CT Senate Floor Session — 2026-04-30

Will the Senate please come to order? Members and guests, please rise, and direct your attention to Father David Cinquegrani. And if I didn't get his name right, we're going to call him Father David, and he will fill you in on the correct pronunciation of St. Timothy's in West Hartford. Father David.

And we will have Senator Harding lead us in the pledge.

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

Senator Gaston, good afternoon, sir.

Thank you. Senator Duff.

Thank you, Mr. Majority Leader. And, Madam President, yes, I would have joined the majority leader in really praising and extolling the work of what the canine units have done in Connecticut. But as we know, there is great potential for canine units to be extraordinarily helpful in difficult, demanding, and stressful situations and in complex investigations, but they can only be helpful when they are trained by highly skilled and resourceful officers who know exactly how to train in a way mg/rr 6 that's going to make those canines most effective on duty. And that's why we need to celebrate what we have here in Connecticut, because we have, as the majority leader said, among the very best in training for the canine officers that we have. We have assistance at the municipal levels, at the state police, here at the Capitol. But our unit, in the state police, I think, is regarded nationally as one that knows how to make maximum use of canine patrols and canine units in support of all of their efforts. So, want to join in the congratulations here today.

Thank you, Madam President. I just want to echo the words of Senator Looney and Senator Duff regarding our state police in its entirety, particularly the canine unit. You literally save lives, rescue lives. We cannot thank you enough for what you do. And frankly, you don't hear it enough coming from this building. You should hear it a lot more. Thank you for what you do in our communities. Truly. You keep our community safe. You save lives on a daily basis. You run to incidents where others run away, and you don't get the thank you deserve across the state. So thank you from my heart and everyone else's heart. Thank you for all you do. We have Senator Somers here from our caucus, Senator Sampson, Senator Berthel, Senator Cicarella, Senator Gordon, all individuals that truly support your work here and want to thank you also for all that you do here in our state. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise today to align my comments with what my colleagues have already said. But I want to pay homage to our law enforcement community who really fight each and every day when you put that uniform on protecting and serving our communities across the state of Connecticut. And I want to first of all say thank you all for your hard work and dedication that you commit every day. And I think that it's indicative of the training that our canine officers also receive is emblematic of the kind of training that they receive from law enforcement and the law enforcement community. So thank you so much for showing up for us. Thank you for all that you do to protect the lives of our residents, our citizens, those who frequent this, the state of Connecticut. And if there's anything that we continue to do in the Public Safety Committee to advance your calls, we stand ready to do that. I am honored to serve as the co-chair of the Public Safety Committee. It is one committee in this building, I think, that really works very well together across the aisle because we know that public safety is not an issue that impacts only one mg/rr 8 community or one group of people. Well, public safety is something that all of us benefit from in all of our 169 towns, regardless of our zip code, what we look like, and what we choose to do on a daily basis. So we really appreciate you, and thank you so much for joining. I would ask my colleagues to please give us a thunderous round of clap. Oh, okay. Yes. Senator Somers.

Senator Cicarella, you have the final word, sir.

Senator Duff.

And we can't forget our friends, Officers Abaci (phonetic) and Chappie (phonetic), who one is taking a nap. All right. Well, we are welcoming the Lyman Hall Hockey team. And Senator Cicarella would like to say a few words about your accomplishments. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you so much, Senator Cicarella, and congratulations to the entire team and to the coaches, and we wish you continued success. Oh, very nice. We are standing at ease and awaiting the arrival of other groups who will be introduced. Senator Sampson. Senator Sampson, do you have a point of personal privilege, sir?

Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, we just have another introduction. I'd like to yield to Senator Gadkar-Wilcox.

I do. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise for a point of personal privilege to recognize the incredible work that has been done by Sarah Velasco, who has been an intern with me, and also with Senator Needleman, who's going to speak soon, and just so proud of everything she's done in the short time that she's been here. She was incredible in the mock session. So she obviously took that insight and put it into actual application. Any task we gave her, research, bringing out back notes from committee meetings, insights on new bills, she was there. She was on top of it. And I'm looking forward to continuing to work with her because she has a commitment to human rights. So she's looking to be part of the Oxford Consortium for Human Rights program, and I'm so excited to continue that work on human rights education. And we have a citation here for her. I'll just read that before Senator Needleman speaks. Sarah, this is for you. We're grateful for your professionalism, strong work ethic, positive attitude, and readiness to take on any assignment. Your contributions are greatly valued. It's been a sincere pleasure to have you on board. We wish you continued success in all of your future endeavors. People should take note of her name because she's going to be doing amazing things. So thank you very much to Sarah, and I'd like to yield to Senator Needleman.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Senator. It's such a pleasure. Yesterday, we had a really, really pleasant conversation. It's not often you meet somebody this in this generation that knows movies that were made before 2010, let alone the 1930s. Historical perspective really matters in what we do. And understanding that the world didn't begin at the moment of our birth is something that's really important. Understanding art and culture and all the things that we stand for in this chamber and as Democrats is really important. And I look forward to your continuing to be here and being involved with all of us. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege, here with Senator Marx, to introduce the intern that we both worked with this session, Paula Kaye Balajir (phonetic). Paula Kaye is a student studying policy at Eastern. And she's also very interested in a legal career in law school, specifically military law. So that fits in very well with the Veterans Military Affairs Committee. She wrote a really nice JF report for one of our bills about military restraining orders, and she was great, working with constituent inquiries. Really appreciate the great attitude, the energy, and just getting along with everyone in the office here. And wishing you the best success in the future. And I hope you really enjoyed your time here at the mg/rr 15 General Assembly. And, Madam President, I'd like to yield to Senator Marx, please.

I do. Is it okay if I stand here, Madam President?

I'm in charge. Go right ahead.

Thank you so much.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

mg/rr 17 Thank you. And I am so excited to talk about Daniella Mancini, who is -- from the very first day that she walked into the office, impressed me tremendously. And I'm going to embarrass her right now. So please let me go ahead and do that. Daniella came from Northwestern Connecticut Community College. What impressed me was how quickly she grasped ideas, how she was able to articulate them. She came in with a body of knowledge around the environment that I just found really refreshing. She has done work researching legislation, constituent services, bill tracking, intern mock trial, attended and recorded commune committee and public hearing deliberations. And she has not only been committed in the moment, but she's been engaged in the future. So right now, Daniella is in the process of transfer -- not transferring, but going on to complete her four-year degree. And we are hoping that she absolutely is the shining star in that next two years and after that she has been here in the legislature. And I really want to thank the Intern Committee because they pick really terrific interns. So thank you to Daniella, and thank you very much, Madam President.

Madam President?

mg/rr 18 Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, is there business on the clerk's desk?

Senator Duff.

So ordered, sir. No. 1 REGULAR SESSION

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE SUBST. SB NO. 481 AN ACT REQUIRING NURSING HOME OWNERSHIP TRANSPARENCY, FINANCIAL SAFEGUARDS PROTECTING NURSING HOME OPERATIONS AND PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING REQUIRED ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I'd like to have a resolution to read, please. mg/rr 21

Thank you, Madam President. We have a resolution recognizing our long-standing partnership between the province of Quebec and the state of Connecticut. Whereas the province of Quebec has maintained a permanent presence in New England since 1970 in order to facilitate relations with the six New England states, including Connecticut. And whereas Quebec and Connecticut are founding members of the conference of New England governors and Eastern Canadian premiers, where they work cooperatively to address their shared interests, such as trade, energy security, affordability, environmental sustainability, and modernizing transportation and industry. And whereas Quebec and Connecticut are members of legislative associations, including national conference of state legislatures and the council of state governments, where representatives of Quebec and Connecticut convene and work collaboratively to address issues of mutual interest and engage in discussions. And whereas the state of Connecticut has historically recognized Quebec's national holiday on June 24th known as St. Jean Baptiste and raised the Quebec flag at the State Capitol Building. And whereas common traditions and values have existed historically between Connecticut and Quebec, including economic, educational, cultural exchanges on both sides of the border. And whereas in 2024, trade between Connecticut and Quebec represented more than $4.9 billion. And whereas Connecticut and Quebec prioritize the same commercial sectors, including aerospace, advanced mg/rr 22 manufacturing, technology, innovation and life sciences. And whereas the interconnectedness of the two economies is demonstrated by the many aerospace products incorporated to Connecticut from Quebec. And whereas it is abundantly fitting and proper that this remarkable partnership be appropriately recognized during the special time. Therefore, it be resolved that the senate pause in deliberations to recognize the long-standing partnership between the province of Quebec and the state of Connecticut, and extends best of wishes for many more years of mutual prosperity and growth, and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution suitably engrossed be sent to the premier Quebec, Francois Legault, the National Assembly of Quebec, and the Quebec government office in Boston. Thank you, Madam President. The reason I bring this up is based on our visit yesterday by NCSL. This comes to us because of our strong relationships with the National Conference of State Legislatures and their partnership with Quebec and the visits we've had there as well. And, of course, our longstanding partnerships and friendships with them also. So thank you, Madam President, for the indulgence. And if we can stand at ease.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Good to see you. I rise for an introduction.

So today, I'm proud to recognize Amber Mozillo, (phonetic), who is concluding her service in my office as part of the Connecticut General Assembly Internship Program. Amber is a junior at Central Connecticut State University, where she has been double majoring in political science and sociology. She has distinguished herself on campus through her deep commitment to public service and student leadership. And she is currently serving in the student senate, helping to lead the political science club. And most notably, she has just been elected president of the CCSU student government, a role she will be sworn into next Wednesday. We are all was anxious to see new student senators in this state senate, and we're wishing her the very best. During her time with our office, Amber has been an invaluable member of our team. She has worked directly with my constituents, assisted in drafting correspondence, conducted policy research, and helped manage the day-to-day operations of our office. She has approached every task with professionalism, curiosity, and positivity. Amber represents the very best of the next generation of public servants, thoughtful, hardworking, and deeply engaged in our community. Madam President, I ask that you and all of our colleagues join me in extending our sincere thanks. And congratulations to Amber for her contributions, and wishing her continued success in all that lies ahead. And I ask that we extend our usual warm welcome.

Good afternoon, Madam President. Yes. Indeed. Thank you for the recognition. It is my honor, Madam President, to introduce to the chamber and to my colleagues today, Tom Clark, the consul general of Canada in New York. And, of course, as we know, Canada, our neighbor to the north, we have had a long and enduring relationship with the Canadians. And it really is more important now than ever. And we are so grateful that the consul general is with us to continue to strengthen and scale our relationship with Canada. They are one of our largest trading partners, and particularly align with the state of Connecticut, with regard to our very deep aerospace sector, aligns completely with the Canadian aerospace. In fact, we are working on a workforce issue with the Canadians right here at Bradley International Airport. But it's not just in aerospace and the aerospace ecosystem. It is also in the pharmaceutical sector, the financial sector. And, of course, Connecticut, with our very, very strong, and long legacy with defense manufacturing, aligns with our neighbor to the north. And our message to the consul general is, of course, that we are a derisk community, a derisk state, and we want to continue to work with all of your companies, continue educational, academic, cultural alliances. And so that's why we are so particularly happy to have Mr. Clark with us. Mr. Clark, actually, the general counsel in New York, was appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau. And prior to that, he served as the chair of the global public affairs entity, which was one of the largest, if not the largest, public affairs strategy communication firms in Canada. Additionally, Tom is a distinguished, elite journalist, having been in the field of journalism mg/rr 25 for some four decades, 45 years. He was posted as the bureau chief to Washington, DC and in China. He worked in more than 30 countries, including eight tours in active war duty. And during such time, has been recognized with numerous recognitions, distinctions, and awards. So once again, I ask my colleagues to extend a warm welcome to the consul general and to our northern allies in Canada. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, thank you very much. It's my honor to introduce the national champions, Trinity men's squash team, known as the Bantams, of course. I am an alumni, not of the undergraduate school. They wouldn't let me in, but I snuck in the back door for graduate school. So proud of you. And the history I'm reading about the squash team is just absolutely otherworldly, I must say. And you've continued the tradition of national championships, obviously with Coach Emeritus Paul Asante (phonetic), but also now with your new coach, Mustafa Lamada. Is he here? There you are. Congratulations. Madam President, I'd like to name each one of these young men because --

