CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-28

Will the Senate please come to order members and guests? If you would please direct your attention to our chaplain, Reverend Tamara Mooreland. She is of the First Congregational Church in beautiful Norwalk, and she will lead us in prayer. Reverend Mooreland.

Thank you so much. Very nice to see you.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, gm/rr 3 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, good afternoon, and happy Norwalk Day. And I will say for my colleague from the 24th, happy Danbury day as well, because we have the sixth and seventh largest cities here at the state capital, which is exciting. And for Norwalk day, we did have Copps Island oysters along with a number of other of our business folks and nonprofits. And we had the mayor here, and it was really, really a fun day so far. We did run out of oysters, even though they brought 200 more. It's very popular here at the state capitol, having our Blue Point oysters or Eastern Point oysters, as they sometimes call that, are the best in the nation. And people literally from all over the country do get them. Madam President, I do have a few introductions. I want to first of all thank Reverend Mooreland from the First Congregational Church on The Green for her wonderful prayer, and thanks for coming up to bless us this afternoon, especially on our last few days of our legislative session. We really very much appreciate it and her work in the city of Norwalk. I will just say she does have some connections to the town of Bloomfield, but she is becoming quickly Norwalk's own as well. We do also have Sandra Stokes here. Thank you. And we'd like to introduce her and some other introductions, Madam President. We have sweet Melody Reagan here again, and she's becoming a regular. We're going to get a chair for her right at the end of the circle here. Tracy Craighead as well. gm/rr 4 And we have her -- what's that? BK as well. So thank you all for coming. And I have a special introduction in a second here. I'd like to just take a moment, Madam President, to introduce Chief Ole Tipanko. Did I get that right? He is from the Masai tribal chief and educator dedicated to advancing education, cultural preservation, and sustainable development in his community. He is from Kenya. And we're just very pleased he is visiting the city of Norwalk in the state of Connecticut, and he is -- we're glad to meet him today. He's appointed chief at just 18 by a council of elders. He spent decades leading his village in Gong Hills outside Nairobi, Kenya alongside his wife and their five children. Chief Joseph has built an international partnership that brings volunteers to support local schools and community initiatives through global outreach, including speaking engagements across the United States, United Kingdom, and Africa, and a 2016 presentation to the United Nations Education Committee. He raises awareness about the Maasai culture, conflict resolution, and the urgent impacts of climate change on his tribe. His leadership has helped deliver transformative projects, including new classrooms, a day care center, clean water system scholarships, and vital health and food programs during times of crisis. He is currently helping to establish a center of excellence, a safe haven for vulnerable young women. Through his work, Chief Joseph continues to bridge cultures, inspire global connection, and a champion of a more sustainable and equitable future for his people as they face the impact of climate change on their way of life. Madam President, he is from Kenya. We're just so honored to have him here today. And it's interesting gm/rr 5 reading his bio and his work, is that some of the same issues that we have here in the state of Connecticut and across this country are some of the same issues that are being fought on and advocated for across our world. And so I would like the chamber -- if they could just welcome all of my guests here. And again, thank you for coming out during Norwalk Day. Thank you. (applause)

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if the Clerk have Senate Agenda 1 on their desk.

Senator Duff.

Thank you. So ordered, sir. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

Thank you, Madam President. Senate stand at ease.

Thank you, Madam President. For our go list right now, Calendar page 61, Calendar 400, Senate Joint Resolution 46. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 61, Calendar 401, Senate Joint Resolution 48. I'd like to mark that item go. gm/rr 10

Calendar page 61, Calendar 402. Senate Joint Resolution 49. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 61, Calendar 403. Senate Joint Resolution 52. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 62, Calendar 404. Senate Joint Resolution 53. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 62, Calendar 405. Senate Joint Resolution 55. I'd like to mark that item go.

gm/rr 11 Calendar page 62, Calendar 406. Senate Joint Resolution 56. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar 60, Calendar 399. Senate Joint Resolution 39. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 30, Calendar 311. Senate Bill 417. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 5, Calendar 39. Senate Bill 155. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 11, Calendar 109. Senate Bill 335. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 16. Calendar 193. Senate Bill 444. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 32, Calendar 324. Senate Bill 90. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 19, Calendar 215. Senate Bill 407. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 41, Calendar 395. Senate Bill 293. I'd like to mark that item go. gm/rr 13

Calendar page 40, Calendar 381. Senate Bill 400. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 41, Calendar 381. Senate Bill 509. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 59, Calendar 386. Senate Bill 503. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 50, Calendar 82. Senate Bill 347. I'd like to mark that item go.

gm/rr 14 Calendar page 14, Calendar 127. Senate Bill 317. I'd like to mark that item go.

Calendar page 11, Calendar 108. Senate Bill 282. I'd like to mark that item -- I'm sorry. Calendar page - - I'm going to stop right there. Calendar page 14, Calendar 127. Senate Bill 317. That will be our last go bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President?

Before we get going, if I could yield to Senator Somers, please.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the good leader for allowing me to have a point of personal privilege this morning. It is an honor to introduce two folks from my district. Today, I have gm/rr 15 with me Danny Aliverio and his daughter, Maddie. Maddie just received a scholarship at Bushnell Park for DOT Workers' Day. Did I get that correct? Yes. Maddie is a scholar from Stonington, Connecticut. She's graduating this year with honors. She is going to be attending Coastal Carolina University studying communication and journalism, and we are just thrilled to have her here. It's her first time visiting the capitol, so we are thrilled to have her here. And if the Senate could give them a warm welcome, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. (applause)

Page 61, Calendar 400, Senate Joint Resolution 46, resolution accepting the recommendation of claims commissioner to make a payment in excess of $35,000 with respect to the claims against the State of Kallmann McKinnell & Wood Architects, Inc.

Good afternoon. Yes. We are back again, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and adoption of resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is a resolution, accepting the claims commissioner's decision in this resolution. Comes to us with a favorable vote out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Great to see you this afternoon. I actually was listening in the caucus room as I was being chased out because they said the Senate is beginning. And so with that, I am happy to support the claim and has been put forward by Senator Winfield.

Madam President, if there's not an objection, I ask this item be placed on consent.

Page 61, Calendar 401, Senate Joint Resolution 48, resolution making the decision of the claims commissioner to deny the claims against Milagros gm/rr 17 Pollock House administratrix of the estate granting the claims permission to sue a state.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the -- adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before us is another resolution. It comes from the Judiciary Committee. What the title would suggest, it vacates the decision -- the claims commissioner to deny the claim against the state of the particular individual, Milagros Pollock. And it comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of the -- actually, underlying resolution, which was agreed to by the Judiciary Committee. Also, quite often, I give a shout out and thanks to Attorney Melanie Dicus (phonetic) on our staff. That helps me tremendously. But this afternoon, I want to start off with a shout out for Jared Pico, who really was great in bringing me out here and saying gm/rr 18 they are actually starting right this second. So thank you, Jared. One of the things that the public may not realize is that when the claims commissioner, and that's Commissioner Robert Shea, does an awesome job. I want to give him a shout out right now, because in the last few years since he has become commissioner, and it is not a slight to all the previous commissioners. They address the claims as best they could. But under Commissioner Shea, there's been a watershed moment, and things are moving, and he's done a tremendous job. And so with that, we don't take it lightly at all if we are overturning one of his decisions because we know that Commissioner Shea and his staff have done a tremendous job in seeking out the facts. But in this instance, we feel that an appropriate case was made before our committee to allow this individual to go forward and make his case in the court system, and that's all this resolution would allow. And with that, happy to support the resolution. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, if there's no objection, I'd ask this item to be placed as a consent.

Page 61, Calendar 402, Senate Joint Resolution 49. An Act Making the Decision of the Claims gm/rr 19 Commissioner, Denying the Claims Against the state for Wilhelmina McLaurin, administratriz of the estate of --

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move to accept that the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to say as we talk about this resolution, that Senator Kissel was in good hands. I'm really good at speaking slow as I waited for him to come out and make sure we are both here to talk about these resolutions. But Madam President, before us is the Judiciary Committee did good work good work in assessing the claims commissioner's denial of the claim, but decided that we would vacate that claim. And that is what it is before us, and it comes to us with a favorable vote out of the Judiciary Committee and avoid adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of this resolution, and very appreciative of the calm pace that Senator Winfield took at the outset of this debate, because I was indeed engaged in a conversation in my caucus room gm/rr 20 with my leader, Senator Harding, and couldn't get out here any faster than I did. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed in consent.

Page 61, Calendar 403, Senate Joint Resolution 52, resolution vacating decision of the claims commissioner to dismiss the claims against the estate of Kevin Berube.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

gm/rr 21 Thank you, Madam President. Before us is another decision by the Judiciary Committee to vacate the decision of the claims commissioner to dismiss a claim. In this case, in the favor of Kevin Berube. It comes to us with a favorable report out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of the resolution and urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. If there's no objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Page 62, Calendar 404, Senate Joint Resolution 53, resolution vacating the claims commissioner to dismiss the claim against the state of Carol Falcone and granting the claimant permission to sue the state.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam President. Before you, it says another resolution vacating the decision of the claims commissioner. In this case, it is the case of Carol Falcone. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. One correction. Carol, not Carl. And with that, Madam President, if there's no objection, I ask this item to be placed on consent.

Page 62, Calendar 405, Senate Joint Resolution 55, resolution vacating the decision of the claims commissioner to dismiss the claims against the state of Brian Vertefeuille.

Madam President, the board needs to be updated.

I can see it.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Again, before us is a decision out of Judiciary Committee vacating the decision of the claims commissioner to dismiss a gm/rr 24 claim. In this case is Brian Vertefeuille. And I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I shall remark, and I will stand in support of this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there's not objection, I ask this item to be placed.

Page 62, Calendar 406, Senate Joint Resolution 56, resolution vacating the decision of the claims commissioner to dismiss the claims against the state of Edgar Canterbury.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report on adoption of the resolution.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Before, I said another vacating of the claims commissioner's decision to dismiss a claim. In this case, it is for Edgar Canterbury. It comes to us with a positive vote out of Judiciary. I would urge adoption.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand strong in support of this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if there is no objection to this item, I would ask that it be placed on consent as well. gm/rr 26

Page 60, Calendar 399, Senate Joint Resolution 39. Resolution confirming the decision of claims commissioner to dismiss certain claims against the state.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I also stand in strong support of this resolution, although I don't believe this matter can go on the consent calendar.

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. gm/rr 27 An immediate roll call has been ordered in the

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 1 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I do rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce somebody. I have a constituent of mine here today, Colby Chaneyksy from the great town of New Fairfield, who also happens to be the nephew of Representative Patrick Callahan from New Fairfield. So I have two constituents up here today. Colby is a bright young mind, looking at how the state government works up here at the state Capitol today, seeing what his uncle does late into the hours, up here as we end session. I do want to welcome here to the Senate's chamber and also congratulate him. He's gotten into UNC and starting off this fall. So, wish him all good luck down in North Carolina. So thank you, Madam President. gm/rr 28

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

Sorry. I do, Madam President. Madam President, I rise. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, entering the chamber right now are the Bristol Central High School girls basketball team who recently won the school -- the division 2 of the state basketball tournament. They came in earlier today. I handed on me citations for the team. But as they come in -- come on in, girls. And perhaps, they're coming along with their coaches. And this is the first time in the school's history that a girls basketball team title was brought to Bristol. They came back in the championship game, Madam President. They began with an 11-point lead at some point in time in the game. And then all of a sudden, the third quarter came, and what was once the lead, four or three of them got into foul trouble. And they went down by five points, but managed to come back and tie the game. gm/rr 29 And within the next quarter of the game, they won the state championship by a score of 58 to 52. Takes a lot of, I guess, trust, in between the players in order to make that happen. Particularly, when you got to play with four fouls, you got to hold four fouls and make sure that you don't fall out of that game. And I spoke to girls earlier, and there's a lot of sacrifice that gets them to play in the championship team. And it begins not on that day, but it is at practice, playing off season, playing other sports. It's not just one sport. And also the school, being good students as well. So, Madam President, because of their hard work and their teamwork and just pride in themselves, they are here in front of us, state champs of division 2 state basketball girls team. So congratulations, girls.

Right. And to the coaches. (applause)

No pressure. gm/rr 30

Page 46, Calendar 433, Senate Bill 521, An Act Conveying a Parcel of State Land to Northwest Resource Recovery Authority.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This bill conveys roughly a four-acre parcel of land in Torrington, including the existing transfer station to the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority for administrative costs. The property has to be used to operate a public transfer station for municipal solid waste and recycling, and the ownership has to be retained without leasing or it reverts back to the state. The conveyance is subject to the State Property's Review Board approval, and standard administrative procedures with DAS overseeing the process. Thank you, Madam Administrator. gm/rr 31

