CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-30

All right. Good morning. Thursday, April 30th, 2026. Will the House please come to order? Members, staff, and guests, please rise and direct your attention to the dais where our House Chaplain, Erica Thompson of the Silent Hill Congregational Church, will lead us in prayer.

Mg/ak 3 Thank you. That might have been my favorite prayer of the session so far. It's very true words. Representative Haines of the 34th, again, we are now at the point in our session where those members who are wisely leaving this place and retiring, all joking aside, who have served their state with great distinction, have been great colleagues. We have another one here, Representative Haines. Just give her a round of applause, please. (applauding)

To business on the Clerk's desk before we get to announcements or introductions, please.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Without objection, so ordered.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Keep that calendar clean, sir. Let's do announcements or introductions. We'll start with Representative Foster of the 57th, the Chairman of the Veterans Committee. You have the floor, madam. Mg/ak 5

You may proceed.

You're going for two.

No problem.

Thank you, Representative Foster. Little Dave Matthews in a golden doodle can relieve stress quite quickly, actually. Representative Vail of the 52nd, you have the floor, sir.

Mg/ak 8 I'm here with my good colleague, Representative Zawistowski, Stafford High School, class of 1974. I'm from Stafford High School, class of 1986. And we're proud to welcome the Stafford High School basketball team here today, who won the Division Five state championship. Seventeen and three in the regular season, they beat Old Saybrook. And I'm going to say this to rub it in to the people who represent these areas. This is tough. East Granby, Coventry, and then they beat Hartford Public in the state championship game. I know you'd appreciate that, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 9 I was going to have him escort it out because they beat Hartford Public

I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. Gentlemen can stand up. Anthony Balanzo.

Mg/ak 10 Yes. Jacob Caffrey, Joshua Kuna, Kaden Donaldson, Nate Faber, Bryce Guteman, Gavin Yabucci, Gabe Kamasi Kennedy, Jason Lamalin, Liam McFhail, Tyler Murray, Aiken O’Powell, Steven Tiatillo, Colin Tozier, who is now the all-time leading scorer with 1,799 points at Stafford High School, Landon Tozier, James Vitulis, Mason Valentino, and coaches Ryan Fitzgerald, Tom Fitzgerald, Steven Dusa, and Zach Donovan. (applauding) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 11 Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for an introduction.

Not to give you any flashbacks to your tennis days, with KO, but behind me are some of the best --

There you go.

The chamber is not questioning your athletic prowess.

Mr. Speaker, behind me is some of the best and the brightest from the Pomfret School who have come up to the capital today to advocate. So if the chamber could give some warm welcome to our government students from the Pomfret School. (applauding)

Okay. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise a point of personal privilege.

And introduction. To my far left, I have Rodrigo Munoz, which is my assistant Milagro, Costa's son, who just came from California, spent the summer with us. And then we have Jenny – how do you -- [inaudible 00:09:26], who is from California, born and raised and it's her first time in Connecticut. I'd like to give them a warm welcome and, hopefully they enjoy so much, they'll move into Connecticut permanently. Thank you. (applauding) Mg/ak 14

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an introduction.

Mr. Speaker, I have with me a special guest today. I have with me Phil Miller. Phil is a lifelong law architect resident born and raised, but Phil is also my brother-in-law. So I consider him family. He's my brother-in-law. But Phil is up for a visit today. Phil is a United States Marine who served two combat tours in Iraq. He volunteers as a Little League coach for our Little League teams in Naugatuck, and I believe sits on the Mg/ak 15 board of directors as well. And Phil has taken an interest to the process of what goes on up here. So he's up here for a visit to see the business that we conduct and see how it all goes down. So I would love it if everyone helps to welcome me, Phil, to the chamber today. (applauding)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we had the opportunity to acknowledge the work of many interns who've spent the semester with us. My intern, the overachiever that she is, had to leave early to go to work and class. And so she is here with us today, and I wanted to take a moment just to acknowledge Bree's hard work with my team and for the people of the 58th District, and I would ask my colleagues to give her a round of applause. (applauding)

Oh, you're always spoiling my surprises, Mr. Speaker.

I know that. I know that.

I know that. At the risk of upsetting everyone because you won't get to hear this again this year, this is your final reminder that tomorrow is Dress Down Day. Ten dollars cash or Venmo, and hopefully, everybody will participate as you always do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

So I just want to give a shout-out to all our colleagues in the chamber. We've all elected or been elected to take the job with its various sacrifices. We get ups and downs and battles between the left, the right, and the center to get to our issues. And we chose this job, but we all make personal sacrifices to be in this chamber. Two days ago was my brother's birthday, my older brother, Michael Louis Meskers. Yesterday was my daughter, Victoria Christina Meskers' birthday. We all made the choice to be here to serve our public, to serve the state of Connecticut. And I want to, one, recognize my two family members for their Mg/ak 19 birthdays and to give a shoutout to all of us for the sacrifices we make to serve here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Morning, Mr. Speaker.

I rise for the purposes of an introduction.

We're joined here today by Saint Timothy's band and choir, affectionately referred to as Saint Tim's, here from West Hartford. We're joined by Father David and his entire crew here. They're here to serenade us downstairs, and they've done some beautiful music that I've heard so far today. We appreciate your coming today, and I have to say, after hearing you sing America the Beautiful, you're the reason we serve. Thank you. (applauding) Thank you, Father.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an introduction. Mg/ak 21

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mg/ak 22 Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I rise for both a point of personal privilege and a gentle nudge.

A gentle nudge is really quick. If you didn't donate for yesterday's Denim Day, please do today so that we can send those donations off. And then the point of personal privilege, today is my firstborn's 25th birthday. As I always like to say on her birthday, she's been raising me for 25 years, and I think some of the people in this room would agree that she's done a hell of a job. Others, maybe not so much. But I just wanted to wish Gracie Snow Girvalo a very happy 25th.

On Page 28, Calendar 369, substitute for House Bill Number 5534, An Act Designating the State as the Birthplace of the Boys and Girls Club Movement, the State Amphibian, and the State Rock. Favorable report of GAE.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do a lot of weighty and important things in this chamber and on the GAE committee. Sometimes we have the opportunity to do things in a little bit of a lighter register, and especially to recognize the work and advocacy of our young people, and this is one of those times. This bill is our annual state designations bill, where we help celebrate some of the things we have pride in as a state. And as a member of my local Boys and Girls Club's board, I'm especially proud that Connecticut is the birthplace of the Boys and Girls Club movement. It is spread across the country. It has done great good for our youth, and Connecticut should take great pride in the fact that it originated here with four women in Hartford, actually. So kudos to Hartford on that. We're also recognizing the spring peeper as the state amphibian and the state rock as Housatonic marble. Housatonic marble is all over this building; this is our state capital, and Mg/ak 25 you can find it across here. Another thing we should take pride in. And with all that, I urge passage.

The spring peeper, Pseudacris crucifer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's nice to be up here to be the first one to speak today on something that, obviously, we agree on. I can save my energy for later in the day. So I'm happy to support the bill before us. The Boys and Girls Club has done tremendous work here in the state of Mg/ak 26 Connecticut to shape our youth, and I think it's a nice testament to them for what they have done to put them in this bill today. And then, as far as the spring peeper, when I first looked at the bill, I saw the word crucifer. I got really nervous. I actually had to look it up to see, do a Google image to see what it looked like, and I said, "Oh, it's a frog." That's all good. It looks just like a frog. So I'm happy here today to support this bill, and I hope my colleagues will join me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I just want to point out that for many of us living in rural wetland areas, the spring pepper is actually one of the first signs of spring. And I'm sure I speak for many of us who can say that this time of Mg/ak 27 year, on a rainy day like today, you can find many of them hopping around our yards. And my children will be looking for them this afternoon, I'm very sure. So they'll be very happy for us to be reporting on this positive accomplishment today. So congratulations to the proponents of the bill, and I'm very grateful to see this happening. Good bill ought to pass.

Oh, thank you. Sorry.

Oh, okay. I just wanted to say that the spring peeper was actually born out of a Bethlehem Elementary School project on Mg/ak 28 the legislature, and it was a single child who actually came up with this idea. She was on vacation with her parents in another state and looked to see what that state actually had on its website as far as what kind of acknowledgment they gave. So when she saw the amphibian, she said, oh, wow. Connecticut doesn't have this, and I really would like to find out what would be the best. And she did a lot of research, and she got a lot of encouragement from her classmates. And I think this is great. She will be extremely happy.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5534: Total number voting 136 Necessary for passage 69 Those voting Yea 136 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 15

Mg/ak 30 On Page 11, Calendar 195, House Bill Number 5343, An Act Concerning the Reporting of Advertising Purchased by the State. Favorable report of Government Administration and Elections.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Mg/ak 31 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk has an amendment, LCO 4899. And I ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO Number 4899, offered by Representative Blumenthal, Representative Morrin Bello, and Representative Farrar.

Mg/ak 32 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a strike-all amendment. Shall we vote on the amendment? And then, as it becomes a bill, I'll summarize.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment's adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Morrin Bello.

Question for the chamber is adoption of the bill as amended. Will you remark further? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th, you have the floor, ma'am. Mg/ak 34

Representative Morrin Bello.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

It's two. Two in a row today so far, because that's a record. So, yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill does provide transparency, much-needed transparency. And I appreciate the amendment actually adding the colleges and universities to it because I think that's important. The more transparency we can certainly provide in government, I certainly support, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill as well. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5343, as amended by House "A": Total number voting 141 Necessary for passage 71 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 0 Mg/ak 37 Absent not voting 10

Page 57, Calendar 406, substitute for House Joint Resolution Number 40. Resolution Confirming the Decision of the Claims Commissioner to Deny Certain Claims Against the State. Favorable report of Judiciary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the resolution. Mg/ak 38

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the first of a series of our annual claims commission process by way of very brief background and overview. One of the responsibilities of this legislative body is to oversee a process by which applicants who claim that they have causes of action against the state of Connecticut will seek permission to sue the state, a process known as sovereign immunity. When the claims commissioner renders a decision, that decision thus flows to us whether or not it should be confirmed or, in certain circumstances, appealed. Before we get into HJ 40, I want to take an opportunity to thank the three interns who worked with us closely on the Judiciary Committee, Shabana Rao, Tenzin Raabhjian, and Oliver Thompson, all of whom are attending law school here in Connecticut. I wish them good fortune in Mg/ak 39 their upcoming final examinations, as three L's as well as their efforts to take the bar. They're going to be excellent attorneys, hardworking each. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank our Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, with whom I collaborated closely during this process. I found him to be thoughtful, diligent, and well-measured, and I found that we worked well together. This is year two for two upon which we had a unanimous consensus amongst the claims. So with that being said, HJ 40 is a resolution that actually combines a number of claims that we are concurring with the claims commissioner that should not be moving forward, and I so move, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 40

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolutions before us. I do want to thank Representative Jacobson for his collegial working and getting through all of the claims that are here, not just this one, but the other ones that we will address shortly and later in the session. He has been excellent to work with and very communicative. I've learned from him as we go through the process. I also would be remiss -- he mentioned the interns with specificity. There are only three people in the state of Connecticut besides us legislators that have been involved with claims this year outside of the building. And those are those three interns. And they learned a lot about our process, sovereign immunity, when you get into the state, and the process to get appealed. And I hope that they take that to their law school careers and make advantage of that. So I do rise in support of the resolution. This is one claim that we're dealing Mg/ak 41 with here, and I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

HJ 40: Total number voting 141 Necessary for passage 71 Those voting Yea 141 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 10

On Page 58, Calendar 420, substitute for House Joint Resolution Number 42, Resolution Vacating the Decision of the Claims Commissioner to Deny the Claim Against the State of Evan Clark, PPA, Christopher Clark, and Granting the Claimant Permission to Sue the State. Favorable report of Judiciary. Mg/ak 43

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is another one of our claims. This is actually the only claim today that we are going to be rejecting. In fact, we are going to be giving the applicant permission to sue the state. HJ 42 involved a situation where a student was injured in shop class, and sought Mg/ak 44 to bring a claim against the state for a determination of negligence for failure to maintain a safe environment, among other things. Now, during the course of the process of the Claims Commissioner, a merits-based determination was made, which, with all due respect to the Claims Commissioners, was, in our belief, not appropriate. In other words, it was the unanimous position of the Judiciary Committee that the claim presented is both just and equitable, and presents an issue of law and/or fact, which, the state were it a private person, could be responsible. So under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committees have the opinion that this claim should be granted permission to sue, and I so move.

Mg/ak 45 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. I don't think I could have said it any better. The Good Representative laid out what the law is, what the standard is, and why we think that this is appropriate. And therefore, I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

House Joint Resolution 42: Total number voting 145 Necessary for adoption 73 Those voting Yea 145 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 6

Mg/ak 47 Page 57, Calendar 407, House Joint Resolution Number 57, Resolution Accepting the Recommendation of the Claims Commissioner to Make Payment in Excess of $35,000 With Respect to the Claim Against the State of Clifford Beers Community Health Partners, LLC O/B/O Youth Continuum, LLC. Favorable report of Judiciary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is the third and final claims commission process that we will be handling today. This would be the approval of an award rendered by the claims commission, by very brief factual overview. This matter involves some damage to personal property, that there was a limited insurance coverage, and it was determined by the claims commissioner that the state should be responsible to the tune of $50,000. Now, applicable state statute says that when an award is rendered in excess of $35,000, legislative approval is warranted. And under the circumstances, it is the unanimous consent of the judiciary committee that such approval should be given in this case, and I so move.

Mg/ak 49 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, and I thank my colleague for his presentation. He was succinct and on point, and I ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Joint Resolution 57: Total number voting 147 Necessary for adoption 74 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4

Mg/ak 51 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, we have the distinct privilege, with my colleague Representative Fishbein, of welcoming the Lineman Hall hockey team for capturing the CIAC Division Two championship in a very impressive manner, defeating number 11, Conard, five to two at M&T Bank Arena. We applaud you guys and your coach, Dave Sagnella, for his leadership, which has been instrumental in guiding this team to success. His dedication and commitment to his players have helped foster both skill and character, culminating in this remarkable achievement. I believe this is your second championship. Am I right? Yes. Okay. This victory marks the program's second state title and reflects the continued growth and excellence of Lyman Hall hockey. We are so proud of you, Lyman Hall hockey team. We are so glad you're here. And would the members please rise and give them an ovation? (applauding)

Mg/ak 52 On Page 43, Calendar 491, substitute for Senate Bill Number 473, An Act Concerning the Reviser's Technical Revisions to the General Statutes. Favorable report of Judiciary.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the Senate.

Mg/ak 53 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is our annual cleanup bill, making technical revisions to statutes that came into effect in October of the year. Purely technical in nature, not creating any new laws other than what was passed last year. I move passage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support of the annual tech reviser bill. It is purely a technical revision, revisions to our statutes. I ask my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 147 Mg/ak 55 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4

On Page 35, Calendar 441, House Bill Number 5442, An Act Concerning the Property Tax Exemption for and Tax Agreements Related to Certain Class 1 Renewable Energy Sources. Favorable report of Finance.

Mg/ak 56 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good to see you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4954. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and that I be granted leave to summarize.

Mg/ak 57 House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO Number 4954, offered by Representative Horn, Representative Winter, and Representative Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is as high as it goes. Okay. Last year, as part of Public Act 173, we passed a uniform solar capacity tax, which applies a uniform tax rate to all solar projects greater than one megawatt across the state. And this replaces the personal property tax, which is dependent on the mill rate in each municipality. So this standardizes the taxation of large solar projects across the state. At the same time, we passed a tax exemption for those solar projects. That tax exemption was overly broad, and so this bill will narrow the applicability of that tax exemption. In Mg/ak 58 particular, the exemption applied to all solar projects, including those that are already on the grid and would otherwise be subject to local personal property taxes. So the main thrust of this bill is to apply the tax exemption to projects that come online after July 1st of 2025. And it does so in a way that's not retroactive, because it'll be applicable beginning July 1 of this year. And for any projects that come online before July 1 of this year, they'll be taxed for 19 years, and any projects that come online after July 1 of this year will be taxed at the uniform capacity tax rate for 20 years. Importantly, the bill also authorizes assessors to issue certificates of correction, and that way they can adjust the grand list to correct for projects that should have been taxable and should have been included in the grand list for this year's assessment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption.

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Through you, before we adopt the amendment, I would like to defer over to my good colleague from Prospect. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I need to recuse myself for possible conflict of interest. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will reserve my comments and questions on the underlying bill.

Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Polleta.

Representative Winter.

Representative Polleta.

Mg/ak 63 Thank you, Representative Polletta. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Howard of the 43rd. You have the floor, sir.

Mg/ak 64 Thank you, Representative Howard. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests, please come to the well of the House. Members, please take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board and determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill is amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar 453?

