CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-05-04

Will the senate please come to order, members and guests? If you could please rise and direct your attention to Kathy Zabel, our guest chaplain from Burlington.

And I'd like to bring up Senator Tony Hwang to lead us in the pledge.

Thank you ma'am.

Good afternoon by a minute, Madam President. Madam President, as our first item to go, we're going to, mark on Calendar page 57, Calendar 69, Senate Bill 125.

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

Page 57, Calendar 69, Substitute for Senate Bill 125, an act restricting private equity ownership of nursing homes. As Amended by Senate Amendment Schedule "A".

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The clerk is in possession of a strike all Amendment, LCO 5843. I would ask that the clerk please call the Amendment.

Senator Hochadel.

The question is on adoption. Please do summarize. sn/rr 4

Thank you. Will your mark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will your remark on the bill as amended? Senator Hwang, good afternoon, Sir.

Please do proceed. Prepare yourself, Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Good afternoon, Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson. sn/rr 18

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson. sn/rr 20

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you. Senator Hochadel.

Yes. We will stand at ease briefly.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Sampson. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, I will open the voting machine, Mr. Clerk.

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

Legislation passes. Don't worry. We're going to let people take the picture. Senator Duff.

Please proceed.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Sorry. Can you repeat the third one, please, Sir?

So ordered.

Mr. Clerk. Yep. Take your time.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Hartley.

And the question is on passage, will you remark?

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Hartley.

sn/rr 30 Thank you. The question is on adoption. Will you remark further on the amendment?

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

Good afternoon, Madam President. Again, forgive my voice. I think this is a good idea, Madam President, that we're now going to be including the commissioner of DECD or one of the assignees or designees. We just added, I think, someone from the OPM and then someone else, as well. All good. I think we've seen some of the drawbacks of just assigning DEEP to come up with a strategic plan for our energy. There are so many contributing factors to the plan but I think our side of the aisle seem to think that DEEP, it was probably more--, very--, I guess, what I'm thinking of is, some of the things that we've challenged in the past, such as the transportation climate initiative. I don't know if that was part of the overall energy policy. I got to believe it was. We had the EV mandate, that was before us, and we fought back on that. And I think had DECD been at the table, there might have been an earlier conversation before that policy was, thrusted onto us. sn/rr 32 Their input may have shed some light as to what that would have meant to our state economy. Another discussion and policy that has taken place, I believe, is the renewables and the classification of class one, class two, class three, towards our energy and emissions goals as well. I think, had the DECD been at the table, that might have been, maybe extended out in time, and given us more time to sort of the market to sort of adapt to all that. But Madam President, I can't say enough about what we're doing here with this bill. I think having DECD in particular, at the table would shed a lot of light onto the overall strategy on how we approach our energy here in the State of Connecticut. So thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the senate, voting on Senate Bill Number 306 as amended, an act concerning economic development and comprehensive energy strategy. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill Number 306 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the senate, Senate Bill Number 306 as amended. We're voting on the bill.

Total number of voting 36 Total voting, Yea 36 Total voting, Nay 0 Absent, not voting 0

Page 58. Calendar Number 98. Substitute for Senate Bill Number 300. An act establishing a debt collection exemption relating to joint accounts. There is an amendment.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you as well on this beautiful day. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the clerk is in possession of LCO 5649. I ask that the sn/rr 34 clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave to summarize.

LCO Number 5649, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you, Madam. This amendment is a strike all amendment that, in effect, becomes the bill, and I move adoption.

Madam President, this amendment retains the original intent of the bill as presented to the Banking Committee by the bankruptcy roundtable. Its goal is to update Connecticut's debt collection laws and enhance the court's ability to protect innocent individuals, from financial loss due to the seizure of funds held in joint accounts. Madam President, under existing law, creditors can freeze or seize funds from a joint account when collecting a debt, even if those funds belong to a non-debtor account holder who has no obligation to repay that debt. sn/rr 35 This amendment corrects that imbalance by creating a fair and transparent process to establish true ownership before any funds are collected. The amendment make three key changes. First, it adds a new protection for joint accounts by expanding the list of assets exempt from debt collection. Specifically, funds in a joint account will be protected if the court determines that the judgment debtor has no equitable ownership interest in those funds. Second, it establishes a clear process for innocent joint account holders to assert their rights before funds are released to creditors. Courts will evaluate ownership based on factors such as source of deposits, how the account is used, and who benefits from it. However, financial institutions may still release funds to satisfy debts if no claim is made by a joint account holder within a specific time frame. Finally, Madam President, it ensures that financial institutions can continue to manage joint accounts without being responsible for determined ownership interest. It also shields them from liability when they act in accordance with court orders. Madam President, this is a collaboration. This bill before us or this amendment is a collaboration between the Bankers Association and the roundtables. It creates a more bankruptcy roundtable. Excuse me. It creates a more balanced and equitable debt collection system, one that protects innocent account holders while maintaining creditors' balance or creditors' rights. Excuse me. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Yes. Rising in support of the amendment, I am proud to co-introduce this with the good chair of the Banks Committee. I thank her as well for a good explanation of what the bill now does. I think it is important to note we started out, earlier this year with a bill that was not very palatable to a lot of the stakeholders and interested parties. And the collaboration that took place you know, bank bills don't get terribly exciting, as some of the other, matters that come before us in this chamber, Madam President. But this one stirred up quite a stir in the background, I would say, and created some angst amongst various stakeholders. And I think what we're really doing here is, what the good chair just spoke to, took the words out of my mouth. We're protecting the innocent here who may essentially be on a bank account with somebody else. And it's not really that's someone else's money. It's a shared account. It's that person's money. And now they would be under current law, they'd be subject to having those funds taken in a judgment. This is protecting that innocent person, if you will. I can think of many scenarios, within my own family and with friends where, people are on joint accounts for, loved ones are on joint accounts for any number of reasons, just to help someone who might be elderly or doesn't understand or has a language barrier, whatever the case might be. This is doing, what I believe, is the right thing. I also would like to make note that, when we were looking at this amendment, we had a really great opportunity to reach out to other committees and to others for some assistance and guidance on, is this sn/rr 37 okay? Does this meet some of the checks and balances, if you will, that we look for that sometimes we overlook, in this chamber. We bring bills out and we go, oh, I can't believe it. That's illegal to do that, or that's unconstitutional or what have you. We went to the appropriate, means and ends to make sure that at least we think, with the guidance of others that this bill does what it is intended to do. And Madam President, to that end, I would like to yield my time to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the good Senator John Kissel.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Great to see you this afternoon with three days to go. And I would accept the yield from my friend and colleague, Senator Berthel. And at first blush, I want to congratulate, Senator Patricia Billie Miller for doing an awesome job as chair of the Bank's Committee. And I think that this amendment, which becomes the bill, is on all fours and does a great job. But there's one area, and I want to, as I so often do in this circle, thank my wonderful counsel, Attorney Melanie Dykas, for not only working with Senator Berthel on some of these issues, but raising, one remaining issue that seems to be a gray area. And if it's not addressed in this underlying bill, perhaps counsel for the majority might use the next couple of days to maybe come up with a remedy or at least consider this. So, Madam President, I would like to draw the chairwoman's attention to Line 318, of the amendment, which becomes the bill, and that is the hearing provision. sn/rr 38 And by way of background, one of the concerns was, when the marshal, and I didn't do a lot of this. I have not been in private practice for about 23 years, and so it was well before that. And typically the rare instances that I got a judgment against a judgment debtor, I would hand it off to back then it was a sheriff, now it's a marshal, and say take care of this. And usually as soon as the marshal served the papers on the bank, I got a call from whoever owed the money saying how can we work this out. And so never really followed the process all the way through. But in this instance, the concern was, when there's a joint account and the execution is given to the financial institution, typically a bank, then if the creditor, I mean, the debtor is asserting that they don't have or the question then becomes, and I know that the goal of this bill in large part is, to protect that person in a joint account that feels that they have a right to the money. So let's say you have person A, that's the debtor. We'll say that's the ne'er? do well, that owes the money lawfully and yes, they have exposure. But there might be person B who's on the joint account, that had nothing to do with the underlying claim and wants to protect that money. And it's my understanding that this amendment, which becomes the bill, wants to protect the interest of person B, from having their money taken out of that joint account for the bad behavior of person A. I get that. And so in this amendment, and I want to commend again, Senator Billie Miller, in Lines 332 to 333. This matter, if asserted by the parties to the joint account, then it would go to a judge, and the judge would sort it out. sn/rr 39 And the question arises again, thank you Attorney Dykas and Senator Berthel for agreeing, that this is an area that seems to have been lost in the shuffle. That my question through you, Madam President is, what if the other party, or one of the parties is a minor? Because it seems to be completely not part of this amendment. And so my question is, if you have party A, which is the one that actually got into trouble and owes the money, and party B is a minor, maybe the money belongs to that minor, and person A was sort of watching it in trust, or maybe not, or maybe part of it. It's a gray area, and on top of that, to make it even more complicated is, I think it would be a potential conflict of interest, to allow the adult that may have an adverse interest to the minor, to speak on behalf of the minor. And there's nothing in here that says, that the court should appoint someone to represent the interest of the minor. And sometimes in court matters, if the minor is 17, they might allow the minor to talk and testify on his or her own behalf because they're almost an adult. But if the minor is, like, 12, that little boy or little girl is not going to know the legal nuances of, I don't know if the money's mine or not mine. And so a gray area. And I'll finalize with this Madam President. I thought there would be lead time with this bill, so that, that area could be addressed. But I think this goes into effect January 1st. And this legislature is not coming back between now and January 1st, to my knowledge. And this could be a potential gray area, for the courts to have to sort out without any guidance through from us. And so that is my question. What should we tell the judicial branch if one of these parties to a joint account is a minor and this sn/rr 40 hearing as envisioned by this amendment, is asked for? Through you Madam President.

Thank you for pointing that out, Senator Kissel. So, the burden of proof is on the debtor that the money does not belong to them. And so it's based on the preponderance of evidence. So the legislative intent is that the minor that's the legislative intent. And I know that we have to put it in legislation. Is that whoever is the guardian of that minor would make that decision, would represent the minor in this case. I hope I answered your question. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that response from the good chair of the Bank's Committee, and it's not spelled out here in the proposed legislation, via this amendment, but I appreciate that. Now my concern is that the person, the debtor probably is not going to be arguing that well, here it is. The concern is, if the debtor says, it's not my money. It belongs to the minor. How do we know that, that individual is not trying to shield that money from the creditor? Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 41

Thank you. Through you, Madam President. Honestly, Senator Kissel, we don't know. And so we tried to set up a system where the judge makes the ultimate decision as to who the money belongs to. So there has to be testimony. And, again, I mentioned those three conditions, and there are more conditions about deposits, withdrawals. So we don't know if that person is trying to shield, but we are hoping that the judge would make the right decision. And so we tried to put in, factors that would help the judge to make that decision. Thank you. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President, for purposes of legislative intent, although it does not appear to be spelled out here, is it the position of the chair of the Bank's Committee that it would be a conflict of interest, if the other joint owner of the account could not speak on behalf of the minor, because it would whether they're telling the truth or not telling the truth, that it would be a reasonable inference for the court to perceive that there's a potential, if not a real conflict of interest between those two parties? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, the legislative intent, it would be a conflict of interest that the debtor could not represent the second holder if it is a child, and themselves as well in the case.

Thank you very much. And I really appreciate the thoughtful responses from, Senator Billie Miller having known her for all these years and joining us on the Judiciary Committee. I would expect no less, always rises to the occasion. And I think that really clarifies this issue to my satisfaction. And I feel that based upon those answers, the court would be well within its purview and jurisdiction, if there was no one readily available at that time to represent the interest of the minor. And if the debtor, the other named party on the account, could not speak on behalf of that minor, then I would think that based upon this colloquy that we have had this afternoon, that the court would be well within its rights to appoint, a representative for the minor regarding that hearing so that there was an objective individual speaking for the rights of that minor, who may indeed have a very strong interest in that money. And sometimes when a minor comes into a large sum, they certainly can't dispose of it on their own. It may be in their best interest, for example, to save it for college or something like that. And so it might indeed be their right. sn/rr 43 Conversely though, it might be, half belonging to someone that really owes it to a creditor who has gone through all the hoops of bringing an action, and going and getting a judgment, and then turning that judgment into an execution and is just trying to get properly compensated. So, I think as a whole, this is a great, amendment. It's certainly better than the underlying bill. And I think, my concerns at this point, have been addressed. And I would thank not only, Senator Billie Miller, but also, my friend and colleague, Senator Eric Berthel, for leading us through the sometimes very complicated nature of legislation coming out of the Bank's Committee. Thank you very much, Madam President.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Miller.

Thank you, Will you remark further, Senator Berthel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Looney.

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

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

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

And good afternoon, Senator Cabrera.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Yes. Absolutely. Mr. Clerk.

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

Please do proceed.

And very good. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying, aye. sn/rr 49

Thank you, Madam President. I am commenting on the amended bill, and I want to thank the good chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee in working very closely on this important issue, that was brought forth by the Connecticut Association of Realtors, in regards to one of our major industries in the State of Connecticut, the real estate business. I always conceived that, construe that business to be one of the ultimate independent small business with many of the contractors working throughout our community. So in light of this, it placed great importance, and I'm so glad that we're raising this bill. But for a point of legislative clarification through you, could I ask the good chair of the committee to clarify some of the intent of this bill? Through you.

Thank you. In this bill that came from the association was to change the title of the name. Instead of being called a salesperson, we looked at it as an agent, to reflect the changing requirements and the role as well as the utilization of information technology. sn/rr 50 Could the good chair verify that as a result of that name change, many of the languages, in this bill as it relates to a salesperson shall now be construed as sales agent? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. The good Senator, is correct. This was a culmination of many conversations that I had with real estate professionals in the league as well as the good Senator himself to more adequately reflect the role that sales agents play in the industry.

Thank you. And another major component of this bill and the intent of it was to look at continuing education. One of the challenges has always been in regards to continuing education, a 12 hour minimum requirement on an annual basis. Not always the best thing for people in the business, but, nonetheless, it was a requirement with the intent of education, awareness, of changing laws, and changing dynamics in the marketplace. But through you, we also heard that the challenges of a continuous three hour course, is a rigorous demand and the challenging time management, and that we are looking through this bill to change the opportunity to not only have three hour courses, but two hour courses, but while at the same time maintaining the 12 hour minimum annually of continuing education requirements. sn/rr 51 Through you, for legislative intent, Madam President, if the good chair could clarify and legislatively verify that change and the purpose for that? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. The good Senator, is correct. After several conversations with the Connecticut realtor insurers and other folks in the business, quickly realized that in today's age, people balancing work life balance as well as making sure that we didn't eliminate or dilute the veracity of the training. We wanted to include more flexibility in people's ability to meet the requirement without, at all diluting or diminishing the veracity of the training.

Thank you. I want to thank the good chair for clarifying that. And we agreed. This was a change. It did not change the education requirement, but accommodated the changing dynamic and the frantic scheduling of many of our small business owners. A couple of issues related to clarification, but not structurally language change. It relates to transparency, but also, one of the issues is the growing kind of collaboration of real estate teams. And one of the most important parts of it was the construction of the teams has been a real boon to sn/rr 52 the industry and being able to have collaborative teamwork efforts of a team concept. But it is also important statutorily to affirm that when you are establishing a team, that one member of the team needs to be on the record by name to be a registered broker of record. Through you, could the good chair verify that as we address the issue of teams in real estate management and a growing trend that, that is a requirement that we reiterated in this legislation? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. The good Senator is correct.

Thank you, Madam President. And I appreciate that because we want to be able to recognize that increased changes and trends that we reiterate the basic language concepts. Another area of concept that I wanted to ask the good chair to verify is in regards to referral fees, and to also to be sure of transparency, accountability, and respect for the consumer that referrals, from attorney at laws and mortgage brokers are not entitled to any fees. I think that was an important part of this language to reiterate that there is no quid pro quo on a sn/rr 53 referral basis, even though there may be well intentioned and it's relationship based in business. But an attorney in law and a mortgage broker cannot accept any fees in regards to referral of businesses to respective clients and services. Would that be correct? Through you, for legislative intent, in this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Yet again, yes, Senator. You are correct.

Thank you. And it's just a reiteration. It's current statute, but I think in our refreshing in this language of this bill, as revised and amended, that these are points that we wanted to reiterate, that it is important to protect the consumer. Then as I lead into the newly amended Section, which was Section 32, it was a strikeout to replace the previous language in Section 32. And I'm very grateful to have a collaboration with many of the actors in the senate, in the house, advocates, housing, authorities to be sure that the concept of Section 32, I may not, eloquently describe it. So through you, could I ask the good chair of the Section 32, its purpose, and also the language and its execution and the opt in, option of that intent. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 54

Thank you, Madam President. Senator is correct. This was a culmination of lots of conversation between the various parties, the Connecticut Realtors Association, and others. And what we're trying to do here is just strike the balance between transparency and disclosure, making sure that listings were available in a nondiscriminatory way, while also trying to protect the rights of situations that perhaps we may not imagine, such as a domestic violence situation, such as someone who is well known by the public who may not want a listing to be too public. And what we did was in this amendment, which is, inform the seller of what they would be bypassing if they choose not to have a listing be more broad based. It does require them to fill out a form. It does require them to be, aware of what they're foregoing by doing so. But what we wanted to make sure we balanced here was to make sure that we balance the impacts of the individual seller, their needs, as well as the broader market, which is changing drastically as you all know, to make sure that there was more disclosure and not and that these listings were done in a nondiscriminatory way to make it as widely available as possible.

sn/rr 55 Thank you, Madam President. Thank you to the good chair articulating. I want to affirm those kind of examples that were given, but also from a previous real estate career and understanding the very, very challenging marketplace in regards to listing as well as buying, in the marketplace, that this language is important. And I want to give an extended thank to the Connecticut Association Realtors for raising this concern in a marketplace sensitivity. As the good chair articulated, it is to protect some aspects of privacy and raising awareness for those that are maintaining their privacy from issues of domestic violence and fear. But another reality of this is the practices of pocket listings that, many of the realtors in working with selling, of the property do not always disclose that these listings are not to be promoted and articulated in the multiple listing services. And one of the challenges was to, and I know how much realtors hate additional forms, but this was an opportunity to be able to increase transparency and awareness for the selling property owners to know that, should they not want to be able to put their listings on a multiple listing and that it is discretionary, that they understand and sign an opt out form. I think it's truly important to understand that this is an awareness, an information, but also a transparency aspect that this is not a requirement of the seller to sign or not sign, but it is an important aspect that agents that are representing sellers, be able to explain that this is an additional form of information that they should receive. So could the good chair of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee articulate Section 32, as we went through the revision to balance the challenges of sn/rr 56 statutory requirements, but also protection of the selling households and consumer in a transparency, but also emphasize the opt out option of the additional form. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. That's precisely it, to the good Senator. We were trying to exactly balance what you were articulating, which is, how do we strike the balance in making listings available to the public, in a way that is as transparent as possible, as equal as possible, and does not lead to any unintended consequences such as discriminatory practices in the marketplace, while also respecting the rights of a seller, to list and to publicize their property, in a way that is desirable and fits their criteria. It was a challenge, but I think a challenge we've rose to and the opt out form makes it very clear. It makes them aware of what are some of the possible unintended consequences, if they were not to more broadly list their property while also balancing against the public's need, to make sure they're available. Human nature being what it is, we all have networks and friends and people who talk to us. And so we were trying to strike that balance. And I think having this form to make the seller fully aware of what, they're opting out of and what are some of the consequences, of not having a listing more broadly available to the public, If that's a decision they make, that, that's a decision between them and their agent. sn/rr 57

Thank you. I want to thank the good chair as well as the house chair for advocating this bill. And most important of all, I want to repeat again that I want to acknowledge the Connecticut Association of Realtors and their membership as well as leadership for personally articulating some of the rational marketplace impact and the rationale to this bill. I think it's truly important that we hear from the main shareholders that will be impacted by this, in enforcing and promoting the real estate industry in this marketplace, that's going through dynamic and dramatic changes, that part of this committee's cognizance is to work with them, hear their concerns. And I think this bill reflects that we have heard their concerns loud and clear. We have understood some of the rationales to that. So in that respect, the new amended bill of Section 32 and the overall bill is a reflection of the input, the perspectives, and the marketplace aimed at transparency, accountability, and greater efficiency in, what I've said repeatedly, the most important small business in the community and in our state. So I urge support of this bill, and I want to thank the chair as well as many of the committee members. And, again, for the fourth time, the realtors that work in our marketplace that really sell Connecticut. Through you Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the senate. Voting on Senate Bill Number 340 as amended. An act concerning continuing real estate education requirements, public marketing of certain real estate listings, and revising the title of a real estate salesperson to a real estate agent. We're voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill Number 340 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the the bill.

Total number voting 36 Total voting Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent, not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move for all bills that need further house consideration and votes be immediately transmitted to house representatives, please. sn/rr 59

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. We also need to mark some bills, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On Calendar Page 30, Calendar 346, Senate Bill 488. I'd like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 9, Calendar 81, Senate Bill 346, like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Madam President.

Senator Duff.

We'll stand at ease. Good afternoon, Senator Flexer. Senator Duff.

Thank you. Senator Flexer.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO Number 5429, Senate Amendment "A".

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the bill, excuse me. The amendment before us, makes a few additional changes to the unclaimed property program. sn/rr 62 It takes in some provisions that were considered by the Banking Committee earlier this year, and I would encourage my colleagues, to support the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I generally speaking, don't have much of an issue with this bill. I believe that, we have been working very well together to improve the unclaimed property program in the State of Connecticut year after year. And generally speaking, I support these bills and have cosponsored a number of them and have worked very closely with my colleagues in the committee and with the treasurer's office and with some interested parties on the outside. They know who they are. But I do have a concern here because over the last several years, the committee has committed numerous times to trying to keep the efforts towards the most expansive program for returning money back to people in Connecticut automatically as possible. Now, I understand that the treasurer has some concerns about being able to live up to the policies that we have passed out of the committee, but in 2023, we, in fact, passed unanimously a provision that would reduce the minimum amount that would be required for the treasurer to give out to $10. And in fact, that is the bill that is before us, but this amendment is actually changing that number from $10 to, I believe, $50. And you can see that on Line 54 of the amendment that is before us. I think sn/rr 63 that's going in the wrong direction, personally, Madam President, and I'm going to oppose the amendment as a result. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I think you were going to ask for a vote, but I'd like a roll call, please.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A", treasurer's recommendation for visitors to the unclaimed property program and second injury fund. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill Number 488, an immediate roll call vote in the

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 25 Those voting Nay 11 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you very much, Madam President. The amendment that I just offered looks to have failed on a party- line vote, or at least close to one. I wasn't really paying that much attention. But it's unfortunate that it did fail, because as I said, this is policy that we have agreed on in the committee year after year, and we just haven't been able to get it over the finish line. And the fact of the matter is that it's a very simple question that we're being asked, which is whether or not the amount that the treasurer should abide by for sending out money that is owed to the people of Connecticut, that's on the Connecticut big list, this is the unclaimed property list, should be, as automatic and prolific as possible. And I believe it should. In fact, there are other states that have very low numbers. I believe it's Wisconsin that gives out any unclaimed property that is $5 or more. I don't know what their cap is, but I suspect it's around $5,000, like most states. sn/rr 65 And then Virginia and North Carolina are also $10. We passed $10 out of the committee, and I would be thrilled if we were here voting on that bill. But, unfortunately, it was just amended by the majority's amendment that ultimately resulted in increasing that amount to $50. So I don't know if I misspoke a minute or so ago, but the amendment that passed is not the amendment that I'm interested in. I do have an amendment, however. So I would like to call it.

Thank you, Madam President. The LCO is 5856. The Clerk should be in possession of that amendment. I ask that he please call it, and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Sampson.