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to rise briefly in support of the measure. Many of my constituents are very concerned for good reason about the price of tipping fees. this could be something in which if this land is conveyed and our NRRA is allowed to operate in the manner that they are hoping to, could help stabilize tipping fees in the Northwestern area of the state, where resource is quite difficult because of how rural and remote we are in the beautiful Northwest Corner. So I do support this measure. I want to thank the good chairwoman for her hard work on this, as well as Representative Horn, who represents a district that is also impacted by this in Northwest Corner. And I will be voting in support of this measure. So thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I would align my remarks with those made by the minority leader. This has been an issue in the gm/rr 32 Northwest corner. And as the good minority leader spoke to, it will, I think, provide some stabilization with respect to prices, at least for the time being. We'll see how this works out. I'm all in it for them to win it, so to speak, and deliver a good product there. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the recognition, Madam President. Good to see you up there this afternoon. The conveyance that is before us is a lot like other conveyances that we see. It's a short bill. It's very straightforward on what's happening. But I do have to say that it does not necessarily conform to what I consider to be the norm as far as conveyances that we should approve in this chamber. I've been responsible as the leading voice of the Republican senators on the subject of conveyances since serving on the government administration elections committee and now on government oversight, which has taken over the responsibility of conveyances. And for as long as I've been involved, even predating my time in the Senate, there's been an unwritten rule, which is that for a conveyance to be worthy of approval, it should meet the following requirements. Number 1, there should be no opposition, or at least no legitimate opposition. And number 2, any property that the state is conveying to another entity. And remember, when we're talking about property that's owned by the state, that means it's owned by the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut. So we're effectively taking property that each person in the state of gm/rr 33 Connecticut is a shareholder in, and we're transferring it to someone else. If it's going to be transferred, it should be transferred at fair market value so that the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut actually get the benefit of that transfer. This particular conveyance is happening for administrative costs. So that's the first red flag I have on this issue. There was a lot of testimony. And I have certainly have respect for my colleagues that are supportive of this. There is a difficult situation in the state of Connecticut, and particularly this part of the state on what to do with the trash. I completely get it, and there needs to be solutions. I'm a little concerned about this as a solution. Like Senator Berthel said, I wish them all the luck. I want to see them succeed. I really, really do. But going through the testimony, the one thing that I cannot pretend I didn't see is the historical record of the Torrington Transfer Station, which over the last several years has had tremendous operating losses. In 2025, over $4 million in operating losses. In 2024, over $4 million, and nearly $9,000,000 in 2023. What this means is if the communities in Northwest Connecticut are going to take over this transfer station and decide that they're going to create their own entity to mirror the old model, I always wanted to say that, the fact is that they're going to have to find a way to turn a failing entity into something that is not going to generate a cost. And this is my concern because once this happens, once this conveyance occurs, once the Northwest Resource Recovery Authority is now in charge of this property and running this transfer station, if they're turning losses, as has historically happened, that those losses are going to end up gm/rr 34 being the responsibility of the taxpayers in those nearby communities. For me, that is my number 1 objection to this. I hope it doesn't work out that way. I really do hope that they succeed. I have no issue with the town leaders in that community getting together to try and come up with a plan to tackle this, to take on that responsibility themselves. And I support them in that effort. I'm just a little concerned about the financial outlook. For us, it's a little different. We are here at the state level, and the decision we're making is all about whether or not the town leaders should have the right and ability to ask for this property and for the state to give it to them. That's a question. That's a simple question. The much more complex question is on the town leaders and how they're going to make this a going concern and a -- if not a profitable entity, but one that doesn't cost the taxpayers. I wish them all the luck in the world. But I don't see that as a definite. And even though these are not my constituents, this is outside my district, I am certainly concerned about the tax burden faced by all Connecticut residents. So I will not be supporting this conveyance today. Madam President, thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Thank you. I rise in support of this conveyance. The towns of the Northwest Corner of Connecticut have a rich history of working together and regionalizing services. And this is just another example of them doing this. gm/rr 35 The Northwest Resource Recovery Authority currently has eight member towns. We expect it to grow. And the idea here is to keep this facility which has been public for decades as a public facility. We do not want to be in a situation where there's one really, really large powerful provider providing all the waste recovery services to the entire region. This facility will allow for a competitive process to run the facility. We believe that it can be done cost-effectively, and it will actually, in the long run, save taxpayers money because they won't be subject to the pricing of a monopoly. This conveyance has support in all four caucuses, and it has support from municipal leaders around the area. And I urge all my colleagues to vote for this conveyance. Thank you very much, Madam President.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. An immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 gm/rr 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 34 Those voting Nay 2 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. It is really my distinct honor to be able to introduce members of the Danbury Board of Education, elected members and also a representative, Mike Seelig, from the administration. It's a great opportunity for them to see us at work, because I know they appreciate all the work we've done for public schools and for public education. But it's a great opportunity for me to thank them for what they're doing. We've seen Danbury Public Schools. Really, it's always been a growing district, but now it's growing in a really positive direction. With a new school, housing, it will be up to 1,400 new students, our high school, and a wonderful, innovative -- probably the most innovative career academy program in the state for sure. And so it's really my honor to not just introduce them, but to thank them for what they do all the time. And we have a bunch of students too. It's really amazing. So this is a great opportunity to thank them, and I'd ask the chamber to properly welcome them. Thank you. gm/rr 37

Page 30, Calendar 311, Senate Bill 417. An Act Requiring the Department of Economic and Community Development to Develop a Plan to Establish an Artificial Intelligence Small Business Program.

Thank you, Madam President, and good afternoon to you, Madam. Yes, indeed. Madam President, I move acceptance and passage of the joint committee's favorable bill.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, the clerk is in possession of LCO 4459. I ask that the clerk please call, and I'd be granted leave to summarize, please.

gm/rr 38 LCO 4459 will be designated as an Amendment Schedule A.

I move adoption, Madam President.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is a strike-all amendment, and it essentially tasks the Department of Economic and Community Development to develop a plan in consultation with other state agencies, institutions of higher education or public entities, to put together a plan to establish an artificial intelligence small business program, Madam President. There's no question about the fact of the rapid acceleration of AI across all sectors, and quite frankly, parts of our existence these days. And it is absolutely exponentially accelerating. Small and medium sized businesses, Madam President, are, as we know, companies that really wear a lot of hats. They don't have deep benches. They don't have a lot of bandwidth on many, many, parts of their operation. And so this in particularly with this rapid escalation is very important, as we talk about it now, recognizing the fact that 80% of our businesses in the state of Connecticut are small and medium- sized businesses. They, quite frankly, are the backbone of this state's economy. And so what this gm/rr 39 plan will do is to put in place a blueprint, if you will, to address the needs of small and medium-sized businesses with regard to this adoption. Manufacturing sector alone, for example, and I myself representing the Naugatuck Valley, these are all small mom-and-pop operations that do not have the ability to try to set up or integrate or identify opportunities for expediency and to keep themselves very competitive, quite frankly, in such a rapidly changing market. A plan like this administered by the Department of Economic and Community Development will seek to do that, to strengthen our manufacturing sector as well as all small and medium-sized businesses. It's a pro-business bill, and it really will serve us well to stay in the forefront of other states and even internationally in terms of competition in this new knowledge economy. Thank you, Madam President, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President Madam President. The bill, I think, is, highly needed. It's unfortunate that we had to change it a little bit, and thus the amendment. But the intent is really to help our small businesses throughout our whole state. Without a doubt, AI is here and is going to run away with the economy, with our businesses. I think within the gm/rr 40 next five years or six years, the growth in the AI world will go from a $150 billion to $1.2 trillion. In the mix of all this is going to be the small businesses that are going to be looking for how do I get into this? How do I stay competitive? What do I need to do to bring in AI into my company? And that could be the purchasing of equipment, software, et cetera. And it could also mean the retraining of employees. Some are going to lose their jobs. What we're looking to do in this bill is to see, hey, we will help you train to work with AI? And so they are both complementing one another and not necessarily one replacing the other. Or perhaps, if AI is going to help with the efficiency or the productivity of the manufacturer or whatever the job is, that the employee will be retrained in another area of the company. So the intent of the bill, the original bill was really to provide some type of assistance, whether in training or the technology, but also the actual funding or the cost of learning and adapting AI to a company. As we all know, that cost time and money. We're taking the first step with this bill, creating the plan to what all those variables are going to be. And hopefully, next year, we'll be back here or we'll be able to allocate some funding for that. So, Madam President, I am in support of this bill. Thank you.

An immediate roll call has been ordered in the gm/rr 41 the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 5, Calendar Number 39, a substitute for Senate Bill Number 155, An Act Concerning the Recommendation of Department of Children and Families. There are two amendments.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of -- no. Is this the right one? Okay. And passage of the bill. gm/rr 42

Thank you, Madam President. The clerk is in possession of LCO Number 4397. I ask that the clerk please call, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you. So we have the amendment before the chamber. Would you like to comment on the amendment, Senator Perillo?

Please proceed.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Senator Maher. gm/rr 45

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

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

This bill basically has technical fixes for DCF, and it is a good bill. The P20 WIN name change to DataLinkCT is something that we've been working on for the past year, and it is a good bill, and I recommend passage.

gm/rr 46 Madam President, thank you. Just another question, if you don't mind, through you, Madam President, to the proponent.

Thank you. We are consolidating a number of reports. I believe it's nine into one, given that the amendment is now passed. My question and concern is to, in that combination of those reports, are we losing any data that we currently gather that is of value? Because, obviously, you have we have a disaggregate reporting, which covers a lot, and I can understand why we'd want to combine that. But at the same time, I want to make sure that we're not losing any important data in that process.

Thank you, Madam President. No. In fact, what we're doing is changing what has been duplication, and also taking out a reporting system that actually didn't work. Because DCF does not have the ability to report to the NCIC and because they have relationships with local police who have that reporting ability, that is one reason we're taking that out. Additionally, this is a more streamlined and cost- effective way for DCF to work in terms of their reporting system so that they are not duplicating. Let me just find that again. There is one section, for example, where, DOAG has to report on a yearly basis of, animal abuse, and so does DCF. So we're just decoupling that kind of reporting. gm/rr 47

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I thank the proponent for her answer to the question. You're aggregating all of this seems to make sense, especially if it's going to eliminate duplication. So I would urge my colleagues to support the bill as well.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We will know Senate Bill 155, An Act Concerning the Recommendation of the Department of Children and Families as amended by Senate A. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 155. This is the bill as amended by An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 gm/rr 48 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 12. Calendar Number 109, substitute for Senate Bill Number 335, An Act Concerning Utility Charges for Residential Dwelling Units.

Hi, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. This bill prohibits residential tenants rental agreements from requiring that tenants pay for utilities separate from the rent if there is no separate meter used to measure utility delivered exclusively to their dwelling. And it also codifies Supreme Court's decision on utilities into the utility statutes 16-26, and it is already in the Landlord-Tenant Act 47a-7. gm/rr 49

Thank you very much for the recognition, Madam President. I appreciate the good chairman for explaining the bill. Although I would love to get a little bit more meat on the bones here. If the good chairman could explain to us what the purpose of this legislation is, what problem it intends to solve. Through you.

Thank you to the good senator from Wolcott. Madam President, yes, this bill is codifying into law, the Supreme Court's decision of Norland Investment Corporation versus PURA, and it takes the language that is in the Landlord-Tenant Act, as I just said. That takes from the utility statutes and puts it into the Landlord-Tenant Act pretty much so that landlord and tenants, when they are looking up different statutes on how it affects their rental agreements, they will find everything in one place.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm not quite sure I'm understanding about finding things in one place. My understanding of this bill is what it does. It eliminates something that happens, maybe not as a regular occurrence, but certainly does gm/rr 50 happen, often out there in the world where there are properties that maybe older properties built, beginning of the night of the 20th century, for example, that were once single-family homes that are converted into multifamily homes, where they don't have separate meters for the units. So you might have a three-unit small residential apartment building. Long time ago, it was big single-family house. Today, it's a three-unit apartment, but they still only have one electrical meter. So there's two ways this can happen when you have a landlord-tenant agreement. One way is that the landlord and the tenants would agree to include the cost of the utilities and the price of the rent. And the other way is that there be some sort of other agreement where the tenants agree to split the electric bill when it comes, or something like that. And my understanding of this legislation is this eliminates that possibility. It basically says the tenants can no longer agree with the landlord to have a situation where they split the cost of the actual utility price, and it kind of forces the landlord into building the electric into the rent. Am I correct about that? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Yes.

gm/rr 51 Thank you very much, Madam President. Okay. So we've established what the bill does. Now I want to go back to my first question, which is, what is the goal here? What are we trying to achieve? Through you.

We are cutting into codifying into law the Supreme Court's decision, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. What was the Supreme Court deciding that people no longer have a right to negotiate the terms of their lease agreement? Through you?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, the Supreme Court decision said that RUBS are no longer allowed, which are the ratio utility billing system, and that they are not fair to the tenants, and -- through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I have to go back and look at that decision, but I don't know that they said the term unfair to the tenants. Maybe they did, but I don't think that that's an accurate statement. And I have to say that before we really get into the text of the bill, I'm just a little bit puzzled that this is here before us. And the reason why I mentioned it is because not even a week ago, we were here debating another bill. It was Senate Bill 359, which everyone knows is the Golden Girls bill. And I was happy and pleased to support that bill. And what that bill did is basically allowed unrelated adults to live in the same single-family dwelling. So here we are. I imagine that they get an electric bill, too. And I imagine that in that case, it's perfectly okay for them to split the electric bill. Am I wrong about that? Through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. Yes. He is wrong.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Okay. So fill me in. Please, through you, Madam President, can the good chairman tell me what I'm missing? Through you. gm/rr 53

Thank you, Madam President. To the good senator from Willits, because they have a bedroom with the Golden Girls. They will have a bedroom. They will share common space. They might share a kitchen. They might share a bathroom. They might share rec room that it would pretty much impossible for that renter to have their own utility. So, therefore, the cost of the utilities will have to be part of the rent and not separate. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So, for clarification, this bill that we are debating right now, Senate Bill 335, would apply in the same Golden Girl situation. So that if you had a situation where you had, for example, Betty White invites her friends to live with her, and they are all living together in the same three or four bedroom single family house, that they couldn't just sit down and decide they're going to split the monthly bills, the mortgage payment, the electric bill, et cetera. They can't do that any longer. One of them would have to be in charge of determining the rental value and charging the other tenants. Is that correct? Through you.

gm/rr 54 Thank you, Madam President. Yes. Through you, the person whose name is on the utility bill will be responsible for paying that bill, and the charges will be part of the rent.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that answer. Although I hope that folks that are listening are starting to realize that this is getting more and more absurd the more you actually put real-world implications upon the policy. So what's frustrating to me is that I think that this bill is here because somebody has this idea that they're helping someone. Oh, we're here to help people. We're going to protect them from the evil landlord who wants to unfairly distribute their electric charges. Okay. I can understand the desire to prevent against that. But at least in the case where the tenants are actually looking at the real utility bill to decide what it is and how to divvy it up, what this bill does is it says, there's no more utility bill to divvy up. The landlord is just going to put the utilities into the rent. I'm sure anyone who's within the sound of my voice already knows before we go to the next thought that the damn landlord is going to charge more. And forgive me for saying, damn landlord. I didn't mean to do that. But he's going to charge more than what the utilities were because he can't possibly know what the utilities would be. So if you were in a situation of drafting a lease agreement, and these days, these lease agreements are getting harder and harder to draft, there's more gm/rr 55 and more regulation being placed on the parties from the state, what's going to happen is they've got to protect themselves by making sure they're insuring against a future that is uncertain, where electric bills might increase dramatically. After all, we are in Connecticut, and electric rates do rise in this state. We have the second-highest electric rates in the whole country. And you add to that a state government that can willy-nilly decide they want to just charge a hidden tax right on top of the electric bill, maybe up to 25% of the bill. So what is the property owner to do to protect themselves in a case like this? And there's only one answer. The answer is they're going to raise the rent. I noticed, by the way, that the very first section of the bill on lines two and three, note that the effective date is October 1st, 2026. And it says, and applicable to rental agreements entered into or renewed on or after said date. Can I ask through you, Madam President, why are we prohibiting voluntary rental agreements between landlords and tenants? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. The Supreme Court decided that they were not going to do the rubs anymore, the ratio utility billing system, because they felt that it was not fair to the tenants. It's not based on usage, and that disincentivizes reducing usage. And if the landlord really wanted to be able to bill the tenants separately just for the utilities that that person is using, not for common spaces, they could submeter their property. Through you. gm/rr 56