Mg/ak 66 Representative Osborne of the 16th. You have the floor, ma'am.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report passed to the bill. Representative Osborne, you have the floor, ma'am.

Question before the chamber is passage of the bill. Representative Wood of the 29th. You have the floor, ma'am. Mg/ak 67

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Carney of the 23rd, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Carney. Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members, take your seats. Head to the portal. Machine will be open.

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the Mg/ak 69 members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally. And will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please Calendar 504?

Representative Osborne of the 16th. You have the floor, ma'am.

Question before the chamber's acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Osborne, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Carney of the 23rd, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative Carney. Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Members take your seats. Head to the portal. Machine will be open. Mg/ak 72

Have all the members voted? Will members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally. May I have the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes in concurrence with the Senate. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar 475?

Representative Romano of the 113th, for what purpose do you rise?

Thank you, Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the amendment of a prior conveyance from 1968 in the town of Stratford. It does not expand to the property. It simply changes the purpose for which the conveyance was made, and it was aptly summarized by the clerk. It now permits the sale or lease for certain purposes, and I move adoption.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just to expand a little on this, this conveyance, as the Good Representative from Simsbury said, it changes the conveyance to basically allow the town to sell a parking area. However, it must be for fair market value, and any proceeds must go to the special transportation Mg/ak 76 fund. So I urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5580: Total number voting 147 Necessary for passage 74 Those voting Yea 147 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 4

Page 46, Calendar 503, subsequent for Senate Bill Number 519, An Act Amending the Prior Conveyance of State Land to the Bridgeport Port Authority. Favorable report of Joint Standing Committee on Government Oversight. Mg/ak 78

And thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is another amendment of a prior conveyance, and it simply changes the cost at which the Bridgeport Port Authority is entitled to convey the parcel, simply to align it from what was previously noted as fair market value to $119,000 in order to conform this to a contract that Mg/ak 79 was actually signed back in 2014. And I move the adoption of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and the Good Representative from Simsbury summed this up perfectly. It will lower the cost for this sale and allow there to be some development down in this area of Bridgeport, and I encourage my colleagues to support this. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

Mg/ak 81 Total number voting 148 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 148 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 3

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we have some special guests here in the well of the house. Before I get to introducing them, I'll do a little bit of history. Trinity College is where I spend my time outside of politics, where I work. Mg/ak 82 Have the privilege of working. College was founded in 1823. A little history trivia. The campus that we're on now is our second campus. Our original campus was actually located right where we're standing right now, right where this building is. In 1872, city of Hartford approached the college to buy the land so that they could build this beautiful building. The college agreed and sold the land in 1872. And then we ended up moving to our current campus in 1878. Lo and behold, this building opened up in 1879. I don't know if they built a building in a year. If they did, that's pretty impressive, given that it was the 1800s, and they didn't have all the fancy equipment that we have today. Fast forward to the 1940s. That is when our squash program was actually established. And they were good all those years. 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s. And then suddenly, we get to the nineties. And there is a retired coach who is here with us today, who I'll introduce. But something special really started happening in the 1990s when they decided to go win 252 consecutive matches. That took you from 1998 to 2012. In that span, they also happened to win 13 national championships. This is a program that has had 64 individual All- Mg/ak 83 Americans. And something to note, Trinity College is division three program. And we often think about division one. But for division three, but in this sport, they actually play at the division one level. So we're beating all those colleges who think they're really good at sports, until they come to meet the Trinity College squash team. And they get their things handed to them. I guess I'll leave it at that. They took a break in 2012, and then decided to win some more national championships in 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018. And the former coach retired. We have a new coach now who's in his second year. Coach Moustafa Hamada. If you want to stand up and recognize you. Absolutely. (applause) He played on the team 2011 and 2015. Won two national championships as a member of the team, in which he was the captain. And then he decided to come back and become head coach and start winning national championships again for the team. So really amazing accomplishment for him and his family, and certainly want to recognize all the successes. He's brought no pressure. He only got 19 more to win to beat Coach Assaiante, Mg/ak 84 who I'll introduce next. And Coach Assaiante is here. If you could rise. (applause) Yeah. He coached the team for 28 years and managed to win 95% of their matches. So, he only had 507 and 29 record while he was coach. So, another amazing accomplishment by Coach Assaiante. He's still around and helping guide our current coach and helping mentor our students, so that they can continue their winning ways. I also want to introduce their faculty staff liaison, Professor Andrew Flibbert. He's a professor of political science. Yeah. (applause) He's a professor of political science, international relations with a focus on Middle East and North Africa, especially Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, and Palestine. And it's important that we recognize him. I respect all of our athletes who compete at the collegiate level. But for division three, we pride ourselves on the scholar piece first and the athlete piece second. And having him be part of the team is really Representative of how much our students put an emphasis on their academics. And then they also happen to be really amazing athletes as well, too. Mg/ak 85 So I want to recognize, Professor Flibbert. (applause) Now I know most of the team is here. I'll quickly introduce them, and you're going to pick up on a theme here, how incredibly diverse this team is. They represent the world, not just the United States, as is the case with most collegiate So, if the players are here, I'll ask them to stand up. Lucas Alvarez from New Canaan, Connecticut. Representative O'Dea, he's your guy. Yeah. There you go. Zane Amjad from Hong Kong, China. All right. Eyad Awad from Cairo, Egypt. Joachim Chua from Shah Alam, Malaysia. Not here? All right. Huzaifa Ibrahim from Karachi, Pakistan. No? Not here? All right. Mohammed Ashban Erfan from Houston, Texas. Andric Lim Kaishan from I just want you to know I didn't practice any of these, so hopefully I'm not butchering these names. But Wasserne Lowe, from Ipoh, Malaysia. Charlie Mullin from Cincinnati, Ohio. Bo Page from Wayne, Pennsylvania. Segundo Portabales from Mar Del Plata, Argentina. Graham Roberts from Atlanta, Georgia. Javier Romo Lopez from Quito, Ecuador. And probably someone with the longest Mg/ak 86 journey here, Angel Salgado Junior from Hartford, Connecticut. Yeah. Oliver Scott from New York, New York. All right. Dmytro Shcherbakov from Kyiv, Ukraine. There you go. Daniel Simon from Budapest, Hungary. I'm getting to the end here. I'm filibustering here. Benedek Takacs from Szeged, Hungary. Close. And then, rounding out this amazing team, Ruiqi Wang from Hangzhou, China. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the chamber. An amazing accomplishment by this team, and no pressure, but we expect that you'll be back here next year so that we can recognize you for another national championship. Go, Bants. (Applause)

Mr. Speaker, as if I wasn't taking an uptight right on cue, a guy that is lucky enough to work with me on a daily basis, the 23rd president of Trinity College, Daniel G. Lugo, who just Mg/ak 87 joined us. (applause) Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the chamber.

Mg/ak 88 In addition to congratulating the team and my fellow New Canaanite, I've got an announcement, if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker.

110 Caucus. Republicans. Sounds good. Any more, Mr. Major, hang on. Representative Meskers has an announcement, so we'll give him an opportunity. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Consul General, it's a pleasure to have you here. I'm glad to see that the relations between our two countries are warming up after that hockey game in February. Mr. Majority Leader.

Without objection, so ordered. (gavel)

On page 50, Calendar 97, substitute for House Bill Number 5004, An Act Concerning Child Welfare, Accountability, and Transparency, favorable report of Committee on Children.

Mg/ak 91 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO 5360. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize, sir.

Mg/ak 92 House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5360, offered by Representative Paris, Representative Welander, or Representative Walker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel like the conversation and the debate in which we're about to engage in is a long time coming, and we have many duties and responsibilities as legislators and just as a state, discharged to us for us to undertake in order for us to ensure that our state sustainability and stability is protected. The protection of children is at the top of that list. And as you know, the agency for the Department of Children and Families oversees the welfare of all the children in our state. Inside of foster care, outside of foster care, we support many Mg/ak 93 families, grandparents, fictive kin, as we try to ensure that children have a less traumatic experience, a more stable transition back into the process of being made whole so that they can continue throughout their life despite many of the adverse situations that they might have experienced with protections, with dignity, and above all else, with respect. Unfortunately, our state has experienced many tragic cases over the last year, if not over the last decade. Many cases that have affected so many of our various communities, and, unfortunately, there are almost too many to name. But as we stand here today, and as we have spent many months going through many different parts of legislation, so we could understand how to make not only the system stronger for those who work in it, but how we can make the system stronger for the children that we seek to provide support and protection to. This is a personal bill also for me, sir. I was a child who experienced abuse. My grandmother was a social worker for both adult protective services and child protective services, and I didn't necessarily fit the mold of what you think would have to be investigated because of the abuse I experienced. Mg/ak 94 But I know that if we were doing this work today, during the time that I was growing up, during some of the challenging experiences I had as a child, I know for a fact that the system would have protected me better. And I know for a fact that we may not have been able to save every single child in whose name we try to do this work just a little bit better for today. I know that moving forward, we're going to do everything we can to protect however many more children we could possibly protect. And so with this bill, sir, the underlying amendment simply makes many bipartisan fixes, thoughtful, curated, and above all else, above all else, reasonable fixes to not only stand up this department to do the right thing moving forward, but to also hold them accountable, which is what so many parents, whether their child is in the system, or whether they are onlookers with their own family, look at us to fix right now. They want accountability and transparency, and this bill aims to provide that. We aim to provide a pathway for the young people who are in the system, who are looking for a way out once they have aged out of the system. We look for ways to protect Mg/ak 95 the case workers who are doing the hard work in the trenches on in the field every single day, and we know it's not an easy job. We try to find ways to make their job easier. We try to find ways to retain their employment. We try to find ways to find equal footing for those who are 70 and 80 years old, now taking custody of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and can't make ends meet, or foster families who need more resources for those kids. And above all else, we're saying today, we know that what has happened in the last year is not good, and it is not good enough for anyone on the Democratic side or the Republican side. It's not good for the state of Connecticut, and we seek leave of this chamber to have a substantive debate to make these changes for a future in which we can say, today, we made great changes for the kids of Connecticut, and we stand by those changes because we know it's going to be a stronger system. I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I rise with full support of this amendment, and I'm asking that we have a voice vote for the amendment. Thank you.

Mg/ak 97 Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris, back to you.

Mg/ak 112 Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dauphinais of the 44th, you have the floor, ma'am.

Mg/ak 115 Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais. Mg/ak 117

Representative Paris.

Mg/ak 118 Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris. Mg/ak 120

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris. Mg/ak 122

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Mg/ak 124 Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Mg/ak 125 Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Mg/ak 126 Torch is being passed. Representative Welander of the 114th. You have the floor, ma'am.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Welander.

Representative Dauphinais.

Mg/ak 129 Representative Welander.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris. Mg/ak 130

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Welander.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Parris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Representative Exum.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Paris.

Thank you. Representative Dauphinais.

Mg/ak 148 Representative Paris.

Representative Dauphinais.

Will the clerk please call LCO 5382, which will be designated amendment scheduled B.

The Representative seeks leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there an objection to summarization? Is there an Mg/ak 150 objection? Hearing none, Representative Dauphinais, you may proceed with summarization.

Mg/ak 151 Question for the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Scheduled B. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Paris?

Representative Dauphinais.

Yes. House stands at ease.

The amendment has been withdrawn. Representative Dauphinais.

Yep. Will the clerk please call LCO 5424, which will be designated House Amendment Scheduled C.

The Representative seeks to leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there an objection? Hearing none. Representative Dauphinais, as you may proceed with summarization.

Question for the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Scheduled C. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Paris. Mg/ak 154

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Comey.

Mg/ak 155 Representative Dauphinais?

Comey, Representative Comey.

Representative Dauphinais.

Representative Comey.

Will you remark further? If not, is there a rejection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just want to, again, thank the good chair for all of his work on this bill with me. I think we got a lot of good things accomplished, and I appreciate it. And I believe that there was deep sincerity here with regard to Mg/ak 158 trying to help the children of Connecticut with both accountability to them and transparency. I will be supporting this bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to see you up there. Obviously, we have had quite a lot of conversation about the need for this bill in the last year or so. I think that it's actually probably decades overdue, based on some of the stories that I have heard going back decades. Our children are the most important thing to all of us, and the protection of those children is so critical, especially children who are in incredibly critical, especially children who are in incredibly vulnerable situations. Mg/ak 159 I am extremely grateful today to the children's committee, both sides of the aisle, for all of their input into this bill. And I appreciate that I had the opportunity to provide some input as well. I had a situation in my district with a child who was placed in my district in an emergency placement. After months, and it seems like, honestly, years of a situation in which he was not moved from a house that had hoarding, rats, black mold, and regardless of those complaints, the child had not been removed. And then finally, there was enough of a situation that there was an emergency placement made. It was bad enough that that was the situation on the one side with the child. But then on the adult side, once the emergency placement was made, the child only had two or three days' worth of clothes. So, of course, the parent had to go through the process of purchasing clothing, purchasing a winter coat, ensuring there were meals and snacks, and all of those things. They were now reimbursed for months on end for that, which is a hardship now on the family who has been good enough to do the foster family. And they are very, very committed to their foster son. Mg/ak 160 In addition to that, were not notified of the significant eating disorder and other mental challenges that this child faced, and were given no guidance whatsoever other than you can call 211. And 211 was shocked that DCF provided no guidance to that family on how they could be helped. And it goes on and on and on. And this is just one of many stories that I have heard from families over the last six years. And I think that there are some really critical pieces in this legislation today that will prevent future situations like this from happening. I think that, ultimately could also use a mentoring program for people who are currently fostering, or have fostered, to be able to mentor other foster families that are maybe just starting out on the journey. Because I can tell you, years ago, when we took in an international student, it was a very similar situation. It's like, well, she's yours now. And that is not what we should be doing for children who are in crisis, for children who have experienced trauma, for families who may not be in a place to be able to help that child effectively initially without additional resources. Again, I am so grateful, and I hope that all of our colleagues support this critical bill today because it is a first step in ensuring that Mg/ak 161 we are improving the lives of children and families that are encountering DCF and involved with DCF. Thank you so much for the time today, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first time. All right. I raised in strong support of this bill, because the tragedy happened in my neighborhood. It happened behind my house, and I know the family. And believe it or not, it happened on my mom's birthday, October 8th. And new birth still, grieving a child, and her name was, is Mimi Torres, whose life was stolen and whose absence went on unnoticed by the very system designed to protect her. Her story is not just heartbreaking. It's revealed where our system failed. It's hard for me to talk about this story. Welfare checks that failed at the most basic level, including a Mg/ak 162 video check where an adult was impersonating Mimi, who was already dead. She was already been killed. This bill, I hope, replaces assumptions with accountability. We cannot rely on appearances anymore, especially when a child life is at stake. We cannot bring Mimi back or all the children, but we can decide today that her story and others will not be repeated. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, not just as legislation, but as a commitment to every child in the state of Connecticut. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of quick questions. My good chair and the ranking member were very comprehensive in their answers. And just for my own clarification, I'd like to ask a few questions through you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 163

Representative Paris.

Mg/ak 164 Thank you for that answer, sir.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Line 144, it talks about temporary custodian having some vesting to make emergency medical decisions, including psychological ones, and treatment as a licensed -- is that the same as a licensed foster parent? Are they given that same authority? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, it is all existing language, and so it is already currently in practice. And so, based on what is currently practiced, that would be the case. Through you, sir. Mg/ak 165

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the good chairman, and I urge my colleagues on all sides of the aisle to support this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill today. I think, based on the comments of today's discussion, I was thinking about a quote that I found was from a real incredible international hero, Nelson Mandela, when he says that there can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children. Mg/ak 166 How we treat, how we keep safe the children in the state of Connecticut is all of our responsibilities. That's why today's bill, House Bill 5004, is one action that we can take to make sure that the true safety of our children is at the forefront. I would argue for us to think clearly about how we can reduce the number of cases that our Department of Children, Families, and Services find themselves with. I know today, we are trying to address these areas of failures and also the supports that many families need. And let me be clear that for many families, 40% of our families who are struggling to make ends meet in our state of Connecticut right now, their insufficient income or resources is not a reason alone why there may be a case filed on them in DCF. But we know for our families that are under stress. Without the income and resources they need, it can attract the attention of DCF and increase stress even more in the family. That's why, beyond this bill before us, House Bill 5004, I hope that as a state, we continue to focus on not just the safety of our children, but making sure that every child in our state is fed. Every child in our state has stable housing. Every child in our state has access to high-quality education. Because Mg/ak 167 that's what every child and every family in our state truly deserves. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to thank the bipartisan leadership who have supported and shepherd this legislation through. And I want to thank the many people who work for the Department of Children and Families who are trying to work hard to make children within our state safe and well cared for, and address challenging situations that are before them every day. I want to thank particularly the leadership of this committee for considering Section 22. Section 22 was born out of concepts and ideas from our district. We had teachers and law enforcement officers who had engagement with the system on occasions where there would be significant repetition. Mg/ak 168 The Department of Children's and Families calls this chronicity. When a family has a lot of engagement with the system, and the cases are not substantiated in a way where there is intervention that decreases the number of calls that DCF is receiving on that family. This Section makes a simple change to current practice. It says that after three times of engagement with the system, that on that third call, a new caseworker worker and a new supervisor will engage with this family and see if fresh eyes might find different solution for that family in a situation. And what we've heard from a variety of people around the system, law enforcement, teachers, and some case workers who consulted on this is that there are times where fresh eyes might find newer opportunities to help families, to help children be safe and heal, and perhaps find a healthier way forward. I think as a mom, every time we have these conversations about child abuse and neglect, it is really hard and heavy work. And so I want to thank all of the people who have engaged with this process and put their hearts and minds and sanity on the line, as do the caseworkers in DCF all the time, because knowing Mg/ak 169 about child abuse and neglect is something that is hard and really important work. Somebody has to know. Somebody has to go through it. Somebody has to engage. And the children deserve better outcomes, and people had to lay their hearts bare. The department has to do that all the time to do this work well. But the legislators who navigated these challenging cases heard these hard stories. They really did important work for the state of Connecticut, and I'm grateful for them for doing that. And I hope that this bill is the first in many steps moving forward to a safer, more just world for the children of Connecticut. And I want to express my strong support and say good bill ought to pass.