I hope I don't do too much damage because I haven't had a chance to get your correct pronunciation. The mg/rr 26 chamber is -- they're in a caucus right now, and so they're working on what bills we're going to be doing today. But it's important that not only this building knows the effort that you put in to get here. We have UConn that comes up when they're -- almost every year. But Trinity is right here, almost a walking distance to the Capitol. And in my district and very proud of Trinity. But to have such recognition, such incredible accomplishment, I think it's important that -- and by the way, this is being, I think, being aired on CTN, and you'll be able to get that tape if it is. But, Madam President, I'd like to recognize, again, Coach Lamada, Coach Emeritus Asante, faculty and staff liaison, Andrew Filibert. And this is Lucas Alvarez, a sophomore from New Canaan. Zane Amjad, first year from Hong Kong, China. Ayed Awad, first year from Cairo, Egypt. Akeem Chua, senior, Shah Alam from Malaysia. Husiafa Ibrahim, a sophomore from Karachi, Pakistan, Mohammad Ashab Ifan, first year from Houston, Texas, Andric Lin Kaishan, a junior from Melaka, Malaysia. Warshm Lau, a sophomore from Ipao, Malaysia. This is a tough one. Charlie Mullen, a sophomore from Cincinnati, Ohio. Beau Page, a junior from Wayne, Pennsylvania, Taft, Connecticut. Segundo Portobales, first year, Ma del Plata. I'm not sure what country that would be. Argentina. Great. Graham Roberts junior from Atlanta, Georgia, Woodberry Forest School in Virginia. Javier Romo Lopez, a sophomore from Quito, Ecuador. Angel Segado junior, first year from Hartford, Connecticut. Great. Oliver Scott, a sophomore from New York. Dmytro Cherbakov, junior, Kyiv, Ukraine. As someone who shares your heritage, very proud. Daniel Simon, junior, Budapest, Hungary. Benedek Tokacs, a senior from Chagat, Hungary. And Ricky Wong, first year from Hangzhou, China. And I mentioned the coaching staff. mg/rr 27 The new president is here with us today. Congratulations, Mr. President, and I wish you very great success in your tenure. Madam President, these young men, as you can tell, are from all over the world, and how proud we are that you're here in our city, in our state, and representing Trinity College, a great institution that has graduated and produced such incredible scholars all over the world right here in our own backyard. And I hope that if others want to speak, after that we could give the chamber to recognize them by giving a round of applause.

Yes, Madam President. Thank you so much, Madam President, for this opportunity. I just wanted to mention a couple of things. First of all, Trinity is known for their brains. Some of the smartest people in our region have been graduating from Trinity College, but I also wanted to mention how difficult squash as a game is. When I thought I was in the best shape of my life, I lasted for 10 minutes. May not reflect on the game, but I think it does from my perspective. I have deep respect for anybody who can play squash and be victorious. Trinity is known in the world now for squash championships. This is one of the place to go. And then, actually, if you don't see the people and then the background of all of our athletes here today that actually highlights the point that this is a group that has come here to be able to win and then be able to show their capacity. But this group actually makes it a little bit more exciting for me because Zain Amjad is my nephew. He's like my nephew, so that's why it becomes mg/rr 28 important. I didn't even know that he was going to be here, but I should have known. But I know that from Hong Kong, he's been one of the top players, and then here we are. Congratulations to them, and I wanted to thank you. And I'll yield back to Senator Fonfara.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Wanted to join in welcoming this championship team. Trinity is to college squash what Alabama is to college football. Just legendary in that regard. I want to welcome this team made up of players from all over the world. Trinity has had a tremendous impact on the state government in Connecticut. Many members and leaders in the General Assembly over the years have been graduates of Trinity. We have an internship program with Trinity the last several years. Some of the best interns I've ever worked with were from Trinity. My legislative aide, Foster Hall, here is a Trinity grad. So Trinity has an impact throughout the General Assembly and throughout state government with a very distinguished alumni association. So congratulations to all.

Thank you, Madam President. And in closing, Coach mg/rr 29 Lamada, I don't know if you'll be able to replicate the success of the Emeritus Paul Asante, but I'm betting on you. And you've started off on a great foot and -- to be a national champion in any sport, but I've never played squash, but I'm certain I wouldn't make your team. But we're very proud to have you today. And if the circle would rise and give the team our usual warm thanks and congratulations. (applause). Thank you, Madam President.

I do, Madam President. Nice to see you today. So I do rise for the purpose of an introduction today. We have Fire Service Day today here at the Capitol, and I'm pleased to welcome into the chamber the Middlefield fire chief, Chief Peter Tyk is with us today, along with Representative Quinn, gracing us with his presence in the chamber up here. So I just wanted to introduce him, thank him for his tremendous service to the town of Middlefield, which, of course, also services Wadsworth and Powder Ridge and so many others. So we're grateful for that fire department, all volunteer, and they do a lot of great work for the state of Connecticut. So if the chamber could welcome the chief, I'd be appreciative. (applause)

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam President. I do rise for a point of personal privilege. I know some of my colleagues have already recognized their legislative interns. I'd like to have Laura Sansor, who is just completing, like every other intern right now, their semester with us here in Hartford, immersed in our wonderful experience of politics. Laura comes from the great town of Milford. She is a junior at the University of Connecticut, a finance major. And, Madam President, you'd be happy to know she wants to go on to study law and wants to study policy law. So maybe we'll see Laura back here in the hallowed halls of our beautiful Capitol Building at some time, but thank you, Laura, for being such a great intern, and I hope the experience was good for you as well. Thank you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, for our markings, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On Agenda 1, I'd like to ask for a suspension, please.

Thank you, Madam President. Calendar 108, Senate Bill 282, like to mark that item go.

On Calendar Page 19, Calendar 234, Senate Bill 321, like to mark that item go.

Calendar Page 53, Calendar 109, Senate Bill 352, like to mark that item go.

Calendar Page 42, Calendar 450, House Bill 5350, I'd like to mark that item go. mg/rr 32

On Calendar Page 22, Calendar 257, Senate Bill 478, like to mark that item go.

Can Senate stand at ease for a moment?

Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Senator Honig, good afternoon. mg/rr 33

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO Number 5334, Senate Amendment "A".

I move the adoption of the amendment, waive its reading, and seek leave of the chamber to summarize.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this amendment requires the Department of Veterans mg/rr 34 Affairs to create a form on their website where people can register complaints about veterans' graves that are unkept. The Department of Veterans Affairs will then contact the municipality where the grave is located, informing them of the situation and advising them that they are able to apply for grants to help pay for the remediation of that unkept grave.

Opposed? The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Senator Honig.

mg/rr 35 Thank you so much. Will you remark further? Senator Gordon. Good afternoon, sir.

Will you remark further? Senator Cohen, good afternoon.

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Needleman, good afternoon.

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

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

Thank you. (gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Sorry. I could not hear that.

We will mark that PT. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Needleman, and we'll just wait till we get the bill right up on the board for us. Thank you, Senator Needleman. Senator Rahman. Thank you. We are back on track. Senator Needleman, back to you, sir.

Thank you. Senator Needleman.

And the question is on passage. Will you remark?

LCO Number 5365, Senate Amendment "A".

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

Thank you, Madam President. This is a strike-all amendment. It has to do with excavation projects around utility and infrastructure additions. It's been amended, based on some suggestions from a bunch of people. Do I move that this needs to be --

We move the adoption of the amendment, and do it by acclamation.

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

Seeing and hearing no -- Senator Fazio. Okay. Would you like to remark on the bill? Thank you. Okay. All right. Senator Fazio.

Thank you. And I just want to be clear, Senator Needleman, you asked -- I think we are in the middle of requesting that this be placed on consent. Okay. Very good. We will not place it on consent.

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

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

mg/rr 43 Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (gavel) Legislation passes. Sorry, I forgot that part.

Senator Rahman, we are back to you, sir.

The question is on passage. Will you remark?

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

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Mr. Clerk.

We will get that up on the board, and then we will go to Senator Lesser. No problem. We will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

Senator Winfield, please present these fabulous young people.

It's nice to see so many young female future leaders and gentlemen. Senator Lesser, we will go back to you if you are ready, sir.

Madam President, I think we need to stand at ease for a moment, please.

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

Yes. Madam President, long-term care is expensive. And when you talk to people in Connecticut, you mg/rr 47 realize that a lot of folks are aware of this. That for folks who are facing the possibility of going to a nursing home or an assisted living facility or need home care, the cost can be staggering, and yet, obviously, there are lots of people who need these services. The state, recognizing that this is an issue, has for many years encouraged the residents of the state to purchase long-term care insurance. And this is important for families who are worried about exhausting their assets and exhausting their life savings. But it's also good for the state because when an individual family doesn't have the ability to afford long-term care, the way we pay for that as a society is the Medicaid program. We think of Medicaid as a way to pay for health care for the poor, but the largest single thing that Medicaid spends money on, in fact, by some measures, the largest single item that the state of Connecticut spends money on, is long-term care for residents of the state. One of the things that the state has done to try to address the fiscal impact on the state, but also to provide a cushion for the residents of the state, is to encourage residents of Connecticut to purchase long-term care insurance policies. We have done that, and there are a variety of ways that we've encouraged that. One of them is with something called the Office of Policy and Management's partnership plan, where certain policies are pre-certified. And if you buy one of these policies, you can access some Medicaid funds without exhausting your life savings. It's a way of financially protecting families, and lots of families, listening to the experts out there, their financial advisors, but also to the state of Connecticut have gone ahead and purchased long-term care insurance products. In many cases, the partnership policies in particular, were advertised and sold and introduced into the stream of commerce mg/rr 48 as being designed not to result in premium increases. This was particularly prevalent at the beginning part of this century, a couple of decades ago. And in reality, the experience found by consumers has been quite a bit different. Instead of finding that their premiums were level, we've seen year after year after year of increases that have been astronomical. And product that was seemingly affordable has become quite unaffordable. And this has made it very, very difficult for families in this position. Now, if you listen to the industry, they just got every single assumption about long-term care insurance wrong. They got interest rates wrong. They got the cost of medical care wrong. They got the number of people who had dropped these policies over time wrong. Every assumption that went into these is wrong. And that may be innocent. There are a lot of explanations. This was a new product, but the fact of the matter is, that these policies and we were really focused on the Human Services Committee, on the partnership policies because they are tied into our state's Medicaid program. They have really caused some financial hardship for our residents, and yet they are really important. We need to get this right, and we need to do that because it's important for families' fiscal stability, and it's also important for the state's fiscal stability. So, Madam President, this bill tries to provide some important consumer protections for people who have purchased long-term care insurance policies. The Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 5414. I ask that the Clerk please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave to summarize.

LCO Number 5414, Senator Amendment "A".

Yes. Thank you. This amendment focuses on some core elements of the bill that are designed to provide regulators more tools to curtail potential increases and give more data about what is driving those increases in the rates that are being requested by insurers, and it also provides some important consumer protections directly to the consumers. It provides information about actual and incurred losses by insurers to the insurance department, requires annual reporting to them that is disaggregated to protect consumer privacy, and it also requires reporting to consumers. We're looking at potentially getting refunds for all of the premiums that have been paid when someone wants to drop a plan because of excessive rate increases. We're also looking at issues, like the impact of reinsurance on rates. Companies have reinsurance. They should be getting compensated, and yet they are still seeking rate increases. So we are looking to try to figure out what extra tools we can give to regulators, but also to consumers in the state, to protect them against long-term care rate increases. I don't pretend that this is going to solve the issue of long-term care premium increases. This is not, but it is a step forward, that will hopefully provide some compensation, some sign to the people of the state, that we care about this issue, that we are aware that the market has failed the people who purchase these policies, and that we need to do better in this state and this country and ensuring mg/rr 50 that this is a product that actually works for the people of the state. We do need people to buy these policies. Right now, there are a lot of folks not buying them because of the reputational damage that the industry has had, due to the excessive rate increases over now 20 years. And with that, I move adoption.

