CT House Floor Session — 2026-04-29

Yeah. Wake up. Good morning. Staff and guests, please rise and direct your attention to the dais, where Erica Thompson will lead us in prayer, our House Chaplain.

And we are now at a point in our session, with only a handful of days left, that retiring Members are gonna do the Pledge of Allegiance, not younger Members and by younger, I mean, recently elected Members. Representative Steinberg will lead us in a prayer. Our Chairman of the Energy and Technology Committee, a former Chair of the Public Health Committee, one of the class of 2010. There's not many of us left. He's always been able to speak his mind in a way that is respectful of his colleagues, and we're gonna miss our friend. And we'll have a chance next week to talk more about it, but please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, friend.

Any business on the Clerk's desk?

It's a nice clean desk, Mr. Clerk. Well done, team. Any announcements or introductions? Let's start with Representative Weir of the 55th, sir. How are you today? I think you have some friends in the Chamber.

You may proceed, sir. bc/rp 5

Can I ask who they beat in the state finals, Representative Weir? Who did they beat in the champions? It's always nice to have some other member be sad about their team loss. So, who did they beat in the finals? bc/rp 6

Oh, Joel Barlow. We'll give them a round of applause for making the finals, though. How's that? So, what a tremendous accomplishment. The tie, three times in four years. Our UConn men tried, got very close, but it really speaks to your dedication to what you do, to perfecting your craft. I'm sure there's a lot of late nights and difficult practices. So it really is a tremendous honor and will do you well in your future. And I wish you all a lot of luck and maybe back next year again. We're gonna make you start paying rent, though. You keep coming this often. So Representative Yaccarino of the 87th, you have some guests too, sir.

bc/rp 7 What do you want? You got a short mic. Maybe lengthening that in the off session for you?

You may proceed.

Thank you, Representative Yaccarino. And, and I do have to ask. I believe one of the cabinet members attends Renzulli Academy in Hartford. Is that correct? Which one? Is that you? My son, Jack, went to school there. He's a lot older now, but he enjoyed his time very much at Renzulli. So a special welcome to you too, young man. Okay?

Representative Biggins was?

Wow. You, you overcame despite those obstacles, it appears. That was teed up. I had to take that one. That was an easy one. Congratulations to all of you. I think I may be meeting with a couple of you in the back in a little bit. Representative Farrar of the 20th.

You may proceed, madam.

Thank you, Representative Farrar. And we'll note that Representative Exum, Representative Sanchez, and Senator Slap are also here, for the record. Thanks, everybody, and welcome to our friends from West Hartford public schools. Representative Shake of the 120th, I forgot to – no, no, no, no, no. Hey, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. We do not allow clapping in the Chamber unless it's after something. We don't just have spurts of enthusiasm. We have to have some decorum. So I forgot to wear red. I know. And I forgot to wear denim. I know. But you may proceed.

You may proceed.

Ditria. Thank you. And we are here today with a full sea of red behind me in honor of Connecticut Nurses Day. We have nurses who have joined us from all different parts of Connecticut who practice in a multitude of specialties in hospitals, community health centers, behavioral health, visiting nursing, home care, and more. And collectively, we have over one thousand years of experience in this Chamber, of nurses who work very hard every day, who deserve to be protected in the work that we do, and who every single day are doing everything that they can to make sure that our patients, therefore, all of our communities, are as safe and healthy as possible. And it is my esteemed pleasure to welcome the Connecticut Nurses back to the Chamber. bc/rp 13

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pretty confident nobody's gonna get up and clap after this one because it's largely housekeeping, but I will be refer Calendar 251 to the Appropriations Committee.

Feel free to clap for me. Thank you. bc/rp 14

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with the number of nurses that are here, it's probably not a good day to need to go to the emergency room. So keep that in mind. Rise for purposes of the dress down announcement.

bc/rp 15 Thank you, Representative Quinn. Dress down day Friday. I will do my best to remember that one. Representative Zawistowski of the 61st, you have the floor, madam.

Proceed madam.

Thank you, Representative. Let's go to Representative Veach of the 30th.

Good morning.

You may proceed, madam.

I'll tell you what, Rep. Let's --

Okay. bc/rp 18

And then we'll let your group come here, and we can better see them and recognize them. That make sense?

Because there's an endless supply of announcements or introductions today, so we're in no rush.

The Chairwoman of the Transportation Committee is back there. Representative Berger-Girvalo of Ridgefield, you have the floor, madam.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Representative. Appreciate those remarks. One on my end, we are joined here today by the Consulate General of Japan from Boston. And just so you know that we have three Japanese American societies in Connecticut, and there's a lot of bc/rp 21 coordination. These societies in working with the Consulate General of Boston have planted 250 Japanese cherry trees across Connecticut. It's quite an exciting effort. So if we could please welcome the Consulate-General of Japan from Boston. Thank you, Consulate-General Takahashi, for joining us today. It's a pleasure to see you again, and thanks for planting those beautiful trees. Alright. Let's go with Representative Gonzalez. Representative Gonzalez, it might have been an accident. I'm sensing it was an accident, so we'll, we'll, we'll move on. Representative Veach, let's go back to you, Representative Farrar.

Okay. I'll tell you what. bc/rp 22

I'm joined by Rep. Farrar here, who's our Ranking on the Internship Committee, and we have our 26 interns here.

Thank you. And I know there's a lot of work that goes into it, especially in the off session between you and Representative Farrar. Mackenzie Vallis, who's been our intern in our offices down there, she's been wonderful. She's had had the misfortune of sitting on many meetings. Ricky Baltimore asked a lot of questions because that were not that fun, but she was a tremendous asset to our team. We really appreciate her for the, the, the session here. Alright. Let's let them do a photo. Are there any more announcements or introductions? Last chance for a while probably. Representative Haddad chimes in. You have the floor, Mr. Chairman of the Higher ED Committee.

A round of applause, please. Thank you. It's always a pleasure to have the Ambassador here. I know this is a, a relationship Connecticut has had for a long time. My predecessor, Marie Kirkley-Bey, many of you know passed away last year, was a wonderful dedicated legislator, went to Taiwan over 10 times as part of this great relationship, and a lot of strong relationships remain. I would ask the Clerk of the House bc/rp 25 to please take Substitute House No. 34 and put it in the record, please. That is our Resolution again, No. 34, Substitute House Joint Resolution. It will be put into the record on this day, Wednesday, April 29. Thank you very much. It's nice to have you again here. Any more announcements or introductions? Last chance. If not, we'll get down to business. Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 302.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Representative Berger-Girvalo, the Chairwoman, you have the floor, madam. bc/rp 26

The question is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Let me remind folks, this bill was passed temporarily a couple days ago. So actually, the board that you see is already been amended. So we have 5464 as amended. It returns to our floor procedurally as it was taken off when it was passed temporarily. Madam, you may proceed and you can talk about summarization. I don't think we're really there. You've moved adoption. The bill is as amended and presented. I think we start the debate where we left off a couple days ago, madam.

bc/rp 27 Okay. Amendment LCO 4958. I asked the Clerk call it. I think we're marking this House "B". B. B as in boy. B as in bacon.

The Representative seeks lead of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Seeing no objection, you may proceed, madam.

bc/rp 28 Question’s on the amendment. Is there objection to adopting the amendment? Okay. So right now, we have House "B". We're gonna take a voice vote. If you have an objection, now is your time. If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please vote by saying aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were extensive remarks on the underlying bill. I have no further remarks unless there are questions to be answered.

Thank you. Yes. Until I arrived here with all those lots of people out there. Anyways, good morning, Mr. Speaker.

We, we talked a lot in this. I will be very brief on it. Hopefully everybody's taking a look. As the good Chairwoman said, it's one change with this Amendment "B". It strikes Section 15 as discussed. So just really quickly, I'm just gonna go over super quick. House Bill 5464 combines nine bills related to DoT. There's really no other changes. The one section, I apologize, is in section, sorry, referring to the encampments. If the good Chairwoman could just summarize briefly. bc/rp 30

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is now Section 26, and this bill was formally five or -- came in as House Bill 5325, AN ACT CONCERNING COORDINATED RESPONSE TO HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT. Okay. My question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good Chairwoman is, was this a request from the DoT to adopt this into statute? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 31 Through you, Mr. Speaker. This was not a request initially from the DoT. It came from advocates. However, we did work on the language with the DoT directly. This language is a result of putting onto paper the process that DoT has already been in practice of. They actually adopted these practices, updated their policy in March of this year. We are simply codifying their practices. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that's exactly what I'm hearing. The DoT put into writing around, I think it was March 27th, 28th, I don't have it in front of me, practices that it's a 14-day notice. Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the good Chairwoman, is the practice that is now in writing through the DoT, is that not working? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Per the Deputy Commissioner King who helped us write this language, the fourteen days is preferred because it does take fourteen days to get a HAZMAT team out to the site in order to safely clear the space. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But my question is, through this policy that was enacted, and I, I did find my paperwork here. Almost got it. It was March 26th, and this was put into written policy. And the DoT is currently, and it says, at least fourteen days. And according to DoT, if more time is needed, more time, they, they take it. So, why do we need to put this into statute if it's currently working in the DoT? Through you, Mr. Speaker. bc/rp 33

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is simply to ensure that DoT will not be pressured from any municipality to speed up the process, if requested by a municipality. But once again, I want to reiterate as we did the other night, this applies strictly to DoT properties and not to municipal properties. Municipalities are still free to do what they wish on their own spaces. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay. I need some clarification on that response, through you, Mr. Speaker. So I heard that the DoT doesn't want pressure from municipalities, but yet these are not bc/rp 34 municipal, municipal properties. Could the good Chairwoman clarify that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. If I'm understanding the question correctly, the pressure comes because a municipality has often reached out to DoT requesting this. DoT may not necessarily know that there is an encampment on their properties unless a municipal leader directs them to that. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And in the same section, but if, if we're gonna put this policy that DoT currently has, which it seems like it's working, but I, I'm hearing that it's not. Would bc/rp 35 by putting this into statute, would there be any flexibility for DoT moving forward once this gets -- if this is passed today? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure I heard the good Ranking Member's question something about flexibility.

No problem, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I may have not been clear. So my concern is, right now, the DoT has a policy. It's fourteen days. It's somewhat flexible, and they're able to get bc/rp 36 done what they need to do in a respectable way. I'm just gonna add that in, in a respectable manner.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so my question is if this bill is adopted as written, does that now limit the DoT's flexibility of what they're doing right, currently? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The DoT still has the right to decide whether or not a removal is an emergency decision. We bc/rp 37 have not removed that from them. So they do still have flexibility when in the case of safety, either to the humans that we're talking about here because they're too close to a rail or highway or, and also to infrastructure, DoT infrastructure, if there is any risk to that because of any of the encampment setup. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to sound repetitive, but I'm just gonna because I'm just trying to work this in my head. So how does this change based on the policy, the written policy that DoT put into place at the end of March. It is a written policy that they are utilizing by codifying this. What changes? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure I understand the question.

So, essentially, are we codifying into statute the policy that was written on March 26th through the DoT? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we are.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as I read this language to try to wrap my head around this, if, if, the good Chairwoman explain, it and I'm sorry, I don't have the line, let's see the line number. But it appears as I was reading this language that rest areas and train station and were they excluded from this bill? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They are specifically listed as the spaces that DoT can clear immediately. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just last on this, so we've extended the fourteen days. It was previously before this policy went into effect on March 26th. It was seventy-two hours. Why such a big increase when DoT has always been afforded the extra time to get to fourteen days? And now we're gonna put into policy fourteen days. I'm trying to phrase this so I'm not repetitive. Is the DoT going to be limited past the 14 days? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is no limitation beyond the fourteen days. The DoT expressed very clearly that the three days was very difficult for them to meet, and fourteen days is not only reasonable, but it is the most logical length of time. Through you. bc/rp 41

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just do have concerns with this section of this bill. I'll stop there with it, but I do have concerns on this part of the bill. The DoT put a working policy in place. This was not their request in the DoT agency. So, I'm gonna leave it at that that those are my concerns that we have a policy in place that DoT wrote just a matter of months, a month ago, and it appears to be working. So I'm just not sure why we have to now put into statute. Mr. Speaker, just one second. A lot of the rest of this bill, it really, after striking Section 15, just renumbers the sections. It clarifies some definitions with the transportation network companies. Those were safety concerns. And other than that, I'm gonna let my colleagues address any other questions they may have. I thank the good Chairwoman for her responses. And through you, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. bc/rp 42

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any questions for the Chairman of the Transportation Committee. I just want to reiterate what I reiterated during the last debate in that, I believe it was lines 1183, which might have changed now with the new amendment. But the fact that we're eliminating the option of having alternative fuels as a choice for municipalities when it comes to school buses is I was hoping to be altered in the new amendment, but was not so lucky. So, I will continue to be a no on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last time this bill came up, I made an impassioned plea for the poor people of this state that they be given additional time like the rich people of this state to transition their bus fleets. I was under the impression that that plea would be incorporated into this amendment. It was not. The distressed municipalities in this state, which are the municipalities that have the poorest people in this state have to come up with a plan to transition their buses six years before everybody else. That in my opinion, not only makes no sense, but is an insult to the people of my district and the people of the other distressed municipalities in this state. I truly did think that those working on this bill would consider that insult and remedy it. They have not. Under Section 25 of this bill, all of the poorest towns in the state need to figure out a way to replace their buses, many of which are decades old with very, very expensive alternative fuel buses. As I indicated when last this bill came up, there are distressed communities in this state whose entire municipal budget is $2 million. Let's say they have 10 buses to bring their kids to school. A half a million dollars apiece. That's up bc/rp 44 to you. Half a million times ten, it's $5 million. I mean, on a $2 million budget. And where's that gonna come from? Alright. Well, there's some money that might be thrown their way. But like all of these grant programs, we do a lot of promising, we don't do a lot of check writing. These towns are gonna get stuck paying for most of this. And then there's the additional maintenance. There's the additional infrastructure. Why can't we have the rich towns go first? Why can't we have Greenwich and Darien and all the rich towns in Southwestern Connecticut? Why don't they lead the charge? Why does it have to be all the little poor towns? Does anybody think that makes any sense? I certainly don't. I truly did believe that this was gonna be remedied. And since it hasn't been, I will have to make it my mission to make sure it gets remedied at some point. Unfortunately, I trusted that this would be fixed. Perhaps I was naive to think that the people of this Chamber truly understood the plight of the underprivileged in this state. Clearly, they do not. I certainly can't vote for this bill. It's going to put an incredible strain on the distressed communities in this state. They're specifically carved out in the bill for adverse bc/rp 45 treatment. It's like every other town has until 2035. But the distressed communities, the distressed municipalities, they only have till 2029. That's three years from now. So three years from now, little towns with five or six employees in the entire town have to figure out a way to change out their bus fleets. But the big municipalities with dozens of employees and hundreds of millions of dollars in their budget, full staffs, they have an extra six years to figure that out. Why? Why? Because we're told that distressed communities have worse air? Well, environmental justice communities may have worse air, but distressed communities are just poor. There's nothing about air in the definition of a distressed municipality. It's just they're poor. Therefore, they get saddled with a greater burden under this bill than every other municipality in the state. It's sad. It truly is. Thankfully, there's a little bit of time to change it. And I will do what I can to protect those poor municipalities, even though my colleagues on the other side really don't seem to care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple quick questions for the Chair of the Committee.