All right. Thank you very much. Madam President, there's a lot of things that don't add up here. The first thing I would say is that if there is truly a Supreme Court decision that makes this practice of divvying up the utility bills between the tenants illegal or unworkable, then I don't know that the bill is necessary. And second, why would we have an effective date that is in the future? It doesn't make any sense. That's not what you would do if you were actually trying to write a statute that conforms to a Supreme Court decision that changes what our statutory language looks like. And I'm wondering why and how this affects a lease agreement that's already there. Suppose there's a tenant and a landlord that have been together for a number of years. Maybe they've been together 10 years. And they've been doing this all this time without any hiccups, without any headaches. Everybody's happy. The landlord's happy. The tenant's happy. It's a beautiful thing. So what happens on October 1st, 2026? Why is the state stepping in to effectively invalidate what is a mutually agreed contract? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Because they felt that it was unfair to tenants. And as the good senator from the 16th District said, that what is the landlord going to do? He is going to charge a higher amount for the utilities. Those were his words. gm/rr 57 And, yes, our electric bills have gone up, but then there are also times where I was very happy that I heated my home with gas because electric went up and gas went down. Then there's other times where you wish you had electricity because the gas goes up and the electric goes down. So it is very hard to be fair, and this is what the court felt was the most fair to the tenants. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate my colleague very much. But for her to say on the record as if it's a statement of fact that this is the most fair arrangement for the tenants, first off, is not the role of the state government. We are not supposed to be determining what's fair for one party versus the other party in any private contract between consenting adults. And second of all, I disagree. It's not fair. My point was that the rent is going to go up as a result of this policy. So, for all of the majority's desire to help people, we're coming along to rescue you. We have to jump in there and save you. We have this law that we're going to put in effect, that's going to make it -- so it's a no-no anymore. But at the end of the day, what's going to happen is that by eliminating the ability for tenants to actually review their own electric bill and come up with an agreement of what percentage they are responsible for, instead, the landlord is simply going to build what their expectation of the electric bill is into the rent. And I can guarantee you that means higher rents. It's also very interesting. As I started saying gm/rr 58 before, we had the Golden Girls bill, and there's a provision in the Golden Girls bill at the end that says that we're going to ask the Department of Housing to publish a rental agreement rider that has to be made available to all landlords and tenants for the future. And it says right in that bill that has now passed this chamber that the parties may enter into a written agreement concerning the payment of utilities. So which is it? Through you, Madam President, is it going to be the Golden Girls bill that is passed first or second that will apply? Or is it this bill which will apply? Because I think that these are in direct conflict. One of them says that the parties cannot enter into a written agreement concerning the payment of utilities. And the other bill says they most explicitly can. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you. So, yes, with the Golden Girls bill, they will include the utility charges into the rent, as is what is exactly going to happen here with the rental agreement. When a tenant goes and starts renting, the utilities will be included into the rent. And the good senator, he said a lot, but he said he can guarantee that the tenants are going to be charged more than what they use and that it's not going to be fair. I mean, my thing is you can be a tenant who takes a half-hour shower every day, that's using a lot of hot water. Drives me nuts. I don't understand why. And then you have somebody that takes a five-minute shower. And so, therefore, you have two completely different, how do you split it? Then you might have gm/rr 59 somebody that you have the heat on, 68, and then they also have to have an electric heater next to their bed, and they use an electric blanket. And to their bed, and they use an electric blanket. And so you're making it seem like it's very easy to figure out the rubs equation, where I would say that it's not and that it will never be equal to the tenants. So we can go around in circles. I feel that this is the most -- I think it's fair to the tenant, and I think it's fair to the landlord. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, again, I always appreciate the dialogue. Although I would make one recommendation, and that is that I will do my best to not try and say what the chairman has said, as long as she doesn't try and describe what I have said, because we get into a little trouble that way. And I want us to be very clear about who's making what argument. Okay? The fact is that the Golden Girls bill, which we are not debating today, except for the fact that it is in direct conflict with the legislation that is before us, very clearly says that the parties can enter into a written agreement concerning the payment of utilities. That is different than the bill today, which most definitely says they cannot. They will not be able to determine that. And I get what the good chairman is saying, is that some people are going to use more energy than others, and it would be very difficult to come with a fair assessment if you had three people living in the building. But the fact of the gm/rr 60 matter is that's not up for us to decide. That's up for them to decide. And if they're happy with that agreement and they make that negotiation between the tenants, whether there's one, two, three, or 10 of them, and the landlord, then who are we to get involved and say that's not fair? So the word fair is being thrown around in a very, very big way. But let me tell you what's really not fair is that once you do this, what is the incentive of any of those tenants to conserve any electricity or energy? Now that the electric bill is no longer their concern because the landlord is building the cost of the utilities into the rent, what is going to cause those tenants to bother trying to take shorter shower or use less energy to maybe protect the environment or to reduce the cost? Through you?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, submetering the utilities. Well, the best way to encourage conservation.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That's twice now that the good chairman's mentioned just submeter the property. That costs money. I wonder if the good chairman can tell us what it cost to add a separate meter to a three-family house. gm/rr 61 I'd venture to guess that in an old-style house where some of the circuits might travel up the floors rather than be separated by floors, it could be an absolute fortune. Might be tens of thousands of dollars to add another meter to that property. So who's going to pay for that? Madam President.

The landlord, Madam President, through you.

And if the landlord pays that tens of thousands of dollars, Madam President, what do you think he's going to do with the rents that are being charged to his tenants? Through you.

I don't know, Madam President, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Well, that's a very big I don't know. And that's the problem with this place, and that's a problem with the majority gm/rr 62 who's always running around trying to help people and decide what they think is fair. You know what's really fair? The freedom of the parties to figure it out. That's what's fair. And if one of them breaks the agreement, we have a mechanism for that. We have the court system. We have civil litigation. We have the housing court. And in this state, believe it or not, tenants get free lawyers. Okay? Pretty good deal if you'd ask me. So what I don't understand here is why we're creating a system where we can see the outcome. We're standing here debating this bill, but before it ever gets signed, we know what's going to happen. We already know the moment this legislation shows up in the newspaper, every landlord in the state of Connecticut is going to be like, oh, jeez, what am I going to do? And how am I going to predict how much energy my tenants are going to use? How much water, how much electricity? And they're going to obviously build a buffer in. Is there a reason through you, Madam President, why a landlord wouldn't charge an increase over their average experience? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, I don't know.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Another, I gm/rr 63 don't know, a very big I don't know. A very big I don't know. They do. They do. That doesn't make them bad or evil people. That means that they have to be prepared. And they have to be prepared for all kinds of things. When the property taxes go up, they have to factor that in to how much rent they're charging. The cost of repairs is skyrocketing. The amount of cost to put a roof on a house today is probably three times what it was less than 10 years ago. All of these costs are going to be borne by the property owner, and they're in business. So they are going to pass those close on. I'm standing here in defense of tenants because this bill is going to do nothing more than put tenants in a very untenable position where they can no longer adequately negotiate the cost of their utilities. When they have access to the utility bills, when they are in a position to negotiate their percentage of the utility bill, they can actually negotiate in good faith in terms that benefit them. When you take that away, you're not helping them. You're not making things more fair. You're making them less fair. And ultimately, what's going to happen is that those tenants, unburdened by having to deal with the electric bill and the water bill themselves, they're going to use whatever utilities they want. And trust me when I tell you, I have lots of experience, particularly in the inner city. There's people that got their heat on 90 degrees and the windows open. You know why? Because their utilities are built into their rent. You never see that with anybody who pays their own electric bill. Again, I've been focusing on electricity, but this is not just about electricity. It's about water. It's about gas. It's about all utilities. It's a very simple question. Let's get these on the record, just for the sake of fun. Is it more transparent for gm/rr 64 the tenants to see what they use and be billed accordingly, or to have the landlord hide the amount of the utilities and the rent? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, it says nowhere in this bill that the landlord has to hide the cost of the utilities.

Well, thank you very much, Madam President. But whether they have to or whether it says in the bill, that is the effect of the legislation before us. I can reframe the question. If the landlord does not disclose the amount of the electric bill because it is the electric for the entire building shared among the unit owners or the tenants in the unit, sorry. Is it fair to the tenants to use your term? Is it fair to the tenants to -- let me ask you this question. Is there an expectation somehow that the landlord is now going to be the one responsible for determining how much each of the units are using for utilities and to adjust each of the individual rents accordingly? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. When they sign that lease agreement, and they agree on a rent, that the gm/rr 65 utilities will be part of that rent. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. There's a lot more that can be said here on this bill. We didn't even get into a lot of this in any real, significant detail. Just a reminder about a few things, though. One is that a lease agreement is entered into typically for a period of time. Might be two years. Might be three years. And at the time that that is negotiated, the parties are entering into that agreement with kind of acknowledgment that they can't necessarily predict the future 100%. And in Connecticut, like I said, you can never predict what this majority is going to do to your electric bill. And that has to be factored in to the discussion. So now, if the utilities have got to become part of the rent, and that the rent is fixed, it's not going to change. It's not going to go up and down each month. The rent is going to be $1,500 a month or whatever. Even though the utilities are going to change, and in fact, they might be significantly more in the winter than in the summer. Who knows? But the fact of the matter is that the parties have got to enter into the agreement at that time. And that lack of ability to see the future is going to cause the parties to also be fully aware that they need to protect themselves. And in the case of the property owner, they have got to make sure that they are protecting themselves by collecting enough money. And they have also got to be keenly aware that if they are no longer explicitly charging for those utilities, the tenants are very likely to use gm/rr 66 more electricity and more water, and more heat than they did before. That is just common sense. So this bill is being presented as a protection for tenants. But it's not a protection for tenants at all. The best protection for tenants is knowledge and freedom. That's what I'm advocating for. They should have knowledge of what their electric bill is, if that is the way that they currently do it now, and they should have the freedom to negotiate the terms of their lease agreement with the property owner. The state is in no business to be negotiating the terms of an agreement between two consenting adults. And yet that's what we're doing here. Because there are some people in this room that think they have the right to tell other people how to live. They think that they have the right to determine what is fair for everyone else. Even though there's people out there that have been doing this like this for a long time and they don't want any changes, and they don't want any interruption, and they don't need me or the good chairman of the housing committee or anybody else telling them how to change their life and what they do, but yet this bill is before us. And that's exactly what will happen. It will tell these people, I'm sorry, we know that you have a good agreement going with your tenant or a good agreement going with your landlord and your fellow tenants, and you have been very content all these years, but sorry, can't do it that way anymore. And those tenants are going to be shocked when their landlord decides they're going to raise the rent substantially because they can't predict how much electricity, oil, or whatever is going to be used. And I also think it's especially obnoxious, frankly, to be dictating these changes on ongoing agreements. gm/rr 67 People that have been in a lease agreement that maybe has renewed two, three, four, 10, 15 times, and the parties keep agreeing to it without any changes because they have a satisfactory arrangement and they're happy with the circumstances? No, no, no. Us busy bodies at the state capitol are going to tell them, no, you can't do it that way anymore. So tenants who agreed with one system are now going to be forced into a different system, whether they want to or not. It's very easy to say, well, just go ahead and put a sub meter in. I didn't dig into this very much, but I just want to mention just how difficult that might be. If you're talking about a home that was built in 1925, for example, in New Haven or Waterbury or someplace like that, that is now a three-family house, some of these properties, it's basically impossible without entirely deconstructing the house to separate the utilities by the floors. Because the way a home is built is the meter would be determinative of what part of the property is covered. And if you're building a three-family, three-story house from scratch, yes, you put a meter on each floor, you separate the circuits for each floor. But if you weren't thinking that in 1920, you're making all the circuits in the basement go up through the house. And chances are, they're divided circuit by circuit vertically, not horizontally. So there's no easy way to just add a meter. You can't just, oh, we'll stick a meter on there. No way. You've got to rewire this entire building. And that might mean ripping out walls. It could easily be tens of thousands of dollars. In fact, it might be $50,000 to do a modest three-family house in New Haven. It's not as simple as all that. That's what's so frustrating about this place. These are just words gm/rr 68 on paper that somebody came up with half-baked, and then in some afternoon, we've got to come up with this idea because it's fair. You don't know anything about what you're talking about. You're just making stuff up. You're half-informed, and you're going to go ahead and change the world. And it's just not right. This bill doesn't protect tenants in any way, shape, or form. All it's going to do is shift costs around, make rents go up, and ultimately, at the end of the day, it's the tenants. It's the tenants that are going to pay the bill. The landlord's going to pass on the cost to the tenants. Everyone knows this. Now I know there's a desire on behalf of the majority to somehow claim that they are all for the tenants. I mean, they've picked a side in this debate. Day after day in the housing committee, I got to hear about evil landlords and how we're taking the side of the tenants. And me, I get backed into a corner because I'm simply trying to be fair. I'm simply trying to say, wait a second. Let's not pick a side. Let's do what's right. Let's make the agreement based on the freedom of the parties to decide what's best for them individually. But no. When you come at me, and you're like, well, we're going to punish the landlord, and we're going to do this, and we're going to do that. I'm like, well, wait a second. That's not fair. And consequently, so now I'm getting bagged all over the place. I'm Mr. Landlord. In fact, the Senate Democrats actually put out a propaganda newspaper called the Capitol Dispatch that pretends to be real news, and they're actually attacking me as if I have a conflict of interest because I happen to own a couple of properties myself. Now they know that's not a conflict of interest. And frankly, what's a conflict of interest is using taxpayer money to make a fake newspaper to make gm/rr 69 false political claims against your political opponents. That's a conflict of interest. That's the thing that ought to be investigated and prosecuted. But I'm used to that because I'm standing up for what's right. And what's right is freedom and freedom between the parties to negotiate the terms of their lease agreement. Not for the chairman of the housing committee or the Senate democrats or anyone else to decide for them what's fair. What's fair is freedom for them to decide. This is a bad bill, Madam President. If you want to see your tenants in your district protected from rent increases, vote no. If you don't care that their rents are definitely going up as a result of this bill, and I can guarantee it, we can come back a year from now, and we can go ahead and look at the data. If this bill passes, rents are going up. It's a very simple question. You want to protect your tenants, vote no.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just rise. I just like to know or understand what was the problem that led to this bill, because Senator Sampson hit on some valid concerns regarding this, particularly the lease agreements. But I guess I just want an understanding. Is this a problem that's just been reoccurring over and over again? And what type of complaints were there that led to this bill? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. First, I'm just going to ask Senator Martin when he talks to talk a little bit closer because I forgot to wear my hearing aids, and I had a little bit hard time hearing you. But this bill codifies into law what the Supreme Court said in New Orleans Investments Corporation versus PURA, and it is put into the Landlord-Tenant Act 47a-7. It has already been debated in the Supreme Court because it was already law In the utility statutes. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I apologize. It is not your hearing, good Senator. It is my raspy voice that is not allowing me to speak too much louder here. So, in that case, and I don't know anything about the lawsuit, but were there challenges about base rent plus extra cost for utilities that they felt that that was unfair? Through you, Madam President.

Hi, Mr. President. This bill was debated in the utility statute. It then went to the Supreme Court. And we are codifying into law Northland Investment Corporation v. PURA. Through you, Mr. President. gm/rr 71

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Again, I would think that if you have base rent plus utilities separated that are being shared perhaps equally, perhaps by percentage of square foot, that that would be okay. And are you saying that that federal decision address that? Through you.