Madam President, thank you very much. I agree with the gentleman that long-term care insurance products are broken. It has become so expensive, and to the gentleman's point, it started two decades ago when these products were priced inappropriately with inaccurate information, and that was just the first domino in how we've gotten where we've gotten in terms of products that are unaffordable or are unappealing. I got to be honest, I'm not sure that the bill before us, as amended, will get us where we need to be. I do have a couple of questions, Madam President. The first of which is regarding refunds of previously paid premiums if an individual decides to drop their coverage. How exactly is that expected to work? Through you, Madam President.

Well, we're asking the Insurance Commissioner to consult with the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, and OPM is important because they mg/rr 51 run that precertification program, the partnership program, by July 1st, 2027, on the feasibility of providing those direct refunds. And so we are, asking them to come up with this plan and to report back to us. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. But just to clarify, though, let's take a different insurance product. Let's say it's just simple property and cash, like an auto. So I have an automobile. I buy insurance because I have to. And five years later, I decide I don't want coverage anymore. I get rid of my vehicle. I decide I'm not going to use it. I'm going to leave it in the garage. I drop my coverage. I'm not entitled to collect the previous year's premiums back because I didn't have an accident. So how is it that in this instance, I've purchased an insurance product, I've purchased long-term care insurance, and x years go by -- I'm still young. Obviously, I haven't had to utilize that insurance, any of those benefits. How is it then that I could cancel my coverage and then be entitled to get all the previously paid premiums back? Because those previously paid premiums are baked into the cost of not just the premiums on the insurance product, but the cost of actually providing the long-term care. How would that actually work? Through you, Madam President.

Well, first of all, to the Honorable Ranking Member, mg/rr 52 we're not exactly saying how that would work because I agree with the gentleman that this is a thing that the Insurance Commissioner needs to figure out. Other states have adopted similar provisions, and we are looking closely at those and trying to figure out what is actuarially sustainable, and what would work. However, I would just say that there are some important differences between automobile insurance and long-term care policies. For example, one important one is that the longer you drive, there's no particular increased risk of a bad event happening. But in this case, an insurance company wants people to drop policies, the longer you go, in part because your risk of needing long-term care when you're older is generally greater than when you are younger. So it can be in the insurance company's interest to have people drop their policies later because these are fundamentally different types of risk modeling, just because presumably the risk of getting into a car accident is the same, no matter how long you have the policy. So it's a little bit of a different situation. Then we're asking the Insurance Commissioner to look at what other states have done and see if that's something that might work for Connecticut. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the gentleman's answer to the question. It is sort of a perverse incentive. The insurer wants you to get right up until about you need the long-term care insurance, and then decide that they're going to drop it. So, I hear you. I get that. Some of the reporting that's in the bill has changed. There have mg/rr 53 been iterative changes in terms of what that reporting looks like. If the gentleman could just sort of talk a little bit about the aggregation of the reporting criteria or the data, and how it would be de-identified. What's the practicality of that?

Well, it came to the attention of the committee that there was a fear that, depending on how granular the data is submitted to the committees of Cognizant and to the department, that it might be possible for someone to reverse engineer and perhaps identify a specific individual. Obviously, we don't want to do that, we don't want to expose anyone's privacy. So out of an abundance of caution, I'm not -- was not persuaded that that was an overwhelming concern, but just out of an abundance of caution, we want to protect consumers' privacy. We're allowing the companies to submit aggregated and de-identified data. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I appreciate the answer to the question. And I actually think that's a very good example of how we can work together in a bipartisan way with the stakeholders to make sure that, to the best of our ability, we generate a statutory product that makes sense. The industry had some concerns. We took the time, met with them, and came up with this amendment. And it's been a pleasure to work with the chair of the committee on this. I appreciate his including me in the process, mg/rr 54 and I would urge adoption of the amendment before us.

Thank you, Madam President. It's great to see a fellow seatmate right up there. You look fabulous. Through you, Madam President, some questions to the proponent of this bill. But before I begin asking the question about this bill, I want to reiterate that as the ranking member of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, as well as the aging committee, long-term care insurance has been a critical issue that has impacted our constituency in our area of cognizance. And for the past five years, we have looked at this issue and tried to address it. And I want to compliment the Human Services committee for addressing this important issue and proposing this amended bill, to address the concern that has been so, so powerfully impactful for many of our residents. But through you, if I could, anywhere in this bill that pertains to some of the critical questions I've been asked many years, and I wonder if this bill clearly addressed it. So, through you, to the proponent of this bill.

I think the first thing I would ask is where does this bill address long-term policyholders that have held the plan for 25 years, paid into a premium, that have been exposed to the challenges and the mg/rr 55 frustration of incremental rate increases that now have incrementally exceeded their ability to maintain the policy at such a critical time when they need it the most. Have this bill -- has this bill addressed any of those issues to be able to give relief to many of the policyholders that we have heard in the Aging and Insurance Committee that Human Services is undertaking? What relief mechanism, financially, do we give to those long-term policyholders that we are trying to solve in this bill, if any at all, through you, Madam President?

Yes. Thank you. Through you, Madam President, there are a couple of things. One, I would talk that we've discussed the potential for a full refund on all premiums paid that is contemplated in this bill. We're also -- because, to be honest, we are also in the business of regulating these companies in this industry. There's also an enforcement piece, and that's in lines 174 to 194, which potentially include a referral to the attorney general, if a company is found to be engaged in bad acts. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. But through you, on line 41, I think the good chair of Human Services articulated that there are refunds. But the language, and I'll repeat, and he could possibly clarify, that Section A on line 41(a), that that mg/rr 56 cites in regards to some of the provision, related to the cognizance of matters related to Aging, Human Services, and Insurance and Real Estate on the feasibility and the effects of the access to long- term care, A, of a requirement that issuers a long- term care insurance policy provide policyholders an opportunity to cancel such insurance and obtain full refund of any premiums paid since the start of the policy whenever such issuers file for a rate increase that exceeds the rate of inflation? Through you, Madam President, what if somebody held that policy for 30 years, and there was an incident 25 years ago that a rate increase exceeded the rate of inflation? Are we looking to retroactively, through this legislation, give relief to those individuals? Are we looking prospectively moving forward? Because it is a critical issue for many of those long-term holders. Through that language, I read it that if I held it for 30 years and those rates exceeded the rate of inflation, I'm entitled to a full refund. Is that what I read the legislation? Because it's confusing to me, and the powerful effect that should occur. You're going to have a flood of individuals that have held a policy for over 30 years that we have heard so much that have been dramatically impacted by long-term care insurance premium increases. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I think the gentleman is correct. The words full refund means a full refund, but we are looking at the feasibility of that. We are concerned, obviously, as always, about fiscal stability and make want to make sure that there is not a run on insurance companies. mg/rr 57 Well, that's what we're charging the insurance commissioner with figuring out. Can we do this? Can we issue full refunds to folks? There are a lot of folks who feel like they've been taken for a ride, and because of the promises made by this industry, that turned out not to be true. Through you.

Through you, Madam President. I don't want to paraphrase the good Senator and the chair, but what I just heard was the fact, indeed, the example I gave. If 25 years ago, a purchaser of our policy saw that the rate increases exceeded the rate of inflation, they are entitled to a full refund. I'll be honest with you. That sounds like a great idea, but has the Agent Committee and the Insurance Committee as a review of this process? That comes with a significant fiscal note that was not encumbered in this report. And number two, when you're looking at that kind of a dramatic impact, we have already seen a dramatic decline in offerings and long-term care insurance companies in the state of Connecticut and in the industry as a whole. In fact, dare I say, there are challenges affecting long-term care insurance companies in the state of Connecticut right now. Should this become law at the language that's affected in the articulation that's offered by the good chair of the Human Services Committee, you are looking at a cascade of refunds under this statute, and based upon the legislative intent that is offered by the good chair of Human Services articulating line 41 to 43. Nope. From line 41 to 45, what do we do when we have a run on long- term care insurance? The consequential impact of that phrase and that argument articulation sounds great to have a full refund back to the rate of inflation. mg/rr 58 But then the reality hits, because in the five years that we've worked on Aging and Insurance as committees of cognizance in this, we understood the consequential impact and the fiscal impact, and the financial impact of long-term carriers in the state of Connecticut that this kind of policy, this kind of language could definitely cause a run. And I say definitely. It will cause a run on long-term care insurance companies in the state of Connecticut. So, through you, Madam President, could I give the good chair of Human Services a more clarification of what he had stated earlier in regards to that phrase and language? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, the insurance commissioner is charged with establishing the feasibility -- reporting to us on the feasibility of providing refunds. We'll find out from him whether or not that's feasible. Through you.

Thank you. And I appreciate it. I have great trust and respect for the insurance commissioner, the prior commissioner, and the current commissioner. But that being said, would we not appropriately then deem it to have a fiscal note, a consequential fiscal note that we are looking at calculating the number of outstanding long-term care policies from the many of the advocates, articulate, passionate, mg/rr 59 and feeling incredibly, frustrated advocates that this kind of consequential policy change that sounds really, really alluring and attractive could have consequential devastating impact to the reality of the marketplace. For a marketplace, dare I say, that was wholly miscalculated and underappreciating the cost of healthcare cost, which has dominated the landscape for many, many years. But through you, have we considered a truly fiscal pack impactful note on this based upon the language of our ideas? Because as I read this, through you, Madam President, as I read through this, it seems like a genie's wish that we want to give all the challenges we have for the five years that we worked on this committee in Aging and Insurance, that the devil was a detail to get a fiscal note that was palatable and acceptable to the challenges of addressing this issue. If perhaps the good chair can articulate, again, a qualified reservation to that phrase, and also, has he fully considered the economic and fiscal impact of this analysis? Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Through you, the nonpartisan office of fiscal analysis has issued a fiscal note and says the amendment makes various changes to long-term care insurance policy, resulting in no fiscal impact to the state. Through you.

mg/rr 60 Through you, Madam President, has the good chair and the advocates of this bill asked the specific question that was just asked of me to the good chair, in which he articulated that should any policyholder who holds a policy and when the rate increases exceed the rate of inflation, that they are entitled to a full refund of all premiums paid. Through you, Madam President, as the good chair and the proponent of this bill, articulated that specific fiscal analysis to OFA. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. They've looked at the amendment. They have determined that there is no fiscal impact to the state. Through you.

I'm sorry, Madam President. I was interrupted, and I apologize to the good chair. I did not hear his articulation. But could he, again, for legislative intent, clarify through my question was, was the specific question in which he answered that those policyholders are entitled to a full refund with no time limit, no perspective or proactive perspective, or retroactive perspective, that there is a fiscal note calculation to that. I didn't get that. And if he did, I would love to hear it. So, through you, Madam President.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So the nonpartisan office of fiscal analysis looks at the fiscal cost of every single amendment that is brought forward in this legislature, including this amendment. And they looked at it. They determined that there is no fiscal impact to the state. Through you.

Thank you. And I appreciate the qualification. But to the state, you're absolutely right. The state hasn't gotten into the long-term care insurance business yet, but then you never know. But it's been an incredibly challenging business. And if the state wants to get involved in it, we're going to look at loss ratios that have been inescapably impacting taxpayers. But that being said, through you, Madam President, the good chair articulated no fiscal impact to the state. Is there a fiscal impact to the industry and the carriers who are dwindling and leaving the state of Connecticut, and most important of all, to the long- time struggling and suffering carriers or holders of this long-term care that they're being offered through this language an opportunity to recruit? Will this have a fiscal impact on the industry and the various precarious companies of long-term care insured? Not the state of Connecticut. Three of you, madam.

I think it's a good question. I think the gentleman just referred to the long-term, struggling carriers. This amendment is not about the long-term struggling carriers, it's about the long-term struggling people of the state of Connecticut, who deserve refunds, and that's what the bill is intended to address. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you to the good chair. And he and I share the same equal commitment and passion in hearing the stories of many of our constituents and the consumers that purchased under a premise that has been long suffering for them. But the question at hand that I need clarification that the fiscal note impacting companies and their ability to stay in the state of Connecticut and to conduct business in the insurance capital of the world. The question through you, Madam President, have we studied the fiscal note of impact of the powerful language that's articulated? That sounds fantastic. But nevertheless, in the reality of the marketplace, has there been a fiscal note? Not the state, but to the business impact of entities providing long-term care insurance. Through you, Madam President.