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

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment before the chamber? If not, a roll call vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. We are all tired, Senator Duff. Very good. Mr. Clerk, the machine is locked. Kindly announce the tally.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Sampson.

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Kushner, good afternoon.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO Number 3987. Senate Amendment A.

Thank you, Madam President. This is an amendment that would indicate for the workforce council that there must be an appointment of an expert in unionized construction and a representative of a labor organization who's been nominated by a state sn/rr 71 building trades labor organization and appointed by the governor.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I'm in need of understanding this amendment since the good chairman did not make me aware of it ahead of this debate. I think it's a fairly straightforward amendment where we're simply suggesting that certain members of the council have got to come from various backgrounds. One of them shall be an expert in unionized construction, and the other one should be a representative of a labor organization. And I'm just curious through you, Madam President, what the need is for these changes. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And to my good colleague, I apologize if we hadn't spoken about this before, but the amendment addresses the fact that there's been a change in the labor organization structures. And so, given the current structure, there is already provision where the AFL-CIO would suggest to the governor one appointee, but there's now a new structure for the building trades. And so we want to make sure that both organizations are represented. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 72

Thank you very much. Madam President, just out of curiosity, what is this change in structure? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. From time to time, there are affiliations that go both ways. And in this case, the building trades have their own state building trades organization, not affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Thank you very much. So it looks like the AFL-CIO used to incorporate this carpenters' union, but now they're separate. Am I incorrect about that? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I may have misspoke. Some organizations may still be affiliated with the state AFL-CIO, and others may not be. So it's just a sn/rr 73 structural change, and it's to reflect that. Through you, Madam President.

Alright. Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that and clarification. I was not aware of that, change in the structure. I'm looking at this underlying bill and understanding the goals of the governor's workforce council, and I don't see a necessity of declaring that certain entities come from certain backgrounds other than that they are interested in the work of this council. So I will be opposing this amendment. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam President. I do have a question for the proponent of the bill.

Thank you. So is this amendment making a change of a residential appointment, in residential housing, or residential construction? Are we replacing that individual with what is being proposed in this amendment? sn/rr 74

Through you, Madam President. No. We are not replacing anyone. We're just adding another qualification. It's not adding another person in that section, just another qualification, and we're not removing anyone else.

So just to be clear, what I want to be clear of, I know that the building trades, the Home Builders Association, a couple of years back, wanted to be included on the workforce strategy committee. And I believe that this is what the original intent of the bill, or the inclusion of the residential portion representing the residential construction industry, that is not being taken out because of this amendment. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And through you, line 20 will still read, and at least one such member shall be an expert in residential construction. And then it will be added to that one, such member shall be an expert in unionized construction. So the concern about including someone from residential construction, that has not changed. That's still within this bill, within the underlying bill. sn/rr 75

Thank you, Madam President. She has answered my question. Thank you.

I'd like a roll call vote.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill 346, An Act Concerning the Modifications to the Governor's Workforce Council. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're not voting on the bill. This is the amendment. This is Senate Amendment A, in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment A. This is not the bill. Senate Amendment A, Senate Bill 346. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 33 Those voting Nay 3 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. This is a bill that will add the necessary majority of business owners' representation on this workforce council, and that is critical to being in compliance with federal regulations. So it's an important bill from the standpoint of our workforce council gets federal funds to operate many programs, and we need to be in compliance with federal regulations in that regard, and this bill does that. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I would have supported the underlying bill, but since it's now been amended, I'm going to oppose it. The requirement that the federal government has is that sn/rr 77 we meet certain qualifications in order to comply with the Federal Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act of 2014, as far as the makeup of this governor's workforce council. And it simply requires people from the business community. But I see that the chairman of the labor committee has gone out of her way to make sure that we have added two more folks from labor organizations or on the side of unionized labor. And while I don't disregard their opinion and their input, I don't think we should be waiting this council, which is about the growth of business in the state of Connecticut towards union labor. So I will be opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to be clear that the way the bill is constructed, that the majority positions on this will be held by employers. So I appreciate the disagreement with my good colleague, but I do believe this is for purposes of -- and the intention is to make sure that there's input from all sectors. However, the majority of the members of the council will be employers. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of this bill even with the additional amendment. But through you, just a point of clarification that this language change of the original bill was in reaction sn/rr 78 to the federal statute as articulated by the good chairwoman of the Labor Committee. That being said, it will also increase the number of memberships, voting members within the governor's workforce council. Would that be correct? Through you, Madam President?

Thank you. Madam President. Through you, that is correct.

Madam President, from what current number to the new number of members to be appointed? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. On line number 10, it changes it from originally being 24 appointed by the governor to 30 members who are owners of businesses. Then later in the bill, I believe it's in the amendment. I believe there are two more added. If you want to give me a minute, I'll find that number.

Yes. Senator Wong.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Kushner.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

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

The machine will be locked. Mr. Clerk, would you give us the tally, please?

Legislation passes. (gavel) Mr. Clerk. We will stand at ease.

Thank you, Senator Duff.

So ordered.

Yes, indeed. sn/rr 85

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered. Are we marking that go?

Followed by Calendar Page 42, Calendar 459. House bill 4374, please.

Page 24, Calendar Number 285, Senate Bill Number 431, An Act Concerning Palliative and Hospice Care in Litchfield County.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam President. Good to see you. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Yes. This bill is pretty simple. We know, and we've heard from our constituents, that palliative and hospice care are vitally important services that the people rely on. They are particularly important for providing comfort to our residents, as they seek end-of-life care. And it is important that all regions of the state have access to these services. So this directs the Department of Social Services to study the availability in Litchfield County, which we believe she is willing to do, and we urge passage of the bill.

Madam President, thank you, and good afternoon to you. As our population ages, it is so important that they have access to all the options available to them in their later years at end-of-life. And the cornerstone of that access is ensuring that there are enough providers in the community to ensure that those individuals pass with dignity. And that is exactly what palliative care does. It gives patients that option. It gives families that comfort and security knowing that suffering at end of life will be minimized. And it's so very, very important. This is an excellent bill. I want to thank the chair of the Human Services Committee for being so effective and helpful in moving this along, and I would urge passage. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise in strong support of this bill. I do want to thank the good chair and the good ranking member for their work and pushing this bill forward. This is an important study into an issue that is prevailing, unfortunately, in Litchfield County. It's rural. It's Northwestern Western Connecticut, and palliative care is an option, that is limited there for that reason. And as Senator Perillo, very well spoke about, and he was spot on, it's important level of care as it addresses the end-of-life care and allows individuals to die with dignity and in a loving, caring manner. And it's important to have as an option for individuals, particularly in my area of the state. And so I do strongly support the bill and ask my colleagues to do the same. And once again, sn/rr 88 thank the good chair and the ranking member for making it possible.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate, Senate Bill 431, An Act Concerning Palliative and Hospice Care in Litchfield County. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill Number 431, An Act Concerning Palliative and Hospice Care in Litchfield County. An immediate roll call vote in 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 49, Calendar Number 503, substitute House Bill Number 5004. An Act Concerning Child Welfare Accountability and Transparency, as amended by House amendment scheduled A and C. sn/rr 89

Good afternoon, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee’s Favorable Report and passage of the bill as amended by the House.

Thank you, Madam President. We know that there have been many issues in front of the Department of Children and Family over the past several years. And this bill is an effort to perhaps rectify and also bring more transparency, more oversight, and a safer environment for our children in Connecticut. So I would like to go through the sections because I think that they are important, and I beg leave of the chamber to address these sections. In Section 1, we are now going to require rather than permit that the DCF commissioner make an emergency placement of a child to an unlicensed relative or fictive kin caregiver if certain conditions are met. Second, in Section 2, provide those denied of foster care license the ability to appeal the decision, and also have the appeal be decided upon within 60 days. In Section 3, establish a grant program to make payments to certain caregivers for food, clothing, and safety-related purchases, and other necessities for children after an emergency placement. Four, establish a grant program giving financial support to caregivers to help cover the cost of after-school programs for foster children so that sn/rr 90 they can continue or begin having the same sort of opportunities that other children have. Section 5 requires DCF to establish a first-year social worker mentorship program for newly hired social workers with oversight from ongoing and seasoned social workers in DCF. And secondly, because there is a 50% turnover at DCF of social workers have a prospective social work internship program for people enrolled in a bachelor's or master's degree program. So that they can see the work environment they're entering in and become more comfortable and sure that this is where they want to enter their employment. Section Number 6 to 8 requires training for DCF on perinatal mood and anxiety disorders, on human trafficking, on cultural sensitivity, and on implicit bias. None of these things are required on a consistent basis, and some of them are not required at all. Sections 9 to 10 require DCF to establish a post- secondary education grant program for young people who are adopted before turning 18, and those who consent to stay in DCF care after turning 18. And it requires an audit and has establishing reporting requirements. Section 11 to 12, with DCF's public website, it creates a dashboard on the public website so that we can so that consumers can, parents can, legislators can take a look at what is happening at DCF. How many workers there are? What are the issues that are being addressed? And make sure that everyone is informed as to DCF programs and procedures, and child welfare. It also establishes a working group to identify information on the online dashboard. Section 13 requires DCF to carry out specified procedures when a child who is a subject of a DCF -- excuse me one second. sn/rr 91 A DCF investigation is taken out of state by parent or guardian. Section 14 generally prohibits DCF from using evidence that a parent or guardian has voluntarily sought or received mental health treatment as a sole reason for DCF to take action on that parent. Section 15 requires DCF personnel to consider children's opinions during home visits. This is I want to highlight this specifically, this Section 15, because recently, last week, we received a report from the office of the child advocate where a DCF worker did not include the opinions of the child and left a child in a home feeling unsafe, and that child committed suicide shortly thereafter. This is not okay. DCF should be taking into consideration the children's opinions during a home visit when investigating the report of child abuse or neglect. Section 16 requires DCF to offer employees who do visits to the homes of children under supervision personal emergency communication devices. This is important because oftentimes a DCF worker will go alone into a home, and there is no way of having protection. I know from a DCF worker that they told me they were caught in a home for three hours with a great deal of fear, and no way of reaching out to DCF to let them know what was going on. Section 17 requires DCF to establish an urgent care center in Stamford because, at the moment, we have them in four other sites and nothing in Fairfield County. And an urgent care center has the ability to over 90% of the time to deescalate the parent deescalate the child, and send them home within 24 hours. So having this in a major populated area is important. Section 18 establishes a Child Welfare sn/rr 92 Policy and Oversight Committee charged with making recommendations about the state agencies providing services for child welfare. We do not have this at the moment. We have seen the efficacy of the JJPOC and the TCB, and we are looking to help DCF make the changes and the corrections they need to, and that will come about through the child welfare and policy oversight committee. Section 19 requires DEEP and DCF to study and report on improving their communication with each other, and policies around removing children from home. Section 20 requires DCF and OCA to study and report on ways to improve the department policies and practices to ensure that a child's immediate removal from out-of-home placement if they become a victim of physical or sexual assault. Section 21 permits DPH to release acknowledgment of parentage information to DCF. Section 22, regardless of DCF procedures for evaluating accepted reports and choosing a response based on the severity of the situation, it requires DCF to investigate and the assignment of a new investigator in certain circumstances of alleged abuse and neglect. If those are ongoing abuses and the request is made for a new investigator that that should happen. And then, finally, Section 501 requires additional follow-up and oversight of people who are convicted of certain crimes and then live with a minor child, and requires notification to DCF when such people convicted of these crimes are released from incarceration. Thank you, Madam President. And nice to see you up there.

Madam President, thank you. But first, I don't know if we moved adoption.

Senator Perillo, there is no amendment before us, and we are considering the bill in concurrence with the House Representatives. So I think we are okay to just move forward with any remarks that you may have on the bill before us.

LCO Number 5879, Senate Amendment A.

Madam President, thank you very much. The amendment is very, very simple. It adds that the child advocate shall submit a report in which the department includes an analysis of the policies of DCF relating to the ability of department employees to complete work hours from their homes. Now, to be clear, we've heard from the child advocate that as much as 80% of work by DCF employees is done from home. If you asked most Connecticut residents, in fact, if you asked most elected officials in this chamber, that's probably too much. And we've seen specific instances where that actually led directly to death. Now, to be clear, I understand that working from home is included in employee contracts. That's not what this bill does. This bill is not prohibiting work from home. This bill is asking that the child advocate study and evaluate the impact of DCF employees working from home. Because what we see in the media, what we hear anecdotally, what we probably know in the back of our minds to be true is that if you're working from home, you're not seeing the child. And if you're not seeing the child, you can't be sure that sn/rr 96 they're safe. And if you're DCF and you can't be sure the child is safe, you're not doing your job. And Madam President, we're asking here in this amendment that the office of child evaluate that, evaluate working from home to see whether or not it has an impact on the safety of children when the care of DCF. Madam President, I would move adoption. I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll.

Thank you, Madam President. I do appreciate the intent of this amendment. I also appreciate all the work that has been happened so far on this bill in terms of working across the aisle alongside with our colleagues. However, I would recommend that our -- that everyone vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. A question for the proponent of the amendment. If I'm clear as to what the amendment does, is that we're asking for a study to the to find out whether or not the employees that are staying at home is that having an impact on what's going on at DCF? Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, thank you. And I thank the gentleman for his question. That is exactly what we are trying to do here. We would like the child advocate to study the impact of DCF employees working from home. We've seen evidence and the officer child advocate has stated that as many as 80% of the time that DCF employees are working, they're doing it from home. Common sense would indicate to me and to many others that that does not have a positive impact on the safety of children within the care of DCF. So we are asking for a study very specifically to address that issue to determine whether or not there is a negative impact. And, of course, if there is a negative impact determined by the study, we, as a legislature, ought to be able to act and change policies and, in fact, perhaps change contracts as well as much as we can be permitted to do so.

Thank you, Madam President. I think this amendment makes a lot of sense, considering what's happened and this last week regarding the news. In addition, we've seen a recurring pattern throughout the agency. When I first joined this legislature here, that was one of my first committees that I was on. And we were at the tail end or in the middle of 1F. I didn't know what the heck that was, but come to find out is DCF was not doing very good. And it's ways that they were taking care of those children that were being abused or they needed protection. sn/rr 98 And I can't understand why we would not want to find out if there is 80% of our time or it's being spent home by the DCF employees. If that is having any type of impact, it makes no sense to me that we would not want to find that information out. So I'd like the proponent of the underlying bill to reconsider the amendment, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill Number 5004, An Act Concerning Child Welfare Accountability and Transparency. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill Number 5004 as amended. We are voting on the Number 5004. We're voting on Senate Amendment A. This is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 sn/rr 99 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent and not voting 0

Madam President, thank you. Of course, I wish that the amendment has passed. I think it would have made the bill better, but I just do want to clarify that the bill even without the amendment, is one that I believe colleagues here should support. I will be supporting it. I would ask everyone to do the same.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Amendment Schedule A and C. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill. This is House Bill Number 5004, An Act Concerning Child Welfare Accountability and Transparency, as amended by the House Amendment A & C. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill. This is House Bill Number sn/rr 100 5004, An Act Concerning Child Welfare Accountability and Transparency. An immediate roll call vote in the

House Bill 5004 as amended: Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 34. Calendar Number 367. House Bill Number 5039. An Act Requiring Transparency and Additional Oversight of the Distribution of Certain Legislatively Directed Funds and Appropriations for Other Expenses, as amended by House Amendment Schedule A. There's an amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. Nice to see you up there.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is an act requiring transparency and additional oversight of the distribution of legislatively directed certain legislative directed funds. This bill is a result of a conversation with the it's important, of course, in this building that we have a commitment to transparency and oversight, and we're talking about public dollars, of course. And these have been ongoing conversations, but it's also important to keep in mind, that I hope these conversations continue because it's important that we don't create undue burdens for our nonprofit organizations that are doing the critical work on the ground, and that we're able to facilitate the work that they're doing, which usually require support in the shape of funding. And so we need to make sure that we're balancing our commitment to transparency and oversight, without sn/rr 102 creating that kind of undue burden for the organizations who are doing the critical work. And with that being said this comes to us with strong support from the House, but there are ongoing conversations, and I hope that those conversations continue, and we continue to have discussions on what would best help strengthen that oversight and also reduce the burden on nonprofits to be able to do -- or for us to be able to send that money out to make sure that it's being used in a way that's supporting the community. So, let me just take a minute to summarize a few key provisions of this bill. First, the bill addresses generally the management and oversight of these legislatively directed funds and agencies' other expenses, which are overseen by the Office of Policy and Management. The bill defines a legislatively directed fund as a specific amount appropriated by the general assembly by public or special act for contract or other expenditure with a grant, loan, or other form of economic assistance to a specific entity. There's certain requirements for identification of recipients and use of funds. The bill prohibits state agencies from entering into a written agreement to provide funds unless the agency specifies the awardee's identity, including their legal name, the actual name of the entity, as it's the -- doing business under name or its principal office address, a description of the intended purpose of the funds, and the same information described for any intended subrecipient. The bill also requires OPM to create certain policies and procedures. So it requires OPM to establish policies and procedures for state agencies that administer these legislatively directed funds. sn/rr 103 The policies have to include the manner in which these funds are distributed to the recipients to ensure they're used for their intended purpose. The bill also requires the legislatively directed fund distributions to meet the following requirements. For funds that are distributed in the amount up to a $150,000, the funds must be distributed as an initial or advanced payment, or scheduled disbursement of funds according to a written agreement between the administering state agency and the recipient. For funds that are greater than a $150,000, the administering state agency may still distribute the funds as an initial or advanced payment if it's necessary to ensure the payments are responsive to the recipient's needs, and/or it facilitates a start-up or procurement cost. And then the remaining balance of that can be distributed in subsequent payments or as reimbursements based on eligible expenses. For reimbursement requirements, it's important the bill also requires that any legislative-directed fund that is distributed on a reimbursement basis must not impose an administrative barrier, or documentation requirements that are burdensome or inconsistent with the intent of the bill, or that would prevent the nonprofit or community-based organization from receiving the funds from using them in a way that was intended. It also provides that reimbursement determinations happen within 45 days after recipients' eligible expense claim is submitted, and then it allows for initial or advanced payments to recipients when necessary to ensure the funds are used as intended. The bill also discusses the requirements for subrecipients before making any payment to a subrecipient. The recipient that is receiving the legislatively directed funds has to obtain the sn/rr 104 written approval of the administering state agency and the OPM secretary, if required under those OPM policies and procedures. First, the state agency written requirements, within 45 days of receipt of the legislatively directed fund request for reimbursement, the state administering agency must either approve the request or provide written acknowledgment of receipt. The bill requires that the administering state agency remit the payment within 45 days of receiving a properly submitted, undisputed request. There are also requirements in the bill that OPM establish a pre-award conference for those organizations and agencies that will be recipients of legislatively directed funds. And so, the OPM secretary by August 1st must hold a pre-award conference for recipients of these funds. The conference has to include instruction on policies and procedures for administering the funds, including things like invoicing, reimbursement policies, documentation requirements, and reporting requirements and deadlines, information about contact information for who is responsible for administering within the state agency, a description of any monitoring, audit, or compliance review processes, and any other relevant conference materials. There are also reporting and notice requirements. The bill requires for OPM first that they must quarterly account for the funds that have been distributed since the last issue of their report. For each legislatively directed fund recipient, they must annually report to the administering agency how the funds were used, and, again, as according to the policies and procedures that will be set out by OPM. Each state agency must also annually summarize the funds that were administered by the agency in the prior fiscal year, and then OPM must annually sn/rr 105 publish a database on all of the legislatively directed funds. They also have to submit a preliminary report by June 30th, 2028. There's another provision in the bill that requires the governor, if he or she reduces an allotment or requisition, that that be explained in writing, within seven days to legislative leaders. When it comes to other expenses in the state budget, the bill prohibits state agencies from using funds that were appropriated for other expenses as grants or as pass-through payments that effectively operate as legislatively directed funds. The bill also requires that any noncompliant other expenses obligations are going to be identified by OPM and will be designated as such by January 2027. And those are the key provisions of the bill, Madam President. Again, it's an ongoing conversation. This is where we are with strong support from the House, conversations with the governor's office, and conversations with the Senate. And it's important that we take a step forward for transparency and accountability. But again, I hope these conversations are ongoing, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Nice to see you up there.

I want to thank my colleague from the government oversight committee for her very detailed analysis of the bill that is before us. I'll start by saying that I do support this, House Bill 5,039, and it is an act requiring transparency and additional oversight of the distribution of certain legislatively directed funds and appropriations for other expenses. She characterized this as a step forward, and I believe that is correct. I would suggest that it is only one small step forward, however, and that we should be doing a lot more. What is happening here is a reaction to the minority in our efforts to draw more attention and transparency to the process by which a lot of legislatively directed funds, the technical term in this bill, but we know them as earmarks, are included in legislation in this general assembly. And I have, numerous times over the last several years got up on this floor to complain that there are number of earmarked items going to entities that you cannot get any clarity on. Sometimes this happens as part of a budget document. Sometimes it happens as part of another bill. Most recently, and in fact, I think it happened in February 25, 26, on the very same day which I have named earmarks giving, there has been an emergency certified bill that was brought forward mostly for political purposes, but also included a series of earmarks for various organizations around the state. And I remember vividly in this chamber questioning the proponent, asking about some of these entities to try and then find out exactly who they were, where this money goes, what it's going to be used for, and I was left with nothing but a lot of question marks. sn/rr 107 And I think the attention to that actually reached the governor's office, and this bill is, in large measure, a direct response to that inquiry. We should be in a better position when it comes to sending the taxpayers' money to various organizations around the state. There were circumstances where we could not identify what the purpose of the funds were for. We couldn't identify the actual person that asked for the funds. That's unacceptable. Every dollar that comes into the state government that is sent somewhere else, whether it's spent on a program or it's used for government purposes, if it's used for an earmark, we should know exactly who asked for it, we should know exactly what that money is being used for, and we should make sure that there's some sort of accountability at the end of the day for how it is used. The bill that is before us, as mentioned, takes a small step towards that goal. Among the detailed analyses that the good chairman laid out about how they're supposed to process the money and how some of it's supposed to be withheld at certain periods and then released, and so forth. Really, all the bill does is it prohibits state agencies from entering into a written agreement to provide funds unless there is a bill, a public act, or a special act that would be passed by this legislature that includes the awardee's identity, the business or office receiving the money, a description of the intended purpose, and the same information described for any intended subrecipient. That's really not much. It's a step in the right direction. It's better than what we've heard before. In fact, in a subsequent analysis of some of the earmarks that have gone through this chamber and passed into law despite no answers on the floor of the Senate, I've looked back and discovered that the process really is that sometimes those earmarks are put into bills and sn/rr 108 budget documents with no other information other than the recipient and the dollar amount. No other information. It's only put together after the fact, where someone in the judicial branch is responsible for drafting a contract and sometimes actually chasing down who the recipient is, because it's not clear. We can't have any more of that. We have got to do a better job. And with that, Madam President, I have an amendment. The clerk is in possession of LCO 5896. I ask that this amendment be called and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize it.