Thank you. I do have a brother Martin. So, yeah. Through you, Mr. President, yes. The Supreme Court decisions thought that RUBS pricing was not allowed, which is the ratio utility billing system, which you do a ratio when you get the bill. Through you, Mr. President.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Doesn't leave much, I guess, options for the landlord because, to Senator Sampson's point, is the cost of trying to separate the meters or the utilities into separate meters is very costly. And so, what's the alternative? Because of that exorbitant cost per unit, you've got three units. These, particularly the older homes that were built in the '40s, are usually stacked. gm/rr 72 And electricity wires, utilities, you know, plumbing, etc., water lines go through all the units and basically are handled by one line, I'll say the water line. And separating them is a challenge, including the heating aspect of all this because most of the three families have one furnace and trying to get to the 2nd floor or 3rd floor are very challenging. Can they be done? Yes, but at a cost. So, what options if the supreme court is telling us or the federal courts are telling us you can't do it by ratio, regardless if it's by square footage, it sounds like per unit. Then the only option is to raise rents because the cost of the utilities need to be covered. If you're going to be in the business of being a landlord and supplying housing units or housing for the public, you can't operate obviously at a loss. So, how do you recover that money? And to the good Senator's point is the rents will go up. Don't know if that solves the issue of our affordable housing demand that we have here in the State of Connecticut. I guess time will tell. So, thank you to the good Senator for answering my questions. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. To the good Senator from the 16th, he said a lot. I do think it's a fair bill. And many assumptions were made that rents were going to go up and that tenants were going to be hurt and that landlords were going to jack up the rents. And those were a lot of assumptions being made and not what really happens. gm/rr 73 This bill is codifying into law something that has already been argued in front of the Supreme Court. So, it is already law in the State of Connecticut, and we are just codifying that law into landlord/tenant law. So, I just respectfully ask all of my colleagues to vote yes for this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on substitute for Senate Bill No. 335, AN ACT CONCERNING UTILITY CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. This is Senate Bill No. 335, AN ACT CONCERNING UTILITY CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. An immediate roll call vote in the

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 27 Total voting Nay 9 Absent not voting 0 gm/rr 74

Page 16, Calendar No. 193, substitute for Senate Bill No. 444, AN ACT AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE.

Thank you. Nice to see you up there, Mr. President. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, AN ACT AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE. Mr. President, this bill authorizing municipal employees to serve on municipal board of finance if they receive less than $10,000 in salary or wages annually from their town. Current law, Mr. President, if any employees receiving $10,000 or more, they prohibit to serve their board of finance.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in support of the bill. This is reasonable. It does put in limits, which we've heard, which is you can't be earning more from the municipality than $10,000 in a rolling twelve-month period. One thing that should be noted is that under existing law, towns can do this if they wanted to, if they wanted to do it through a local charter or ordinance. But I think this is very helpful and reasonable to allow it without having them go through that process. And it does open the door for more people who want to serve on a board of finance. I can tell you in some small towns, it can sometimes be tough to find people who want to volunteer their time to serve on various municipal agencies. And those who do, I certainly appreciate. I served 16 years on planning and zoning in my own town. So, to me, this is very reasonable. It did go through the committee without any problems. And this is one of a bipartisan way that we can be of help in a reasonable manner for municipalities, including a lot of small towns where serving on these types of boards are extremely important, and we want to make certain people have that opportunity. So, I do support the bill, and I look forward to its passage. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, reason for this bill, like my good Senator mentioned, a small town is struggling to find the people to serve their local board of commission, finance board of commissions. And this bill will increase the more candidates to come forward and serve their own gm/rr 76 towns. So, I urge just, you know, my colleagues to also support this bill, and thank you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on the substitute for MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. This is substitute for Senate Bill No. 444, AN ACT AUTHORIZING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES TO SERVE ON MUNICIPAL BOARDS OF FINANCE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1 gm/rr 77

Page 32, Calendar 324, substitute for Senate Bill No. 90, AN ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES. There are two amendments.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President --

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Before us is the ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES that comes to us through the Judiciary Committee on a largely favorable vote. The conversation really focused on the ease with which law enforcement and our prosecutors could find the different provisions of hate crimes that were scattered throughout our statutes. gm/rr 78 And so, this bill arises as a way to solve that issue. It combines the various protected classes into a single protected class. It deals with hate crimes based on bigotry or bias. It also deals with accelerated rehabilitation, allowing for that usage when it comes to the issue of hate crimes. Deals with clarifying that hate crimes can still be dealt with through the CHRO, some powers of the attorney general to investigate hate crimes and take legal action. And also, towards the end of the bill, we send this issue to the Sentencing Commission to take a look at it and come back with recommendations. Mr. President, this is a bill that moves us forward, comes to us with a positive vote out of Judiciary, and I would urge passage.

Thank you. Still learning this new microphone. Great to see you up there, Mr. President. I stand in strong support of this bill as well and would urge my colleagues' support. Just by way of background, as everyone here knows, Senator Winfield and myself have been on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years. And it wasn't that long ago where Connecticut was noted as having one of the foremost, in the nation, hate crime reforms move forward. And so, we're noted as a state that takes these violations of people's rights extremely seriously. We don't tolerate hate crimes in Connecticut. And this is different in that while we've made great strides regarding all of this, at the same time, law enforcement as well as prosecutors and prosecutors in particular said, "You've got a tremendous amount of wonderful statutes, but they're scattered throughout the laws. If it could only be gm/rr 79 consolidated and more accessible and handy, we, especially the state's attorneys, would be able to charge people appropriately and more expeditiously." And so, part of what the Hate Crimes Commission did was help bring this into a rational system. But there were some areas where they had troubles with headgear. Some of it you have to be deferential to certain religious, sex and denominations. Also, you know, when is a mask appropriate? During the pandemic, a lot of folks felt required to wear masks in certain incidences, where you probably can't go into a bank today without seeing on the door a little sticker that said no masks beyond this point. So, we have some little glitches here and there. And one of the things that we did actually now several years ago was create the Sentencing Commission. And that was purposefully created to be extremely fair and balanced with both public defenders and state's attorneys and judges and other folks with criminal law expertise in particular, but really some familiarity with all aspects of law to bring a fair and balanced approach to issues that are somewhat contentious. And that was patterned after other states, both conservative and liberal states, blue and red states, if you want to go by those denominations, because what they had found was that there are some issues that just are sticklers in the legislature and they need some outside body to help kick start the process of moving legislation along. And we have found, whether you're Democrat, Republican, unaffiliated, it doesn't matter, that the Sentencing Commission has really done a great job of analyzing very difficult issues. In particular, they've looked at, for example, the sex offender registry that can be real hot button issue. It's difficult for people to take strong positions for and against. gm/rr 80 And let's say there's provisions in our statutes that are really unfair to a convicted sex offender, it's hard to find a constituency that says, hey, let's change the law to make it better for them, even though fundamentally and philosophically it might be the just thing to do. So, the Sentencing Commission goes above and beyond in elucidating some things. And part of what this bill does is it moves forward with many of the suggestions made by the Hate Crimes Commission who came and testified before us very strongly. I would suggest on occasion maybe a little too strongly, but that's just my personal view. But also part of this also refers some of these leftover questions to the Sentencing Commission so that they can come back and review some of these things. Some people have been critical of this bill saying, why don't you do it all at once as opposed to getting some of this moved along while also having some of these unanswered questions sent to the Sentencing Commission for further review? But the leadership of the committee decided that this is the way to go. The reason I think that that background is important is that this doesn't break a tremendous amount of new ground when it comes to hate crimes, but it really elucidates and clarifies our position as one of the foremost states in battling hate crimes in the United States. And we want to make it as accessible and usable by our state's attorneys where the rubber really hits the road in some of these prosecutions as humanly possible. And so, for those reasons, while acknowledging that we'll probably be back revisiting hate crimes issues next year, and if I'm lucky enough to get reelected by my constituents, hopefully I'll be lucky enough to be back on Judiciary grappling with these issues. But I'm happy to support this bill at this time gm/rr 81 towards passage this year. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator Kissel does a good job of describing the issues in the bill and issues as they relate to the Sentencing Commission. I would say it wouldn't be the same on the committee without you. Mr. Chair, there is an amendment in the system. It's LCO 4538. I'd ask the Clerk call the amendment and I be granted leave to summarize the amendment.

Senator Winfield.

Senator Kissel. gm/rr 82

Will you remark further? Senator Winfield, what's your pleasure? Voice vote? All those in favor? (MEMBERS): Aye.

Hi. Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good to see you up there. I rise for the purpose of an amendment. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 4502. I ask that the Clerk please call this amendment, and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO No. 4502, Senate Amendment "B".

Thank you very much, Mr. President. This is a very straightforward amendment. This bill is 45 sections long, and it's a sizable ream of paper. And I will come back and describe in detail the purpose of the amendment. But the amendment itself is very straightforward. It simply eliminates and strikes Sections 1 through 44, inclusive, with the idea being to keep only the final section of the bill. That final section effectively is a request for the Sentencing Commission and the Statewide Hate Crimes Advisory Council to get together to finalize what our policy should be for the State of Connecticut. I am sympathetic to the language in the first 44 sections of the bill. The problem I have with it is that I think it's not fully baked. It's a lot of very good things, but I don't find it to be cohesive and finished. And I think that when you're trying to make a very substantive policy decision like incorporating all of these new requirements and effectively criminal penalties for different types of hate crimes, it has to be cohesive. It has to make sense. And for that purpose, I believe the best thing for us to do is to stick with the final section of the bill alone, get through the actual process of developing a cohesive policy, and then enacting it at a future date. So, I move adoption, and I'd like a roll call vote.

Thank you, Mr. President. And with respect to the amendment, appreciate the effort on the part of the good Senator. But the problem is the amendment would gm/rr 84 fundamentally change what we are here doing. And as that is the case, I can't rise in support. So, I would ask folks to join me in opposing the amendment.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "B", substitute for Senate Bill 90, AN ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "B" of immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "B". We're not voting on the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "B" of Senate Bill No. 90. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 0 gm/rr 85

You want to call for a roll call vote, right?

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill as amended. This is substitute for Senate Bill No. 90, AN ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES as amended by Senate "A". An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill No. 90, AN ACT REVISING AND CONSOLIDATING THE HATE CRIMES STATUTES as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 36 gm/rr 86 Total number voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 0

Page 19, Calendar No. 215, substitute for Senate Bill No. 407, AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO ISSUE PERMITS ALLOWING ORGAN TRANSPORT VEHICLES TO USE CERTAIN LIGHTS.

Mr. President, good to see you up there today. Mr. President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes, Mr. President. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO No. 3832. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

LCO No. 3832, Senate Amendment "A".

I move adoption of the amendment, ask that its reading be waived, and seek the leave of the chamber to summarize.

Mr. President, this amendment makes technical and clarifying changes and does not alter the fiscal impact of the underlining bill. Essentially, what this bill is doing is that by law, a permit is generally required to use colored or flashing lights on motor vehicles or equipment. This bill would allow the Department of Motor Vehicle's Commissioner to issue permits for organ transport vehicles to use any combination of steady or flashing blue, red, yellow, or white lights unless specifically restricted for the use by police officers or DMV inspectors. And by law, using colored or flashing lights on authorized vehicles is an infraction. So, under the bill, an organ transport vehicle is any vehicle driven by an employee of a licensed organ procurement organization that is being used for the transporting parts, an organ, eye, or human tissue, but not whole human bodies. And this bill actually came unanimously from the Public Safety Committee, 29 to 0 vote. And all this gm/rr 88 amendment essentially does is ensure that these organ transport vehicles oblige by the existing law in terms of ensuring that they are not in violation of any traffic enforcement laws and that they'll be in compliance with our enforcement laws.

Thank you, Madam President. And if the good Senator doesn't mind, I just have a couple of quick questions, through you, Madam President. So, when we first discussed the bill in Public Safety, we had a public hearing. We realized that there were possibly some issues with these emergency vehicles. In my mind, I guess it's an emergency vehicle, right? They're literally bringing life-saving organs to and from locations, and I'm sure time is of the essence. And, you know, they want to make sure that they're able to maneuver and quickly get to the locations. And the laws here are pretty strict and pretty clear on who could use what color lights and when. And in the public hearing, there was a little bit of discussion on this. When I looked at the public testimony, I believe two people within the profession wrote in support. We didn't hear much opposition. The original bill was maybe a paragraph or two. This is much longer. If the good Senator could just explain what was the purpose for adding the additional language, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, the reason that the bill is a little longer is because there's more specificity with respect to this bill sort of outlining the variations of lights and who's using them, whether we're talking about ambulance, EMS services, police officers, etc. So, I think it just helps to further clarify what vehicles use what lights. And in this particular instance where we're talking specifically about transportation vehicles, you know, transporting organs will have a specific sort of lights that will be used for that purpose as well. So, I think it's just to provide clarity.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you to the good Senator. You know, we see that these vehicles are very important. We want to make sure that they are getting to and from these locations quickly, and we want to make sure that while doing so that they're doing it in a safe manner. And I think that the lights really are important. We've talked about lights a lot in Public Safety, whether it's the tow truck safety bill, which we think is very important. And we understand that, you know, certain color lights trigger certain understandings with the general public. And for good reason, certain people want to make sure they're not abused and/or will deter the seriousness of maybe, you know, red and blue lights because they think law enforcement, or if it's red, they're thinking firefighters. gm/rr 90 I understand how that's important, but I do believe that this does make sense, and it will allow these vehicles to travel a little bit quicker and be able to get people to move out of the way when it's such an important subject or important area. I mean, we're talking about organs, and I'm sure the life expectancy and shelf life outside of the human body, it could only last so long with ice. So, I think it is important to address the concerns and be able to provide that level of clarity to these professionals. My understanding is that not anyone could just throw lights on there and turn them on at any time. It would be specifically people that are licensed and regulated to transport the organs, and they would only be able to use the lights when in service, you know, again, to or from or when carrying such an important cargo. They're not going to be able just to turn the lights on at any time. Is that a fair assessment, through you, Madam President?

Thank you. Your interpretation of the bill is correct.

Thank you, Madam President. And as we said, there is already clear laws and language regarding these lights, and you don't want people to abuse them. And they would be subject to the same laws if they decided just to throw on those lights and they want to make sure they could get to, you know, their gm/rr 91 dinner reservation on time. Same laws would apply if they were to use these incorrectly. And I believe that is covered within the amendment before us. Just wanted to clarify that through the good Senator, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. That is correct.

Thank you, Madam President. I also want to support the amendment before us and encourage our colleagues to do so. And I'm sure we'll move forward quickly with the underlining bill after this is done.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to align my comments as well with my good ranking that this bill is a lifesaving measure. And we want to ensure that when these organs are en route, that these patients are receiving these organs as expeditiously as possible because we know that every second counts. And so, this bill would cut through unnecessary barriers and give organ transport vehicles the tools that they need to move as efficiently and quickly as gm/rr 92 possible to make sure that they are not putting the health and safety of someone who may be waiting on a very vital organ at jeopardy. And so, I think this is a great bill, and it has bipartisan support. And I would urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Nay? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the bill? If not, the machine is open, Mr. Clerk. Okay. We're going to just do a little redo here. Let's start over again because we have to have the bill as amended on the board. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Keeping us on the straight and narrow here. All right. The machine is open. Mr. Clerk, please announce the vote.

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk. Senator Duff.

Certainly. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. We will stand at ease gm/rr 96 briefly. And Mr. Clerk, could you kindly call the next item, now that Senator Winfield has sprinted to his seat. Yes, indeed.

