CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-22

Will the Senate please come to order? And would members and guests please direct your attention to our guest chaplain, Martin Dunleavy of New Haven, who will lead us in prayer.

Thank you so much. And now I invite Senator Tony Hwang to please come and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, pg/rr 2 will the Senate just stand at ease for a moment, please?

Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Sorry. Yes, I believe we have some introductions this morning. I'd like to yield to Senator Anwar, please.

Yes. I do. Good morning.

President, we are joined. As you can see right behind me, some beautiful faces and beautiful individuals. These are individuals who are making a difference every single day. I wanna recognize Chris Casano, who is one of the founders and the lead for the Brain Tumor Alliance -- Connecticut Brain Tumor Alliance. This group is helping people, adults, children, and individuals, and the families who have been impacted by brain tumors. We as a family in the who we have lost from brain tumor. In the same way, they are providing support and hope for everyone. There are a few other members, including the volunteers. We have Cheryl Italia over pg/rr 3 here, Alexander Flowers, Julie Daugherty, Dan Tapper, Jennifer Pace, and many of the volunteers. And I see Representative Jenga is over here as well. There he is. Representative Jenga is part of the family of the community who is coming together. Madam President, they want to also mention about the work that they're doing, including support. They have donated over $2 million to support the families and the patients in their difficult moments. They also want us to know about May 9 at 8 a.m, there is going to be a Path of Hope 5K Walk and Run. So people who want to join, they can join. If they want to register and be able to learn more about it, they can either go downstairs in the rotunda or they can go to the website, which is ctbta.org. And I remembered it. So, I just wanna thank for all of our family over here to recognize them and give them a warm welcome if our fellow Senators and everybody over here can give a warm welcome to a friend. And Madam President, they also wanted a picture with you.

I do. Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Today, I am here with two students from the 8th District. I have Luke Demanby from Canton and Xavier Winalski from Harwinton. And these two young men are here because they won the veterans essay contest that we ran in the 8th District. And they each wrote beautiful essays. The prompt was, what does the word veteran mean to you, and how can we help our local veterans? And both of them wrote some really meaningful words about how veterans are real people. pg/rr 4 They're members of our community. They often contribute a lot to our communities, and how they sacrifice for all of us, how they are away from their families, how they take risks, sometimes risking their lives for us, so that we can live in freedom. And they both came up with some great ways that we can honor our veterans, like Luke had the idea of sending cards and getting classes to write cards to veterans. And I believe that he had an experience with that where some veterans really appreciated that when he did that as a younger kid. And Xavier had the idea of writing letters to veterans and organizing children to write letters to veterans. So two, really great ideas from these young men. They're here with their families. Both sets of parents are here. And as the chair of the Veterans Committee, I've had the honor of going to lots of veterans' events. And in particular, recently I've been to some send-off events where Connecticut veterans are going off to serve around the world. And so I think it's really important that everyone thinks about veterans now that we have soldiers serving in harm's way in the Middle East. And, yeah, I just like the Senate to give a warm welcome to everyone here. And I did forget to mention one thing that Luke wanted to dedicate his essay to his grandfather, Muriel McDaniel, who served as a member of the special forces airborne, and his grandfather, David DeMandi, who served in the National Guard. But, yeah. Please give a warm welcome to Luke and Xavier and their families. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Yes. I rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce a tremendous young leader, Charlotte Ruddock, who is a sophomore at Trumbull High School. She's part of the DECA organization. She's part of working at the high school newspaper. She's been a Girl Scout for many years and is continuing that work. I was, too, so I'm always proud to see another fellow Girl Scout. And I didn't continue all the way through high school, so I'm so glad to see you continuing, keeping that tradition going for the Girl Scouts. And as part of our Young Leaders Council, where we're getting young leaders engaged in politics, understanding why we need to be involved to strengthen our democracy and really a part of civic engagement. So excited to have Charlotte here just to shout over the day, and then to continue to work with her as a part of our Young Leaders Council. So, if everyone could give a warm welcome to Charlotte for being here.

Yes. Well, today, I have y'all -- well, a friend of mine. She'll be hopefully interning this summer. This is Ashley. She's a student at the University of Connecticut. She's a senior majoring in-- pg/rr 6 SPEAKER?: Political science and human rights.

Thank you, Senator. We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Senator Maroney. Good afternoon.

Please proceed.

And sorry, so we will do that.

We will do that, but it appears that there are others who would like to speak. Senator Kissel to be followed by Senator Lesser.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to make a remark? Senator Duff.

Thank you, Senator Duff. Senator Looney, good afternoon.

Thank you. And we will hear from Senator Fonfara, who has a few words to say about state Representative Dargan.

Thank you so much. Senator Hartley?

Thank you so much. And I will just say what a privilege it was to serve with Steve, and your stories were reminding me of when I was in the house with two babies, because I had two babies when I served in the state house, and there we'd be at a late hour, and there was a lot going on because the state -- the lower chamber is not a quiet place. And so, Steve would be wandering around, joking with people, laughing with people, and he would come over to me and say, Bisyuits, because, of course, he never used my first name. Give me that baby. I am so stressed out. And, he'd pick up Ava or Elena or Tristan, and he'd be walking around the house patting their back. He just loved kids. He loved babies. He was so much fun. Sorry. pg/rr 17 And he brought a lot of joy to public service. So, please let's have a moment of silence in his honor. Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Senator Cohen, you have an introduction for us.

Please proceed.

Thank you so much. Judge, welcome. Senator Looney.

Thank you so much. Welcome, Judge. Senator Duff.

Good afternoon. The Clerk is in possession of Senate Agenda item No. 1 dated Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, move all items on Senate Agenda No. 1 dated Wednesday, April 22, 2026, back upon its indicated and be incorporated into the Senate Journal and Senate transcripts.

HOUSE BILL(S) FAVORABLY REPORTED – to be tabled for the calendar. JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5225 AN ACT PROHIBITING CERTAIN LICENSEES AND REGISTRANTS FROM SELLING, DISPENSING, TRANSFERRING OR DELIVERING ANY DRUG OR DEVICE TO EXECUTE A COURT-IMPOSED SENTENCE OF DEATH. GENERAL LAW COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5228 AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTRONIC NICOTINE DELIVERY SYSTEM AND VAPOR PRODUCT DEALERS. (As amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" (LCO 4260)) GENERAL LAW COMMITTEE SUBST. HB NO. 5350 AN ACT CONCERNING CANNABIS, HEMP AND INFUSED BEVERAGE REGULATION. (As amended by House Amendment Schedules "A" (LCO 4259), "D" (LCO 4345))

Thank you, Madam President. Now for our go list, please.

Thank you, Madam President. We'll just start off right now with just a few. On Calendar Page 44, calendar 419, Senate Bill 518, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 45, Calendar 420, Senate Bill 519, like to mark that item go.

Followed by Calendar Page 45, Calendar 421, Senate Bill 520, like to mark that item go.

pg/rr 24 Followed by Calendar Page 47, Calendar 434, Senate Bill 523, I'd like to mark that item go.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Will you mark further? Senator Sampson.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Lesser.

Oh, yes. I did. As chair of GAA, I remember.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you, Senator Lesser.

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

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

Legislation passes.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

pg/rr 31 The question is on passage of the bill. Will you remark?

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Senator Gaston.

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

Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? The machine will be locked. Would the Clerk please announce a tally?

The bill passes. Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Sorry. Sorry. Mr. Clerk.

Got a little ahead of myself, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox. pg/rr 33

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Senator Honig.

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

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

The bill passes.

Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you. Senator, will you remark further? Senator Harding.

Nice to see you.

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

Have all the members voted? If all the members have pg/rr 37 voted, the machine will be locked. Would the Clerk please announce the tally?

The bill passes. Senator Duff.

Page 10. Calendar No. 111. Senate Bill No. 381, AN ACT REQUIRING PROGRAMS CONCERNING PROBLEM GAMBLING AT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. There's an amendment.

[Inaudible] Report and passage of the bill. pg/rr 38

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment to LCO No. 4137. I ask that the Clerk call the amendment and I be given permission to summarize, please.

LCO No. 4137. Senate Amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. The amendment is very simple. It essentially says in line eight, it strikes a shell and turns it into, May. And, once the amendment is adopted, I could explain more about the underlying bill. But, specifically, again, the amendment refers to a part of the bill, where it's saying that the college or university that is public may prioritize working with the Connecticut Council on Prom Gambling, a nonprofit. It may prioritize, but it doesn't have to. So, striking the shell. So that's what the amendment does, and I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment via a voice vote. Thank you, Madam President.

Any opposed? The amendment passes.

Thank you, Senator Slapp. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Martin. pg/rr 41

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

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

The bill passes.

Senator Duff.

Senator Hartley. pg/rr 43

Please proceed.

Thank you so much, Senator Hartley. Mr. Clerk. Oh, excuse me. Senator Maher, I thought you're ready to do a bill, but you have an introduction, I see.

Please proceed. pg/rr 45

Absolutely. Let's give them a warm-up round of applause. Thank you so much for joining us and for the good work you do.

Page 3, Calendar No. 41. Substitute for Senate Bill No. 157, AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPAL CAMP SAFETY. There are two amendments. pg/rr 46

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

Yes, Madam President. The Clerk is in possession of LCO 3893. I ask that the Clerk please call, and I'd be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

LCO No. 3893, Senate Amendment A.

Thank you, Madam President. In the amendment, it addresses the questions that will be asked of the camps and puts them in greater clarification of what the questions are, and adds a number of questions so that we get a fuller view of municipal camps in Connecticut. pg/rr 47

I move adoption of the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, madam. I appreciate it. If I could, just a few questions for the proponent.

Thank you, Madam President. So I just wanna be able to understand exactly what it is we are adding here. There are some things that we're requiring day camps to do in addition to what they already do, to provide in addition to what they already provide. And the first of those is on line four, the physical environment and types of facilities and settings in which each such camp operates. And my question is this, what do we expect those answers to look like? Do we think this is gonna be sort of a free-form, sort of write-a-paragraph answer? Are we seeing check boxes? I think it's very, very important for the Senators to know what they're voting on and, honestly, for the day camps to know the work that they're going to be doing. pg/rr 48

Thank you for that question. The survey as it has been developed to begin with, but it is by no means a final survey because the Parks and Rec Association and CCM, and other components of as listed in the bill will have an opportunity to weigh in on the development of this survey. But right now, the way we're looking at it is as a checklist to make this as simple for the municipal camps to be able to respond and not put an additional burden on them.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the chair of the children's committee for her answer to the question. And that is my biggest concern. We certainly wanna make sure that proper data is collected. We wanna make sure that kids are safe, but we don't wanna create extra burdens either. And on the staff at these day camps, and I look at this list. And look, for day camps running in a larger town or city, they probably have the staff to do this, but I start to worry a little bit about the smaller communities where they don't have as many staff. They don't have two administrators. One who can do this work. So I was very happy to hear that the intention is that these camps, the leaders of them, will be involved in the discussion to determine exactly what this looks like. I think it'll be good for them. Quite honestly, I think it'll inform the process to make sure that we're actually getting data that adds value, not just data for the sake of data, which we do hear from time to time. But this hopefully will pg/rr 49 not be that. I support the amendment that's before us, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Perillo.

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

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

Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Please do proceed.

Very good. We mark all of those goes. And Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Mr. Clerk. pg/rr 53

Thank you, Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber, Senator Cicarella?