That's specifically what the bill is designed to address. It's to get that information by charging the insurance commissioner with figuring that out. mg/rr 63 They'll report back to us. We'll find out what he says. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Here's the problem. You make the charge. We make laws. There could potentially be a floodgate, a floodgate of applicants that will look back. And this is a population that's smart, that's passionate, articulate. You could open up a floodgate of a line running out and a run on companies. So we could do a study, and I would encourage that we do a fiscal note on this. But we are opening up Pandora's box, and I'll close by simply saying this, these were the issues that the committee of cognizance in aging and in real estate insurance have discussed, evaluated, analyzed, gone through the fiscal analysis impact of real-life policies that we make impact. That is the area. That is the reason why we are the committee of cognizance. We're passing out a bill that I'm fearful has potentially very, very significant unintended consequences. I believe this bill should have gone to the finance committee to look at the fiscal impact on businesses and industries. And again, I appreciate the good chair's articulation of a real powerful statement. Okay? That I'm going to repeat again for legislative intent what this language says. That on line 41, Section A, effective no later than July 1, 2027, on Section A -- subsection (a) of a requirement that issuers of long-term care insurance policies provide policyholders an opportunity to cancel such insurance and obtain a full refund of any premiums paid since the start of the policy whenever such issuers file for rate increases that exceed the rate of inflation. mg/rr 64 That's a Pandora's box being opened. And if I was a long-term policyholder, I rush the line in July 1, 2027, and make a run on long-term care providers and say, this law lets me do that. And I'll be the first one to go before an insurance company goes bankrupt and leaves the state. That's the consequence of our power in policymaking. That is the power and consequence where committees of cognizance with the expertise and the insight to be able to articulate and understand the consequential impact of policy is able to articulate. So, I'll move on to another section if I may, through you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Speaker or Madam President. Sorry. Let me get that right. So on line 19, Section 2, the language says that the issuer shall file an annual report. But under Section 35, line 35 and line 37, it talks about another report and says may file a report. So, through you, Madam President, what is the difference between the requirements of the report? Why should we not be able to utilize the word " shall " in a mandated requirement for these kind of reports? I read in 37 that has the good chair of Human Services articulated in regards to line 41, I repeat myself. But nevertheless, the language of that section offers that a report may be submitted. So there is no statutory requirement to the insurance commission to be able to provide that report. Why? Because under section two, there was a mandate of shall report. But conveniently, in the mg/rr 65 most important part that I've argued and debated about the power and impact of fiscal consequences, we provide a language that says you may report in that. So there is no political mandate and weight to offer such a report. So, through you, could the good chair of Human Services and the pro right here, proponent of this bill, explain the differential why shall versus may? Because in this building, those words have very powerful meanings. Through you, Madam President.

Yes. Through you to ensure that there's no fiscal impact on the state. Through you.

Thank you. Thank you. Let me ponder that a little bit. I think the good chair of Human Services articulated to ensure that there is no fiscal impact because they may is permissive. There may not even be a report that is mandatorily required. But under Section 2, we do require it. But on an area where we talked about significant, significant fiscal impact on businesses. And as a good chair of Human Services articulated that they will the insurance department will do the study and evaluate the fiscal impact of line 41 to 43. We now just stipulate that this is a may, that there is not a statutory requirement. And dare I even think, if the numbers are so damaging, we don't even provide it because there is no statutory. So, in one section, we require a mandate of shall. But on the second section, where the mg/rr 66 fiscal impact is so significant, we use the word may. And there is no mandate. There is no requirement. So, through you, the good chair articulated in very succinct terms, so that there is no fiscal impact. It seems inconsistent what would you argue in the first 15 minutes of this debate, that section line 41, subsection (a), is such an important factor that the insurance commissioner will do this analysis. But he just confirmed that this is not a statutory requirement to submit such a report. So, through you, Madam President, which one is it? Through you.

I'm sorry. Through you to the honorable ranking member of the Insurance and Real Estate Committee, can you please just reframe the question?

Absolutely. As I said, I tend to repeat myself. I'm happy to do so. Under Section 2, line 19, the report language says the insurance commission department shall, with a mandate, submit a report. But under Subsection (3), in line 37, the language says, May. And we have spent the bulk of this conversation talking about the very powerful, fiscally impactful language that's offered here. And if I may repeat myself again, again, subsection (a), a requirement that issuers of long-term care insurance policies provide policyholders an opportunity to cancel such insurance and obtain a mg/rr 67 full refund of any premium paid since the start of the policy whenever such issuer files for a rate increase that exceeds the rate of inflation. And the good chair articulated, whenever that happened, retroactively, and when questioned, the original response is no fiscal impact to the state. And when asked, the fiscal impact analysis on businesses as long-term care insurance, the answer was, we will await the insurance department and the commissioner's report. So I repeat the question again. On such a critical analysis and report requirement that have such a significant fiscal impact, why is it a may instead of a shall? Through you, Madam President, I hope I was able to repeat myself clearly this time. Through you.

Thank you. I think I already answered that question, but I'm happy to repeat my previous answer for the honorable ranking member. So the answer is that it is a may not a shall, because that helps ensure that there is no fiscal impact to the state. Through you.

I see we're not going to go anywhere in answering the impact of this language, the impact of this bill, the impact of a lack of a mandate of a sufficient report to quantify the challenges of the language and the power, and the fiscal impact to businesses and long-term carriers that provide this. Nonetheless, it's not about the state of Connecticut. It's about long-term carrier and, most mg/rr 68 important of all, we agree, the policyholders. Because when a policy and a carrier policyholder continues to want that service, and a carrier goes bankrupt because they cannot meet the requirement we just mandated, and we don't require a report to understand the implications of the language that we put into law. That is my struggle with this bill. Make no mistake about it. long-term care insurance, trying to find solutions for many people is critical to my role as the ranking in Aging, as well as Insurance and Real Estate, as well as the bipartisan chair and leadership, and committee members. But we acted responsibly to be sure that whatever policy we implement has fiscal consideration on sustainability and balance. I don't think this language articulates that. And more powerfully, it does not mandate that we get transparency and accountability for the true, true impact and cost. Let me be clear. It is a well-intentioned bill. And make no mistake about it. The Insurance Committee, the Real Estate Committee, the Aging Committee has grappled with this for nearly five years. But we took it with the due process and consideration that the impact on fiscally, not only to the state, but to businesses, and most important, guaranteeing the sustainability and the viability of these policyholders to have a policy maintained and sustained when they need it the most, but also give them some relief in regards to the financial burden that they are now saddled with. This is a one-sided solution, and I'm going to tell you. On July 1, 2027, if this gets enacted into law, I probably know a whole quadrate of people that'll be first in line said, in 2010, the rate of inflation exceeded -- my rate of increase exceeded the rate of inflation, and I want all of my premiums refunded back to that date in 2010. That's what this language says. That's what the good chair of the mg/rr 69 Human Services articulated when asked for legislative intent. And I fear, I fear without addressing this issue, we are creating a long-term care insurance run on July 1, 2027. So I want to thank the good chair for withstanding and allowing me to repeat myself and answering these issues if I had not been clear. But I'm deeply concerned as someone who cares deeply about many of the advocates that have stood before us and told us these incredibly challenging and frustrating stories that we want to do something for them. But this language in this bill seems to be a reach too far and a promise that I'm not so sure that we can keep, and raises, again, false hope for real solutions. So I want to thank the good Madam President. Thank you. It's good to see you up there. I want to thank the good chair of Human Services for making a very valiant effort to try -- to address a very vexing issue. But I'd be very curious after this debate, many of the long-term insurance long- term care insurance holders in listening to this will ask the same very question. And will they be in that line on July 1, 2027, to get the refund that they are entitled to under the language of this bill? So thank you, Madam President. Through you.

I don't know that there was a question there. I urge -- I don't know whether or not there will be a line on July 2. But I do urge adoption of the amendment.

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

LCO No. 5427, Senate Amendment B.

Thank you, Madam President. This amendment is very straightforward. I'm not actually a fan that it was done as a strike-all amendment. It didn't need to be done that way because all it really is a small section, a short paragraph to be added at the end of the bill. And I would have preferred it was drafted that way, but I don't get to decide that. So this is a strike-call amendment. But the only change is to take and add a paragraph at the very end of the bill that would create a truly helpful and beneficial mechanism for the people that have purchased long-term care insurance. And that is to provide tax relief. So there is a sentence that begins on line 55, 59, it says, for the taxable year commencing January 1, 2026, and each taxable year thereafter, the amount of any premium paid in the taxable year for a long-term care insurance policy issued pursuant to section so and so of this bill will now become tax deductible. mg/rr 74 This is the most clear and straightforward mechanism to provide actual and genuine relief to the people that have paid into the long-term care insurance industry, and they are suffering. We need to find a way to make sure that they can continue to keep these policies going so that these companies can remain going concerns, and this product exists for other people to enter into. And this is a great way to do it. This is a very straightforward amendment. If you care about people who are out there struggling, who've paid a great deal of money in long-term care insurance premiums, this is a very straightforward and simple mechanism to provide them some relief. If you believe that, you vote yes for this amendment. I encourage adoption. I move adoption, and I'd like a roll call vote.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. I don't often say this, but I totally agree with Senator Sampson on the policy of this amendment. I think a tax credit for people who purchase long-term care insurance would be a good idea, and we should look at that, but there is no funding for that currently in this year's budget. And so accordingly, I would ask that members reject the amendment, but I'd be excited to work with him on this issue going forward, perhaps in a future session.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it. One of the first things that the chair of the Human Services Committee said when we started this debate, one of the first things, was that we want to encourage the purchase of long-term care insurance. Why? For two reasons. Number one, and most important, it's good for the purchaser of the insurance. It's good for their retirement. It's good for their health care in the long-term and their later years. That's number one. Number two, it's good for the state of Connecticut because it alleviates some of the cost born by the state with Medicaid for those seniors who need that long-term care. If we truly want to encourage the purchase of long-term care insurance, we have to reward the purchase of long-term care insurance, and we do it with the tax credit that Senator Sampson just outlined. We want to reward people for doing the right thing, for thinking ahead, for being smart, for buying long-term care insurance to provide for themselves, to make sure that they have the resources they need to grow old comfortably and healthily. A tax credit of those premiums so that those beneficiaries of the insurance so that they can get that money back. That is how we encourage the purchase. I think this amendment is exactly on point. It is exactly what seniors need to make sure that they're healthy in their later years. I strongly support the tax credit that Senator Sampson laid out. I think it's the right approach here. I think it's the right thing to do for all residents of the state of Connecticut, and in fact, the right thing to do for the taxpayers of the state of Connecticut. Because in the end, the insured individual saves money, and the taxpayers save money. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Thank you, Madam President. Just a question or two for the proponent of the of the amendment. Through you, Madam President, do you see any other option other than the tax credit in order to save this product from being sort of vanishing from the market? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the question very much. It's obviously a very complex question, and it has to do with the cost of health care. I mean, the number one driver in the cost of long-term care insurance is the cost of the claims that are being paid out to make sure that people still have viable health care into the future. And I don't think that was factored into the early premiums. As a result, the amount of money that's been collected is not enough to make up to pay for the claims of today. So, unless there is a major and significant change in the cost of health care and its delivery, I don't know that there's another mechanism that would encourage people to purchase this product. The fact that remains also that what happened is a warning to anyone who might invest in the future in a similar product. Who knows what the next thing around the corner is? Who knows, the next time the state or federal government will interfere in the insurance marketplace, create another Obamacare, for example, that might drive up insurance premiums exponentially? If that happens again, that would mean that whatever insurance premiums you're paying mg/rr 77 today might be very, very short of what is necessary when your claims become due in 15, 20, 30 years. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And through you, Madam President, do you believe that if this amendment doesn't go through, that the insurance industry will basically say goodbye to the product, then just go on to try to develop something else? Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. The long-term care insurance products that exist currently are in life support across the country. It's not a Connecticut problem. It's a national problem. And part of it is that there is a desire on behalf of the progressive majority in this state and Democrats nationally to nationalize health care, to create single-payer health care systems, to open up Medicaid for all. These types of programs effectively would eliminate the need for private insurance in these cases. So there is political pressure that's creating policy that actually does endanger the future of long-term care insurance products, through you.

mg/rr 78 Thank you, Madam President. And through you, Madam President, do you believe the underlying bill is I guess, going to be -- you mentioned about the progressive, are trying to sort of change the way that we are insurance is provided through the to the public. Do you think that this underlining bill is heading that in that direction? Through you, Madam President?