When it comes to the flex lanes, I know one of my districts, Danbury, is talking about doing that. I'm trying to understand how the cameras interact and, and how, how they're essential in determining whether they're gonna have a flex lane. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Excellent question because it could be a little bit confusing if you're just trying to read through the bill language. The flex lanes in Danbury specifically would be used in the breakdown lane. Now, in order to ensure that the breakdown lane is a safe space when it is a breakdown lane and not being used as a flex lane, the cameras would be there. There must be some level of enforcement in order to receive any of the federal grants or Connecticut would not qualify to be able to put in these flex lanes and thus reduce that, that really terrible traffic congestion that I know the good Representative has experienced in our corner of the state. So the cameras are strictly there as an enforcement measure, which would only be on when the lane is not being used as a flex lane. And these are actually the most stringent qualifications for the cameras. They would be in line with the work zone cameras, which the data is deleted after 30 days. The photo is only on the license plate. The license plate would be, as I said, that data would be deleted in thirty days, and the ticket goes to the registrar of the car, registrant. And it is a bc/rp 48 $75 fine, which is a significantly lower fine than would be if it were a live police officer issuing a ticket. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the answer. Just a couple more questions because I still try to understand. So, if any of you have driven in Massachusetts on 128 and you see Massachusetts drivers flying up in the flex lane, it comes as a shock to you sometimes because we don't do it. So this is a similar proposal, it seems. But how do we know and you may have just answered this, but how do you know if there's not a car pulled over, there's an emergency, someone changing a tire, and the flex lane is open. That's, that's kind of what I'm concerned about. How do, how do we know? Is that what the camera's used for? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes. So, the cameras would be there to ensure that there is no -- the cameras also are used to determine whether or not the flex, flex lane even needs to be turned on. It does monitor the traffic patterns as well. Forgive me for not mentioning that. So they would know if there was a car that was broken down in the lane and would be immediately closing the lane. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I read through it, and I'm not trying to sound like I didn't do my homework. But someone if I pull over and the flex lane's open and I blew out a tire, I'm wondering how quickly do I have to dive out the passenger side to make sure no one's in the flex lane coming up behind me? I'm bc/rp 50 wondering how they can do it that quickly to not put a breakdown motorist in, in danger. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The safety determinations are going to be made by the DoT on a per site circumstance. There may be a need to push out some of those spaces a little bit wider to make room for that. All of this would come under the plan that is designed specifically by the DoT and the experts who handle congestion and monitor the -- similar to how they monitor the work zones. So, it is a complicated process, but one that the DoT will have a plan for by the time they install these, which is many years down the road. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And you mentioned the fines. I'm wondering when those fines are, are charged, who gets the money that is generated with those fines? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just grabbing that information from the bill.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, much to my relief, but I was afraid to overspeak myself, it goes into the STF fund. There you go. bc/rp 52

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And there's a company that's gonna be implementing this, this camera system, I assume. And I'm wondering, what cut they would get for issuing the fines and setting up the cameras. I'm wondering how much money that company would get out of those tickets? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. DoT will be making that deal and having a contract with whichever company they choose. Through you.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And is, is it the company that installs the cameras that processes the payment, the credit card, or who, who initiates that? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is also entirely determined by the DoT.

bc/rp 54 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's just that's what's kind of got me hanging in limbo here is, who gets the swipe fee? Who gets to charge it? Who gets the money? What cut does DoT get? What cut does the company get? And I'm just really curious about that because a lot of our businesses and our, our consumers are, are getting killed by these fees. So, if, perhaps I can come back, for a second time if we could determine that? I'd like to figure that out and get that out in front of everyone here in the House. But, for now, Mr. Speaker, if perhaps I'd be recognized for a second time, but I appreciate the answers so far. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few questions and comments. bc/rp 55

My first question, I guess it's Section 31 in the bill as amended. How is the fine changed in that section?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I assume because of the number changes, we're talking about the increased fines for violating certain motor vehicle equipment requirements, the Section 31 from the bill as it was underlying the other day? Through you.

That's the section. I'm just not sure. What section is that now?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That would be 30, but I just want to make sure that I'm answering the right question. I'm not really concerned about the numbers.

So, I'm just asking, how did the fine change from what to what? bc/rp 57

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This would go from 150 per offense to a thousand dollars per offense for violating primarily the mufflers and exhaust pipes.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. What are the offenses that are subject to that fine?

What offenses are subject to that fine?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. It would simply be for having the, the muffler. This is the bill that we talked about the other night, the muffler that sounds like a gunshot. So, using those mufflers would be -- which is already against the law. This is simply raising the fine from 150 to 1,000, and it also applies to a shop who installed. And again, this is existing statute. We're simply raising the fine. Through you.

bc/rp 59 Mr. Speaker, I, I saw other fines in there that pertain to whether the horn was too loud or too quiet And if the muffler was just not working. So my concern is, this is a big jump from $150 to 1,000. I know there was questions if this should have gone through Judiciary, but the fine seems disproportional and unfair. It'll impact low income drivers the most. It's subject to subjectivity if it's too loud. You could be giving someone a thousand dollar fine for a first offense just because their muffler just broke that day. So, I do think this is unfair and a bad section and one of the reasons I oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One comment and then one question for the good Chair. bc/rp 60

First, I want to express my gratitude for the increased fine on those mufflers that make the gunshot sounds. Living in a district where there are individuals who purchase these types of mufflers specifically to make this noise, it's a problem. It's a problem. It scares our neighbors. It's a nuisance and it shouldn't be happening in residential communities. Then my question for you is, if you can just extrapolate a little bit further on the section related to distressed municipalities, and will there be prioritization for grants for our distressed municipalities?

bc/rp 61 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you for the question to my good colleague. So being classified as a distressed municipality does, in fact, prioritize a, a district for the grant. I, I also want to clarify some of the confusion that may be before us. In the original existing law as passed a few years ago, they had to transition entirely by 2030. This is simply asking that we have the plan by 2029 and has extended that transition by five years. I also would like to be very clear that, while I understand there are some concerns about some of the urban versus rural qualifications here, we certainly are open to refining at any point what this standard in perhaps future sessions, we just wanted to ensure that we did not lose districts, specifically districts like, my good colleagues here, because at this time, there is no easy measurement for that. We do, of course, want to ensure that we are not burdening communities beyond what they can handle, and we just want to ensure that we are able to offer that prioritization to all who may need it. Through you.

Thank you. So just to reiterate, so this will push back the deadline and prioritize us for grants. Correct?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That is correct and correct.

Thank you for the clarification.

I thought there was many more ahead of me before this. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Starting with a comment, I did meet with my CABE representatives at the -- when they invite us out to come and they were also struggling, you know, with the electric vehicle, electric bus issue. And that was one of the main concerns that we usually talk about multiple issues when we go to these. And the one focus that they had was the fact that, hey, you know, we already have purchased newer buses, buses not electric at the time, and at a very costly amount. So, when you sit there and listen to them impassionately begging us to say, can you push this out further, I have five small towns, and not a lot of resources. I know our budget conversations I see going on in each of our communities are struggling with their investment, and how they are going to start to put money away for capital improvements and or, or, or purchases, down away. So, a question to you to the good proponent of the bill regarding the matching grant. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I did see matching grant component in this. So is this a competitive grant process or the, the districts that are putting are they guaranteed a matching grant if they do buy these vehicles? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The new language reflects strictly the prioritization for distressed municipalities. Through you.

bc/rp 65 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer. I guess I'm gonna go along as a little bit because these things don't charge themselves. As somebody that has the opportunity to actually put in, and I actually own an EV, myself. One of the many vehicles that I have the pleasure to own. But they have to have the infrastructure also to charge them. So I guess this doesn't speak to dollars. Is that true to you regarding infrastructure or, or purchases, the any grants? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing specific in the bill language referring to dollars.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, and thank you to the, the good proponent of the bill. And that's part of the issue. I know we had a -- the state and multiple municipalities, you know, were able to pool their dollars together to put in infrastructure for town vehicles, but just individual vehicles, not to line up ten, twelve buses. If you ever go and just look at, what are the Amazon warehouses and you look at all those Amazons and all the all those Amazon delivery vehicles, that was quite an investment to charge all those vehicles. This would be a similar investment to charge these vehicles also. Has there been any, through you, Mr. Speaker, I wonder is there a component in here that would -- when you hire out a company, not rather than purchase your own buses, when you hire out a company, are these bus companies on board and moving forward, you know, because there's multiple of them, M&J is out our way? Is there a discussion with them to convert theirs, these ones that are contracted out? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could the good gentleman please repeat the question, I'm not sure I understood.

So, we're talking about municipalities getting buses, but some people are just contracted. They just, hey, we contract out to such and such a bus company. Have there been discussion with this Committee, and whoever else is DoT saying, hey, bus companies in the state of Connecticut, have you been investing in low emission vehicles and supporting charging systems when you contract out to the communities? So, actually, so through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The language does include school bus operators specifically in the language, which would directly address the good Representative's question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. Listen, I know, you know, we want clean air. We want clean air wherever we can. And, and I know when I leave late on my way to work, I always find myself behind a bus. And I would love it to be, but we have to talk about costs also. And you smell that diesel fuel but we also have to talk about cost and how we're gonna offset the cost for our municipalities that are struggling now. So I'll listen to a continued dialogue on this. I know my EV unfortunately hates cold weather. Literally hates cold weather to the point bc/rp 69 it's like, you know, Tim, we're not going anywhere today. And I'm like, are you kidding me? Just start. So I've had some issues with that. I will talk to the manufacturer on that. Another question, through you, Mr. Speaker.

The issue and I have never --.

No, I didn't -- just given the good Chair a moment, if she needed to. These mufflers I'm hearing about, I have never even heard of these. I know that no one, when I was younger, I wanted a louder vehicle. I thought it was cooler, but I have not any clue as to what this muffler that we are talking about. Mr. bc/rp 70 Speaker, could please, the good Chair, explain to me this muffler that we're fining at a thousand dollars, what this is? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the, the easiest way, the sort of lay description of this is, it is a muffler that is designed to fire, it sounds like a gunshot. And it's, it's extremely loud. Police officers are asking for this as well, some of the ones that I have spoken to locally. They are used in -- everywhere from rural to urban spaces, and they are by all descriptions, not only a menace, but they are frightening to many people. But it is as loud as a gunshot by most descriptions. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I guess they haven't made it out to my part of the state yet. So I remember when cherry bombs were the cool red mufflers you put on your hot rod, you thought it was cool at 16 or 17. It was just loud and it was annoying. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, I see we're moving the fines up to a thousand. How do we know how many fines have been submitted or, or, or charged to individuals with these, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the past? And, and what is the need to go to a thousand? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We actually do not have data on how many fines are issued per month or year. So I'm, I'm afraid I do not have that to give to the good Representative. Through you.

And thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. Yeah, I didn't know that would be something that town by town, how many fines have been given out on it. I think it would be if you're finding somebody, I think it might be a little harder to collect a thousand, but maybe this is the -- what we call the deterrent aspect of it where we're looking to have somebody, hey, muffler shop, if you're going to install that, then they're gonna -- so yeah. So we'll have and actually, she got the information. This is, Mr. Speaker, I will allow the good Chair of you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to provide that information.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. My good friend over here did a quick search and found this information for us. So between, bc/rp 73 fiscal year 22 and 25, there were a total of 1,557 offenses recorded and a $131,000 in fines, collected under the existing statute. So that is at the one 150 fine. Through you.

And I just missed a part of the time frame between the how many were collected. Was it years? I didn't -- I missed the first part. How many years? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That was fiscal year 22 through 25.

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that. So, I guess this is a thing, and I'm glad I haven't had that issue and well, we have the people doing the burnouts in our parking lots. But other than that, I just want to touch base a little bit on the encampments, through you, Mr. Speaker. Not about the duration or the time or when they got to be taken apart, but I know we did pass legislation here in the past that we were going to bring facilities to locations where some of the homeless were, rather than them go into a YMCA or, or other areas. Are in these areas that we get prone to encampments, are these bathrooms and showers located at these locations? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 75 Through you, Mr. Speaker. This bill doesn't actually speak to any of the provisions around encampments. I do want to note that the second part of the proposal for this bill language was and still remains, a working group that will formulate plans to ensure that when there are encampments, there's either information about access to these kinds of things. They're gonna be looking at how to handle possessions, possessions of the folks who are in these spaces, as well as any of the biohazard concerns that municipalities have. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate that. You know, having been, you know, here and, and supporting what we can do to change the term from homeless to homed, right, individual that have a place to stay with a roof over them. Some have no desire, literally, you talk to them, some have no desire to have a place there on their own. And that's a individual choice. bc/rp 76 I hope that what we look to do is continue to strive more to alleviate and remove that term homeless and make sure that people have a place that a, a roof over their head. So looking forward to additional, conversation about that rather than about how long they can stay at a location, unhomed and find a way that we actually continue to work to strive to improve those individuals' lives and opportunities, and get a roof over their head. Alright. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the good Chair for answers, and I truly appreciate it. And thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A few questions for the proponent of the bill, if I may.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm, I'm still trying to understand these flex lanes. Can, can you explain again how, how drivers are notified of, of when they'll be open or when they'll be in use? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This is going to be designed by the DoT, but there will be very clear indications over the lane about whether or not it is open or closed to be used for drivers or to be used as a breakdown lane. For example, in the Danbury area where a breakdown lane would be used. But I also want to be very clear about the language. It is not strictly limited to breakdown lanes. There will also be depending upon what is already in place, it could be that HOV lanes are being used for bc/rp 78 this, or emergency lanes. That will be entirely up to the DoT based on the space that is being used specific to the location. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will there be like, a, a prior notice sign? So, if you're approaching a, a potential flex lane, will there be a, a prior notice, half mile, a mile out, or whatever to give drivers advanced notice that a flex lane might be coming up? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Lines 248 through 252, I believe, address the specificity on the signs. A dynamic part time lane bc/rp 79 control system may be used, provided such system is operated by a dynamic part time lane control system operator if in accordance with the manual of uniform traffic control devices as approved and revised by the office of the state traffic administration. At least two conspicuous road signs are placed at a reasonable distance in advance of a dynamic part time lane. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure if the good Chair has ever driven down south on, on 95, but I've taken some road trips, and they've made these, like, HOV lanes that if you -- they've made these HOV lanes that if you have an EZ Pass you can pay to use this. This is what I'm imagining when we talk about flex lanes. Is the good Chair familiar with what I'm talking about? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I hope I pass this pop quiz. Yes, I am.