Senator Winfield.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Yes. Please do summarize, sir. And we'll get the amendment up before we do that. Yes. Take your time, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Winfield.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

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

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

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on the bill, Senate Bill No. 509, AN ACT CONCERNING ADDRESS VERIFICATION REFORMS FOR REGISTRANTS as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill No. 509 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING ADDRESS VERIFICATION REFORMS FOR REGISTRANTS. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill 509 as amended. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. gm/rr 103

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 35 Total voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 0

Page 59, Calendar No. 386, Senate Bill No. 503, AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS. There are several amendments.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Here is a bill that comes to us through the Judiciary Committee. The bill itself is not overly complicated, although the conversation likely is. What the bill does is it continues a conversation that we have been having about the way that young folks' brains work. There's been a lot of conversation about this and about their ability to make decisions. I will remind folks that the science that we often talk about is not about whether they can make a decision or not, but impulse control and their ability to make decisions in certain high stress, high intensity situations, which some of us as parents know is a very difficult thing for young folks. What this bill does is it changes from 21 where we had been having conversation to 26. And thereby, brought in the parole eligibility for folks who have had offenses. It brought it in another way by removing the October 1st, 2005, date that had been placed in a bill that we did. I believe it was, what year are we, three years ago or so. And it also, Madam President, lets us think about what happens in the court when young folks are being sentenced. And thinking about that science, which I was speaking of just moments ago, and how we apply that when your young folks are being sentenced. Madam President, this is a good bill that applies the science that we've known about. Thinks about court cases that we've talked about in the past. And I urge passage.

gm/rr 105 Thank you very much, Madam President. Well, throughout this afternoon, I've been working closely with Senator Winfield on a number of bills, being philosophically on the same page. And on this bill, our paths do diverge. I think this is probably one of the, if not, the scariest bill that is before us this session. And I'm not trying to be exaggerating or hyperbole. This is a huge sea change for the State of Connecticut, and it's one that I totally disagree with. And at the outset, I would just say that I have a 22-year-old son. I got to be honest, Tristan is a wonderful young man and I learn from him all the time. And in many respects, he is more even handed, calm tempered, and thoughtful than I am. I have been on the judiciary for the last 32 years. I've been blessed to be a State Senator here in Connecticut for 34. Back in the day, and I can't even tell you how long ago, when we started down this path of exploring brain development and one's ability to conceptualize good versus evil, good action versus bad action, I remember the very first public hearing our committee had, and we had a guest come down and she was a professor at Dartmouth, one of the Ivy League colleges, extraordinarily prestigious. And I always remember that she began the discussion, the argument that people's brains do not fully develop until they're about 25 years old. And she tried to extrapolate there from that in discussing judicial policies as they pertain especially to criminal justice, that more latitude and forgiveness should be given to those individuals that are younger than, she used at the time, 25. This bill says 26, up until 26. And she used as an example a test that she ran where she had two groups of individuals and they were confronted with jumping into a pool of sharks. And the individuals that were over 25, called adults or gm/rr 106 group A, they all said, no, I would not jump into a pool of sharks, without hesitation, 100%. Whereas group B, those younger than, I guess, 26, 25, they actually contemplated jumping into the pool of sharks. Some of them said they would. Some of them said, "Well, did they just eat? Because then if they're not hungry, I'm probably pretty safe." And they reacted in a way, for this professor from Dartmouth, substantially differently. Not the majority, but a substantial subset of that second group that had a different age of development. And she extrapolated that based upon that and other biological data, that their brains had not fully developed. And in particular, had not developed that portion for self-analysis and risk assessment. And so, from there, over the years, the argument has been made that because the brains have not fully developed, and somehow along the biological pathway this is truer for men as opposed to women. And I guess we're going to have to set aside all those arguments that there's no difference between biological men and women because when you get into this area, there apparently really is a big difference between men and women having nothing to do with the sexual organs, having to do simply with the brain and its assessment of risk. And from that, individuals have extrapolated that we should treat individuals in the justice system under age 25, up to 25, this bill says 26, differently with more lenience because their brains have not developed. Why is this such a dangerous bill in my opinion? Why is this a huge sea change? For the longest time, we held firm to the belief that you're an adult at 18, and we treated in the criminal justice a distinction. In fact, for a number of years when I've been here, if you were arrested for certain crimes at 16, you were thrown into jail with adults. Now, I supported what was then called raise the age. I actually don't gm/rr 107 feel that it's fair putting a 16-year-old into a cell with an 18 or older because I drew a line. You're an adult at 18, and so many of our statutes are based, up until today, that you get certain rights and responsibilities when you're 18. So, the raise the age came and went, and I went along with that, but it has to do with holding pens and things like that. But when you want to sign a contract under law, you know, legally and you want to vote and all these other things, 18 is the magic number. And say what you want about the professor from Dartmouth or any of the researchers throughout the country. And, yes, we can debate till the cows come home, when does a brain develop? And I would posit that it probably has a lot to do with each individual and their life experiences. And I actually looked into -- just out of curiosity, I inquire into areas that are of interest and I pulled up some stuff on the line one time and it had to do with young people in Appalachia. And by the way, halfway up Pennsylvania, it's Appalachia. You can think about it like throwing an apple at someone, I'll throw an Appalachia. And from the middle of the Pennsylvania going north, it's Appalachia. But they said that young people that grow up in that environment have to take on so much responsibility learning what's in the woods that's poisonous and edible, how to make do - because you're so darn poor - with just what's around you to fix things, a distrust and inability to get government to come in and help you out, that man, those kids in Appalachia grow up real fast. I'm guessing their brains develop faster than what this professor up at Dartmouth was saying. But I go back. We, as a legislature in the last five or so years, had a big push to raise that age again just as it pertains to criminal behavior. And the big push was 18 is not fair, even though we use it in a lot of areas. 21 is the magic number, 21. Now, gm/rr 108 at this time, four or five years ago, when that push was put on, make no mistake about it, the advocates for change wanted 25, 26. They've wanted this all along because, again, it goes all the way back probably 20 years now to that Dartmouth professor and that initial discussion about those kids jumping into the sharks. And they've always clung on to that like grim death. Oh, we got to change the system so that it complies with biological changes. Now, the thing that helped in the last few years regarding 18 and 21 is United States Supreme Court has had some decisions regarding super lengthy sentences for juveniles and said there has to be a point in time where those decisions, those punishments are reviewed. And I got to be honest, that did not sail through this legislature. That had pushback. That took a number of years. And back then, it was Senator Coleman was the co-chair from our chamber on the Judiciary Committee. And the Sentencing Commission had pushed forward. My old friend, Bob Farr, Representative Bob Farr, who was a Representative from West Hartford, what a wonderful guy. And then he became the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles under Governor Rell. And then he went on to work on the Sentencing Commission. And sadly, we just lost him. He passed away in the last year, probably 2025, after serving the public in so many capacities. And God rest your soul, Bob Farr. You did a great job. But even my Republican colleague from West Hartford was up here saying, "John, you got to stop blocking that change in age because we got to comply as a state with the United States Supreme Court." So, we have made movements based on other impetus. And last we look, 21. And we could justify that because we don't allow individuals to drink until gm/rr 109 they're 21, and we've brought along other things like smoking. So, 21 in certain areas of our statutes has been used as a line regarding maturity in other areas that we feel are important to delineate and we believe you need to have maximum maturity to make those decisions. I think that there's more justification nowadays for 18 than 21. And certainly, if you look at what's happening nationally, Congress just passed a bill. You used to have to just sign up at the post office if you're a young man for the draft. Guess what? A bill that just passed Congress, and I think it was part of the Big Beautiful Bill, it was something in there or a similar bill, but you don't even have to register anymore. At a certain age, you're automatically on the list for the draft if you're a young man. I'm guessing young woman too. If it's not a young woman, then they made a mistake. I'm thinking they were even handed. So, when it comes to military service, when it comes to so many other areas in our society, we totally entrust individuals 21 and older to do all sorts of things, pretty much everything. Pretty much everything until the Judiciary Committee listened to this public hearing and pushed through this bill. Now, I'm not aware, I'm happy to be corrected, I'm not aware of any state that's gone down this path this far, this fast. Not even California or Illinois. What this is going to mean is for the first time in Connecticut, it's not 18, it's not 21, it's going to be 26. And that is a brand-new line in the sand. And the argument is sort of made like, tra-la-la-la-la. Well, the brain hasn't fully developed and people are acting impulsively. And I sat through hour after hour after hour of a public hearing where you would think that no crimes were committed because these young people had turned their lives around. They had realized the errors of their ways. It was a mistake. It was impulsive. No, gm/rr 110 it wasn't. No, it wasn't. You dig behind all of those stories and you find heinous crimes, terrible crimes, crimes with mens rea. And thank you, Attorney Dykas, for digging in to what that means in Latin because mens rea, which we as attorneys use for, I would call it, the evil thought, it means a guilty mind. Malice of forethought. And if you look at the actions of individuals that were convicted of these heinous crimes, you would think from the testimony that it was a crime of passion. It was just a split-second decision that, oh, that gang banger over there did something to me, dissed my boat, and I had to react and da, da, da, da, and I shot him. No. No, no, no. Do not be misguided by that story. That is not the truth. You dig into these stories and you find people that had carefully calculated their crimes. Or they went and they murdered one person and they had the patience and the evil intent and the malice of forethought to carefully go to another part of the building, maybe another part of the neighborhood and kill someone else. That is not a heat of passion. That is not a crime of impulsivity. These are crimes with malice of forethought. These are evil deeds. And guess what? Let's take a step back because once upon a time, before I became a State Senator, I worked as a special public defender. You could get a contract for about 50 cases a year if you were in private practice, and I had such a contract for a number of years. I was a special public defender. I was the one defending the people. And so, I believe that I'm fair and even handed when I do an assessment of our criminal justice system, although I haven't practiced criminal law in over 34 years. But it's hard to go to prison in Connecticut. We have so many diversionary programs. We give you a chance right out of the gate. gm/rr 111 You have accelerated rehabilitation. You have drug treatment programs. You have alcohol education, and that's just naming three. We have lots. At the same time, ladies and gentlemen, we decriminalized marijuana. We have recreational marijuana. We have a bill coming up to us from the House that allows you to use cream that is infused with THC. You can put a drop on your tongue. Forget about edibles that are going to fall into the hands of little kids in your house unless you lock them away. You better lock up your skin cream too the way that bill's going. So, that whole area, it's wild west. So, on the one hand, we're making a lot of things not even illegal, but there are still crimes out there. We have diversionary programs. Okay. Let's say you use those up. What else? Well, if you're a minor, you're in juvenile court where the public has no access. It's closed to the media to protect the young person. And we were told, well, there's a way to move them, those heinous crime committing juveniles, to adult court. And yes, indeed. Yes, indeed, there is a mechanism on the books to allow it. But it's a trick, in my humble opinion. It's a trick to the public because it's a mechanism that is unworkable. A judge has to find two things to remove that case from juvenile court to adult court. A, that it's a serious offense. And that is easily provable by the charge that is vested upon that young person. Did you kill someone? Did you maliciously rape someone? Did you cut up their face? I could go on and on with the serious charges. But then, the judge has to find a second required predicate. Takes two columns to hold up that referral to adult court. You have to find, as the judge in those matters, that it is in the best interest of the young person to have them referred to adult court. gm/rr 112 Think that through. What judge is going to find that it is in the best interest of the young person to refer them to the adult court where they could face much more substantial penalties? How could that possibly be in the best interest of that accused individual? Now, there may be instances where the crimes are so incredibly heinous that a judge somehow finds that that other required element is there, but I am guessing that they are extraordinarily few and far between. And there's a bill out there percolating, I don't think it's going to get across the finish line this year, that says we've heard told that this is a giant roadblock in the system and that the attorneys in the juvenile courts can't get those cases pushed into adult court. And when you dig deeper, you find they probably aren't even trying anymore since they know it's a wasted effort. Because it probably takes a lot of work to try to get a referral, and why bother if you know the judge is never going to find that it's in the best interest of the juvenile. So, you throw up your hands and say, why am I wasting time on that? There's only so much time in a day, I may as well put my time on this other area. So, we can't even drill down deep into that, because I don't see any wind behind the sails of that bill getting through to trying to get the real facts and data regarding that system. It's in a whole system that is completely dark to the public as it is. But I think it doesn't work because my common sense tells me that any one of us being a judge, I don't know how I could possibly see that it's in the best interest of taking that young person and having them face much more serious charges in an adult court. It might be right for the public. I certainly believe it's right for the public. I think it's just. I was joking with somebody the other day. I said, "I think it's time for you to temper your gm/rr 113 mercy with a little justice." You know, the notion used to be temper your justice with mercy. But in Connecticut, it's like it's up on its head. And it's hard to even get the data to make the arguments. So, we have diversionary programs for young people and adults. We have the juvenile court system hidden from the public gaze. We have a referral system that on paper is argued to be fair and balanced, but I believe in practice is unworkable. It certainly works very rarely to send a juvenile who has committed extraordinarily serious crimes to go and face trial in adult court. So, you have all of that. And yet with all of that, we have individuals, now between the ages of 21 up to 26, that say that's not fair. I want yet another second chance, a third chance, a fourth chance. I want a review for parole potential and eligibility. Why? My brain didn't develop. I didn't really get what I was doing. Well, if you are finally charged in that time frame between 21 and 26, you get an attorney. And if you can't afford an attorney, the State of Connecticut will appoint you one. And I'm going to tell you right now, our public defenders are shoulder to shoulder with the best in the country. We've got smart lawyers in Connecticut, on both sides. State's attorneys, but the public defenders, they can hold their own with anyone. So, you're going to have a darn good attorney. And if you're facing serious charges, you're going to have every benefit going for you, and they can make the best defense possible. But if you're finally adjudged guilty of a serious crime, and you'll have a choice. Do you want to have a jury of your peers, or do you want to go for just to the judge? You have that choice. Or maybe, maybe, as in the vast majority of cases, you will plead down. But there's less pleading that goes on with these most serious cases. Because gm/rr 114 usually the options are so bad, these people are going to roll the dice and say, "I'll give it a try." And that's not unusual. If you go through the entire system, the system that our founding fathers created that is the fairest in the world, a trial by jury, trial by jury, and you're found guilty, that even is not the end of the road. You will then have a sentencing hearing where everything in your background can be trotted out by your attorney in your own defense because there's a range. Nearly every charge has a range. We used to have more mandatory minimums, but even those have been whittled away. So, there's very few charges where there's a mandatory minimum. And so, there's going to be latitude. Back when I was a special public defender, there was many a case, and I'm not talking about special heavy-duty cases. I mean, you know, a case where someone might be looking at somewhere between five years, two years, one year. And I may reach a plea agreement where guilt was accepted, but I was able to argue the sentence. I did that a number of times. That was as close to arguing a whole case as I often got, because most cases are never argued to a jury or a judge to conclusion. So, if you can argue anything, you argue the sentence and you can put on a full case saying, my client never had a good father. My client came from a broken family. My client needed role models, and the kids down the street were the role models. My client didn't have good food, no nutrition. It undermined their ability to grow their brain. My client grew up in a tough environment where he had to respond fast. You didn't have time to hesitate. He had to act fast. My client grew up in an environment where this, that, or the other thing was considered a slight to his pride, to his ego, to his manhood. You could argue all that and a lot more. And you'll have other people in the court gm/rr 115 system that'll do a background check and probably present a lot of evidence that will help your client as well. You can appeal to the heartstrings, everything you can name, and try to get the best sentence for your client humanly possible. And guess what? I was around. I helped champion where they would read rights to the victims or victims' families. We have much better than when I started 34 years ago, a system that actually will listen to the victims or victims' families. See, it's the victims' families because the victim might be dead. Victims can't talk. Victim's gone forever. Try not to let that be silent. Try to let others in the process. And this is where it gets really crazy, really dangerous, really unfair, in my humble opinion. Because that is the time where the state's attorney typically will talk to the victim, the victim's families, let them know what they can expect, and it's not always easy to time. I was working on an issue with Senator Somers a few years ago where we talked to the chief criminal court administrator, and went over the issue of like sometimes victims and victims’ families, you know what, they have to make a living. They can't wait around all day. They can't wait around all day to find out the verdict. They can't wait around all day to give their statement to the sentencing judge. Victims have lives too, but the most important part is they don't want to relive the tragedy over and over and over and over. I have two sons. There were a period of time that I would mention Nathaniel and Tristan in this Chamber at least once a session, if not many times. And sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would chuckle, you didn't mention Nathaniel or Tristan yet. Well, my guys have grown. Nathaniel's now moved. He's 30 years old, doing well. I'm a single dad. gm/rr 116 I've been a single dad for over five years. Tristan's 22 now and he's with me. And I love him to pieces. If God forbid, and I don't even want to say this, let alone think this, if anybody did anything that hurt or killed my sons, that will leave such a gaping hole in my heart, I don't think I could ever fill it. I have an abiding faith in Jesus Christ and forgiveness, and I would hope that that would help me get through, but God forbid the day I would have to go into some sentencing hearing and give my side of the story. And if I got the courage to be able to do that, I would hope to God I would never have to go through that again ever, ever. But what we do by opening this door with this bill is we give this new cohort of individuals these horrible criminals. And I can say that because we're talking about people that have been adjudged guilty. We're not talking about question mark here. This bill affects people that have been adjudged guilty. And it's a process where we open it up to the victims and victims' families to participate. And we look at that and it's not just abstract. And while I do feel that it's fundamentally very fair at that point in time, I think that that fairness completely evaporates and turns into a chain. You know what, I think Jesus said of Judas, that man who did that would rather wish that a millstone be around his neck and thrown to the bottom of the ocean. Once you go through that, you never want to go through that again. And I hear that. You hear that from victims' family members. I never hear it from victims if they're dead. But that's their biggest fear, is having to relive all of that, having to relive all of that because they have to be in the presence of an individual who's been adjudged guilty of doing a great harm to either them or their loved ones. And now you're participating on whether they get out of jail sooner gm/rr 117 than later. See, when we have the sentencing hearing, so many bites at the apple have already been taken. And I cannot, for the life of me, see a good reason to make the victims or the victims' families relive it again. That is an unfair system. And it's being pushed on us and argued on us under the guise that it's a system that is fundamentally unfair right now to people over 21. People that are considered adults in every other part of our statutes, every single other part of our statutes, except when they commit crimes. In that area, well, we'll set aside the victims and the victims' families. We'll set aside everything that was poured into that sentencing hearing because somehow it's not fair. Well, I say balderdash. I think it's really fair. I think Connecticut goes the extra mile already, and I think if you're doing time, hard time in Connecticut, man, you had to work real hard to get there. I have already painted that picture for you that there's a million areas to get an off ramp in that criminal justice system. And I'm sorry. I am sorry that you committed that crime and you're doing hard time. But, man, your actions have consequences. And after 21, you can go and defend our nation, you can go and vote, you can have a drink, you can purchase some recreational marijuana, if you have your car license, you can drive around the state. I can't think of a single thing you can't do in Connecticut. I just can't. You can sign a contract, you can buy a house, you can get a huge loan from a bank. At 21, you're an adult. That's the line that we have drawn as a society here in Connecticut, and that is fair. And to paint individuals just because of this age, now maybe you want to rehash that whole case, but you've been found guilty. gm/rr 118 You've had the benefit of a defense counsel. You've had the benefit of a sentencing hearing, and every benefit has been given to you. And within the criminal justice system, there's other things where you have good time and other mechanisms where even though you're judged getting 40 years, it may be less than that based upon the computation of the criminal justice system and the Department of Corrections. I hear more about that than individuals that commit crimes feel it was unfair. I hear from like victims and victims’ families saying, I thought it was going to be 40 years, why is it like 35? How did that person get that? Well, that's the way to calculate the time in the Department of Corrections and da, da, da, da. So, am I righteously indignant about this bill? You bet I am. Do I think this bill is a giant step backwards for the state of Connecticut? Yes, I do. Do I think this is an affront to my understanding of the criminal justice system? Absolutely. I owe more to my constituents than to support this. If you got a problem with 21-year-olds to 26-year- olds committing crime, let's address the roots of the crime. What is the environment? What are the predicates? But I'm sorry, the system is fair and just, and under no circumstances can I support a proposal that wants to carve out 21-year-olds to 26- year-olds and treat them separately for the crimes that they commit than their behavior in every other aspect of life in Connecticut. And for those reasons, Madam President, I cannot support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise in determined opposition to the bill that is before us, S.B. 503. The bill is entitled "AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS." And what this bill is about is about changing the circumstances by which we would treat people that are between the ages of 21 and 26 years old when they've committed a serious crime. It's understood that people that are over the age of 21 are adults in our society, and yet this majority would like to change that specifically. And when I say specifically, I mean in no other case that I can think of, except for maybe getting to be on your parents' health insurance under Obamacare, do we treat people as minors all the way until the age of 26. I got to give a lot of credit to Senator Kissel and others in the room who are going to engage in this conversation about how mature someone is or what their growth of their brain and so on. But I just can't do it, frankly. Because as far as logic arguments go, there's no logic in any of that. And I don't need any science or any data to tell me that it's nonsense. And even if it isn't, it's irrelevant. Fire is hot. Ice is cold. And people that commit criminal acts should be punished. And sure, young men between the ages of 21 and 26 are probably very much more likely to commit acts of violence than other people in different age brackets. But the answer is, so what? Even if we acknowledge that it's true, are we going to dismiss it? Are we going to ignore it? Are we going to pretend that it doesn't matter? gm/rr 120 Are we going to suggest that the victims of those crimes are less relevant because of the age of the perpetrator? And that's what we're being asked to do. We're being asked to treat the victims and the victims' families of crimes differently because of the age of the person that committed them, as if that matters. 85-year-old guys in wheelchairs are not out committing murders. We don't have to go through all the reasons why that is. And it's not just because their brain is fully developed. This is just an acknowledgment that there are people that commit acts of violence in their formative years. But that doesn't mean that those crimes are any less evil, or any less abhorrent, or any less worthy of being treated as the crimes that they are. And that's where we're getting off track here. This bill essentially expands the early release opportunities for serious offenders, reduces the certainty of sentences, creates additional risk for the public. And as was pointed out, there's nothing in this bill about the victims or their families. Where do the families of the victims have certainty as far as a sentence? Where do victims have finality when someone is prosecuted? Or the families of victims, as was pointed out? When do they get to relax and know that justice was served? When a victim or the victim's family is in the courtroom and the sentence is delivered, are they supposed to believe that it means something? Or are they going to now assume that, well, that was the original sentence. But in Connecticut, we kind of have a two-step process where we go back later and we retry this crime in the future for the purpose of reducing that sentence. This is not about minor offenses. This is about the most serious of criminal offenses. At what age are we supposed to suggest that people should have full accountability for their criminal behavior? I've gm/rr 121 been here since 2010, and I've watched the argument progress. It seemed like folks were satisfied with age 21 instead of age 18 for a brief period of time, and now we're having another bump to 26. Why 26? Why not 27? When's that bill coming? Are you suggesting that a 25-year-old adult in Connecticut can't appreciate the difference between right and wrong? Are we undermining the authority of judges when they come up with a sentence for a crime? I live in a world where this sentence should mean what it says. It hasn't been more than a week since the last time that I stood up in the Senate Chamber to make an impassioned plea for the victims of criminals. A week ago, we had a bill in this Chamber that was designed to interfere with the activities of federal agents when it comes to prosecuting, apprehending criminal illegal aliens. And I went through a relatively short abbreviated list of names and circumstances involving the victims of crimes committed by those criminal aliens. And here we are again, folks, where the majority is set to pass another law that would diminish the safety of the people of this great state of Connecticut by effectively providing protection and benefit to people who have committed some of the worst crimes imaginable. As Senator Kissel pointed out, it is not easy to end up in prison in Connecticut. We do not just take random people and throw them in prison for their first offense or for minor offenses. Frankly, you got to work up to it to end up incarcerated in Connecticut. So we're talking about a population of people that are guilty, guilty of serious crimes. I had the staff put together a list of just some examples of individuals that would have the benefit of this policy to illustrate the real life circumstances surrounding what is going on here. gm/rr 122 This is not just a logic experiment about when someone's brain reaches full attainment. This is a potential law that will change the outcome of criminal sentencing and who is on our streets and who is not. At the top of each one of these news articles, I have the name of the criminal responsible, and I am not going to use their names. I'm going to skip right over that part, and I'm going to instead mention the names of their victims. Here's a story about a 22-year-old man in New London being finally convicted for a crime he committed when he was 18 years old, where he fatally shot a gentleman by the name of Gregory Giesing and another individual named Derek Von Winkle. At the time of the shootings, our perpetrator was on probation from an arrest two years earlier when he was accused of stealing guns and making bombs. And the murder that he committed was a premeditated murder. You know how we know that? Because his two victims were people he dealt drugs to and they lived in two separate apartments. I won't read the whole story, but those two young individuals who, I believe, were in their 20s, I think. Oh, no, both of them were 25 at the time that their lives were snuffed out, cut short. They probably have parents, siblings. I don't know. Maybe they even had children. But those people are gone. Their family members have to mourn that loss forever as a result of the actions of this 18-year- old young man. Here's another one. Nicholas John Eisele, 23, and his girlfriend, Shannon Spies. He was murdered, Nicholas was, at age 23. And his girlfriend was kidnapped by this perpetrator. She was held captive at gunpoint for more than seven hours before authorities found her unarmed at a rest stop in New Jersey. This gentleman pleaded guilty to murder, assault in the first degree, home invasion, and so on. Another. This one is from the city of gm/rr 123 Waterbury, where this gentleman murdered both of his parents. Carlene Williams, 52, of Waterbury, and Marc Adams, 55, of Waterbury. He had, at the time, six pending cases at the time of his arrest, and two prior convictions. Probably not the nicest guy around. And then, of course, there's the story that we probably are more familiar with, this one is very recent, about a situation where a young man, 23 years old, shot and killed his four-month-old baby and the child's mother, and injured a third person. Ultimately, he fled to Puerto Rico, but was captured and extradited back. There's a lot more of these. I'm here swatting flies, as a member of the Minority, trying to be prepared for each of these bills as they come. I didn't know this bill was coming until today. Until today. So that's how much time I had to prepare for the fact that I needed to get up here and speak in opposition to this bill. And if I had a lot more time, I could prosecute quite a case, I promise you, to illustrate the pain and suffering that people in this state are ultimately going to deal with if this bill becomes law. It makes no sense. You can have fun all day discussing your logic experiment about whether person A or person B is fully developed in their mind at whatever age. But that doesn't matter. We need to have a mechanism in our society to prevent crime and to prosecute offenders. And it's just logical, young men in their 20s are probably the most susceptible to hormones, to be aggressive. It's just a fact of life. But that does not make them any more or less responsible than anyone else. I was a 21 to 26-year-old man, and I had that same aggression and that same hormone-induced manhood that made me bigger than life. I might have even jumped into Senator Kissel's tank of sharks. But I haven't murdered anyone. And if I gm/rr 124 did, I'd want to be held accountable, because that's what we do in our society. We hold people accountable for their actions. This is one of the worst bills we will see this year, Madam President. It is utterly irresponsible, and it makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam President, I almost forgot that I also have an amendment. So, with that, the clerk is in possession of LCO No. 4999. I probably should have just waited for one more to get an even 5000. I ask the clerk please call that amendment, and then I'd be given leave of the Chamber to summarize it.