Mg/ak 170 The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Bill 5004, as amended by House A and House C: Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2 Mg/ak 171

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, I have a very, very distinguished honor of introducing you all to a native son of my town. This is Patrick Helgren. He graduated from Tallinn in 2010. He went to school with my oldest daughter. And I asked her, I said, when I meet Patrick on the floor and introduce him to people, what should I say? And she said, the one thing I could say about Patrick and Lucas was that they were people's people who lived every single moment of their lives to the fullest. And I don't think I could explain it any differently. Patrick was in a motorcycle accident 2013, and he lost his leg. Mg/ak 172 And that would put most people down. And then three years later, he lost his twin to an accident in New Zealand. Overseas. That, combined with the motorcycle accident, would kill most people, and it didn't kill Patrick. My husband is a gym rat, I like to say. He goes to the gym four times a week. And he came home one day, and he was like, hey, do you remember that kid Ali went to school with that was in the accident, lost his leg? I said, yeah. And he goes, you know what? He's there every day. And when I talked to him, he said, I'm going to go to the Olympics, and I'm going to win a medal. And he said, if I know any person in the world that will do it, he's like, that kid will do it. Patrick went to the Paralympics in Milan, and he won a silver medal for the United States of America. I will say, growing up with a daughter who is a psychologist, she used to always say my accomplishments are mine. And when people tell me that they're proud of me, she goes, I understand that, but it's my accomplishment, and it's what I should be proud of. And I have absolutely no ownership over Patrick, but I cannot tell him exactly how truly honored it is to have him on this floor and how very, very proud I am of him for his Mg/ak 173 accomplishments and for being such an inspiration to all of us in representing not only the United States of America, but the town of Tallinn in the most honorable way possible. I am truly, truly your servant. (applause) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have a great honor representing three towns, including my hometown of Stonington. I also know that I spent much of the last 15 years of my life, 10 years, I guess, actively involved in coaching youth football. Mg/ak 174 And a lot of the young men that I had an opportunity to coach are now getting into graduation. And some of them, or one of them in particular, has completed enough credits that he was able to involve himself in internship. So he's been following me around through at the police department and here in the legislature doing research on bills, police policy, et cetera as part of his internship, before he heads to Curry College in Massachusetts, in the fall. So it is my honor to have my intern.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my honor to have my intern, my former football player, back when he was in grade school. I got to watch him play off through high school as well. Joining me here today, Jack Boggan. Hope you all help me welcome him here. (applause) Thank you. Mg/ak 175

On page 49, Calendar 75 substitute for House Bill Number 5045, An Act Streamlining Healthcare Facility Approvals. Favorable report of public health.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's good to see you up there. Mr. Speaker, I move for acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO 5379. I ask that the amendment be called, and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule A. LCO Number 5379, offered by Representative Ritter, Representative Rojas, et al.

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today regards what we all refer to as the certificate of need process. The certificate of need conversation has been happening in the public health committee for the past three years. We have been talking about this, and I want to share with you what this amendment does, and then to thank those who have been a part of this process to get us to this day. The certificate of need helps us to determine whether or not an application for a healthcare facility is in the public's best interest. And what it does is it considers the quality of care. It considers access to health care, including Medicaid access. It considers cost-effectiveness. It considers the promotion of financial stability of our healthcare system as a whole. It considers whether or not there is a duplication of services. Mg/ak 178 This amendment, excuse me, Mr. Speaker. This amendment addresses the certificate of need process. And what it does is it streamlines the application process, something that many of us here in this chamber and in the chamber upstairs, as well as our providers, have asked for. It furthermore establishes an expedited pathway for that application process. It establishes a panel with the change in what we will see in a future bill, with respect to the Office of Health Strategy as it moves over to the Department of Public Health. It will establish a panel to make the final decision regarding those applications rather than a single commissioner. It reforms the process for the termination of services and improves our ability to have communication and understanding of what is happening in facilities. It clarifies the definition of transfer of ownership or control. It adds reporting requirements for the purchase of all large group practices. And Mr. Speaker, what this will do is give us some insight into those practices and where they are landing and what kind of ownership we are seeing with those large group practices. This will help us to make decisions in the future. Mg/ak 179 It expands the ability to impose conditions on a certificate of need. And at the same time, it will create transparency in the process. Mr. Speaker, before I ask to move adoption, I want to just say a few thank yous, if I may. I want to thank all those who have been part of this very bipartisan, bicameral, and across our branches of government process. I want to thank specifically the leadership from OPM, DPH, and OHS, and give a special shout out to Charlotte Mueller and Boyd Jackson, who have led us in this conversation. I'd like to thank the Connecticut Hospital Association and all of the provider groups. I'm going to get in trouble if I start naming them, but from the medical society to our independent practices, to our insurers, to all those who have been part of this discussion, our caucus leadership, and their teams who have been incredible and really invaluable in this process, our nonpartisan leaders, our nonpartisan LCO attorneys, our OLR attorneys who have lived through this many, many iterations of this bill, many drafts of this bill over the past three years and this year in particular. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the members of the Public Health Committee team. Representative Klarides- Mg/ak 180 Ditria, the ranking member, has been an invaluable partner in this process, along with senators Anwar and Somers, and also the policy teams who have been involved in this. From Kimmy Grove to Molly O'Connor, Jared Pico, and Adam Johnson, I want to say thanks to all of them for helping to bring us here. We have had many, many robust conversations hours of meetings. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a couple comments and maybe one question or so to the good proponent of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this process, as you heard, has been going on a long time. And the good chair, co- chair of the public health committee, and I talk often to stakeholders, and we ask them one simple question. When you're explaining something to us, please do it at a fourth-grade level. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to explain CON out of my eyes in a fourth-grade level. So everybody may be listening or in the gallery, can truly understand what it does. So we know the certificate of need process is a state approval process, and it's for providers that must go through. They must do this before expanding or getting rid of certain services. Put simply, as we like to say, it's like a fourth- grade classroom that's overflowing. And before you can open and go into another classroom, you have to fill out some forms. You have to get in line. You have to get permission. And that permission comes from one person, the superintendent of your school. Let's say that. Mg/ak 182 And then you have to pay a fee to then be able to move your classroom. And then by the time you're done, the long process, these fourth-grade kids are basically in fifth grade now because it takes that long. That's what certificate of need looks like currently in the state of Connecticut. Patients are waiting while the system catches up. That's why updating it today is so vitally important, so we can fix that problem, and it doesn't take people going from fourth grade to fifth grade to get a CON approval. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good proponent of the bill, will this bill here today streamline and shorten the CON process? Through you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. Absolutely. I will add that with this effort, we are looking to very significantly have a maximum time that Mg/ak 183 really is now will be roughly the same as the current median time. So we really are looking at significant improvements. And again, I will take this opportunity to thank all of the stakeholders who participated in this process. As I say about this bill, I think everyone is happy. As you can see, we have really wonderful bipartisan support on the amendment, and everyone is slightly unhappy, which means there was a significant amount of compromise. But the answer to the good ranking member's question is yes. It will.

Thank you for that. And I just have a closing comment for you. Mr. Speaker, this bill, as you heard, has been three years plus in the making. Three years, countless hours upon hours of meetings, us schlepping up to the 5th Floor to have another meeting with the stakeholders. Mg/ak 184 And it reflects a real collaboration and the hard work that went into where we are today to get this over the finish line. I want to thank my policy staffer, Adam Johnson, for his hard work and always being by my side to get me through this process. I want to thank the minority leader, Vinnie Candelora, for his leadership, my good cochair, Cristin McCarthy Vahey, for hours of conversation on the way home from here to here via text, in bed, texting, calling, everything that we did, and the stakeholders that came out to the table. Mr. Speaker, in the immortal words of my father, Peter Klarides, he would say, sharpen your pencils. And that's what they did. They sharpen their pencils. And then, in my words, Mr. Speaker, I had said, let's all put on our big girl pants and get this done this year. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mg/ak 185 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I just have one question for the good chair, please, through you.

Thank you. And I apologize if it has been asked. I was out of the room. In Section 11, when it talks about this working group, we know how important it is for all these stakeholders to be involved. And I'm curious, as will the same stakeholders, the CHA, all of these folks that were involved, will they be included in this working group? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I thank the good Representative for the question. And the short answer is Mg/ak 186 yes. And the longer answer is we in the public health committee may wish that some of our CON conversations were over forever, but we know that the ongoing conversations with the stakeholder groups will continue both here and we expect in the future in the committee beyond as well. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the good chair for that. As the good chair knows, CON has been the top of my mind for a long time, as well as everyone else, and it's so important to have folks at the table and keep them at the table. So I just wanted to confirm that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

LCO 5379, designated House A: Total number voting 150 Mg/ak 188 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 1

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5045 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 150 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 1 Absent not voting 1

Page 42, Calendar 477, House Bill No. 5583, AN ACT CONCERNING CONVEYANCE OF PARCELS OF STATE LAND IN THE TOWN OF DERBY. Favorable Report of Joint Standing Committee on Government Oversight.

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

Mg/ak 191 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is several little pieces of parcels in the town of Derby. And Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, which is LCO No. 4711. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and that I be granted leave of chamber to summarize.

LCO 4711, designated House "A", and offered by Representatives Dathan and Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a fairly simple amendment that I think will be a welcome change to some people in the chamber. And that is specifically that instead of administrative costs, the cost for the purchase of this property, well, conveyance of this property will be at fair market value. In addition to that, it removed a section of the underlying bill which had some technical requirements because the Connecticut Municipal Development Authority is going to be the paying entity, and has simply removed specific provisions related to that. And I move adoption.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I support the amendment, so I'll make some comments after we pass it. Mg/ak 193

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Carney.

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Rochelle from the 104.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Klarides- Ditria from the 105th.

As you know, I represent the 105th District, which is parts of Derby, and I share it with three other people. And some of you may not know that Derby is the smallest city in the State of Mg/ak 196 Connecticut, but it's a mighty city, and we're very proud of it. And this piece of legislation, this land conveyance will have significant potential for downtown development for our small city of Derby, and it will help with comprehensive and productive redevelopment, and it will maximize economic development for our lovely city of Derby. So, I encourage adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't let the entire delegation of the House of Derby speak and not join them. I also am just lending my support to this proposal. I think that Derby has done an immense amount of work over the last few years to really move the city forward, and really welcoming the heart of the Housatonic Valley and the Naugatuck Valley, making it just a little bit nicer for everyone. Mg/ak 197 And so, I am greatly appreciative of the efforts that have been put into making this happen and urge my colleagues to support it. Derby has a lot of heart, and it also has a lot of potential, and this really brings it to the next step. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5583 as amended by House "A": Total number voting 150 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 1

Mg/ak 199 On page 36, Calendar 449, House Bill No. 5574, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF HAMDEN. Favorable Report of Government Oversight.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And this is a prior conveyance that we all did last year. And this is the thank you very much, may we have a little more time, please, amendment. It is a very Mg/ak 200 simple amendment to this prior conveyance that simply extends the time in which the town of Hamden would have to complete this conveyance by six months. And I move adoption.

All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This conveyance, I think the legislature has seen this several years now. And it is, as the good proponent said, extending it out. It's actually extending it out a year. And hopefully, they will do something this year and maybe won't have to do it next year. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I have no problems with the conveyance.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5574: Total number voting 149 Mg/ak 202 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

Page 36, Calendar 452, substitute for House Bill No. 5578, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE CHESPROCOTT HEALTH DISTRICT. Favorable Report of Government Oversight.

Mg/ak 203 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move for the acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO 4693. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I would be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4693, offered by Representative Dathan, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox et al. Mg/ak 204

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Basically, with this amendment, we are now changing things to whether if there's a sale for this property, it will be for fair market value, which should be very happy for all. Sorry. I move for adoption.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This amendment cleans up the conveyance. There was some opposition to this in committee, Mg/ak 205 but it appears that those issues have been worked out so that the conveyance complies with local zoning laws and regulations. And as the good vice chair said, will now be for fair market value. So, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Gucker.

Will you remark further on this bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seat? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take the tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally. Mg/ak 207

The bill passes as amended. Representative Lemar with the greatest announcement in the world.

You may. Mg/ak 208

Buy whatever you want with dad. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 474?

Mg/ak 209 Representative Gucker, you have the floor.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Gucker, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Carney.

Could the vice chair just show me where the change was made for fair market value as opposed to administrative costs? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Give me one second. Where is it in here? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The appraised language already allows for upgrades as needed.

Okay. No, I appreciate --

All righty. Hold on.

Stand at ease.

Representative Gucker.

Representative Carney?

Now Representative Carney.

Further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Will you remark further on this bill? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. Clerk will take the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 450?

Representative Osborne, you have the floor.

Mg/ak 216 The question before the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Osborne, you have the floor.

Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Carney.

Will you remark further on this bill? Will you remark further on this bill? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be Mg/ak 218 locked and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk, please announce the tally.

(gavel) The bill passes. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 451?

Representative Osborne. Representative Osborne.

Somebody else is going to.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move we pass this bill temporarily.

On page 36, Calendar 447, House Bill No. 5572, AN ACT CONVEYING A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE TOWN OF WOODBURY. Favorable Report of Government Oversight.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a conveyance in the town of Woodbury. And I have, or the Clerk has in his possession an amendment, LCO No. 4714. I would ask that the Clerk please call the amendment and that I be granted leave of chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4714, offered by Representative Dathan, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is a small parcel of land in the town of Woodbury which has been used for purposes of veteran war memorial in the past and monument. And the amendment to the underlying bill simply provides that the precise size and area of the parcel to be conveyed shall be determined by the Commissioner of Transportation. And I move adoption.

Pass the amendment, then I'll have a comment or two.

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. (gavel) Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Carney. Mg/ak 224

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Reddington-Hughes from the 66th.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Mg/ak 226 Standby. I pressed the lock button by mistake.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's give a round of applause to Kyle Woll for fixing our machine. (applause) Kyle Woll, ladies and gentlemen. All right.

House Bill 5572 as amended by House "A": Mg/ak 227 Total number voting 149 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

On page 36, Calendar 451, substitute for House Bill No. 5577, AN ACT AMENDING A CONVEYANCE OF A PARCEL OF LAND TO THE TOWN OF SOMERS. Favorable Report of Government Oversight.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, this is the amendment of a prior conveyance. And what it does, Mr. Speaker, is amend the prior conveyance requiring fair market value and substitutes administrative cost only. However, it also adds a restriction to the intended use of the parcel to limit it to certain purposes, including public safety. And there is a reverter to the state if it is used incorrectly. And I move adoption of the bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a good conveyance. This will allow the town of Somers to improve their public safety operations and help those in need in Somers and around the region. So, I would encourage folks to support this conveyance. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move adoption.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

House Bill 5577: Total number voting 149 Mg/ak 231 Necessary for passage 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for an introduction. We know that we spend a lot of hours up here, and we know we're spending way too much time when our family members come up to find us. And we don't know that they're coming, but they come up to say hello. I would love to introduce my much younger sister, Dawn Miles, who is up here with the nurses and also with Nuvance for, I guess, what, a few more hours before they become a new Mg/ak 232 hospital, and her coworker, Rachel Cipani. They work with the community health department. I would love to give a round of applause and a warm welcome to the House of Representatives. (applause)

Page 36, Calendar 448, substitute for House Bill No. 5573, AN ACT CONVEYING A PARCEL OF STATE LAND TO THE CITY OF TORRINGTON. Favorable report of Government Oversight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Mg/ak 233

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a small parcel of land in the city of Torrington. And there is an amendment, which is LCO No. 4964. And I cannot find my amendment script. There we go. And I ask that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize. I ask that you also call the amendment before I summarize it.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 4964 offered by Representative Dathan, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox. Mg/ak 234

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a three-word amendment. And actually, two words amendment. And the purpose here, Mr. Speaker, is that there is going to be the addition of this property to the city of Torrington for the purposes of open space for recreational purposes. And the amendment simply inserts the word 'open space and' before the word relocating, and it adds two other lines as well. The purpose of this conveyance, which will be at administrative costs with a reverter to the state is simply for the trail usage in the city of Torrington. And I move adoption.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'll reserve a comment after the amendment passes.