Please proceed. Prepare yourself, Senator Gaston. pg/rr 54

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Gaston.

Thank you. Sen. Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Gaston. pg/rr 56

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

Thank you, Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Senator Gaston.

With limited information that we do have before us. I don't believe, however, that would be the case, Madam President, through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, the good Senator. And then just the last question, through our public hearing process and our role in public safety, did you hear any concerns from our officers or the state police that would be possibly affected by this through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. To my recollection, the conversations that I was privy to and that I had, we believe that both departments will work in good faith with each other to ensure that we're doing what's equitable, fair, and bringing our officers that are on these major construction projects to parity and ensure that we're doing the right thing about them. And so I think this is a step in the right direction. I have full faith and confidence in both of those agencies that come to a meeting of the minds to do what's appropriate and what's right.

Thank you, Madam President. And, I thank the good Senator for answering my questions. I don't have any additional questions. I just wanted to make sure the concerns that I had were addressed. I want to make sure that we're voting on something, but we don't understand the language of it. That there would not be an impact to our brave men and women that are doing this job, and that they were aware of what was going on. As we see that recruitment retention has been an issue, and we want to make sure that we're not going to do anything to deter them from maybe taking these shifts. I don't know if they're mandatory. I don't know if they are volunteer. But we also want to make sure that in no way are we going to impact them negatively. And I look forward to seeing the language, and I'm assuming we would have heard something of concern from officers or the union. So, I believe that this is a good amendment. I'm going to support the amendment and the underlying bill, and I encourage all of us around the Circle to do so.

Yes. Madam President, I just wanted to say to the great Senator that I bring him comfort if that was his issue, and sort of disappointment that's your concern because the union is fully on board with this, and we didn't see any opposition. And so I just wanted to make sure, for clarity purposes and for the inquiry of questions that you asked, which I think are totally relevant and you should know, and pg/rr 60 the public should know, the state police union is unequivocally behind this. So thank you.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the amendment -- on the bill as amended? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open. Mr. Clerk.

Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mr. Clerk, give us the tally. pg/rr 61

[gavel] Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Senator Berthel, do you accept the yield, sir?

I am so keenly aware, but please don't [crosstalk]

Thank you. And, Senator Berthel, you forgot their considerable election and absentee ballot functions, but [laughs] keep going, Senator Hwang.

And your familiarity on the critical important role of our town clerks. I know firsthand that since 2005, that Miss Betsy Brown Miller, who stands behind me, has been the town clerk in the town of Fairfield. Not only has she been an incredible institution and a keeper of the records, but she has been a remarkable community resident, a lifetime Fairfield resident. And another role that she has fulfilled so importantly, and critically, and successfully is she is the chair of the much, much celebrated Memorial Day parade for the town of Fairfield, one of the best in the state. And so the biggest in the state, you should correct me, as she's done many times as town clerk. But I want to acknowledge that she also has had a tremendous leadership role representing pg/rr 65 all the great town clerks that have come here today and do such important work. So I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Miss Brown Miller for her great work, but also she embodies so many of the fellow town clerks that have come. So please give a hand to Miss Betsy Brown Miller, my dear friend. I will remand to Senator Sampson, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President, and I do accept the yield. Thank you to my colleagues who have already spoken. I promise not to turn this into a filibuster, but I, too, would like to recognize the town clerks that are here present with us today. These folks are on the front lines, frankly, for a lot of very important functions that happen in every community across our state. And that is from preserving our vital records and being the front lines for so many different interactions with the community. Keeping track of everything from dog licenses to helping with elections. You name it. Town clerks have big important job. And that job's been growing in recent years, as a matter of fact. And I think it's certainly important to recognize the additional workload we put upon our town clerks, and to let them know that they are certainly appreciated. We're looking out for them. My town clerk is here, in particular, from the town of Waterbury. I already recognized but, Chick Spinelli, delighted to have you here with us today, as well as all of your colleagues. [claps] I know that my colleague here, Senator Hartley, would also like to say a word in pg/rr 66 recognition. So I will yield to Senator Hartley, if that is okay, Madam President.

[laughs] Indeed. I do, Madam President. And how did you know? [laughs] Yes, Madam President. First of all, my hat is off to the town clerks and the association. The truth of the matter is, we depend upon your association more than you can imagine, because guess what? And some of you know this. We pass the legislation here, but when it gets rolled out and gets implemented, it's an entirely different beast. And it is this organization that has kept us informed so that we could better refine the proposals and the legislation that we pass here. And yes, it has been said a number of times by my colleagues, what the town clerks do, quite frankly, is underappreciated. It is so important. It is the archiving of our cities and our records, and without it, I don't know where we would be. So, yes, we are blessed in Waterbury to have one of the most amazing town clerks, that is, Antoinette Chick Spinelli, who is quite frankly, always there. In fact, when my daughter was about to be married, and then she realized she didn't have a marriage certificate, no small problem, Chick was right there to help smooth the process and the jittery nerves. And that's the front-facing operation that the town clerks do. They're servicing all of our constituents, in whatever the situation is all of the time. Congratulations to all of you, and thanks so much for what you do, Chick and everyone. We really are in your debt. And Madam President, I pg/rr 67 would like to yield to my colleague, Senator Maroney.

[Yes] Thank you, Madam President. Just like to echo my colleagues' sentiments about the important job that you serve in keeping the public records, and the array of records that you keep as I think Senator Sampson alluded to the dog licenses, business, trade names, weddings, and also the keeper of the historical records. And so, now I would like to brag on, Pete Smith. It's nice to see you outside of the vault. [laughs] It's been a while, but since he has taken over as city clerk, he has spent a lot of time in the vault. And I've been able to hear of many of his discoveries, including the meeting minutes from, was it May 1775, when Milford voted to send support to the militia in defense of the yet to be formed United States of America. And also in addition to being a colleague, Pete is a mentor. He served as a state representative for the 119th. I was fortunate enough to serve as a representative years after him, but still of the 119th. But we recently also discovered that, in addition to him being a friend and mentor, he's a cousin. My grandmother had written out a family history and, going back 13 generations, I think. So, Pete said, " Let me see it ". And I sent it to him, and he identified all of the different ways that we are related. So, welcome, Cuz. [laughs] And so with that, I'd like to yield to Senator Maher. pg/rr 68

I would, actually. Thank you, Madam President. So I would like to introduce and welcome Jeff Dunkerton, who is the town clerk of Westport. And, I'm particularly excited to talk about Jeff because he loves elections. And that happens to be one of the favorite parts of his job. And as a coach, he mentioned the fact that election day is game day. And we want all of our town clerks to bring that level of enthusiasm to our elections in Connecticut. So, Jeff, thank you so much for being here, and thank you for all you do for Westport. And I yield to Senator Harding.

Thank you, Madam President. I do accept the yield. Thank you, Senator Maher. I do want to brag on the same person because he is that good. And actually, Senator Berthel will probably want to brag on him, too. So town clerk Dunkerton lives in Brookfield. He's an appointed town clerk in CC's district, but he does an incredible job, and I get to know him in our hometown together. He's served for years as a volunteer firefighter in town, served for years running baseball in the community with myself and my father. He is a legend in Brookfield. He's a legend, wherever he goes, and I want to thank him for being up here and for all that he does. But Madam President, and I was just talking about pg/rr 69 redistricting and what, however many years from now, he lives in a tiny piece of Brookfield that is in Senator Berthel's district. So with that, may I yield to his Senator, Senator Berthel?

For the second time. Thank you, Madam President. I know there are other colleagues that want to speak as well, I think. But, yes, welcome, sir. And you do live in the nicest part of Brookfield, I'll say. But thank you for being here. Thank you for your work as a town clerk. I'm not sure who's going next, so I will say thank you.

I do, Madam President. Thank you. And I rise for the purposes of an introduction, but I do not have a town clerk with me here today. Though I thank the town clerks who are up here at the Capitol for all of their good work. I do have with me today, Crystal Esposito and Matt Laprino. Matt LaPrino is the executive director of the Soundview Family YMCA. He is up here along with Crystal, who is the chair of the board of the Soundview Family YMCA, located in Branford, but serving so many communities in the surround. Certainly, most of the 12th District, if not all, certainly have folks coming as patrons to the Y, to use all of the facilities. As we all know the good works of the YMCAs across the state of Connecticut in providing child care and providing pg/rr 70 programs related to swim instruction, certainly adult classes, and it's just all things to so many people in the community, really a lifeline. Certainly, partnering with local food pantries and other organizations, just doing some really great work. I myself have been a member of the Soundview Family YMCA since it opened. My kids have essentially grown up in the programs there, and have been a part of the championship swim team that is there. And so, it's just been a big part of my life, and I'm so grateful for that. And I know I share this with Senator Kissel. Their sister program is Camp High Rock, up in the Berkshires, and that's become a beloved camp for my family and so many others, and I know as well for Senator Kissel. So I just want to give them a warm welcome today. Thanks, Matt and Crystal, for joining us. [claps]

Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to add on to Senator Cohen's remarks, because we do have other members of another branch of the YMCA. And I want to make sure that they get acknowledged as well from the Lakewood-Trumbull YMCA. We have our incredible executive director, Andrew Bramlett. We have our leader, of our amazing camp program that's really serving students and has expanded the program tremendously in -- with her, under her leadership, Kathleen Riley, an incredible leader for many years of our board, Glenn Schneider, who's helped create and enhance wellness programs too that we're creating at the Y. pg/rr 71 And our newest member of our board, Deb Greenwood, who you may recognize from the Center for Family Justice, but now I've just heard today, is joining the board of the YMCA. And so this is an incredible group. And as you heard from Senator Cohen, the YMCA does so much for the community. And I just want to recognize how much the Lakewood-Trumbull YMCA does for our community. I've been a proud member of the board for many years, and a member for many years, and the programming is not limited to health and wellness. It's childcare. It's mental health. It's helping parents. There's so much that -- community outreach. There's so much that the Y does, and they use -- they put all the resources to use for the community, and I couldn't be prouder to be a member, and a member of the board, and prouder to stand with these amazing four individuals leading the Lakewood-Trumbull YMCA. So thank you very much, Madam President. And if we could give them a round of applause for all the incredible work that they do. [claps]

I'm extremely happy to welcome the young Democrats of Colchester. They are a political club. There's been an active Young Democrats, Young Republican political clubs in the Colchester High School, led by my dear friends, Meghan and Angie, who have been doing the Young Democrats for a while. Both groups were invited. pg/rr 72 But I would like to thank you, young folks, for being active and involved and standing up, and standing out for things that you believe in. Getting involved in the political process is always a wonderful experience. And when you do it younger, you're going to be in it for a long time. So thank you, and thank you for bringing up your class here. This is, I think, eight or nine years. So thank you.

Sure. Thank you so much, Madam President, Madam President. So there is a connection between the district of Senator Needleman and mine, and that is in his school system. One of my friends and our town council members, Angie Parkinson, is the social science teacher. And then she is the one who's making the video right there. So she's been very instrumental in trying to educate the young boys and girls in her school system, and she's been one of the most influential teachers I have seen in our state. You'd be surprised because she -- the two of us have worked together in so many projects. I would be in any different part of the world, and if I'm in some situation or trouble, a student would come to me, were former students, and they would hold my hand and say, I'm Angie's student, and they'll take care of me. And then so it's amazing to have a teacher pg/rr 73 who has been influencing students to do the right thing for so many years. And, Megan, you have been instrumental. So thank you for all the work that you do. You are all inspiring. So I'm so glad they're over here to be able to witness this amazing place where Senator Needleman does some -- such important work for not only his district but the entire state. So thank you, Madam President.