Thank you. So, that'll just give a good basis for what I'm, what I'm questioning. So, when we talk about these flex lanes, this is sort of what I have in mind. Can you speak to, will the flex lanes be blocked from access when not in use, or are they just purely the, the, the shoulders of these HOV lanes that exist as they are? Can you just speak to that for a minute? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to ensure the good gentlemen that these are all the same questions that I asked because it can be a very comprehensive and confusing policy. So the, the lanes that are breakdown lanes would be viewed very differently from HOV lanes. HOV lanes are likely to have traffic in them all the time. This would simply be allowing other folks to use them when they're being used as a flex lane. Because often you will see HOV lanes are only used by two or three cars, and then you see everybody else is backed up to the side. So then it's meant to be, quite frankly, as the language states, flexible. So that if it is determined in a moment that the congestion is too heavy, we've got to relieve some of that, then folks would be able to move over into the HOV lanes. It would be a different sort of circumstance when we're talking about breakdown lanes. It's not going to be blocked because you want people to be able to use those. But the indication through signage, through lighting, through all of the pieces that DoT will implement over the next few years as they plan this, that it is meant to be extremely clear so that safety is held at the premium as it should be. Through you. bc/rp 82

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do we need to build any new infrastructure to accommodate these flex lanes, or will the flex lanes be made from what is already existing? So already existing breakdown lanes, existing HOV lanes, or are we talking about building out expanding roads to create these flex lanes? Last question, through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The answer to both of those questions is, yes. There will be circumstances when there needs to be a structural change made. There will be other spaces where there does not need to be. For example, if they're using the HOV bc/rp 83 lanes that already exist, that will be determined on a case by case, location by location basis. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might have missed it, but do we have a projected cost for the infrastructure upgrades to create these flex lanes? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. There is language about federal grants that exist, but we do not have a -- because we do not have a specific project before us with a full -- I mean, we have specific locations that are being considered, but we do not have bc/rp 84 the details of these projects. So we do not have detailed funding requirements as of yet. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And so will the DoT have to come back to the legislature for approval to create these flex lanes? So, so are we gonna pass this and we're going to enable the use of flex lanes? Would there then be further approval needed to create the flex lanes as per the DoT's suggestion? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. We would have to come back and deal with this in the budget. bc/rp 85

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Continuing on the flex lanes, when it comes to the cameras, will the cameras operate similarly to speed cameras? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. They will operate similar to the work zone camera that is already in place through DoT, which, by the way, to answer a previous question from another colleague of ours, the state police process those tickets, and it is likely, according to the commissioner, that that will be the same case here. So the cameras will take a picture only when there is a violation of the license plate. The person who has that license plate registered will receive the infraction of $75, which would bc/rp 86 be significantly less if they were in a space and being ticketed by a police officer who was pulling them over. I don't believe there were any other questions about the cameras, but please remind me if I missed anything. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Don't worry, I have some more.

With the cameras, are they only capturing infractions of people being in the flex lane when they're not supposed to be? And will these or can these cameras be used to also capture speed infractions at the same time? Through you. bc/rp 87

Through you, Mr. Speaker. These are strictly for these usage infractions, not they are not tracking speed. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And as someone who's grown a little skeptical here, can they be converted or -- and used for speed in addition, or can these cameras solely capture any fraction of being in the lane when you're not supposed to? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak to the technology itself. I am not a hacker and don't really know how that could be done, and nothing in the language specifies. through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I, I, I think this might have been answered, so my, my apologies, but the, the infraction will go to the registered owner. So if, if a sibling or spouse or whatever is the one driving, is the ticket issued only to the registered owner?

bc/rp 89 Through you, Mr. Speaker, this works like a parking ticket. It goes to the registered owner of the car.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One moment, please. Through you, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to camera calibration, is there any independent audit of these cameras from the state, or are we trusting the private company who operates the cameras to maintain the calibration?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. All of this camera tech is left through state police. bc/rp 90

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So how was the private company who installs the cameras, how are they paid? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. That would be left entirely up to the contract that the DoT makes when they put out the bid for these cameras.

bc/rp 91 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, they're paid independently of, of any infractions that are raised. So, would that mean that any infractions that are collected are paid to the state? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Correct.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Can the good Chair repeat that answer? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot hear the question.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I asked if she could repeat her answer. Is she asking that question or the question prior to me asking to repeat the answer?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I'm 52 years old, and the memory is not as strong as it was. I'm assuming the, the, the question was about the vendor. Is that correct? The one that I assumed that he was asking if the vendor who is providing this -- why don't we ask him to repeat the question, please?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to make the good Chair assume anything. So, I will reask the question being, now I have to remember my question. When, when the infractions are collected, if we're paying the vendor separately, does the full cost of the infraction that's collected get paid to the state? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I am now remembering why my answer was, that is correct. The language specifically says if a vendor provides, deploys, or operates a control system, the vendor's fee may not be contingent on the number of violations issued or fines paid under the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So to be abundantly clear, the private vendor does not receive any cuts of the infractions collected. Is that correct? Through you.

bc/rp 95 Through you, Mr. Speaker. Correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, that's all I'm ready to ask at the moment. I, I might have some more for a second time, but, for now, I appreciate the answers from the good Chair. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the debate again today. I know I listened to some debate the other day, and I had some questions for the, the good Chair the bc/rp 96 other day. And I just want to come back to one in particular, that I still didn't feel like I, I had all the information that I want to have on this. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the proponent of the bill, in Section 1, we have taken away the fact that DoT can buy can't buy diesel buses. So, this then allows DoT to buy diesel buses. Through you, Mr. Speaker, could the proponent of this bill explain why DoT made this request?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. This was so that they could buy diesel buses, which they were trying to procure.

bc/rp 97 Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I think my question was, I'm sure that there was dialogue back and forth between DoT and, and the committee or the chairs. I'm, I'm asking for that dialogue as to why DoT requested to be able to purchase diesel buses. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. The lack of federal grants is causing the need to adjust what is available. Through you.

Okay. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, am I to assume that DoT -- I'm not even gonna ask any more questions here. I'm just gonna make some comments. What, what seems to me is that is an bc/rp 98 obvious thing is that DoT is finding the move to all electric buses an issue because it is cost prohibitive, and there's infrastructure that is involved with this. This is a big undertaking for our facilities that have to house these buses and have to pay for these buses. These are coming out of state funds. Obviously, there's probably grants around as well, but we know that this is a huge expense. Later on in this bill, we also contemplate the school buses that we have in the, the state. The school buses, we are going to have a requirement soon that all school buses are gonna have to be electric buses. And I know we keep thinking we're gonna kind of kick the can down the road a little bit, but our schools have no idea what's coming at them with this expense. I'm a little disappointed that this bill didn't actually hit, hit this issue right on. We've kind of put a working group together, which seems to be something we do here at the state level when we're not really wanting to face the facts. The facts are that electric buses are gonna be a huge expense on our towns. Our towns, when they're looking at education right now, they're already struggling just to pay for teachers' wages, to pay for bc/rp 99 health care. They have no idea what's coming at them with these electric buses. So, Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO No. 5127. Would you please ask the Clerk to call it and I'd be allowed to summarize?

House Amendment Schedule "C", LCO No. 5127 offered by Representative Candelaria, Representative O'Dea, et al.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. The current law requires that school districts have to have 100% electric vehicle school buses by 2040. However, with environmental justice communities, that is required by 2030. Non environmental justice communities are required to have a 100% EV or alternative fuel buses by 2035, and as I said, a, a full with 2040. This proposal would allow hybrid, plug in hybrid, alternative fuel, or EV buses to count towards that 2040 mandate and repeals altogether the 2035 requirement for our environmental justice communities. This bill also adds buses to the grant program that is administered by DEEP as well as a CHEAPR program. Okay. Currently, we have school districts that we have hundreds of school -- hundreds of buses across the state that have already moved to propane buses, and we know that moving to an alternative fuel bus does have a better environmental effect, and it has cleaner air. I fear that pushing electric buses a hundred percent zero emission, which by the way, let me make clear, is not truly zero emissions. It's only zero emission from the bus because those buses have to be plugged into the grid, and our grid is not zero bc/rp 101 emissions. So I think we're kind of kidding ourselves when we say zero emissions. It is cleaner air, though, and I agree with that. And I think that, that the fact that we are making schools go all electric right now, we're actually preventing them from finding an alternative fuel bus, which immediately will be cleaner air. We have about 10,000 school buses across the state of Connecticut. We know that diesel buses cost, I don't know, somewhere around a 100,000 per bus. And then if you add in, maybe a propane, which is an alternative fuel, which has really low emissions, then you're maybe adding, I don't know, 10% more. If you're asking people to switch all the way to the electric buses, we're talking up to $400,000 per bus. And maybe you can get it for less, but quite frankly, if the whole state of Connecticut is all buying electric buses at the same time, I'm pretty sure you're not gonna find a discount on your electric bus. So, because I am good at math and I can calculate that up, I'm just gonna let you know $4 billion. So, I know that's kind of during -- we actually contemplated during the Energy and Tech Committee, and someone came forward and said, well, gee whiz, there's actually a grant for $40 million that, you know, we can bc/rp 102 put on this. I'm saying $4 billion. And our communities, our board of eds, they have no idea what's gonna be coming at them with this. They're struggling right now, and we will be contemplating the ECS funding coming up. They're struggling right now for funds, and we're gonna be pushing this on them. So, I'm hoping that that across the aisle that my colleagues can support this. So, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of the amendment, and I ask when the vote be taken, it'd be taken by roll. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the, the intention behind this. I want to point everyone's attention to the last section of the overall bill that we were discussing prior to the amendment, which requires a DEEP working group on school bus alternative fuels, specifically. And this is going to require the DEEP Commissioner to establish a working group to evaluate bc/rp 103 and make recommendations on Connecticut school bus fleets increased use of alternative fuels. This will include biodiesel, propane, and electric as well as hybrid. And it requires the Commissioner to convene, excuse me, and Chair the working group, which will include Green Bank, renewable industries, the commissioners of public health, education, transportation. It will include transportation providers. It will include municipal government. It will include boards of ED, environmental, and air quality experts, as well as clean transportation deployment representatives. This is all as a result. The entire pushback, all of the language that we have used in the entire bill around school buses came to us in response to school districts, municipalities, environmental groups, and other feedback because we do hear loud and clear how this is a struggle. Because we have that working group who is going to report to us February 1st, I'm going to ask that my colleagues vote no on this amendment, and I appreciate the time. Through you.

To the proponent of the amendment. I'm just confused about a couple of things. Who owns the buses? Is it the town that has to purchase the buses, or is it the private bus companies that serves the towns that owns the buses? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a variety of ways that schools go through these. Some school districts actually own their own buses. However, there are some smaller school districts that actually lease and have lease agreements for buses by private companies. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, through you, so if a town or municipality contracts through a bus company, are they also subject to the mandate, or is it only municipal school bus companies that are subject to the mandate? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

This would be for all school districts. Through you.

bc/rp 106 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so if the state's sort of forcing their towns, municipalities, and private bus companies switch to electric buses over a period of time, is the state -- who is responsible for the actual charging stations that go in to power these buses? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much for that question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would be a variety of ways. If the town actually owns the school buses, the town would have to find a place to charge them. In the case of, certainly, my school district, they lease out through a company. So it would be the company that would have to find an outdoor space to be able to charge and house and, and park their school buses. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I asked the question because, you know, which if you take my town, for example, we contract with a bus company, and it, it does seem to change all the time. We'll go a couple years. We'll be First Student, then it'll be DATCO. It'll be all sorts of things. So through you, Mr. Speaker, if at, at a particular time, would say one of these private companies that we contract with has procured the electric buses, but the other one hasn't, will we be forbidden for entering into a contract with that company that isn't all electric? Through you, Mr. Speaker,

That is correct, Mr. Speaker, this mandate falls on the schools to be able to procure to, to have these electric buses, bc/rp 108 so they will have to find a company that will have electric buses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was curious because I, I had a hard time hearing when she described the price of the buses. First of all, does hybrid bus technology actually exist? Is there a hybrid sort of gasoline into an electric sort of like a car? Does that actually exist, and is that available to purchase today? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding while we have had hybrid buses and we've had that technology, it bc/rp 109 is my understanding that currently, those are actually not available. However, if I, I see no reason why something like that technology would not come back, but currently, that is not available. But the alternative fuels, like the propane, are available. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was gonna be my follow-up question if the alternate fuels were available. So, through you, Mr. Speaker, do we have any idea how many companies are actually producing large electric buses? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 110 Through you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you so much for that question. I am actually unsure of how many companies currently sell the electric buses, but I know my good colleague had just asked the previous question about the alternative fuel. I'd just like to say there's several 100 buses already across the state that have alternative fuel and propane that they use, and, and many of them are very pleased with the alternative fuel because they, they actually work really well with cold weather. They come on really quickly. So many of these districts are moving over to the alternative fuel just because they are more efficient and better air, air quality and not cost prohibitive. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought the, the good Representative's point about procurement was a good one. Is there also a mandate that all city type buses sort of, you know, bc/rp 111 like the transit districts switch to electric? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. That was one of the reasons why I started this conversation, is that, we see even in this bill that there is a move away from forcing our transit district to, to stop buying diesel buses. It says that right here in Section 1. So clearly, DoT has had conversations that saying they're not ready. They can't do this quite yet. I am understanding that it is because it is cost prohibitive that that they're not ready to do this quite yet, although, that wasn't the answers that I received. So, but, yes, there's but that is not contemplated in the amendment, but we see that and we hear that in other parts of the bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think the point is a good one, and I, I, I just wanted to reiterate. I wanted to thank the good Representative for the amendment. It's really a capacity issue. If you have every city bus having to be electric or move that way, and now you have every school bus going that way, it will just drive up the cost for every municipality and bus company to procure these things. It seems common sense to me, sir, to expand out the timelines or at least allow for a transitional period where we have hybrids or alternative fuels as we try to lower the carbon footprint of the buses, municipal, and school. So as we all know, as we talk through the budget, our schools are underfunded. We are all desperate for funding. Property taxes are escalating. This is just yet another cost that will be born upon the local taxpayers and the property owners to pay for this mandate from the state. So to push this out a little bit and quite frankly, the cities will pay more because they need more buses. So, to push this out a little more bc/rp 113 or for allow for alternative fuel buses just seems common sense to me, and I hope everybody supports this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The good Representative from the 123rd really asked many of my questions, but I do stand to support the amendment. But I do have a question for the proponent of the underlying bill. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So to the good proponent of the underlying bill, when you know, I think the good Ranking Member bc/rp 114 of Energy Technology made a point. It's about $400 million approximately. Today's cost, non-three years or non-thirteen years for -- or we've mandated for all electric school buses for all our municipalities. Did you ever consider how much it would cost per municipality? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

That actually is going to be considered by the working group, understanding full well that this is a very real, issue facing us, especially as the years increase as we get closer and bc/rp 115 closer to the goal. So that will absolutely be considered by the working group. Through you.

I thank you for that. Did you also consider taking consideration for the safety just in Hamden Connecticut about, I think, the last month, electric DoT bus caught on fire, and they could not die it out, could not put it out, extinguish it. And I believe that everybody had to be evacuated from the bus. So with that, they're very difficult to put out. So did you consider that putting forth this legislation? Through you.

bc/rp 116 Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that I heard correctly. Are we asking about whether the safety of the electric buses is going to be considered in this?