LCO No. 4999, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a very straightforward amendment. Because this bill applies to a myriad of criminal activity, we thought that it makes sense to try and highlight some of the crimes that are actually being considered for this policy which would effectively excuse a portion of that behavior because of the age of the perpetrator. gm/rr 125 And I drew the amendment having to do with crimes against the elderly and children. So, this amendment, very straightforward, would carve out the following crimes from eligibility under this bill to be treated as a minor despite being 21 to 26 years old. The first one, and as I list these, please consider that these are crimes under this bill which are included unless this amendment passes, section 53a-70c, aggravated sexual assault of a minor, which is a Class A felony. And I will not get into the details of what that entails. Section 53a-59a, assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, or pregnant person or a person with an intellectual disability in the first degree. Currently a Class B felony. Section 53a- 59c, assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of a pregnancy. Remember what we are talking about here, folks. We're talking about serious violent crimes that result in death and destruction. And the majority is seeing fit to at least reduce the penalty for committing them for a certain portion of this population. Section 53a-60b, assault of an elderly, blind, disabled or pregnant person or a person with an intellectual disability in the second degree. 53a-60 c, assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, or a pregnant person or a person with intellectual disability in the second degree with a firearm. 53a-83b, commercial sexual abuse of a minor. And finally, 53a-196a, employing a minor in an obscene performance. This is a very simple vote, ladies and gentlemen. If you believe that people that commit the crimes that I just mentioned should be punished the way they are today and not be excused because of their age, being 21 through 26 years old, then you vote yes for the amendment. But if you believe that these folks should get a pass or have a reduced sentence because of their age, I guess you vote against the amendment. I gm/rr 126 encourage my colleagues to do what's right, and vote for this amendment, and bring some sanity back to this debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise in objection to the amendment. I've heard the argument made by my colleague. I think you can rise an objection to this, as do I. Someone concerned about a victim, someone concerned about sanity, someone also concerned about the fact that, regardless of what the crime is, the science that undergirds the movement forward on this bill does not change. And that you're not simply reducing the sentence, you are taking into account what that science suggests, and allowing for a review, which may not result in a change in a sentence at all. There are factors involved in why one might get the parole, but one who commits a crime, who is subject to this bill will serve time. At a bare minimum, they will serve 12 years. Depending on the length of the sentence, they could serve extremely lengthy sentences. So I recognize how we like to talk about victims. I could talk about victims from a very personal standpoint. I could describe to you crime in detail that have happened to me, to my body, to my person. Victims are important. And this bill is about how our system works. And our system has worked in ways that have created more victims, if we're going to have an honest conversation, not the conversation we ever have here. Right? Because we can use victims as the piece gm/rr 127 that gets people to feel and respond. And you know what we're responding, what we are trying to do there? We're trying to activate the limbic system. And this whole conversation is about the limbic system and how it develops faster than the prefrontal cortex. And that imbalance is what causes these things to happen, and it should be taken into consideration. And the way that this conversation takes place, we are actually trying to activate that system in people who are well over the age of 26. It tells you the power of that system. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. If I had not done already, I want to move adoption and ask for a roll call vote.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the No. 503. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A". We're not voting on the bill. This is S.B. No. 503, AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS. This is not the bill. This is an amendment. This is gm/rr 128 roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate for

Total number Voting 35 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 24 Absent and not voting 1