Mg/ak 236 All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Carney.

Okay. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Mg/ak 237 Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take the tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) The House will stand at ease. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 455? Mg/ak 238

Representative Stafstrom.

Question before the chamber is acceptance of Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

Mg/ak 243 Will you remark further on the bill? Representative Fishbein from the 90th. You have the floor, sir.

I'm glad you're feeling better, sir.

Yes, sir. Mg/ak 245

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Mg/ak 252 Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom?

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom?

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4710, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A". Mg/ak 259

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there an objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Fishbein, you may proceed with summarization.

Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Stafstrom.

Mg/ak 261 Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato, you have the floor, ma'am.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Mg/ak 265 Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. Mg/ak 267

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on -- Representative DiGiovancarlo. Mg/ak 270

Representative Fishbein.

Representative DiGiovancarlo.

Will you remark on the amendment before us? Representative Howard from the 43rd. Will you remark further on the amendment before us. No. If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

Mg/ak 273 Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will please announce the tally.

The amendment fails. (gavel) Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Mg/ak 275 Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom. Mg/ak 276

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Stafstrom, Fishbein. Sorry.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom. Mg/ak 280

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Fishbein. Sorry. Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Mg/ak 282 Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Mg/ak 284 Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom. Mg/ak 285

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Fishbein.

Will the clerk please call LCO 4698, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "B"?

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is your objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Fishbein, you may proceed with summarization.

Question before the Chamber's on adoption of House Amendment Schedule "B". Will you remark on this amendment? Stafstrom.

Mg/ak 297 Representative Callahan.

Mg/ak 298 Will you remark further on amendment before us? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Fishbein.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Will you mark further on this amendment before us? Representative DiGiovancarlo.

Mg/ak 309 Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker, the way the statute is written right now as intentional, is that officer covered on -- or what is the difference, in your opinion, on they're ruling of intentional versus intentionally? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our law, particularly in the civil context, differentiates between negligent conduct and intentional conduct. So, I heard reference to say, there's a crowd of people and somebody accidentally knocks an officer, accidentally knocks someone down. That's negligence. That's not a tort, and it's not covered under the language of the bill before us. The only language that is covered, and I would say the word intentionally does already appear in the bill. So there's no reason to add the word intentionally twice. It already appears in the bill and says this only applies where there's an Mg/ak 310 intentional tort. So, the language in the original bill would not apply in that instance of a mob and the office charge in and accidentally knock somebody over. That's not accurate. The only way someone would be liable under this language is, again, if they actually intentionally hit someone, they intentionally knock someone over in order to stop them from taking the photo. Through you.

Thank you. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So any unintentional action by an officer is already covered in statute?

Mg/ak 311 Through you, Mr. Speaker. Under the underlying bill, unintentional actions by the officer would not be a grounds for liability against the officer. Through you.

Through you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the opponent of the amendment, just for my own clarity. I'm not a police officer, I'm not a lawyer. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So I have the impression or under the impression that all law enforcement have to wear a body camera. Would that be the evidence you're looking for to protect the officer or to protect the individual citizen? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Either one.

Right. There is an amendment. Mg/ak 313

So how do you determine the intentional? There's got to be some evidence. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. You're civilly in a court, and you allege intent, and you have to prove intent. So intent could be various. You could have a recording of the officer saying, I intend to block you. You could have testimony from somebody else who was at the scene that the officer said to them, I intend to interfere with my filming today. There are various ways that intent could be proven. I think we've already heard that it would be necessary for this Mg/ak 314 heightened loss of defenses to be employed. But nonetheless, intent is proven daily in our courts and various matters in various ways. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. Simplistically, I'm just saying if you see somebody intentionally push somebody, hit somebody, shoot somebody, that is evidence. I would think that's evidence in the court of law. That's all I'm saying. So, I think that would clear a lot of this up. I'm not speaking for or against the amendment, but to me, I believe all officers have to wear body cameras. So right there, that should clear a lot of this stuff up, I would think. Am I wrong? I don't know. I don't know who can answer. Maybe the chairman can answer that.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I think that a court would have to make a determination whether the conduct by the officer was intentional or negligent. If it's negligent conduct, then the officer is entitled to immunity, and the case wouldn't even get to trial. Frankly, it's only where the conduct is intentional. I think, certainly, whatever evidence is presented would be used for that. It could be the body camera, it could be surveillance photo, it could be the actual recording itself that was on the phone that was being used, I think would all be admissible evidence to determine whether there was intent or negligence. Through you.

I appreciate that. As long as, obviously, the officers protected and individual or non-innocent citizen is protected, I Mg/ak 316 would think that's the best way to work in court. So I appreciate every time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard the dialogue between the Chairman and the Vice Chair of the Public Safety Committee, and it caused me some interest. As I understand the underlying language, the underlying language on the bill in line 697 and 704 says that when a police officer commits an intentional tort, they do something on purpose, that's wrong, while interfering with the recording or the taking of photographic digital image, then they lose their claim to immunity, or their ability to their entitlement to assert privilege or immunity. So, I guess all poses to the proponent of the amendment. Am I to understand that what he's trying to accomplish is that the underlying language says that if the officer commits an Mg/ak 317 intentional tort and the person and that interferes with the recording, the officer would lose their immunity? And I think what the proponent is trying to say is it requires intentional in both sections. So the tort is already intentionally on the line language, but in order to lose the immunity, the interruption of the recording also has to be intentional. Is that a correct understanding of the amendment? Through you.

Yes. That's to me? Mg/ak 318

Yes. And even though we look like Donny and Marie standing here with our microphones, and I don't know who is Donny and who's Marie, but I will affirm that that is the intent of the amendment. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I think we've been called worse. It's okay. I share his concern, because the way I read this, in criminal law, when we talk about certain things in search of seizure, we say things like a two-pronged test. I'm not an attorney, but we talk about two-pronged test. The way I read this, in order for a police officer to lose his immunity, he has to commit the Mg/ak 319 intentional tort, as the chairman outlined earlier, and be interfering with photographic or digital still image. So, if you have an individual who is recording, say, with a sunglass camera, and the police officer doesn't recognize that, they don't know that, they commit an intentional tort, which they're wrong about in the first place. But now, unbeknownst to them, it was interfering with the recording, and therefore, they lose their entitlement to assert any privilege or immunity for their torturous conduct. So, I think adding the intentional in the second part of this does make sense. And for that reason, I support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 320 The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "B": Total number voting 149 Necessary for adoption 75 Those voting Yea 49 Those voting Nay 100 Absent not voting 2 Mg/ak 321

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, moving on -- well, before I do that, withdrawn, I guess a note for the tech reviser bill in the future, line 700. I believe it should state, instead of pursuant to, it should say in violation of. We don't require battery. We find that if one batters another, it would be in violation of our statutes. And I believe the use of the clause pursuant to would be improper, and it should be replaced with in violation of. But moving on from there, Mr. Speaker, section 11, through you, Mr. Speaker, what does section 11 do?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, section 11 limits the circumstances under which a federal officer, employer, agent has Mg/ak 322 immunity when prosecuted for an offense based on an action taken under the color of law. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And by what authority do we have to control what federal officers do or what they have within our borders? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This would be immunities with respect to a state prosecution. Of course, we can't impact whether federal officers prosecuted under federal law, but certainly, say, a federal officer committed manslaughter, as that term is defined under Connecticut law, and was prosecuted Mg/ak 323 for that offense in a state court in Connecticut, they would not be able to claim immunity in that prosecution. Through you.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I do thank the chairman for his clarity there, although not drafted as such, because it merely says prosecution for an offense, which there are federal offenses and there are state offenses. I do appreciate the clarity from the chairman that this only applies to state offenses. However, it deals with immunity taken under the color of federal law. So, how do we, as the state of Connecticut, in any way, shape, or form, affect a federal agent's immunity under federal law? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the way I read this is, again, so say we've got a prosecution under state law for a state law violation in a state courthouse, and the officer says, "Oh, well, wait a second, I can't have committed manslaughter in the state of Connecticut because I was acting under the color of federal law. There's some federal statute or some federal regulation or rule that allowed me to do what I did," that would not be an allowable defense in that state court proceeding. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the answer. I was nonresponsive. By what authority do we, as a state of Connecticut, in any way, shape, or form, control, dictate, or regulate the immunities that a federal agent has with regard to a federal offense? Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 325

Or a state offense.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I think I know where the proponent is going with this. He's trying to say we don't. I would say if he's referring to a federal offense that the officer is being prosecuted for, I would agree with him. With respect to a state offense, as I said before, I think the authority for that is the Connecticut Constitution and the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very much sure that our courts will weigh in on that issue. I very much disagree with regard to the position of the chair, but my job just to oppose. Moving on to section 12. What does section 12 do? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Section 12 of this bill creates a prohibitions on hiring of peace officers who have engaged in certain forms of malfeasance or serious misconduct. As the speaker knows, again, in the police accountability legislation, we set certain parameters for the rehiring of officers who were dismissed for certain offenses from one police department by Mg/ak 327 another. We are extending that to federal law enforcement here as well. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, moving on to section 13. What does section 13 do? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, sections 13 through 15 set various conditions and restrictions on how law enforcement agencies may use so-called ALPRs, Automatic License Plate Reading systems, and the data associated their way. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, is it fair to say that, generally, the retention period for ALPR data under this legislation is 21 days? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

With certain exceptions, that is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 329 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask, how did the legislation fall with regard to -- how did the 12 days come to be? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I think this might have been one of the most interesting debates of the session before the Judiciary Committee. It was one of those topics where the political spectrum is not a straight line, t tends to be circular, where, I think, certain folks, law enforcement came in and said we have a policy on thirty day retention period, which we'd like to retain. Other folks on the committee, I think, on both sides of the aisle said, that is far too long. We'd like it to be three days or seven days. And so, through various negotiations and with the wisdom of the upstairs Chamber, 21 days was set on as the right number. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 330

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, really, one of the biggest problems with the legislation is the fact the state of Connecticut is in effect saying to federal law enforcement, we don't want you within our borders. We don't want you enforcing federal law. We don't want you enforcing immigration law. And that's not something that I adopt. We heard initially in the opening remarks by the chairman about a campaign of fear. I don't fear. When I see someone on the sidewalk with a vest, I'm happy. They're enforcing the laws. And, unfortunately, we've gotten to a point that there needs to be enforcement. And for the state of Connecticut to do a pushback and say, "No, we're going to make it as difficult as possible, we're going to put as many hurdles in place as possible to make it more difficult for you,' it's just going to make the federal government work harder through our courts, through actions. Mg/ak 331 I heard, Mr. Speaker, that there was extraordinary support in committee. But I've also heard on other bills, Mr. Speaker, that the public hearing process is not a referendum. It doesn't really matter how many people actually put in testimony. You can't just count them. That doesn't do the balance. Because if that was the case, No Gun Bill would ever get passed in this Chamber. Just last session, we had a gun bill. 4,000 pieces against the legislation. When we got to the voting on the legislation, it's like, oh, that doesn't matter. But here today, we heard, oh, there was so much support in committee. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is mostly unenforceable. It most likely will be on the books, maybe a couple years, but it will not be enforceable. And one of the biggest problems with this situation, Mr. Speaker, is we should have more cooperation between federal law enforcement and our state and local law enforcement. And majority of this bill has to do with preventing it. I think the appropriate thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to expand it. And, therefore, Mr. Speaker, the clerk is in possession of an Mg/ak 332 amendment. It is LCO 4745. I ask that the clerk call the amendment, and I'd be given leave to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "C", LCO No. 4745, offered by Representative Candelaria.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, part of the problem right now with our law is an arrest of an individual for an A, Mg/ak 333 B, or C felony does not trigger a call to federal law enforcement, even if local or state law enforcement knows that the individual is here illegally. It is the conviction, if anything, that would trigger that communication. All the amendment does is it expands the A, B, or C felonies to include those situations where there can be communication between local law enforcement and the federal authorities. Mr. Speaker, the problem is, let's just say, very rural town in Connecticut this evening, house is broken into. There's a young lady, two kids, and they're, unfortunately, murdered. Police come to the scene, they find an individual who happens to be there, bloody clothes, weapon on the floor. Individual says, "I'm here illegally." We take him into custody. Under our law, our local and state law enforcement are precluded from calling the federal authorities. It's merely the arrest. I'm not saying that that individual should go into necessarily their custody, but the communication cannot happen under our law. That is not public policy that I support. Right now, in the state of Connecticut, an arrest for an A, B, or C felony, we are barred from communicating. I don't think that Mg/ak 334 helps public safety at all. Our federal laws are there for a reason. Our immigration laws are there for a reason. And, certainly, we've heard about these heinous crimes across the country. People coming back into this country, committing very serious crimes. Recently, there was one, I think a gentleman was in New Mexico. It was his fourth time. Came back to this country illegally, arrested for a violent crime, deported, go back to your homeland. Comes back, creates another violent crime, deported, go back to your homeland, keeps on happening. Here in Connecticut, just the arrest doesn't trigger anything. So the individual on, let's say, risk of injury to a minor, more than likely going to bail out. Now, you have somebody who has done something that is negatively impacting a child. One of the most precious things that we could have in this state, an innocent child, and they're out on bail, and they're here illegally, even though the local and state law enforcement knows this, that's not good public policy. That's not good for the safety and security of our residents. And, Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment, and I ask that when the vote be taken, that it be taken by roll. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 335