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Yaccarino. REP. YACCARINO (87TH: I appreciate that. And then, through you, Mr. Speaker, the load on the grid – yeah, I don't know how many, I forgot how many buses. It's a little -- I can't hear this. The load on a grid when you have every municipality probably around between 09:00 and 10:00 in the morning charging their buses or four or five in the afternoon charging the buses, the load is gonna be astronomical. I mean, think about it. It's so hard, so it takes so much electricity either through natural gas or through oil to charge anything. You need something combustionable to charge. Was that consideration? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can't quite hear the Representative.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Yaccarino.

You may. You may proceed. REP. YACCARINO (87TH: I appreciate the good amendment. I appreciate the, the, the good work of the Ranking Member of the Energy and Technology. Through you, Mr. Speaker. So when you put forth this amendment, and I think -- did you look at all the alternatives and what works and what doesn't work? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 122 Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. I think the, the main thing that I looked at with this is, is the fact that across the state of Connecticut, we already have people deciding to use propane buses because they make sense. They make sense within the budget in our municipalities, but we all are putting clean air as a priority for our children, and this is a cost effective way to do it. And it works in our environment here in the state of Connecticut. We don't have to find a new place to park them. We're not worried about buyer safety issues. This is a good, a good option that we're already seeing people use. And what I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is that towns jump in and say, yes, I want clean air, and I know these buses, the state of Connecticut is gonna support us using these buses. We might actually get towns to move over to these propane buses or alternative fuel buses or hybrid buses when they become available sooner because they're going to be more cost effective, and then we'll get clean air sooner. And also, like, when we look at budgets and when we look at budgets that our towns are putting together, they don't just look at what's happening in the next year. So the other thing that I looked at in putting this together is the fact that our bc/rp 123 communities are gonna have to -- they sign long term leases. Right? They're, they're five year leases. So they're gonna be looking at trying to do these leases, and we have to give them some sense of consistency, something that they can look forward to, that they can rely on. And we're just up in the air saying, oh, maybe we're gonna make you get an electric bus. And oh, environmental justice communities, you're gonna have to figure out money really quickly even though the state is not giving you money. I, I think we need consistency, and our towns need to rely on us to have good policy, good solid policy that supports our community, that gives clean air to the residents of the state. Thank you.

I appreciate that answer. I really have no more questions. I do have a couple of comments that when it's we had an extreme cold winter this year. When it's really cold out, electric batteries just do not perform well. In many cases, don't work at bc/rp 124 all, or the charge doesn't last four hours or five hours or mileage. It lasts maybe an hour. So what are you gonna do if you have kids, you're going on a field trip, or you're taking them across one part of the town to the next part of town or the city, and you'll, you'll lose your charge? How are you gonna call other buses to pick them up or cabs? We have to think of those things. We're just are not there yet. And to pinch and hold ourselves doesn't make any, any many any sense. And what happens if the manufacturer say, you know what, these are just too expensive, and I can't trust state government to buy all this, this fleet. I'm not gonna invest a $100 million in electric buses when there's other alternatives. So as much as we want this, it's just not here. It's pie in the sky, I think, at this point in time. Maybe in forty years or thirty years, but I just don't think so today. So I stand in strong support of this amendment. You got to think of the budgets, your cities, your rural areas, your towns, and your education system. I'd rather have more money in education. So I appreciate the good proponent of the amendment. I appreciate your time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. bc/rp 125

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize. To the good proponent of the amendment, it's my understanding that propane is actually much cleaner than diesel. Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. Propane has been proven to be cleaner than diesel, which is one of the reasons why I think allowing our towns and giving them the understanding that this can be if they're purchasing buses, this is gonna be something that can be a long term commitment for you in your bc/rp 126 town, and your children are not gonna be exposed to nauseous -- will have clean air. Yes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, if I may just read a statistic on the amount of pollutants. Through you, Mr. Speaker, is that --?

Propane school buses reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by 96% compared to clean diesel buses. And then real world testing shows that reduction is even more dramatic on stop and go routes like buses where diesel missions can be up to 34 times higher. So while it's not completely clean like an EV will be, propane bc/rp 127 is extremely clean, and much cleaner than even the clean diesel. And did I hear the good proponent of the amendment say that the, the average diesel is roughly a 100,000 and, and a propane kit, I think I had read, we heard in Committee was, about $6,000 to convert the diesel to propane. Is that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Those are the numbers that I heard as well. And if, if you don't mind, I just would like to clarify one of the things that the good Representative asked because he said that the EV bus -- he compared the propane buses to the EV buses. He said the propane buses aren't completely clean like the EV buses. I just would like to clarify that statement. Our electric buses are plugged into the grid, and we know that right now we get emissions from our grid. So we cannot say that they are 100% clean air as well. Through you, Mr. Speaker. bc/rp 128

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I, I, I stand corrected. It's often that my wife has to correct me as well. Unless, unless our charging is plugged into the nuclear reactor, which does provide clean energy. But as I understand it, we only get about 40% to 50% of our energy from clean nuclear. Isn't that true? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Yes. But then let's take it to on some of our cold days this year where we had a lot of use of our natural gas, we had to turn to burning oil here in the state of Connecticut. And so, if you are plugging in your electric bus, by the way, if we look at it this way, when would bc/rp 129 you be plugging in your electric bus? You'd be plugging your electric bus in at the end of the day, at the same time that there's no solar, and at the same time when everybody else is coming home, and we see a huge ramp up in the requirement of energy that is needed across the state, you would be plugging in the bus probably at the same time as that, unless we figure out a way to do it overnight, which hopefully we do. But in that case, you're gonna see a huge ramp up of some of our peaker plants, which are some of the dirtiest energy that we have in this state. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I'll just close out by saying, I had on Saturday, one of my clients runs a bus depot in the Danbury area, and they're all propane. And the propane is obviously cleaner. It's fuel efficient. It's easily transferable from diesel to propane, and it's just a very good product to bridge the gap. bc/rp 130 But I understand the good Chair of Transportation. We're trying to evolve into all electric. As an electric driver of a, a driver of an electric vehicle, which I love, I did have to stop on my way home again last night and charge, which took about 20 minutes for me, extra minutes to get home. So, while I am an adopter of the EVs, it is problematic at times. I won't get into the safety issues right now because I think one of my colleagues is gonna address the safety issues. But I do appreciate the good fellow Member of Transportation bringing up this amendment. It's a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it both for the safety of our children, cleaner air, more reasonably priced. Propane is the way to go in my humble opinion. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we've heard a lot, but I do rise in support of this amendment. And I thank the good Ranking bc/rp 131 Member of Energy and Technology for bringing it forward. It really is a very important bill. We have heard for weeks now, our municipal, our school districts, our school board, they're struggling financially to get their budgets together. And remember, the budgets that they're working on right now are for the 26/27 fiscal year. This will impact them drastically. I urge my colleagues to please support this amendment. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through you, Mr. Speaker, a few questions for the proponent of the amendment.

Thank you. I've, I've gone through the amendment, and in addition to amending the types of buses that would be available under this bill, it also seems to change to some extent the timing. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if the good proponent could explain the change in the timing of implementation of this program, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. Right now, we know that the environmental justice communities have to change many of their buses over by 2030, but then they have to do all of them by 2035. What this would do is say that all of it, puts the environmental justice communities the same as the other communities, and it pushes it all to 2040. This will give them time to figure out their funds and figure out how they're going bc/rp 133 to do their budgets. But, more importantly, it will also be more cost effective for all the communities. What I'm hoping though is, is that since we're changing the type of bus that they're allowed to purchase, I'm hoping that naturally they're already going to move towards some of the alternative fuel buses just because they actually make a lot of sense in our community. So this will be something that they can naturally kind of move to anyway, which we have already seen up to 500 buses across the state of Connecticut. We've already seen that happen naturally in our state. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I, I thank the good proponent for that response. So through you, Mr. Speaker, is it the case that your amendment would equalize the, the distressed communities which is what is the distressed municipalities, which is, what is being in my view, penalized, the, the poorest bc/rp 134 communities. Under your amendment, it would make the poor communities equal and, and have to follow the same timing as every other community in the state. Is that correct? Through you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the good Representative's question. I thought he made a really good case earlier in this discussion on how we are putting disadvantaged communities at a disadvantage by requiring them to come up with funds earlier when we already know that they are struggling with their budget. So, yes, this puts them on par with all the other communities, but also it adds that they'd be allowed to access a grant program administered by DEEP as well as a CHEAPR program to help fund some of these cost that these communities are going to incur. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that I think this is a very well thought out amendment. I think it addresses a number of the deficiencies in the current bill. I think this amendment addresses, first off, the fact that under the amendment, it allows towns the flexibility to go with a variety of different low emissions buses. Simply changing out the buses, a few buses won't change the entire quality of air in a given municipality or in the state. However, it does move the needle a little bit. So, allowing towns the flexibility to use the type of buses that may be available and may be possible in a given area is certainly a very well thought out endeavor. And I applaud the good Representative for introducing that. On top of that, I think one of the biggest problems with the current bill is that it expands the municipalities and the neighborhoods, the communities that are being penalized under the existing law. Under the existing law, environmental justice communities have to take action before anybody else in the state. And what bc/rp 136 the underlying bill does is it expands that to all distressed communities. So it expands that essentially to the poorest communities in our state. And it requires that they take this action, which is the first time anybody in the state has ever done it. And it requires the municipalities with the least resources and the least ability to be the cutting edge, to be the guinea pigs. And what this amendment does is it equalizes it. It says, we're not going to penalize the poorest communities in the state. We're not going to penalize those distressed communities who are considered distressed communities for a reason. They're distressed because they have poor people. They have low resources. They have, in many instances, very high mill rates, so it's not that they can just raise the mill rate and get some more money. So what this amendment does is it really addresses a number of the very serious deficiencies that the underlying bill has. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. bc/rp 137

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

bc/rp 138 LCO 5127 designated House C: Total Number Voting 150 Necessary for Adoption 76 Those voting Yea 54 Those voting Nay 96 Those absent and not voting 1

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. How are you?

bc/rp 139 Good. Good. Thank you very much. I just have a few questions for the proponent of the bill, and just like to make a few comments on it.

Yes. And I just want to start by saying that, I think that the one thing that we were looking at, and I am a sponsor of this bill, so I want to put that on the record too to be totally transparent. But I will say that I believe that I missed one component on the bill, which I've already spoken to the And I would just like to make it public record that I believe that the, and I personally will admit that I missed it, that the thousand dollar fine is a little bit excessive as a first offense. And I think that we should take a look at possibly reducing that, and we're going to be speaking to that in a little bit. But I do want to ask a question for the proponent, if I may. bc/rp 140

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So to the proponent of the bill from our great transportation committee, I question how we would actually be able to distinguish these high decibel levels, as far as how are the cities and the states actually in the towns actually equipped to be able to measure these high decibels? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this would be done the same way that it is done with current law, which is, through the police department, who is the police officer who is making that determination when issuing the citation. bc/rp 141

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see this type of legislation it's a nuance. It's more of a nuance, especially when the middle of the night, when you start hearing those motorcycles roaring in late at night, which is part of the reason why I supported this piece of legislation. My portion, what I think of this type of legislation, is, and I'll speak for Waterbury. I won't speak for the entire state. I believe that this type of legislation will actually go by the way of the Waterway Police Department has something more important to do on any given hour, rather than start chasing motorcycles in the middle of the night or trucks that are making too much diesel. So I would question the ability to actually be able to monitor this. So, I'm a little concerned about that. And secondly, I would like to ask the proponent of the bill if there has been some consideration to actually, maybe take a look at bc/rp 142 possibly learning more about these noise levels. Where are they? In Waterbury, I hear the roaring bikes at night. Why now, and why so high?

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I just did not hear the last probably, sentence and a half of the question. If I could just ask for a repeat, please.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So my question is, why now with the noise ordinance? Why now, and again in full disclosure, I cosponsored. Why now, and with what type of equipment will we actually be able to do, because these pieces of equipment may, well, I'm not even going to say may. I'll probably not even install. Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, this was bill proposal from a member of the transportation committee who has experienced this in his own district. This has been considered and run by the municipal leadership in communities like Stamford and Hartford, in addition to a number of others that I do know that the good bc/rp 144 colleague of ours who proposed the bill spoke to, but I cannot recall which cities they are. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to thank the proponent for that answer. I'm thinking of a group of motorcycles coming down any city down Main Street in any one of our cities and municipalities, and one sounds loud, five sounds louder. If you have 20 coming down together and they're breaking the decibel levels as a block, how will we handle that? Through you.

Could my good colleague please repeat the question once again? It does feel a little quieter in here now. Thank you. bc/rp 145

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My thought process is that if one motorcycle, one Harley Davidson's coming down the road, or a couple of Kawasaki's are coming down the road, Mr. Speaker. They have a certain decibel level. Now you put 10, 12 together, they have a little higher decibel level. Now you have a pack of, say, 20, 30. How will we handle that? Are we going to give 30 motorcycle riders an infraction of a thousand dollars apiece? How will we know which one of those motorcycles is actually the one that caused the infraction? Through you.

bc/rp 146 Through you, Mr. Speaker. This does not change existing law, which is already determined and already outlines how the officer who is issuing the infraction is required to do so.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the proponent of the bill. And like I said, I cosponsored this bill, and I stand by my co-sponsorship. But I just want to see a little more work on this. And I thank the proponent from trans our chairwoman from transportation, and I will continue to listen to the debate. Mister Speaker, thank you.

bc/rp 147 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Have a couple of questions for the good proponent of the bill when she's ready.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the good proponent of the bill, can the good proponent explain Section 29 related to marine pilots and what that section is all about? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So there is a fee that is currently issued to marine pilots. There are only 10 or so pilots that exist, within the state to begin with. These are folks who are bc/rp 148 experts in navigating specific waters, who guide our vessels safely through the area that they cover. State law currently requires a licensed pilot to be on board for certain vessels embarking or disembarking to the Long Island Sound. There is a fee, a marine pilot license of $105.48 annually. We have just been asked by the port authority to eliminate that because processing it is more trouble than it's worth for the less than $1,500 that they receive in a year. Through you.

Thank you. I wanted to make a clarification. We're not talking about the average boater going into Long Island Sound and coastal waters. We're talking about professional marine pilots who are operating complicated vessels. And I see that the fee has been removed, but we've installed a requirement for a bc/rp 149 bond. So, what is the process for a marine pilot to get a bond? And was that considered the legislation? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. Could we have a line number for this part of the bill?

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

All right. Representative Weir.

Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Weir.

You may proceed.

bc/rp 154 Representative Berger-Girvalo.

Representative Weir.

Thank you, Representative. Mark further on the bills amended for the second time. Representative Dubitsky, you have the floor, sir.

Will the Clerk please call LCO number 5142, which will be designated in House Amendment Schedule D. bc/rp 159

Representative Seeks to leave the chamber to summarize. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Dubitsky, you may proceed with summarization.

It'll be taken by role. Remark further on schedule D? Remark further on schedule D? Sure. Schedule D, Representative O'Dea on the 125th. You have the floor.

Representative Dubitsky.

Representative O'Dea.