Page five, Calendar No. 58, substitute for Senate Bill No. 196, AN ACT CONCERNING HOSPITAL SALE- LEASEBACK AGREEMENTS AND ATTESTATIONS CONCERNING LACK OF PRIVATE EQUITY CONTROL OF THE HOSPITAL AND CONTROL OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND CLINICAL DECISIONS OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. There are several amendments.

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

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of LCO amendment number 4504. I move the amendment, and seek leave of the Chamber to summarize.

LCO No. 4504, Senate amendment A.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I wanted to start by thanking Senator Looney, Senator Duff for their leadership and recognition of this important work that needs to be done. And I also wanted to thank my colleagues, my Co-Chair, who's been instrumental, and the Ranking Members who have been part of this process. Madam President, our state had seen a health care disaster. This was not a natural disaster. This was a human- made disaster where we had a private equity company out of California that bought three hospitals. And they used the three hospitals to try and extract as much money as they could from these hospitals at the cost of patients' well-being. And after they had extracted all that they could, they used a sale- leaseback agreement to further erode every part of the health care system and started to reduce the investments in the patient's care. pg/rr 75 And that had resulted in many challenges with the well-being, impacted the clinicians, it impacted the nurses, and all parts of the infrastructure of the hospitals. Madam President, as expected, their actions resulted in the three hospitals having to declare bankruptcy. Thankfully, in our state, we were able to find a solution, and these hospitals did not close. We in the state of Connecticut are fortunate that about half a million people who would have lost their health care, and about 7,000 people, health care workers that we work so hard to keep, were able to keep their jobs as opposed to what happened in Massachusetts where three hospitals had to close down. Whereas in Pennsylvania, four hospitals had to close down, and these were in the most vulnerable parts of those states. And even the hospitals in -- that were bankrupt in our state were in vulnerable parts, and then were providing care to some of the community members who depend on their survival and their well-being for these health care systems. So Madam President, with that background, this bill, this amendment, is going to hopefully allow us to have draw a line between care and commerce. It would give us the opportunity to have safeguard the core of health care system, to look at healing versus financial exploitation. And it would allow us to reclaim health care for patients and not for profiteers. So this bill, Madam President, this amendment, Madam President, which will hopefully become the bill once it is approved, is going to look at how the health care systems or hospitals, the hospital's main campus, cannot be used for sale-leaseback. That is one of the main ways these entities have used this. And also, we want to make sure that these main campus areas of the hospital will have to inform the Department of Public Health that there is no pg/rr 76 interest or controlling interest of these private equity companies and make sure that they are also going to be able to attest that the private equity companies, do not have a controlling interest, but they do not have governance authority over these entities as well. This would make sure that the clinical, operational, managerial, financial, and human resource is not controlled by these companies in these -- our hospital systems. They would also have to attest that the professional judgment and the clinical decisions of patient care are not going to be made by the individuals who are counting cents rather than human lives and protecting human lives. So who they see, the patients -- which patients are seen, when they are seen, how long they are going to be seen, how there's going to be their ability to be charged for the services, those will not be controlled by these entities. They would be determined by the clinical criteria, what the patients would need. So there is civil penalties as a part of this as well if the hospitals fail to provide that information to the Department of Public Health, and they would have the usual expected ways of the hospitals to be able to provide the information. If they do not, there is a timeline for about 10 business days to be able to question if they do not agree with it. Meanwhile, while we are putting these protections for the main hospital campuses, we are making sure that the joint ventures of the hospitals, at times, are involved in. They would not be impacted by this, and the management with the physician groups, in some of those areas, would not be impacted as well. And all the -- many of the hospitals do have their parent health care system. Any coordination would not be part of restriction from this bill. So, Madam President, this is one of pg/rr 77 the bills, probably, according to some people, would not go far enough, which is a fair argument. But this is a starting point, and we do have other bills that this body, our Senate, will be looking at, which will look at some of the other aspects that need to be tightened up as well. And then with that hope, we are going to be able to start to have a conversation and frank impact on protecting our patients and the health care systems from entities like Prospect, which had harmed our state's patients and the well-being of them. With that, Madam President, I would encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment and subsequently the bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President, and I rise to say a few words about the amendment that's here today. As you heard from the good Senator, our state has fallen into a situation where we had a very profitable private equity company come in and invest in some of our hospitals, and it didn't end up very well for the state of Connecticut, or for those hospitals. And that can happen, because not all private equity is benign. Sometimes there's higher margins. They bring in experts, but those hospitals, I think it's important to know, was a 100% private equity. They came in, and they basically bought the hospitals. And at that time, they had control over the hospitals. They got to direct how things were done, who was -- how patients were managed, how they staff things, and the goal there was simply profitability. And I think hospitals are different than the private pg/rr 78 sector when it comes to private equity because they get funding from the state of Connecticut. They get federal funding. And I can speak to this personally, when I had my biotech company. I went, and I needed capital, so where do you go? You go to private equity. And they are all too willing to give you money, but they want to control your company. And one of the things that we did in my company is absolutely insist we're not taking private equity if we can't maintain control, and that was something that we stuck with. Unfortunately, for hospitals, under huge financial pressures that we all know they have, sometimes that has not been an option for them. This bill and this amendment, some people in this Circle will say, doesn't go in the right direction. I think there's a lot of people that could vote no on this bill because they don't want any private equity in hospitals. And others think that we should keep our hands off, and private equity should be able to do whatever they want in hospitals. I think this amendment is a good middle ground to start. It can always be reviewed. It can be looked at at a later time if, for some reason, it is causing unintended consequences. But none will be as severe as the unintended consequences that we have seen when a 100% for profit private equity comes in and purchases hospitals in Connecticut. It was the demise of hospitals that we now as taxpayers, are bailing out on some level. So I think when it's structured appropriately, private equity can bring capital investment and expertise without handing over control of the hospital operations and the mission. And, therefore, it can improve what the hospital has to provide. It can help with the mission, but it doesn't jeopardize patient care. Private equity should be pg/rr 79 considered a tool. But, again, it's not always benign. It can inject capital without sacrificing local control. It can upgrade facilities. It can help to purchase new behavioral health clinics, surgical tools, new imaging that's multimillions of dollars, and stabilize finances without taking on huge debt burden for hospitals. It also can, under the right circumstances, help bring expertise that the hospitals may not have, helping hospitals run more efficiently, reducing waste, and helping them compete in the rapidly consolidating health care market that we see every day. And as I've said before, hospitals are under extreme financial pressure, especially our nonprofit hospitals. They have aging infrastructure in many cases. There's workforce shortages that we've all talked about in the Circle previously. The rising cost of goods and services and supplies, and the reduced reimbursement that we're seeing. The key here in this amendment is that the hospital retains its governance control, meaning decisions about patients, about care, about staffing are made at the hospital level. This helps the patient and the community, and it helps hospitals be able to be true to their mission. And private equity can help hospitals survive and compete. It provides resources for them to stay independent longer. It can help strengthen their negotiating power with insurers, and it can help prevent closures if done appropriately. Without any private equity investment, hospitals will certainly look at service cuts, less favorable terms when it comes to financing, or capital investments. And I think it's really important when we look at this to recognize that this is about tools that hospitals can use, and a way for them to be able to compete and to survive, but keeping control where it belongs with the community and with the board of the hospital. pg/rr 80 This also looks at sale-leaseback agreements, which is something that, in many times when hospitals get to the point where they are really financially on the verge of -- I don't want to say insolvent, but of significant issues, they look for sale-leaseback agreements. This helps maintain the main campuses of the hospitals. It does allow it in other areas, but not the main campus, which again, I think is a middle ground for us to start. All of this legislation is coming out of what the state has faced as far as what we've seen happen with Prospect. I do have to say Prospect was definitely part of this problem, but I also thought the Office of Health strategy did not help it. And I know some of my colleagues felt that also. That's a story for a different day. But I think this is a good middle ground. The Hospital Association is on board with this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to help accept this amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. And thank you. I rise to support the amendment. And I, first of all, want to recognize the work of the Chairman of Public Health, and all of those members who have struggled to get us to this point because it has been a very painful conversation at least from my vantage point, having represented Waterbury Hospital. Having witnessed what was going on at that hospital from the advent of the ownership by private equity. It became very vivid and quickly, the poster child of why we ought not to allow private equity have controlling interest. To be making the financial and pg/rr 81 operational decisions of an acute care institution, and institutions which are there for the health, safety, and welfare of our communities. In the case of Waterbury Hospital, we watched its assets be stripped. There was the re -- the sales leaseback agreement. We witnessed the instructions that were being given to the medical and professional staff there; that patients were no longer referred to as patients. They were referred to as customers. Who in a hospital is a customer? When we had our professional staff being relegated to counting bed sheets and washcloths, as opposed to doing bedside care, and attending to critical and otherwise health needs of those people who had been admitted in the hospital. So this is been a very difficult lesson. Right now, Waterbury Hospital, UConn Health, Waterbury, is on the road to rebuilding and recovering, reestablishing itself. It will take time because it had -- the devastation was so deep, and so large. But this bill is a step in the right direction of providing those safeguards so that we never have to witness another scenario that we have thus far been now trying to put back together. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate your help. And once again, I want to recognize all the people in Senator Anwar who have really championed the proposal before us. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to talk about the amendment. And I've spoken previously, just not this legislative session, but other legislative sessions, pg/rr 82 about the whole scourge of private equity having affected our hospitals. And I'll talk a little bit about that just as a reminder. And that is a preface for statements I'm going to make about the amendment. And any statements I make about the amendment, I mean nothing personal. I know there's been a lot of work by people with good intentions to see what can be done. I understand the legislative process. You can't always get what you want. I understand that there's compromise that sometimes needs to be done. But I also recognize that there's time when certain compromise on things just should not be done. And I'll get into those in my remarks as well. So anything I say about the amendment, no intention whatsoever to take away from the work that's gone into this and what the intent of this amendment and the underlying bill is. We've gotten to this situation for two reasons. One is that private equity came in, saw an opportunity in Connecticut to make a boatload of money, a massive boatload of money, took that opportunity, completely destroyed some hospital systems that then had to file for bankruptcy. And when the parent company in California couldn't make the amount of money it wanted to make each year, it actually left. And it left a big part of Prospect Medical Holding holding the bag. And that led to a whole bunch of bad leveraging of deals that put the hospital system in massive debt, far more than it was, including these crazy real estate deals that saddled hospitals in the system with expensive monthly lease payments, and that contributed to the demise. And if anybody wants to read some details of the horror story, read some of the court documents from the bankruptcy court. Amazing stuff that came out. And it also showed the lack of fair play, the lack pg/rr 83 of honesty on the part of the private equity company that only fully came to light because of the proceedings of a bankruptcy court. Now we knew that this was in process. Wasn't as if this was a surprise to the state of Connecticut. We could see what happened in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a far worse and broader scenario with Steward Health. That led to another number of hospitals on the verge of closing. The state had to step in and save those hospitals and rapidly find partners. Two hospitals were lost. Thousands of good health care jobs were lost in that state. And the state up there, the Commonwealth, has put itself on the hook, at last tally, close to $1,000,000,000 to deal with all of this, and even more to recreate in Neshoba Valley an emergency room to replace one that just outright failed because one of the hospitals was lost, which is going to be even more money as well. So we saw this unfolding, but state government, for whatever reason, chose not to really do much. It's not for lack of trying by some people, and I will rightly say it was a bipartisan effort by some people to see what we could do to push this issue as it was unfolding. Various reasons, special interests, politics, whatever, couldn't get certain things done. But we're here today. Given the problem that occurred to that degree, adversely affecting patient care, adversely affecting people accessing care locally and when they need it, and adversely putting in serious jeopardy thousands and thousands of jobs of health care workers in this state. We really should be strong in what we do. I would really like to support this bill, but I will not. Because I don't think this bill does what it should do. I've been extremely public, including here in this Chamber. I've been honest with my constituents pg/rr 84 that my firm belief, not just as a state Senator, and one of these hospitals is in my district of Vernon, but also as a doctor, that we should ban 100% private equity having any role in a hospital here in Connecticut, and we should ban 100% these real estate transaction deals with hospitals here in Connecticut. Now I know others will disagree with me, and that's fine. I don't take anything away from their positions, their arguments, things that they raise and debate. But when I put everything together, I came to that conclusion that I've just said, and I haven't changed in that conclusion. Now I'm mindful that one isn't going to get fully an outright ban. Certainly, I would like to see that. I think that's what's needed. I think the experience of this state, the experience of other states such as Massachusetts, such as Rhode Island, and other states around this country, to me, support the bans. And in fact, if you would like to read another something interesting, a 171-page report, I've read it a couple of times, in a bipartisan way from Congress's Senate budget committee, highlighting, quote, private equity in health care shown to harm patients, degrade care, and drive hospital closures, end quote. You don't need an executive summary to come to that conclusion. But in the Congress, they clearly didn't; they laid out unbelievable facts, including what went on here in Connecticut at the time. Doesn't get any more direct than that. But I understand that's --there are times we do have to seek consensus and compromise. I just don't feel that this bill goes far enough. And to me, I think it's too much of a compromise. I understand there's various stakeholders involved, and some of them don't agree with my position. pg/rr 85 That's fine. I've listened to them, and I appreciate they've listened to me. But I would like to see something stronger. I'd rather not see us do something that seems to be of help; I just don't think it does, and then see what else we can do at a later time. The moment to have acted was previous. That didn't fully happen. The moment to act certainly is now, and I think we need to really be strong in what we do, given what's happened. We've heard. I think everyone agrees. We don't want to see this happen again. One of the ways to make certain we don't see it happen again is to learn the lessons of what this state underwent, what other states experienced worse than us, such as Massachusetts, and really put something in strong and meaningful that can, as close to a 100%, do what we want, which is not to have this happen again. Again, this is about patient care. This is about access to care, and this is about thousands of health care jobs, hardworking people taking care of people all around Connecticut. I get extremely concerned when I read that we could allow these real estate transactions outside of the main campus of a hospital. I think that opens a door. And I think you'll find that hospitals will look to do that, and they'll get themselves into trouble. We've already seen that, that can create trouble here. For hospitals, I'm not saying it creates troubles outside of a hospital system. I'm focusing on where we stand with hospitals. And to me, hospitals are not just a main campus; it's the overall entity. And that raises an alarm bell to me, a red flag to me, that we can allow something to happen again by creating that type of opportunity. I'm very concerned about some of the wording in here, which I don't think is strong enough and clear enough with regards to controlling interests, including direct or indirect power, quote, unquote. pg/rr 86 I agree about not wanting to have corporate business decisions affect medical care. We see that already in some of the big hospital systems, trying to push certain things that are not right for patient care, such as one of the big hospital systems, trying to push physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician associates to see people in a shorter period of time than otherwise they're allotted to do. For some people, I don't know how that is going to work, in order to attend to sometimes complex medical care and decisions that need to be made for people. But to me, the real crux of this is we really need to act strongly. Again, I would like to support this bill. I support the intent of the bill, and I appreciate work that's going into it. And I've given my opinions and ideas to people, just not this session, but in other sessions as well, and I appreciate being listened to. But I just again, don't see this go far enough. It's one thing if this were a minor issue, but it was not. When we talk about hospitals on the verge of closing, and then they end up in bankruptcy, that has a huge negative effect on the health care of people everywhere and on workers in those health care institutions. That's mammoth of our problems. With that said, I urge my colleagues to think deeply about what this bill could achieve and what it does not achieve. And to me, what it does not achieve outweighs on the balancing scale what it might achieve. For those reasons, keeping in mind patient care and health care workers, I will not support this bill. I will endeavor to continue to do what I can on this issue, and I know there's some other bills that are coming up relative to it in certain ways. And I look forward to see what we can do with that continued work. And I think that will be a very good deep discussion when it comes to the -- to us in the pg/rr 87 But I will not support this amendment. And if this amendment passes, I will not support the bill as amended for those reasons. I'll continue to feel strongly that way and continue to be very clear about that. And I feel that this is a huge missed opportunity for us as a legislature and state government to really push back upon what occurred with the major crisis that this state experienced and do far more to prevent a crisis like this from happening again. Thank you, Madam President.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in strong opposition to the bill that is before us. I know we are discussing the amendment LCO 4504, but because this is yet another strike all amendment, which for those at home listening, means that they've taken the entire bill and struck all the language and replaced it with an entirely new version, thus a strike all amendment. So this amendment is the bill, in fact, and we will just have two consecutive votes more than likely on the same thing, on whether this amendment should be adopted, which it will most likely pass, and then ultimately on the bill itself. The title of this bill is rather lengthy, but I do appreciate that in this case, it's somewhat accurate. It says, AN ACT CONCERNING HOSPITAL SALE-LEASEBACK AGREEMENTS AND ATTESTATIONS CONCERNING LACK OF PRIVATE EQUITY CONTROL OF THE HOSPITAL AND CONTROL OF OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND CLINICAL DECISIONS OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. That is not the title I would have chosen pg/rr 88 for this bill, but at least it is somewhat associated with the content of the bill, which is all about financial illiteracy in my view. It's all about economic arrogance and ignorance in my view. I've heard so much conversation in the last hour about patient protection, about employees of hospitals. This bill is not about any of those things. This bill is about the government takeover of health care. That's what this bill is ultimately about. In simple terms, the language of the bill says that private equity entities may no longer own a controlling interest in a hospital. And I want to start by getting down to brass tacks about what these terms mean, because I think that's important. So, through you, Madam President, can I ask the good proponent of the bill to define private equity entity, through you?