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the amendment before us. This is effectively a repeal of many of the key provisions of our Trust Act here in Connecticut, an act that I believe has been very useful in our state in ensuring those living in our state, that they can seek help when they need it. They can seek help when they're the victim of domestic violence. They can seek help when they need to seek process from an abusive landlord. They can seek help when they've been a victim of a crime. They can seek help when they have had an abusive spouse, etcetera. This would effectively repeal many of the key provisions of our Trust Act. We already have sufficient safeguards in place under the Trust Act, and a conviction for Mg/ak 336 these very crimes that the ranking member has mentioned are already carve outs under the existing Trust Act. Certainly, an individual who breaks into a home in rural Connecticut should be held accountable under Connecticut law, and is. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling that we would use our limited state resources to enforce federal law when we know we need our police officers working on investigating and stopping crime that is occurring here in the state of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the amendment is quite different than what we just heard. As I read to this amendment, I don't think it repeals the Trust Act at all. And I don't think it touches anybody who wants to commit to report a crime, is a victim of a crime, is a witness to a crime. What it Mg/ak 337 largely changes is that instead of the trigger for communication with ICE being a conviction, it is an arrest upon the finding of probable cause. And that means that what the amendment does is it doesn't have our state and local limited law enforcement, state and local resources, going out, doing the job of the Federal Immigration Authority, nor do I think they should. I agree with the chairman about that. But it allows the state and local law enforcement, who are already doing their job, to communicate with ICE the information that they have. On this topic of moving from arrest to conviction, I've heard it said that it's a concern of overdue process. And I would just like to address that very quickly. Under our laws in the state of Connecticut, specifically in 46b-38b, if an individual, American citizen, lives in Connecticut somewhere, born and raised in Connecticut, ancestors came over on the Mayflower, regular US citizen, is arrested for a domestic violence offense upon finding a probable cause, according to that statute, any firearms that that person owns that are in plain view are seized from them. Mg/ak 338 Their right to possess firearms, those particular firearms, under our statutes, their right afforded to them in the US and Connecticut Constitution alike, is revoked based solely upon an arrest and a finding of probable cause. In almost every single one of those cases, that individual is then arraigned in court on the next available court date, and a protective order is issued based upon that finding of probable cause with no conviction. And that individual's rights to posses firearm is gone. That's an existing law. That's how it happens every single day. And we do those things for good reason. I support those, and I support those because they make sense for public safety, that when they find a probable cause for violent crime, which domestic violence is from breach of peace to assault third all the way up, which isn't contemplated here, is it's a public safety issue, and that's why we do it. And we do that in other places too. For example, if you get arrested for DWI, your license is revoked for 24 hours based upon the officers finding a probable cause. Now, you don't have a right to drive. It's a privilege. Of course, I've ruled that many times, but the point is that you've lost something based Mg/ak 339 upon solely an arrest. And what we're talking about here is not taking away somebody's freedoms, not taking away their privileges, not taking away their rights, but simply communicating with another law enforcement agency. That's it. I support this amendment. I think it makes sense for public safety, and I think representing that this amendment targets anybody who has not been arrested upon the final probable cause for an A, B, or C felony is just inaccurate. I hope my colleagues will support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. I'm glad the ranking member brought this amendment forward. It was a part of a question that I had that I was going to address to the Chamber when I talked later. So I'll be able to address that concern and this issue now. And of course, my question was, as far as some Mg/ak 340 of the exceptions that we laid out in the amended Trust Act last year, I did see that it was referred to a conviction, as opposed to a charge. And I was a little surprised by that. I think even though it was only addressed a conviction, just for the audience so they can be aware, if local enforcement could and can still cooperate with ICE if the individual is convicted of a sexual offense, second and third degree sexual assault, enticing or sexually exploiting a minor, possession of child sexual abuse material, crimes against children, injury or risk of injury to a child, second degree, and other child endangerment offenses. There's also offenses dealing with violence and weapons, strangulation, second degree assault, burglary with a firearm, kidnapping, first and second-degree robbery, and then domestic and safety violations. Domestic violence, assault, and criminal violation of a protective order. But again, it's a conviction, not a charge. And so you have an individual, okay, an illegal alien who has already broken the law, and I know that individuals will constantly say, yes, but it's a civil offense. It's a civil offense. Mg/ak 341 It's a civil offense that can result in deportation. Okay? So, let's be clear. Just, yes, like a civil offense, if you get a ticket, or that's the way many people describe it, like a traffic ticket. Except with the traffic ticket, you don't get deported, do you? So, again, depending on your overstay, right, that's ultimately what can happen. And so this amendment here would change it to a charge, as opposed to a conviction. And some of these are pretty serious. I'm confused as to if somebody's getting charged again, due process, right? They're innocent until proven guilty. And that goes for the same if they are, of course, here illegally, and then they get detained, right? The chair listed off a bunch of individuals who were detained, and I know at least some of them. I'm not familiar with every single instance, but they were released. And, of course, I do think that due process is an important part. But here we have somebody who has broken federal law, and now they're breaking state law. There's a pattern here, right? Is this somebody that we don't want cooperation with? Right? We just want to put them back out on the street immediately. We've been doing that. And last I checked, we have multiple offenses. Mg/ak 342 We have other individuals. Somebody who ran somebody over, stolen cars, with multiple offenses, right? Running somebody over in New Britain. One thing after another. But I do want to make aware for some of these individuals who have gotten released, right? Thank God we do have federal authorities that are enforcing law, and that is no attack on our local authorities who, of course, they don't want to lose their house, they don't want to be sued. I think they're put in a difficult position. And I know myself and many of us others in this room, or at least myself, have tried to facilitate and help our federal authorities in carrying out their duties. But there's a list on the department, Homeland Security Department of Justice website of individuals, various individuals from across the country who have been arrested, charged, deported. Connecticut has over 10 pages of individuals, but there's over 3,000 pages of individuals. So, some of the individuals in Connecticut, I know, actually, it was four individuals down in Danbury who, I believe ,they were trafficking minors arrested, right? They were trafficking minors, and that that was allowed to go on for months and months, and nothing was done. But I Mg/ak 343 encourage everybody to go on that website. Juan Perez-Barahona arrested in Brooklyn, Connecticut; sexual assault, neglect of a child, molestation of a minor. Kedwin Gutierrez arrested in Danbury; possession of narcotics, money laundering, cocaine possession. Mario Roano, arrested in Waterbury; illegal reentry, homicide. Alaa Allouz, arrested in Somers; violation of a court order, probation violation, domestic violence, cruelty towards a child. Cardia Powell, this is a female, arrested in Hartford; larceny. Elvin Martinez, arrested in Hartford. Crimes; assault, aggravated assault, weapon offense, aggravated assault with a gun and carrying a prohibited weapon. Lucio Campos arrested in Brooklyn, Connecticut. The crime; procuring for a prostitute who is a minor. Francisco Soto, Danbury. His crime; selling synthetic narcotics. Robert Perez, arrested in Brooklyn; aggravated assault on a family and nonfamily member. Carlos Pinzon, arrested in Somers; burglary and larceny. Raj White, arrested in Hartford; violation of a court order, burglary. Fernando Arenas, Hartford; driving under the influence. Luis Guerrero, arrested in Danbury. Crimes; drug trafficking. Mg/ak 344 Luis Tapia, arrested in Suffield; violation of a court order, aggravated assault, strong-arm assault. Nathaniel Sterling Jr, arrested in Manchester; sexual assault. Ricardo Barker, arrested in Enfield. His crime; robbery, evidence destroying. Jonathan Bravo-Barreto, carrying a prohibited weapon, arrested in Enfield. Neglect of a child, cruelty of a child, burglary, sex assault, sodomy of a girl with strong-arm, and a probation violation. Yasmani Lara, arrested in Berlin; violation of a court order and burglary. Daniel Reyes, Danbury, arrested for kidnapping. Gabrielle Kuna, arrested in Waterbury. Crimes; rioting, interfering with an officer, escape from custody, robbery, larceny. Firoz Patel, arrested in Danbury, arrested for fraud, money laundering. And then there's Neville Swaby, arrested in Hartford for marijuana possession. I'm not sure how that works considering it's legal here. Columbia. This individual is from Columbia arrested in Danbury, Ivan Geraldo, cocaine with intent to sell. Another individual, Oscar Bellar, arrested in Somers, arrested for aggravated assault. A lot of these crimes, again, they're charges, but there's pages and pages. Many don't have just one Mg/ak 345 charge, there's several charges. There's several charges, and they're living next to you, next to you. Like Juan Hernandez, larceny, arrested in Danbury. This individual, other individual from Albania, Dritton, arrested in Danbury; illegal reentry, burglary, forced entry of a nonresidents. Francisco Granada, arrested in Danbury; smuggling aliens, conspiracy. Kevin Solis, arrested in Danbury; drug possession, dangerous drugs, opium trafficking. Jorge Tello, arrested in Enfield; cruelty towards a child, driving under the influence. Mr. Goel arrested in Danbury; obstructing justice, fraud. Some of these are offenses that wouldn't be covered under the Trust Act, and yet, those are all individuals again who are illegal aliens and who are committing other crimes. More money laundering seems to be common. It seems to be common in Danbury and -- well, I've seen mostly Danbury. But, again, I've got a few 100 names here, and that's just Connecticut. Okay? I didn't pull up hundreds of individuals from other states, if not thousands. I'm not going to read every name from every other state. But I encourage you to go through those pages and see the individuals. And I think this amendment, I think, it's a Mg/ak 346 good amendment. I think we're keeping our streets safe, we're keeping individuals safe by this amendment. I don't think we're waiting for a full conviction, waiting to go through the process. A lot of these individuals are let out on bail. So, if they're not going back, many, for the various INS hearings and appointments, do you think they're going to show up for one of these charges and those hearings? Probably not. But we let them go, right? That's why we have so many individuals fearful of walking at night. Hartford, right? I hear time and time again on the radio, almost every day that there's been a shooting in Hartford. And, of course, I always hear from individuals that, well, Americans commit crimes at a higher percentage than illegal aliens. I know I've heard that many times argued. However, if they weren't allowed to come in, then that crime rate would be zero. So, I never really understood that argument. But again, Mr. Speaker, I do think this is a very good amendment. Again, we're looking at people who are charged, but again, I think this is a well-thought-out amendment. I think it, again, also includes family violence crimes, but it also includes all class A, B, or C felony offenses. Mg/ak 347 Because, ultimately, we have an individual here, not only charged, but also illegally crossing and/or overstaying their visa. So, really, we're not on the first crime here, we're on the second crime. So, for that, Mr. Speaker, I do support this amendment, and I do encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, few questions for the opponent.

Mg/ak 348 Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard about repealing portions of the Trust Act. If the good opponent of the amendment could point us to where he believes the amendment repeals portions of the Trust Act, it would be helpful. Through you.

To the opponent.

I know. I'm the proponent, he would be the opponent. He stood up and spoke against the amendment. I should procedurally have the opportunity to ask him questions about the representations that he's made. So, I've asked to ask questions of the opponent of the amendment. Mg/ak 349

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear, I think, procedurally, I'm not sure that I'm obligated to respond to questions on someone else's amendment. I just want to make that clear for the record. But out of my respect and friendship with the ranking member, I'm happy to engage on this some, but I just just want to make clear for purposes. My point is that, whether it was sometimes the sessions run together on me, I believe it was last regular session, we strengthened certain provisions of the Trust Act. I think what this amendment would do is, in full or in part, roll back what we did in session just last year, and therefore, it is a repealing of certain protections that are currently embedded within the Trust Act. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, first of all, I want to deal with the procedure. Certainly, the chair of the committee puts himself in a position in response to the amendment to make certain representations to the body, which is his role as leadership of the committee. Perhaps I could have addressed him as the proponent of the underlying bill, and that would have been something that would have happened when the item came out originally. But, presently, we're on the amendment. We are debating the amendment. So, certainly, if a representation is made to the body, then due process would say that the body, this side of the aisle, would have the ability to ask questions, just as he would have the ability to ask me as the proponent. So, if that's not clear, perhaps we can get a decision from on high, but I do appreciate the answer. And the answer essentially corrects the misrepresentations that were made initially in opposition. The amendment that's Mg/ak 351 before us does not repeal any portion of the Trust Act. So, those that have not read the amendment, you now know it's not a strike-all. It doesn't get rid of the Trust Act and supplant this in place. It adds to the provisions of the Trust Act, which allow for communication. And all the amendment does is add to the arrest for A, B, or C felonies. When we look at our penal code, Mr. Speaker, we have some very serious, in particular, Class B felonies. Doing bad things to 13-year-old children is a bad Class B felony. Grooming children and then engaging in a sexual act with a 12- year-old, a very serious offense here. And what the amendment does, it is to allow somebody who's arrested for those crimes, many other crimes, murder, manslaughter with a firearm, things like that, for a communication to be made, we have this individual, they've been arrested, let the federal government do their thing. So, if we're looking to protect those individuals, that's one thing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we're looking to protect individuals that are doing these things, and then, excuse me, get arrested for these things. That's one thing. I'm not looking to protect those individuals. I'm looking for communication Mg/ak 352 between the feds, the local and state law enforcement, and that's what the amendment does. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members to the Chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "C": Total number voting 148 Necessary for adoption 75 Those voting Yea 60 Those voting Nay 88 Absent not voting 3

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I'm going to have any questions for the good chair, at least at this point as I go. But I do want to mention to the Chamber something that is bothersome to me. In 2013, those of us who were here passed the initial version or original version of the Trust Act. And I Mg/ak 354 remember the good chair at that time, Jerry Fox of Judiciary, we negotiated the bill, and it was a really good bipartisan bill. It was unanimous out of the House, and we established a cooperation with ICE that it was satisfactory to everyone in the building, in the House and the Senate. And I see my good colleague from the 110th nodding. He remembers it was deeply negotiated. And if I may just read, Mr. Speaker, the seven categories that were utilized, as far as the procedure for law enforcement officers to follow, if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker.

So the seven categories under which in carrying out a civil immigration detainer regarding a person in their custody, they would not release the person if they determine -- so, in other words, if local police arrest somebody or find somebody, they get them, they wouldn't release them if they've been convicted Mg/ak 355 of any felony, A, B, C, or D, they would not be released without talking to ICE. If they were subject to a pending criminal charge in Connecticut where bond has not been posted, that was negotiated. So, if they didn't post a bond, they could be referred to ICE. If they had an outstanding warrant, arrest warrant in Connecticut, if they were identified by Department of Corrections as a known gang member in the National Crime Information Center database, if they were identified as a possible match in federal terrorist screening, number 5. Number 6, if they were subject to a final deportation or removal order, number 6, or number 7, if they presented unacceptable risk to public safety. So, those were the seven things that, on a bipartisan basis, we found, as a body, reasonable to keep our communities safe and encourage those who weren't here legally to utilize the court system without fear of retribution. And guess what, 13 years ago, it worked. We didn't have any problems with ICE. All right? This protected those who are vulnerable, who may not be here legally, but they were abiding by the law. Mg/ak 356 It got the most dangerous people off the streets, and our local and state law enforcement cooperated with our federal officials. It worked. Then, unfortunately, in 2019, despite bipartisan opposition, so it wasn't just those on the side of the aisle, despite bipartisan opposition, we began the quest, in my humble opinion, of attacking our law enforcement, both in the state and in the federal government. And after we passed the revisions to the bipartisan Trust Act that was working and that everybody in this building agreed to, we passed a partisan bill that was bipartisanly opposed. And our state police had a draft General Notice 1905 that not only hampered our federal law enforcement, but also hampered our state law enforcement, and made our citizens, I would submit to you, less safe. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a portion of General Notice 19, dated December 14th, 2019, if I may, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 357 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, based on the passing of Public Act 1920 and 1923, law enforcement officers were prohibited from arresting or detaining an individual pursuant to immigration detainer unless the detainer is accompanied by a warrant, the individual's been convicted of a Class A or B felony. So, in other words, if you were convicted of a C or D felony, which C and D felonies, manslaughter, second degree, abuse of an elderly, assault on a public safety personnel, they couldn't be detained. Or if the individual was identified as a possible match in a federal terror screening. So that, they kept. They were also prevented from spending time while working, communicating with ICE, federal officials. They weren't allowed to do it. They had to do it in writing, and they had to give advance notice in writing to the person who they were detaining and a lawyer if they were represented. It's late. We've been at this a long time. I know the good chair has been answering a lot of questions. I don't have any questions for him. We all agree we don't want federal officials raiding our schools. That hasn't happened. What's happening in Connecticut, we're preventing our local law enforcement from coordinating with ICE and working with ICE, making their job harder and Mg/ak 358 making them come into our communities when they don't want to. They wouldn't have to. If we cooperate with them, they would not be having to do this. We wouldn't see the mess that's in Minneapolis. We're creating a bad atmosphere for our law enforcement. I truly believe there's there's certainly blame to go with our federal officials. ICE has made mistakes. They have made mistakes. I'm not disputing that. We are not making the jobs of our law enforcement officers, locally and federally, any easier with this legislation, and we're not making our citizens any safer. We're making it much more difficult, and we're creating more problems, and we are creating a less safe environment for not only our citizens but those that are here illegally. We have systematically seen and passed laws in this building, handicapping and handcuffing, not literally, but figuratively, our law enforcement officers. And one of the biggest things, I think, that we have yet to fix with our Police Accountability Bill from 2020 is the fact that we don't allow for an interlocutory appeal before trial. Mg/ak 359 Now, most of the people in the building are not familiar with that process. I've litigated hundreds, if not a thousand, 1983 actions in my time as a lawyer over the last 30-some odd years representing municipal state police. And essentially, over simplification of it, and I will admit that to the good chair. But, basically, what qualified immunity does is if the officer acts reasonably in his mind under the circumstances of the time, he can be immune from prosecution or liability civilly. So, as long as you're acting in what you believe to be under the color of law properly at the time as a police officer, you don't have to go through a jury trial. Even if you were wrong, if it was an honest mistake, the court can say, you know what, yes, you were wrong, you made a mistake, but it wasn't intentional, and we're going to knock out this lawsuit. What we did in 2020 with the Police Accountability Bill is we told police, if the judge decides in the trial court, decides you're not entitled to immunity, it used to be you could appeal that to an appellate court. In 2020, we said, no, you can't appeal that until after a jury trial. So, you're going to put a police officer through a jury trial even if he's entitled immunity, and the court later finds it's true. Mg/ak 360 In federal court, it happens regularly. The court says, you know what? He was acting reasonably on the circumstances in his mind, and he's entitled immunity. And the court kicks it out. In our 2020 Police Accountability Bill, we eliminate that possibility. You can't get out under immunity if the trial judge rules against you by going to appellate court until after the trial. And our good officers and towns don't want to go through trials. Mr. Speaker, the clerk has an amendment. It is LCO 4704. I would please ask that you have the clerk call it, and I'd be allowed to summarize. 4704.

House Amendment Schedule "D", LCO No. 4704, offered by Representative Fishbein and Representative Howard.

One second, sir. Thank you. Representative O'Dea. You're anxious, aren't you?

That was 10 hours ago. The Representative seeks to leave the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative O'Dea, you may proceed with summarization.

You're welcome, Representative. The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "D". Will you remark on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Stafstrom.