Thank you very much, Madam President. The amended bill is a good question. I had not seen the amendment until moments ago, because the original file copy of the bill, I thought, was positively terrible. It was more of a political statement about tying the ability of insurance carriers to charge premiums based on their executive pay and things like that. Something that may sound really good to the average person on the street, but would not result in savings to a consumer or straightening out how a company is run. The amendment -- even though I'm not a 100% familiar with it, looks like a lot of reporting requirements to track the amount of claims that have been paid. Everyone knows this information already, though. These insurance companies have their internal data. They're looking at their bottom line on the premiums collected over time, the trajectory of healthcare, costs going forward. There is a serious danger ahead, and I think everyone is aware of that. I don't think it's a bad idea to do some of the things that are mentioned in the amended bill, which would be to track this, have our insurance department looking more closely at this information. The creation of a mechanism to provide for full refunds, I do believe, well, might mg/rr 79 make some people artificially whole. And when I say that, I mean the fact that matters, you're not really being made whole if you get your premiums returned to you. What you really would prefer is to get the product you paid for. And I think that's the best result is we could find a way to make sure people still get what they paid for. I think that there is grave danger in creating that even as a potential for the future, just because I do believe that that might be a signal the end of long-term care insurance in Connecticut, through you.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I've pretty much understand, or my questions have been answered, so I do appreciate the good senator answering them. So thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Bill 478 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS FOR LONG-TERM CARE POLICIES. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment B. This is not the bill. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 178 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS FOR LONG-TERM mg/rr 80 CARE POLICIES. An immediate roll call vote in the Amendment B. This is not the bill. We're voting on the Senate.

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

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 478 as amended, AN ACT CONCERNING CONSUMER SAFEGUARDS FOR LONG-TERM CARE POLICIES. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate on substitute for Senate Bill No. 478 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. There is an immediate roll call being mg/rr 81 held in the Senate. An immediate roll call has been called ordered in the Senate.

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

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, our next item we need to PT for the moment, and we'll go to the next item, which is Calendar page 6, Calendar 47, Senate Bill 266.

Page six. Calendar No. 47, substitute for Senate Bill No. 266, AN ACT LIMITING THE ACCESS OF PRIVATE EQUITY TO FUNDS FROM THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ENDOWMENT. mg/rr 82

Good afternoon, 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 No. 4674. I ask that the Clerk please call, and I be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

Senator Maher.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the amendment? Good afternoon, Senator Perillo.

Thank you, Senator Maher.

Thank you. Senator Perillo.

Thank you, Senator Maher.

Thank you, Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you, Senator Perillo.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you, Senator Perillo. mg/rr 86

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you, Senator Perillo.

Thank you. But we cannot do that until we vote on the amendment at hand. We're happy to entertain that. So I will ask the chamber if there's anyone else who would like to remark on the amendment that is before the chamber. Will you remark on the amendment before the chamber? If not, let me try your minds. All in favor of the amendment before the chamber, please signify by saying aye.

Madam President, thank you. As I stated earlier, we want full transparency here so we can see which providers have been selected to quote, move to the back of the line. So with that, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment. It is LCO 5358. I ask mg/rr 90 that he please call and I be given leave to summarize.

LCO No. 5358. Senate Amendment B.

Thank you, Madam President. So, this amendment very simply states that the office shall annually compile a list of early care and education programs and preschool programs that applied for funding during the prior fiscal year, but did not receive such funding, and make that list available on the office's Internet website. Madam President, the purpose of the amendment is very clear. We want to keep track of the impact of the bill that is before us. Who gets shut out? We need to know that. The community needs to know that. The industry needs to know that so that we, maybe in the future, have an educated discussion about whether or not this is working, whether or not it is causing unintended consequences. So if we can actually aggregate those losers, in the process, I believe that would be helpful. And I would move adoption. I ask that when the vote be taken, it'd be taken by roll.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate this thought process behind the amendment, and I certainly hope that next year, this will be brought forward, and we can include it, after discussion in the committee.

Thank you. In the meantime, I would ask everyone to consider this an unfriendly amendment and vote no. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Senate. We're voting on Senate Amendment B. This is not the bill. We're voting on the amendment, LIMITING THE ACCESS OF PRIVATE EQUITY TO FUNDS FROM THE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ENDOWMENT. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the amended.

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

Good afternoon, Madam President. I rise in opposition to the bill that is before us. I think the easiest thing I could say about it is it's just positively silly on its face. The majority party in the state of Connecticut has a new toy, apparently, and it's the term private equity. And they're going to sit around and apply it to as many bills as they possibly can, because they think somehow outside this building, private equity, in quotes, is something that gets people charged up from a political standpoint, because private equity is so bad. But the fact of the matter is this bill's, in my view, unconstitutional, and it's going to cause a significant amount of diminishing of the quality of services that the state of Connecticut can provide. Because frankly, sometimes, these experienced operators that have been around are actually good at what they do. I'm looking forward to debate on the next bill, which we're going to talk about, is going to be mg/rr 93 about private equity and residential purchases. This one is all about being able to participate in the landscape of childcare. What we should be talking about here, and what should matter, is the standards necessary to operate one of these facilities. and if it doesn't have to do with the quality of the facility, the quality of the education they provide, the safety of the premises, then it shouldn't be a factor, because those are the things that matter, both to the parents of these children, the children themselves, obviously, and I think to the people on the street that are sending us here to debate these issues. But instead, we're playing a game, and it's a dangerous game. And in fact, I said earlier on a similar bill where the term private equity was bandied about again for political purposes, that it's as bad as racism. You're basically telling people that because they fall into a certain classification, which changes by the minute, by the way. These bills get bounced around this building. It goes to the judiciary committee. Oh, it's going to be 30 million or more. Oh, no. Wait. We're going to send it over here. It's 50 million or more. We're trying to attack a class of people. That is not what we're supposed to do in the legislature. We shouldn't be attacking any class of people based on their wealth, based on their race, based on their religion, based on their belief system. But that's exactly what these bills do. These bills carve up the world into different pieces. But what the proponents don't realize is that in the process of trying to attack a segment of our society -- to vilify a segment of our society, they're creating less than desirable results for everyone else. Can I just ask a question through you, Madam President?

I'd like to ask the proponent. Are there any facilities in the state of Connecticut operating today that would be potentially eligible for the grant that is included in this bill? Through you.

Yes. There are.

Thank you very much. Madam President, are they bad? Through you.

May I have clarification on the question, please, Madam President?

Are they doing something that would cause them to be punished by the state of Connecticut? Through you. mg/rr 95

We are looking at private equity when 10% to 12% of private equity -- excuse me. 10% to 12% of childcare in the United States right now is private equity. So what we are doing is not saying private equity can't be in Connecticut. What we are saying is potentially, private equity has a financial incentive, and that financial incentive, when they are not meeting their goals, can actually create a situation where they close, and we have seen that in the country. And in Connecticut, with the early childcare endowment, which is a new, very important initiative. We want to make sure that we are building both from the ground up with small providers and still allowing private equity to be a provider as long as they are not at the front of the line.

Thank you very much. Madam President, I'm trying to think about how to respond and whether I should go down the gentle lady's rabbit hole or not, because I think that's a worthy endeavor as well. But I think I might say that until I'm done with my line of questioning, which is all about basically disagreeing with the premise that you're not causing a difficulty for a certain segment of investors, for lack of a better term, in one of these operations. Because you most certainly are. You said, we're not trying to keep them out of the state of Connecticut, but you most certainly are. You're telling them that you're not interested in them participating. And mg/rr 96 therefore, we're putting you at the end of the line, quote unquote, or the back of the line. You realize we can't do that. Right? We have a constitution that carries a very significant amount of weight about how much policy we can draft, and what the rights of the state of Connecticut is to interfere with private commerce. We have an Equal Protection Clause in our Constitution. And when you say that this particular group is not eligible for something for no other reason than you've put a target on their back, you have decided to besmirch their name by giving it a category in quotes. That is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause. It's also a violation of substantive due process. These folks are not giving the ability to defend themselves to suggest whether they're good or bad. The gentle lady just said, well, we've seen in other states where certain types of private equity companies have done this or that. Is there a guarantee, through you, Madam President, that any private equity company is going to engage in the nefarious activities that were suggested by the proponent? Through you.

There is no guarantee.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Is there any guarantee that somebody who is not a private equity company wouldn't also have bad results, or close an mg/rr 97 operation, or fail to protect the kids, or provide a bad education? Through you?

We're not suggesting there are nefarious plans.

If there is no suggestion that there would be a less-than-desirable result with private equity, then why would we exclude private equity from eligibility? Through you.

Because we already see the growth of private equity in our country, and we know that KinderCare closed a third of their sites overnight. And I believe it's Senator Jeff Merkley has started looking into the issue of child care -- private equity in child care because of the financial imperative, which ends up putting a stronger burden on parents as they're looking to rejoin the workforce.

mg/rr 98 Thank you very much, Madam President. Alright. So now we've got to the crux of the situation is that we have one example that occurred in the news media that now is going to be exploited as a mechanism to mischaracterize or to put everyone else of a similar background into the same category. That is no way to do things. Certainly no way to write legislation. We already heard an acknowledgment that just because you have the same financial depth that maybe KinderCare has, that you're not necessarily or you're going to necessarily end up with the same results. And we also heard that if you're not in their boat, if you're a small operation starting from the ground, as was described, that there's no guarantee that you're going to work out in any way different. So why would we create a policy that creates an equal protection violation, denies substantive due process, interferes with intrastate commerce as well? These folks have deep pockets. And if I were them, I would sue. I would sue the state of Connecticut for interfering with their ability to operate businesses in the state of Connecticut. That's what I would do. Because these bills are unconstitutional. They're also immoral and unethical. And again, it's not easy to get up here and suggest that somehow I'm defending the private equity companies, like big operations with millions of dollars, but I'm not. I'm not defending them. I'm defending the premise that in America, we don't put people into boxes. We do not judge them on the behavior of people that are not them. We don't say because X, Y, Z person did something bad that all people that look like them are bad, we do not do that in America. And we shouldn't do it here in this bill either. So I asked earlier whether or not there were any operations in the state of Connecticut operating today, right this minute, that would be eligible, that would fall under this category of private equity entity, through you. mg/rr 99

Yes. There are many.

Thank you. Senator Maher.

Thank you. Senator Sampson.

Thank you, Senator Sampson. Will you remark further, Senator Martin?

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

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

Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

So ordered. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Marx.

Question is on passage. Will you remark?

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Senator Marx.

And I move adoption of this amendment, and I ask that the reading be waived, and I seek leave of the chamber to summarize. I just did that.

Good evening, Madam President. Can I just ask, through you, to the general lady, what the purpose of this amendment is, through you? mg/rr 107

Yes. It is just to change the words from private equity because there might be instances that it might be confusing. And so by making it to an institutional real estate investor, we felt that it would cover more, different classifications through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. But I noticed the original bill has a definition for both private equity entity and institutional real estate investor, and it appears that we've simply just made institutional real estate investor cover all of the same territory that was once covered by the term private equity entity. For example, in the amendment, it says, strike this line or on this line, strike private equity entity, insert institutional real estate investor, and so on, over and over again. And I'm just curious why we would change the definition through you.

Thank you, Madam President. Because, actually, the private equity and the institutional real estate investor definitions are similar, and we just felt this would bring more clarity, technical change, and through you, Madam President. mg/rr 108

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate that. I noticed that the title of the bill still mentions the term private equity entities. Is that incorrect now? That should actually be institutional real estate investors, through you?

No. Madam President, through you.

Is that a no? Because these are essentially the same thing through you?

Through you, Madam President. Yes.

Very good. At least I understand what's going on. I'm trying to really understand exactly what the majority is up to, why they would draft a bill, and then suddenly feel the necessity of changing the definition that they created in quotes for various entities. I don't know if it's a policy, purpose, or a political purpose, but the amendment does not seem to change the bill in any substantive way. Am I correct about that through you, Madam President?