LCO number 5896. Senate Amendment A.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is a very straightforward amendment that builds on the step forward of the underlying bill and takes us where we need to go. At least a few more steps forward. I don't know if it actually takes us all the way there, but it is definitely a far more expansive way to look at these earmarks and to make sure that the taxpayers are being considered before this money goes out. This amendment, which is a couple of Pages long, but I'm just going to give you the highlights. It would say that no legislatively directed funds shall be distributed until the recipient or subrecipient provides some information. The intended purpose for sn/rr 109 such funds and an explanation of why funds are necessary. A detailed description of the public purpose that those state funds will be used for. If applicable, very important, the name of the legislator or other public official who is sponsoring such requests. We should know who is asking for the money. We should know what lawmaker is putting their name to that request. Any convictions of the recipient or subrecipient's officers or board members of any crime related to financial issues like fraud or embezzlement, or misappropriation, an agreement that the recipient or subrecipient will submit to random audits from the auditors of public accounts, a detailed accounting of the recipient's budget, the amount spent by the recipient or subrecipient on administrative costs, and this is so important because I have seen the tax return from so many non-profit organization that are doing business with the state that are not pretty. A lot of them do a tremendous work. I'm very pleased that we have great nonprofits that take the burden off the state government to do things, but there are some of them out there where precious few of the dollars that we give them ultimately going towards the cause, and it ends up being spent on administrative costs. The amount spent on lobbying political and other advocacy activities, a detailed reporting of all sources of income, and finally, a detailed accounting of all disbursements made by the recipient or subrecipient. This is the kind of information that we should have if we are doing a good job as stewards of the taxpayers' money to make sure that when we earmark funds, legislatively directed funds as the term of our in this particular bill. We need to make sure that we are doing a good job to make sure that we sn/rr 110 are keeping track of the taxpayers' money and that it is only being used for decent and proper purposes. I move adoption, and I'd like a roll call vote.

Thank you, Madam President. It's good to see you up there.

I rise in support of this amendment today. The Connecticut taxpayer, the public in our state, has for far too long, seen too many scandals involving taxpayer funds being abused by organizations that do not have the public interest. There are so many good nonprofits, so many good charitable causes, and so many important social services in this state that need funding and deserve funding, and the people who rely on them need to have those programs and those entities well-funded. But there have been a litany now of abuses, of crimes, and of waste in this state government that need to be addressed directly with good government reforms that are not passive, that are not baby steps, but that address the problem head-on and protect taxpayers and protect the public trust in Connecticut. sn/rr 111 Taxpayers have a right to ensure that the money that they work hard for, that this state government taxes away from them, and that are given to various entities around the state are done so in a careful manner and in a manner that addresses the public interest, various social problems that we need to have addressed in a responsible way. Of course, that is the way that almost every other organization works in our state, in our economy, whether in the private sector or the nonprofit charitable sector. They clearly state how funds are going to be used, what problem they're addressing, how they're going to address it, and they're accountable to the stakeholders, whether it's a company, the investors that are giving them money, or if they're a charity, the donors who are giving them money. There's transparency. There's accountability. There's reciprocity. If I am going to give you money, you need to at least show that you're working hard to address the concerns that we're giving you the money for. The requirements spelled out in this amendment are necessary, and they're modest. They're exactly the standard that small businesses, businesses of all kind, and charities and nonprofits are held to all across our state. The only place where we do not hold this standard is in government, where we should have the highest of standards because we're actively taking hard-earned tax dollars from the public in our state in order to fund these causes. Simply, we are asking in this amendment what the intended purpose of the funds are. We do not see that currently in most of the earmarks to the tune of tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in our state budget. There's a line item, but there does not need to be a stated use of funds, what the purpose of the organization is at all. sn/rr 112 And remind you that some of these organizations get money in the budgets, in the implementers, in the final bills that are passed without going through the public hearing process. Many do go through the appropriations process, but some do not. So sometimes we're giving millions of dollars to organizations in this state, and it's just a name on a piece of paper without any discussion, without any knowledge. There's no surprise why there's been so much abuse, so much waste, and even crimes committed on the public dime. We require a use of funds. Anyone, whether in the nonprofit sector or in business, is very familiar with use of funds documents, that if we're going to invest in your company, if we're going to donate to your charity and nonprofit, you state what the funds are going to be used for. Maybe it's to hire new social workers or psychiatrists to help people address certain mental health or substance abuse issues. Maybe it's to add new hospital beds for inpatient care, so on and so forth. We don't have even a use of funds for any of these public dollars, which would be a common use document in the private sector. We require that there be clear sponsorship from an official in the state government, like a legislator, and an examination on if there's any conflict of interest within those organizations. We have legislators who do the right thing constantly and perhaps go above and beyond in recusing themselves from votes if there's even a scintilla of a conflict, and they are right to do that. But in the case of these earmarks on these and these funds, we don't even force that there be an explanation or an exploration of whether there is a potential conflict, whether there's family members or friends involved. That doesn't preclude sn/rr 113 necessarily giving state funds to certain organizations, but it at least provides transparency and an added layer of trust. This is a basic level of standards and expectations that we should hold our state government to. We would require that any members of the board of these private entities getting public funds not be convicted of a crime related to financial fraud. Now we're about to discuss a homeschooling bill where even a blip on the DCF system, no conviction would preclude parents from sending their kids to a private school or homeschooling them, but we do not preclude taxpayer dollars to go to private organizations in this state when the governance board of those entities actually has someone who is convicted of financial fraud or related claims. So, no due process for taxpayer dollars, or no due process for parents with their kids, but you get off scout free if you've been convicted of a financial crime and can still access state money. It would require that the private entity receiving funding would provide budget statements or income statements from the previous year to disclose how they're using their funds to ensure that there's confidence for the public that organization is operating to solve a social problem. And finally, we would have some sort of statement information on administrative costs. One of the most common metrics we see in the nonprofit sector is a statement of administrative costs to ensure that as much of the funds in those charitable entities is going to solve the problem to be given to the ultimate recipients who are in need rather than to hire too many staff on the payroll. This is extraordinarily common everywhere in our state, everywhere in our economy, everywhere in our nonprofit sector, except the state government. Where we have seen scandal after scandal over the years, sn/rr 114 where we have seen waste and abuse so often, the taxpayers deserve protection. We need to protect them. And this is a very, very straightforward and reasonable set of measures that would do exactly that. One of my favorite nonprofit organizations in my district is the United Way, which serves and funds various charities around our area in Southwestern Connecticut. I've volunteered for them several years, in one of their projects, which is actually deciding which of the charitable entities in the area to provide funding to. And we do site visits. We look through the income statement and the budget of that organization. They give us a use of funds for how the United Way donations would specifically be used for those charitable funds, and this has the final product of ensuring that the donors' funds to the United Way are ultimately used for the highest and best purposes to solve the vital social problems in our area and make our community more whole in the long run. There is no reason whatsoever that the state government shouldn't have the same standards for our taxpayers and for the general public to ensure that their interests are protected, that their hard- earned tax dollars are protected, and that we're actually addressing vital social needs in the funding that we're passing through the state budget. As is, we are passing state budgets tens of millions of dollars in funding or more to organizations that are sometimes just a name on a piece of paper. And you've all seen the headlines that are a consequence of that shoddy process. We can do a lot better in this state. We should protect taxpayers. We should protect the public interest, and we should address the vital social problems faced by so many in our sn/rr 115 state. We can do that by holding our state government to a higher standard, by correcting the wrongs of the past, by learning from the corruption and the waste that has plagued the state government for far too long. This amendment does that. I will support the underlying bill irrespective, but this amendment will do so much more to protect the public and correct the failures of recent years and all the scandals and all the crimes and all the waste and abuse of public dollars that we've seen in Connecticut. We can do better, and so I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you up there.

I do rise in strong support of this amendment and would be urging my colleagues to do the same. As Senator Fazio had mentioned, I concur with his words that I will be supporting the underlying bill, because I believe at least it's some step towards a level of oversight that absolutely is lacking and absolutely necessary right now, in regards to the third-party vendor process in our budgeting system. What we have seen over the past few years related to these budget line items is quite terrible. And it's sn/rr 116 terrible not only because this is taxpayer money, hard-earned taxpayer money that our constituents work so hard to then have to pay to us here in Connecticut, but it's also difficult for the nonprofit organizations like Senator Fazio had mentioned that do great work. And, unfortunately, the money going to those organizations that deserve the money, that are doing the work in the communities to make our communities better, that are spending the money in the manner that we envision them, with taxpayer dollars, spending that money, they get painted under this broad brush. And, unfortunately, when bad actors that are receiving taxpayer funds in these line items are using it in bad manners, it puts the funding to the organizations that deserve it the most, like the United Way, like Senator Fazio had mentioned. It puts that funding and that investment in jeopardy. I don't think any of us want that. You know, I am one of the biggest champions for funding nonprofits appropriately and using taxpayer dollars to help do that. Because, again, I've seen firsthand what they've done in my communities, and I think every Senator across the circle will tell you the same exact thing. We all have stories from different nonprofit organizations in our communities that have done incredible work. We've seen it firsthand. We've heard from our constituents, who've benefited from these nonprofit organizations doing great work. We want to see them get the money that they deserve. And our taxpayers, I'm sure, are okay with us using some of their taxpayer funds to deliver to these incredible organizations because, again, they do great work. But the problem is that when you loop in some of the bad actors that have been outright fraudulent, are either convicted of fraud in some sn/rr 117 cases or have board members that are, or are currently getting investigated by the FBI or grand juries. Again, it puts the other nonprofit organization's funding in jeopardy. It paints them with a broad brush, that is wrong, that's not appropriate that do good work. And again, it's a taxpayer dollars. It's hard-earned money that our constituents are sending up here, going, in some cases, to outright fraud and waste. And I think that this motion, or excuse me, this amendment, Madam President, that is before us, goes so much further in providing that necessary oversight. And I think one of the key components of our amendment as opposed to the underlying bill is a necessity for these nonprofit organizations to disclose information to us and allow our appropriations committee to do the vetting necessary to make sure that the money is going to be going to the organizations that truly deserve it and that the money at those organizations are going to spend it in the manner they say they're going to spend it. So not only does it provide the reporting and oversight on the back end once the money's received, necessary, in auditing and the like, and that's a good part of this amendment. But in addition to that, I think what's even more important is the front-end work being done, in our amendment as opposed to the underlying bill. What's in our amendment ensures that these organizations will have to disclose vital information related to family members being part of boards, loved ones being part of boards, and the connections in the nexus with legislators so there's not a conflict of interest there, as well as come before the appropriations committee and detail in front of that committee how they're going to spend that money on the record. sn/rr 118 It should be common sense. It should be logic. If you're going to be taking taxpayer money, hard- earned taxpayer money for the third-highest tax state in the country, the least our taxpayers can be able to say or should be able to say is that they know at least a lot of what they're sending, which is a lot, it's going to be spent wisely. It's going to be vetted. It's going to have oversight. And that's exactly what this amendment does. This amendment takes it even a step further from the underlying bill, puts in the necessary requirements with auditing and reporting that are not seen in a level that we have in our amendment and the underlying bill as well as the front end important aspect of ensuring that those receiving money go before the appropriations committee and are vetted, and on the record in public for the entire world to see. And I think that all of us should be able to get behind this amendment as a good government amendment that protects our taxpayers' money and make sure that our taxpayers' money are being used as wise investments, not waste or fraud. So Madam President, I, again, support the amendment. I will be supporting an underlying bill as well, but I feel that this amendment here goes much further when we absolutely need it, based on what we've seen in this state. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I just rise in opposition to the amendment. I thank my good colleague in government oversight for proposing the amendment and asking us to think carefully about sn/rr 119 transparency and accountability. But, you know, as I said earlier, one, a number of the objection that were raised that led to a need for the amendment will actually be addressed in the underlying bill because the agencies will have to be identified, not only by their name, but by the name under which they're doing business with their principal office being identified, and some of the issues previously where we couldn't identify subrecipients have been addressed. The organizations receiving funds will also be required to submit reports on the use of those funds. So I think a lot of those steps towards transparency and accountability are already a part of this bill. And, again, it comes to us with strong approval in the house, and after a period of long conversations. And so I rise to oppose the amendment. Again, as I said, what's most important, of course, is that we have transparency and oversight. It's also important to make sure that we're able to do the work that's critically necessary for our communities. To that extent, I hope this is an ongoing conversation that we figure out how a way not to overburden those who need to use these funds to make sure they're serving the community. I did want to just take an issue with the notion that fraud and corruption are somehow just rampant in the state of Connecticut. And I have to, I'm sorry, take issue with that. Given what's happening at least at our federal level, I see no accountability, no commitment to constitutional norms, no commitment to the balance of power, and no commitment to financial transparency. And so I just at least take that we do have a process. Can it be better? Yes. Probably can always be better. We can always make things more efficient. But we have public audits. We have a public process. We have a public budget. Things are transparent, and we're moving forward to make them more transparent, to have more oversight. And again, that sn/rr 120 conversation, I hope, continues. But at this point, this has strong support, and I just urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and move forward with the bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I don't think we're doing anything different here on the state level that the federal government is not trying to attempt at the national level. And that is to squeak out or to look at where there's fraud. This piece of legislation is an attempt to try to make sure that we are handling things in a transparent way. No different than what the national federal government is trying to do as well. Now, regarding some of the things that the amendment does and what the underlying bill does. I agree that there is some crossover here. But there are some things that are missing in the underlying bill that the amendment does. And for that reason, are what the amendment is adding to that bill. So with that said, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A", the House Bill Number 5039, An Act Requiring sn/rr 121 Transparency and Additional Oversight of the Distribution of Certain Legislatively Directed Funds and Appropriations for Other Expenses. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "A" of House Bill Number 5039. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on the amendment. This is not the bill. House Bill Number 5039. An immediate roll call vote in the 5039.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent and not voting 0

Good afternoon. Welcome back, Madam President. I rise in support of this bill, but I appreciate the conversation that we had on the amendment. I think that amendment would have offered a stronger sn/rr 122 affirmation of the noble goal of this bill. But that being said, I continue to support this bill. But through you, Madam President, could I get a couple of points of clarification, through the proponent of this bill and the General Oversight Committee? Thank you. The Office of Policy and Management published a general letter on January 20th, 2026, titled Legislatively Directed Funds Administration Policy. It talks about the policy and administration. Does this bill follow along those same themes, and how does that change from the additional legislative policy directive from the Office of Policy and Management? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Senator Hwang, for your question. Well, the Office of Policy and Management is expected to create those procedures and protocols as per the -- I'm not sure whether they will follow exactly the protocols that they have outlined because they have until -- I'm just looking for the date. Sorry. Madam President, we just stand on these. I'm just going to look and make sure I have the right --

Senator Hwang. sn/rr 123

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Gadcar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Senator Gadcar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Hwang.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk, please announce the vote.

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Senator Cabrera.

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark on the bill? Senator Hwang.

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, announce the tally, please. sn/rr 139

(gavel) Legislation passes, and we will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

So ordered.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield.

Thank you. The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Osten.

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

So ordered. Off they go.

So ordered. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Senator Lopes. sn/rr 147

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Call this amendment.

LCO 5474, Senate Amendment "A".

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

All right. Sorry for not being loud enough. In lieu of what I already said, I continue that. After the hearing, we changed the legislation. We eliminated the ban. There is no ban whatsoever. We have instructed the Green Bank to set up a loan program for commercial landscapers that they can apply to in order to help them buy more environmentally conscious lawn equipment, with the help of the Green Bank and financing, moving forward, should they wish to. They don't have to. And then hopefully, this will introduce more people to environmentally conscious lawn equipment and provide an incentive for its use in the future.

Thank you, Madam President. My understanding, if I understood the summary correctly, Madam President, was that this was previously an outright ban. Could the proponent, please tell me what the rationale or what the thought process would be about how we would have banned leaf blowers? Would we have, you know, would they be subject to collection if someone still had those? What how would that process be undertaken through you, Madam President? sn/rr 149

Thank you, Madam President. We're going back to the original version of the bill from some months ago. My understanding, there was never a collection in intended. Not that it matters. This is no longer in language, but the ban would just be a ban on future sales of gas powered lawn equipment specified. I'm not even sure which lawn equipment it was, but, that was all removed for the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I know the amendments on the board, but I don't believe it's been adopted yet. So this is still through you, Madam President, the underlying bill.

Right. So, through you, Madam President, then in regards to the underlying bill, there wouldn't have been a collection. What would the enforcement aspect of this look like? Would DEEP other entities be going through hardware stores to see if they have the audacity to sell gas-powered leaf blower? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. And as I said before, that is a previous iteration of the bill that's not currently before us. So I don't feel fully confident answering that question at this point. But, no. I don't believe any of those perspective measures by any state agency was ever in the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the answer. And through you, Madam President. I understand that there is now an amendment that we're now debating, but it's still the underlying bill and it did pass out of committee. So, I would have thought there would have been some discussion, whether it be through public hearing or the like, about how this would have been enforced, because if this would have been a ban, in order for a ban to be enacted, there has to be some level of enforcement, I would assume. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. The Good Minority Leader is mistaken. The ban never passed out of committee. The bill that came out of committee was, in essence, this amendment that we're negotiating now. The only reason we're doing an amendment now is that there's a technical change. sn/rr 151

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for the clarification. So, through you, Madam President, if I understand correctly, the bill that was drafted initially was an outright ban. Is that correct, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. The initial bill that was heard in committee did have a ban involved.

Thank you, Madam President. Well, I am certainly happy that the ban did not move forward out of committee and is not before us here. I do question the logic, in terms of the proposal just being drafted in general, and the committee having a public hearing on a draft of a bill that was an outright ban, that did receive public hearing testimony on it. Again, when we talk about priorities, I believe we should be environmentally conscious. That's all a positive thing. But considering all the things that we're looking to tackle in this legislative session, I think I spoke about it before on one of the bills that involved decreasing penalties on individuals who commit crimes to certain ages and some of the sn/rr 152 most violent crimes. And I had mentioned that it was puzzling to me how you start out with thousands of bills. This legislative session proposed by many different legislators across the aisle. And it gets boiled down to about 10%, I think, on average, get passed. So you start out with about 3,000. That roughly means 300 or so actually get across the finish line. And so you're talking about your priorities or priorities, when it comes to a vote, here, right here in this great chamber. I really question a priority for the state of Connecticut to ban gas-powered or non-electric leaf blowers. The logic doesn't strike me. I understand about being environmentally conscious, but we have issues like DCF that we're looking to tackle, and the homeschooling bill we're going to be doing later today. We have issues about public safety in general, and safety in our streets, and supporting our law enforcement. We have issues about the third- highest tax rates in the country, the second-highest electric rates in the country, and the third-highest property taxes in the country. I have constituents calling me up, and I think calling all of our senators up, talking about how they have to move out of the state. A state that they have loved living in their entire lives, have raised their family in, and are now seeing their grandchildren being raised in. And they're talking about leaving the state because they just can't afford to live here. We put a bill forward and put it as a priority, essentially, to ban gas-powered leaf blowers. It may be that I'm missing something. And so with that said, Madam President, I'm glad that it's no longer a ban. I understand, as the Good Chair had mentioned, this is now a program to help loan individuals money, to convert from gas-powered leaf blowers to battery-powered or electric-powered. Could the proponent tell me how we would fund this sn/rr 153 through the Green Bank? How much money is this going to cost? The numbers,. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I do want to slightly go back to my minority leader and my good friend's comments about affordability and why we do some of the prioritize some of the things we do is, as he full well knows, I'm one of the few people in this body who's a small business owner who actually does physical work. I mow lawns. I do physical things. I build decks. And in my mind, the needs of the small business owner, guys like me, are always paramount in my mind. But I'm always willing in our process to have a hearing and listen to ideas, and I was skeptical about the ban at first, but I heard it. And we listened to it. We went through the process after hearing from professional after professional. I came to the understanding that at this point, we're not really there yet, which is why I want to do an incentivized approach to having people use more environmentally friendly equipment. Just for reference, I mowed three lawns yesterday on our one day off. One lawn with the riding track gas tractor and two lawns with electric push mowers. Each one was perfect for the job that it had. And that's what we're trying to show people in the state that you can go to environmentally conscious equipment, and it is better than gas-powered equipment on certain occasions, which is why I don't want to pursue a ban, but I want to pursue an incentivized situation where we can help people understand that some of these machines are better than the machines they've been working with before, but move them into it gradually. sn/rr 154 Now, in terms of your question about funding, this is a loan program, so the Green Bank will establish a loan program. People will apply, and the loan processing will pay for itself as it goes forward. There is no cost to the state or taxpayers whatsoever in this bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the clarification on some of my comments and a response from the chair. One thing I did note, through you, Madam President, was that the Good Chair had mentioned the ban is not the right time right now. I guess, is this program the beginning of the ban? Is it the intention of this that we would then create this loan program, and then eventually move when this loan program is set up to be able to enact a ban? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. In fact, the incentivization is the opposite of a ban. It is putting the will and the desire of the individual resident to the state to do what they wish to do and incentivize them to do something, but not ban them from doing anything.

sn/rr 155 Thank you, Madam President. So, I understand that incentivizing is certainly not a ban. I totally understand that aspect, but I'm just trying to parse through this. The Good Chair did say that the ban is not the right time right now. So, that's insinuating that there is going to come a time, I'm assuming in the near future, that there will be a ban. I'm just trying to understand what the chair's perspective is on when that time may be, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. I see it quite differently. As we moved from horse and buggies to automobiles, there was no ban on horse and buggies, but it naturally progressed in that direction. And that's where I see we are now. As we incentivize the use of environmentally conscious equipment, people will naturally move in that direction of their own free will without a ban from the state. I don't see that in the future.

Thank you, Madam President. So am I getting the commitment here on the Senate floor that in future years, the proponent would not be supporting a ban? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. My good friend is trying to get a commitment from a politician. It's a tough one. No. Actually, no idea where we're going to move into the future, to be honest with you, as I always am. We will always hear any idea, any possibility, as we go forward, and we will move forward with the best possible decision for the state of Connecticut.

Thank you, Madam President. So if I'm understanding the Good Chair correctly, despite this passage, this is not in lieu of a future ban that it is still very possible and on the table that the proponent would seek to ban or support the ban of gas-powered leaf blowers in future legislative sessions. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. I actually go into this with eyes wide open. I don't have a preference one way or the other. I do know many municipalities currently have already banned gas-powered leaf blowers, and I imagine quite a few more will in the future. I'm actually comfortable right now having municipalities make their own decisions as they move forward. And so I think this is a good time to sit back and wait and see the direction of how the winds blow, and then make decisions in the future. sn/rr 157

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate that. I would like a commitment, but I understand why the Good Chair is not able to do that. With that said, I think that this is, in my opinion, now very much the first step towards a ban. And I think it would allow the proponents that would like to see a ban an opportunity to point to this loan program as a reason why a ban would be necessary, or that it could be implemented because this loan program has been set up to allow individuals to be lent money to purchase electric leaf blowers and be able to ban them statewide. I think what Attucks Crux though, we're missing, is the fact that this is a loan program, which means our consumers, our constituents, will have to pay this money back to the state of Connecticut. Nevertheless, I will summarize, if I may, Madam President. I assume we're going to have to adopt this technical amendment first, and then I would be happy to summarize if that would work better, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I believe the amendment should be done by roll.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So through you, the bill has already been JFS-ed out of committee, not being a ban as you mentioned. And so what exactly is this, then technical chain that's the amendment?

Thank you, Madam President. The Green Bank who would be doing the loan program, not the state, simply set up a situation where they would do the program for three years. And if there was no interest, they would then be able to drop the program. If there was interest, obviously, they would continue the program. That was the sole change.

Thank you, Madam President. So the only change in this amendment that you're asking for a roll call vote on through you, Madam President, is simply allowing the Green Bank to end the program after three years if no one is interested. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. That is correct. sn/rr 159

Well, again, I don't support the underlying bill, and I'll get to that in my summary after the amendment is adopted, through you, Madam President. But in terms of the change that simply just allows the Green Bank to end the program after three years, that certainly makes logical sense, just the amendment itself from the bill it's amending. So, with that, I would support the amendment.

Madam President, I believe we could change that to a voice vote.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended? Senator Harding.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Kushner.

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. Before I mark the last bill on the list so far, I would like to remove an item from the foot of the calendar, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On Counter Page 67, Calendar 327, Senate Bill 307, I'd like to mark that as PR.

Thank you, Madam President, and enjoy its time sn/rr 164 rising up the elevator from the foot to the arm. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, our next item to go is Counter Page 42, Calendar 461, House Bill 5468.