Mr. Speaker?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just a brief response. President Obama was known as the Deporter in Chief, just for the record. When Hillary Clinton ran for president, she had the same policies. If you were here illegally, you had two options; become legal or leave. Those were the good old days. Now, I want to make it easier for people to become legal. I truly do. We need to do more. That's the federal government. Again, you've heard me say this many times; our federal government has let us down. But by refusing to cooperate with our federal government, we are exposing our residents to danger. We don't want that fight going on in our streets. And by protecting the criminals with C and D felonies and not being able to communicate with ICE, we're only making our streets less safe. As far as the comment about the flood of lawsuits, I will say, while there hasn't been a flood, I think the quote was wazoo, there has been an inflation in payouts of settlements. So, town's insurance rates have gone up, and what we used to be able to settle a case for for a few thousand dollars, costs a Mg/ak 367 lot more now to settle. So, I hear my good colleague, good chair from Bridgeport, but this -- You know why we're not seeing a flood of the lawsuits? Because our officers, in respect to them, I used to teach at the academy, the use of force, they are not actively policing the way they used to. They are literally trained to avoid getting themselves in a jam and say, you know what? Call the detectives after the murder and have them figure it out. And there's been an increase in accents. We have not protected our police or stood by behind our police. So, I respect the good opinions and statements by my Chair of Judiciary, but this is a good amendment, ought to pass. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 368 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I was going to say actually something very similar to what my good colleague said. I know that, up until this year, major immigration reform really hasn't occurred since 1996. So, for the most part, minus different work visas and changes relating to that, a lot of the immigration laws have not changed. But I agree with my colleague. I get calls and comments every day. And I've talked to police officers themselves, they will not engage. They will not go after the kids weaving in between in the cars. Anything like that, that involves actual going after a criminal, they won't deal with it. That's why there hasn't been the flood of incidents, as the good Representative mentioned. As far as taking houses, he's right. There haven't been incidents where officers have been sued and their houses have been taken because they simply deed the house to their spouses or somebody else. Why? Because I do these deeds every day. I've done hundreds of them. And other attorneys I've talked to have done the same thing. They just take the house out of their name, and that way, they can't be sued and their house can't be taken. Mg/ak 369 It's unfortunate that we've tied the hands of our officers from doing their job again. The pattern in this Chamber and in this building seems to be protecting criminals over and over again. And not only protecting criminals, but ignoring victims. Victims don't have exceptions. Similar to the landlord bill that we've done, and I know some other bills in in Judiciary that we've done, victims, of course, are ignored. And, again, the lack of enforcement and tying of hands of our officers is something that's put us into the situation that we're in today and the incidents, and constant fear that people I know live in every day. So I do support this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, Members of the Chamber.

House Amendment Schedule "D": Total number voting 149 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 62 Those voting Nay 87 Absent not voting 2 Mg/ak 371

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening. Great to see you. A couple of quick questions for the proponent of the bill, if I may.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Section 6 of the bill speaks to oppose policy. And so is it the intent that the legislation that will allow the Judicial Branch to make its own rules and policies regarding name tags and badges for its peace officers so long as they're compliant with the spirit of the bill? Is that a accurate understanding and intent? Through you. Mg/ak 372

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Howard.

Representative Stafstrom.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate those sort of clarifying questions. Section 2 of the bill talks about the Attorney General taking action based on a policy. Through you to the good chairman, whose interpretation of the policy are we talking about in section 2? It begins in line 40. I'm trying to understand how we can take action for deprivation of rights based on a policy because it would seem to me that -- well, I'll ask that question. How can we do that? Through you.

Mg/ak 374 Through you, Mr. Speaker. This section here extends existing law with respect to the attorney general's discretionary enforcement authority in bringing an action for a civil rights violation. It hereby just expressly includes the term "an established policy." I would argue, I think the Attorney General probably already has this authority under its investigatory authority, but we're making that clear in this language. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, how can one determine that a policy subjects or causes to be subjected other persons to deprivation of rights, privileges, and immunities? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. So say there was a municipality that had a policy that said we are going to instruct our police officers to pull over any car we see driving down a street where there's a Black driver, that would be a violation of civil rights. This would allow the Attorney General's office to bring a action to enjoying that type of policy. Through you.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. Now, I'm trying to go a little bit in order if I can, just to try to make things a bit easier for both of us. In section 3, we redefine, for purposes of that section, peace officer. So, throughout much of the statutes, peace officer refers to as defined in 53a-3. And in here, instead of doing that, we're creating a different definition of peace officer. And I'm curious as to why that is. Through you. Mg/ak 376

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is the provision of the bill that refers to the Inspector General's ability to investigate where there is the use of force that results in death, and the idea is to broadly define peace officer for that limited purpose to allow the inspector general's office to be the one to investigate the use of force that results in death if that force was used by a federal officer. So, under current law, if the state police or a local police department, uses force that results in death, it's clear under Connecticut law that the Inspector General would be the one to investigate that. Under, I think, existing law, say there was a use of force that resulted in death in, let's take, Bridgeport, and that that force was used by an FBI agent or an ICE agent or whatever, I think under existing law, that potential violation of the policy and maybe crime, if it rises Mg/ak 377 to that level, would be conducted by the Bridgeport State's Attorney. Well, the Bridgeport State's Attorney's office, really, is not in the business of investigating use of force by officers. That's what the Inspector General does. They've got dedicated inspectors, they've got staff. And so the thought is, if you allow that type of instance to be investigated by the Inspector General's office, instead of the local state's attorneys, you're going to get a fairer and more expeditious review and outcome. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure I completely agree with that because under 53a-3 of the General Statutes, peace officer, as defined, does include federal agents. It includes any federal agent that is empowered to enforce federal narcotics laws. So, FBI would fall under that, as defined. Mg/ak 378 But I do agree with what, I think, I heard, which is this is really intended to make sure that a use of force that would be investigated by the Inspector General in the state had it been done by a state police officer, a local police officer, or a federal agent who is empowered to enforce the Title 21 of the U.S. Code, would also include federal immigration authorities because some are not empowered to do that. So, what I think I'm hearing is that what we're trying to do is to make sure that if a federal immigration authority, an ICE agent in Connecticut, uses deadly physical force or force that results in death, it would fall under the purview of our Inspector General, just like every other law enforcement officer. Is that what I heard? Through you.

I'll agree with that characterization. Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 379

Thank you. And can the good chair explain, if we're going to include those federal immigration officers for that purpose, why are we not including them in the definition of 53a-3 so that they'll be considered law enforcement officers throughout the statutes? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I think where we define law enforcement elsewhere, we either wouldn't want to or can't subject ICE officers to certain provisions. So, for example, I don't know that the state has the authority to require that an ICE agent operating within our state borders become post- Mg/ak 380 certified, for example. So I think this was supposed to be very narrowly drawn to just include those use of force instances. But, again, because what the Inspector General is doing is he's looking to determine whether state law is violated. Take an instance in like we saw on the streets of Minnesota, right? If something like that happened in Connecticut, the Inspector General would be the one to have to determine whether a homicide or manslaughter was committed under our state law. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That answer is a little confusing because a peace officer, as defined in 53a-3, is used throughout the criminal justice statutes. Post-certified officers are contemplated as police officers, as defined in 72-94. So, I just don't understand that, because what we've done, like, we don't require FBI officers to get post-certified. We don't require DEA officers, United States Postal Service Inspectors, etc., to get Mg/ak 381 post-certified, but they all fall under the definition 53a-3. All of them. Right now, as drafted in current law, 53a-3 will not include federal immigration authorities. So, it seems like what we're doing -- and it's important to know this, too. Assault on a peace officer is within the criminal justice statutes, as defined within the same chapter. Interfering with a peace officer is within the same statute. So, it seems to me what we're doing is we've been very careful to say a federal immigration authority acting in Connecticut, if they use force, they're a police officer as we think about it. They're a law enforcement officer, a peace officer for the purpose of being investigated. But if somebody assaults them, it's just a regular assault. They don't count as a peace officer. If somebody interferes with them under 53a-167a, it doesn't count as interfering with an officer because they're not defined there. It seems that this legislation was very careful to do something that I talk about all the time. We say all the time, we hold police officers to a higher standard. And I always say that's a half a sentence. And the rest of the sentence is when Mg/ak 382 they did something wrong. Because when they're not doing something wrong, we don't hold them to any higher standard. We do in many places in the statute, but in society, we don't. And now we don't in the statute here. So we're saying in this statute now that if a federal law enforcement or federal immigration authority, very specifically, who is not empowered to enforce Title 21 of the US code, comes here and uses deadly physical force or force resulting in death, they are a police officer for purposes of being investigated by the inspector general. But if somebody assaults them in the performance of their duties, they're not. If somebody interferes with them in the performance of their duties, they're not. That seems to be unfair, and it seems to be targeted on one end. And that happens in Section 3. And Mr. Speaker, speaking of ICE and federal immigration authorities, that seems to be what we've heard about today. When the proponent legislation came out, that's what he talked about. Now, I've seen some of the videos that he referenced and some of the other colleagues have referenced, and it causes me concern. I've seen actions that I don't condone, that I wouldn't engage in, and I wouldn't tolerate in officers in my vicinity Mg/ak 383 ever. But I also know that since 2020, state and local law enforcement in the state of Connecticut have worked tirelessly from post to the police chiefs, to the officers on the road, to try to earn the trust of the people of state of Connecticut. And I think in large part, they've done a good job. They've worked on different trainings. They've adjusted policies. And I have police officers, police chiefs, police administrators say, hey, can you guys give us a break for one session? Can you just give us a break? And I think the intent here, as we've heard, is to address the federal immigration authorities and what they're doing. And you know what, Mr. Speaker, the federal government is its own entity. I care about protecting the people of the state of Connecticut. As you heard me say earlier on an amendment, I care about protecting people of the state of Connecticut who are here trying to find a better life, committing no crime that -- or if they become a victim, they can feel comfortable going to the police department without immigration being called on them. I support all those things, and I continue to support those things. And the amendments that come from this side of the aisle relevant to that speaks to that and says, all we're ever trying Mg/ak 384 to do is protect public safety. Somebody who comes here in violation of federal immigration law or remains here because they're trying to work in some capacity in the state of Connecticut to better their life for them and their family, they got my support. I'm happy to help any way I can, and I don't want anybody scooping them up. I got no problem saying that. Well, what I do have interest in -- and I can't control ICE to the degree that I could tell ICE what to do. ICE operates with federal authority enforcing federal laws, and I don't create those here. But I have great interest in our state and local law enforcement because that's what part of our job here in the legislature, is to create laws, policies, et cetera, for the state of Connecticut, which includes state and local police officers. And I don't see the need, In fact, I know there's not a need to include state and local police officers in all of this bill. And there are things in here that create some ambiguity. The hour is late. I don't want to have a significant back and forth with the chairman about it, but Section 6 and 7 specifically speak to all police officers. Mg/ak 385 If that section's about masks and those protected areas are narrowed to the Federal Immigration Authority, okay. Doesn't affect my state and local cops. We have a situation in the state of Connecticut that police chiefs have come to the public safety committee for a couple of years now and say we're at a critical point with recruitment and retention, and it's only going to get worse in 2027 because of attrition, especially in our state police. And the chairman of the Public Safety Committee and I and the vice chair and, of course, our Senate colleagues, have been working hard on that. In fact, the governor himself put forward legislation we got out of Public Safety to try to recruit more police officers. But when more legislation continues to come out of here that targets state and local law enforcement because we're frustrated with what ICE is doing, is categorically unfair. It sends a negative message to them, to those who are aspiring for that profession, to their families, et cetera. Now, I remind my colleagues that we ask our police officers to do things that most people couldn't do, and it becomes troublesome. Like my mom will say to me, well, nothing ever Mg/ak 386 bothers Greg. That's not true. Things do bother me. But I see so much bad things that little things at home don't bother me. I'm quoted saying that my mom gets upset because my brother was 15 minutes late to Easter. Well, that's not a big deal. We see trauma in the hundreds to one over all the police officers, and nobody can fix that. There's no piece of legislation we can run here that's going to stop police officers from experiencing trauma. And by the way, the legislatures recognize that. I don't know of another profession in this state that is statutorily mandated to have a behavioral health examination every five years because of the mental language that goes on. We can't fix that. Police officers have to go to these scenes. They have to do these things. But for goodness sakes, when they lay their worry heads to bed at night, shouldn't they be able to close their eyes saying, hey, the people of Connecticut are behind me? They shouldn't have to go to bed and say, hey, people of Connecticut are upset with ICE and are taken out on me. And that's how folks feel. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I think we could do something here to help. And in fact, if we can, I would appreciate it Mg/ak 387 because it's 8:15? And if we can do this, my work here is done, and I can sit down and be quiet through the rest of the bill. The Clerk is in possession of amendments LCO 4990. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule E, LCO Number 4990 offered by Representative Fishbein, Representative Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's quite simple. It takes Section 6, 7 of the bill. The new language regarding masks, et cetera. I don't want to read it or throw it all, and the the protected places and the detention in protected places, and it narrows it down to the federal immigration authority and leaves our state and local law enforcement out of the bill. Police officers have come to me multiple times and said, hey, we're not doing these things. Leave us be. If you want to make it about ICE, make it about ICE. They've come to me and they said things like, well, look, you and your colleagues, me and my colleagues, like, I do this stuff, you are using the frustration that people have about the tactics of ICE as leverage to take it out on the rest of us. Please stop. So here it is. If it's truly about ICE and their tactics and not trying to take a swipe at state and local law enforcement, my colleagues will support this amendment, and I hope they do. I would ask them to vote be taken taken by role. Thank you,Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 389

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do need to oppose the amendment. I think, first, there's the procedural issue of the amendment, which is that my understanding of the law in this area is that it would be facially unconstitutional for us to apply the mask ban and the prohibition on arrests just to federal law enforcement and not equally apply that to state and local law enforcement. So I think if we were to adopt this amendment, it would effectively nullify the underlying mask ban in this bill and would effectively nullify the protected places language, which essentially guts two of the main provisions of the bill. So I need to oppose it on that ground. Mg/ak 390 Also though, Mr. Speaker, I would submit, I don't see this as a swipe at law enforcement. In fact, with respect to Section 7, which just deals with civil arrests, I'm not aware of very many instances in our state where a local police officer is effectuating a civil arrest at all, let alone effectuating a civil arrest in a church or in a hospital or in a school. But to the extent they are, they shouldn't be. It's just that simple. They shouldn't be. With respect to the mask piece, again, we haven't seen the videos of police officers in our state dressed in full masks and tactical gear, jumping out of black SUVs and ripping people off the streets of Bridgeport or Hartford. But to the extent they were to try to do that, I'd submit they shouldn't. And I'd submit we should put in statute to prevent that from happening. There's a lot of caveats to the mask ban in here. Certainly, officers can conceal their identity for undercover purposes. They can wear an n 95 for medical purposes, et cetera. There's a whole list of exceptions. But if it really is those situations where someone is doing it for tactical reasons, it should stop. So for those both for the procedural reason and the Mg/ak 391 underlying policy reason, I do oppose the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For me, this raises an interesting point. Let me start by saying though that I do find it interesting that the chair of the Judiciary Committee references actually what is a decision and finding in the Ninth Circuit case, where there was found to be discrimination based on the application to federal agents, but not local law enforcement. But ignores the supremacy clause argument and finding that was applied also in that case. I'm not sure why there's application of one and recognition of one and not the other, considering this bill is factually the same as the bill that was passed in California. But, ultimately, Mg/ak 392 that does create an issue for me in supporting this amendment based on that assertion. So I would like to ask the proponent of the amendment. I'm looking at the first page, Section 6, is -- let's say, lines three through nine. Is that new language in this amendment? And is it different than the original bill as far as the laying out of the different types of facial coverings? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To my colleague from Bristol, I think it's best to answer it this way. The language in the underlying bill is all new language. So what the language in the amendment does is it changes that new language to only apply to federal immigration authorities and not peace officers as we've defined them under the inspector general statute. Through you.

Would this change the application to local law enforcement and other peace officers in this amendment as far as the application goes? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the amendment were to pass, then the prohibitors all say in Section 6, 7 of the underlying bill, would not apply to anybody except for federal immigration authority. Through you.

Mg/ak 394 And would that apply to all federal different types of departments of federal agents or would it just be one specific type? Through you.