Yes. He is correct, Madam President, through you.

There is one exception, I believe, which is the amount that an institutional real estate investor would have to have as far as their net value or assets under its management on any day during the taxable year, increasing from 30 million to 50 million. Is that correct through you?

Yes, Madam President. That was changed by an amendment in Judiciary, through you. mg/rr 110

Can I just ask the purpose of changing that number. through you?

That is how they got it through Judiciary by increasing the amounts that an individual investor must have on any given day in a Calendar year from 30 million to 50 million. It was a negotiation in the Judiciary Committee, through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Because this number reflects the threshold at which this bill is going to artificially restrict access to a marketplace in America, I'm a little puzzled by the idea that this was negotiated in the judiciary committee to determine whether someone with assets of $30 million is not somehow an institutional real estate investor or private equity entity, but somebody with $50 million on any given day during the taxable year is. Am I understanding that correctly through you?

Yes. Through you, Madam President.

Boy, you learn something new every day today, here, Madam President, that we just use these random artificial terms and numbers, whichever way they seem to work and flow through this building. Okay. Well, I think that the amendment actually does make an extraordinarily bad bill, maybe one nth of a percent less bad. So I will wait for the amendment and then talk about the bill. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I do just want to say that this bill has passed in New York and that by changing it from private equity to individual real estate investor, that does match then the New York bill. Thank you.

Aye. mg/rr 112

Thank you, Madam President. So this bill, what it does is it, when a new single family or two family home goes on the market, individual real estate investor must make 90 days before they, even put an offer in on the house or before they can buy the house. And this is very important because Connecticut has one of the largest amounts of single-family and two-family homes that are being bought by individual real estate investors. So it's a little easier for me when it was the other word. But for individual real estate investors. Institutional -- Oh, institutional investors. Oh, see. I told you. And it's very important that we keep our single- family and two-family homes available for our constituents who want to buy those homes. The prices of homes has gone up 48% in Connecticut. And when institutional real estate investor comes to purchase a home, they can offer cash. They can say, I don't need any kind of inspection, and I will give you $10,000 more. So by doing this for 90 days, it just keeps those houses on the markets for our families, where we want our families to stay here in Connecticut. I do -- I think it's a great bill that will do just a very small thing to help the housing crisis here in Connecticut. I know many of my constituents are thrilled that we're doing this bill, and I do ask my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you, Madam President. mg/rr 113

Thank you very much, Madam President. Where to even begin? So what we've just heard is an acknowledgment that the majority party in the state of Connecticut intends to interfere with the economic marketplace, with the purchasing and sale of real estate in the state of Connecticut to artificially impair the ability of a seller to get the maximum value of their home so that we can artificially reduce the amount of competition for purchase and keep prices down and effectively diminish the value of real estate in the state of Connecticut. Can the good, gentlelady, tell me if I've got that rate. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. No. The house will still be available to the institutional real estate investor after the 90 days. Through you.

Well, thank you very much, Madam President. But what does that have to do with anything? You're restricting the ability of certain entities. In fact, the most capable purchasers of real estate from being able to engage in the purchase, thereby mg/rr 114 reducing the competition and preventing the most significant bids on the property. The gentlelady acknowledged as much in her opening statement, where she said the goal was to reduce the price of real estate in Connecticut. I just want to make sure we're on the same page before I go any further on this bill. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. When I said that the price of housing had gone up 48%, that was not because of the institutional real estate investors. That was because of the price of housing, because of our housing crisis, and because they have an easier time paying cash, which we all know. It's happened throughout all of our neighborhoods. To the Good Senator from Wolcott, this is to make sure that our single-family and two-family homes stay with single and two families. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I have a lot to say on this bill. Although I much prefer the dialogue because I think it paints a much more clear image for people that are curious about this debate and trying to make their own determination about what is the most proper policy, what is conducive to the success of the residents of Connecticut, which I might remind everyone is the purpose of us being here, and what ultimately is the most moral choice for what type of policies we should have and enact in this state legislature. mg/rr 115 My concern about this bill, first off, is that it's extremely arbitrary. That's number one. Everything that's in this bill is just some random number, and we already heard about how they changed 30 million to 50 million just since this bill started being debated this year. Why not 49 million instead of 50 million? There's no answer to that question. I could ask it, but it's not worth it. The fact is, there is no answer. These are arbitrary terms and limits. And that's what we're doing here. We have a majority that believes in their arrogance, that they can interfere with the freedom of the people that they represent, to upset what exists in the marketplace as a natural byproduct of freedom. Because they don't like it. Whether we like something or dislike it doesn't mean that we have the right to deny certain individuals based on superficial characteristics the same freedoms as other people. But let's talk about the arbitrary nature first, which is, I'm looking at the amendment now, which effectively replaces a large portion of the beginning of the underlying bill. But this is where we define an institutional real estate investor, which we heard from the proponent is the same thing as a private equity entity. There is just a change in wording. This says that in order to be considered an institutional real estate investor and therefore have your rights trampled on by this proposed bill, you need to own 10 or more single-family residences or two-family residences. Why 10? Through you, Madam President. What if somebody met these requirements, but they only owned nine single-family residences or two family residences? Through you.

Then, if they only owned nine, they would not be an institutional real estate investor. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, does that mean that people that own 10 or more single-family residences and become institutional real estate investors are somehow harmful to the marketplace, but those who only own nine are not? Through you.

No. Madam President, through you.

So it's safe to say that this number was arbitrary and pulled from thin air. Through you.

No. Madam President, through you. mg/rr 117

Through you, Madam President. How was the number 10 chosen?

Through research into what other states are doing, especially New York. It's what New York has in their state law. Through you, Madam President.

Is New York such an unbelievably well-run state that we should be following their laws without understanding where it came up with the termination that 10 was the proper number? Assuming that isn't case the fact, I don't know. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. So it's the institutional. An institution has to own 10 or more one or two-family homes or one-tenth of 10 or more single-family or two-family homes. It's like anything. Those are not arbitrary. And I like New York, but they have the law, and that is why we mg/rr 118 looked at their law. And when you read housing policy, that is what was recommended. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I don't know how much farther down this lane we should travel, but it sounds awfully arbitrary to me, even though the gentlelady keeps saying it's not arbitrary. We haven't heard a reason. Well, policy, we research in New York. Not anything that you can wrap your arms around to say, oh, well, the data says that the moment you get 10 single or two-family houses, you become a pumpkin. And now you're a bad actor, and we have got to regulate the crap out of you with laws from Connecticut. Nothing. It's arbitrary. I want to just make a point that, as I go through this, I want you to pay attention to just how arbitrary all of it is. And also, just how easy it would be to get around if somebody wanted to get around it, because you set the freaking parameters right there for people. Well, I'll just make sure I don't own 10 or more single-family houses. I'll create another entity. I'll own nine, and then we'll create another entity that owns another nine, and so on. It also says that you have to have at least $50 million in net value or assets under its management on any day during the taxable year. Does this mean that people that have $49,999,000 are not institutional real estate investors, through you, Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Well, in the original bill, they were, but then when it went to Judiciary, the minority party chose an arbitrary number of $50 million, and so we changed it in order to get the bill out of Judiciary. So I guess I would say the answer is yes. Through you, Madam President.

Oh, thank you very much. Madam President, I appreciate the notion that the minority party made that change, but can you let me know what the roll call vote was for that in the Judiciary Committee, Madam President?

No. Madam President. Through you.

Thank you, Madam President. And no, you don't have it. No, you don't want to give it to me. No, you don't like my question. Through you.

All of the above, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is illustrative of what it's like to serve in the minority in the Connecticut General Assembly. The majority doesn't seem to think that they have an obligation to answer my questions with facts or legitimacy or to truly respond to my concerns. When I say something is arbitrary and please defend that it's not, I expect a real answer. Instead, I've got no. That's what I've got. I've got no. So, because this section requires all three of those things to be true, does that mean that somebody has $500 million but they only own nine single-family houses, is no longer an institutional real estate investor under this bill? Through you.

Yes. Through you, Madam President.

So if I were an institutional real estate investor, because I had $480 million hanging around, and I added 11 single-family houses, I could probably mg/rr 121 become not an individual real estate investor if I just sold one. Is that correct? Through you.

Yes, Madam President. Through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. This is my least concern about the bill, the fact that it's written in such an arbitrary manner, but I'm trying to show the people that are listening that this bill was not written by anyone with any kind of coherent economic understanding or logic. It was just an arbitrary rip at what I have referred to in the previous bill as the Democrats' new toy, which is the term private equity. It's a term of art, which has gotten a lot of notoriety in the news media over the last year, because anytime some entity that has a lot of money screws up in some way, shape, or form, it's very easy to start throwing them into a category and say, " Oh, it's private equity. Messed up again." Certainly, private equity companies do mess up, but so do regular people. Lots of things happen in this world. My issue is that they're trying to use this term as a mechanism to undermine everything sacred about the way we operate in America as a free society. The way people engage in free commerce, where they have the choice to buy and sell things. And they come and make policies that are designed to infringe upon mg/rr 122 that freedom, and ultimately, in this case, diminish the value of people's property, telling Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith, who live in any town across Connecticut, that their house is now going to sell for less money than it did before. All because they want to associate free markets and true economic freedom as a negative. That's what is going on here. This is a statement against economic freedom. That's what this bill is. The previous bill is also a statement against economic freedom. And I noticed when I asked the last time, the problem with private equity investors, according to one of my colleagues on the majority side, is the financial imperative. So let me ask this question of the Chairman of the Housing Committee. Is the danger of institutional real estate investors the financial imperative? Through you.

Can the Good Senator please repeat the question?

I'm trying to understand through you, Madam President, what is the concern and reason for restricting access to the marketplace by so-called institutional real estate investors. Through you.

Thank you for your patience, Madam President. Through you, it's to save those houses that are so rare, our single and two-family houses. It's so difficult now to find one, to buy one, that we keep those in the market for our families because we all know the importance of home equity and how it helps with wealth, and we want that for the next generation. I want it for myself, and we want it for the next generation. So this is to protect our single and two-family homes for our constituents who want to buy up those single and two-family homes. Through you.

Thank you very much. Madam President. I don't know that that was an answer to my question. I'm trying to understand why you're restricting certain folks from being able to make the purchase. What's wrong with them? Why are they not allowed? Through you.

Because exactly what he just said. Why are you trying to stop those folks? It's not a folk. It's an institution. We don't want institutions to buy up our single and two-family homes. They can buy our 5, 10, 20, and 50-unit apartment buildings, but we want to save our single and two-family homes for the individuals who will raise their families in those homes. Through you. mg/rr 124

Thank you very much, Madam President. It is not just institutional real estate investors that are not folks, through you, Madam President. This definition that is included in the amendment says not only to be an institutional real estate investor should you meet the arbitrary qualifications we already discussed about owning 10 or more units and having $50 million. It also says, or if you are not one of those institutional real estate investors, it could be, or the letter b, receives funding from an organization that meets the criteria of sub- paragraph a. So that means if somebody helped a person buy a house that met the definition of an institutional real estate investor, then they would also be restricted. Is that correct? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Yes. But if that person was going to live in that house and be the occupant of that house and have a regular mortgage as we all do, then they could buy up that house. But they can't buy up that house to then not live in it. And if I could just add, Madam President, on January 20th of 2026, the President issued an executive order that, among other things, directed certain federal agencies to issue guidance. One, generally preventing federal agencies and government-sponsored entities from taking certain actions that facilitate large institutional investors' acquisition of single-family homes, and two, promoting sales to owner-occupants, including mg/rr 125 through anti-circumventing provisions, first look policies, and disclosure requirements. So, this is bipartisan, as much of the housing policy that we see now is happening in the other states. It is bipartisan, and it's just not the majority party that we have here in Connecticut that is pushing this legislation. It is both parties that are pushing this legislation. And so I just wanted to have that on the record that this is to our Republican President, Trump, who also issued this executive order in January 2026. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Madam President, is the gentlelady suggesting that we don't need this bill because the President issued an executive order to do the same thing already? Through you.