Good evening, Madam President. And I rise for some discussion on this bill. And I have to say, I have great moral outrage and principled anger over where this bill's going. if you're 26, you can go to war, you can have a family, you can vote. You're almost old enough to be the governor of the state or the president of the United States. And it doesn't take into account what these crimes and particularly the heinous crimes have done to the victims. I've spent a very large amount of time with victims and their families. And to see what is caused by folks that commit these egregious crimes, and let me tell you, it doesn't matter what age you are when you commit them, the cause of these crimes has no difference to the victim how old the person gm/rr 129 was that committed the crime. It's the crime itself that has affected these families. Age does not reduce the damage done to those who are victims. And pain does not come with an age discount card because you were 26 when you did the crime. The victim feels it the same as they would if you were 54 when you committed the crime, no matter what the age of the person was who committed it. And I'm going to talk now about a very particular case that happened in my district that I sat through the trial with. And the victim works here for the state. He used to work for OPM, now he works for the Department of Energy and Environment. And this poor person was an adult in Griswold and he was the victim, because he's the only living family member left, of a horrific crime that was carried out by a 26-year-old man and a 20-year-old sister, Ruth and Sergio. It was extremely violent and it included a planned and attempted cover up of the crime. It was a multi- victim homicide that happened in Griswold, Connecticut. And it just turns my stomach that we're actually having this conversation because I sat through every single day of that trial. And I kept thinking, when I read this bill, should somebody who's 26, like Sergio was or Ruth who was 20, should they receive a more lenient sentence because of their age? And what kind of consideration are we providing for that one person who is still left living? This case involved guns for drugs. It involved traveling from Hartford to Griswold, which is not a quick commute. It's over an hour. This was thought out. There was text messages. There was accounting back and forth of where they were going to meet. And unfortunately, for Matthew, the young victim who was 21, who was murdered, when he met Sergio, Matthew had a drug problem and was going to trade his parents' guns for drugs. gm/rr 130 But when Sergio and Ruth showed up, his parents were home, so he was not able to do that because he couldn't get into the gun safe. So what did Sergio and Ruth do? Well, they never had any drugs with them. They were never planning to sell drugs. They were planning to just steal the guns. And what happened when Matthew could not take them to the house, it was a snowy cold winter night, is that Ruth and Sergio got out of their car, and it's not clear who exactly did this, but Matthew was stabbed 21 times. He was put into the woods and covered up with leaves and snow and branches. But unfortunately, for the linguists, Janet and Ken, Sergio and Ruth knew where they lived. So, they drove down the road, it was right before Christmas, and Sergio and Ruth broke into the house, found a baseball bat, bashed Kenneth's brains out, killed the dog. Then they tortured Janet, let her live for a while, made horrific comments about her body, about the house, and then they bashed her brains in with a baseball bat. And when it wasn't done, when she was still gurgling, they strangled her. And you know what they got out of this? They never got the guns. They took Christmas presents, they took paper towels, they took towels and sheets. And it's all on film because you can see them then going back to Hartford and bringing in the unwrapped Christmas presents and the towels and the sheets, and I forgot laundry detergent. That was one of the things they stole. Again, a 26-year-old and a 20- year-old that basically destroyed an entire family. And poor Eric, who didn't live home, lived around the corner, only was alerted to this when Ruth and Sergio set the house on fire. The neighbors tried to get in to help Ken and Janet, but the fire was too strong, they couldn't get in. I think one of the worst parts about this story is gm/rr 131 that originally or initially, the police thought Matthew, the son, did it because they couldn't find him. So, Ruth and Sergio, these "children," had the wherewithal to take Matthew's car, bring it to, I think, Glastonbury, and set it on fire. So, for months, the police thought that Matthew had killed his parents and fled. It wasn't until months later, when they found Matthew's remains in the woods, that they realized that Matthew did not in fact kill his own parents. This was the most emotionally charged week of my life sitting through that. I was asked to sit through that. I sat quietly in the back because Eric is the only living member of that family left. And you can imagine being a young person working here when I want to shout-out to all the state employees that gave him time so he could sit through the trial, driving down the street and seeing the house that you grew up in, the house that your family built, completely destroyed, nothing but ashes, knowing that your parents were inside. So, I sat through that trial. There was one point where I actually felt sorry for Ruth. And then I realized, after listening, that I was looking at two just cold-blooded, heartless killers. That's what I was seeing. And thankfully, that's what the jury saw also. So, Sergio was 26. Their victim was 21. These people were old enough to plan this, they were old enough to carry it out, they were old enough to try to cover it up. So, if you're old enough to do all those things, you need to be old enough to be accountable for your actions. You shouldn't get any special treatment. You shouldn't get any special time or special release because you were 26. What happens if you were one-year-old or 27? Does everything miraculously change? It's time that we start treating citizens and people when they're 21, they're an adult. gm/rr 132 If you do a crime, you are taking accountability and being sentenced as an adult. There are no special age restrictions for the victim. This shouldn't be a study. This is a tragedy. This is one example of many that have happened in the state of Connecticut. Again, there is no meaningful difference whether Sergio was 26, he was 25, or he was 27 to Eric Lundqvist. Absolutely none. No difference to Janet, no difference to Ken, and certainly no difference to Matthew. Nor is there any difference for Ruth. Now, Ruth was given a 40-year plea deal because she testified against Sergio. But we know how plea deals go in here because the Board of Pardon and Paroles, she'll probably be maybe out in 15 years. Who knows? That's what happens in the state of Connecticut. Age does not reduce the damage done to the victims. And it's fine for us to all sit in here and say, well, these psychologists, they study this and they say the brain isn't fully developed. Well, it was developed enough to plot this whole thing. And it was developed enough to do the crime and to carry it out. I just cannot think of a worse message to send to those who commit heinous crimes. We're not talking about even a drug charge. We are talking about serious crimes that are included in this bill. I happen to know many women that, unfortunately, have been the victims of some type of sexual assault or violence. It happens to many of us. So, I thought I would do a little research on how prevalent it is and who actually experienced sexual violence in the state of Connecticut and across our country. It's so prevalent now that one in six women, 16% of women, will experience some type of sexual violence in their lifetime. Some of them have been attempted to be raped in their lifetime. And the majority of rapes in the United States are females. Men do have gm/rr 133 some type of violence, but it's at a much lower rate than women. And then we talk about who's committing these rapes and what is the percentage of people that recommit rapes after they've done it once. What's the background that leads somebody to rape someone else? And some of the statistics that I was able to pull, and these are nationwide statistics, are very scary, especially as a mother of a 35-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old daughter and a granddaughter. I think it's scary for women. 68% of the women that have been the victim of sexual assault, it happens in their home or near their home, meaning that they know the perpetrator. And many of the folks that are victims are coming from homes where abuse is prevalent. One of the most startling statistics I found is that 24% of sexual assault victims were at work or school. School. Public school. That's very scary. But then I started to look at the demographic of the perpetrators. And here's where we tie this all together with this bill today. 49% of those perpetrators are under the age of 29 years old. 49%. 60% of those perpetrators are Caucasian. And most of these perpetrators have a history of sexual violence or they have a criminal background. They have prior convictions, nearly 40% of them. 37% have suspended rape convictions, or at least have one other felony, including 10% of those that have five or more. Out of every 1,000 suspected rape perpetrators referred to prosecutors, 10% of them have five or more prior convictions. And 52% of perpetrators awaiting trial are released on bail. But here's the startling thing, 7% of those will do another rape before they even go to trial. And the recidivism rate among perpetrators of sexual violence is at 51%. 51% of those released from prison are rearrested for the same type of crime gm/rr 134 within three years. So, they are more likely than not to reoffend. So, then I started to look at the median time across the nation of the time served for sexual violence. And in most states, they're increasing the time served. It's looking at an increase of about 26%. Connecticut, with this bill, we're going in the opposite directions. So, with that said, I think it's important that we recognize that rape, in particular, combines several of the most psychologically damaging experience any person can go through. You have a severe violation of your body's autonomy. You have loss of control. You have fear of one's safety. There's intense shame and humiliation, especially if the victim knows the perpetrator. You have shattered trust and confusion. And as a basic level as humans, we rely on these things as a core function of how we live. We want to have control over our bodies, our boundaries, and sexual assault destroys these. The brain almost can't take the time to process. It's just not something that we wanted, it's not something that we expected, but there's a survival mechanism that kicks in. And that survival mechanism activates your body's stress response. It's fight or flight. And this is terrifying because someone is in a position that they can't escape, they can't stop what's happening, and it leaves a deep and threatening impact for those who have survived this horrible assault. It can lead to PTSD, anxiety, depression, certainly intimacy issues, and then sometimes suicide. Then we get to the assault on older people. So, rape, as you heard, is already a severe violation. But when an older person is the victim or subject to this act of violence, there's even greater physical vulnerability because they're less likely to be able to resist, they can't fight back. They're slower to recover from the assaults. gm/rr 135 And in these cases, rape can truly become life- threatening. It's also a huge exploitation of someone's vulnerability. And society generally considers older adults as people who should be protected. They should be respected. So, someone who targets an older person for this type of crime, it just adds another level of depravity and wrongdoing, not just violence. It's taking away and diminishing someone's limited power. So, the psychological impact of a rape or assault on an older person is profound. It is intense fear and confusion and an overwhelming loss of dignity. We see that, especially with people that are assaulted in nursing homes, for example. And I believe that there should be a broader ethical and societal dimension and harming, just harming somebody who is already at a stage in their life when they're less able to protect themselves. And that should be seen as a particularly serious violation of basic human dignity. And then, the last part that I'd like to discuss is, I don't want to discuss it, but it needs to be discussed, is when a child is assaulted. And this is, again, a severe and depraved act of violence with exploitation of someone who is the least able to understand or resist or defend themselves, the power balance is also off the charts and profound. And using or assaulting a child is not only an abuse of power, it is a destructional act of violence that someone will carry with them their entire life. Whether it's manipulating and grooming, the increase of the harm for the victim is something that is immeasurable. And this trauma that is perpetuated on children is something that should absolutely shake the core foundation of who we are as a state and as humans, and how we function in a society that has right and has wrong. gm/rr 136 Society should place a moral duty on protecting children from this type of violence. And someone who commits this type of crime against a child should be considered someone who is severe. If they've committed such a crime, they need to be accountable for this type of trauma and this illegal offense. So, with that, Madam President, the clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 4998. I ask that the clerk please call the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. Senator Somers.

Please to summarize.

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

Will you remark further? Senator Perillo. gm/rr 140

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

Have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked. Will the clerk please announce the tally?

The amendment fails. Will you remark further? Senator Fazio.

LCO No. 4995, Senate Amendment "C". gm/rr 143

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

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment to the underlying proposal would, at least, exclude murders from the sentences that are eligible for parole. I understand why there could be certain crimes where there should have parole, especially if the perpetrator maybe is a little younger. And there were, in fact, Republican votes a couple of years ago when we created the program that allowed people up to the age of 21 in certain years to be eligible for parole if the circumstances were right. But this proposal today goes far beyond the pale of what is reasonable, allowing adults, who are some of the most dangerous and hardened members of our society, who have taken the lives of other citizens, and been found guilty of Class A felonies, murder, with the intent, the mens rea that Senator Kissell discussed, making them eligible for parole after serving as little as 12 years for those crimes is not reasonable by any standard. It sends a clear signal to society that we are not serious about punishing the most heinous of crimes that are done here in the state of Connecticut. It is an extraordinarily unusual policy, an extraordinarily radical policy that undermines justice in our state, that undermines common sense gm/rr 144 and the public safety. And at least, if we are to advance this bill today, it should not include those who have been convicted of murder. I think there's a disposition that's become too common in our politics for many of our friends on the left, that we increasingly treat children like adults, and adults like children. If you're 25 years old, you are old enough to make laws here in the state of Connecticut that everyone is supposed to abide by. We have members of this state government and this state legislature who are younger than that. And yet, today, we are contemplating a policy that provides parole, an extra layer of leniency to people who are 25 years old, who've been convicted of murder by a jury of their peers with due process, finding mens rea the most heinous of crimes imaginable in our state. And we are potentially opening parole to those perpetrators, to those killers, just because they're under the age of 26, which, last time I checked, is an adult with all the rights and responsibilities of other citizens, who can serve in the state legislature and the state government, make laws that everyone else is required to abide by. This is a bridge too far, without a doubt. Maybe there are certain crimes, especially drug crimes, where we should be considering what the right balance is for a younger person, how to balance rehabilitation and mercy with justice and incapacitation. But here, we are so far beyond what is reasonable. The question of someone taking another person's life with intent, being convicted even while having due process, and being sentenced to potentially decades in prison to pay for the crime that they committed of taking the life of another person. And we're going to make them eligible, potentially, for parole after 12 years? That's not right. And gm/rr 145 that is not a sufficient price to pay for the most heinous of crimes. This amendment to the proposal being made today, this amendment, at least, will stop parole for people who have been convicted of murder between the ages of 21 and 25, the highest level of crime that can be committed in our criminal statutes, it is with the intent of making the proposal more reasonable. And the people in question, it's not a narrow segment of society, the age of 21 to 26. It's probably roughly 40% or 50% of all people who have been convicted of murders in our country just glancing at FBI statistics of homicides across the United States. Difficult to pinpoint exactly, but this potentially could be opening parole for murderers who constitute 40% or 50% of all murderers convicted in the United States. It's not a narrow segment, it's not children, it's not minors. It's people in their mid-twenties who are otherwise given the full recognition of the privileges and immunities of citizenship, the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The most simple responsibility is that you shall not take the life of another individual. They violate that, they've had their day in court, they've been found guilty to serve their time, to pay their price, and yet, we're saying that those people who have taken the life of another can now be eligible for parole after just 12 years. The victims don't get a refund on the years that they have lost. They're paying a price of far greater than 12 years in almost all cases. This is a very, very reasonable amendment, extraordinarily tame in its nature. If you've been convicted of murder, you should not be eligible for this new parole after serving just twelve years of your sentence for taking the life of another. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for it, make a little more reasonable gm/rr 146 what I think is a deeply unreasonable proposal, and support the concept of justice in our state. Thank you.

Yes, Madam President. And I'll do it for him because I know that they're talking about the roll call when a vote is taken, I ask it be taken by roll. Madam President, with all due respect, I heard a lot about common sense and I think it's reasonable to take into account what science tells us. I think it's reasonable to think about what it is to be a young person, even at the age of 25. Bill goes to 26, so therefore those under the age of 26. Madam President, I think this bill is reasonable. And part of the argument that we just heard was, well, they could serve here with us. So could an 18- year-old and a 19-year-old? So, that logic to me, while maybe useful to the argument, it doesn't hold up. Madam President, the point here is this is not a bill that requires anything necessarily to happen in terms of that sentence. What it requires is a review of the sentence. What it requires is to take into account the hallmarks of what it is to be, someone whose brain functions as the science tells us and to take that and put that in play as you think about what the sentence is and when you review the sentence. That's it. It's not overly complicated. It's not about the particular crime. It might be about how that crime took place. It might be about the actions that might not line up with the hallmarks of, being someone who is adolescent in the brain and whose frontal cortex has not developed as fast as the lower brain. It might gm/rr 147 be about all of that, but this is not about a lot of what we are talking about tonight, no matter how much we try to fit that round peg into that square hole. So I rise in objection, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "C" on S.B. No. 503. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "C" on S.B. No. 503 AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS We're voting on Senate Amendment "C" of S.B. No. 503. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate.