Page 42, Calendar Number 461, substitute for House Bill Number 5468, An Act Concerning the Provision of Parent-Managed Learning, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A". There are 39 amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. How are you this evening?

Well, doing pretty well, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint sn/rr 165 committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, what I'm going to do is give you my prewritten summary of the bill. And after that, I will just give a summary of how I actually feel about it. And then after that, Madam President, I'll be willing to answer questions in regard to this bill and move it forward. Madam President?

Thank you. Madam President, we have before us House Bill 5468 with LCO Number 4428. And there are four specific items I want to discuss that summarize this bill. The first is that this bill establishes a common-sense solution to ensure all of Connecticut's students are learning in a safe environment and that Connecticut's data management is stronger. Parents will have to complete an annual intent to educate form for their children annually. This form will indicate whether the child will be enrolled in public school, non-public school, or the new term that we'll be using, parent-managed learning. For students withdrawing from public schools to non- public schools, parents will have to provide evidence that the child will attend a non-public school. For students withdrawing from public school for parent-managed learning, their withdrawal is sn/rr 166 contingent upon confirmation that the adults in the home with a parent-managed learning will occur are neither on the state abuse and neglect registry or subject to an open case with DCF. Madam President, those are my formal statements that I want to discuss as we move forward with this legislation, and my personal statements are as follows. As we all know, for the past, I will say, five months, that this concept of homeschooling has been at the forefront of what we've been doing in the state of Connecticut. And everyone knows that currently, we have the least restricted environment of parent-managed instruction than any state in Connecticut. And we had it for a number of years. The reality is the manner in which we have been doing for a number of years has been working very well for at least 95 to 97% "homeschoolers." And they have done a very, very good job. And how do we know that? We know it because we had a 16-hour public hearing where it was very important for me as an educator, and very important that we listen to the concerns of parents who choose to educate their children at home. I always said from the beginning of this conversation that it is extremely important to listen to all the stakeholders when you're passing such a controversial piece of legislation. During that 16-hour hearing, personally, my mind was not made up about how I would support this legislation or actually not support it. But after listening to the 16 hours of testimony by parents, by children, by advocates on both sides of the aisle and both sides of this debate, it was very clear to me that what we had passed out of committee wasn't good enough. We did not take into consideration all the concerns that the homeschoolers had on this piece of legislation. sn/rr 167 I was really, really moved by many of the testimonies from the children who this piece of legislation will affect the most, and their parents. They were very, very convincing when it came to what type of education they wished for their children and other children who wanted to be educated at home. And for the most part, a lot of the data show that they have been doing a very, very, very good job. With this piece of legislation, there are two things we're basically asking for. We're asking for we want to know who the children are who are not going to be educated in our traditional public schools, who are the children who are not going to be educated in non-public schools, and who are the children who going to be educated at home. We just want to know who they are, how many, and who they are. But also, another very, very, very important fact is the second thing that myself as an adult and as a parent, it was very important to know that the adults who are responsible for educating these children do not have a history of harming children. It will be very irresponsible of myself or any adult to place into the hands of a child, put that child in harm's way knowingly putting a child in harm's way. What do you mean by harm's way? Well, we were very concerned about the fact that we did not want to place a child in the hands of an adult who is on the state's child abuse and neglect registry. It's documented that they have a history of abusing children, and we could not, in our right mind, place a child in that situation. And secondly, we did not want to place a child in the hands of a family that has an open case with the Department of Children and Families. Already have an open case. So those were two nonnegotiable, and I think those two nonnegotiable are fair for everyone. Because at the start of this conversation, those were the two things that we are very concerned about, because of sn/rr 168 the three high-profile cases that we witnessed here in Connecticut over the last year and a half. And I don't have to talk about those cases. I think everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to. So after that, we made a decision that homeschoolers continue to do a great job. Homeschoolers continue to educate your children in the environment you feel is important. And we're not going to play I got you cop and not get into the weeds of how you're educating your children, but asking you to continue to educate them, but make sure they're being educated in a safe environment. Because even in our public schools, in our parochial schools, we do background checks on teachers. And we wouldn't want a teacher who has a history of abuse and neglect of children to be in front of that classroom teaching your child. It's safe to say that that's the same consideration we want to have if someone wants to homeschool. So that's basically where we are with this piece of legislation. I think it's a good middle ground that takes into consideration what the homeschoolers are asking for, but puts some parameters on us knowing who these children are and where and how they're going to be educated. So with that being said, Madam President, I move that this bill be taken up, and I'll be very happy to answer and address any of your questions and specifics about it. It's not a big deal. It started off as an aircraft carrier. It started off with a lot of asks and demands on homeschoolers that I thought were unfair. It was quite unfair. But I think we narrowed it down to a point that everyone would not be happy, but at least in Connecticut, that is not wide-open season. And people will move here just to take advantage of the lax laws that we have. Quite frankly, if you're doing a great job of educating your child at home, this piece of sn/rr 169 legislation do not pertain to you. And I know that we cannot protect our children from people who are want to do harm to them. There's no laws we can pass to protect a child from someone who's evil and want to do damage to them. But we at least have a mechanism in place to know who we're educating and where we're educating them and the fact that we have responsible adults taking the lead. Well, Mr. President, I ask that we move this piece of legislation forward.

Good evening. Right now, Mr. President, good to see you up there. Mr. President, I don't necessarily have a question at this moment for the Good Chair of the Education Committee. I do rise in strong opposition to the bill. I think the Good Chair and I normally agree on many issues that come out of the Education Committee; we fundamentally disagree on the proposals that are in the piece of legislation before us right now. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that there's an old cliche that hard cases make bad law. And there should be a corollary to that, that horror stories make horrible laws. And I think that this is the case with House Bill 5468, which will ban from homeschooling. Any parent who winds up on a DCF blacklist of alleged child abusers. After the tragic and horrific death of Jackie Mimi Torres-Garcia, some lawmakers rushed to tar all homeschoolers with the same brush. And I think that that was not the right thing to do. Upon passage, this bill will ban from homeschooling any parent who is listed on the State's Central Registry of Alleged Child Abusers. sn/rr 170 Now, for those that don't necessarily understand what that means, that haven't looked into that, it might conjure up a list of people convicted in court of brutalizing their children. And in fact, the reality is that one can be listed on the DCF Central Register of Alleged Child Abusers if a caseworker simply checks a box on a form declaring that she or he has "reasonable cause" to believe the allegation is true. Reasonable cause. And Mr. President, overwhelmingly, the majority of the time, the allegation won't be brutal abuse, but instead neglect, which sadly often means that perhaps the family is poor and cannot adequately provide. And we all know living and surviving in Connecticut is indeed difficult for many today due to our long habits of making Connecticut unaffordable. Now, the parent can appeal, but the only appeal before a parent is listed goes to a hearing officer working for DCF itself. So, I'm not sure how we have impartiality there. The bill would also ban from homeschooling anyone who shares a household with someone who has an open case with the Department of Children and Families. You know, we're in a time in Connecticut where it's very expensive to live, and we've talked about this. My colleagues, we've all talked about this in this chamber. And we see a lot more or growing occurrence of generational living in Connecticut. I have it in my own house. I have my senior parents, my wife and I, and my children all under the same roof. Three generations. And we're doing that because it's something we wanted to do. It allows us to take care of each other in our respective ways. But generational living or simply maintaining cultural traditions of sharing household for whatever reasons, right? Whatever the reasons are. Financial, caring for loved ones. If a person is living in a household and sn/rr 171 this person is listed on the DCF registry, the homeschooling request is denied. Wow. And in Connecticut, some statistics that I'd like to share. 25% of all children, 25% of all children, 34% of Hispanic children, and 42% of Black children will at some point be living in such a household, meaning generational living, sharing a living environment with relatives, grandpas, uncles, aunts, cousins. And overwhelmingly, the reports leading to those investigations will be found to be false. Remarkably, despite the overwhelming opposition to this bill, it is before us and already came out of the House with, you know, we like to say bipartisan support in this chamber. It came out with bipartisan opposition as well. I'm disappointed that while the voices in this building were very loud on this issue, they somehow were not heard. And as is common too many times in this building, the loudest voices are sometimes never heard and instead attempted to be silenced, or worse, drowned out by a political agenda. Two months ago, as the good chair referenced, on the day of the public hearing, it was actually more than 19 hours that we, the Education Committee, held that public hearing. We heard from nearly 300 people, of which all but four spoke in opposition to this bill. Four people supported it. And if not for the announcement of debate being limited to 24 hours, I firmly believe we could have listened to more than 500 people speak. We saw what happened when the public hearing that was going on next to us regarding, I believe it was the vaccine bill, got shut down. My colleagues here in the find an empty meeting room and continue the public hearing unofficially. sn/rr 172 But we had hundreds of homeschool families here. So many that we needed an overflow space to accommodate everyone. But alas, the committee chairs made a decision to limit the hearing to 24 hours, thereby most certainly silencing some voices. I mean, after all, who would wait 24 hours? Who would come up here, wait 24 hours to be heard, and then say, "I'm sorry. It's been 24 hours and one minute. You have to go home now. We don't really care what you have to say." I'm certain this restriction had a chilling effect on many people who simply decided not to come out. But thankfully, thankfully, our homeschool parents were tuned in. Our homeschool families were right on the mark. And there were more than 3,300 pieces of written testimony, also largely in opposition to this bill that was submitted online to the Education Committee web page. And I think that is highly representative of the concerns of our homeschooling families. Some have said or suggested that this testimony came from mostly out of state, which is just not true. Some have said that national advocates for homeschooling spun up the Connecticut homeschool family community. Okay. Well, that's exactly what advocates do. That's exactly. And congratulations to those national organizations who made the people that they represent aware of what was going on here in Connecticut. And that certainly does not diminish in any way the expressed concerns. I want to just take a moment to thank each parent and each child who has come to this building to advocate for their rights, for their way of life, for protecting their freedoms, all things that our founding fathers fought for 250 years ago. Your presence here tonight, I see some families in the gallery that I can see, and I know you're behind me over here. Hello. sn/rr 173 Your presence here tonight in this beautiful Capitol Building and in this chamber speaks loudly once again to your resilience in protecting your rights and your genuine fear of how your rights are about to be trampled upon and violated. And for that, I am very sorry. Listening to the voices of the people that we represent as legislators, regardless of their political beliefs, their skin color, their ideologies, their religious beliefs, or any other consideration on which we may not share a common ground, is at the very core of our responsibilities as legislators. Those voices inform us and should be guiding us on the decisions we make. But again, the proponents of this bill and the leaders of the majority caucuses chose to ignore those voices and to move this bill forward for final action today in the Senate. Those in favor of this legislation assert that homeschoolers homeschool so they can hide their child from abuses. I have said this already in prior discussions about this bill, and I ask, what about the child who is in a public school who is abused daily at home, is home all weekend, is home all summer, who is hidden in plain view because their abuse never reaches the threshold of being reported? Wow. Mr. President, for legislative intent, I do have a few questions for the good chair.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, through you, does the bill remove the requirement that current homeschoolers no longer have to fulfill the sn/rr 174 current State Department of Education suggested policies regarding notice of intent? Through you.

Through you, Mr. President, can you repeat the question?

I'd be happy to, Mr. President. Thank you. I'm asking if the policy before us for consideration right now, the bill before us, removes the requirement that current homeschoolers no longer have to fulfill the current SDE suggested policies regarding notice of intent? So, notice of intent to educate outside of the public school and a private school and homeschooling. Through you.

Currently, all homeschoolers who are currently homeschooling their children right now, actually, this piece of legislation will not affect them because they will be grandfathered in. Through you, Mr. President.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. So, the answer is that going forward, they do not need to file a notice of intent? Through you, Mr. President.

Yes. Through you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you to the good chair. And the good chair actually anticipated my next question regarding the grandfathering of all current homeschool families. And I guess I just want to put on, again for legislative intent, Mr. President, the grandfathering of all current homeschool families means that they are not subject to the new rules and the DCF check, through you?

That's absolutely correct. Through you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, thank you. Thank you to the good chair for the answer. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5902. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

LCO No. 5902, Senate Amendment "A".

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

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, very simply, this amendment removes the requirement for the DCF check from the bill. Any parent can hide a child if they truly want to do so, and the tragic events that we saw are evidence of that. This would take the DCF check off. I urge adoption of the amendment. And when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by roll call.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I completely understand the concerns that homeschoolers have, and not just homeschoolers have, that parents have when it comes to the Department of Children and Family. And I am not here to make negative comments about any agency in the State of Connecticut. But I will tell you that -- you know, my ranking member stated the percentage of individuals who are currently going to registry and the demographics of them. I can honestly say to you that people from my community do not want DCF in their business, and that's a fact, because they're overrepresented in the system. They don't think they get the best care. They don't think that the individuals who are in charge are culturally competent. And they don't want any business of DCF in their schools. And I believe I can speak for a number of communities, not just mine. However, the concern I have is the fact that when a child is in public school, they are around mandated reporters every single day, and adults have eyes on these children. And if they feel as though that a child is being neglected, they have an obligation to make a referral to the Department of Children and Family. What we have to consider here is when this child is removed from our traditional public school, all those eyes that were on that child on regular days are off. The only adult or adults that have eyes on that child is the parent and the adults that are in that household. So, it's very, very, very important to know who's in that household. sn/rr 178 And that's why having the component of the Department of Children and Family exercise their responsibility of making sure the welfare of that child is intact, therein lies the need for a DCF call. You're not going to be a case just to call and see and make sure an individual is not on that registry. And the reason why is very important because when someone is on the child registry, it indicates that the perpetrator currently possesses a risk to the health, safety, and well-being on the child. They currently have that issue. So, therefore, it's very important to know who's on the registry and why we have to have DCF involved. So, although I understand the concerns that my ranking member have about DCF and the concerns of many, many parents across the state, it would do us no justice not to make sure that the adult who is in charge of educating that child and adults who are in the environment where that education is being given have to be informed. So, as much as I like the concept of removing DCF, I cannot support this amendment. Through you, Mr. President.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments from the good chair. I would suggest that it is never the responsibility of a parent to have to check in with DCF to be allowed to do something for their own child. Thank you.

Well, I believe when we do accept this amendment, sn/rr 179 and I believe we will, I ask that it be taken by roll call.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Bill No. 5468. This is Senate Amendment "A". We're not voting on the bill. This is Senate Amendment "A", AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF PARENT-MANAGED LEARNING. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I'm disappointed, as usual, that that did not meet with good resolve and failed strictly on just about party line votes. Mr. President, last week, the Office of the Child Advocate released a horrifying, damning and scathing report entitled The Findings and Recommendations Regarding Ongoing Deficits in the Quality of Case Practice at the Department of Children and Families. The following statement was included with the release of the report, and I think it's imperative and germane to our discussion to read it into the record here tonight. So, this says last week, the Office of the Child Advocate received notification that a child with an open investigation with the department died by apparent suicide. Based on our preliminary investigative review, this apparent self-harm occurred within one hour of the Department of Children and Families staff visiting the family. According to DCF records, during that visit, the child told the DCF caseworker that the child did not feel safe and asked to come into foster care. The family had a lengthy DCF history in Connecticut, did not have stable housing, had moved in and out of Connecticut over many years, and none of the children were enrolled in school. Despite these facts and all of the information available to DCF, DCF made a decision to leave the child with the parent, indicating that coming into care was not an option. OCA has opened an investigation to conduct a full review of the circumstances of this case. While it is too early to reach conclusions, our preliminary review of this case leaves us alarmed. sn/rr 181 In fact, OCA has grown increasingly alarmed at the quality of case practice observed through our reviews of critical incidents and child fatalities, some of which have garnered significant public attention and some of which have not. It is this increasing alarm, coupled with ongoing deficits in the quality of case practice which DCF has been unable to address, that compels OCA to issue this letter of findings and recommendations. It goes on. The OCA concluded by saying the deficits in the quality of case practice must be urgently remedied. There is not one statutory change that can address these issues. Rather, doing so will require a concerted effort by DCF executive leadership, commitment to caseworkers both by DCF executive leadership and the legislature to ensure they have the support they need to meet expectations, and ongoing external oversight and accountability. I can't tell you how much this angers me, Mr. President. I'm upset. I'm fearful for the children of Connecticut that interact with this agency. The amendment that I just offered would have removed DCF from the equation. I'm disappointed that contemporaneously with the disturbing findings of the Office of the Child Advocate, that we would continue to give authority, tonight, give more authority to an agency that has been deemed a total failure and in need of wholesale reforms. How remarkably insulting to every citizen of the State of Connecticut and now tonight to our homeschooling community, parents and students. Mr. President, earlier this year during a public hearing, the Child Advocate stated that Matthew Tirado, because I'll say his name, who died at the hands of his mother, was not removed from school for homeschooling. But yes, this was largely the basis for the recommendation for the need for regulation of homeschoolers. Why? Well, DCF failed Mr. Tirado, may sn/rr 182 he rest in peace, not homeschooling. In the same hearing, the Child Advocate also stated publicly that the real cause of these tragic events regarding children is a catastrophic failure of the Department of Children and Families. That's a direct quote from the Child Advocate. And now we have her report that I just read from as evidence. So, again, Mr. President, it begs the question, after reviewing this information from the Child Advocate and the comments she made publicly, why, as prescribed in the bill on the floor right now, we would want DCF to be involved in any way at all in the evaluation, monitoring, or regulation of homeschoolers when the very agency we would authorize to do so has demonstrated they cannot handle the cases they are already monitoring and they are making catastrophic mistakes that are causing harm to and the death of children in their care. Wow. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO 5912. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Senator Berthel.

The question is on adoption. Will you remark?

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

Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, will the Clerk -- I'm sorry, Senator Martin.

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

Have all members voted? If all members have voted, the machines will be locked. Mr. Clerk, please announce the tally. sn/rr 185

The amendment fails. Will you remark further on the bill? Senator Berthel.

LCO 5909, Senate Amendment "C".

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, this amendment would require DCF to inform the parents directly that the child cannot be withdrawn from school instead of the school district. The amendment would require DCF to interact, again, directly with and inform parents that their child cannot be withdrawn from school, instead of placing that sn/rr 189 responsibility on the superintendent or their designee. This creates an appropriate separation between the school system and parents who don't want to be involved with the school system. It also creates the appropriate connection between DCF and the parent regarding the reason for the denial. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment. And when the vote is taken, I ask that it be taken by roll call.

Again, Mr. President, I think the mechanisms that we have in place are sufficient enough, and I think this will probably not necessarily do us no harm, but I think we have a concept in place already that satisfy the needs of the parents, the school, and the agency, DCF. And I also would just add, I just want to say for the record that my colleague mentioned about the work and responsibility of the Department of Children and Family. I concur. I think DCF needs a lot more support, a lot more training. And I believe there's money in the budget to provide that support and training for DCF. So, with that being said, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues not to accept the amendment. And when we vote, let it be voted by roll call. Thank you, Mr. President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "C", House Bill No. 5468, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF PARENT-MANAGED LEARNING. This is a vote on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "C" of House Bill No. 5468. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Amendment "C" for House Bill No. 5468. This is not the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 10 Total voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Mr. President. Another party line rejection of a good amendment. You know, if this bill passes tonight, which I, again, don't have a crystal ball, but guessing probably will. We'll have the same exact total on the screen. And it's signed sn/rr 191 by Governor Lamont, all families would be prevented from beginning to homeschool until a DCF screening was completed. Repugnant indeed. It would be a barrier based on a generalization and a generalized suspicion of all parents rather than specific concerning evidence about some parents, in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court's ruling in Parham. That is the central problem. The question then is not whether child abuse exists. It does. The question is how a free society responds to that evil without abandoning the freedom that makes human flourishing possible. Mr. President, as we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we are reminded of a central tenet of the American experiment that unalienable rights endowed by our creator precede government itself, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The founders saw here a life shaped by virtue, responsibility, and purpose. They saw human flourishing. And they assumed this life begins with the family, not with the state. Rather, the state is charged with guarding the freedom that makes flourishing possible, not to abdicate freedom to the whims of the state. HB 5468 reframes that long-standing principle. Trust in parents is replaced with suspicion. Freedom is not the starting point, but a risk to be managed. Liberty must be approved before it can be exercised. The law, as the good chair spoke to, already provides tools to protect children where there is evidence of harm, and those tools should be used vigorously and without hesitation. But that is very different from treating every family as a potential threat to their own child. What is at stake in HB 5468 is not simply homeschooling, but the meaning of liberty itself. It is a problem to be managed, or is it a problem to be sn/rr 192 managed or a good to be preserved? Is the family the starting point or is the state the starting point? We can protect children without reversing the presumption of trust in parents. We can enforce the law without redefining liberty as a liability. And we can act decisively where evidence demands it without imposing suspicion where none exists. That is the balance of our American tradition. That is the balance our American tradition has struck. And HB 5468 should not abandon it now. Mr. President, the bill violates the fundamental rights of parents under the 1st and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. I am certain, as sure as I am standing here tonight, there will be lawsuits that ensue after this bill is signed by the Governor. It is my belief that HB 5468, if passed, would substantially burden both the fundamental rights of parents to privately educate their children, and the right of religious parents to provide instruction to their children consistent with their sincere beliefs. Mr. President, undoubtedly, child abuse can be unquestionably severe, and the state has legitimate and compelling interest in protecting children when that occurs. But HB 5468 extends far beyond this core protective function. Rather than targeting only parents who have been found to have committed to serious abuse, the bill imposes a mandatory waiting period on all families who wish to withdraw their children to homeschool, and imposes a bar on any homeschooling for any family with a parent whose name appears on that registry. And there are two fundamental problems with this approach. First, the bill imposes a mandatory waiting period on all families who wish to homeschool. This delay applies even to families against whom there is no allegation of abuse or neglect. But HB 5468 does exactly that. sn/rr 193 Placement on the state registry is purely an administrative decision, not a judicial one. As I spoke to earlier, checking a box. And it can occur based on a wide range of substantiated allegations, including many unrelated to the child's safety or a parent's ability to teach. Because substantiated allegations of neglect comprise over 70% of all substantiated allegations, and neglect findings may range from minor to more serious, registry status does not reliably reflect abuse, parental incapacity or educational unsuitability. It just doesn't. By treating registry placement as conclusive proof of parental neglect or unfitness, HB 5468 effectively transforms a child protective mechanism into a broad restriction on fundamental constitutional rights. This is not the role of the state. HB 5468 effectively imposes a universal administrative barrier to homeschooling in two ways. Any parent who seeks to withdraw their child from public school to homeschool is subject to a mandatory waiting period, whether the parent has been accused of neglect or not. I've already said it a couple of times. I'm saying it again. The bill imposes a mandatory child abuse and neglect registry check during that waiting period. And if any parent in the household appears on the registry, the family is categorically barred from homeschooling with no mechanism to appeal the decision. The scope of this restriction is also compounded by two additional factors. First, the State of Connecticut defines neglect broadly. It may involve serious issues where a child's health or well-being is injured, but it also includes any situation where a child is being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally. The breadth of this definition makes neglect more difficult to capture and more susceptible to that sn/rr 194 subjective judgment I spoke about when we started this debate. And to be sure, some registry placements may involve grave abuse that could justify restrictions. But HB 5468 does not distinguish those cases from far less disputed matters. Because the definition is so broad, the neglect that DCF finds may have nothing to do at all with a serious safety concern or even the parent's ability to teach a child at home. This is just one of the reasons why the categorical use of neglect as a type of maltreatment has been criticized as overly broad and highly subjective. As I said earlier on, placement on the registry is almost always the result of an administrative finding rather than a judicial determination. As a result, mere placement on the registry is not a reliable indicator of actual abuse, serious neglect, or a parent's ability to teach. Statistics show that states that use lower evidentiary thresholds have a much higher registry placement rate, imagine that, and a much higher reversal rate on appeal than states that use the more rigorous preponderance of the evidence standard. I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that for sure. Again, Mr. President, I'm going to go into some court history. Not a lawyer, but found this and found it very interesting and germane. In Valmonte v. Bane, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which includes Connecticut, considered a class action claim that brought a 14th Amendment due process challenge against New York's process for placing individuals on the state's child abuse register. The Second Circuit concluded that a low threshold for registry inclusion created an unacceptable high risk of error. The court concluded that New York's some credible evidence did not require the fact finder to weigh sn/rr 195 conflicting evidence. Now, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I understand what that means as well. And that's not good. This rendered the standard especially dubious for making determinations of neglect, which are inherently inflammatory and unusually open to the subjective values of the fact finder. All from the court. As evidence of this disparity, Valmonte noted that when the much stronger preponderance standard was used on appeal and hearing officers had to balance the evidence from both sides, nearly 75% of those seeking removal from the registry were successful, 75%. And as the second circuit concluded 75% of those challenging their inclusion on the list were successful, we cannot help but be skeptical of the fairness of the original determination. And that's exactly what we're going to do here in Connecticut with the passage of 5468. And the court acknowledged the grave seriousness of the problems of child abuse and neglect and the need for the state to maintain a central register. It, however, concluded that New York's registry placement process was constitutionally unacceptable. Let's hope the court finds the same ruling about this bill before us. Valmonte's concerns continue to be borne out by empirical research. In 2021, an article in the Central University of New York Law Review conducted an exhaustive review of child registry laws in all 50 states and concluded that states with lower standards of proof like Connecticut continue to have higher substantiation rates than do states that utilize higher standards of proof. Shocking. And that reversal rates of substantiation upon administrative appeal confirm this concern. From the court. Not a legislator, from the court. Put simply, lower thresholds lead to more placements and many of those placements do not survive later review. sn/rr 196 So, Mr. President, there are serious flaws in the core principle of HB 5468. Placement on a child abuse or neglect registry does not necessarily establish actual abuse, serious misconduct, or parental inability to educate a child. A registry may include parents associated with a wide range of allegations from severe abuse to lower risk neglect findings, allegations which may have occurred years ago and have no present bearing on the child's safety, or again, the parent's ability to teach. HB 5468 will raise serious constitutional concerns. The structural flaws raise serious constitutional concerns. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the liberty protected by the due process clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the liberty protected by the due process clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own. It's that important to be read aloud twice. A law like HB 5468, which imposes mandatory waiting periods on all parents, simply because some parents abuse their children in the past, is inconsistent with constitutional principles. The bad news is even more pronounced for families seeking homeschooling for religious reasons. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the court recognized that parental authority over a child's education intersects with the free exercise clause when parents seek to provide instruction consistent with their faith. Yoder held that the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our society. And that only interest of the highest order can overbalance legitimate free exercise claims. sn/rr 197 And last year, Mahmoud v. Taylor reaffirmed the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children, and warn that government schools may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise. Mr. President, while protecting children from abuse is a compelling state interest, registry placement alone is too blunt a proxy to override these rights. And as Valmonte explained, such systems can result in many individuals being placed on the list who do not belong there. Placement on the registry does not necessarily establish serious abuse, educational unfitness, or current danger to a child, nor is such a categorical rule a narrowly tailored means of protecting children. Less restrictive alternatives are readily available, including case by case review, perhaps not by DCF because we know that they don't do a very good job of that. Time limits, severity distinctions or hearings focused on present educational fitness, all of which would be far more effective in protecting the actual child at issue. Where law abandons fundamental, parental and religious liberty interest, mere placement on a registry is not enough to prevent parents from exercising their constitutional rights. Mr. President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5914. I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, 5914.