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President. Through you, Madam President. The definition of private equity that is in this bill is an entity that collects capital investments from individuals or entities and purchases, as a parent company or through another entity that the entity completely or partially owns or controls, a direct or indirect ownership share of a hospital. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That is indeed pg/rr 89 the definition that exists on lines 13 through 17 of this bill. And my concern with it is that it's rather broad. Private equity entity means any entity. So right there, that's everybody in the world that collects capital investments from individuals or entities and purchases as a parent company or through another entity that the entity completely or partially owns or controls, a direct or indirect ownership share of a hospital. So if we take out all of the extra words, because a lot of them don't mean much, it means that any entity that collects capital investments from basically people or businesses, and purchases a direct or indirect ownership share of a hospital. Can I just ask, through you, Madam President, who does not who doesn't that include through you?

Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, can I ask the esteemed colleague to perhaps rephrase the question? I just want to be clear if I understand the question.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm just asking, outside a single individual that would make a purchase of a hospital, who else could be considered not to be included in this definition of private equity entity contained in the bill, through you? pg/rr 90

Thank you. Thank you for the [inaudible] Madam President, that any entity that would not fulfill in this criteria would be part of it through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm looking for a little more concrete of an answer. I mean, because it seems to me that our notion of private equity companies would be included, but so would a corporation that borrows money. So would an individual that borrows money. So would an LLC, a partnership. Almost any type of entity that you can describe, because it does in fact say, any entity that collects capital investments. And I don't know too many people that enough -- have enough money around -- hanging around as an individual to buy a hospital. I imagine hospitals aren't cheap. So I'm trying to understand exactly who is not included in this. Are we restricting a private business that borrows the money from engaging in purchasing a hospital with this definition, through you?

pg/rr 91 Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, I would expect people who create some of these entities would be able to specifically define what would not fall into this criteria for the specific bill that we are talking about.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I'm here as a representative of my constituents, asking the Chairman of the Committee who is the proponent of the bill. I think it's an honest question. And this is where we've got to start. Who's this apply to? If we're going to restrict a group of individuals or entities from being able to engage in a certain activity, and we're going to make a law about it, we should be able to very easily define who those people are. And my suggestion is that this is just about everyone, except for a single individual who has their own capital. I'm looking for another single example of anybody other than that who would not fall under this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, I would just go with the definition that is in that specific space. So it defines what it could not be. It does not define what it could be. So we have to look at what the definition suggests through you. pg/rr 92

Thank you very much, Madam President. While I appreciate the candor of my colleague, and I will just take you guys through the definition that's in the bill one more time, since I think that's the only way we're going to get to the bottom of it. Private equity entity means any entity. So I assume an entity means an individual or a business. I don't know what else it could be. That collects capital investments. So this is somebody who is going to have investors partner with them to make this purchase. And I would assume that capital investments includes people that take an ownership share, or even are in the process of loaning money to an entity, described as any entity in the preceding section. And purchases, and then it has a lot of details in making sure to include every possible thing, which I don't think is really necessary, because it's already included since you said entity entity. But an entity that purchases as a parent company, or through another entity, then an entity completely or partially owns or controls a direct or indirect ownership share. That's all excess words that don't mean a lot. You've already covered them. Of a hospital. So basically, if you buy a hospital and you have to sell shares of the hospital, or you borrow the money, you're falling into this category. And then, later on, it says, in lines 28 through 32, it says, an attestation. This is what is required by the Department of Public Health commissioner, that if you are a hospital in this state, that you would have to file an attestation that no private equity entity has a pg/rr 93 controlling interest in a hospital, or ultimate governance control, or authority over any asset or activity in the main campus of a hospital. This is huge. This is huge. I heard some of my colleagues get up and talk about what happened with Prospect Medical Holdings and the hospitals here in Connecticut, which this body recently bailed out by making them wards of the state, effectively. And guess what? If you're within the sound of my voice, that means that you, as a Connecticut resident and taxpayer, are now a part- owner of a hospital, for better or worse. I'd make a note that the three hospitals that the state now is invested in, are all failing hospitals that are losing money, but this government saw fit to actually make that your problem as taxpayers. And what this bill does is it makes it almost a certainty that no one can buy a hospital ever again in Connecticut. Because people do not have the capital hanging around in their back pocket to make such a purchase. They would have to go to some sort of capital investment firm. They would have to borrow that money. They would have to find partners to be able to invest in a hospital. So if those folks are now disallowed, that means that only one type of entity can own hospitals in Connecticut ever again. You know who that is? The government. And isn't it ironic that the democratic party in this country has wanted single payer, absolute control of health care since forever? I don't trust the government to handle most things, frankly. If you want your hospital run like the DMV, that's kind of what you're going to get. I started by talking about financial ignorance, because that's what's going on here. It's actually worse. Let's talk about the worst part of it first, which is that what's happening in this bill is not protecting pg/rr 94 patients. It is targeting a specific type of ownership. It's saying that a certain type of owner is not allowed to be involved in something. In my view, this is as bad as discrimination based on race or religion. Why are we telling some folks that because some other private equity company failed at the hospitals that they purchased and managed and failed in the state of Connecticut. That now, all private equity companies throughout the land, past, present and future are also bad. That's ridiculous. That is absolutely ridiculous. We're not supposed to judge people or entities based on superficial characteristics that define them in ways that have nothing to do with their skills, their ability, or merit. We're not supposed to do that. And we're definitely not supposed to do that in America. We have a concept of in America, which is about equal treatment under the law. And we can debate whether that's existed over time, but that's the goal. The goal is to get us there. This bill has the exact opposite goal. This bill has the goal of suggesting that certain entities are not allowed to participate in America. Through you, Madam President, is there any distinction in this bill about private equity companies that are engaging in for-profit or nonprofit management of a hospital, through you?