Total number Voting 34 Total voting Yea 11 Total voting Nay 23 Absent and not voting 2 gm/rr 148

Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. Good to see you. Madam President, I rise in support of the legislation before us today, and want to thank Senator Winfield for his work on this and Representative Stafstrom and Judiciary Committee, but particularly want to thank Representative Kadeem Roberts for his work on the legislation bringing it forward. It's a party bill for him, and one that I know he has worked extremely hard on to get through the Chamber. Madam President, we have worked for a long time here in this Chamber and in this legislature on our criminal justice reform efforts. And through those efforts, we've seen Connecticut continue to be a low-crime state, a safe state, and one that really is heralded across the country as one of the safest places to live. We have worked on criminal justice reform for over a decade now, and during those times, we have seen crime continue to go down and down and down, especially our violent crime. This type of a bill continues those efforts, and those efforts to make sure that people pay for the crimes that they committed, but also provides for ways in which they are not sentenced for life, in ways in which they can get on with their lives again. We've passed a number of different reforms, which I've heard a lot of the same arguments today that I've heard over the last decade or more on what could happen or the predictions of what could happen with regard to some of the reforms that we've made. And again, what has come out of the reforms has been a safer state, has been a state with fewer crimes, gm/rr 149 has been a state with less violence, and that is something that we should be very proud of. So I appreciate the fact that the Judiciary Committee voting in favor of this legislation. I appreciate, the leaders of the Judiciary Committee putting forward this bill as a priority in a short session, and I appreciate people like Representative Roberts who understands why this is so important and understands that this is ways in which we can make our state a better place for all of our people, and continue to keep it as a safe state as well. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I want to thank again everybody who's taken part in it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise tonight in opposition to this measure. I hear from constituents sometimes, quite often actually, in talking about some of the policies passed here in Hartford. And at times, they would tell me that they believe some of these policies are illogical. I would argue that some are questionable. Very few, I would say, completely illogical. But I would argue that this is one where I can't make sense of why we're doing this tonight. And that's because it's bills that we pass. There's thousands of bills that are proposed as we start session, as we all know, in this Chamber. And then ultimately, what ultimately passes the Senate, the House, gets signed into law by the governor, gets whittled down to maybe a few 100. So, when we are talking about priorities, we are really picking priorities. gm/rr 150 It starts with thousands, ends up with a couple 100. So that's a 10% ratio, a 10% priority. And the other 90% don't make it across the finish line, which we really have to prioritize then at 10%. And so what I question tonight is how, in any logical world, could this bill be that much of a priority for the state of Connecticut. Because at its essence, we're saying it should be a priority of ours to reduce sentences, reduce criminal penalties that have already been initiated by judges in the state of Connecticut upon mostly some of the most heinous criminals we have here in the state. If you look at the early parole laws and how they are calculated, the way this bill was written, it truly only impacts some of the worst of worst criminals. And I think that's why the amendments that unfortunately were shot down on party lines made sense in terms of reiterating what this bill does. Because, again, in terms of who this impacts, who we're helping have their sentences reduced, it's murderers, it's violent criminals against children and elderly, it's rapists. Are these individuals that should be prioritized to have their sentences reduced? Because by voting yes on that, you're subscribing to that theory that it's a priority. And what I think we're missing in many cases, if we're saying that is a priority, is that there are victims on the side of every single one of these crimes. And I could tell you that some of these victims are not alive and talk about it anymore because they've been murdered. Or some of these victims are so victimized, they live with the torture of that moment that this criminal committed upon them for the rest of their life. And we're going out of our way to help reduce that individual sentence that committed that heinous crime? What are we doing here? How could you support gm/rr 151 that? In what world? Again, there's a lot of bills that I hear my constituents say are completely illogical that bill gets passed. And as I said, sometimes I think illogical might be too strong of a word. But for this one, I'm sorry, I don't see the logic in this. Another Senator had alluded to the fact that crime is reduced or we've seen our crime numbers get reduced in the state of Connecticut. I speak with a lot of police officers who will tell you that some of the statistics we've seen are not exactly what they're seeing on the street. But nevertheless, let's say that is factual. That's a good thing, obviously. But I have a hard time believing that we're going to create a safer society for public when we're now crafting laws in this Senate Chamber that are reducing sentences for murderers and rapists. Sorry. In my opinion, that's not good public safety policy. Period. I don't care what age. So I would ask my colleagues to join me in what I think is logic towards strong public safety policy and to continue to uphold that murderers and rapists that have been convicted of these heinous crimes, have victims that we should be standing up for, stand up for these victims, and oppose this legislation. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, first of all, I want to thank Senator Winfield for his extraordinary work on this issue, as on so many other criminal justice reform bills during his tenure. But I think the debate on this bill has gotten off track in the sense that no one is gm/rr 152 entitled to release under this bill. No one is entitled to release. All that would be offered is an opportunity to present evidence of transformation and repentance, and an effort to show that someone has been rehabilitated during the course of a lengthy prison sentence, so that that evidence could be presented to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. And the more heinous the crime, the more chilling and shocking the circumstances, the higher the burden would be for that person to demonstrate that he should receive any relief from the original sentence. Because all of that evidence, everything that was presented at trial would be made available by those who would be opposing any motion for parole at that stage in life. So, it's not as if there is any sense of somebody just has to wait out 12 years or 30 years or whatever it might be, and then are entitled to release, they could apply at that point. If turned down, they'd have to wait at least a couple of years to try again. But, Madam President, again, there is nothing here that would open the doors and say that your sentence is actually being reduced from what the judge imposed. One thing, Madam President, I think that even those who have worked in the system for many years on the prosecutorial and judicial side are supportive of concepts like this. For instance, there was an article by a former prosecutor that just appeared in the New York Times a few weeks ago. This former prosecutor is somebody who worked for a number of years as a prosecutor in Chicago in the 1970s, and said that when prosecuting cases, my colleagues and I treated harsh prison sentences as common sense and believed people who committed serious crimes would remain dangerous for decades, and believe long prison terms protected the public, and that political and legal culture gm/rr 153 rewarded severity, and long sentences felt not only justified, but necessary. But he says now, years later, we were wrong. I have seen people change behind bars in ways the criminal justice system did not anticipated. And goes on to reflect that in many cases, sentences now can be much harsher than what is needed to protect the public as years have gone on. And that a system that cannot reassess its own decisions risks losing sight of its purpose, which is to hold people accountable and to protect the public, and to ensure that punishment remains fair and proportionate over time. That is the key here. Is it fair to continue punishing someone at age 50 in the same way that he was sentenced at age 20- something? Judges also, I've seen a couple of articles, one more recently by the Chief Judge of New York's highest court raises the same point about being in support of measures to the so-called second look system. And Judge Rowan Wilson said that if you stick with the traditional model, then a judge is making a determination about how long to incarcerate someone shortly after the person has committed a crime. And it's sort of blind to the possibility that people change. Other judges have been quoted as saying that they are pleased that someone along the way is going to review the decision that they made when the defendant came before them in a snapshot in time, the evidence of the crime before him, the evidence of the defendant as he appeared at that moment. But many judges are now saying they are pleased that someone gets a chance to take a second look many years down the road. What would be relevant is what kind of a prisoner has that person been? How has he behaved in prison? Has he been harsh and hostile? Has he been someone who has been confrontational with the corrections officer? Someone who has been dangerous and disruptive? Someone who has been gm/rr 154 continuing to be a poisonous menace within the system? If that's the case, that person is not going to be granted parole, regardless of how long he has served. However, suppose he has tried to make use of the circumstances of his life by learning, studying, reading, taking advanced courses as they become available, becoming a mentor to younger prisoners to try to help them curb their anger and rashness and impetuousness, then that's a very different person who might come before the board 30 years or so after having committed a crime. So that, I think, is what is recognized here, is that no one is entitled to anything, but that people will be entitled to demonstrate transformative change where it occurred. And the more serious the crime they committed in the first place, the higher the bar will be to show what they have done or what they have done while they're in prison in any way is sufficiently relevant to counterbalance what they were sentenced for in the first place. It necessarily has to be a high bar, and will be a high bar. And it's important to note, in fact, that one of the phenomena that we've dealt with in society for a long time and has caused many people to spend more time in prison than was actually justified by their relative dangerousness to society, was the so-called aging out phenomenon, as evidenced in the three strikes laws that many states adopted some years ago. So that if you committed a third offense within a certain period of time, even if the third offense may have been less serious than some of your early ones, you could be sentenced to a term of imprisonment much longer and much more severe than the fact of that crime would justify if it was something that triggered the three strikes law, and you could be sentenced for relatively minor offense gm/rr 155 because it was your third offense, and not because it was inherently serious. But studies have shown that in many cases, by the time people committed a third offense of that kind, they were close to aging out of their criminality anyway. People age and don't commit the same kind of crimes that they could when they were young and rash. Someone once pointed out to me that, well, even cat burglars are like athletes. They age out of being able to commit their crime. They're no longer athletic enough to jump from fire escapes and climb from rooftops. There's a sense that they physically lose the ability to be criminal in the way that they could when they were 20, maybe by the time they're 35. But what happens is we do sentence people for their last crime at a time when they might have not committed any more crimes anyway. So, what is that? An additional cost to the state, potential wasted potential in the life of the person who was put away for years at a time when the aging out phenomenon might happen. I have seen this throughout my whole career, as someone who does criminal defense work. I've had a number of clients who I've represented over the years, some who in their 20s committed a variety of offenses, none of the heinous kind that would trigger a sentence of this length, but repeated offenses of one kind or another out of stupidity, out of rashness, out of immaturity. I had one client who was in trouble nearly every year from the time he was 20 until the time he was 30. In his 30s, he only sought my services maybe twice in the whole decade. And since he turned 40, not at all. He's now close to 50. So, he's an example of someone who did mature enough to live in society, follow its rules, stay out of trouble once he reached a certain level of age and maturity. gm/rr 156 Unfortunately, there are many people like him who wind up being sent to prison at a time when their whatever risk they pose to society may have petered out with their age, but their past catches up to them, and they are put away at our expense for years and years. In these circumstances, obviously, we have people who have committed serious offenses, and it is appropriate that they be imprisoned, and that they be sentenced to long periods of incarceration. However, it's important also that that dangerousness and the effect of that sentence be evaluated at a certain time. And no one is arguing that serious crime should not have serious consequences, but it is important if indeed someone has been transformed, someone has indeed studied and learned and improved and matured to the point where he could actually be beneficial to society in some way, if he were released or at least not a burden any longer, ought to be able to prove that. That is being offered in this bill, not an automatic get-out-of-jail card when you've served a certain amount of time. Years ago, I remember former Corrections Commissioner Theresa Lantz, when I noticed in the budget that she was seeking for the corrections department one year, was looking for an increase in programs to help people get their GEDs, and was actually, at that time, looking for a reduction in the line item for college credit courses. And I asked her about that, and she said, "Well, we have so many people who come into the system who do not have a high school education. There are many of them here, the typical person is maybe here for three years or less. The best that we can do for them in that time is help them get a GED while they're here, and gain some skills, and perhaps be more employable when they come out than they were before they went in." gm/rr 157 And she said, frankly, the only people in our system who are eligible for the college courses are generally people who are in for a long sentence. Because it takes a long time to go through the courses and demonstrate the mastery that it would take to get a college degree or a graduate degree while in prison. But it is those people who have improved themselves through education, are in the category of those who committed serious offenses while they were young. And against all odds, they have been transformed over the course of their lives in prison, and should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that with no guarantees or with no sense that in any way their prior crimes are going to be deemphasized or minimized or in any way reduced in significance to the point that it would result in a sense of insult to the victim. Again, as I said, the more serious, the more horrendous, the more atrocious the crime, the higher the burden would be on anyone seeking any kind of adjustment in the sentence. But the bill just does recognize the reality of human nature and also the fact that has been said before that brain development and maturity is not really fully established until the mid -20s. And this bill would recognize that science, and would give people in prison more of an incentive to improve themselves while they're there, looking down the road to hope that one day they could demonstrate the significance of their rehabilitation to the point that it might be able to convince the Board of Pardons and Paroles to adjust their sentence. It is a modest goal that takes account of the possibility of human growth, but in no way guarantees them anything, but puts the burden on them to prove that the transformation is real and significant. So, Madam President, I would urge gm/rr 158 support of this bill this evening. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the 503. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill. This is S.B. 503, AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCING OF AND PAROLE ELIGIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WHOSE OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED WHEN SUCH INDIVIDUAL WAS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-SIX YEARS. That is the bill. We are now voting on the bill, S.B. 503. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on S.B. 503. An immediate roll call vote.

S.B. 503: Total number Voting 36 Total voting Yea 24 Total voting Nay 12 Absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to refer Calendar Page 11, Calendar 108, S.B. 282 to the Appropriations Committee.

I'd like to refer Calendar Page 50, Calendar 69, S.B. 125 to the Appropriations Committee.

Ask for immediate transmittal on both of those items.

We will do that.

So, do not wander far.

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Kushner, Good evening.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Please do proceed to summarize.

Thank you, Senator Kushner. Will you remark, Senator Sampson? gm/rr 163

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner. gm/rr 166

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Will you remark further? 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. Mr. Clerk, please give us the tally.

(gavel) Legislation passes, Mr. Clerk.

Yes. And good evening, Senator Lopes.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Yes, please, sir.

Thank you. Question is on passage, Senator Harding.

This is the bill, sir. Sorry.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill, Senator Martin? We'll get your microphone on. Does that work? gm/rr 174

Please proceed.

Thank you. Senator Lopes?

Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. Senate Bill 317, An Act Concerning Resource Recovery Facilities in the State. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Vote on Senate Bill 317. This is Senate Bill 317. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the

Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 0 Those voting Yea 35 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I had referred one item to the appropriations committee. I'd like to recall that item, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On calendar page 50, calendar 69, Senate Bill 125. I'd like to mark that item go, and if that could be our next item.

Page 50. Calendar Number 69, substitute for Senate Bill Number 125, An Act Restricting Private Equity Ownership of Nursing Homes. There are two amendments.

Good evening, madam. I rise for an amendment for referral purposes. If the clerk could please call LCO 5011.

LCO Number 5011. Senate Amendment A.

I apologize.

Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Madam President, the clerk is in possession of Amendment LCO 5011. I ask that the clerk please call the amendment.

Very good. Senator Hochadel. gm/rr 178

Very good. So you're moving adoption of the amendment. Yes.

Excellent. Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? No, we're not. Very good. Well, anyone else like to remark on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I refer the same to the appropriations committee

And ask for immediate transmittal.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, next is our consent calendar number one. I ask the clerk to please call the items on consent calendar number one, followed by a vote.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, tally on the consent. gm/rr 180

(gavel) Consent calendar consented to. Senator Duff.

So ordered, sir.

gm/rr 181 Thank you. We are adjourned. Go forth and govern. (gavel) (On motion of Senator Duff of the 25th, the Senate at 7:36 pm adjourned subject to the call of the chair)