It would be through the Federal Immigration Authority as defined in 54-192h. My colleague can find that there, but generally, it's ICE. I will note for my colleague, through you, Mr. Speaker, that throughout that statute in 54-192h, it's been law in Connecticut and amended several times. It does refer to prohibitions directly related to federal immigration authority that currently exist. So I think this is similar to that, and that we're creating law for that federal immigration authority as is defined in the statute. Through you.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for that clarification. And I have no further questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of this amendment. It's not a secret to anybody in here, and it's definitely not a secret to the people who oppose me in my local town, but my daughter is a state trooper. She's a resident trooper in town, and we just passed a law in here, or a bill in here recently, that bans the state police to be at the polls. Now, as I mentioned then, as somebody who has literally had their life threatened because I'm a Republican and a woman in this state, I always took great comfort in the fact that the Mg/ak 396 police would mull around outside the election hall. And I'm really trying to figure out how we're going to have a special election or a referendum that is at the library, which is within 30 feet of where -- maybe 50 feet of where our resident troopers offices are in our town. So if they can't be 250 feet near the poles, I don't know what they're going to do for the whole day, and how they're not going to be able to access their office for the whole day of an election. I agree with Representative Howard. When I first came up here, it was time of the police accountability bill. And I can tell you, not even from my daughter, because we try to not talk about her work, because let me tell you, it's terrifying. It's absolutely terrifying as a mother. She's a brilliant woman. Brilliant. And she became a state trooper. I could have thought of 25 other different things I would have pictured for this kid, but she was determined since the age of five this is what she wanted to do. So because of that, I have troopers that call me all the time, text me all the time, reach out to me about stuff. And I can tell you they do not feel supported by the people in this building at all. They do not. Mg/ak 397 They see the laws that are attempted, even the ones that are attempted to be passed about pursuit and them being liable for all kinds of different things. And then they get yelled at when something happens and they don't get somebody off the roads, or there's so many accidents and this and that. It's like that little dig all the time. There's always something that gets thrown in that little dig. For that election law that we had, could have very easily said, federal officers can't be within 250 feet of a poll. But we had to go the full nine yards and say no police can be 250 feet from a pole. That is then, once again, saying to our state troopers who -- my first year up here, I said, we have the highest trained troopers in the country. We have the longest training for them, and there was only one state who was two hours ahead of us for continuing education, which I think that might not be the case anymore. We could have narrowed it and said federal officers can't be there. But instead, we did the whole kit and caboodle. And now here, we constantly have to go out there and tell them, no. We trust you. We want you to do your job. I think if this Mg/ak 398 chamber, rightfully so, is disgusted by what happened in Minneapolis, that was Minneapolis. That's not happening here. That was a theme when we went after the state police here in Connecticut. It wasn't the state police that were doing it here. We talk about no cases have been brought and this and that. And every case that the IG has gone off or has shown that our police and our troopers are doing their job, doing it well. We're punishing them for stuff that is happening in other places. If this bill is about ICE in masks and all of the other things, it's about ICE. So let's keep it about that. Let's not loop in our troopers. Let's not loop in our police and say, once again, somebody else is doing something, and we don't like it. So we're just going to round you all up and loop you all together and punish all of you. I think at some point in this chamber, all sides of the aisle need to stand up for the people who are there when you call 911. So again, I stand in strong support of this amendment, and I hope to see that we have bipartisan support for it, sir. Thank you. Mg/ak 399

chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

Mg/ak 400 House Amendment Schedule E, as amended: Total number voting 150 Necessary for passage 76 Those voting Yea 62 Those voting Nay 88 Absent not voting 1

On the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Just clarifying, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. I'm not sure why the amendment failed except it didn't get enough votes, obviously, but I did hear that there was a constitutionality question. And because we're singling out federal officers, so that's a concern. We certainly don't want to pass anything unconstitutional. I appreciate the good chair's remarks, and I rely on his experience and education. In Section 11, although we do just that, we say in any prosecution for an offense, no federal officer shall have immunity, et cetera. Just federal officers. But don't do it for anybody else, just federal officers. We heard that's unconstitutional, and I don't want to pass anything unconstitutional, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO four 4697. I would ask for the Clerk to please call the amendment and I be allowed leave of the chamber to sammarize.

House Amendment Schedule F, LCO Number 4697 offered by Representative Fishbien, Representative Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, summarization may take longer than actually reading it. It's two lines that strike Section 11. That's it. The impetus to that is we just heard that, if you we can't pass a law that makes it specific to federal immigration authorities and federal officers, it has to Mg/ak 403 include everybody. This section 11 doesn't. It says just federal officers. So the Section 11, I think, should probably come out. I don't want to pass any unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption, and I ask them that the vote be taken taken by roll call. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there may be a misunderstanding by the proponent of the amendment. So Section 11, what that does is it says a federal officer cannot rely on federal immunity in defense of a state prosecution. A state or local police officer never has federal immunity. Mg/ak 404 So this section of the bill does apply evenly to federal, state, and local offices. What this section does is actually, it puts federal officers on the same plane as state and local officers. Let me try it again because it's a little confusing. State prosecution. State officer is charged with manslaughter. A state or local officer under existing law, they can't say, well, I killed that person, but it's okay because there's some federal law or federal policy that says it's okay that I did that. They can't do that. They can't do that under existing law. But if a federal officer does that, they can say there's this federal policy, whatever, and I'm relying on that for immunity. No. What Section 11 does in the underlying bill is basically puts everybody on the same playing field. So if the concern that the proponent of the amendment has is making sure every officer, whether it be federal, state, or local, are put on the same playing field, you should vote for the underlying bill, and you should vote against the underlying amendment as I'm going to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Procedurally, I'm not really sure what the precedent is at this point. We've had representations in opposition to the amendment. The offer to the body is that this section deals with just federal immunity. However, it doesn't distinguish. It doesn't say federal immunity. It says immunity. Therefore, any immunity would apply to this. So I do disagree with the representation of the individual who spoke, which I can't call the opponent to the amendment because that isn't recognized by whatever the powers that be. But that's clearly what the language says. I rise in support of the amendment, and I think it either needs to be fixed or removed to clarify that. It's one of the things that we talked about during my exchange. If federal law enforcement officials that have certain levels of immunity, Mg/ak 406 there's nothing the state of Connecticut can do to those things. No matter what it feels about federal law enforcement. So I do rise in support of the amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, Mr. Speaker. No need. I was just going to reference federal laws in line seven 707. But good.

Mg/ak 407 Foxed in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now I can get up and say whatever I want. He can't retort. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that in line seven 707, it deals with the action, not the immunity. The immunity appears above that. So the representation to the body that 707 has something to do with federal immunity, just not true. Anything else you want me to say about him at this point? Anyway, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule F: Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 59 Those voting Nay 91 Absent not voting 1

Mg/ak 409 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Trying my good colleague's attention, the proponent of the bill, to Section 7. Now, I heard him reference earlier on our previous amendment that police officers shall not arrest people for civil offenses really anywhere. I tend to agree. I don't think state and local law enforcement officers in our state arrest people for civil offenses. However, to my good colleague, in line 560, it actually talks about detain. So detain is a little bit different than arrest. Actually, it's a lot different than arrest. Police officers in the course of their business don't always know what they're dealing with ahead of time. Things get reported as one thing, and it turns out it's something totally different. I used to work with an old police officer. I hope he's not watching. I just call him old. An old police officer when I first started, and he used to say that the police department is the miscellaneous department. We handle whatever nobody else does because we're open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And in large part, that hasn't much changed. People need help. They need assistance. Courts aren't open. Social services isn't open. They call the police. We got a long Mg/ak 410 conversation about that. But it happens fairly often that police officers get called to civil matters, property line disputes, landlord-tenant disputes, things like that. And sometimes they get called in because the average person doesn't know about the law and what's civil and what's criminal. And they think the police can force all laws, but really the police generally only enforce criminal laws, and some others, but generally, that. There's laws. There's civil offenses within our statutes that -- the breaches of landlord-tenant acts that are violations of law. They're civil offenses. Police officers don't enforce those. They don't arrest people for things like that. They often document it. They often become involved in it by accident, incidentally because somebody calls and says my landlord was trespassing at my house. Okay. So you left in a red car. Police officer sees him, pulls him over, happens to be in a cemetery or the nearby school or playground or one of the so-called protected areas here in the bill, and detains that person in a car stop, only to find out later it was a civil offense. So now we have a police officer who has detained somebody with a good faith belief that it was a criminal act, but it Mg/ak 411 turns out to be civil. Language doesn't account for that. It doesn't account for an officer acting in a good faith belief. It says if he does that, he's going to get sued. I don't know that that's should be the way. Again, if we had taken this and gone just down to ICE, doesn't matter. It's fine. Don't care. But it isn't. We've rejected that. We said we're going to include all police officers. Well, as defined at 52-77a, not to be confused at 53a- 3. We've made that distinction on purpose. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important for our police officers are going out trying to do the best job they can. My colleague from New Canaan said earlier, we're putting a lot on our police officers to try to sift through all this stuff. In addition to everything else they have going on in their life, including being down significantly in numbers. So hopefully, we can hit a carve out for our state and local cops are trying to do the right thing. I hope that we can at least do that. Please. The Clerk is in possession of amendment, Mr. Speaker, LCO 4696. I would ask for the Clerk to please call the amendment, and I be allowed leave of the chamber to summarize. Mg/ak 412

LCO 4696, designated House G and offered by Representatives Fishbein and Howard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment strikes subsection B of Section 7, and makes a minor change that gives the officer some grace and some reprieve if they had a good faith belief at the time of the detention that the individual was a subject of a criminal investigation. Mg/ak 413 So in other words, you got a police officer who gets a report of criminal act. The officer believes it to be a criminal act. They're looking for that vehicle. They pull the vehicle over. It happens to be a protected area, but they had a good faith belief at the time of the detention that it was a criminal act, then they're relieved of the responsibility contemplated in legislation. I think it's fair. I think it's treating our police officers fairly when they're doing the right thing. Instead of just holding them to a higher standard when they did it wrong, let's recognize the job that they have to do. Things are happening very quickly, and that they should have a reasonable opportunity to be free from lawsuits, et cetera, if they can have a good faith belief for that time. They were doing the best they can, trying to do the right thing. I think that's reasonable. All my colleagues will agree with me. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption. I ask that the vote to be taken by roll. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of, again, boring my colleagues with a slight diatribe into constitutional law, we have to discuss the Fourth Amendment now. Fourth Amendment, the United States Constitution, especially as interpreted by the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio, says that a police officer cannot detain someone unless they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed criminal activity. So in order to detain someone, whether that be our police or a police officer someplace else, they have a to have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Doesn't have to be found. In the example that the ranking member of the Public Safety Committee gives is assuming an officer has a reasonable and Mg/ak 415 articulable suspicion that someone has committed a crime. They briefly detain them. It turns out that the individual had not committed a crime, but maybe had committed a civil offense, they would not be liable under the bill before us because they had that reasonable, articulable suspicion of an underlying crime, which is why they conducted the Terry stop from the get go. I believe the protection that the ranking member is looking for is already baked into constitutional law and into the statute. I think putting the word good faith belief in here, would create a huge unintended consequence, Mr. Speaker, in that there is very well-defined criminal procedure law in our state and at the federal level of what reasonable or articulable suspicion means, how that is a lower standard than probable cause, how that applies in these types of circumstances. Good faith belief is not defined. It's not consistent with Fourth Amendment precedent, and I actually think would put the police officer in a more untenable position of trying to determine what good faith belief is or is not than the current Terry standard that already applies. So for that reason, I'd ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mg/ak 416

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We start talking about torts and all these other things and they're losing. But the Fourth Amendment and the Terry v. Ohio, that one I know. I feel the need to say this. If a police officer pull somebody over in violation of the Fourth Amendment and a violation of the president set and confirmed multiple times, under Terry v. Ohio, they've already done something wrong. The legislation before us says that they cannot detain that person near these protected or in these protected areas. What I'm trying to do is say -- let me see better about legislation before says. It says they can't detain in these sectors for civil offense. What I'm trying to do is say, in the example that I gave, a police officer gets a report that a disturbance has occurred or Mg/ak 417 there was a trespass, that is reason martigable suspicion to stop the vehicle that is leaving. That's been case law over and over again. Stops that officer. Under current law, the officer stops that person. That is unreasonable detention under the Constitution. That case has been heard numerous times. At the end of that, in fact, the determination is made that there was no criminal offense. The reasonable suspicion the officer had at the time makes a stop legal. Under current law, everything's good to go. If this passes, that detention in the protected area, if the officer happened to stop the car, becomes for only a civil offense, and I think it opens the officer to liability under this. And that's why I want to make sure that for civil purposes, which I think we use good faith police in other places as well, if the court agrees that the detention was legal on the Fourth Amendment based on what the officer knew, and at the time, the officer had no way of knowing it was only a civil offense, that he's relieved liability. That's what they're intending to do here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The house of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

LCO 4696 designated House G: Mg/ak 419 Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 61 Those voting Nay 89 Absent not voting 1

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another question for the proponent. Looking at Section 9, this bill came to the Judiciary Committee. I don't remember that section being there. I tried to look around some of the other bills. I know we tend to put those together sometime. Can the chairman tell me where Section 9 came Mg/ak 420 from, if it was from another bill, or how it ended up in a strike-all. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, sir. I'm sure he appreciates the compliment, but through you to the good Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm not that good looking. Mr. Speaker, this is a provision that relates to training with respect to law enforcement hours. I believe it is something that was not necessarily part of the underlying bill, but certainly during the public hearing process, we heard testimony from folks related to the lack of training by certain Mg/ak 421 federal law enforcement officers, particularly ICE officers. And I believe it was a provision that was added by the Senate. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this particular language or any language substantially similar to this was not heard at public hearing. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe this exact language had a hearing, but as I said, we did have a very robust public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on immigration topics. And one of the topics that was brought up repeatedly by Mg/ak 422 folks at the hearing was the lack of training by law enforcement officers. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the chairman know if either the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association or police officer stands in training council has weighed in on this language. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they've specifically weighed in, but certainly, we have been in touch with them with respect to a number of provisions of this bill. Mg/ak 423 And at least I have not heard vocal opposition to this particular provision. Through you.

Well, through you, has he heard support from them on this piece?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is the minimum of 480 hours of training was not just ripped out of thin air, but that that is actually the standard the post currently uses. So I think the thought here was to match up to current standards, and that's why that number was chosen. So I don't Mg/ak 424 know that that support, but I think it is a codification of existing policy with respect to post. Through you.

All right. My concern with this language is this. Again, I'll say we have a recruitment retention problem in the state of Connecticut for law enforcement. I think we've all agreed on that. We also have an affordability crisis for municipalities. If I've heard that once I've heard 10,000 times in the last three months. My concern is that this is going to negatively impact both of those things, and allow me to explain. Currently, what happens, state of Connecticut, is a young man or young woman, no one to serve you that young, but decides I would like to be a police officer. They apply to be a police officer. They're hired by municipality. We're in Hartford, say Hartford. The city of Hartford then sends that individual to a police academy. Mg/ak 425 Most police officers go to the police academy in Meriden, the post academy. Others bigger departments have their own. But the point is they go through training. The post training is nearly 1,000 hours because we have some of the most highly trained police officers here in the state of Connecticut in the country with the highest professional standards in the country, state of Connecticut. That's what we have. So the city Hartford, for example, sends that officer to the academy, say, for five or six months. For that five or six months, that police officer is getting paid. They're getting benefits. And they're not providing a measurable service to the community at that moment in time because they're in their training. Point of that is it costs the city a lot of money to get a police officer trained and on the road. Because after the academy is done, it's three months of field training before they can actually start filling shifts. All the while, while that's going on, there's open shifts in that municipality that are being backfilled by overtime, or maybe they're low, whatever the case may be. Mg/ak 426 The point is, it costs money. Also, people with families, like the the academy in Meriden is a boarding academy. You live there Monday through Friday. Well, if you have a wife or husband, some young children, that's difficult. So one of the best ways that our police departments in the state of Connecticut can increase their roles in the most cost-effective and efficient way is to attract what we call lateral officers that are police officers in other places, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and they come here. And it's great for the municipality and the officer when that happens. And the reason is because they don't have to go to that whole academy. So the officer loves it. They don't have to be away from their family five months, five days a week, including at night. And the municipality wins because that person's an already certified police officer, but they're not certified to our standards. So we run it through some comparative compliance. We take a look at their training records. What have they been trained in? How have they been trained? How does that marry up to what we do here in Connecticut? And then we say, okay. These are the places where you need to get trained in. And they Mg/ak 427 do a modified training, generally takes two, three, maybe four weeks instead of five months. They get the Connecticut training in conjunction with their previous training, and they get on the road. Got another officer on the road quicker. It's cost- effective to the municipality. It's attractive to lateral officers. We see that a lot, Mr. Speaker. Military police officers, veterans coming out of the military police, and they come here. And we take a look at their military training. Don't take long. It's all the same. Post knows what it looks like. And they tell them, hey, you're an you're an MP. These are things you need to hit. Couple of months, bam. You're done. You're on the road. Municipality wins. The veteran wins. Now, what this legislation does is it says that the council, being the post council, cannot waive any portion of the 1,000 hours that post requires unless the training that the individual had has at least 480 hours of training. So what that basically does is it means when a military police officer retires from the army or the navy, wherever they're in, and they want to become a police officer, the municipality has to pay now to send them to the entire academy, and that officer has to Mg/ak 428 leave his family again for five or six months while he completes the academy. That's going to be the effect of this. Now, I think that the effect of this or the intent is to say, look, we don't like what ICE is doing. So we don't want any ICE training to count towards becoming a police officer. If you're leaving ICE and you're coming here to be a cop, we want you trained 1,000 hours our way. I think that's what it's trying to do, but but I'm not sure. Maybe I'll pose that to the proponent. Is that what we're trying to do here, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do here is make sure that anyone who's coming in, whether that be an ICE officer or any other officer who's been trained in another jurisdiction coming into Connecticut, has received Mg/ak 429 substantially equivalent training of at least 480 hours. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So under current law, and the way that post currently does this, is we already made the comparison. So I'm trying to determine where this number of 480 came from. If the chairman could help me out, where did that number 480 come from? Oh, through you. Sorry.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I believe the 480 is something that post already requires with respect to certain transfers in. Through you. Mg/ak 430

Mr. Speaker, that's not my understanding. And if it was, it would be current law. I think the ICE training is 480 hours. That's what I think. This is what becomes tough when we don't have the public hearing on language like this or substantially similar because I have two amendments. I can't run both at the same time, and I don't want to negotiate with the chairman here on the floor at 9:00 at night. But I'm left with no choice because I never saw this language until we got it in this strike call. I'm not going to run them both. I'm going to try to do one in the interest of efficiency. Because what I want to do is I want to run an amendment that basically eliminates ICE training from counting towards any of your Connecticut certification, but it allows our military police officers to count. That's what I'm going to try to strike here. And the Clerk is in possession of amendment, LCO Number 5004. I would ask for the Clerk to please Mg/ak 431 call the amendment and I be offered leave of the chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule H, LCO 5004, offered by Representative Fishbein, Representative Howard.