Will you remark further on schedule D? Will you remark further on schedule D? Representative Dubitsky.

Will you remark further on schedule D? Will you remark further on schedule D? Representative Mushinsky of the 85th. You have the floor, ma'am.

bc/rp 164 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on Schedule D? On Schedule D. Representative Nolan.

You may proceed.

Representative Dubitsky. bc/rp 165

Representative Nolan.

Representative Dubitsky.

bc/rp 167 (gavel) Chamber will stand at ease. The chamber will come back to order. Representative Dubitsky. Oh. Will you remark further on Schedule D? Representative Dubitsky.

Without objection, so ordered. (gavel) Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Felipe of Park City, you have the floor, sir.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 5182, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule E.

Representative Seeks leave it a shame to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Felipe, you may proceed with summarization. bc/rp 169

Thank you. Representative. Question for the chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule E. Will you remark on amendment? Representative Nolan of the 39th, you have the floor.

You may proceed. bc/rp 170

You may proceed.

Representative Berger-Girvalo, you have the floor. Oh.

Representative Nolan.

bc/rp 172 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on Schedule E? Deputy Speaker Candelaria, you have the floor, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark for that Schedule E? Representative Rutigliano, you have the floor, sir.

I will send this question over to Representative Felipe, but I just want to acknowledge this for the second time, Representative Rutigliano.

First time in the amendment. Yeah. Representative Felipe.

Representative Rutigliano.

Thank you, Representative. Remark further on Schedule E. Representative Jacobson, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Remark further on Schedule E. Representative Turco. Oh, alright. We remark further on Schedule E. Will you remark further on schedule E? Is there objection to a voice vote? Oh, Representative Berger-Girvalo.

bc/rp 177 Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for missing you there. Remark further on the amendment before Schedule E. Is there objection to a voice vote? Representative O'Dea, you have the floor, sir. Is there objection to a voice vote? Is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try to remind all those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just having conversations with the good chair and a number of the individuals, and I think I've got what we would call a friendly amendment. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in bc/rp 178 possession of an amendment, LCO Number 5139. I'd ask that please ask the Clerk to call it. I'd be allowed to summarize the amendment. Through you.

House Amendment Schedule F, LCO Number 5139, offered by Representative Candelora.

bc/rp 179 Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is literally a nine- line amendment. It simply requires that the boards of education develop and implement a safety plan that considers the ages and development needs of the students being transported in any electric bus, and include procedures for the evacuation of such bus, as many in the chamber understand, or may know that there was a recent problem with an electric bus catching fire. And, in my town, I'd asked some of the fire department personnel how do they put out these fires, and literally, they said that there's really no way to put them out. They let them burn. So, for a safety standpoint, we ask that before any of these EV buses be utilized for school children, that plan be implemented, and that their evacuation plan be put in place in case catastrophe or bad thing happens. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 180 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former educator who worked in public schools and has jumped on and off buses in these drills, I find this to be more than acceptable. This is certainly friendly, and I believe that this is a wonderful way to look at the safety on something that is concerning each of us. And so I urge my colleagues to vote yes.

All those opposed nay? (gavel) The ayes have it. The amendment's adopted. Remark further on the amendment before us. bc/rp 181 Representative O'Dea. You good? Remark further? The machine will be open.

Have all members voted? 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 bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar Number 481?

Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor, sir.

Question for the chamber is acceptance of Joint Committee's fair report and passage of the bill. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor as amended by Senate A.

Remark further on the bill as amended. Representative Fishbein, you have the floor.

bc/rp 185 Thank you, Representative. Remark further on the bill as amended. Representative Mastrofrancesco, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just a statement. Through you.

I just want to stand and thank the chairs of judicial for bringing this forward, and the committee. This is a strong sign bc/rp 186 to people that are incarcerated and that work in the system, especially our corrections officers. Updating the standards as such tells and shows that we are willing to put in the work necessary to make the changes to keep people safe. Hopefully, this will set a reminder to people that this is not to be played with. So I'm glad to stand and ask for my colleagues to support this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Through you, a question to the proponent of the bill.

The original codification assumed that some of the proponents assumed that many of the victims would be women, and that, actually, the testimony before the committee at that time was that a victim, the woman who testified, was a victim, but the perpetrator was another woman. I guess my concern in terms of availability of providers, given some of the language that's in there, is what -- since a lot of the victims also are young males in lockup, is it the understanding of the proponent of the legislation that we have the availability of providers to provide the immediate support that's contemplated in this legislation?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the intent of this legislation is to make abundantly clear that we have zero tolerance for sexual abuse, sexual assault in our prisons, bc/rp 188 whether that's male on female, female on female, male on male, inmate on inmate, or prison guard on inmate, or vice versa. I think in terms of support in our system -- look, I think, we all know, and I think we're going to take up a bill shortly here, that we continue to be understaffed in certain areas of our mental and physical health care within the prison system. I think it is certainly something that we need to continue to devote resources to, but my understanding is, yes, there are existing services in place for male victims of sexual assault in our corrections system. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm supportive of this measure, but I do have concern about the staffing levels in the system, and that shouldn't be competitive with adopting this. But I think it's something that we should be thinking about, so people will get what they need. Thank you very much. bc/rp 189

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a brief comment. As a former member of the Department of Corrections and a correction officer, I support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill also. We know that the federal PREA law is still in effect, but recent federal actions have reduced funding, oversight, and key protections, which is why we must step up here in Connecticut bc/rp 190 and put these protections into state law. And I'm happy to say that this language is even stronger than the federal law. And we have to acknowledge that we've had some failures here in our state system. And so it's really important that we have clearer, stronger, enforceable standards. And this bill is about accountability and our responsibility to ensure that every person in custody is safe from sexual abuse and assault. And this policy will also help to protect staff and our communities. So I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

bc/rp 191 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 150 Necessary for Adoption 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Page 59, Calendar 405. Substitute for House Bill Number 5567. An Act Concerning Healthcare in the Department of Correction Facilities. Favor for the judiciary.

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

bc/rp 193 Mr. Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO 5000. I ask if you called, then it'd be great, and leave to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule A, LCO Number 5000, offered by Representative Stafstrom, Senator Winfield, Representative Fishbein, and Senator Kissel.

bc/rp 194 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the provision of healthcare in our department of corrections is at a crisis level. The judiciary committee continues to hear repeated concerns from those who are incarcerated, from staff, from family members, from advocates, and others about those who are entrusted to the care of the state through the Department of Corrections not receiving timely access to their medication, not receiving routine medical treatment, and not receiving, in some instances, the lifesaving care that they need in order to come back out of prison on the other side. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as anyone that almost all of the individuals who pass through the doors of our Department of Corrections will one day reenter society on the other side. When there is a disruption in the provision of their healthcare or when they don't receive the care they need while incarcerated, that can have long-lasting, if not life-altering, effects on those individuals, which was not what they were sentenced to. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to stand before you and tell you the amendment before us is going to solve each and every one of those problems that we are experiencing the Department of bc/rp 195 Corrections and the provision of health care, but it's our attempt at a This is a product of bipartisan work by the judiciary committee as well as work by the government oversight committee, stemming from audit reports we've received, and from hearings that were conducted before the session and through the session, in order to try to get to the root of the problem. This bill makes a number of changes. First, it empowers the correction ombuds to hire a healthcare clinician to help do the work of the ombuds office in investigating and improving the condition of the provision of health care services within the Department of Corrections. It also allows the ombuds and his staff to use their state-issued cell phones while performing those duties in the correctional facility. This bill makes a number of changes related to Department of Correction Health Care Service notices, record keeping, and related matters, including ensuring that notices are posted in both English and in Spanish, rights that folks have to the provision of healthcare while incarcerated. bc/rp 196 It implements and funds an electronic health record system and improves procedures at intake so that the Department of Corrections knows and evaluates what someone has as a pre- existing condition when they enter the facility. This bill requires the DOC to update the department's healthcare service plan to ensure continuity of care regarding medications upon incarcerated individual intake. It requires the DOC, in consultation with the Department of Public Health, maintain a time critical medication list, and requires that there be developed contingency plans to ensure the timely deliver of those critical medications. The bill requires that, prior to someone being sentencing as part of the judicial process that there is an investigative report that is addended to the individual's file, which talks about their medical conditions and medications they're taking. This bill also tries to address the critical shortage of nurses and healthcare professionals in our department of corrections by instituting a student loan reimbursement program, whereby nurses serving the department of corrections could receive up to $5,000 a year and $20,000 in the add aggregate for working in our Department of Corrections. bc/rp 197 Mr. Speaker, this bill also looks at an issue I know is near and dear to your heart, which is the issue of food services and commissary programs in the Department of Corrections. It requires an audit of those programs and seeks a corrective action plan to be submitted in response to certain negative audit findings we've already found. The bill also creates and funds a pilot program that requires DOC to allow incarcerated individuals to keep and self- administer their own medication for chronic disease management. And finally, the bill creates a correction medical and health commission advisory council that is going to look at and create a ten-year plan for the improvement of our health care and medical systems in our department of corrections. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a first step. It is not the end of the process. And our hope is by taking some corrective action today, by putting some money where our mouth is, and by creating this long-term plan, we can begin to see real change. Again, I want to thank the government oversight committee. I want to thank the bipartisan leadership of the judiciary committee, and I especially want to thank the House Democrats' bc/rp 198 policy staff for their amazing work in getting us to this comprehensive package we can present before you today. With that, I move adoption of the amendment,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we're going to pass this session. I can't tell you how many times I hear on the news, I pick up the newspaper, see on the Internet that we've got somebody who's incarcerated that dies, but they didn't get medical treatment that they should have gotten. And I'm sitting there saying, why? Why is this happening? And I'm not getting answers. And I hear through the public hearing, we don't have the facilities. Nobody's giving us the guidance. We shouldn't have to do this legislation. This bc/rp 199 legislation is very important. I've spoken many times about when we have people that end up being incarcerated, we have a duty to make sure they don't die while they're in our care. And certainly, I want them to be productive individuals once they get out of incarceration. Productive members of society, I don't want them having to go back to a life of crime to go back into prison because that's a circular journey that nobody wants us to ever see or ever to foster. This legislation will permit people to get the care while they are being incarcerated. I do agree. It sets the standard. It's the start. I also want to thank Democratic policy staff for working together with myself on this language. I'm accepting, I believe, all of the changes and additions that I had asked for. We do need to find standards that we can meet, and I we are still on that quest so that we can hold our corrections facility up to a standard that's recognized by some other jurisdiction, so that we don't have to pick up the newspaper and read that somebody else who was incarcerated passed away. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do rise in support of the legislation. bc/rp 200

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also align my comments with the chair and the ranking member. I've had numerous discussions with folks in the district that have lived through this process of having severe medical, lack of care while, while incarcerated. So I look forward to passing this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the proponent of the bill, actually, on one section. bc/rp 201

Thank you. I'm looking at the amendment, LCO 5000, and I have questions or concerns on lines between 87 and 90 where it is exempting information from the Freedom of Information Act, and I was wondering if I can get an explanation on that. Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this relates to when a complaint is made to the correction ombudsperson, and the correction ombudsperson decides not to undertake an investigation. So it's a complaint that comes in. The correction ombuds may look at it and decide not to take it. bc/rp 202 Under this bill, many of those complaints could involve and relate to health conditions and someone's personal health information. And so the thought here is that that information should not be publicly disclosed because it does contain personal health information. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I look at those lines, it says which complaint and decision shall be confidential and exempt from freedom of information. I don't see anything in here where it says that it doesn't determine that the complaint is warranted. Would the good chairman of the committee be able to point that line out to me? Through you.

Yes. If you look back at the beginning on line 85, it says if the correction ombudsperson determines that such investigation is not warranted. So this is related to complaints that the correction ombudsperson has decided not to pursue an investigation or an unsubstantiated complaint. Through you.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Speaker, up until this point, the decision from the ombudsman was subject to freedom of information. Is that correct? Through you.

bc/rp 204 Through you, Mr. Speaker, as I noted, what we're doing here is substantially increasing the types of cases that'll be investigated because we're now including complaints with respect to medical treatment. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. This part is concerning to me. I do believe that it should be subject to freedom of information, which is why I'm questioning it. It has not been the case before. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

All those opposed nay. (gavel) The ayes have it. The amendment's adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dathan, you have the floor, ma'am.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended. Will you mark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Member, if you take seats, the machine will be open.

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

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Representative O'Dea, you have the floor, sir.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Representative. Representative Johnson, you have the floor.

Recess will be subject to the call of the Chair. (gavel) bc/rp 209

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader. Round of applause for another fabulous intern. (applause) Will the Clerk please call House Calendar Number 429?

Representative Demicco, sir, you have the floor.

The question for the chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Demicco, you still have the floor.

bc/rp 213 Will the Clerk please call LCO number 4932, which will be House Amendment A.

The representative seeks to leave the chamber, summarize the amendment. Is there any objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Demicco, you may proceed with summarization.

The question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Nuccio, the 53rd. Madam, you have the floor.

bc/rp 215 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? All those in favor, say aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of clarifying questions for the proponent of the bill, sir.

Thank you. So this amendment here basically narrows the scope of the bill, which was kind of broad when it was first written, and it covered a lot of durable medical equipment. And the narrowing of this bill now is specifically for the patient lifts, that from what I understand, are very expensive pieces of equipment. And I just wanted to make sure, sir, through you, this is not a grant for our large hospital facilities. Correct, sir? Through you.

Well, my understanding is based on the way that this is written that those facilities would also be eligible. I believe in the language, it refers to healthcare facilities as defined in Section 19A-490DD of the statutes, and that includes hospitals, nursing homes, long-term care facilities, and hospice facilities. bc/rp 217 So, yes, all of those entities would be eligible. And as the good ranking member of appropriations pointed out, these lifts are relatively expensive, and this is a burden that we will hopefully be able to relieve them of. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And just to be sure we're talking, though everybody understands it, these are not our regular, hate to say it, but run-of-the-mill Hoyer lifts. Like, something that is not very expensive that can help get somebody in and out of a chair. These are more intensive laboring lifts, sir. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Mr. Speaker. I believe it's a combination of both, Mr. Speaker. The big problem here is, from what I understand, after researching this for quite some time, is that there are many as the good ranking member, alluded to, there are several different types of lifts to accommodate people with several different types of disabilities. So, it would be great if a medical facility could purchase one lift that would accommodate everyone, but that's not the case. So, several different types are usually needed, and that becomes an added expense. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for that information. I don't really have any other questions for the proponent of the bill. I think this is a good fund to establish, and then we can look at what we do, how we limit it, who it's getting, and all of that after the fact. bc/rp 219 But this is truly just establishing the fund right now, so I stand in support of this, and I hope everyone will vote for the bill. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the proponent of the legislation.

Through the chair, please. Representative Demicco.

Representative Gresko.

bc/rp 221 Thank you, Representative Gresko. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not -- where am I? Will staff and guests please come to the wall of the house? Will the members please take your seat. The machine will be open.

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

The bill passes as amended. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call House Calendar Number 219?

Representative Kavros DeGraw, ma'am, you have the floor.

Good evening. Likewise.