No. I said federally funded properties, and these are single-family, privately owned homes. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So when the gentlelady says push this policy, it's bipartisan. It's not this policy, is it? Through you. mg/rr 126

No. It is not exactly the same, Madam President, but there is intersectionality between the two, through you.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Duly noted, I don't know that it makes any difference to the arguments that I'm making, which is that you're interfering with the economic freedom of the participants, and most importantly, you're interfering with the potential prosperity, success, and wealth of your own constituents. When you tell people that they are no longer able to purchase your constituent's home because they're too able a buyer, because they have too much money, or they could buy cash, or they don't need to hassle the seller about an inspection, you are naturally diminishing the value of that property. So let me ask a question. Is it more important to punish institutional real estate investors than it is to see your home sellers inside your own district succeed and maximize the value of their home when they sell it? Through you.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. There was a lot to that statement, and the Good Senator first said that mg/rr 127 if you have a lot of money and you can make a cash offer, we're preventing that from happening, which is not true. If you are not an institutional real estate investor and you just happen to have a lot of money and want to make a cash offer out of home, then go for it, and you can do it. This is just for the institutional investors. And then I think he's trying to ask me if it's more important to stop institutional real estate investors from buying up single and two-family homes than it is for letting the seller make as much money as they can. Through you, can I just make sure that's the question that the Good Senator is asking me?

Through you, Madam President. Yes. I was asking which is more of a priority for you? Through you.

The priority for me is to make sure that our families, especially our young families who are moving here, working at Electric Boats, have homes to buy. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. There are a lot of confusing things about the argument that I'm hearing. At one point, I'm hearing that people that mg/rr 128 are going to own or occupy their homes are okay, and people that are investors that are going to buy the homes are not. But if there is an investor that is buying a home, I'm going to guess that at some point, they're buying it so that they can provide it to another home if they're not living in it. So I don't understand the correlation between how this affects the ability for people to be able to make purchases in the marketplace. Can the gentleman explain that to me? The houses are not disappearing. They're not buying the house and then poof, it disappears. It goes into the ether or the thin air. It's still there, and someone will be able to buy it. And if it's a single-family residence, presumably, they're going to live there as residents. Through you.

Yes. But we want our constituents, our residents, to have that home equity because that is what leads to generational wealth. So we want to keep those homes for our residents who can buy the home and have home equity. Through you, Madam President.

Well, thank you very much. Madam President, I'm confused. If someone is buying a home in any town in Connecticut, they are going to be a resident of that district. Are they not, through you? mg/rr 129

No. If they're an institutional real estate investor, they're not going to be living in the home, and the home equity of that home will not go to the person who is renting it. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Oh, so now I'm understanding. The gentlelady believes that institutional real estate investors, in all cases, turn around and rent the homes that they purchase. Is that correct, through you?

Through you, Madam President. They're not living in them, so I guess they're either going to leave them empty or they're going to rent them.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Am I hearing that the people that might rent this property after the purchase by an institutional real estate mg/rr 130 investor are less important as constituents than someone who had bought the house at a diminished value, because the seller, who was also a constituent, is unable to sell it for their full asking price, through you?

Well, first of all, it's not saying that they're unable to sell it at the full asking price. They're going to wait 90 days to sell that house. And if nobody after 90 days can buy that house at its full asking price, then it will go to the institutional investor. So that part of the debate that the Good Senator just said was wrong. Well, to my opinion, it was wrong. And renters are wonderful, but we want the people that buy, I, the majority party, would like the people that buy up the single and two- family homes to have that equity because it changes lives. Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Do we have a shortage of available rental property in the state of Connecticut? Through you.

I think the Good Senator and I will disagree on this, but I say, yes. We do, Madam President. mg/rr 131

Thank you very much, Madam President. It's a very interesting answer since I believe that the purpose of this bill is to diminish the opportunities for renters. We've just had the last 10-minute conversation, where it's very clear that the majority is prioritizing the ability of people to purchase these homes at a reduced value, which is inherent in the policy before us, and I want to get to that in a moment, in case it's unclear, rather than letting renters occupy those homes. So I'm completely baffled and confused. If anyone is listening who is not baffled and confused, God bless you that you can figure that out. Let's talk about this 90-day thing. If I'm trying to sell a home, and I will tell you just for full disclosure, I am a real estate agent and have been for a long, long time, and I've been involved in many real estate transactions. I'm very good at negotiating with buyers and sellers and trying to maximize the ability for my seller to get the most value for their home that they can because that's what creates generational wealth. And instead, what we are hearing is that it's better for real buyers, ones with cash in hand who want to pay the maximum price, that they be removed from the equation. So I can tell you that if we start telling people that they can no longer sell their house to everyone, you're only allowed to sell your house to these buyers, but not these buyers. What happens is the buyers that are left remaining, the ones that are still standing, that have the viable ability under Connecticut law, they're going to fully realize they don't have to offer as much money for the property as they did before because there's less mg/rr 132 competition. And therefore, the value of the property will decline. It will drop. So I appreciate the gentlelady talking repeatedly about generational wealth and people getting value for their home, but this bill does the opposite. This bill diminishes the value of the home. This bill will reduce the value that people have in their homes in the state of Connecticut. It will mean that when you go to sell your house, you cannot sell it for as much money as you could before. If you tell the institutional real estate investor, by the way, well, you still can buy the house, but you have to wait 90 days. I can promise you that if 90 days go by and the seller has still not sold their house, that institutional investor may still be interested, but they are not paying the asking price; they're going to make an offer on the house that is substantially less. Because they're going to realize that you didn't have any other buyers, and there was no other competition. All of this actually undermines what we call in America common sense. Common sense dictates that you do not start interfering with the marketplace if you want the best results. The thing that improves quality, the thing that increases value, is competition. And this is an anti-competition bill. And in fact, if anyone was trying to do this outside of the state government, I guarantee you they would find themselves in trouble because this is an antitrust bill. It is a violation of constitutional principles. It's a violation of equal protection. In America, we're supposed to treat everybody the same. Everybody's supposed to have the same rights and same abilities. We don't carve it up and say, oh, people that are less than five feet tall have less rights than people that are more than five feet tall. We don't do that, because it's wrong. And we don't tell people that they should not have access to make a purchase. Are we going to tell mg/rr 133 institutional real estate investors that they can't shop at Walmart? Are we going to tell them that? Is that next? You've had too much success in the world. I'm sorry. You're not allowed to buy things anymore. And the net result of this and I get the focus here. The focus is on politics. The focus is we have to make sure that everyone understands those Republicans are defending those private equity people. I'm not defending anything except for freedom, fairness, economics, and the people that want to sell their houses that I represent. Because this bill is going to make their houses worth less. So, through you, Madam President, can you explain to me how this is supposed to work, where someone's still going to get their maximum value, even though we're restricting the institutional real estate investor from being able to make a purchase for a full three months? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. There was a lot said before this last question. want to say that last question again, Senator Sampson, please, through you, Madam President?

Thank you very much, Madam President. I'm just trying to be very generous with the opportunities that I'm offering to the majority to rebuke what I'm saying. I mean, I just laid out what this bill is. mg/rr 134 And I'm looking for an alternative view. I'm looking for the argument from the majority. No, we think this is a good bill because I want to hear that argument. I'm saying this is a bad bill because, a, it violates constitutional principles. It gets rid of substantive due process. It interferes with interstate commerce. It screws with equal protection under the law. It is so eager to put certain people in a category arbitrarily, as if people with $40 million aren't also rich. I don't get it. Even if you're engaged in some sort of investment opportunity with someone else who's rich, you get roped into this. I know that you purposely removed mortgages, but there are a thousand other types of ways that you could be connected to a financial entity to have money to buy a house besides a mortgage. There are all kinds of creative economic things that happen in America based on freedom. This bill flies in the face of freedom by denying access to those opportunities. And when it does so, it means less opportunities present themselves, and sellers will not have the same buyers in the marketplace for their homes, and their value of their homes will be diminished. To me, that is the key reason why this bill should not move forward. I want to protect the value for the people that I represent. When they sell their house, I want them to get the maximum amount for it. So if the gentlelady can explain to me where I'm wrong, make a strong case for this bill, I'm open to it. But I haven't heard a strong case yet, other than I'm trying to protect generational wealth. Well, so am I, and my argument is strong. I'm making it clear how I'm protecting generational wealth. I am keeping every available buyer active in the sale of a house, so that the seller can get the maximum. The bill takes that away. So, how does your way protect generational wealth better than mine? Through you. mg/rr 135

Thank you. Again, a lot for a single question. So, Madam President, I do think this bill is very good. First, the Good Senator continues to act as if the institutional real estate investor is one person, and it's not. It's an institution. It is a business buying up a single-family or a two-family home. I have lived in three homes in my life: the one that I grew up in, the one that the father of my children and I first had when we were young and got married and had our four children, and then where I live now, where we moved as we've had a little bit of equity, we could get a little bit bigger home. In all of those homes, I know my next-door neighbors, I could knock on their door and borrow an egg. I'm always the nurse. And so somebody's kid is wheezing in the middle of the night, they would call me or the kid has croup, and I would go down the street with my stethoscope, and I would assess the child. There are stories after stories after stories. It's not just the home equity. It's keeping the fabric of a neighborhood. I think all of my neighborhoods that I've ever lived in have created who I am, and the friends and my neighbors are such important people in my life. It's not just an investment. Like we have said with so many things in housing, when you rent an apartment, I continue to say, it is the renter's home. And so we want those neighborhoods to stay homes to single and two-family people, where the two-family is owner-occupied, when they buy their home. To this day, every single one of the houses surrounding me, I have very special relationships with all of the people. And that if you have an mg/rr 136 institution by your home, it changes that neighborhood. The Good Senator is saying, it's all about the person selling the home, and they need to get the absolute last penny out of that home that they can sell. So many of us here know that we have a home and that when you sell a home, you want it to be that's a family you really care about. Actually, in many states now, you're not allowed to write a letter to that person and say, oh, you came and looked at my house. I really like you because there might be some discrimination and bias with that. So I can tell you right now that when I go to sell my home, there is no way. No. And I am not a rich person. I had too many kids. I will never be rich. That I would never ever sell my house to an institutional investor, and I can tell you that Teresa and Kirk would never sell their house to an individual investor, and that Christine would never, and that Marion would never. Every person around me would never ever do it. And that is why this bill is important to me. I can see the look on your face. You're not going to agree with me. And I think, Senator Simpson, you and I will never agree on this bill. But I truly think this is what is best to keep our neighborhoods the way we want them. And you had so many assumptions in your first dialogue that you said, before the second dialogue, the same question. So many assumptions that this is going to happen, and therefore, that is going to happen, and therefore, that is going to happen. I don't know how you know all these things are going to happen. Just like when people bought their long-term care insurance that we just heard about two bills ago. Things didn't happen the way we all thought they were going to happen. They just doesn't happen the way you think they're going to happen. I can tell you that New York has had this bill for a year and that there has been no evidence that the prices of housing have dropped. So there, there is mg/rr 137 data. When this bill passes, we will have to see what the data shows. And there are some things you can't measure on a graph or on a pie chart, and that is the character of a neighborhood. I doubt that I've changed your mind, Senator Sampson, good senator from Wolcott. But that is why I think this is a very good bill. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate the gentlelady's passionate dissertation on her feelings on the bill. There are three things I want to address. First and foremost, I want to make it very clear that this bill can apply to a single individual. I just want to make that abundantly clear. This can apply to one person. So when it was suggested earlier that this is not folks, this is an institution, et cetera, et cetera, it can apply to one person. That's one. The second thing I want to say is that, while I appreciate a lot of the commentary that the gentlelady mentioned, I have to tell you that maybe my roots as a closet 60s era classic liberal, from a political perspective was like my spidey sense was tingling because talking about fabric of neighborhoods and keeping our neighborhoods the way I like them, these are the kind of phrases that are associated with things like redlining, segregation, et cetera. Let me ask a direct question to the Good Chairman. Because of your desire to restrict rentals and make sure these houses are sold to people that already live in the neighborhood, presumably, that's what I'm gathering, would a proposal that restricted sellers from being able to rent or people purchasing those homes be able to rent them out, would that mg/rr 138 achieve a similar result? Would that be an acceptable policy for the Good Chairman? Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. What I said had nothing to do with redlining and with what the Good Senator said. I find that very insulting. But if an institutional real estate investor buys a home and they rent it out, great. They rent it out. They can also turn it into an Airbnb, which is what many, many of them do. And that is what is really ruining the fabric of the neighborhoods. And maybe I should have brought that up a little bit sooner, because when I do talk about the renting, that is what I am thinking of is turning them into Airbnbs. I do just want our young people to be able to buy houses, but you can't compete in the first 10 days that a house is on the market with somebody that can come -- you don't even have time to get approval for a mortgage. There are so many little nuances. I'm not that great at making up all the stories as the Good Senator is, but just that alone of being able to get approved for the mortgage when you see that house that then you like. Then that institutional investor has already come in with their cash and bought that house. So, sure, rent it out to a person or a family, especially if they're not going to be living there for a long time and they don't want to buy a house. You can rent it out to three or four people. I just want the people trying to buy a single-family house to have a chance at buying them, and that the houses don't turn into Airbnbs. Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 139