Thank you, Ms. Speaker. Quite simply, it changes Section 9 to strike what I think we're trying to do. I think what we're trying to do is say we don't like the tactics of ICE. We don't Mg/ak 432 like the training that the 10,000 ICE officers that have been hired in the last two years got. It doesn't meet Connecticut standards. So, therefore, if an ICE agent leaves that agency to come to be a police officer in Connecticut, they had to start from scratch. They have to learn everything from day 1 through day, whatever it is, 1,000 hours, all the Connecticut way. That's what this amendment will do. It'll, however, not box out our veterans that are military police officers that can use their less than 480 hours of relative training in that field, and they can get on the road faster in municipality. It'll save our municipalities money. It'll give our veterans immediate employment when they retire, and it'll benefit the limited ranks of law enforcement that we have in the state of Connecticut. I think that this amendment, Mr. Speaker, strikes a better balance. I'm doing my best in good faith to try to understand what the intent is here and try to strike that intent. So I'd move adoption. I would ask when the vote is taken, be taken by role. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mg/ak 433

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to oppose the amendment today, given certainly the late hour we are and where we are in the session. But I will say this, I am certainly happy to work with the ranking member of the Public Safety Committee on potential refinements going forward on language with respect to Connecticut National Guard, or military police if they are not currently receiving substantially equivalent training. I would think that at least some, if not all, the training that those officers are receiving is substantially equivalent to what post provides. But if it is not, then happy to work on that moving forward. But for today, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mg/ak 434

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of this amendment for men and women in the military. About 10 years ago, we did a MOS bill here for men and women that served in the military. They were qualified for different jobs, to come back to the states and do those jobs without going through two years of school because they've already done that. In the US military, when you're a military police officer or military police, you're trained not just for the US. You're trained to deal with people around the world for many different issues, many different conflicts, but also to deescalate issues. And that's the problem. ICE, I think, always had a good mission. I'm very disheartened what I've seen over the last year. So I do agree that they should have the same standards of Connecticut. And I've said it all the time. I want to live in a Mg/ak 435 country where I'll do the right thing. But this, for our men and women, is the right thing to do. I would argue, no disrespect to the local police, state police, they're probably trained at a much higher level. Like I said, they have to deal with issues around the whole world, embassies, diplomats, world leaders, civilizations that we can't really imagine, but they have to deal with this. So I do think it's a sensible amendment as long as they're qualified. If there's no cases against them, they should be assimilated into our local and state police. So I stand in support of this. And I want to thank the ranking member of Public Safety. I'm tired. Sorry. But thank you. I thank you for the good amendment. Thank you.

chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule H, as amended. Total number voting 150 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 58 Those voting Nay 92 Mg/ak 437 Absent not voting 1

I thought that one was going to pass. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the proponent of the of the bill another question? In line 1152 -- I'm just going to give my colleague a moment to get to line 1150 in the legislation. It talks about the policy needs to establish the distance described in Subdivision 5 of Sub D of Section 13. Can he explain to me what these distances are referring to? This is regarding the LPRs. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we go back to Section 13, D5, this is the distance from the certain premises which are enumerated in that section, including locations that provide gender-affirming health care services. Through you.

Thank you. I thank the chairman for helping me find that, the hour is late. My glasses are coming on and off. So am I to understand that we're trying to keep law enforcement or the -- shouldn't really be the officers so much as it is technology of theirs out of certain areas. Is that what we're trying to do there? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think what this is doing is it's saying that particularly with respect to the fixed LPRs, what distance should they be located away from these sensitive facilities. Obviously, there's going to have to be certain exceptions with respect to an LPR that may be mounted to a police car, et cetera, but that's going to be determined by post. For example, post may promulgate a policy that says, if the LPR is mounted to a police car, it can be within three feet of the building. But if it's mounted to a telephone pole, it has to be a 100 feet from the building. Through you.

Thank the good chairman for his answer. That's my recollection. I think I should say, I would like to commend the the chairs and the rankings of Judiciary Committee as well as Mg/ak 440 the CPCA and the ACLU or the chief proponents of the legislation on their continued good faith negotiations mediated or managed, if you will, by the ranking members and the chairs of the committee. I appreciate that ongoing work. What I don't like is this continued obsession with keeping police officers or police activity out of certain areas. And that was especially notable, as you heard one of my colleagues say earlier, in a bill that we passed earlier in session where we pass legislation that said that -- and I flagged it then, that in two of my towns, one of them, we do early voting in a community room within the police station. So for two weeks, it creates a problem because the officers come and go to their place of work within 250 feet of the polling location, which the language seems to prevent them from doing unless they get special permission from the moderator. My other town, the town halls directly next door to the police station where they do early voting at town hall. So it creates a problem. The other thing is, in that legislation, relevant to police officers and their proximity to certain protected areas and Mg/ak 441 locations, it said that a police officer can only go there off duty to vote or to express political expression. So if a police officer works in a town that he lives in and he's working day shift, and he expressed to be out at 4:00, and he's going to vote on his way home, and then the second shift person calls out sick and the officer gets ordered into work. So now he's on duty till midnight. Can't vote because he gets special permission. Superintendents going from school to school, he can swing in a vote while he's working. Town highway worker, swing in a vote while he's working. Postal worker, swing in a vote while he's working. The building inspector going around, he can swing in a vote while he's working. Everybody but the cops. Now, we've heard tonight that it's unconstitutional to have lost one group of people, everybody else. But we have that one. It also says in that same legislation, House Bill 5001, that police officers can go within 250 specifically when they're off duty and off duty with two specific purposes. One, to vote. Two, to express political expression. So my third town -- don't ever want to leave North Stonyton now. In my third town, the town's library is about a 150 feet away from the Mg/ak 442 building where they do early voting. So direct read of that language says an off duty police officer can't take his kid to a library for two weeks where early voting is going on. It's unconstitutional to treat anybody different. Oh, if that's the case, I think we fix it. We've heard it's unconstitutional. Let's take a shot at it. Let's fix it. You don't want a constitutional things to pass. Right, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, Clerk is in possession of amendment. It's LCO 5371. I would ask the Clerk to please call the amendment and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize my final amendment of the day.

House Amendment Schedule I, LCO Number 5371, offered by Representative Fishbein, Representative Howard. Mg/ak 443

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is my final amendment of the evening, and I certainly didn't want to leave out the former vice chair of the Judiciary Committee. What this amendment does is it fixes the three things I outlined. So in lines nine to 11 of the amendment, this amendment in this bill actually changed what we did in 5001. So it says that police officers can be within 250 feet and remain within their provided that their building is located within that same 250 feet. That alleviates a problem for early voting in Stonington. That alleviates problem for early voting in Leggett. The next thing that it does is it says that a police officer, off duty, can be within 250 feet of location provided Mg/ak 444 they're present at a place other than the election site. So that alleviates the library issue that I noted in North Stowington. It also allows an on duty police officer to go into a polling place provided that police officer is a registered voter there, and they're going there for the specific purpose to vote and leave. Now, we're treating everybody the same. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think if we're going to try to be the same anywhere, it ought to be in voting. Very important. Everybody has the opportunity to vote. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption, and I ask them the vote be taken and be taken by roll. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment, and this is something that the ranking of the Public Mg/ak 445 Safety Committee and I have discussed broadly. However, for several reasons, I don't think that this amendment does the trick. It's overbroad. And while I'm glad to continue discussing the issue with him so that we can find something that will address his concerns, I don't think this does it, and would undermine the underlying bill. And for all those reasons, I urge my colleagues reject the amendment.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support this. I probably have a question. But in North Haven, the 87th District, our police station is about 45 feet from one polling place and about 45 to 50 feet from our town hall, which you could have early voting in there. So how does that going to work? Are all our law Mg/ak 446 enforcement that most live in town and some vote at District 1 and many vote at the town hall during early voting. This will protect, give them the right to actually exercise their right. I did say I want no federal law enforcement out of polling places. I don't think it's appropriate. I feel it's just something I just can't accept. Law enforcement, of course, I think they should. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if it's a good proponent of the amendment or the chair of GAE. What about what happens in the North Haven police officers that work and live there? They're literally 45 feet from District 1 voting polling place. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, there's a variety of exceptions under the current bill. And specifically, first of all, if they obtain the permission of the moderator or the secretary of the state to be there, then they have the ability to be there Mg/ak 447 regardless of everything else in the bill. And so that's the main exception that that would apply. There are also exceptions for transiting in between for being at one's residence and being off duty. Certainly, it may be possible to clarify a piece of those, but I think that, ultimately, if you have a police building that's near a voting site, the moderator is going to give the local police the ability to be there, the permission to be there. And under those circumstances, they would have every right to be there, and the underlying bill would not affect them. Through you.

I appreciate that. I find it a little cumbersome for our law enforcement, but it is what it is. So what I think the amendment is trying to do is give those men and women the right to just go to work every day without getting permission from the Mg/ak 448 moderator, walk across street to go to the annex if they have to deliver something without the permission of the moderator. I believe that's what the amendment is trying to do. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that question was on the amendment, so perhaps Representative Howard would be a better person to answer it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you my colleagues for the dialogue. Yes. The amendment is seeking to do just that, is to create the legislation so that police officers don't have to get permission from a moderator to go to work. They don't have to Mg/ak 449 get permission from a moderator to vote. They don't have to get permission to a moderator to go to some place in their community that happens to be within 250 feet of polling place. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate that. One last thing. So every day for 14 days, does a moderator have to walk over to the North Haven Police Department in the town hall to get permission, or they just have to give it one time? Through Mr. Speaker.

Mg/ak 450 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, the moderator or the secretary of the state could give permission to an entire police agency for the entire voting period, just the one time.

Thank you. I'm done with my questioning, but I support the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, again, I find myself rising in support of this amendment. And I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, who I've had great many of conversations with, who know me, and I know them. Again, I want to reiterate Mg/ak 451 that for all of our elections, our special elections, we have a referendum coming up on May 5th. Our resident trooper's office is in the same building as our library. Literally the same building as the library ends, there is the resident trooper's office. So am I to understand then that a moderator has to give the police, the state troopers, permission to be in the office on the day of an election, sir? Through you.

I'm sorry. Could the Representative please repeat the question?

Mg/ak 452 Absolutely. Based off of what the good Representative just said, what you're saying is the bill that we passed out of here, then a moderator has to give permission for my resident troopers to actually go into the office and work that day. Sir, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the exceptions that would apply. The moderator or the secretary of the state could give the police agency, so the entire state police or that specific office the permission to go within the 250 feet. They obviously would have the exit and circumstances exception, a number of other exceptions that would apply. Through you.

Through you, sir. Could you maybe explain a little bit of how moderators get selected, who they are? And this is great power. So I'd like to understand a little bit about the moderator who would be able to make that determination that my literal resident troopers, all of them cannot come into the office for the day. Sir, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They're generally appointed by the local town registrars of the municipality. And in addition to the moderators, as I said, secretary of the state can instruct and order moderators or overrule moderators on certain matters, including this one. So if, for whatever reason, a moderator were recalcitrant, secretary of the state could instruct them as well. Through you. Mg/ak 454

So I would honestly think moderators are appointed by registrar's. Registrar's are political people. I know a whole heck of a lot of people who just don't like the police, not even mentioning the people in the building. Don't like the police. So a moderator gets to decide the safety on the day. And again, I guess I'm just confounded that we have a troop of police, their office, where they are. They have to get permission from a moderator who is not even an elected official, or his total could be totally partisan to come into work. Where are they supposed to go for the day, sir? I'll tell you. It's confounding to me. Is there not a way for us to just exempt them from this? Whether it's the secretary of state, you're again asking a political member, a political party who has their own political bias to determine whether or not an agency, that is an agency of the state of Connecticut, it is part of the executive branch here. They cannot come into work because of a law that we Mg/ak 455 passed. How do we write a law that says the police are not allowed to do that? Sir, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It's actually pretty much existing law because under existing Connecticut law, police may not go to the property of an election site without permission of the moderator. In fact, unless they're requested by the moderator. And so while this does extend it an additional number of feet, usually not that much because usually these election sites are on school property or something like that, which extends beyond 250 feet from the site. This is just a normal practice that happens every election period in our state. There's nothing changing here. Through you.

I will beg to differ on that just because, again, my state police go to work when we have elections, and they've been at the polls for us for many years just to make sure things go well. you know what, this is an existing law. I don't know how they're doing their job if now we're telling them they can't. But either way, I stand in support of this amendment. And again, I stand in support of our state and local police, and I think that this is something that we should all support. Thank you, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Speaker. How are you doing this evening?

You are outstanding, sir. Thank you so much for your work up there. I have a brief couple of comments. I don't want to be long, but on rare occasion, we hear things in this room that are two big words, are common sense. And one of the most uncommon things these days, Mr. Speaker, is common sense. We've heard some great amendments tonight, and I get it. Some of it falls on the political ear and political platform, but this -- why would we want to put more work on a moderator? I don't know if anyone in this room has been a moderator. I was head moderator in my town. Last thing I wanted to worry about is can my police come in? I have a lot of other stuff going on. Secretary of state's busy. I don't know if you've been around secretary of state during election time, Mr. Speaker. She's busy down there. The last thing she should have to worry about, we can do this very simple, very easy. It's not existing law. We've already been through that. Why don't we take a little common sense? Because all I can think of this entire time I'm Mg/ak 458 listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, I haven't said this much this year. What are we doing? This is common sense. It's very simple. We pass it now. We don't have to worry about bothering secretary of state, trying to get a hold of the moderator while they're trying to set up those moderators, underpaid, overworked, all over the place. Why don't we just do it here and do it now? We have people who have been in the moderator seat telling us. We have police officers telling us where they are. We have boots on the ground, real people telling us what's going on. Why don't we listen to the people who know what's going on, Mr. Speaker? It's a good bill. It's common sense. I really hope this doesn't fall under the political nonsense that we see around here. I thank the good proponent of this amendment. It's a solid piece of legislation. Let's just pass this one and get it through. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

House Amendment Schedule I, as amended: Total number voting 150 Mg/ak 460 Necessary for adoption 76 Those voting Yea 64 Those voting Nay 86 Absent not voting 1

Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Howard.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4748, which will be designated House Amendment Scheduled J.

The Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there Mg/ak 464 objection? Hearing none, Representative Howard, you may proceed with summarization.

Mg/ak 466 Thank you, Representative. The question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule J. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Howard, please prepare yourself. Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Howard. Mg/ak 467

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Howard.. Mg/ak 468

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Howard.

Representative Stafstrom. Mg/ak 470

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House? Will members please take your seats? The machine will be open. Mg/ak 471

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And the Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk will announce the tally.

The amendment fails. (gavel). Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Polletta.

Good evening, Representative.

You may proceed.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Polletta.

Representative Stafstrom.

Representative Polletta.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Ditria.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us. Will your remark further on the bill before us? Representative Callahan.

Mg/ak 490 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? Representative Hoxha.

You may proceed, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill before us? Will you remark further on the bill before us? If not -- Will the chamber please stand at ease?

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Prior to making my motion, I just want to make clear we're going to be ending our evening here tonight, but we will begin our day tomorrow with Mg/ak 493 the legislation that's on the board. And with that, I move we pass this bill temporarily.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Members missed votes as noted. And have a safe trip home, everybody. Thank you.

Mg/ak 494 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of list of members who missed votes and reasons why. Good night, everyone.

Thank you. I move we immediately transmit all items requiring further action to the Senate.

And I also move we adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.