The question for the chamber is acceptance of the joint's, committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Kavros DeGraw, you still have the floor, madam.

bc/rp 224 Will the Clerk please call LCO number 5113, scheduled House Amendment A?

The representative seeks to leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative Kavros DeGraw, you may proceed with summarization.

The question for the chamber is adoption of House Schedule Amendment A. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Haines of 34th, madam, you have the floor.

Proceed, please.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Haines.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mastrofrancesco of the 80th District, madam, you have the floor.

bc/rp 228 Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Representative Kavros DeGraw.

Representative Mastrofrancesco.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on the amendment? Will bc/rp 233 you remark further on the amendment? If not, is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying, aye.

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 5394 as amended by House "A": Total Number Voting 149 Necessary for Adoption 75 Those voting Yea 149 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 2

On Page 2, Calendar 50, HB No. 5369, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE ON THE CALCULATION OF AFFORDABILITY IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPEALS PROCESS. favorable report of Housing. bc/rp 235

Thank 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 No. 5122. I ask the amendment to be called, and that'd be given to leave with the Chamber to summarize.

House Amendment Schedule "A", LCO No. 5122, offered by Representative Felipe, Representative Rojas.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a not a strike-all amendment, but what it does is becomes the bill. It takes the six-person task force that we had created, make it into 12. To ensure that we have 50% of those people, only up to 50% can be from this legislative body. We wanted to make sure there's some parity with folks who are outside of this body. What it does is bc/rp 237 it looks at the denominator. When we talk about affordable housing appeals process, it talks about deed restriction. We talk about missing middle housing, as well as state building code, state fire safety, and state prevention codes, as well as other things that have to do with the housing appeals process. We make sure there are members of DAS appointed. There's a public safety official that must be appointed. And I urge adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I'll let this amendment go through, and we'll just talk about it after that goes, sir. Thank you. bc/rp 238

All those opposed, say, Nay. The ayes have it. (gavel) The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Scott, sir, you have the floor.

Representative Felipe. bc/rp 241

Representative Scott.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Scott.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Scott.

Thank you, Representative Scott. Will you remark further? Representative Zullo of the 99th, you have the floor.

Proceed, sir.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Carpino of the 32nd, Madam, you have the floor.

Thank you. Likewise, ma'am.

Proceed, please.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Carpino.

Representative Felipe.

Representative Carpino.

Representative Felipe. bc/rp 252

Representative Carpino.

Thank you, Representative Carpino. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Butler of the 72nd, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, sir. Likewise.

Please proceed. He's ready. bc/rp 254

Representative Felipe.

Representative Butler.

Thank you, Representative Butler. Will you remark further? Representative Courpas of the 149th, you have the floor.

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

Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your vote's been properly cast? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce that tally.

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 153?

Representative Wood, Madam, you have the floor, the Insurance Chair.

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

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4527, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A"?

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

The question before the Chamber's adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you remark further on the bc/rp 262 amendment? Representative Pavalock-D'Amato of the 77th, madam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before us? If not, is there objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, say, Aye.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the chair of the committee, what is an assignment of benefits? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the case of this, assignment of benefits is when a insurer assigns their benefits -- I'll take a homeowner, for example. They assign their benefits to a roofing company to deal with the insurance company on their behalf. Through you.

bc/rp 264 Thank you for that answer. Just to set the stage, if everybody could imagine that a roofing company comes to your neighborhood and climbs on your roof, takes a look around, comes down, and says you have significant damage. They tell the homeowner that they are going to waive the deductible, that they are going to take care of everything. They fix the roof. And then when a claim is submitted, the bill for the repairs done on the roof is a lot higher than the homeowner expected. When the insurance company denies the claim, then that roofing company then files a suit, puts a mechanic's lien on the homeowner's house, and then files a lawsuit against the homeowner and the insurance company. It's a scam that is occurring now in Connecticut, and has been for a couple years. We have companies that actually are causing our rates to increase. This legislation is attempting to curb that and just provide more transparency for homeowners, and I'll say more options in that process. Again, we're not getting rid of an assignment of benefits altogether, but creating, again, more transparency for that homeowner. Through you, Mr. Speaker, does bc/rp 265 this bill still allow contractors to take over homeowners insurance claims through an assignment of benefits? Through you.

I'm sorry. Can you just repeat the question?

Sure. Does this bill still allow contractors to take over a homeowner's insurance claim through an assignment of benefits? Through you.

Yes, it does. Through you.

And when can assignment agreement be canceled or rescinded? Through you.

Thank you for asking that question. There are many ways that the agreement can be canceled. It can be canceled within 14 days after execution, or at least 30 days after the date on which the service are scheduled to begin, bearing the services haven't substantially started, or at least 30 days after the bc/rp 267 agreement's execution, provided it does not contain a date by which the agreed upon services are scheduled to begin and services have not been performed. Through you.

And what specifically in the bill prevents a contractor from using an assignment of benefits to drive litigation? Through you.

There is a pre-suit settlement offer. So we are making sure that contractors are just not taking this through a suit, that we require a pre-suit settlement offer at the front end. Through you. bc/rp 268

And so, why not prohibit an assignment of benefits altogether? Through you.

There are very good actors out there that are doing good contracting work, and they get the benefits assigned, and they perform the work in an ethical way. We are just making sure that abuse in this area does not continue, and putting some regulatory reforms around that interaction. Through you.

And under this bill, is the homeowner still at risk of being financially responsible if there is a dispute between the contractor and the insurer? Through you.

That is the great thing about this bill is that when you assign your benefits to a roofing company, the homeowner is no longer liable. So it greatly reduces the homeowner's exposure. Through you.

bc/rp 270 And so the contractors dispute with the insurer does not generally become the homeowner's burden. Is that correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

And what does this bill do regarding insurance deductibles? Through you.

Thank you for that question, Mr. Speaker. This is really to the heart of it. Homeowners are getting misled by false advertising that says things like, we will waive your deductible, or we will pay for your deductible. That requirement to pay your deductible always has to be in place per your contract with your insurance company. So, it prohibits contractors from using gimmicks, like saying we are going to waive your deductible. Through you.

And it's my understanding that waiving deductibles can encourage inflated claims and undermine the insurance system. Is that correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

And could this make it harder for homeowners to afford repairs? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will not cause anything harder for home for homeowners. We're just making sure that homeowners are not taken advantage of. Through you.

And how is this going to be enforced? Through you.

Through the Department of Consumer Protections. Through you.

Moving on to the advertising portion of this bill, what types of advertising does this bill restrict? Through you. bc/rp 274

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, just going back to the claims of waiving deductibles, using false advertisements to lure homeowners into signing these agreements, we also put into place some language that when you are advertising and going door to door soliciting homeowners now have a disclosure form that they're able to read, which kind of goes over the process of the assignment of benefits. Through you.

And so there isn't a ban on advertising. Is that correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

And the disclosures that the chair discussed, why are those disclosures required? Through you.

This is very important for homeowners, because right now, without any regulation in place, they are signing these agreements under the guise of getting a free roof. When the bc/rp 276 insurance company says, you're not getting a free roof, or you owe something on that replacement roof, the homeowners are on the hook for paying it. So it's really important for us to have that disclosure language upfront of what the homeowners are responsible for. We're just reiterating what is already in agreement between a homeowner and their insurance company. Through you.

And I believe the bill addresses incentives. How does this bill address incentives? And are they restricted? Through you.

bc/rp 277 Yes, it prohibits offering things like rebates and gifts and waiving deductibles. Just be honest with the homeowners is what we're saying through this legislation. Through you.

And does the bill reference referral fees? Through you.

Yes, it prohibits compensation through referral fees. Through you.

Will this bill change how contractors market their services after storms? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is another important part. This bill has often been referred to as the storm chaser bill. When contractors would come into a state post a storm and claim that there's damage due to a storm, yes, disclosures that we put into place would rein in that type of behavior. And I think the most important part of putting this legislation through is that this is driving up our cost for everybody. When everybody puts in claims that are fraudulent, saying that they need a free roof, it's not free. All of us are paying for it. So, the disclosures, the transparency are a way for us to reign in the cost of exponential premiums every year. Through you. bc/rp 279

Moving on to the contractor's role and I'll say public adjuster's issues, does the bill limit what contractors can do when interacting with insurance claims? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listening to homeowners and builders, I think it's important for homeowners to have their contractors in place when a public adjuster is doing the adjusting. But we made it clear the law is that public adjusters are the only ones that can negotiate pricing with an insurance company. That is the law. But if a homeowner wants to have their contractor there to oversee that, they are welcome to do so. Through you. bc/rp 280

Thank you. And so contractors cannot act as public adjusters via this legislation. Is that correct? Through you.

That is correct. Through you.

And so that ensures, of course, that the claims negotiations are being handled by regulated professionals, bc/rp 281 again, protecting consumers. Moving on to the home solicitation contracts. What is a home solicitation contract? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's when a contractor shows up at your house and you negotiate a contract in-person. Through you.

And what does section 8 and 9 change? And I'm not sure if that section has now changed with the amendment, but it's regarding the three-day right of cancellation.

It preserves the three-day cancellation rights, but it allows a limited waiver for emergency services. Through you.

And I think that that waiver is important in emergencies, major storms or water or fire damage. What safeguards apply to that waiver? Through you.

bc/rp 283 It must be separately signed by the homeowner, and it must be in writing. Through you.

And how can we be sure that contractors don't use that as a pressure tactic? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the language, we have made sure that we have informed and documented reasoning. Through you.

And what prevents a contractor from presenting that waiver alongside a much larger contract? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another very important part of the bill. We had heard through testimony that additional services were being submitted in the claim. This is making sure that only the emergency services are listed. Through you.

bc/rp 285 And is there anything requiring emergency work and major repairs to be in separate contracts, as, I think, you just stated? Through you.

Yes, the language does specify they have to be separated. Through you.

And does that waiver apply to all types of work? Through you.

In this instance, it would only apply to the emergency services. Through you.

Does it apply to roof repair or roof replacement? Through you.

We found that roof replacement or roof repairs is not something emergent. A lot of the times, the solution is to put a bc/rp 287 tarp or a piece of plywood over the roof, then bring the public adjuster in and apply for the money through the insurance company. Through you.

And so, contractors can do emergency mitigation, but they must wait on a full replacement. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. And now, I think to the last section, as far as enforcement, does this bill make it harder for contractors to operate? Through you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Another great question. Again, contractors that are operating within the law and in good faith are doing the right thing. This would only apply for contractors that are taking advantage. Through you.

bc/rp 289 Do you think this could create a burden for smaller contractors? Through you.

Another great question, something that we strive to take into consideration when we're putting these bills forward, but these requirements are already part of normal business practice. Through you.

Could this slow down emergency responses? Through you.

No, the waiver protection means that emergency services can happen immediately. Through you.

And do you think homeowners could possibly be confused by the separate treatment of emergency work and ways

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato. bc/rp 291

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood. bc/rp 292

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

bc/rp 293 Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

bc/rp 294 Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Representative Wood.

Representative Pavalock-D'Amato.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Johnson of the 49th, you have the floor, ma'am.

bc/rp 296 Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Ackert of the 8th, you have the floor.

We can hear you, sir.

Representative Wood.

Representative Ackert.

Thank you, Representative Ackert. Will you remark further? Representative Meskers of the 150th.

Proceed, sir.

Thank you, Representative Meskers. 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 the wall of the House? Will the Members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? Will the Members please check the board to determine if your votes have been properly cast? If all Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. Clerk will please announce that tally.

The bill as amended passes. (gavel) Will the Clerk please call House Calendar No. 353? bc/rp 302

Representative Fazzino of the 83rd, sir, you have the floor. Good afternoon.

Yes, sir. Likewise.

The question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Fazzino, you still have the floor.

The question before the Chamber is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Will you remark further on this bill? Representative Fishbein of 90th District, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further on the bill? Will you remark further on the 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 opened.

Have all the Members voted? Have all the Members voted? If all the Members have voted, the machine will be locked, and the Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk will announce that tally.

The bill passes. (gavel) Representative Smith of the 118th, sir, you have the floor.

Please proceed, sir.

Welcome Franklin.

Congratulations, Mr. Smith, to you and your family. I've had the privilege introducing my grandchildren as well.

Here. Here. Welcome. bc/rp 308

Thank you, Representative. Will the Clerk please call House Calendar 360?

Representative McCarthy Vahey of Bridgeport, Fairfield, madam, you have the floor.

Yes, ma'am.

The question before the Chambers is acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative McCarthy Vahey, you still have the floor.

Will the Clerk please call LCO 4517, marked House Amendment "A"?

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

The question before the Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule "A". Will you mind further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? Is there an objection to a voice vote? Hearing none, all those in favor, say, Aye.

All opposed, say, nay. The ayes have it. Amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Klarides-Ditria of the 105th, Madam, you have the floor. SPEAKER 19: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm not going to go over what the good chair said about the bill, because she summarized it perfectly. But Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment. This is a common-sense bill. It's a good reason to combine these two bills. It's lifesaving proposal that removes outdated barriers, and expands access to opioid antagonist, which is very important, where they're needed the most. Where they're needed the most? Our schools and our communities, by aligning laws with the current FDA guidance, and allowing broader distribution, which is extremely important. And, Mr. Speaker, this bill is also about prevention, equity, and responding to a crisis in emergencies with urgency and compassion. I urge adoption. bc/rp 314

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

The bill as amended passes. (gavel)

Page 28, Calendar 352, substitute for HB No. 5313, AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A PLAN FOR THE USE OF UNIFORM STATE-WIDE CASE IDENTIFICATION CODES IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES favorable report of Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

Madam Speaker, my compatriot in all things Cheshire, very nice to see you up there. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a really good bill that comes to us from great collaboration between members of this Chamber and the Sentencing Commission. This requires the Chief Court Administrator to develop a plan for implementing and using specific data points for tracking domestic violence cases, from the point of arrest through the point of disposition. to the point of sentencing. Obviously, every year, we need to be doing more to ensure vindication for victims of domestic violence, and also ensure bc/rp 317 that data is being properly collected and used. This is a really great bill that accomplishes those ends, and I urge its passage.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Actually, the greatest delegation just moved more easterly.

We do share a town, anyway.