Senator Berthel. sn/rr 198

The question is on adoption. Will you remark?

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

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

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

The amendment fails. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Berthel, please proceed, sir.

Here you are. Welcome back. Good to see you. Yes, sn/rr 201 Madam President, I will remark further. I'll say something that I know the good chair and I enjoy hearing in public hearings, in conclusion. And I don't want to lose sight of some of the comments that the good chair has made as well regarding some of his concerns about the legislation before us. So, Madam President, I would say clearly that we all believe protecting children is an urgent and legitimate goal. But this bill, well, it creates a system that conditions fundamental rights on registry placement and does not meaningfully advance the goal of protecting children given how imprecise and error prone those placement decisions are. Where fundamental rights are at stake, the constitution requires more than administrative convenience. And as I spoke to a moment ago, the 1st and 14th Amendments require a degree of precision that HB 5468 does not provide. Homeschoolers, homeschooling families should not be singled out for special surveillance and discrimination in the name of making everyone feel better after a child abuse horror. And it should not be lost on anyone the horror of those examples of child abuse that we have seen in our state. I would say, Madam President, instead, let all the time and effort that would be directed to this pointless new form of family policing be directed towards strengthening prevention. When poverty is confused with neglect and strengthening investigation when something more than a family's educational choices raise suspicion. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill tonight. Sadly, we will likely see the same exact tally on the board when this bill is finally called for a vote. This is not an appropriate time to be doing this given the train wreck that is the Department of Children and Families. sn/rr 202 This is an unfair and unjust attack on families who want to educate their children as they see fit, whether for cultural, family, religious, or ideological reasons. This is an assault on the freedoms inherent to the basic foundation of our country, formed and promised 250 years ago. I urge rejection. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President. And I rise for a few comments and quite a few questions concerning this bill. So, I've listened to the proponent of the bill and to the good ranking member on this bill. One of the things that I heard was that this was a compromise to what the homeschoolers wanted. And I have to say, I couldn't disagree with that any more vehemently. The homeschoolers want to be left alone. The homeschoolers did not ask for the State of Connecticut to co-parent their children, and they certainly did not ask to have to go through a process and to be cleared from a registry to be able to have their freedom and their right to educate their children at home as they see fit. You know, I can't help but think of the irony of some of the items in this bill that we want to keep children safe. I want to keep children safe. Everyone wants to keep children safe. But we need to know that they're in a safe environment. Well, they're not safe in public school. There's teachers that have been arrested for things in public schools. There's teachers that have been suspended for doing things like having students pick up their prescription drugs. We just had another case here at NFA where a coach was let go. sn/rr 203 So, to say that one group has to go through all these extra steps when we're not taking care of what we're doing right now through DCF and our public school is just unfair. It's singling people out. This bill, to me, is let's find out who they are, where they are, and how many of them there are. That's what this bill does. You know, homeschooling has had a strong 24-year history without a reported case of child maltreatment or death in the State of Connecticut, and then suddenly we had some tragic cases too. So, we must ask the philosophical and political question, when 225 other children were killed by maltreatment, why are we not focusing there? Why are we focusing on the homeschooling? Because they're an easy target. Because they don't have a lobbyist. Because they're quiet in their home doing what they want to do, teaching their children outside of the public school system. Those 225 kids that were killed in other reasons, they're the faceless, they're forgotten. They might have made a news article, but this circle doesn't care about them. We care about the minority that happened under the homeschooling, and I'm going to go through those homeschooling cases. So, Mimi Torres-Garcia. The DCF was first called when the child was born. There was DCF involvement in that case for years. Matthew Tirado, DCF caseworker didn't follow through multiple directives from supervisors until December 2016. The DCF closed the case because there was no evidence of abuse or neglect. We go through Eve Rogers. Tragic. But guess what? Her step-father was on the registry, but from another state. So, what are we going to do there? That hasn't been mentioned. And then, just recently, we had a case where a child said to the DCF worker, "I don't feel safe. I want to go into foster care." sn/rr 204 It was ignored, and the child committed suicide an hour later. So, that gives us all pause that the DCF is the right organization to check whether homeschoolers, who are homeschooling their children because they feel it's the right thing for them or their child, that the DCF who can't handle this, are going to be the ones to say it's okay for them to homeschool your child or not. That's outrageous. And if people are listening, I hope they do their due diligence because this is unbelievable that this is happening. 3,700 pieces of testimony against the bill. 54. Not 54, but 50 for it. And yet, here we are pushing through a bill that the majority of the people who are affected do not want. There is no proof, there is no evidence that passing this bill today is going to make one child safer. But what it will do is rip families apart. It creates new government tracking system for all kids, an annual intent to educate whether it's homeschool, private school, and even just continuing what you're already doing. So, I have a lot of questions. We heard now that there is a grandfathering. So, if you're homeschooling now, you're not going to have to do these things I'm going to ask later. Or do you not have to do them for the children you have now and if you have another child, you will, like the vaccine bill. This looks like state surveillance of families to me. And the DCF background, for me, for everybody is absolutely an explosive portion of this bill. The DCF is going to check on every adult in your household if you decide you want to withdraw your child. I'm going to say, in my household, I live intergenerationally. My 90-year-old father would not want to be interviewed or checked against a registry if I decided to pull my daughter out of school. It's sn/rr 205 absolutely nobody's business who lives in your house. And if anyone is on this registry or even under investigation or there's an allegation, you're blocked from homeschooling. So, you're punishing a parent's choice because of another adult that may or might not live in your house. And this is simply that the state could deny your right to educate your child as you see fit based on an allegation. And I will remind everyone, homeschoolers are taxpayers. They're paying taxes to their local community. And guess what? They're not using the educational system, but they're paying in. And parents are now going to have to physically drive to an office to withdraw their child, and then have a waiting period to see if big brother approves them to be able to homeschool their child at home. This feels like an absolute barrier, not a process. What does that do for working parents, for people that live in rural communities or they don't have transportation? How are they supposed to drive to the school during school hours to withdraw their child from school? We're making parents jump through hoops to be able to do what they feel is right for their children. And the state is now going to track how many kids are in parent-managed learning. I call it homeschooling, you call it parent-managed learning. They want to know who you are, where you are. They want to know how many of them there are of you. And what's the due process and protections for family who are denied homeschooling? What's the process for an active investigation rather than a substantial finding? For me, this blurs the line between educational system and child welfare, and it raises real privacy concerns. There's more administrative burden on our schools, and this is trying to solve a problem that sn/rr 206 doesn't exist. There's no strong evidence at all of widespread abuse of homeschooling. There is no clear crisis in fixing it. But what there is a crisis in our DCF. And if they are already overburdened, how are they going to take yet another 1,500 or 1,000 cases on annually? How are they going to do it? They can't manage what they have now. They're overwhelmed. They're overburdened. They're underfunded. Yet now, we're just going to add this to their plate of things to do. I don't want to set them up to fail. I would much rather have investment and training and new people in the DCF so they can manage the current real issues that we have. This is an absolute overreach, and it's clear that the citizens of the State of Connecticut do not want this law, yet we're pushing it through because the majority knows better. So, I have some questions for the proponent of the bill, through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, how are we going to handle students coming from other states that the parent may or may not have some type of child abuse case on them coming from another state when they come in in the public school? Through you, Madam President.

sn/rr 207 Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if a parent is moving into the district from another state, they have 14 days to register their child in the school system and give us indication how they want their child educated, whether it's public school, private school, or parent-managed instruction. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. So, if we are protecting students that are homeschooled and the DCF is supposed to check on them every day, and during the waiting period, right? She's shaking her head no. Okay. What are we doing about students that are homeschooled or in public school before school, after school, on the weekends, and the summer? Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, well, currently, we don't check on them during those time periods, and we will continue not to be able to check on them during those time periods. And the waiting time to render a decision whether a child will be able to be homeschooled is five days, that the request will go in and the school system will make a determination whether that parent will be able to homeschool. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. So, there's a waiting period of five days. What happens if my daughter is being bullied at school? I go in, I want to withdraw her. You're going to make me wait five days before the state tells me that I can homeschool her. What happens to my daughter in those five days?

Thank you, Madam President. Well, currently, it won't necessarily take that long because there's a portal already set up in our school system where a query will be requested. And if no one is on that registry, that child will be able to be withdrawn. If no one at that address is on the registry, then that child can be withdrawn immediately. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, what happens if somebody is on that registry and I say I'm still homeschooling my child. You can't make me send my child to school. What happens to me, through you, Madam President?

Madam President, through you, there's nothing in sn/rr 209 this bill that addresses that concern. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. So, we're making the rule saying you have to go through this process. You have to get approval by the school system to be able to withdraw your own child from school. There's a waiting period. You may not have to wait if you're not on the registry. But if your great uncle who lives with you is on the registry from something 30 years ago that they didn't go through the process to get taken off, you will no longer be able to, according to the state, homeschool your child. But yet, there's nothing in this bill that says, well, if I don't comply and I homeschool my child, I don't care what you say. There's no penalty. Is that correct, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Currently, again, there's nothing in this piece of legislation that addresses that concern, although we know that might happen. But there's nothing in this piece of legislation that addresses that concern. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. So, there you have it. Just don't comply, I guess. Nothing's going to happen to you. It's not addressed in the bill. So, I would like to know, through you, Madam President, how many documented cases exist where children that are homeschooled were harmed due to the lack of oversight. Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, through the lack of oversight, I'm not quite sure of that number. But I do know that last year, there were 30 instances where children was withdrawn from school where there were adults on the registry in that home. So, with those numbers being known, I'm not quite sure the response to that answer. But we do know that there were 30 children that was withdrawn from school and who had adults who were in that household on the registry. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. I will take that as a no, that there is none, because there is no answer other than there's 30 people on the list, but there seems to be no documented cases that children were harmed due to oversight. So, my next question goes to this annual declaration that's required by parents who are already complying with the law. That they're going to have to go in-person to the school yearly, I think this is correct unless it's changed, to state or to comply that they are going to either sn/rr 211 homeschool, be in a public school, or a religious school. Through you, Madam President, is that correct?

Currently, the law states that if you're going to withdraw your child, you have to be present as the adult. The child do not have to be there. That's current law, and that will continue. And as we move forward, all we think that the parent will have to do is send an email and say I will continue to educate my child at home as they move forward annually. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. So, to be clear, through you, Madam President, if I want to withdraw my child, I have to go in in- person. I have to make this declaration. I have to get on a wait list, have everybody in my family checked. If I get approval from the big State of Connecticut, then I can homeschool or put my child in Catholic school or private school. And then after that, I just have to send an email every year saying I'm continuing this education. Is that correct, through you, Madam President?

sn/rr 212 Through you, Madam President, that's absolutely correct.

So, why should a parent who is safely educating their child, whether it be a private school, parochial school, Catholic school, Jewish school, or boarding school, be required every year now to justify what they're doing with their child? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, they're not justifying. They're just aligning with common practice. We just like to know where our children are and how they're properly being educated. Through you, Madam President.

So, that's interesting because I had two children that went through the public school system, and then I had a third child 20 years later. She's my 20- year-later surprise. And she didn't do well in public school. She's brilliant. She did not do well there. She's in private school. I can tell you right now, I am not going to send the State of Connecticut an email every year telling her she's in private school, even if I'm grandfathered in. sn/rr 213 I just am not going to do that. That is a ridiculous thing. State of Connecticut doesn't care where my daughter goes. They're willing to take my taxes to pay for my town. They don't care. So, that, to me, is just absurd and absolutely ridiculous that you're asking parents that are currently educating their students, their children outside of the system, paying taxes for other people to go to public school, and yet you're going to make them go through going these hoops. And let's talk about this for a minute. You talked about grandfathering. So, if I have -- I'm not going to, but if I had another child, God forbid, and was going to go into school, am I grandfathered because I'm already having a child that goes to private school, or do I have to go and do this process for my new child? Just like these homeschool people are going to ask, they may be grandfathered in now, but how do you know they're grandfathered in? Because you don't even know who they are. So, they could already say I have five kids in the system. And if they have another one, are they grandfathered in as a family? Or are we doing this like the vaccines where the kids they have now are grandfathered, but any new kids are going to have to go through the process, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President. If a child is five years old, a parent can enroll their child. Any child that's five-years-old, a parent can enroll their child into a public school system or non- public school system or managed-parent learning. If they're six years old, they have the same option. sn/rr 214 That's called a red shirt year, or they're seven years old. At some point, particularly when they're asking to actually educate their child, they have to go through the process moving forward. All the other kids are already grandfathered in. Through you, Madam President.

So, just like the vaccines. The kids that you have in the system now, whether you've registered or not, they're going to be good. But if you have any new children coming forward that are under five, they're going to have to go through this other process. You're going to have to get checked for the registry. Then what happens? If I'm a home school parent and I have four kids that are currently being home schooled, I'm grandfathered, then I have another one. That's four. When I come to the time that I have to get my approval from the State of Connecticut and I have my waiting period and you find out that Uncle Joe is on the list, now I'm not allowed to homeschool. But you just grandfathered me with the four kids to homeschool. So, what happens now? Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, through you, that situation will only assist for the one child that you're trying to homeschool currently. The other four will already be grandfathered in. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 215

Okay. I have to say that's the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard. So, we're trying to keep the kids safe. So, the four that are in are safe with Uncle Joe, but the new one that goes through the process, because Uncle Joe's there, they're not safe and I can't homeschool the little one, but I can continue to homeschool the older ones. That is crazy. That is just absurdly crazy if we're talking about keeping children safe. I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life. I'm sorry, through you, Madam President. That's just nuts. Oh my God. Okay. My next question is, what happens if a parent simply just forgets to go back? You know, they've done this process, they're allowed to homeschool, and every year they have to re-register. What happens is they just forget. Oops, I forgot. My kid's in school, they're in private school. I forgot they're away at prep school. What happens if you forget to do this on an annual basis?

Through you, Madam President. SDE will make three attempts to find out the whereabouts of that child. And then after that, information would be sent to SDE indicating that there's a child that's basically not being registered in a public school system or non-public schools or being managed. And let me go back to the comment that was made by the proponent of the question. sn/rr 216 We could easily change the legislation moving forward if we want every child who's already been homeschooled to have to go through this process again. But I don't think that's what our homeschool parents would want. The ones that are doing a good job, they're doing a good job. And if uncle whoever you mentioned is on the registry, clearly, there's not a problem there. But if we want to change the laws and say that now none of the kids could be homeschooled, I don't think that's something that our homeschool parents would want. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. That's not at all what I have ever said nor have I ever intended that, and I believe that the proponent of the bill knows that. I was just trying to point out the just hypocrisy of that. If we're really worried about kids being safe, that makes no sense at all, but I'll drop it. I'll leave it. So, again, this is the same kind of scenario because this could come up. Let's say I'm homeschooling my three kids, and I've decided to homeschool because I don't believe in Connecticut's stripping of its religious exemption for vaccines. So, I've decided I'm going to homeschool my children. And I quit my job to do it. I'm doing a great job. They're flourishing. Like many homeschoolers, they're performing way above our public school systems. And I go to fill out the form. I find out that somebody in my house, of course, is on this registry. All of a sudden, I'm not allowed to homeschool, but my kids can't go to public school because they're not vaccinated. So, what happens, through you, Madam President? sn/rr 217

Through you, Madam President, that's an interesting scenario that cannot be addressed or has not been addressed in this piece of legislation. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Is the state then going to force a vaccine on a child so they can go to public school, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President, I don't think the state can force anything on a child if a parent doesn't want to. However, the facts remain that child, there's nothing in this legislation that address that scenario that was just brought up. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And it appears that there is an appeal process for an unsubstantiated claim or report. And I'm wondering, through you, sn/rr 218 Madam President, is there an appeal time for that or what happens to ensure that a child's education is not disrupted during a dispute? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. I believe the question is if there is appeal process, Department of Children and Family has 45 days to determine whether it's substantiated or not. Through you, Madam President.

Okay. So, during those 45 days, how is the child's education not disrupted? Are they allowed to continue with homeschooling, or what happens to the child during those 45 days? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Because we're going to be very careful about who's at home and who's going to be in that household while a child is being educated, during that time period, the child will have to remain in the traditional public school system, or they can opt to a non-public school system, i.e., Catholic school, private school. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 219

And again, during that dispute, what if the parents say no, or the child isn't vaccinated? What happens, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President, if the parent says no, again, there's nothing in this legislation that addresses the fact that a parent is going to not apply themselves to the new piece of legislation if it's passed. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Do we have any idea, through you, Madam President, what the average caseload is for a DCF, I guess, a DCF caseworker? Through you, Madam President.

I'm sorry. Through you, Madam President, I didn't hear the answer. I mean, the question. Kindly repeat it. sn/rr 220

Yes. Do we know what the average caseload is for a DCF caseworker in the State of Connecticut, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President, I do not have that answer before me.

It is estimated to between 30 and 40 cases. So, I would like to know, through you, Madam President, if this bill passes, how the DCF is going to be able to manage the increased workload that they will have. Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. I believe that we saw, in our budget that passed just yesterday, there was additional $3 million allocated to Department of Children and Family to provide professional development and hopefully to hire more social sn/rr 221 workers so the caseloads can be reduced. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. You know, we talk about homeschooling parents and who's living in their home, and then we hear about teachers that do bad things to students that are under investigation, and we don't know who's in their home. So, through you, Madam President, do you think it would be fair that people that are having their students in public school would also know who's in the teacher's home if the teachers need to know who's in the student's home, through you, Madam President?

Through you, Madam President, students are not being educated in the teacher's home. Through you, Madam President.

Right. But they're being educated by those teachers in the classroom. So, I would just like to point out that New Hampshire, which is one of our, you know, neighboring states, their legislature is going in a completely different way. They're looking to decrease homeschooling regulations so that families can have the freedom that they deserve to homeschool sn/rr 222 at home. So, we are going in one direction and our neighbors are going to another. And I think that this bill operates under the assumption that parents need to be monitored, they need to be checked up on, they need to make sure that they comply. This is all about control. Control in about who you are, where you are, and what you're doing. And I have to say that if we're going to have between 1,500 and 2,000 students withdrawn from public school every year, I think that influx of notices would be impossible for our DCF to manage and increase the workload at our schools. I also think that if we have close to 30,000 students being homeschooled, if they all came into our public school system, we would, number one, not be able to manage it. And number two, we just increased DCF's funding for the first time in years. I can't imagine what that cost would be to the State of Connecticut. All for what? For the control that this state wants to have over homeschoolers, which I think is absolutely despicable and wrong. And when you look at the public testimony, you know, I thought we were here to represent our districts and the will of the people. We're supposed to be a legislature of the people, yet the people here on this particular subject have made it known for hours, 24-hour hearings repeatedly, 3,700 pieces of testimony against this legislation. And what are we doing? We're pushing it through. I hope the Governor vetoes this. It's an election year. I hope every single family contacts him and says vito this bill. So, with that, Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5911. I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

LCO No. 5911, Senate Amendment "E".

