furtherance of the desire to make this -- I yield to Senator Kissel.

It's a weird thing. mg/rr 111

Thank you, Madam President. In furtherance of the desire to make this emergency legislation address time-sensitive policy issues that have a large impact to our residents, I would like to call an amendment. And Madam President, the clerk is in possession of LCO number 2297, and I would ask the clerk to please kindly call that amendment.

Let's get it on the board, and when that happens, then we will ask Senator Kissel to speak. Thank you. There we are. Senator Kissel.

Thank you, Senator Kissel. Senator Fazio. mg/rr 112

Please do summarize, sir.

Thank you, Senator Fazio. Will you remark further? Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Fazio, prepare yourself. Go ahead, Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Fazio.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Fazio.

Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Fazio.

Thank you, Senator Hwang.

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

Thank you, Senator Somers. Senator Fazio, to be followed by Senator Duff.

We will have a roll call vote, sir. Senator Duff.

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

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

Thank you. Amendment fails. Will you remark further on the legislation before us? Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Kissel, section 47 of the bill, you have a question.

Oh, excuse me. Senator Cicarella. Sorry.

Thank you, Senator Duff. mg/rr 130

Yes, we will stand at ease while we get the appropriate person for you. Senator Cicarella, please proceed with your question, sir.

Thank you, Senator Cicarella. Senator McCrory.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Anwar. I guess you're having a problem with your microphone.

Another thing to go in an e-serve bill. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Anwar. mg/rr 133

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Slap.

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

Thank you, Senator Somers. Will you remark further? Senator Looney. Good evening.

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

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

The legislation passes (gavel) (applause). And please do remain because we have other legislation, including a Consent Calendar. So, do not stray far. Mr. Clerk.

Good evening, Senator Lopes. mg/rr 145

Well, let's get on the board, and then please do.

Thank you, Senator Lopes. Senator Harding. mg/rr 146

LCO number 2284, Senate Amendment "A".

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

Thank you, Madam President. So, this amendment does exactly what I said it would do. It would simply return the $0.10 deposit number that our consumers are currently paying $0.10 on. And not for nothing. We talked about affordability all day today on our side of the aisle, in our caucus, about addressing the real emergency, which is affordability. And it doesn't sound like much, but every cent counts. We all talk about that. We all hear that from our constituents, understandably so in these difficult times, particularly here in this very unaffordable state. And for many individuals, it's difficult to find the time to return these bottles and cans, and so we're now forcing them to pay $0.10, as opposed to $0.05. So, let's reduce that cost, reduce the cost for many of our consumers to have to pay here in the state, and stop the fraud from occurring in our state immediately, and finding a more holistic solution to this issue. I think it's a common sense measure to return it back to what it was and take a broader, more holistic look at addressing this issue, which should have been done, frankly, in the first place. So, with that said, Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment. And when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by roll.

Thank you, Madam President. I will remark quickly. I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment solves the problem and would keep nefarious actors from other states from taking advantage of Connecticut residents and small businesses who have mg/rr 149 to pay the price. I'll use an example. Say you have two characters from New York. Call them Newman and Kramer. In order to make a profit from delivering bottles and cans to another state, they would have to fill an entire mail truck, drive it all the way to the Midwest in Michigan in order to just barely make a profit with gas and time and everything considered. Under the current law, all they have to do is go from Port Chester to Greenwich with even a small truck full of cans, and they make an enormous profit. The only way to solve that problem is to go back to $0.05. This amendment does it. Let's keep bad New Yorkers like Newman and Kramer out of Connecticut, and pass this amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. I have seen some of the video of the people bringing the cans back, and none of them look like Newman or Kramer. And none of them are driving a mail truck. But the Minority Leader's amendment has some merits. They have been discussed during this process, and I should let it be known that we have an additional bill on this topic that is sitting in the Environment Committee, and that will be brought through the entire session. And there are quite a few ideas, this being one of them, that could be included in that bill, as we proceed through the rest of session. But for now, I think, we haven't thought through the entire gamut of returning us to $0.05 and the problems that may incur. So I would respectfully ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. mg/rr 150

Thank you, Madam President. Good evening, Madam President. Just quickly, I'm rising in opposition to the amendment, but not because I disagree with it, because I believe there ought to be more discussion how to more fruitfully arrive at this same location. I think the arguments for why we went down this road, or should not have gone down this road without greater involvement of our neighboring states is a very strong point that, as has been mentioned, that we are paying for other states to bring their bottles to our state, and not getting the benefit of it at all is wrong, and we need to address it. And I applaud Senator Lopes and those involved in getting us to where we are today. I think as he indicated in his remarks, this is not the panacea, but it's a step in trying to address the issue most immediately; hence, it's why it's here today. But I think the work needs to continue beyond this today to bring something before us before the session ends. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A" mg/rr 151 of Senate Bill number 299. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Senate Amendment "A".

We had have to laugh at that one. Total Number of Voting 36 Total Voting Yay 11 Total Voting Nay 25 Absent and Not Voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I will be voting in favor of this bill. I do wish that the amendment that I did propose passed. I think that is a better fix, and a more permanent fix, and a real solution to the problem while we look more holistically at this. But I will say that there are some measures in this, as the proponent had mentioned, that does address some of the fraud that's occurring. And for that reason, I will be voting yes. But I think we need to be reminded of the fact that this is certainly not a fix. This is just some small steps, I think, in the right direction. And I think the underlying problem is the way in which we move with the bottle bill itself, however, many years ago when we changed from $0.05 to $0.10, as I mentioned. But with that said, Madam President, I will be mg/rr 152 voting yes for the underlying bill as it does take some small steps to address the fraud. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill number 299, AN ACT CONCERNING REDEMPTION OF OUT-OF-STATE BEVERAGE CONTAINERS. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Senate Bill number 299. We are now voting on the bill.

Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number of Voting 36 Total Voting Yay 35 Total Voting Nay 1 mg/rr 153 Absent and Not Voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Yes, Madam President, if we can now, the clerk can read the bills on Consent Calendar or resolutions, and then followed by a vote, please.

Consent Calendar No. 1. Page 1, calendar 5, Senate Joint Resolution No. 11. Page 3, calendar 13, Senate Joint Resolution No. 19. Page 8, calendar 29, Senate Resolution 3. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on Consent Calendar No. 1. We're now voting on the Consent Calendar. This is Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Consent Calendar No. 1. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate, Consent Calendar No. 1.

Have all the senators voted? Have all the senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, please call the vote.

(Gavel) Consent Calendar passes with one dissent. Senator.

So ordered, off they go.

We are adjourned. Go forth and govern. (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 6:46 p.m. adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)