Right? I know. Wallingford forgets about you, too.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Really should have been done a long time ago. So coordinating, getting all this stuff together for the betterment of victims of domestic violence is a good thing. Good bill, ought to pass. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

bc/rp 319 Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. But before I begin, for those at home, many of us are dressed in denim today in solidarity with survivors of sexual violence. A reminder that this Chamber has an obligation to know victims and survivors, and to strengthen systems that too often fail them. Madam Speaker, this bill is very personal to me. I grew up in Bethel with Emily Todd. Emily was murdered in a domestic violence homicide that devastated her family, our friends, and our entire community. Her mother, Jen Lawler, has since become a tireless advocate for victims' families across Connecticut. In the aftermath of that tragedy, I work with Chair Stafstrom to create a subcommittee through the Sentencing Commission to study outcomes in domestic violence homicide cases. What we found was deeply frustrating. We wanted to better understand how these cases move through our criminal justice system, from arrests to charging decisions, to plea agreements, sentencing, incarceration, and parole, and we discovered that we too often can't. Why? Because once a case leaves initial arrest bc/rp 320 stage, there is no consistent connected way to track it as a domestic violence case across agencies. Different agencies collect piece of information, our police, prosecutors, judicial, corrections, but those systems are not working together in a linked way that allows lawmakers to see the full picture. That is what this bill addresses. This directs state agencies to develop a uniform statewide identifier so domestic violence cases can be tracked across criminal justice processes for reporting purposes. And I want to be very clear about what this bill does not do. It does not create a new crime, it does not change penalties, it does not impose mandatory minimums, it does not alter due process rights, and it does not presume guilt. In fact, better data helps all of us. It helps victims who deserve accountability, it helps policymakers who need facts before changing laws, and it helps ensure we are not legislating based on anecdotes but on real outcomes. Transparency gives us facts, facts allow us to make better policy decisions. And I want to thank Chair Stafstrom, members of Judiciary Committee, advocates, and families who helped shape this legislation. I urge adoption. Thank you. bc/rp 321

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn't going to stand up, but since all the Cheshire delegation, I felt the need to stand up.

This is just a very good piece of legislation, which is extremely important. So I urge everyone to vote for it. 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 5313: Total Number Voting 150 Necessary for Adoption 76 bc/rp 323 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

On Page 16, Calendar 241, HB No. 5256, AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROCESS FOR INITIATING LOCAL LEGISLATION IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. Favorable report of Joint Standing Committee on --

Good evening, Madam Chair. It's wonderful to see you up there this evening.

I will argue that Norwalk is the best delegation though, so you can have that against us

I move for the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

bc/rp 325 Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I rise in talking about HB 5256, which is a very simple bill that simply just modernizes the reporting that towns, cities, and all of our municipalities have to do when they are initiating local legislation. It actually removes the requirement to file such requirements with the Secretary of the State. I move passage.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. No questions for the good chairwoman of the Government Oversight Committee. This is a really good piece of legislation, which as she said, modernizes the process basically for either local taxing districts or associations that were created by the General Assembly decades ago. If they want to make changes now, it's a little bit easier to come to us. bc/rp 326 Most of the notice requirements are still the same, except for this archaic piece that would require you to send something to the Secretary of State, that the Secretary of State really doesn't do anything with. They didn't oppose the bill, and so I'm urging all of my colleagues to support this. Thank you very much, Madam 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 5256: Total Number Voting 150 Necessary for Adoption 76 Those voting Yea 150 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 1

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move for suspension of our rules for immediate consideration of Calendar 506.

On Page 62, Calendar 506, House Resolution No. 12, RESOLUTION PROPOSING APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT AND THE STATE EMPLOYEES BARGAINING AGENT COALITION (SEBAC). favorable report of Appropriations.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I need to recuse myself for this bill.

bc/rp 329 Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the House Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So we have the SEBAC agreement. It is a year and a half in the making of negotiations between the state and around 30 bargaining units. This deal encompasses correctional officers, prosecutors, janitors. It encompasses bc/rp 330 managers. It encompasses people in the healthcare fields. This is 42,000 livelihoods that we are contemplating right now. At the base, what we do at the beginning of these negotiations is we set a base of what we're trying to accomplish. Where we can find win-wins, we're trying to find win-wins. And, in 2017 when we had the SEBAC deal that we struck, it is estimated that we've saved about $8 billion that the comptroller's office has noted over this time period. And our state workforce has been incredibly generous with the state to make sure that we have a balanced budget. For this year, and this agreement, we have to go back about a year to make sure that the agreement that we have today pays for the raises that our state workforce would get retroactively, going back to July 1st of 2025 until June 30th of 2026. And part of this agreement goes to FY 2029, where we are going to have a wage reopener. The very basic of this is that our workforce is going to get 2.5% raise every year, and there are a number of corrections with our various tables, bargaining units, that are specific to each of these categories. So, for example, we know that our bc/rp 331 prosecutors can go to the private market, they can go to the Attorney General's Office and make more money. And we need to be consistently making investments in our workforce because if we don't invest in our people, then we're going to end up spending more money because the work isn't going to go away. So, we have to hire new people, train them, they'll go somewhere else where the pay is better, and we end up spending more money than we need to. So, if prosecutors or judicial warden, marshals, or people that are going to pull away dead bodies in the middle of the night, who are getting paid $18 an hour, we're giving some pay increases that are more than that 2.5%. We're changing what the steps are because there's a recognition that some of these jobs have fallen behind of market standards so badly that we are having trouble hiring. So, the very general premise that we agreed to at the very beginning of negotiation, with the recognition that there were a number of bargaining units that went to arbitration, because they wanted 3.5%, but then through negotiation, they came back down to 2.5%. We have healthcare efficiencies are a big part of this deal, simply meaning that we're going to be providing an bc/rp 332 incentive to our state workforce to not be taking health insurance. That is in the case that you have a spouse that has good health insurance, the idea being that, if you don't want to be in our health insurance plan, we'll pay you to come off of it because that's a massive savings to the state. That's a big part of this. That's a win-win. There are changes to Medicare Advantage and Medicare wrap allowing a little bit more flexibility to our workforce to buy the Medicare version that they're looking for. With HEP, we're ensuring that by giving money that is now tax deductible, we're ensuring that our workforce is healthy. And a healthier workforce means, again, less costs to the state. We have fertility service point solutions. The general idea being that when you're good to people, and people are healthy, you're far less likely to have long and extended stays in the hospital, NICU stays. We're trying to get people to our workforce to use UConn Health more, so that we can provide health services at a more affordable cost. Made some minor changes to pension administration fixes, just backend fixes, making sure that bc/rp 333 there's clarity in the system. We also are going to have a working group for telework. Telework was actually part of SEBAC in 2017, well before the pandemic, and we don't even need to be talking about this until next year, but there's an understanding that there may be need to correct some of how we're dealing with telework. And there are folk in labor who feel that this is a perk that we need to keep, and that we are not actually losing any level of efficiency, any level of productivity, and that to continue bringing people into the state workforce, we should continue having that flexibility with telework. There are other voices that believe that we are not getting the same level of effectiveness from our state workforce. So, in January of next year, the working group will convene with its solution, its answer, how we want to continue moving forward. It's important to remember that this 2.5% increase is commensurate with what is given to municipalities. It's commensurate to what we ourselves have given in the past. It's often in line with inflation, so that 2.5% really doesn't count towards much more in terms of actual earning power. It's important to remember that we don't have a county- bc/rp 334 based system. And the reason it's important to remember that we don't have a county-based system is that, when you're comparing us to other states, you need to take into account that we're the only state without counties, and some of these county jobs in other states are on the higher end, the state absorbs that cost. So, we need to make sure that if we're comparing ourselves to other states, we're taking that into consideration. Again, this contract is going to be retroactive to July 1st of last year. There's another change for the retroactivity of direct retirees. So if you go directly into retirement in that retroactive period over the last year, you will get the benefits of this negotiated bargain. If you leave the state workforce and go to work somewhere else, you do not get that benefit. A direct concession from the unions. That's about the long and short of it. Over the course FY '26, the cost is estimated to be about $200 million, FY '27 is $431 million. We have the RSA, that's the reserve fund that we put into place last year that covers these costs. Costs for FY '28, FY '29, that's for the legislature to figure out next year. bc/rp 335 We have 30 days from the time that the deal was struck to ensure that we come in to session to debate whether or not we're going to agree that this deal should move forward. If we say no today as a body, it goes back to negotiation, and then there's, I believe, an arbitration at that point. If it comes back to us again, and we say no again, it goes back to arbitration where they have then final say. So, we do have say in this room as to whether or not we move forward on this contract. We do have that ability. It's about 1,100 pages worth of contract here, and every single bargaining unit did something a little bit different. But the premise is this, our allies, our friends, our workforce, who protect our constituencies, who make sure that prosecutors ensure that people who are a danger to the public go behind bars, make sure that public facilities are clean, make sure that the trains run on time. These are our constituents, they serve our constituents. It is our duty, and I believe it's our obligation to treat them fairly. And we have to have an eye, a managerial eye, recognizing that when you give less, you sometimes end up paying bc/rp 336 more. And when we leave vacancies, and we have more overtime, that's when we pay more. And when we have people that we train over the course of years, that go to work for other jobs, that's when we pay more. That's what making investments in our workforce over the long run ends up netting us a savings. And that's a big premise of the negotiations that we have in front of us today. The last point I'll make is that when deals go to arbitration, they generally favor the workforce. For those in this room that have concerns about how much we're spending, I would suggest that this is a very good deal. It's a good deal for the state, it's a good deal for the workforce. I'm proud to be up here defending this agreement. And with that, I urge adoption.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have no questions for the proponent of the bill. Just going to have some comments and go through this a little bit. So, first off, I want to preface, the narrative is always, if you vote against a union contract, you are against the workers or you are against the union. And I would like to very go through that a little bit tonight to talk about some of the issues that I see with this contract. One of the things that I've noticed, this is my sixth year here, in my six years here in the last two years, we have taken up a practice of instead of listing out individual bills and debating individual bills, we start pulling together these, what we're called up here, airline carriers. Like, what did we have? 15 bills in the transportation bill, 17 bills in one of the housing bill or something like that. You start looking at what I think is maybe kind of seen as the efficiency, but I see as the breakdown of the democratic process. And to be honest with you, ma'am, I think it's intentional. I think that it is intentional on behalf of the majority to throw a bunch of bills together, some of which, a bc/rp 338 lot of which, we might jointly agree with, and some that we don't, to get somebody on a bad vote, right? I think that's a practice that we've seen up here in the last couple of years. Personally, I don't like it, and I like to call it out whenever I can see it. And when I vote no on a bill and somebody asks me why, and I tell them there's 15 bills in this, and here's how I felt about each of them individually. But overall, the consensus was there were more bills that I disagreed with than I agreed with. I voted yes on some airline carriers. I voted no on some. When I think about the state union contract here, we are looking at 35 different negotiation pieces, 35 different union contracts. And one of the things that I don't like is they're all lumped together, and you don't have the ability to go through and say yes or no to some. I voted yes on quite a few union contracts, especially when I feel like the contract that we're looking at is an area where, hey, we might need to pay somebody more to get them in for this job. I think about the state police contract. I think about the contract that we did while I was out, the laborer contract, right? When I look at that individual unit, the average salary bc/rp 339 was, like, $55,000 to $68,000 a year, right? A 4.5%. And let's be clear on that. It is a 4.5% increase because unless you are at top step, you have a step of 2% that is guaranteed regardless of performance, regardless of anything. It is a, you did your time, you get 2%. And then there's a 2.5% on top of that. It is a combined number. When I look at a contract of somebody that's making 60- something thousand dollars a year, and I think about the fact that this is one of the most expensive states to live in, I absolutely can say, yes, this is good. Having the ability to look at these individually and go through and say, here are units -- for instance, DOC is in here. We have a hard time keeping people at DOC. It has immense overtime. It is a 24-hour operation. It is a very trying job. Personally, I think they probably need more than a 2.5% increase. Myself, if that was before me in a contract in and of itself, I would vote for that. I would vote for a higher increase because we have a need there. We can't keep people there, right? It is a high demand job, it is a high turnover job, it's a high overtime job. But then I look at some of these other bc/rp 340 contracts, and let's be clear, there are 35 in here, 35 individual bargaining units who, because they're all wrapped together, get the same exact increase as everybody else, right? Everything is the same. The SEBAC is the same, this is the same over here. The only difference is if you have a hazardous job, that is really the only delineation between any of the benefits that anybody gets. And it's usually not in the pay, but it's actually in the SEBAC benefit piece. Having to lump all of these together, we're right back into a situation of, hey, of these 35, there's probably a good seven or eight here that I say absolutely. In fact, can we really look at it and say, how do we get more people in here? What do we have to do to incent them? But, again, having it all lump together, to me, that means when somebody asks me why I vote no on this, I can tell them, here are all the different units, and here are the different increases across all of these units, and here are the benefits in that. And I'm sorry, with the ability to look at them individually, I would have voted all over the place. But because it's all in one, that makes it harder. bc/rp 341 When we look at when we had the meeting in appropriations, the waiving of insurance, right? Apparently, we only have about a 2% of state employees that waive their insurance right now. And this is going to give a financial incentive of $50 for a single person and $150 for a family. That equates to a $1,300 check if you're single over the course of a year, and a $3,900 check if you are married and have children. I asked if that was a pensionable amount, and I was told that hadn't been decided yet. Although I'm not sure how it couldn't have been decided yet because it's a contract, it should have been decided. But it is not decided whether or not it is a pensionable account. Now, if we want to talk about benefits, the state of Connecticut has one of the richest health insurance plans in the country. If you don't believe me, Google it. Look into it. Look at other states. We actually have a plan that if Obamacare had not been modified, everybody that receives that plan would have had to pay a payment back to the federal government because it's considered a Cadillac plan. It is a plan that you cannot get if you are not in government. And the only reason the federal bc/rp 342 government changed it is because their plan is the same exact way, and they didn't want to pay a premium. So, we have a plan for insurance that is one of the best plans in the country, and we somehow think that giving somebody a $50 check is going to incent them to go to a plan that has a deductible? This doesn't even cover a deductible. $1,300 for a single, $3,900 for a family. If you can find me a plan that has a deductible that low, I'll give you the $1,300. Right? It doesn't exist. And unfortunately, built into this contract is the assumed savings of about $26 million annually. I'm going to put dollars to doughnuts right now. That ain't happening. It's going to be another one of the, we're going to do all these things, we're going to save all this money on the health insurance plans. We're going to bake that in. Oh, by the way, we're over. We weren't able to achieve those savings. That's what this is coming down to. One of the only givebacks in this contract was the Medicare options. I'm sorry, not the Medicare options. That's the retiree health care costs. But the Medicare options, that to me, again, it's going to mirror what we do for the teachers. That's not bc/rp 343 going to generate any sort of savings. I have a few concerns about the UConn partnership. I understand what they're trying to do. But unfortunately, in doing this, we're asking the state employees to prop up UConn Healthcare. So, I don't know about everybody else, but the closest UConn Healthcare to me is over an hour away. I'm not going to go to a UConn Healthcare Center. This is going to drive people to UConn with the hopes that it keeps the rates down with no true fiscal analysis that shows how much money we're going to save if we do this. They're basically creating a preferred provider plan. And depending on where you live, it may not be achievable. So, the only rescission that was given back in this contract when I asked was the revisions of the early retiree cost share grid. And it's, if you retire before normal retirement age, so not 65, not 67, you retire early, and it's due to your age and your tier, so technically, depending on how long you've worked here, you could retire when you're 50 years old, it will add a 5% premium cost share to how those people who retire early pay for their retiree health care, and that's typically 2%. bc/rp 344 I want to make sure everybody understands this. This was the revision. This was the give back to the state. It's $200,000 a year. $200,000 a year is what the compromise was, the savings for the state, by going to that. I want to make sure I'm really clear on this one, because God knows people like to splice videos of me talking about it. The telework agreement, the current agreements that we have right now have not been touched in this. And just so I'm particularly clear one more time for the cameras, there are definitely roles that lend themselves to telework, right? There are plenty of positions that it makes sense to have a telework agreement or a flexible agreement. And then there are some that don't. And the fact that the current agreement doesn't differentiate that is problematic. So, this work group, when I asked what it was going to do, it's considering the appropriateness of telework, agency requirements, education, training, collaboration, culture of the agency, etc. And then the offsetting, it helps with recruitment and retention, which I agree it would. And I love the quote that came from OPM, "Just because you use teams doesn't mean you can create one." I thought it was great. It absolutely hits it. bc/rp 345 So, the telework agreement that we currently have with the state employees is very broad-based. And I know for a fact, when I've talked to OPM on plenty of times, there's a lot of concern around productivity, there's a lot of concern around any kind of roles that are customer-facing, whether or not they're in the office and that. And this is something that, what I have been told directly from OPM, there's a lot of concerns around. So, the fact that there was nothing in this contract with the exception of, we're going to put together a work group to look at it and maybe address it in the SEBAC contract is problematic to me, right? Because all we're doing is saying we're going to put this off for now, and we'll look at it later, when the information that OPM has provided to us shows problems with productivity. So that's a problem, right? It's something that, again, was not considered in this contract, and it was just put through. I asked for, specifically, were there any conversations about higher cost share of premium? Again, the premium that we pay, the state employees pay, is significantly lower than what you see in private industry. And our health care costs, if anybody hasn't bc/rp 346 looked at our budget lately, are extremely high, and we are over. We have deficit this year in those dollar amounts. And some of the ways to mitigate that is to look at the share of the premium cost. None of that was considered in looking at this. And when I asked that, I was told, we are only looking for win-win scenarios. So, when you say to me, I'm only looking for win-win scenarios, what I hear is you're really not putting in any kind of work to try to figure out what is reasonable, what is fair. And it's not just about the state employee unions, but it's about the cost of these contracts ongoing. I'm just going to say ongoing. So, with that, looking at this -- let's see. Let me get through my notes. In the past, we've been told a lot about savings that were going to be accomplished from the 2017 and on contracts. And when I ask for actual documentation on that, it's very hard to get. So, looking at this contract and these units and the fact that all of them are lumped together, all of them have the same exact increases across the board, and there's no difference between areas that we might need to put more to and areas that bc/rp 347 might be doing well already. The good representative talked about the $200 million this year and the $400 million next year. But what wasn't talked about is in the next contract that we have, the next two-year contract, we're looking at $1.3 billion increase just from these contracts. Just from this contract that is before us now, $1.3 billion increase in the next contract. What that does is put an immense amount of pressure on our pension systems also. There's a lot of people in here who don't believe in the fiscal guardrails, who do not believe in the volatility cap, who think that that revenue, we should just be spending it. And as we look at consensus revenue coming in, and we look at where we're at from a state perspective, then they don't recognize that that money is not going to be there for very much longer. We're going to get to a point where these numbers are going to become problematic in a full budget down the line. We're going to have more pension pressures. So, anything that we have paid off thus far with these high increases, it's just going to go back in, and it's going to be, you know, it's going to put more pressure on it. We're not going to see the benefit bc/rp 348 of having paid this off or put any money towards it over the last few years. I appreciate what our state employees do. Some of them have very difficult jobs. I appreciate that they're government employees. And in the government employee world, which is pretty much the only world that exists with a pension anymore, you know, the old adage was you went and worked for the state and you didn't make as much money, but you were guaranteed a lifelong pension and lifelong health care. Well, our employees are still guaranteed a lifelong pension and lifelong health care. But what we don't want to talk about is with this contract, our state employees are now the highest paid state employees in the country. We have surpassed every other state in the country to the highest paid state employees in the country. The average, now, again, there are some below and some over. That's how averages work. The average salary effective this year with this contract is $100,000 for a state employee. That's a lot. When you add that to one of the top health care plans in the country, it's a lot. It's a lot for a lot of people outside here who aren't seeing increases like that. They're not bc/rp 349 seeing the raises in their salaries of a four and a half percent. They have health care plans that have high deductibles. They have health care plans that are expensive. They have health care plans that they don't have a $15 copay to go to the doctor. And I think when we start talking about the fact that the average private employee paying the taxes for these kinds of increases, it's hard for them to swallow too. So, again, it's not a matter of whether or not you support the employees. It's not a matter of whether or not you support the state unions. To me, it comes down to the fact that here I am once again with an airline carrier with 35 contracts that does not give me the ability to go through and say, this one, yes. This one, maybe a little bit lower. This one, we should probably do more. You know, it's one lump contract. It's one lump sum. And it's one lump that's going to hit our budget in a time when I think we're going to have problems coming up very quickly, and we're going to have to make decisions that we might not want to be making. And unfortunately, this is going to put pressure on that that I don't think we're ready to handle. bc/rp 350 So, with that, I would just like to say I appreciate the work that was put in. I appreciate, you know, getting the information. I don't appreciate the process, and I don't appreciate being told, you know, I have to look at everything inclusively as one without the ability to truly look at these individually. And I think if that's one thing that I would change. I talk to UConn all the time, and they tell me how, you know, they don't have the money to pay all these increases. But they've never really argued to come out of the SEBAC either, right? I think, individually, we should be looking at them, giving people the ability to negotiate and come back across the board with what they think they need to have the people that they need, the services that they need, and give us the ability to rate them one at a time. But because we can't do that, you know, I stand today to say, unfortunately, I will not be able to support these because it's just another airline carrier, of which there's good and bad in. But unfortunately, I think the bad outweighs the good. Thank you, Madam Speaker. bc/rp 351