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

Thank you. When we're talking about withdrawing students from school, one of the things that's very unique to my district is I represent a military town where we have students withdrawing and entering our school district daily. You will have an elementary school of 400 students. And at the end of the year, they will still be 400 students, but they have changed over five or six times. So, I think it would be absolutely impossible for my school district to deal with the withdrawing of students. What are you going to do when a military family comes and says, I'm withdrawing my child for X, Y, and Z. There's this wait list. There's the DCF referral. And they're gone. They're in another state. So, with that, Madam President, I am asking, after line 203, to insert the following. That the provision of this section shall not apply to the children of military families as defined in section 10-15f. sn/rr 224 And I think this is important for the only military town in the State of Connecticut, the majority in Groton schools. We have the only military base. It's called New London, but it's really in Groton and a little bit in Ledyard. And because of that, I ask all my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Madam President. And I'm asking for a roll call vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I ask that my colleagues do not support this amendment for the simple fact that military parents who are withdrawing their children because they're moving out of state, this wouldn't apply to them. So, therefore, I will ask that this vote be taken by roll.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the is the amendment to House Bill No. 5468, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF PARENT-MANAGED LEARNING. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Amendment "E" of House Bill No. 5468. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "E" of House Bill No. 5468. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. sn/rr 225

Total number voting 35 Total voting Yea 10 Total voting Nay 25 Absent not voting 1

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I'm sorry that this failed. I feel sorry for our military families that are going to come to Connecticut that are going to have to deal with this. And it's constant for them. It's constantly moving, coming in, withdrawing, entering. This is going to add yet another burden for them to have to deal with. So, I want to share a story quickly that is a story from my district. I've been allowed to share this. And it is a story that happened to one of my daughter's friends. So, a gentleman that I know has twin daughters. He took one of the daughter's phones away, and you can imagine how well that went over with a 13-year-old girl in private school. So, the dad works for a government contractor and had cameras all over his house. When the young girl sn/rr 226 got to school, she was talking to a friend and was, you know, complaining about her how her dad was so mean. He took her phone away. And she embellished a little bit and said, "And he shoved me." So, that went to the teacher. It was an automatic DCF report, and there was an investigation. And DCF is aware of this because I've had the conversation with them about what I thought of this. The gentleman said, "It didn't happen. I have cameras all over my house. Take the film. Look at it." DCF refused. Then they had a whole conversation in Spanish in front of the family, but what they didn't realize is that the family spoke Spanish, so they heard exactly what they were saying. And it wasn't very nice. It was derogatory things about the father, about what he did for a living, you know, what he looked like, who he supported, blah, blah, blah. And the girls spoke Spanish also. So, what DCF did is they refused to look at the camera footage, and the father was told, "You have to go to anger management, you have to admit to this, or we're going to separate you from your children until there's a further investigation." Well, this individual was not going to say he did something he didn't do, so he said, "We're going to separate." They had to spend a year apart until it went to court. And when it went to court, the court threw out the case. So, in this situation, these girls are in private school. There's now somebody who has a DCF investigation on them. Even though it has found to be false at the end and the court threw it out, those girls would not be allowed to be homeschooled. And I think this is an example of what's wrong with this bill. And I have to say, I'm really disappointed that we're moving in this trajectory because the DCF commissioner themselves said they can't manage it. SDE said it's a struggle. And I sn/rr 227 just don't understand why we're doing it. We heard right here that it's really not about safety. This is about targeting a certain group that maybe people don't agree with or they don't like. And I don't see one thing in this bill that is going to make children safer. What we could do to make children safer is put all our efforts into giving DCF the support that they need to be able to have more caseworkers so they're not overloaded with 30 or 40 cases, and then we're going to pile on top of it with even more. To do whatever we can to better train them to identify high risk areas. That's what we should be doing. We should not be targeting those who are simply choosing to educate their students and their -- I keep calling them students. Their children outside of the traditional public school system. Children in homeschooling thrive. We have a very large homeschooling network in my community. They're out in the community. They're doing great field trips. They're learning things that our kids in public school can't. They don't have access to. So, I support them fully, and I support, most of all, a parent's rights to choose what's best for their child. Many of our students don't do well in a traditional public school setting. I've helped many people in my district with those children that are tough. We have an alternative school near me at the Seaport specifically for those types of children. Now we're taking what we consider an added measure of safety, which it's not, which is an added level of scrutiny, bureaucracy, and government control to our homeschoolers. And I think it's wrong, and I urge rejection of this horrific bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. I want to start by saying I align my comments with those of my colleagues, Senator Berthel and Senator Somers, who just spoke very passionately. I agree with all of her commentary very, very much. I rise in strong opposition to the bill before us, H.B. 5468, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF PARENT-MANAGED LEARNING. This bill is not merely about homeschooling, as most people have referred to it. It's about something much, much larger, which is the relationship between the citizens of Connecticut and the state. And the question really is, are we citizens or are we subjects? Because citizens have rights. Subjects have only permissions. Citizens raise their children, while subjects wait for the government to approve their choices. Citizens direct the education of their children. Subjects are told that the government will decide, and parents may merely manage what the state allows. I want to just pause for a moment and say that I don't deny that there has been a number of tragedies and heartbreaking cases in the state of Connecticut, especially recently, involving children. And every member in this Chamber should care very deeply about child safety. Every one of us wants DCF to do their job, to follow the warning signs, to verify information, and protect children that are actually in danger. But the question before us is not about whether children should be protected. Of course, they should. The question is whether government failures should become the excuse for government to take control over innocent families. And that is exactly what H.B. 5468 does. sn/rr 229 It starts off by changing the wording of the current law. It changes the language from parent directed education to parent-managed learning. That's on line 48 of the bill. And this new statutory term matters very much. Because it does not say, home education, it doesn't say parent-directed education, it does not say family-directed education, it says, parent- managed learning. And that's a bureaucratic face. It suggests that the parent is not the primary authority, but merely the manager of an educational arrangement that is recognized and monitored by the state of Connecticut. Parents are not middle managers between the state and their children. The state does not create the family. The state does not own the child. The state does not grant parents their natural responsibility to raise and educate their own kids. Parents do not manage their children on behalf of the government. It goes on to create a compliance structure around the subject of parent-managed learning. The current framework, our current law, which is understood by everyone here watching, and the many people that I know that have reached out to me over the last couple of hours who are watching online, is that parents are responsible for the education of their children. This new framework says that the parents must fit into the state-supervised category and comply with the state filing and clearance requirements. In other words, that the state will now be the decider. It converts what has long been an understanding that parents are responsible for what happens with their kids to a government regulated status. It creates this new intent to educate form, which will start in July of 2028. This applies very broadly. It's not limited to families where there's actually a safety concern. It's not limited to families with prior truancy sn/rr 230 problems. It's not limited to families where DCF is involved. It is anyone who wants to make an alternative educational choice. The people that support that are trying to minimize it. It's just paperwork. It's not important. We already do most of this. I see a shift in presumption. A free citizen should not have to file an annual report with the government just to say that I made a decision on how I'm going to educate my kid. Rights should not have to be renewed every year like a permit. So I want to start with a few questions, Madam President. The first one I would ask is who keeps these forms, and how long are they retained, and who has access to them? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. The school system will keep the form, and they'll be retained as long as the child is being educated by their parents. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, maybe it's my ears, but I could barely hear the gentleman. Maybe he could just speak up a little bit more? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. The school system will keep the forms, and they'll be retained as long as the child is being educated at home by their parents. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that information. I also asked who has access to them, and I would add to that, can they be shared? Can they be shared with other state agencies? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. The withdrawal form can go through DCF. Other than that, no other agency will be able to share that information. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That is all for that section. My concern is that these forms, once they are in the hands of the school district and maybe DCF, as was mentioned, are going to later be used to justify even more regulation. As it is, this policy that's before us is going to require sn/rr 232 school districts to pursue families who fail to comply, and provide the necessary forms. The way I'm reading this is that the school district will make three attempts. If that cannot happen, the Board must notify the Department of Education. What we're seeing here is like a chain of escalation. We go from the parents required to go to the school district, and now the school district's supposed to follow-up with them, and then it goes to the Department of Education. And then what's the next step after that? What happens after the Department of Education is notified? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. That information is not clarified in the bill. After the three attempts are made, information goes to SDE. And at that point, SDE has the information, and there's nothing else that addresses that concerns at that point. Through you, Madam President.

Well, thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. I mean, what's the reason, though? Is it the bill just unfinished? Are we going to come back in another piece of legislation and specify what happens once SDE has this information? Is the family placed on a list? Is there an investigation? Is DCF then notified? What happens? Through you. sn/rr 233

Through you, Madam President. At this point, SDE can use his professional judgment on what should happen next. Clearly, what we have is a child out there wandering. We're not knowing they're being educated in public school, private school, or home-managed. SDE will have to make a decision on what should be the next steps. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is how our freedoms are converted into compliance. First, it's a form, and then it's a follow-up, and then it's a notice to the SDE, and then who knows? Then DCF's knocking on your door, or maybe it's the police. Maybe there's penalties. This bill also treats private school withdrawals differently than home school. So, the way I understand the bill, it says, if you are a parent, and you are going to send your child to a private school, you are required to show up at the public school, sign a withdrawal form, and provide evidence that the child will attend a nonpublic school. Once that's done, withdrawal is approved. Easy-peasy, right? But if the parent is withdrawing the student from the public school to homeschool, that withdrawal is not effective until the superintendent approves of it, and they have to do a DCF records check to get that approval. Guilty until proven innocent. So, why sn/rr 234 the disparate treatment? Through you, Madam President.

Well, through you, Madam President, once again, I kind of answered this earlier. When the child's in a public school, you have many adults who are what we call mandated reporters, who are required to do whatever needs to be done to make sure that child who is not in a safe environment, DCS is formed to that. Now, however, that child is in the hands of the adult who's going to be the parent manager, and therefore, there's no other eyes on that child. So therefore, there's another form of supervision that has to take place. And I also remind you that we do background checks on teachers. So now that the parent is going to be the teacher, same procedure is required. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I kind of had a line of questioning laid out here for how I wanted to proceed, but I have to tell you that I am just stunned by the way this is going. Frankly, I'm just stunned. Because the idea here is somehow that if the child is in touch with a school, whether it's a public school or even a private school, somehow they're safer than they are with their own family. That's the argument that I'm hearing. It's the most illogical argument on the planet. sn/rr 235 The fact is that the parents, the families of these students are the reason why we have a state government. They are the reason why we are elected here to serve them and create policies for their benefit. And they're the reason why we have even a DCF and mandated reporter legislation, as was just described. Because it's the parents of the kids that are concerned on making sure that they are looked after when they're outside of their care, custody, and control. And now what we're hearing is that the government thinks they possess the kids, and they want to be concerned when the kids are outside the government's care, custody, and control. It's crazy. And what's funny about this is it's so obvious the way this policy is written, that the people that wrote it have absolute disdain and hostility for homeschoolers. Because they wrote a policy that basically creates completely unequal treatment. Both of those choices remove the child from the public school system, but only one of them creates this mechanism where there's a DCF check. This is not just about accountability for whether or not there's an education going on as has been implied. If it were, the private school and the home school would be treated the same, but they are not. This bill singles out people who want to home school. And the reason why they're doing it is not because they're trying to regulate risk, it is because homeschooling is not a favored choice of this state government and this majority. Can I ask why, and I might get the same answer, but through you, Madam President, why is it a family that chooses to send their child to a private versus a public school are able to avoid the DCF check? Through you.

If I'm understanding the question correctly, when parents choose to take their kid out of public school and put them in private school, private school educators also have to go through a background check. And again, you have a public school teacher, you might have a private school teacher. And now, the new teacher is the parent. So therefore, everyone's going through a check. Through you, Madam President. I think that's fair for everyone.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I certainly respect the gentleman's answer, although I couldn't agree more. The parent doesn't need to go through a check. The parent brought the child into the world. The parent raised the child. The parent provides for the child. The parent makes sure that they are getting adequate education, whether it is from them, or from the public school, or the private school. They do not need the help of the majority party in the state of Connecticut. This bill also requires DCF records check for everyone in the household. And I was listening to the very interesting questions that were posed by Senator Somers, which were outstanding questions, by the way, because none of this makes any sense to me. Because suppose you do a DCF check and DCF says no, what happens then? Through you.

If DCF says no, clearly, there's an individual, may not be the parent, who loves their child, but there's an adult in that household who is on a registry. It's a registry of neglect and abuse. And, therefore, we do not feel as comfortable enough of placing a child in the hands of someone who is on a registry. And I mentioned earlier, why would they be on the registry? There are some current issues that's going on, and no one, in my opinion, wants to put a child in the harm's way. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I genuinely appreciate the gentleman's response, and I share his righteous indignation that somehow a child could be harmed by someone that might be on such a list. Let me ask the question again. The question I ask is, what happens then? What happens then? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. What happens, again, you do the query, nothing comes up, you can educate your child. If something does come up and there's a problem, there's someone on the registry, and you choose to continue just to homeschool, then there's nothing in this piece of legislation that addresses that concern. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 238

Thank you very much, Madam President. And I appreciate the gentleman's answers because he's got to go by what's in the bill, which it doesn't tell us. But my assumption is nothing, nothing happens. The child is still going to be home, living with their parents, and presumably the person that's on the list. Am I right about that? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Absolutely.

Okay. So, this is absurd. So we're so concerned that this family might have someone in the household that doesn't meet the approval of the state of Connecticut, so therefore, they're not allowed to homeschool, but yet the child is still going to be living with the same family, and the state will do nothing about that. The whole thing is crazy. The assumption that the kid might be safer in a public school, to me, is the first ridiculous assumption. I watch the news. Every once in a while, it doesn't happen every day, and my wife's a school teacher, so I'm not down on teachers by any stretch of the imagination. But every once in a while, we find out sn/rr 239 that some school teacher is not exactly treating their kids the way they're supposed to. And I suppose that's true across the board. The majority can probably point to cases where parents have abused their children, but anyone can point to situations where kids have been abused in private school, in public school, outside of school by a neighbor, at band camp. Who the heck knows? We should be going after that behavior, and we should be worried about protecting children instead of setting up a bunch of ridiculous guardrails here that do nothing. What happens, through you, Madam President, when the kids are not in school? What happens during a child that's in public school because they're not approved because the DCF check said, no, you can't homeschool? What happens during the summer, for example, when that child is home with their family for several months? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Currently, there's nothing the school can actually do during the summertime. That's current law, and that will continue that same way. So, therefore, if there's a child who has a parent or some adult in the household who's on the registry in the summertime, we won't know that information. That's just information we just won't know. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. And the gentleman said a little while ago that there were 30, I believe, cases in Connecticut where there are folks that turned up to be on this abuse and neglect list where folks are homeschooling. Am I correct about that? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. That's absolutely correct.

Thank you very much, Madam President. What is the state doing about that?

Well, currently, the state is not doing anything about it because it doesn't have a law in place that the state can come in and do anything about it. But as we move forward, hopefully, that would not take place because that child would not be able to be homeschooled if there's someone on the registry. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 241

Is there anything in this bill that attempts to address that issue? Through you.

Through you, Madam President, no. Because once again, those parents and children who are being homeschooled right now are currently grandfathered in. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. So, there you have it. We're going to create a database of folks that are denied from homeschooling because of the potential that someone who is on a list is not approved by the state of Connecticut. And we could come up with many, many very legitimate reasons that might be concerning, but we could also come up with a lot of reasons that might not matter one bit. I also don't know if there is such an extreme certainty about our public or private school systems in the state of Connecticut that would guarantee that none of those folks that are on that list would come in contact with children either. I tend to doubt that that's a fact. The whole point here is that parental rights are fundamental. The right to direct the upbringing of one's child and to direct sn/rr 242 their education is not supposed to be denied because you're in a database. A database is not due process. Can I just ask what someone has to do to end up in the database that is being created, if there is a block created for parents and they're not allowed to homeschool? What is the standard for someone to be paced on this registry? Is it a criminal standard? Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it clear and convincing evidence? What is it? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. The standards are already in place. There's laws that will place someone on the registry. Clearly, they have to do something that has harmed the child. We're not creating new laws or recommendations or standards moving forward. We will clearly have already laws in place that determines whether and why an adult will be on the registry. So we're not creating something new, we're just codifying what we're already doing. Through you, Madam President.

Well, thank you very much. The reason why I'm asking is because I'm just curious how someone ends up on this registry. Do they have to have a conviction? Do they need to have some sort of finding of guilt? Or can an allegation be enough? The neighbor said something was happening. Through you. sn/rr 243

Through you, Madam President. DCF will have to do a finding and find out exactly what the issue was substantiated. That mean they did their research. They came up with a decision that placed the person on the registry. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Can the gentleman point to me where in the bill it says that there has to be a finding of guilt or anything beyond a mere investigation? Through you.

Again, the DCS process is they do an investigation. And if the investigation is substantiated, that individual goes on the registry. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Again, I don't want to be a pill, but I don't see anything in the sn/rr 244 bill that says that there has to be anything that is substantiated beyond investigation.

Thank you very much. I was asking for where in the bill it says this. Through you.

Through you, Madam President. That's existing law. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I guess I'm not going to find that out. Well, if the good gentleman can maybe tell me the statute or something like that, and I'll give them a little while to work on it. But my concern is this, anyone can be accused. You could have a disgruntled relative. You could have a divorce situation where people are suggesting that the other person is abusive to their child. You could have a school employee that is angry that the child's leaving the district. You'd have anything. You have a person with a grudge over anything. And once that investigation is opened, the parent's ability to withdraw the child is blocked immediately. And I don't believe there's anything in sn/rr 245 the bill that says it has to be substantiated, and certainly not substantiated beyond a finding of DCF, who in that particular case would be the judge and jury of whatever was going on. An allegation is not proof. An investigation is not guilt. A suspicion is not a constitutional standard. What happens if it's later overturned, even if it is substantiated? I would ask the good Chairman of the Education Committee, what happens then? Does the family get their rights back retroactively? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. First, the statue is 17a-101k. And if they find out that the investigation is not substantiated, then nothing happens. If they find out it is substantiated, I'm not quite sure you -- again, the child will not be able to be homeschooled. But if they go through the investigation, it is not substantiated, you could homeschool your child. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes, I'll take the gentleman's word for it about the statute. Although, I am pretty convinced, after reading through this a number of times, that a mere allegation would be enough to block a withdrawal from the school district. And my concern about that is that even if it's temporary, what we're doing is we're suggesting that the parent is guilty until proven innocent. And I'm not okay with that. sn/rr 246 I understand that we might be concerned about a child's safety, but I think you'd have to have a little bit more than a presumption that simply someone is on a list. This whole thing creates a prior permission-type system. Basically, the parent can't withdraw the child because they say so, which is the way everyone in this room, outside the majority, understands the way our world works, that the parent is in charge of their children, and they should dictate and direct their child's education. This basically says that a parent's decision is not operative when the parent makes it. It only becomes operative after the superintendent approves it, and that's only when the government says so, when DCF gives its blessing. That is not notice, that is permission. I have a problem with the notion that someone's rights as a parent only begin when the superintendent says yes. We could go on for quite a while talking about the due process aspects of this bill. I notice also that it creates this parents-managed learning data to the statewide education data system. Can the good gentleman tell me what that's about? Why are we keeping this data? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. It just gives us information on where students are being educated, whether it's in our traditional schools, our private schools, or parent-managed instruction. Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. What kind of data is being collected? Is this individual student data, or is it only aggregate numbers? Are there going to be records about each family? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Accurate numbers. We just want to know where our kids are and who's educating them. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Good evening, Senator Gordon.

Please proceed. Prepare yourself, Senator McCrory.

Thank you. Senator McCrory.

Thank you. Senator Gordon.

Thank you. Senator McCrory.

Thank you. Senator Gordon.

Will you remark further? Senator Perillo.

LCO No. 5917, Senate Amendment "F".

Madam President, thank you very much. Again, to my point previously about focusing on what we do in our own public schools and keeping our own students safe in our public schools and ensuring they have the education they need. The amendment before us charges DCF with the charge of annually developing a report concerning its efforts to assist families of children who've been identified as truant. Madam President, we need to make sure that our students in our public schools are actually attending school. We're not worried about homeschool kids attending school because they do. We need to make sure that our own students in our own schools are attending school. That's what this does. This asks DCF to generate a report to determine whether or not families are being adequately assisted. Families who want their kids to go to school but can't seem to make that happen, what kind of assistance are we giving them? This amendment helps us move in that direction. These are things that families need and want, that school systems need and want, and that DCF ought to and want to give to us and to the families to help them. Madam President, I would move adoption, and I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by roll.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I recognize the need that DCF needs to do much more in regards to making sure our children are accounted for, especially those who are not making it to school on a regular basis. But generating another sn/rr 276 report just to tell us that what we already know, I don't think that goes far enough. I think the fact that we're putting dollars in the budget to help them with their professional development and maybe hiring more social workers to their work is a better way of utilizing their resources. So, therefore, I'll ask my colleagues not to accept the amendment and vote no. Through you, Madam President.

Madam President, thank you. And I want to thank the chair of the committee for his comments. I actually agree that more social workers and more caseworkers are essential. I would just simply say that they are not mutually exclusive. We can do what the gentleman suggests in terms of that investment within DCF. I completely support it. Madam President, you and I have had these discussions. We are moving in that direction as we should. But I don't believe that that is a reason not to support the amendment that's before us. The amendment that's before us is important and should survive on its own merits. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the sn/rr 277 is not the bill. Senate Amendment "F" of H.B. No. 5468, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROVISION OF PARENT- MANAGED LEARNING, as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment "F". This is not the bill. Senate Amendment "F" for H.B. No. 5468. An immediate roll call vote in the

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

Madam President, thank you, and good evening to you. As I stated previously, and it bears repeating, one of the biggest concerns and the biggest risk from the start of all of these discussions going back over a year to the tragedy in Waterbury, the biggest failure we could have experienced was to scapegoat homeschool families and ignore the problems at DCF and within our own systems. sn/rr 278 And unfortunately, Madam President, that is exactly what is happening here today. We previously did pass a bill addressing DCF concerns, a bill I supported. But at the same time, I acknowledged and many of us acknowledged that it was really just a first step, that it didn't get us where we need to get. It didn't deliver us where we need to be delivered. And that's simply the reality. And here we are not finishing that work in protecting kids in the care of DCF, in ensuring that our students in our own public schools are safe and are attending school and are doing the things they need to do to succeed in their education and to succeed in life. We're not doing that. Instead, this bill does the opposite. It focuses on systems that work. It focuses on intruding on families that love their children, provide excellent education, who do all the things you need to do, and in many cases, do the things we wish that happened in our own public schools, taught with love, and so many of our public school teachers do that. But they don't always have the tools, they don't always have the funding, they don't always have the backing of state agencies like DCF. We ought to be focused on making sure that state government works for our local public schools, that DCF delivers where it ought to deliver, that we hold up our end of the bargain as a state of Connecticut. That's what we ought to be doing here today. And instead, with this bill, we're not. We're blaming. We're fixing something that ain't broken. And that's a shame. And from the start, that was the crash-the-car scenario. Right? We missed the boat. And we failed to make sure that state government is working for our kids. And that's a shame. We missed an opportunity, and this bill is certainly not a solution, certainly not going to solve a problem. It'll create another degree of oversight. It'll sn/rr 279 create more check boxes and hoops and make life more difficult for residents of the state of Connecticut, but it's certainly not solving a problem. And it's a shame. And I'm not going to be supporting this bill for that exact reason. Thank you, Madam President.