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, is this asking about the definition of private equity? I just want to clarify the question. pg/rr 95

Thank you very much. Madam President, it's a very direct question. Does this bill apply to nonprofit and for profit hospitals equally? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this bill refers to private equity entity as defined in the bill. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I mean no disrespect to the Chairman, but does he not know? Does this bill affect nonprofit hospital or non- profit entities equally to for-profit entities? This is a question. We can't have this bill, frankly. We can't even be debating this bill if we can't answer this question. We really can't. Through you.

So I just wanted to clarify the question, Madam pg/rr 96 President, because the definition of private equity in the bill is about private equity. So, private equity, by definition, means it is to be able to get financial benefits. So if that's what the esteemed Senator is asking, so it is about private equity and the ones who are focused on for-profit work.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Am I really not going to get an answer to my question? It's a very basic question. I don't mean to be difficult, but how am I supposed to debate a bill if I can't get an answer to the most simplistic and basic questions? This is a very, very straightforward thing. We've heard a lot of discussion. The Chairman himself used the term financial exploitation. He talked about profiteering. Basically, judging an entire class of investors, private equity investors. But are there for-profit and non-profit private equity investors? And the answer is yes. So I'm just trying to clarify whether or not this bill would apply to even a not-for-profit, private equity investor. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. So, I'm going to try to unpack what I understand is a question, Madam President. The question is that there are private equity entities that are not for profit whether this pg/rr 97 bill applies to them. I thought that -- I can try to see if I can understand this even better. So the thought is that people would invest in a company knowing that they are not interested to make money in that. So I don't think that bill addresses that group of private equity companies, which are not intended to make profit. So if that answers the question.

Thank you, Madam President. I'm not sure I understood the good gentleman's answer. So we're in the same boat. He doesn't understand my question. I don't understand his answer. The question here is very straightforward. Non-profit entities, whether they are the great providers that the state relies on to perform so many services, and they do it so well in the state of Connecticut, they are still making money. Just want to point that out. People that start not- for-profit companies don't do it to not make money. They're just not supposed to turn a profit. They invest their money back in the management of the company. But certainly, the people running those not-for-profit companies, they make money. In fact, some of them make a real lot of money. The CEO's for non profits are one of the highest-paying jobs in the whole country. Amazingly, and not surprising. So I will just tell everybody, this bill applies to for-profit hospitals and not not-for-profit hospitals. So that whole concept of profiteering and financial exploitation, as ridiculous as it is, and it is ridiculous, is not pg/rr 98 a factor here. Because you're actually denying not- for-profit entities from engaging and buying hospitals. As I mentioned, the way I read this language is only two types of entities can purchase a hospital if this becomes the law in Connecticut. And that is a single person that has the money. That's it. Or the government. Those end up being the only entities that can purchase a hospital under this bill. For me, that's unbelievably dangerous. What this bill is, is not about patient, care, not about protecting the jobs. That's baloney. This bill is about government discrimination in economic policy, suggesting that some entities are not equal to others. I also want to point out that anything good that's ever been created, more than likely, goes back to someone wanting to make money. And I know that there are people on the political left in this country who want to trash anyone who makes money. And I feel stupid having to get up all the time and keep repeating the most basic tenets of economics. But we live in America. Okay. And in America, people are allowed to make money. In fact, that's what made this country great. The opportunity to get out and to work hard, or maybe come up with a new idea, or a better way to produce a product, or to outperform your competition in painting buildings, or whatever it is that you do. That is how people succeed, and we all benefit. We get the benefits of all that hard work and innovation as Americans. When you say that people are no longer allowed to make money as if that's a noble cause, I'm here to tell you there's nothing noble about telling people they can't make money. Because the moment you start telling people that they have to do everything in the world for free, guess what? A lot of things stop happening. pg/rr 99 Do you think Steve Jobs would have went ahead to invest in Apple and create all of the great products that we take for granted every day if there was no money in it for him? Do you think Henry Ford would have went through the trouble of coming up with the automobile and the assembly line? Do you think that half of the cures that we have for the various diseases that exist that I know doctor Anwar deals with every day? Do you think most of things would have even happened if there weren't people out there with the opportunity to make money? Pharmaceutical companies, where do you think they get the drive to go and create a cure for a disease from? It comes from the fact that at the end of the day, when they come up with that, they have the opportunity to make money. Making money is not evil. It drives me crazy when I hear people in this room, frankly, in both parties, condemning the making of money as profiteering. I want everybody in this room and everyone in the sound of my voice to make a lot of money. All of you. We'd be all a lot better off. The sad part is that there is a political environment out there, and there are folks that want to lie to the average citizen to suggest that somehow, if someone else has something you don't have, that you are a victim of them. And that's a lie. That is a giant, big fat lie. That presupposes that there's only a certain amount of wealth in the world to begin with, and that we often divvy it up. And if someone has more of it, that means you have less. That's not true. It's not how economics works. The goal is to keep growing that pie and making sure we all have more and more of it. What this bill does is shrinks that pie. And worse than that, not only is it discrimination against certain business entities, let me just do this. Let's ask the most basic of questions. Through you, pg/rr 100 Madam President. Are all private equity entities bad? Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, no.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So why would we write a law that discriminates against them? Through you.

There's a definition of private equity over here. That is where the restriction is. It's a policy decision through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. The policy decision that is in this bill is to discriminate against private equity entities. That's all it is. It's a simple bill. It's only a couple pages long. It defines what a private equity entity is, and then it says, no pg/rr 101 one, who is a private equity entity can entity can have a controlling interest in a hospital. That's all the whole -- that's the whole bill. It's patent discrimination against a group. You could have replaced private equity company with almost any other entity. You could say entities that start with the letter q can no longer buy hospitals. But in this case, they said no private equity entities. So the government is now going to pass a law to discriminate against a certain type of entity, and they've written that entity so broadly that it includes not-for-profit. Folks, I appreciate Senator Anwar's honesty to recognize that not all private equity entities are bad. Is it possible, through you, Madam President, that there is a private equity entity that could invest in a hospital and do a better job than a privately controlled hospital with no private investment, through you?

Through you, Madam President, perhaps.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Based on the answers to those two questions, this bill should be scrapped. It should be tossed in the garbage right now. Because this bill doesn't achieve anything. All it does is suggest that if you belong to a certain group that somehow you are not good. And we know pg/rr 102 that's not true. And I am delighted that the Chairman agrees with me that we know that that's not true. What we should be doing, if we're worried about what happened with Prospect Medical Holdings, for example, or the fact that in Connecticut, in particular, where we have kind of a, what I would say, a regulatory regime that is conducive to hospitals failing. [laughs] Maybe we should address that, and maybe also what we ought to do is try and create some standards for all entities that buy hospitals. To say, you have to meet these requirements to own a hospital and operate it in Connecticut. So that we know that you're providing proper patient care. So that we know that you're treating your employees fairly. So that we know that you're not going to go out of business and leave an entire community stranded without medical care. We could do that very easily. In fact, we already have the regulatory structure to make that happen. But instead of trying to put those parameters in place, which by the way, would achieve the stated goal of everyone who spoke about this bill, which is to protect patients, protect hospital employees, and protect communities. Instead of that, we have a government discrimination bill, which is going to tell a lot of folks that would invest in hospitals, maybe here in Connecticut, don't come here. It's not very wise. It's campaign season, you know. What's ironic is that my opponent in the most recent election that we're involved in suggested in a recent social media post that Connecticut is 47th out of 50 in economic viability. And somehow, I'm responsible for that. I can't tell you of something more absurd. He's also mad because I vote no on a pg/rr 103 lot of bill proposals that the minority puts in, so I don't know how those two things go together. I would argue that the reason why Connecticut is 47th out of 50th in economic viability is because of policies like this. And not just because policies like this are sometimes passed in this state, but because this legislature comes up with ideas like this. If I'm some sort of investor who wants to create the best hospital in the entire universe that has ever existed, and I'm looking at Connecticut as one of my potential targets, I'm going to go there and I'm going to make -- I'm going to buy up one of these failing hospitals. And I'm going to make the best hospital ever. I'm going to rock everyone's world and make the best hospital. Guess what this bill does? This bill says, don't you dare. You're not welcome here. I could go into a lot more details about this bill, about the leaseback transactions. But this bill, instead of actually addressing the problem that everyone acknowledged, they're simply targeting one type of business entity, an ownership model, which has nothing to do with the quality of how that business will run. Absolutely nothing. I deal with this in Housing, too. Out-of-state corporate landlords. I'm like, okay, why don't we say, let's go after the bad out- of-state corporate landlords, but leave the good out-of-state corporate landlords alone? Because suggesting that all private equity companies are bad, or all out-of-state landlords are bad, or that because it's a corporate ownership, or because it's for-profit, or because it's nonprofit, these things are bad or good is ridiculous. Let's hold them accountable to a set of standards to make sure that we're actually achieving our stated goals. Instead of engaging in economic discrimination, this bill replaces evidence-based pg/rr 104 policymaking with a bunch of ridiculous assumptions. And because it's an easy target, because in the news media, everyone latches onto the fact another private equity company has failed. The fact of the matter is there's plenty of them that are succeeding and probably producing good hospitals in some places. I wish I had the time. I would have sat down and I would have found a private equity company that owns a hospital that's actually doing a good job because I guarantee you they exist. And for us to be hamstringing Connecticut to say we cannot go down this avenue, that we are going to turn away people that want to invest in our state, to create care in communities, to give people jobs. It's a bad idea. So I'll finish the way I started, which is to say, this is a bad bill, Madam President. The reason why it's bad is because it doesn't actually address the stated goals of helping patients and people that work in hospitals and the communities that rely on them. Instead, it engages in discrimination. And what it will ultimately do is prevent investment in Connecticut hospitals, period. And the way the bill is written, the way I see it, only the government will be in the business of running hospitals in Connecticut. And frankly, I do not want to see that for several reasons. Number one, I don't trust the government to do a good job running hospitals. Some people might not trust private equity companies, but and I can understand. But I don't trust the government running hospitals, and I'm sure people who ever dealt with government agencies recognize why. That's all I got today, Madam President. I encourage my colleagues to think about this before we start putting these broad-based assumptions into our laws; they have real, genuine economic consequences. pg/rr 105 You are waving a banner. This is not just what's going on in this room with the maybe dozen or so people that are here. No. No. No. This is sending a message that will go out into the world, and it will affect how Connecticut is viewed by people that would invest here, people that would give our constituents jobs and opportunity. That's what I want to see, Senator. I represent the city of Waterbury. I'm very, very aware of what happened in my backyard. It was not a good thing. I'm not a fan of the company that was involved in that, but I'm not going to condemn every private equity company because of the actions of one, frankly, which I don't understand, and I don't think most people in this room do either. There were a lot of factors at stake, not to mention the regulatory environment that they were being forced to operate in. When you have three hospitals failing in your state simultaneously, you might really consider that there's other things going on besides the type of entity that owns them. At the end of the day, this will only mean less patient care, less secure jobs, lower quality care in communities that need the best quality care, and, more than likely government-run hospitals in Connecticut as your only option. I just can't support it, Madam President. Thank you.