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I believe the people should be fairly compensated for work well done, but the contracts before us are unsustainable for the State of Connecticut. I've stated before in this chamber that a recent Hearst Newspaper headline had the following. The golden age. It's a golden age for Connecticut state employees while the taxpayer gets fleeced. That is a dramatic headline, but unfortunately, the facts support it. We've already heard from the good ranking member that this contract will make Connecticut state employees the number one highest paid in the country. State employee pay will rise 60% when these contracts are enacted between 2019 and 2029. A Georgetown University study found that Connecticut state health insurance benefits are number one in the country. Two bc/rp 352 studies found that Connecticut retiree health benefits are number one in the country. Our municipal and state retirement as a percentage of our total spending were number two in the country. I think I could digest all of those statistics because someone has to be number one highest paid state employees in the country. And why shouldn't it be Connecticut? But the most important statistic of all to me is that when we look at how our state compares to other states in terms of how much money we've put aside to fulfill these obligations, our funded ratio, we're number 46. So, stated another way, we're number one in what we're committing to and number 46 in our ability to pay. And one thing that worries me about that, Madam Speaker, is that there will come a day when we will not have the money to pay people's pensions because we over-committed in this chamber. And the other thing that worries me is that by grossly overfunding one part of our budget, we are doing that to the detriment of every other part of our budget. Let's start with 2026 and 2027. In the Appropriations Committee, the question was asked, do we have enough in the biennial budget 2026 to 2027 to fulfill these increases? And the bc/rp 353 answer was yes because of the RSA account. But the problem with relying on the 2026 to '27 budget as some kind of barometer to whether this is fiscally responsible is the fact that, in my opinion, the 2026/27 budget itself was not fiscally responsible. We used over $1 billion of volatile revenue that we won't have again or we can't count on again to plug operating holes in the 2026/27 budget. So, to use that as a benchmark of whether we can afford this is not viable. So, what's been going on in the State of Connecticut? If you really look at the meta view of our state, since we enacted Connecticut's fiscal guardrails, we have had two major sources of cover. The first source of cover was ARPA funds. ARPA was the biggest single bailout in American history, 10 times the size of the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe. Connecticut got $2.8 billion of ARPA money. So, during the first couple of years of the fiscal guardrails, we used ARPA money to plug holes. That gave us a lot of cover for our overspending. But as we all know, ARPA funding ended. But once ARPA funding ended, then we had a raging, super successful stock market. That gave us another enormous source of cover. bc/rp 354 2019, the stock market was up 31%. 2020, 18%. '24, 25%. And 2025, 17%. Over the last 80 years, the stock market annual returns are about 10 to 12%. We have had an incredible performance in the stock market, and we have been able to harvest volatile revenues. That also has given us enormous cover in our budget. But that cover is going away. Volatile revenues do not last forever, and we are already seeing some of those cracks. So, my point is really, it shouldn't give anyone in this chamber comfort that we have enough money in the 26/27 budget to cover the increases in those years in these contracts because that budget itself was a house built on sand, in my opinion. Now let's focus on the out years of this contract, 2028 to 2029. In those two years, these contracts are committing the State of Connecticut to $1.3 billion. So, that is $1.3 billion in those out years, which are going ahead of every other priority in our budget. So, now I will ask the only question I will ask tonight to the good proponent of this bill. And that is, why are we putting our state employee contracts in front of every other spending priority in this bc/rp 355 state in '28 and '29 when our state employees are already number one highest paid in the country? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess I would just push gently back on the characterization that we are putting our state workforce ahead of any other priority. Everything we do has levels of priorities. It's better and more efficient, I would argue, that we have four year contracts. Otherwise, we'd be having two-year contracts, and it would be harder and harder to attract a workforce, to be telling our workforce that we believe in the work that they're doing. I believe there's a little bit of give and take with the work that we do here. Again, if the amount of raises that we were giving were onerous, I might be more inclined to agree. But what we're doing with two and a half percent increases is really, again, akin to inflation. And there's a statistic that bc/rp 356 the good colleague mentioned, which is that we'll see about a 60% increase over a 10-year period. I would also remind the chamber that there were years during the pandemic where we saw seven 9% inflationary years. And while 60% seems like a lot, it's actually, again, keeping pace with inflation. And that's a lot of what we're doing. In a state where there's as much wealth as there is here, for us to be deeply in the pack I would think would be sort of embarrassing. But then I also reflect on the fact that, again, a lot of the comparisons that we make don't take into account the fact that we have absorbed all of the county-based jobs across the US. There are also studies out there looking at us regionally in terms of our pension system and that we are actually somewhere again in the middle of the pack. I think it depends on where we get this information from and how we evaluate it. So, I understand where the good colleague is coming from given that certainly of the bills that we have to pay, we know we're going to have to pay at the last two years of this contract. I would also remind the chamber that in year four is the wage re-opener year, where if it turns out that we bc/rp 357 absolutely must make some changes, we've left both an out for the state and for labor to come to the table and figure out what makes sense there. In a sense, a lot of what the good colleague has concerns with the finances as opposed to the specifics in terms of the day-to-day tasks, we've actually left ourselves an out for half of the period that the good colleague would be concerned with. There are also plenty of fixed costs that we know we're going to have to pay in the next biennium that are above and beyond the cost of labor. There is the cost of debt. There is the cost of the non- profits that we'll have to take care of. There are plenty of things that we will be contending with. So, the characterization that we are in some way putting our labor force into a different category I don't think is accurate, although I very much understand the perspective of my good colleague.

Thank you. And, you know, the good proponent makes an excellent point, and it's true. You know, people's wages have to keep up with inflation. Otherwise, they are trying to get ahead in life and they're really only falling behind. That's a very serious and important point, and I appreciate it. The problem I have is -- or maybe I should ask the good proponent. Do we have any evidence that the private sector wages are keeping up with inflation and that the taxpayers who are footing the bill for this are keeping up with inflation and the ability to pay? Through you, Madam Speaker.

Through you, Madam Speaker, a very fair question. When the negotiations happen, I think a lot of what's happening in the private market is considered because assuming we want the state workforce to continue to function, we have to be competitive. bc/rp 359 And a lot of the somewhat larger raises in the two and a half percent are because we have gone below what the private market has been. And so, there's certainly some areas where the private market has not kept up. There's certainly areas where it has sped ahead. And in the areas where it's sped ahead, we try to correct for that. I also don't think it makes sense to, in a sense, punish our workforce for what's happening in the private market. And that because it's an expensive state to live in, we need to ensure that our state workforce can afford to live here too. And if there are things that we can do in this chamber that helps people that are not part of our state workforce, I think that's a big part of what our job should be too to make sure that we help those folk who are struggling. Whether it's looking at laws that provide, you know, employment practices that are helpful or bringing down the cost of housing or what have you that make the costs of living in our state extremely difficult. I don't know if that is necessarily in total contended with this contract specifically, but I think bc/rp 360 a lot of the work that we do is to help people as much as we possibly can. Through you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. And, you know, that too is an excellent point. You know, we can't penalize our state employees for the fact that inflation is high right now. But that assumes there's no relationship between what's happening in the private sector with wages and what's happening in the public sector with wages and inflation. The unique thing about these employees is that they are funded by the taxpayer. So, it is highly relevant what is going on with inflation and wages in the private sector. And it's not a matter of penalizing public employees. It's a matter of putting everyone on par. If inflation is raging and the private sector is suffering, we can't afford to make up those shortfalls bc/rp 361 in the public sector because it is the private sector and the taxpayer who's footing the bill. I have no interest in pitting our non-profits and our state employees one against the other. They are a team. We're all a team. But the magnitude of the dollars here when you have non- profits in my district, that for $75,000 could put 10 more people under a roof in the cold or could feed more people. Those are small numbers compared to the size of the dollars we're talking about here. And I am concerned that the priorities in the budget are overfunded in this area and underfunded in other areas. Madam Speaker, that concludes my questions for the good proponent. Madam Speaker, I believe our public sector in Connecticut has been growing at a pace that we absolutely cannot sustain. And this is not the fault of our state employees. State employees are working hard every day. They're doing an excellent job. They're earning a paycheck, and they're negotiating for higher pay. I completely support that. Who could fault them for that? But it is not their responsibility to look at the big picture. It is not their responsibility to balance the bc/rp 362 priorities of the state. It is not their responsibility to figure out if these contracts are sustainable. It is not their responsibility to know what the funded ratio of Connecticut is. It is our responsibility. From a financial perspective, no matter how you look at this issue, in my opinion, no matter how you twist yourself into a pretzel to justify these increases, no matter what measure you look at this from, from a financial perspective, these contracts are an unsustainable path for our state. I will be voting no today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I thought we were voting. Sorry. bc/rp 363

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 Resolution 12: Total Number Voting 149 Necessary for Adoption 75 Those voting Yea 107 Those voting Nay 42 Those absent and not voting 2

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For an introduction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the well of the House, I have two constituents here who were not expecting to get introduced and embarrassed on the floor of the House, but I'm going to do that because that's what I do. So, if everybody could welcome Charles and Rachel Botts to the chamber. Charles and Rachel, stand up. There you go. (applause) They claimed they were just here for restaurant night for the Restaurant Association, but they really came here to see me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Members missed votes as noted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Clerk is in possession of members who missed votes and reasons why. Thank you.

One last housekeeping item.

I move we immediately transmit all items requiring further action to the Senate. bc/rp 367

Thank you. And I appreciate everybody's hard work today. It is still daylight out, and we've completed a lot of work. So, everyone, please drive home safely, and we'll get back to business tomorrow at 11:00. And with that, I move we adjourn, subject to the call of the Chair.