Good evening, Madam President. The night is long, and we've been listening to some passionate engagement. And this is a very emotional issue because we're talking about parents and their children. There's not a more sacred relationship. There's not a more value protection of a natural instinct than what a parent would ever do, the unconditional love that they would have for their children. I have never seen a parent that would intentionally want to harm and not support their child. That being said, I think we're addressing an issue that's unique. That's unique in the sense that we're looking at the future of respective children and their parents' role in that. And homeschooling is kind of a unique concept, and it is kind of built into the frontier nature of this country for many of the people that have been pioneers, and people that have sought better opportunities. They trained, they stuck together as a family unit, they educated. So, homeschooling has had very, very deep origins in the foundation of how this country was founded. But for me as an immigrant, homeschooling was really a foreign concept to me until 13 years ago. 13 years ago, I was privileged to be a judge at the Connecticut History Day. It is a program that is a state-funded program. It is a state contest where it's an annual event that engage thousands of middle sn/rr 280 and high school students to be able to participate, analyze, evaluate, and present their perspective of history. It was then 13 years ago, I met a remarkable group of talented young people. In fact, the study that they did in the report was on the Hartford circus fire. Their research was so complete, so thorough that I was beyond impressed. They won first place. They were going to be placed and compete on a national basis. And I remember congratulating this remarkable group of brilliant, talented, and inspirational young people. And as I talked to them, they all said that they were all homeschooled, that they were engaged in innovative, articulate, and intensive education that allowed them to succeed. That was my experience with homeschooling. And I have, to this day, continue to be impressed and inspired by homeschool students in their achievement and success. No doubt. No doubt. There are varying scales, very success levels. But what I saw in homeschooling students and their family was a unconditional commitment to education, unconditional commitment to the well-being of their child. But, unfortunately, as I have followed this legislative process on this bill, I have heard nothing but derogatory, fearful, tragic stories about homeschooling. And there are tragic stories. We've cited those three particular cases, and they're horrible. They're tragic, they're sad, and no child should ever be put in that position. But as I listen to the debate on this bill, we are lumping a whole group of people and then saying, we need to just make sure we check up on you, that we're going to ask you to sign up a form. We're going to ask you to make sure that DCF can check up on you. Well, as I said earlier, the history of homeschooling, as I understood it, were pioneers that were independent, that believe in the esprit de sn/rr 281 corps of aspiring to pursue their dream. And I'm going to simplify this debate, and I've heard many of the debate throughout the evening. I'm going to simplify by simply saying the contrast viewpoints of this. On one side, through this bill, you've got government, or rather the majority party in power who may have the best of intentions for children, the best of intentions in public policy. But on this side, you have the idea that government knows best to protect those people. That's one side. On the other side, I see parental rights. I see the parents who live, raise, and support and empower their children, and they are fiercely protective of that right. And that's where you have the emotionality of this debate. The emotionality of this debate from the very proponents of homeschool, the pioneering spirits that fueled this country's success, the independent zeal. Now we have, through this bill, a majority power that says, I know what's better for you. That seems ironic. It really does. Because when I see this process and when government has that power to be able to assert that we know better than you and that when we have a deliberation, that we're going to present the face that you're being heard, but we're going to limit debate. I found that fascinating, that in this circle, there's always the constant conversation as we have engaged in long debate and viewpoints and perspective without a fear of a call to question, without a fear of being able to deny our voice. I value that process. I greatly respect the institution of this Senate circle to engage in that process. We've not lost that yet. But when I follow this bill and when I follow the Education Committee hearing on this bill, we restricted debate. We limited to a certain number and thousands of people, sn/rr 282 not hundreds, thousands of people, and their voice were not heard. That is an arrogance of power. And that's why you have the emotionality of people feeling as though the majority, the powers that be, are going to make decision for my kids' well-being and education. It's an abuse of power in their mind, and the process that we've undergone reflects that. Now, this bill, as it came out of committee onto the floor in the House during the discussion, was watered down, was redrafted to accommodate passage. We removed the consideration of equivalent education. You know why we removed it, in my opinion? The measure of equivalent education set up against the bar. A large public schools in some communities have fallen below equivalent education. The good chair of Education has been a passionate, passionate proponent of equal and equivalent education in every community for every child. I can see why we remove equivalent education. Because if you use that phrase, then every single school child that has not been afforded equivalent education beyond homeschool would have a legitimate challenge. Another area of easing is that we're going to work with this group and that we're not going to require additional reporting. I've got to be honest with you, the past month and the focus of this bill to allow DCF, the Department of Children and Family, to be a major determinant on who is fit to be able to homeschool is challenging as well. The idea that a state agency that have shown itself to struggle to meet caseloads, struggle to prevent tragedies that we're talking about, will now be given more of a workload to investigate and to check. My problem with this is we have a bill on DCF regulation and policy review. I think we should be passing that bill first, seeing how DCF can correct its own house before we burden and give that additional responsibility to govern and regulate other households. sn/rr 283 I don't have any amendments, but I'm going to point out the simple fact that when you ask so many people that have chosen to homeschool, you wonder maybe the system is broken, maybe our education system, public education, is broken. When you look at the numbers of schools, and this is data point from the state commissioner on education, that nearly 1,800 children have left our public schools for homeschooling in the last fiscal year along with another 3,700 who departed public schools to attend private schools. And through the diligent effort of the good chair in the Senate, we have looked at deficiencies in our public school systems, and we have strived to work to address those issues and continue to work to refine them. But if I were a parent and I cared deeply and passionately about the well-being of my child, and the last time I checked in America, we have the freedom to be able to make decisions without government forcing us to report. You know what those parents are doing? They're homeschooling their kids. And because the majority government thinks that's not the way we want to do it, and we're going to say, we're going to regulate you for the better being of you because in an indirect way, we're saying government, the majority knows better than you. That's the flaw that I have in this bill. And the example that I have gleaned and used as a basis to support my objection to this bill is during the COVID pandemic, we looked at the policies of state government to keep our kids out of school, to continue to mask them beyond what has been scientifically proven. And what did we see as a result post pandemic, post COVID challenges, and government policy? We created a generation of students with significant mental health challenges, learning loss. sn/rr 284 Who did we blame on that? We passed bills following those years patting ourselves on the back and saying, we've added more money. We've added focus in regards to youth mental health. But who was there to say that policy did not always serve the best interest of the students? You know who spoke up? These very parents that we're now saying, we know a little better than you and we want to prevent tragedies. We just want to be better contact with you and make sure that you're doing the right thing. Those same parents, those same people who saw their children impacted with the overregulation of government impact negatively on their children, are saying, you know what? Thanks or no thanks, we're going to take care of our kids. We're going to provide the unconditional knowledge and love that no one knows better than we do as their parents. Not government, not all the experts, but parents that day to day unconditionally love their children. The other part of our education system that you talk about, I've talked to many of the home parents and they said, you know what? My kid is getting bullied. A terrible phenomenon in our schools. And the frustration of the inability of our structure to address bullying and the adverse impact in the mental health of their respective children continues to be a struggle. But we're going to impose this mandate on them because homeschool is different than what we empower say is the right thing to do. Let me repeat those numbers again. 1,800 children left the public schools for homeschooling, and nearly 3,700 people left our public schools for private schools. And we have the constant challenge of charters. The system has failed those parents. They have failed the children. So these parents that are passionate and that are still here tonight, lasting through the days, and had thousands of voices that didn't get heard because government and the majority in power can limit debate. And despite an overwhelming 99% to one objection rate, we're sn/rr 285 still going to pass this bill and disrespect the viewpoints of the people. And you know what? Here's the reality. Elections have consequences. And the majority says, we reflect the will of the people. That is the crux of why I am struggling with this bill. I could go on and on and my colleagues have articulated that. I think the struggle I have is government can never overtake and think that it knows better than the parents of children and their educational success. I don't think I'm going to persuade or change anybody's mind in this, but I hope in my presentation that at least gave an opportunity for those parents that felt as though they weren't heard. That felt as though their passion, their sense of independence, and their fight for their children were not completely ignored by the powers that be. There were no questions to the good chair and I want to compliment him because I have seen him support to give every child the best possible education. And I'm glad they took out the term, equivalent education, because that would have been a hornet's nest to explain. Because there are children all across Connecticut, throughout many of our communities, that are not getting equivalent education. But we're going to go after homeschool kids. We think that's more important. And in my opinion, I think it's because we're not familiar with it and you're not following the norm. But I'm going to close by how I began. My first experience with homeschoolers 13 years ago were some of the most remarkable, inspired, brilliant young people, and they were educated at home. Educated by caring parents and adults that valued and pursued equally with passion and commitment the educational excellence of their children. This bill says you don't cut it. That government knows better than you. And that government, despite losing 1,800 children to homeschooling, despite losing another 3,700 to sn/rr 286 private schools, that government, in the way it runs education, knows better than you. I disagree. I support a parent's right to educate their child. I support every child's greatest opportunity to pursue education to the best of their ability and for their aspiring future. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to associate my remarks with some of my Senate Republican colleagues and including Senator Hwang, who I think stated the case very, very well. But I think that this issue and its importance and its offense to the basic rights of parents, children, and families, deserves every single senator's comments, and deserves an extraordinary long debate, before any sort of vote takes place. When bringing into question the rights of families and parents to make their own educational decisions, to make their own moral decisions for how to raise their children, we should extraordinarily thoroughly debate and vet those proposals before any vote is taken place. And those aiming to advance such efforts should have to wait as long as possible, should have to push as much as possible before even beginning to advance such a policy. If there is one good thing that has come out of this extraordinarily disappointing debate and effort to take away the rights of homeschool and private school parents. It's that the homeschool community in this state has shown their caliber for all Connecticut residents to see. The parents who are so deeply invested in their own kids' upbringing and education, that they would sn/rr 287 sometimes sacrifice their own incomes, the time and effort involved in educating their children full time, sacrificing money and effort and toil for the sake of their kids' upbringing and education. But especially from the young people, from the homeschool students, who have showed up and spoken out more eloquently than even the parents and certainly the legislators on this issue. Enormous credit to you all. If there is any promise from what I anticipate will be a negative outcome in this debate, It's that the future looks brighter than I knew it was before, and that most of us knew it was before. We have some extraordinarily impressive young leaders and young citizens stepping up, and getting ready to sit in these seats in the years to come. So hopefully, we will never in the future have to worry about protecting parents' rights, protecting personal freedoms, and ensuring that every child truly has access and choice in order to get the best and most world class education possible. There are, I think, several precepts and principles that we should universally accept in this state as we approach issues like this. First, that parents have a right to make decisions for their own children's upbringing and education without the heavy handed interference of government, on any level. Second, that it is, in fact, the responsibility of our state government and local governments to provide a high quality free public education to anyone who wants and needs it, and also to protect the public safety, in the cases where the most vulnerable in our society might have their rights and safety in jeopardy. And third and finally, that we should never aim to centralize power and control in the hands of government, in our society, and especially not when government is already failing at so many of the responsibilities that it does have as is. sn/rr 288 Parents, first and foremost, of all those three principles, parents have a right to make decisions for their own child, for their upbringing, and for their educational future. It is obvious, but apparently in this state, it needs to be reiterated and stated plainly. We have to go back to basics. The family is the natural unit for decision making for children, because parents choose to decide to bring life and children into this world. And so they naturally have a right to make decisions for their own child. That child, just because it was born, doesn't mean it belongs to government. It belongs to their family, and decision making powers should remain vested with the family. This isn't France. This isn't China. This is America. And we believe in the family. We believe in individual liberties. We believe in parental rights. And this bill calls into question those principles. Yes, we will discuss how this bill is less bad than earlier iterations of it. And guess what? It's because so many were willing to show up and speak out that it is less bad than it originally was. But it still violates those basic principles. And we will, in the course of my remarks, discuss how and why it does that. But it should be no question that parents have a responsibility and a right to make decisions for their own children, not government. That's how it always has been in this state and this country, and it should remain so. My experience in my district with homeschool families and parents, well before this issue became a source of political debate last year, has been extraordinarily impressed and inspired by our homeschool community, especially in Stamford, but in every town that I represent in the 36th District. They are invested. They care. They're informed, and they're providing a rigorous high level of education to their kids. When you ask parents why they've chosen to bring their kids out of the public schools, into a homeschool setting, or into any number of private school settings, you'll get any sn/rr 289 number of different answers. And all or many of them have a great deal of validity. Believe it or not, the most common answer I've heard for why parents withdraw their kids from public schools and enlist them in either a homeschool setting or a private school setting, is actually safety. Which is extraordinarily sad and disappointing. I spent six or seven years volunteering as a tutor in an inner city charter school. And I did that because I believe in educational and parental choice, and I believe that every child, regardless of background, should have access to a great public education, and that every kid can succeed if they have access to those educational resources. And I expected in spending time with those kids in that school over many years, I had always expected or had the preconceived notion that their parents enrolled them in that school for the great academics. And it did have a much higher caliber of academics than the neighborhood schools in that area. But the most common answer when I actually spoke to the parents for why they enrolled their kids in that charter school was that they were being bullied or experiencing violence day to day in the public school that they were enrolled in. And so often it's a matter of safety and protection from bullying, and there is a time sensitivity to that. And so parents being allowed to make decisions for their own kid is a matter of safety in many cases. And they should be given the presumption, the benefit of the doubt, in removing their child from that school setting, and providing them a safe setting or alternative to learn on a day-to-day basis without those daily concerns. Most of our schools, obviously, are safe on a day- to-day basis. But more and more, it's one of the most common concerns I hear from parents all across this state that there's lower standards for behavior in many of our schools, that this state has imposed sn/rr 290 lower standards of behavior and safety in many of our schools, including in bills that passed this chamber just a couple of years ago, which we argued against because they imposed new mandates reducing behavioral standards in our schools contributing to greater and greater concern about school safety on a day-to-day basis and about bullying on a day-to-day basis. And so it's no wonder that many parents and kids avail themselves of a homeschool option because their primary interest as parents is obviously to protect the safety of their children. Before you can learn, you obviously have to be safe and in a protected setting. This bill, at its core, is a violation of parental rights because it provides no due process for eliminating the rights of parents to make educational decisions for their children. We have a high standard in this state and in this country generally that if you are to remove the rights of individuals to make decisions for themselves or for their children, that there must be due process of law. There must be a high standard that was violated. This says that you will be trapped in a school setting that you do not prefer or choose if a name in your household shows up on one of the government's lists. But there was not necessarily due process. There was not necessarily an assurance that this was because all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or at a high standard of proof was met. There are standards and processes for removing rights from parents to make decision for their kids when really high standards of bad behavior are met. And those need to exist in our state and in our country. There are people who do horrible things to their own family members, and they do need to be held accountable in the law through our criminal process. And then, obviously, rights to make decisions for their family members and their dependents needs to be rolled back. But this is a free country where due process needs to be respected, and it's written into sn/rr 291 The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights for that reason. And yet, this bill, at its core, is contemplating removing parents' rights without due process. And if you violate that principle, almost anything else is up for grabs. If we accept that you can take away the rights of parents to make basic decisions for their kids without due process, as a rule, then this indeed will only be the thin end of the wedge of far more rights that are removed into the future. This is a horrible precedent to set. And it must not become the rule and the standard for governance in this state with a great history, in a country with a great history of freedom and family and parental rights. What is the responsibility of government in this state is properly written very clearly into our state constitution. It says that the State of Connecticut must provide a quality, free public education to any young person who needs it. It does not say it's the state's responsibility to impose educational decisions on every family and parent and child. It says it's the responsibility of the state to provide access to education to every child. It's written very clearly into our constitution in this state, ensuring that there is access, ensuring that the state meets its responsibilities to deliver basic services that we all expect. It does not circumscribe or preempt the rights of parents and families to make those decisions. It simply orders the state to provide the option, and the services to those families and those kids. And that's exactly what this state government should be focused on. Even the state government should not be micromanaging the decisions of local school districts and schools. So often when I meet with principals and administrators in so many of our schools, whether it's a city or a Title I school, or a town school, or a suburban school, doesn't matter. I hear so often from the principals and the leaders sn/rr 292 in that school that the most valuable time that they can spend is with their kids and with their teachers in the classroom, assessing, giving feedback, and so on. And because the state too often takes a heavy hand and intercedes in the day to day decisions of schools, and principals, and teachers, those teachers and principals are distracted from doing their job, and having the on the ground discretion to do so. And so the state, by being too involved even in our local school districts, can reduce the quality of education that we're offering. But the state has a responsibility to provide broad leadership and ensure that we're delivering a high caliber of public education to those who choose to use it. You know, those who the parents and the families who are deciding not to avail themselves of a taxpayer funded public education are actually saving the taxpayer a lot of money, not only, but also allowing the state and local government to focus those resources on fewer and fewer kids. And so they should have no excuse then for not delivering the highest of caliber education to those who are availing themselves of the public school. Because those who choose private school or homeschool are actually freeing up a number of resources for the state and for the local governments to deliver great public education. But that is not enough. The homeschool and the private school families are actually doing the state government a favor, making it easier for them to do their job. And yet, this state government is reacting in a way with this proposal and others, with ingratitude, trying to impose decisions on them, even though those families in many ways are making their lives in this state easier. In Connecticut, over the last 15 years, educational outcomes have gone down, and they've gone down sn/rr 293 significantly. And that represents a failure of state leadership and state policy. No, it's one thing if in certain school districts, things have gotten better and others things have gotten worse. But across the board, across the State of Connecticut, look it up. Over the last 15 years, educational outcomes in our public schools have gone down. No one should find that acceptable. And this state government should be laser focused on righting that wrong, raising the standard of public education, and ensuring that every parent and family who is utilizing those resources is getting the best quality of service possible. Instead, today, we're debating whether the state government should be interceding in the private educational decisions of parents and families who do not avail themselves of the public schools. All the while, the state is failing in its basic responsibilities to provide a great caliber of public education. This state spends the second or the third most per pupil on its public schools in the entire country. And we've seen educational outcomes and test scores according to the nation's report card fall over the last 15 years. And the educational outcomes of Connecticut students enrolled in public schools fall over the last 15 years compared to the rest of the country. That's the responsibility of our state government. That's what our leaders should be focused on. And the public should be and will be up in arms at the fact that state leadership is failing in delivering what not only it should always be doing, but what the constitution of the state outlines is its responsibility. Not only that, but we all acknowledge that it's the responsibility of this state to protect the most vulnerable in the most tragic of circumstances. Not common? Correct. But extraordinarily important? Absolutely. That is why we have a state and local police force. That is why we have a DCF, a Department of Child Services, that sn/rr 294 is enlisted with protecting the most vulnerable, who are truly trapped in a dangerous and a sad situation. Last week, with the most tragic last instance of a child losing her life. The report that recently came out from the Child Advocate should have closed this discussion once and for all. If it wasn't already done with, if it wasn't already obvious that this should never be debated on this senate floor in the first place, the latest report from the Child Advocate should have closed the case completely and left this bill on the dustbin of the legislative process. That Child Advocate report about DCF found that in only 7% of cases were all the requirements of DCF for facts finding met. Those standards are set in order to protect the children in question. Only 7% of the cases were all the requirements and standards met. Not only that, but only 60% of the cases in question had an actual in person contact with the family, where safety and well-being was in question. So even this state government's own child advocate appointed by the governor found that it's DCF that is failing to protect the safety of kids, even with all the tools and resources that have been given to them to protect the most vulnerable. So in both the case of raising and improving the standard and quality of public education in our state, which is a constitutionally written responsibility of the state government, and in the case of DCF and protecting child welfare of those who are the most vulnerable, the state government has not been found to have insufficient power. It has been found repeatedly, even by its own barometers, to be failing at delivering on its responsibilities even with all the resources necessary to do so. Which brings us to the third principle we should all accept and acknowledge across party lines, that we shouldn't centralize and sn/rr 295 overly concentrate power in the hands of our state government, but we should especially reject that centralization and consolidation of power when the state government is failing in delivering the services that it's responsible for in the first place. This state government should focus on providing the leadership statewide that raises educational standards across the board. The state government instead has imposed hundreds of unfunded mandates on our local school districts, which makes it more difficult to meet those standards. This state government has made it more and more expensive and difficult to provide the quality of public education that we should all expect. And I think it's safe to say that this state has all the resources and capabilities in the world to ensure that the public schools that we have in the state are the safest with the highest caliber of academics of any state in the country. And yet it's not so. And yet it's not so. This state should embark on an educational reform agenda that raises standards in our public schools and provides choice and optionality for parents and families who want to avail themselves of it. We need to ensure and invest that our public schools are the best in the country, bar none. We should settle for nothing but the best in this state, and we should allow parents and families who choose to enroll their kids in a charter school, in a parochial school, in a private school, and homeschool, that they have the supports necessary to deliver their children great educational outcomes, and a wonderful upbringing too. We should want all of our kids to succeed, no matter how exactly they're brought up, no matter their family's backgrounds or unique needs or preferences, whether they want to provide a stronger moral education than they otherwise have the option to, whether they want to provide a safer educational sn/rr 296 environment than they otherwise would have access to, whether they need to give special attention to their child that they do not feel could be delivered in a different school setting, no matter who they are, what their background is, we should want a thousand flowers to blossom. We should not want to break every family and individual to the saddle of government. That is not our job. That is not our job. Historically, I always felt or observed that many of our democratic friends over the history of this country have promoted toleration and pluralism in our society. At their best, our democratic friends taught us that we should embrace toleration and personal freedom and pluralism. But today, we're debating a bill that takes away the presumption that families have a right to choose the educational fate of their own kids. Even if there's no due process to speak of. How far have we come that this is where we are? It is so fortunate, at minimum, that we saw thousands upon thousands of families and young students step up and speak out because this proposal would be so much worse today than it otherwise would be without them. They spoke up and spoke out for their own rights, and to simply protect what they have built for themselves without the help of this state government. They just want to be left alone. If you're running a state government, these are the exact type of citizens you should want. They're the exact type of people who should make your life the easiest in the world. I like to say that governing the State of Connecticut should theoretically be the easiest job in the world, because we have such great people and such strong communities. People with such big hearts, that they'd be willing to sacrifice time and money and effort to invest themselves wholeheartedly in their child's upbringing and education. That they're so invested in local decision making in their own communities. It should be the easiest state to govern in the world. And yet, here we are, a state where we've seen sn/rr 297 educational outcomes fall over the last 15 years, where it is prohibitively expensive to raise a family, to work, to make a living, where jobs and opportunity have left for greener pastures, and where we are now debating rather than address those problems facing our state, whether to take away basic rights from parents to make decisions for their own children. I am also genuinely concerned that this proposal today will actually strain our public schools and strain DCF and make it much more difficult on them to do their jobs as effectively as they should be able to. They should be focused and well-resourced and able to protect the safety of children in the most vulnerable positions. And broadly, the public schools should be able to deliver the highest caliber of education of any state in the country. And they should be focused and supported by the state in doing that. There are many good employees who work in DCF, who go to work with the noble goal of protecting kids. The leadership and the overall bureaucracy has failed them too. And so today, why in the world would we pass legislation that is going to make it even more difficult for a strained and failing bureaucracy to deliver on the existing responsibilities that it has that are so important, that could literally be saving lives that have otherwise been lost on its own watch. And now they're going to become a much, much larger, a much, much more powerful, and a much more sprawling bureaucracy than ever before. To me, there is no doubt that this proposal today will mean that less than 7% of the cases before DCF have every standard met in order to protect the kid. It is no doubt to me that after this bill passes, that less than 60% of the cases before DCF will have in person visits and contact to protect and ensure the safety of the children and the families in question. sn/rr 298 DCF has a very, very important responsibility that we need to see met, and there needs to be reform, and there needs to be accountability. Has anyone been fired? This bill will make it more difficult for them to get their act together and do their job. It's entirely counterintuitive. It's entirely illogical. This is going to be an enormous bureaucratic undertaking. And likewise, for the public schools. You think they really want to be this kind of nanny at the behest of the state government? When they have such a difficult job in the first place, our administrators and our teachers in the state are already strained by all the mandates imposed by the state government. We all know that, and now they're going to become a clerk or a nanny for checking every single family that comes in and out of the district? A normal occurrence? This is going to reduce, if anything, the caliber of public education that our schools are able to deliver to the public who needs it. This is going to, if anything, make DCF less effective at protecting the safety of those who need it most. This should be entirely obvious. This should be entirely obvious. I think to most people it is. I really do. I really do. I know that there will be very well meaning legislators on both sides of this debate who take votes for all the right reasons. I sincerely hope the urge of some in the state government to make more people conform to a way of life that they think is best. I hope sincerely that that attitude does not prevail. I hope that this is a difference of opinion in the end about policy as bad as I think this policy is. But I hope that if there is a scintilla of desire to simply break every family to the saddle of government and its preferences, that that is not the attitude that prevails anywhere within anyone. That's my sincere hope. sn/rr 299 It's also my sincere hope that we can work to make proposals that we do not necessarily agree on better or less bad depending on how you view it. And I think that the amendments that were offered previously were well intentioned along those lines. And I appreciate the good chairman, the good senate chairman of the Education Committee who I think has listened with an open mind and an open heart to the parents who came forward. And I think he deserves some credit for making this bill less objectionable than it otherwise would be. Maybe that's just my conjecture, but I do appreciate his willingness on so many issues regarding public education to think outside the box. And so I would like to offer some amendments to this proposal for those exact reasons. The first, Madam President, would be LCO 5904. The Clerk is in possession of 5904, and I would ask the Clerk to please call that amendment.

LCO No. 5904, Senate Amendment G.