Aye. pg/rr 106

Good afternoon, Madam President. Thank you for the recognition. I rise today with concerns about this proposal, and I would like to explain those in my kind of full thinking, but also about health care policy generally in the state of Connecticut. Everyone knows that health care costs are far too high nationally, but especially in Connecticut, where statistic after statistics, study after study suggests that health care costs are higher here than across our country, which I think suggests that we are doing something wrong or suboptimal compared to the rest of the country. And we all are familiar now with the headlines every single year that health insurance premiums, health insurance costs, in our state, continue to go up at eight or 10% year after year, and approved by the insurance commission. And listen, those health care premiums, the cost of our health insurance, our deductibles, our co-pays, go up in large part because the cost of the underlying health care goes up. And we need to not only address problems in health insurance, but the underlying cost of health care as well. pg/rr 107 We have done more in this state government over the past five or 10 years to artificially raise and inflate those health care costs than drive them down. Just think about it. In the past eight years, this state government has passed multiple budgets that raise hospital taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars, and do not provide compensatory offsetting benefits or reimbursement rates to those hospitals. We have failed to provide choice in health insurance, and pass the association health plan proposals that has received bipartisan support from every Republican, and even many moderate Democrats. We have failed to reform the red tape, the bureaucracy, the Certificate of Need process in our state government, which eliminates so much competition compared to what otherwise would be, raises the cost of entry, raises the cost of expansion for our healthcare providers. It has nothing to do with licensing, or health, or codes. It's simply red tape that is far too strenuous and far too expensive that makes it more and more difficult for our hospitals and our health care providers generally to do business and provide care affordably in this state. So it's no surprise that after eight years of inflationary state policies, including hundreds of millions of dollars in higher hospital taxes, and strangulating regulation that this state government has failed to reform, that we find ourselves in a crisis with much higher health care costs here in Connecticut than most other places in the country. People, especially our small businesses and so many patients and residents across our state, tell me every single day, no matter where I go, that the cost of health insurance is far too high, and that something needs to be done about it. And yet, our state government, over the last eight years, many cases, if not most cases on a party line basis, has pg/rr 108 continued policies or implemented new policies that only raise those costs. Do you think it's surprising that we had the crisis of so many health care -- of so many hospitals in the state of Connecticut in the past couple of years, after we raised hospital taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars without those hospitals getting any offsetting or sufficient offsetting funds to make up the difference? Of course not. Now today, we are passing yet another solution in search of a problem that does not address the root of the problem in Connecticut. That our policies in the state capital are driving up the cost of delivering health care, driving up the cost to patients, and, yes, also hurting access in our state. In our country, in our state, in our economy, competition and choice for consumers and patients benefits patients and consumers. It drives down cost. It improves availability. We see that in areas of the health care sector that have more choice and competition and less government regulation and imposed costs, like plastic surgery, like eye care, for instance, where the cost of delivering care, and the availability of care have gone down over time. Maybe that's not always a good thing when you look at the plastic surgery space. You can go to California. But, in general, these rules still apply. And in Connecticut, we're seeing sky-high costs of care in large part because of these regulations and because of these taxes. So, when those who pass hundreds of millions of dollars in tax increases for hospitals come back years later and say, we got to do something about the problem of hospitals charging too much, hospitals failing, or not delivering quality enough care? Ask where they were, and what their position was when they raised the hospital tax by hundreds of pg/rr 109 millions of dollars without offsetting benefits. This proposal today is in large part a solution in search of a problem, because there are not many for- profit hospitals in Connecticut. Compared to the rest of the country, there's almost none. Across the United States, about half of all hospitals are non- profit, over a third are for-profit, and about one seventh, one sixth, about 15% are government- related. In Connecticut, the vast majority, 70 or 80, I think, of our hospitals are nonprofit. The next most common after the recent transactions will be government, and then very, very few are going to be for-profit at all. And even within the for-profit space, there is differences. There are private equity, meaning that the owners, the investors in the hospital, do not have stock in the hospital. That's publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange, or NASDAQ, or whatever. It means some of them are publicly traded, so they would have the stock you could buy on the New York Stock Exchange, or NASDAQ, or whatever else. Or they might be physician-owned. This might be my only question for the good proponent of the legislation, but in the amendment we just adopted, in lines that looks like 13 to 17, I am wondering how broad the definition of private equity entity is that, it refers to any entity that collects capital investments from individuals or entities. Does that include a company that has their stock publicly traded on a stock exchange? Or is it just one that is a private, non-traded, privately owned entity? Through you, Madam President.

pg/rr 110 Thank you, Madam President. Through you, Madam President, it would include anyone who collects capital investments from individuals or other entities as well. So that can potentially include publicly traded as well.

Understood. Okay. That means that this isn't really about private equity. It's about all private for- profit ownership or virtually all for private for- profit ownership. I will just conclude by saying this. There is a lot we need to do and can do to drive down the cost of health care in this state. Making it more difficult for new investment, new competition, more choice for consumers is only going to drive up the cost of health care and degrade quality. We need to provide choice and competition, and drive down costs. We need to do less of what we've been doing in the past. Lower the hospital tax, end the Certificate of Need system, so there's more competition to drive down costs in the health care provision space. Deliver association health plans to provide more choice in the health insurance space. We need to fight for lower costs, more access, and reverse the decisions and the policies in this state government, not further constrict and deliver more and more government control. Thank you, Madam President.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I appreciate the intent of the bill. It tends to well; it's going to make sure that if there's a private equity partner who is purchasing or wants to be part of a hospital, that it's not really going to intrude or be part of the decision- making process of patient care. And I think that's a good part of the bill. I don't think that those that are the financing aspect of providing equity to make improvements in the hospitals, whether it's for technology, improvements that IT, or perhaps it's they've identified a market niche that they'd like to get into, such as the cancer facility, for the area. And having the private equity have a say in the care of the hospital. I think that's not their place. Their role is really to, in my opinion, is to help manage the hospital and make it efficient in whatever ways that they can provide. But providing essential private equity is extremely important. I'm glad that there was a discussion of not eliminating them from actually being partners or being able to be a, I guess, before the amendment, and there was a discussions that they weren't going to be allowed to even be part of the -- of a hospital. But they are crucial in developing, expanding services in hospitals as well as upgrading technology, that I've mentioned. One of the things I asked myself in listening to the debate, and a little bit of my experience with Bristol Hospital and other hospitals throughout the state here, is why are they failing? And what I sort of zeroed in on is they definitely are experiencing the rising cost of providing that service. They've got expenses as labor, with the labor shortage. We have traveling nurses, which in go back pg/rr 112 a couple of decades. We may had some traveling nurses, but not to the extent now. And that has added a tremendous amount of cost to the hospitals. Supplies have gone up. And I know when the private equities come into a hospital, they're looking for efficiencies. And if you look at what UConn is going to be doing with the three hospitals that they are entering into agreements with, one of the first things that they said is, listen, we're going to be able to combine all these, the purchasing of supplies, providing services, and we're going to be able to provide a better economic scale, the economy of scale regarding some of the what takes place. And, as well as buying drugs and supplying those. I think well, part of why the hospitals are not successful, we've heard it in this building over and over, year after year, and that is the reimbursement rates from the insurance companies, but also the government with the Medicaid and Medicare. Another factor that is contributing to the losses of the hospitals is the denials, the insurance denials. And included in that would be the pre-authorization. How often that I hear from the Bristol Hospital is the pre-authorization. We're not getting the pre- authorizations. And when they have to hold patients, that really should be transported to another facility, but now they're being held in the Bristol Hospital and not going to another facility where there would be less cost. That is a problem. And then also, the uncompensated care that all the hospitals are -- have to deal with. So Madam President, I know that the bill seemed for me, it seems to be play -- placing the blame on private equity into the space, the hospital space. You know, we had a bad apple in Waterbury. But I think the real issue here and that we are not addressing here today is the reimbursement rates, pg/rr 113 the insurance companies, in their and what how they hold back monies, as well as the government programs that undersubsidize the payments of the care that is being provided by the hospitals. I'd rather I'd like to see perhaps going forward is maybe next year that this committee, the health committee, truly address the the the health care issues of what I just mentioned about the reimbursement rates, making sure hospitals get paid in a timely fashion, finding a way of addressing the insurance aspect of that, the pre authorization issue, making sure that that we, the insurance companies are being more efficient in in, taking care of those preauthorizations, but the reimbursements as as well. So Madam President, I'm going to be a no, today, just because I don't think we're truly focusing on what the real issue is regarding why the -- our hospital systems are losing money. So thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. First, I do want to thank the Chair for his work on this bill. I understand the issue, the Chair and others in this chamber are looking to tackle. You know, obviously, there have been bad actors, and some of those bad actors are one of them in particular, involves private equity. And I so I understand when we as a state see that, and we see our constituents impacted in a negative manner from it, it sometimes breeds an instinctive reaction, in which we want to suppress the ability of other similar type of entities for me being able to work here because of the actions of one particular one in one particular incident. pg/rr 114 And I know it's not just one. There's there have been some other bad actors as well, admittedly. But I think part of the issue is missing, I think, what the real crux of the problem has become. And I don't think it's necessarily just simply private equity. I don't think private equity has to necessarily be a bad actor. I think there are instances in which hospitals could utilize private equity in a manner in which it actually enhances investment or actually provides a better level of service or care to the patient. I don't think it's looping in every single private equity entity and saying that they're all bad actors and therefore, we should suppress it. I don't know if it's necessarily the best reaction, and I think could potentially lead to unintended consequences. Obviously, I think the intention here, I know the intention is positive, and I applaud that intention, because we should be seeking to do everything we can to make sure health care, in this state, is a service that our constituents receive in a positive way here in this state. I totally understand that aspect. But I think the unintended consequences, as I mentioned, that we may receive is that we may put certain hospitals in positions in where they want to make investment or need investment to obtain the services or infrastructure necessary to provide a better or top-level care to their patients that they serve. And I think what I don't want to see and what I fear from this bill, is that we may actually put us ourselves in a situation where we're looking back and saying that we may have -- by looping in every single private equity entity into one conglomerate because of the actions of one or two, could lead, as I said, to unintended consequences where we could be preventing that infrastructure from being obtained. Preventing necessary services from being able to be provided to the patients. I also think it may very well lead us into a situation where if we continue pg/rr 115 to implement regulations in this manner here, that we could end up in a situation where all we have left is public entities, which many public entities provide great medical service, and I would argue many provide some of the best in the state. But I also think that there is also positive to have supply and to have competition, and to have private equity, or not -- but private entities providing medical care in the state of Connecticut, because there's many private entities that I know that do good work. And I think shutting them out or creating regulations to shut out those entities or make it nearly impossible for them to operate or enhance their investments in the services they provide could lead again to less services and in some cases, very positive, good services of health care they provide their patients. So, again, I understand the intention. I understand what we're looking to tackle here, but I really think a lot of it is enforcement. I think Senator Somers had mentioned it earlier, and maybe Senator Sampson did as well. But, I mean, OHS for years knew about some of these bad actors, and really, in my opinion, did not do everything they could have done to stop it from occurring or continuing to occur. And I think, really, this might be -- this is more of a discussion about proper and effective enforcement and proper and effective oversight as opposed to restricting in a regulatory manner in which it could, as I mentioned, have unintended consequences towards private entities and private medical care providers from being able to access the infrastructure necessary to provide the services they need to provide health care to their patients. So with that said, I am going to oppose this measure today. Again, not because I don't believe in the intention. I think the intention is good, but I think the unintended consequences could potentially pg/rr 116 lead to less supply in health care for our patients throughout the state, and I would not be able to support that. So thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the substitute for Senate Bill No. 196. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're now voting on Senate Bill No. 196 as amended. We're voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. Substitute for Senate Bill number 196 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. pg/rr 117 PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mister Clerk, would you please give us the tally?