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

sn/rr 300 Thank you, Madam President. This amendment would simply require that the Department of Education develops a very clear list of different ways that families could provide evidence of their child receiving an alternative form of education rather than leaving it up to the discretion when we pass this proposal without us knowing what it is on the front end of it. So make it very clear how parents can meet the requirements at a very low threshold of showing that they're providing an alternative form of education for their kids. Again, in an effort to make this bill, this underlying proposal more palatable and a little less burdensome or unpredictable for the families that will be subject to it. I urge adoption of the amendment. And when the vote is taken, I would ask for a roll call vote, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I'll ask my colleagues not to support the amendment. Although, currently, the only mechanism in place to indicate how you're going to educate your child outside of traditional public school system will just be filling out the form. And therefore, by filling out the form, we will know that your child is being removed from the traditional public school system and or will be educated in a private school or educated by their parent. So that is the easiest, most concise way of doing this. Also, if there's any questions that we might have moving forward, we do have one year, SDE will have to create this form. So within that time frame, I think there is any ambiguity about what the form should look like, it can be handled within the year sn/rr 301 of 26-27 school year. Thank you, Madam President. Through you.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We are voting on Senate Amendment G, House Bill no. 5468, an act concerning the provision of parent managed learning. This is not the bill. We're voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment G. An immediate roll call vote in the 5468. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to offer another alternative, another amendment to make it a little easier and a little more palatable for families to meet the requirements set out in this proposal. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO number 5905, and I would kindly ask the Clerk to please call that amendment.

Senator Fazio.

Thank you. The question is on adoption. Please just summarize, sir.

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

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

Have all the senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, the tally, please. sn/rr 304

Amendment fails. Senator Fazio.

LCO number 5884, Senate Amendment I.

Thank you, Madam President. I move adoption of the sn/rr 305 amendment, waive the reading and seek lead to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. This proposal is along slightly different lines. You know, we said before that it is the responsibility of this state to deliver the highest caliber of public education to any student who wants it, but also to support all families irrespective of their educational decision making. Ensure that they have the resources and the ability to provide a great education to their children no matter what the educational outlet they choose. Recently, there was a federal law passed that allowed states to avail themselves of a federal tax credit for families to use funds for whatever educational alternative they see fit. Basically, what it would do is allow an individual in the State of Connecticut to deduct to get a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 to give to a scholarship granting organization, which is any 501c3 that provides educational support to kids who need it for any different number of education alternatives. So it could be an educational 501c3 attached to a public school to provide, for instance, tutoring services to kids who need it free of charge outside of the normal school day. It could be to provide scholarships to kids of lesser means to go to a parochial or private school. It could be to any other number of families in alternative educational settings to supplement the needs that they have to provide a great education to their kids. What's the catch? There's none. This is entirely funded by the federal government. These $1,700 tax sn/rr 306 credits for each donor giving to the scholarship granting organizations that students could and families could avail themselves all across the State of Connecticut would be entirely funded by the federal treasury. Not a single dollar from the state coffers, not a single dollar from the State of Connecticut. There are red states and blue states that have availed themselves of this across the country, which means that we in our taxes are having to pay for their educational subsidies and benefits. We could avail ourselves of those millions of free dollars to support students in public schools, private schools, or any alternative form of schooling. Give them the choice and the optionality and the resources to deliver a great education. And there's no catch. There is no cost to the State of Connecticut. And it will only strengthen our educational alternatives across the board. There's no catch. No two ways about it. The way it was written in federal law is that the governor could unilaterally opt in to the program. And so you have democrat governors like Jared Polis in Colorado, among others, who have done it. You have other governors from red states who have availed themselves of it as well. But, unfortunately, our governor has not done that. He so far has not chosen to avail our state of millions of free dollars to supplement the educational needs of all students of all backgrounds, irrespective of the type of schooling that they're receiving. So I think it would be appropriate and beneficial if we, as a legislature, took action and opted into this program for the State of Connecticut and all the school kids who could benefit from millions of additional funding to supplement their schooling no matter what type of schooling they receive. sn/rr 307 Madam President, I think this is an obvious win-win for students no matter how they are being educated. And when the vote is taken, I would ask that it be taken by roll. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I think my colleague made it very clear what the federal law says and how we can get involved or opt in, and that's the responsibility of the governor. I don't even think it would be legal, legally we can do that, So I'm going to leave that up to the governor's discretion whether we should opt into this opportunity, as he say, of free money that can come to our states. But I think that's up to the governor's choice, and I ask my colleagues not to support the amendment. Through you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill No. 5468. This is the amendment, not the bill. 5468, an act concerning the provision of parent- managed learning. An immediate roll call vote in the roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 11 Those voting Nay 25 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. It slightly boggles my mind that when the question is taxpayer dollars of the residents of Connecticut, the answer is always yes, spend it. But when it's free dollars funded by taxpayers in the other 49 states, we say no. Go figure. This proposal today is a solution in search of a problem. We know for a fact that homeschool families, private school families, all families across this state love their children. And we have been the beneficiaries of seeing those families step up in recent months to show what a fantastic job they are doing of educating their own kids, not only to be scholars, but also to be model citizens and hopefully leaders for many decades into the future in Connecticut. Unfortunately, the state government is not meeting the same standard of the day. This state government has consistently failed at protecting the most sn/rr 309 vulnerable children with all the resources that back up DCF and the state government as is. This is a state government that should be focused on raising educational standards for all kids irrespective of background, but especially in our public schools, which I've seen educational outcomes fall over the last 15 years. This is a state government that should not be doubling down on failure and making it more difficult to provide public education or more difficult for DCF and our other state government departments to protect the safety of the most vulnerable. And most importantly, this state government should always protect the personal freedoms and the parental rights of families to make educational for their decisions for their kids as they see fit. This bill fails on all those basic principles that should not be in question whatsoever. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no today, no matter their party affiliation or where they represent in the state, we can do better. We can raise the standards of public education while protecting the rights of homeschool and private school families. We can ensure that DCF does its job and fixes its own failures without violating due process and parental rights. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no today and listen to the great families that have spoken up over the last several months all across Connecticut for their own rights and freedoms and that of every single family across Connecticut. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President. First, to the parents and to the children, I applaud you. You'll be out of here. Four more speakers to go and you'll be home sn/rr 310 before you know it. So, Madam President, I just want to open up by saying that I believe that this bill probably, just for the record, point of order probably should have been done earlier today. But the bill should have been referred to the Judiciary Committee due to the ways in which it affects the rights of our citizens, including but not limited to the rights to equal protection and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Madam President, when I arrived here 12 years ago, I was assigned to the Children's Committee. Little did I know that I would be jumping into the deep end of the pool. It was dealing with [1F] issue at that time and we were probably in its last years, maybe, last third of the 30-year decree that had it been agreed to in the courts. But let me just say, just refresh everybody's memory a little bit regarding that. That was a landmark piece of legislation in 1989, a federal civil rights class action lawsuit against DCF regarding unsafe conditions and poor care for children in the state's custody. It goes on. It resulted in a consent decree in 1991, putting DCF under federal court monitoring for over 30 years to enforce reforms. Reforms focused on reducing caseloads, ensuring family safety, and improving foster care placements. All of that was because of allegations that the HCC failed to protect children in their care. And I think today, even though we're out and I think we are out in 2022, we met all the measurements and I fear that we may be on the verge of perhaps maybe going back to court. I don't know what that process is. Madam President, back in May, there was an informational hearing. About 4,000 children and parents, students came to the building here and they heard a public hearing, some, I'll say, were asked to speak, most were not. But there was 4,000 people in this building and they were all over the place. All over the place. That doesn't happen too often. After that meeting, I was asked by a constituent, sn/rr 311 would I attend a working group that was being scheduled by Representative Biggins? And I went and I listened. And the room was probably 20 people, 15 perhaps. And there were some parents outside with their children. But for the most part, this was a by invite only. I was not on that list, but I said to my conscription, I will go. I was seated at the table, and I listened. And what the intent of the meeting was, by the representative, was he wanted to know more about the homeschooling and what took place. And it was meant to be to have a dialogue. He was hoping to have a dialogue and hoping to have consensus to find a way to regulate the homeschool homeschooling. But my observation, what I saw out of that, I thought it was mostly pretending of wanting to work together. I felt that the homeschoolers or the parents and the attorneys that were in that room, and there was four legislators, three legislators from the House on the Republican side and myself representing the Senate. But I felt that we were being placated. And in short, the meeting was really meant to stop us from being angry. 4,000 people in the building on May 5, and they were angry. What we learned too is I think the incident happened in March, the Waterbury incident. And within a few days after that, a week after that, there was various meetings. And then within a month, there were three or four other meetings. And this is all before the May 5th meeting that the bill was already drafted about homeschooling and regulating homeschooling. All before that informational hearing. And then followed by the meetings with the state legislators, a few state legislators, and a few members of the representing the homeschooling group, including the attorneys. And I really believe that all of this is really a deflection on what the true underlying problem is. And that takes me back to my concern regarding us falling back into the JF of [1F] decree. sn/rr 312 On May 5th, OCA came out with a report. And in that report was addressing and let me just say the title of the report was a Review of Children Withdrawn from School for Equivalent Instruction Elsewhere. It provided recommendations for the homeschoolers. Recommendations such as parent and child appear annually to provide enrollment documentation. Another recommendation, a child be independently evaluated annually for academic progress. And I think that was going to be in the bill, and it was removed and for a good reason because I think if you're going to require the homeschoolers to be tested or to pass an equivalency test, then better be sure that the public school system needs to be doing the same thing. And also, the report recommended that it provide initial and periodic assurances that the child is in good health. That report and then another report comes out regarding the way the methodology, the statistics in that report by OCA was questionable and shouldn't be counted on for any legislation. You heard tonight, Madam President, about the family educational rights and privacy. FERPA, the acronym. Its purpose is to prevent sharing of student data. It's a protection of records, not for private lives or backgrounds of family members. Let me just repeat that. So FERPA's purpose is to prevent sharing of student data. It's a protection of records, not the private lives or backgrounds of family members. I'd like to ask the proponent of the bill a few questions just to clarify.

So I know a little about the school system, not very much. And I say that because my wife retired from the school system. So in the bill, DCF is going to sn/rr 313 need to provide information or the school is going to need to require information on the parents. What information is going to be shared? And what system is going to be used in to provide this data? I'm aware of the mandating reporter online reporting portal that DCF has. And also, I believe that there's a background check portal for employees. So if we're going to be requiring homeschool parents to fill out a form, I believe it was called an intent form, then what system is that going to be placed in? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Through you, Madam President, for the withdrawal form, the mechanism will be the same we use for the background for our employees. Through you, Madam President.

So you're talking specifically an internal document for the school. That's a withdrawal form. This is what we're doing. So is that information, how's that getting to DCF? What system? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, we use the information from the withdrawal form to check the background of sn/rr 314 the persons that's living at the address. Through you, Madam President.

I don't know if that's the answer to my question. I asked what the system that we are using to insert or to input that data from the school system to DCF?

Through you, Madam President. It's the DCF portal that the school system currently use. Through you, Madam President.

Can you repeat that one more time? I'm sorry.

Through you, Madam President, it's the portal that we currently use to buy information to DCF. Through you, Madam President. sn/rr 315

So I understood that it's the portal that that they use to provide information to DCF. Can you explain what personal identifiable information is going to go in that portal?

Through you, Madam President, there's a query that basically asks one question. You ask for a name. You'll get a response whether they want to register or not. Through you, Madam President.

In that response, have you come to that positive? Will the State Department of Education notify DCF if a positive hit comes back?

Through you, Madam President. No.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, FERPA is really a privacy law, and it's not an investigative law, and does not provide authority for school districts to conduct background checks on parents or members of their household. You know, privacy is really a civil right. It's fundamentally a civil right. And families are allowed to have a private space. And without, I guess, a warrant, we're not entitled to intrude that private space. And I think we all know what it entails to have a warrant. This bill, I believe, cuts through that space, that private space. Madam President, I'm through with the questions. Thank you, Senator. DCF really deals with much family pain and suffering every day. It's not surprising that there's so much attrition in the agency. But this bill inserts DCF as a parent clearinghouse, so to speak, targeting homeschool families while sort of deflecting what the underlying problem really is. And I think we really should be looking at DCF and how we can help that agency be better so that we don't get on that 1F decree once again. Madam President, I will not be supporting this bill.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I rise tonight in opposition to this measure. But, unfortunately, it's the second time I can think of this session where I rise tonight in favor of individual citizens and parents above government and governmental control. Individualized rights that are cherished in our nation's history, enshrined in case sn/rr 317 law and our constitution, and granted to us, again, not by government, but by God. And whether it's vaccinating your children, medicating your children, or in this case, educating your children, I believe that is a fundamental right. I think we probably all would have sat around this chamber not all that long ago, and we would have agreed to that. That would have received bipartisan support. But somehow we've moved into this belief that these individualized freedoms, these individualized rights that this country was founded upon should be overseen by government and therefore, essentially granted by government when it's clearly not. What I fear here tonight, Madam President, is this effort is once again, in the same exact juncture as the vaccination discussions in bill, governmental arrogance. Why do I say that? Because it's once again telling you, you parent, who love your children more than this entire world, that we government, us, we know better than you. For those that are here tonight, for those parents, for those parents listening, I could tell you as a state senator, I don't know better than you. You know what's best for your children. And it starts tonight with this. But what I hear from a lot of constituents and parents that homeschool their students is we've seen many different iterations of freedoms being stripped away. And it starts with one step. And tonight is one more step of government saying we know better than you, which I can almost predict will lead down a road where government will know better than you on this subject once again. And it may be a registration tonight. It may be needing approval from DCF or your school board to place your child in another school. And then next year or the year after will become, we want to dictate curriculum. We want to come in and watch and see what you're teaching. We want your children to take standardized tests. That's the path this is going towards. It may not be in this bill tonight, but the citizens, the parents that have sn/rr 318 reservations about this bill can only look to history to fear that. And that's not irrational at all. It's based upon precedent. We've seen it time and time and time again. And what bothers me even further, more than the philosophical debate about whether or not this governmental arrogance over your children's education is good policy or not, what bothers me even further is this is supposed to be a reaction to two horrific disgusting tragedies in this state. Two of which have no fabric to homeschooling. And it's unfair that homeschooling parents are being made as a scapegoat for governmental failures. That's what this is. How dare us point the blame on parents that care about their children and want to educate our children and not address the issue we could be addressing? We had amendments here tonight that would have actually addressed the issue. DCF have failed these kids every step of the way, and now we want to put more power in their hands? What are we? Nuts? We want to give more power to an agency that has seen the death of two children because their lack of involvement, because they couldn't even bother showing up at the children's home to make sure that was actually the child they were speaking with? And our answer to this is the scapegoat homeschooling parents, really? We could have had a legitimate discussion here tonight about oversight with DCF. We could have had a legitimate discussion here tonight about implementing reforms to make sure that DCF came for in-person visits as opposed to remote visits. That should have been our reaction. Not targeting parents that simply want to educate their children in independence, in a country that's supposed to be based on freedom and rights. Like I said with the vaccinations, stand up for freedom tonight. Stand up for liberty. Stand up for parental rights and vote against this bill. sn/rr 319

Good evening, Madam President. I rise in support of this bill in concurrence with the House of Representatives, and want to begin by thanking Senator McCrory for his extraordinary work and advocacy on this issue, both in committee and here in the Senate chamber this evening. Madam President, it seems that that opponents of this bill are engaging in an ideological debate over issues and concerns that are not reflected in this bill at all. What the bill does is just to provide that parents must file a form by October 1st each year with their local school district declaring how their child will be educated. The form can be submitted electronically and of course, if the parent withdraws a child from the public school to homeschool, the superintendent will have to check DCF records for adults aged 18 and over to find out if there is a risk in that circumstance. This is a very minimal degree of regulation. Our state lags behind most other states in protection of children, and making sure that children who are removed from the public school setting are protected. We know that the majority of parents who engage in homeschooling are loving parents who are trying to do the best that they can for their children, that have made a decision, that it would be better for their children to be homeschooled, And it is something that I think we certainly respect, and we are not engaging in any disrespect in this bill. Madam President, because we have laws against drunk driving and laws against reckless driving does not mean that we are looking to, to infringe upon the rights of reasonable and responsible drivers. We sn/rr 320 need to make sure that there is protection engaged in by the state where it is necessary. There is a responsibility on the part of the state to try to protect those who are in need. It is often done imperfectly but it is our responsibility so that we have much less of a requirement on homeschool parents and are not intrusive at all, and this bill is not intrusive. In fact, some people are reacting to some of the contents of the original bill in the Education Committee. There is no portfolio of work required to be submitted to the school district in under this bill as some states do require. The reality is in Connecticut right now and continuing under this bill, that parents themselves who are completely uneducated, and perhaps not even able to read, could homeschool their children and just plunk them in front of a TV every day, and have that be, what suffices for homeschool. And as long as they are not, otherwise abusing their children, just neglecting their education, there's no remedy for that right now in our system. Madam President, it is important to regard the children as distinct individuals from their parents. Children themselves have rights. Parents are not the only ones who have rights. Children are not chattel. They are not their parents possessions. They are independent human beings with a right to be educated. A right to be educated to prepare them for a difficult and challenging world that they will face as adults. And if their parents are taking care of that by excelling in what they provide their children in homeschool education, that is wonderful. We always hear stories every year that parents who homeschool their children will cite homeschool children who get admitted to every Ivy League college, and that's a tremendous thing. It means their parents have done a great job providing nurturing and enrichment for those children. And we are not doing anything to interfere with that, to limit that, to infringe upon that, to impose unreasonable burdens or obstacles or sn/rr 321 hurdles for parents who have made that choice and are doing the right thing by their children. But we have a responsibility in cases where that is not happening for children, where homeschooling is perhaps a setting where abuse may be occurring and because the child is homeschooled and instead of being in school is not being seen by the mandatory reporters who would be able to flag abuse. They are not being seen by teachers. They're not being seen by guidance counselors. They are not being seen by school nurses. They're not being seen by others who might be able to flag a problem where it exists. That is irresponsible of us not to take that into consideration because, Madam President, the only rights, the rights at stake here are not just those of parents, but the rights of the children, independent of the parents, to have a good education, to prepare them for the future. And if the state does not take the very modest steps that are proposed in this bill, the state is failing in its responsibility to those children. It's not violating parents’ rights, but it is neglecting its own responsibility to those children who have no recourse if they are hidden from the public and are being abused in those few but tragic cases, where it may be the case, where that is happening in homes, where no one is seeing those children, no one is seeing the circumstances under which they are being raised and cared for. So Madam President, this is a very limited bill. Even if this bill passes, and I hope it will, it leaves us far short of what other states do in regulation to protect children within those borders. Madam President, the issue here is the best interest of the child. If we look at our court system, where there is a dispute in a divorce proceeding or child custody proceeding, it is not the wishes of either or both parents that are to be considered or to be adopted. It is what the court deems to be in the best interest of the child, and it may not reflect sn/rr 322 the wishes of the parents at all, but it's up to the court to be an advocate for the child. So some years ago, I had a former client to whom I'd represented on a personal injury case, came to my office. She was very angry. She had just found out that her husband had been unfaithful and wanted to divorce him. And she said, "I want to make sure that he never sees our kids again." And I said, well, has he been abusive to them or reckless when they're in his custody with him? Well, she said, "Oh, no. No, he's a great father. The kids love him, but he has been an SOB to me, and I want to punish him. And I want you to go into court and make sure that that the judge sees it that way, and that he doesn't have visitation. I want to make him suffer. And not seeing the children will make him suffer." And I said, that's not going to happen. The essence of the standard that we apply in those cases is what is in the best interest of the child. And the court will make a determination, in most cases, operating under the assumption that it is usually in the best interest of the child to have a healthy relationship and contact with both parents. Even if one of the parents is not the custodial parent, the non-custodial parent will be granted liberal visitation rights, because it is healthy for the child to have an ongoing supportive relationship, even in the trauma of divorce affecting a child, but with both parents, unless one of the parents is deemed to be unfit, reckless, dangerous, abusive, and in those cases that the parent may be shielded from, the child may be shielded from contact with the parents. But except in those cases, the standard is that it is in the interest of the child to have that continuing relationship despite the dissolution of the marriage. So the standard to be applied is what is in the best interest of the child, and that is the standard that sn/rr 323 the state needs to apply in all of these cases. So there are some children whose best interests require some review by the state, in extreme cases some intervention by the state, because the children have rights, independent of the rights and wishes of the parents. And I think that is being obscured somewhat in the debate where all that's being asserted here is the right of the parents to do this, the right of the parents to do that, the right of the parents to make every determination. That is not fair to the children. In those rare cases where the children are being abused and are being shielded from the oversight and the care that they should have, and that it is the responsibility of the state to provide if the parents do not. That's what this bill is about. It's all that it's about. It's a very limited bill, and again, leaves us far short of what other states do in mandates to protect children, who may be shielded away for the purposes of abuse. So I would ask, Madam President, for everyone this evening to recognize that the needs of children should be foremost, and those needs of children are often have to be separated from what may be the views of parents on a given subject. So it is not in any way something undermining legitimate parental authority, as some of the opponents of this bill said, but it is shielding the children whose parents are not meeting their own responsibilities, and in that vacuum, the state must act. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the sn/rr 324 Bill No. 5468, an act concerning the provisions of parent-managed learning, as amended by the House Schedule A. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill. We are now voting on the bill. This is House Bill No. 5468, an act concerning the provision of parent-managed learning, as amended by the House Schedule a. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We are now voting on the bill.

House Bill 5468, as amended by House Amendment Schedule A: Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 22 Those voting Nay 14 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. We do have a Consent Calendar to vote on, so please stay in the chamber or close by. Madam President, does the Clerk have sn/rr 325

Senator Duff.

So ordered, sir. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. May the fourth be with you. Thank you. Madam President, we have a Consent Calendar. sn/rr 329

Thank you. Madam President, Calendar page 34, Calendar 364, House Bill 5265, I'd like to place that item on our Consent Calendar.

On Calendar page 32, Calendar 356, House Bill 5450, like to place that item on Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 46, Calendar 42, House Bill 5558, like to place that item on our Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 36, Calendar 377, House Bill 5146, like to place that item on our Consent Calendar.

sn/rr 330 Calendar page 64, Calendar 370, House Bill 5406, like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

On Calendar page 43, Calendar 469, House Bill 5142, like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 31, Calendar 350, House Bill 5383, like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 35, Calendar 372, House Bill 5246, like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

On Calendar page 41, Calendar 454, House Bill 5311, like to place that item on the Consent Calendar.

Calendar page 47, Calendar 492, House Bill 5515, like to place that item on Consent Calendar.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

So ordered.

Bill 5265, page 32, Calendar 356, House Bill 5450, page 46, Calendar 482, House Bill 5558, page 36, Calendar 377, House Bill 5146, page 64, Calendar 370, House Bill 5406, page 43, Calendar 469, House Bill 5142, page 31, Calendar 350, House Bill 5383, page 35, Calendar 372, House Bill 5246, page 41, Calendar 454, House Bill 5311, page 47, Calendar 492, House Bill 5515, page 48, Calendar 494, House Bill 5313, page 22, Calendar 269, Senate Bill 310, sn/rr 333 page 14, Calendar 180, Senate Bill 367, page 37, Calendar 395, Senate Bill 391, page 33, Calendar 358, House Bill 5240, and page 47, Calendar 489, House Bill 5421. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We are voting on Consent Calendar No. 1. Immediate roll call vote in the Consent Calendar. An immediate roll call vote in the

Consent Calendar No. 1: Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. That concludes our business for today. We plan to be in session tomorrow at 10:00 o'clock in the morning with our goodbyes. We have two goodbyes on each side of the aisle, so we'll begin then. And then I'd like to also make a journal notation. Senator Osten missed votes due to business outside the chamber. Any other yield to any other points or journal notations? sn/rr 334

For the purpose of a journal notation, Senator Fazio missed votes earlier due to business outside of the chamber.

Madam President, I'd also like to place all items on please.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that we adjourn subject to call of the Chair.