Thank you very much, Madam President. And indeed, that is correct. Some incredibly amazing women here with me. And I'd just like to take a minute to recognize them. They're leaders in the community, good friends and collaborators. So I look forward to continuing our wonderful work together. Let me start with my very good friend, Tamara Tetra, who is our new deputy claims commissioner. She's also--, we met when we were both in front of exec [noms?] together to serve as commissioners on the CHRO. She also volunteers for 100GirlsLeading. She does everything in the community. She's an amazing--, she's coming in as, incoming President of the Crawford Bar Association. I can go on and on. I can't even remember all the things that pg/rr 118 I have to highlight right now, but she's an absolute treasure, in everything that she's doing, and incredible leader, in Bridgeport and in the State of Connecticut. And I'm so glad that she's here, and that we continue to do this work together. Two amazing women that we have here from LifeBridges, and also a pleasure to work together and for the work that they're doing in the community. Edith Boyle is the CEO of LifeBridges and Tia Reid is the senior director at LifeBridges. And LifeBridges, is an organization that provides critical outpatient services to youth and families in Greater Bridgeport, helping those who are ages six to 17 and 18 and up, serving both individuals in the schools and in outpatient clinics. So providing tremendous support for the community. Tia is also helping shepherd our next generation, with her amazing daughter, Shia, and another leader in Bridgeport, Devin, I'll just mention the two of them. When they come up here, I'll introduce them on the floor. But, two arising leaders in Bridgeport. And so Edith and Tia, thank you so much for everything you're doing to serve the community for an incredibly critical need, and for the three of you for being there in both at Trumbull and Bridgeport for serving our communities and the State of Connecticut. Really appreciate all that you do and look forward to our work together. EDITH, TIA, TAMARA: [crosstalk] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): pg/rr 119 Thank you very much. Welcome, ladies. Pleasure to have you. Thank you. Mister Clerk.

Good afternoon Madam President. Madam President, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO number 4132, Senate Amendment "A". PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): There we go. Senator Flexer.

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. I move adoption. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Very good. So, will you remark on the amendment pg/rr 122 before the chamber? Will you remark on the amendment? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. [crosstalk] Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Will you remark on the bill as amended, Senator Flexer.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the words of the Chairman of the Government Administration and Elections Committee very much. I'm certainly sympathetic to the circumstances that she described. I was proud to support the original legislation that did, do so much to create these protections to begin with. However, there are some concerns about the bill that is before us today. And I want to get to them. But before I do, I just want to ask a pretty basic question that I'm, faced with after reviewing the language in the bill. So through you, Madam President, can I just ask whether or not the real property record that is defined in line 48 of the bill could refer to something other than the primary residence of the person we're referring to? Through you. pg/rr 125 PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Senator Flexer.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I'm not so confident that the language of the bill gets us to that point, but I will take my colleague's word for it, that this is really intended for the address that the person lives at. I can just imagine a circumstance where adding to the responsibilities of the town clerks and maybe title agents or God knows who else might be affected by this, might be more complex than necessary if it actually extended beyond the address at which the person lives. Maybe they own an investment property or a summer home, or something like that, which I can also understand why we might want to cover the summer home, but not the rental property, etcetera. So it's just, I think something that, should have been more, clearly determined. And that leads me to kind of my point today, which is not even my point. pg/rr 126 I'm going to bring up the testimony of two separate entities. First, the Connecticut town clerks, who were here today, and I spoke with them at some length about this bill. And, while they did not take a position for or against, they did very, very clearly suggest that this bill raises significant concerns, because it's going to create a series of complex requirements that they've got to follow, and that's not been laid out in the legislation that is before us. So, they've actually recommended in writing, asking for the establishment of a working group to study before implementation. And I would also point out that even in their document they provided, they acknowledged that states like Maryland and Minnesota, who have done this before, have conducted extensive studies before adopting similar policies. So, I'm really just bringing forward the concerns of the town clerks when I say, I really think that this may be a little bit rushed, and that we should have done a little bit more thorough effort in producing a policy that we know is workable, that they can actually incorporate. And it's not just them. I also have the testimony of this bill, it seems to have been hastily drafted without the input of the town clerk's bar association, title insurance companies, and other users of land records. And they go on to say that if we're going to start, this is a quote. "If we're going to start hiding information in the land records, it should not be done without interested parties soberly and thoughtfully designing a system to do it in a way so that the integrity of the land records is not compromised for all." And I share their concerns. pg/rr 127 Their testimony actually gives a couple of examples, where some other perfectly innocent individuals might become disenfranchised because of this policy. And I really do believe that we had an opportunity to take a step back. And instead of enacting this all in one shot, develop a working group, or something like that so that we could actually investigate what would be needed, to get us over the finish line without creating complications. As I said, I am very sympathetic to the goal of this legislation. I supported the existing law. And I want us to get to the point of being able to include the land records too. But there are, a lot of people that touch our land records, and they have legitimate reasons to do so. And I don't know that their interests have been properly recognized, especially when I've got their written testimony expressing concern. I drafted an amendment, that would effectively create such a working group. I do not want to spring it on anyone, but I am going to just ask the good chairman of the committee if there is an interest in furthering this discussion, or we are intent and content on, passing the bill as it is? Through you, Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Senator Flexer.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that answer from the good chairman. I'm confident that, her answer is, truthful and thoughtful in the sense that, I'm sure she's aware of some of the concerns and has tried to ameliorate any of them in the bill language, including the amendment that has passed. I'm not quite as confident. I would prefer that we slow down, and we did the due diligence of a working group before enacting this legislation. But I do, sympathize with this value and how important it is to the people that are impacted by it. I don't want to turn this into a contentious discussion. I'm not going to support the bill in its current form. I just can't put my name to it, knowing that the bar association folks that deal with, title insurance and things like that, and the town clerks have some issues with the bill as it stands. But I am sympathetic to the cause, and do recognize the, good points made by the chairman. So thank you. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill as amended, Senator Kissel.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the senate. Substitute for Senate Bill number 485, as amended, an act expanding the address confidentiality program to shield land records and include private entities. We are now voting on the bill, Substitute Senate Bill number 485 as amended. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the senate on Substitute pg/rr 138 in the senate. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Have all the Senators voted. The machine is locked. Mister Clerk, please announce the tally.

Page 52, Calendar number 192, Senate Bill number 373, an act allowing a personal income tax deduction for stipends paid to volunteer firefighters, volunteer fire police officers, and volunteer ambulance members. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Senator Gaston, good afternoon. Bordering on evening here.

Yes, Madam President. The bill before us today establishes a state income tax deduction of up to $2,000 for certain payments for volunteer firefighters and emergency medical services, EMS personnel to receive, for their service. So this deduction applies to qualified payments, which under federal law generally mean that state, or local payments to someone for his or her services as a member of the volunteer organization that is organized, operated, and contractually obligated to provide firefighter EMS service to the state. And this bill would allow individuals to deduct up to $2,000 in qualified payments that are included in the taxes, gross income for federal income tax purposes. And so this bill maximum deduction amount applies regardless of the taxpayer filing status. It'll be made effective January 1st, 2027 and applicable to tax years beginning on or after that particular date. Thank you. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you, Will you remark further on the bill, Senator Ciccarella.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to also underscore the criticality of this issue around recruitment and retention. I think that it's mission critical that we continue to make deep investments, in our law enforcement community, our firefighter services, our emergency personnel. I want to align my comments, with our good ranking, who talk about the hard work that these individuals do each and every day. Putting on the uniform, not knowing whether or not they're going to [turn?] home to their families, with respect to firefighters going out to some very serious calls, not knowing whether or not, they're going to encounter a fire that day and may not, return back home and to our EMS and all of our personnel who serve the public. I think that public service is certainly, one of the highest callings that one could accept, and I've always had a deep appreciation, for law enforcement and the great work that they do and the firefighters, etcetera. We have a very bipartisan, committee, and I am deeply gratified to be one of the co-chairs of this committee that worked very well together across the pg/rr 142 aisle. This was a unanimous support from the committee, and I just want to make sure that I highlighted that, because oftentimes when people are looking nationally, we don't see that folks are working together across the aisle for common good. And I think that when it comes to our law enforcement community and our firefighters and personnel, that it's important for people to know, that public safety, is not a partisan issue, but public safety, is an issue that impacts all of us regardless of where we live, and what our ZIP code is. And so, to the men and women out there who are doing such a herculean job, on behalf of all of us here, the Public Safety Committee, we want to pay homage to you, and we look forward in subsequent, legislative sessions to move the needle even further. Thank you. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Senator Somers.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the senate. We're voting on Senate Bill number 373, an act allowing a personal income tax deduction for stipends paid to volunteer firefighters, volunteer fire police officers, and volunteer ambulance members. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. We're voting on Senate Bill number 373. An immediate roll call vote in the senate on Senate Bill number 373. An immediate roll call vote in the senate. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Have all the Senators voted? Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Mister Clerk, the tally, please.

Page 16, Calendar number 203, Substitute for Senate Bill number 325, an act prohibiting disclosure of the residential address of public school employees under the Freedom of Information Act and establishing a task force concerning mass requests under the act. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): And good evening, Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this is an incredibly important bill, to me, and I know many school employees and particularly teachers. Section 1, adds school employees, including teachers, paraprofessionals, social workers, librarians, administrators, those who are employed at public pg/rr 146 schools to the list of professionals whose residential addresses are exempt from FOIA. Section 2, establishes a task force to study individuals using AI to develop mass FOIA requests, and whether any changes in law are necessary to assist public agencies in handling those requests. The reason this bill is so important now at this moment, is because of the kind of climate, that school employees are facing in this moment. We have other exemptions under FOIA, that have been created categorically, because there was a need for them, because of the level of risk that they face. Police officers, firefighters, judges, officers in the department of corrections. I would not have said, perhaps, that school employees would have been in this category 10 years ago, but we are in a very different political climate right now. And we heard powerful testimony, not only from teachers, but from paraprofessionals, from librarians, from school employees, who said that they are scared. They're scared to go to work, and especially when I heard from teachers in the classroom, that, they're scared that anything they say in the classroom is something not only that gets repeated, in school, but it's something that gets clipped and put on social media and shared with a number of other parents. And then others feel free to kind of comment on that, which would be fine if it wasn't the fact that we had such a contentious environment and heard a number of stories of teachers, and other school employees facing actual threats, being worried, in fact, that getting emails saying, how about--, you know, I really don't like this assignment. Maybe we should take the teacher out of the classroom, see what happens in the middle of the pg/rr 147 street, and worry for their safety. So this is a moment where it's important, I think, for us to stand up for school employees and recognize that categorically, we're at a moment when they're facing the same kind of fear from a disgruntled parent, for example, that a judge would face, that an officer of the Department of Corrections would face. And so there's a need to at least have a disclosure for the addresses, so they feel like that disgruntled parent isn't going to have at their fingertips, an ability to just show up at the house. And again, I very much appreciate the work, of course, of FOIA, and I'm very committed to transparency myself. But I do think there comes a time when we have to think about, as we have done in the past with these other categories of exemptions, is there a need to make sure people feel safe? And I would say, in this moment, in school, especially in the school context, there is absolutely a need. Particularly, again, for teachers, I just want to highlight how many teachers have said thank you for bringing this bill, to the floor. And I along with this, we have another bill to protect teachers, of course, not--, in the Labor Committee on fair termination. But getting those additional protections for teachers, for school employees are so important, because we have a teacher shortage in this state. We have a shortage of paraprofessionals. We want to attract more people to this field, and we can't do that if on top of all of the work, when we're trying to ask for more resources for education, people are already also feeling threatened. pg/rr 148 I'm particularly worried about the chilling effect on speech in the classroom when teachers feel, I don't want to say anything because I don't want my comments to be posted on social media and parents to come after me. So they're not engaging students in debates. And you know what? Sometimes those debates have to be, not contentious, but there have to be disagreements. We have disagreements in this chamber, and you know what? That's a good thing. We have different parties in this chamber. That's a good thing because we need to encourage that kind of debate. And if teachers are afraid to take those steps, because they're worried about the response, then we need to do more to protect them. And that's what this bill does. And the second part of this bill establishes a task force, because as we heard yesterday, when it comes to the use of AI, we need to really think more carefully about the implications of mass requests now, for individuals who aren't even real people. These might be AI bots, that are generating so many requests, that towns and state agencies just cannot keep up with that. And so this is establishing a workforce to try to find out what do we need to do as a state to ensure that we're limiting, for example, requests that are coming in, that are frivolous, and harmful, are not really even from real individuals. And what can we do to help towns respond to that? So these are two very critical parts of the bill, and I urge my colleagues, to support the bill. Thank you, Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): pg/rr 149 Thank you. Senator will you remark further? Senator Sampson.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the senate. This is a substitute for Senate Bill number 325, an act prohibiting the disclosure of the residential address of public school employees under the Freedom of Information Act, and establishing a task force concerning mass requests under the act. We're voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate for Senate Bill number 325. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Have all the Senators voted? The machine is locked. Give us the tally, please, Mister Clerk. pg/rr 153

Page 19, Calendar number 231, Senate Bill number 246. An act requiring a study of natural gas rates for commercial and agricultural customers. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Good evening, Senator Needleman. We're going to get your mic going here because we're having difficulty. Let's see what technological issues--.

I swear to God it wasn't me that turned it off. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): pg/rr 154 The chair of the Technology Committee, let the record reflect, Sir.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill requires DEEP to conduct a study on natural gas rates for commercial and agricultural customers who have intermittent peak demand and determine the effects of increasing rates for those customers. If DEEP finds that there are unfair increasing rates for commercial and AG customers under the current model, then under the bill, DEEP needs to provide some recommendations for how rates could be recalculated. The bill is seeking to determine if there are unfair impacts on certain customers under the current demand charge model and potentially generating some new ideas for the model. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Fazio.

Yes. Good evening, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Madam President. And I would like to thank the chair and the ranking for bringing this bill forward. This is a very important bill for our farmers, especially, those that are using greenhouses. As you know, Connecticut has some of the highest energy costs in the nation, and this study may unlock some potential savings that we could foster for these farmers. They work on very thin margins. Energy is really survival for the modern farm. Energy costs affect the price of goods and services, food, plants, etcetera, that our farmers are producing. And we want Connecticut to be competitive. We don't want people to be purchasing food or farm products from other states. And I think this is a really good step in the right direction for our farms in particular. And as the good senator said, the one thing that we can count on is when the Energy and Technology Committee does a study, it doesn't tend to sit on the shelf like some of our other committees. They actually act upon it or act upon some of the contents within the study to try to move this forward. I think that our farmers that may be listening, will be very grateful. I know the farmers in my district will, that we're actually taking seriously their concerns and their livelihoods. pg/rr 157 And if we don't study things like natural gas and the rates for farmers, we're not just talking about utility bills, we're talking about the survival of an industry here. And we would essentially be deciding what farms survive and what farms do not survive, what families pay at the grocery store, what families can't afford at the grocery store, and whether our state is going to be a food production state or whether we decide to import our foods and our goods and services. So we're not ignoring energy costs. I want to thank everyone for that. And we're not pricing farmers out of business, and we are putting them as a priority as far as our food security, and our farmers in the State of Connecticut. And I ask and implore everyone in the circle to support this. Thank you. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

Thank you Madam President. I would just ask for a roll call vote when the vote is, is tabulated. Thank you. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): And we will absolutely have a roll call vote. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, the machine is open.

Total number voted 36 Total voting, Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent, not voting 0 PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Legislation passes. Mister Clerk.

pg/rr 160 Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO number 4535, Senator [inaudible].

I moved. Yes. Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Excellent.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a friendly amendment, Madam President. Simple amendment and bipartisan amendment. This amendment authorizing municipalities to exempt $50,000 of assessment value on primary residence. And we are keeping also as it is, the current, exemption five to 35%. It is a town option. Town like to adopt any one of exemption, either $50,000 or five to 35%. It is a town option, Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): pg/rr 162 Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Senator Gordon.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to rise in support of the bill. I also want to thank the good ranking members hard work, and thank you, the chair, as well as, Senator Looney, for working with me on this bill, in terms of the amendment that is before us. I am fortunate to represent the great community of New Milford. New Milford is currently the only town in the state that has taken advantage of utilizing this homestead exemption. It's been immensely successful there. The residents really appreciate the reduction in the tax burden on their property taxes, by their utilization of that. And because of the amendment, New Milford will continue to be allowed to offer the tax breaks for those, that have this homestead exemption, going forward and do it in a manner in which they're currently conducting it. pg/rr 163 My understanding is, if this were to pass without the amendment, they would have had to change the procedure in which they're currently doing it. Obviously, what they're currently doing now is a huge success. We wouldn't want to do that. So, again, I just want to thank the ranking member and the chair and Senator Looney for working with us to amend it to allow New Milford to continue doing this. I also think it's a great example of why I do support this bill, as communities could take advantage of providing significant tax breaks, to those that have primary residences in their communities. Thank you Madam President. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Senator Winfield.

Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to rise in support of the bill. Thanks Senator Rahman, Senator Gordon, Senator Looney, and Senator Harding for their work on it. I think New Milford's model and the leadership of Mayor Bass in delivering the first homestead tax exemption in the state is innovative and creative in pg/rr 164 terms of how it addresses the property tax burden in this state. I think this bill today is an intelligent way to continue to allow our towns to take the lead in innovating and finding ways to fairly alleviate the property tax burden on our primary residence in the state, and then maybe in the future after the different towns get to innovate and adopt different policies, we could determine if there's any statewide changes that should be made. But I would also like to commend Mayor Bass and New Milford for taking a leadership role in innovating in this policy area to protect property taxpayers. I think this policy today will give towns and cities more options to protect property taxpayers going forward and hopefully pave a way for statewide reforms and better ways to reduce the tax burden on Connecticut residents all across our great state. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you. Would you like to make some further remarks, Senator Harding?

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. And, thanks to all the members of the chamber speaking in support of the bill, as amended. One of the things that I think that we can all agree to, in this chamber and this entire general assembly is that our fundamental challenge in terms of tax equity, is the local property tax. And the fact that, so many people are struggling with that burden, because our income tax, we have made it, more equitable over the years. In my own view, it could be higher at the higher end, but it is certainly progressive, in the lower and middle ends right now. But the sales tax and the property tax, are really inequitable because they do take a much higher percentage of the income of people who are low and moderate income, than of others. pg/rr 167 And that is a challenge because, as we know that statistics have shown that the wealthiest people in our state pay a lower percentage of their income in state and municipal taxes than do low and moderate income people. Yet, how can that be when they do pay, the very wealthiest, do pay a higher rate on their state income tax at a maximum rate of 6.99, while most others are paying a blended rate of, four or 5% or so. But, despite that, that means that for the very, very wealthy, the rest of their state and local tax obligation, namely what they pay in property taxes and what they spend in sales taxes, really is a minuscule portion of their income. And that's the crux of the problem. Because for lower income people, the property taxes and their sales tax payments are a much higher percentage of their income. And when you couple that with their income tax liability, which is more moderate because of the progressivity that we have built in since 1991, that's where the inequity occurs. This bill as amended adds an additional option to those who--, municipalities that choose to give some progressive property tax relief, by offering the option of taking $50,000 off the assessed value of a property before applying, the tax rate. So we already, give a significant benefit, almost that you could characterize it as a windfall to those who own very valuable property. So for instance, if someone has a house with a market rate of $1,000,000 already under our law, 30% of that value is excluded for tax purposes because the assessed value is 70% of the estimated fair market value. pg/rr 168 So $300,000 is already excluded for someone who owns a $1,000,000 house. For someone who owns a very modest $200,000 house in one of our cities, the assessed value would be a 140,000. So only 60,000 of that value is excluded as opposed to $300,000 on someone, with $1,000,000 house. Under this bill, if a municipality chooses, it could give substantial assistance to those who own less valuable property because if you take $50,000, off an assessed value of 140 and reducing it to 90, that is a substantial amount of assistance to someone owning, a lower value home. The $50,000 taken off the $700,000 assessment on someone owning a $1,000,000 property is some help, but not obviously a lot. But it is, there probably is 7% reduction in their assessment as opposed to more than a 35% reduction in the assessment of someone whose house is only worth $200,000. So that's where the progressivity is built in. Now, current law, unchanged by this bill, offers, as well, another option for a municipality that wants to do it, by percentage of value. So, the previously enacted statute indicates that a town, if it wants, can give, a five to 35%, reduction in assessed value, for towns who would choose that approach. But, I think, by adding the $50,000 number, that enables a town to really target significant relief to owner occupied less valuable property, in those communities. And that is why, we are, I think, putting down a significant marker here in dealing with the main problem that we face in terms of tax equity in the state, which is the burden that people face under the property tax. So I urge support of the bill as amended. Thank the chamber for its work in building consensus on this. want to thank Senator Rahman so much for bringing this forward, for the Finance Committee for also pg/rr 169 reporting the bill out, before modified today. And again, thank you all so much. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Thank you, Senator Looney. Will your mark further? Will your mark further? If not, the machine is open. Mister Clerk, announce the vote, please.

Total number voting 36 Total voting, Yea 36 Total voting Nay 0 Absent, not voting 0 PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): pg/rr 170 Legislation passes, Mister Clerk. We're doing referrals. Okay. I know I'm going to go get some. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Madam President. On Calendar page 40, Calendar 386. Senate Bill 503. I'd like to refer that into the Appropriations Committee. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): So ordered.

Calendar page 50. Calendar 178. Senate Bill 342. I'd like to refer that into the Judiciary Committee. pg/rr 171 PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): So ordered.

I'd like to ask that these referrals be referred immediately. PRESIDING CHAIR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SUSAN BYSIEWICZ (109TH): Yes. Off they go.