Thank you very much, Madam President. Again, as the Gentle Lady says, when I speak, there's a lot there. There was a lot there also. I did not realize that the Good Chairman felt that Airbnbs were the scourge of Connecticut and that they must be eliminated, and this is the mechanism to do so. It's kind of surprising. The fact of the matter is that I'm seeing so much disconnect from the omnibus housing bills that were passed in recent years, including 8002. 8002 is precisely about denying individual communities from establishing what they look like. Restricting activities like Airbnb, or rental, or certain types of construction from existing in certain places. That's what it's all about. And me, as an opponent of 8002, was trying to defend the right of the towns to be able to maintain the character of their communities. The words that I just heard the Good Chairman say. So I'm totally confused by all this. And I don't really think that has a lot to do with this bill, because I think that there is a huge misconception based on what I'm hearing. And that is that, somehow, people are being outbid by institutional real estate investors in so many cases across Connecticut, and it's just not happening. It's just not happening. It's just not happening. I'll keep saying it. It's just not happening. A few more times. It's just not happening. It's just not happening. I work in the real estate market, and I will tell you that very often, almost every sale that is occurring in a seller's market, when there are a few houses that are available, and there are a lot of mg/rr 140 buyers, they are indeed being bought by people with cash. And they are indeed being bought by people that are waiving requirements for home inspections. All of that is happening, but they are not corporate buyers. They're regular people because I have to explain something that maybe isn't common knowledge, but some people have money. They actually do. They save their money so that they're in a position to buy a house with cash money. And they are. And there are also other types of financial products that people use to make purchases. Sometimes they will borrow against another property they own so they can cash out. So even though they still owe money somewhere else, their purchase looks like a cash purchase. And they do that on purpose because they want to put themselves in the best possible position in a free market where the seller is allowed to maximize their value, so they can compete. I know, as a home buyer myself, I've bought individual homes to live in, and I've bought investment property, and I know how to negotiate. And I've helped my clients too. Now, certainly, you want to protect the buyer's interest. You try and encourage a home inspection, et cetera. But sometimes, if they want to get a house and there's a lot of competition for that house among different buyers, the fact of the matter is, people will find a way to get the cash. They might even go to their rich uncle. They might even go to their rich uncle that has 10 or more single-family residences and $30 million hanging around. Once they do that, guess what? They were prohibited from being able to make the purchase. This is what's crazy about this. And to answer a very direct question that the Good Chairman asked a moment ago, which is how I'm going to predict the future, how I'm going to know what's going to happen. The answer is I understand economics, and I have common sense. That's the answer to the mg/rr 141 question. And folks can shake their heads if they like, which I don't know if it's appropriate. But the fact of the matter is that it is common sense to understand that if you tell the most capable buyers when they go to buy something that they're not allowed to participate in the purchase, the value of the thing you're selling is going to go down. I don't need a degree. I don't need a crystal ball. I don't need to check my zodiac. It's common sense. What this bill will do is to depress the value of property in the state of Connecticut. And maybe the majority wants that to happen. Maybe they think that's a good idea, because maybe that will allow more people to buy homes as entry-level homes. But the side effect of that is that you are also stealing the value of those homes from the people that already own them. This bill tells your constituents that you are willing to diminish the value of their home. That's what this bill says. This bill says, I will make your home worth less, because I'm going to tell people that could buy it for a lot of money that they can't. It's a seriously flawed policy, and as I pointed out, it's not constitutional. It doesn't fit within our laws. There are restrictions on treating different people differently under our system of laws and justice. You cannot tell people arbitrarily that they're not eligible to be in a purchase for some superficial characteristic. You can't do that. We have requirements for due process. We have requirements for equal protection. And I hope, I hope somebody comes along if this bill becomes enacted and says, look, you're not going to restrict me from the marketplace. I have a right to participate. And I have a right to participate because it's to the benefit of everybody in society. mg/rr 142 Interfering with the freedom of your constituents is bad. And that's what this bill does. It interferes with the freedom of your constituents. Now maybe the majority is relying on the fact that they're going to make a political argument that only people that are interfering with are these rich bad people. But they are not just interfering with rich bad people; they are interfering with anyone who would help drive up the cost of your house that you live in right now when you go to sell it. And when your house doesn't sell for as much as your neighbor's house did last year, because there's not as many buyers interested, well, that's because this government said those buyers can't participate. They did that actively. This is a terrible bill. We should not be interfering in the marketplace. This arrogance that the majority has that they think that they can tell people how to live, to the point where they can determine who's eligible to buy your house. That's what this bill does. It says, I'm going to tell you, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, who's allowed to buy your house or not. It's crazy. Don't vote for it.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, thank you for letting me say a few words here. I agree with Senator Sampson. This bill attempts to control the market, and I don't think that's our place, as a government, to control or try to control any market. I've grown up in this industry regarding residential housing, construction of it, building single-family homes, building renovations, building subdivisions, condominiums, and congregate housing, and I've seen the low periods of the industry as well as the high periods multiple times from the mg/rr 143 moment that I got out of college, and arriving to work for the family construction business in the middle of a recession back in 1978, '79, and then even actually, sort of a little bit of an uptick. But in the early 1980s, we hit inflation period in our country. That was off the charts. We borrowed money at 22% for our land development for a condominium project, which was not successful. We were fortunate enough to squeak it out. We all took a loss, but I do remember those times when those interest rates started to go off the charts; we could not sell units at all. What resulted back then was a slowdown in the marketplace. Getting past 1983, going on into 1987, things picked up, and then we were off into the '80s. But eventually we got to up and down cycles. But I do remember the year 2008 specifically, when the savings and loan crisis hit our whole country. It brought the housing industry literally to its knees. And what usually happens during those slowdowns are pent up demands in housing because homes deteriorate. They fall apart. People don't take care of them. There are buyers, but because of rates, they are reluctant in buy in because perhaps they're too high. But also, when they're too low, where they've refinanced and have a 3% rate, which we just experienced, people don't want to move and don't want to sell their homes. That creates an increase in supply as well. You add that pent-up demand that I spoke to you about on a regular basis, year after year. And we went through almost 10 years of just a flat housing industry market. We were selling homes at $200,000. It would stay on the market for six months, and we didn't have lookers. $200,000, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. You had 400 houses on the market. I think that's what it was. My memory serves me right. Today, we have 50 houses on the market. Maybe a little bit more. Haven't looked at it in a while, been in here. mg/rr 144 The cycles go up and down, up and down, based on market demand, based on what's happening on a national level regarding where the money's flowing to. We should not be intruding in this market. That's not our job. Our job is to keep the public safe. We want to do some housing regulations, some building codes, increase our safety regarding that. Absolutely. But for us to put ourselves in the midst of a housing market and control or try to regulate it. What will that do? What consequence will that open or create? Another factor that's increased our demand here in this state is people moving from outside the state, from New York and Boston, during COVID. Prior to 2020, we didn't have this problem, but that created a demand. Add that to the pent-up demand. And the more buyers you have all at once, creates an increase in prices. You talked a little bit, or you mentioned about the neighborhoods and keeping the integrity of the neighborhood. And you want that to be, I guess, passed along to other buyers. And you felt that big business, an institutional buyer, would come in and change all that. I beg to differ, but I'll just say to this: what we're doing here in this building regarding changing the makeup of a neighborhood and allowing room rentals and sort of creating boarding homes, that you're talking about changing the character of a neighborhood. Changing the neighborhood when you see three or four cars piled up in front of your house or in various locations throughout the neighborhood. Talk about changing the character of a neighborhood. Absolutely. Not our place to be dictating that. That bill should have been in the control of the municipalities, not us, giving it by right. In 2014, I'm the city councilman, I get assigned to the retirement board, overseeing where the money is mg/rr 145 going or being invested for the three different pensions. I think it was fire, police, and city employees. We had an outstanding broker or investor who was a consultant. Obviously, they're hired. And I think that he still may be there today. Outstanding. And I remember him coming in and talking about how the market as a whole and finding these little niches of investment opportunities so that the rate of return for those pensions would be good. And one of them was investing monies into real estate. Those institutional investors are is us. Our pension plans. We had talked about the people that moved in from New York and from Boston. They left New York because of COVID, because of the fear that COVID created, and feeling like, I don't want to be next to people, basically. I don't want to live in an apartment. I don't want to live in this high-rise environment. So they moved here to a bigger space, land, bigger house, to get away from what was happening. But we also opened up a door by making this state a sanctuary state, and we have allowed 100,000 immigrants to come to our state. What did that do to the housing cost? We had already pent-up demand for low housing, and now we've just added to that. What did that do? Did that increase the cost of rentals? Absolutely. Along with residential housing. I think we ought to think twice about what we're doing in this room, this building, the chamber downstairs. We're intruding on people's lives, and the Senator is correct. Those people who own these homes have a right to get as much as they want. And by us limiting the number of people who are willing to bid on a property is not our place to do that. The sellers will decide whether or not they want to sell to them or not. Madam President, I thank you for allowing me to say a few words. I will not be voting for this bill. mg/rr 146

Thank you, Madam President. Nice to see you up there. I appreciate what the two Senators said. The Good Senator from Wolcott did say that it's not happening. Then if it's not happening, I don't know what he's worried about, but it is happening. Connecticut has one of the highest rates of institutional real estate investors buying a property. They also said that the seller will not get the full price that they want. If they are selling a house for $500,000 and nobody in those 90 days buys the house for $500,000, then the institutional investor can come in and buy that house for $500,000. I, too, have common sense, just like the Good Senator, and my common sense says that this is a very good bill and that I urge my colleagues to vote for it. Thank you, Madam President.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on the bill now. Senate Bill Number 265, as amended, An Act Concerning the Purchase of Residential Property by its Private Equity Entities. An immediate roll call vote in the Bill Number 265 as amended. An immediate roll call mg/rr 147 vote in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 27 Those voting Nay 9 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 53, Calendar Number 205, substitute for Senate Bill Number 359, An Act Authorizing the Deferral of a Property Revaluation.

Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's report and passage of the bill. mg/rr 148

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this bill authorized Harcourt to one year delay their property tax revaluation. Bill intend to help small business owners and homeowners in Hartford. I urge my colleague to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. I rise to note that this bill went through Planning and Development Committee without any problems, and it was a bipartisan bill and we'll be voting for it. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the the Deferral of a Property Revaluation. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill Number 359. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on

Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Thank you, Madam President. Good evening.

Good evening. Madam President, two more bills to mark, please. Calendar page 35, Callender 369, House Bill 5391. And Madam President, I'd like to ask for suspension, please.

Thank you, Madam President. On page 47, Calendar 476, House Bill 5288 is a go as well. Thank you, Madam President. mg/rr 150

Page 35. Calendar Number 369, substitute for House Bill Number 5391, An Act Concerning the Enforcement of Zoning Regulations.

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

In conclusion of the House, Madam President, 5391, Madam President, this bill improving the enforcement of the zoning regulations. Under the current law, a Special Act town, they are not covered under the general law. But this bill allowing the special act count, covering the general law, and also they can take action, any zoning and planning violation against the bill. And also, Madam President, there is a lot of problem with the planning and zoning regulation because the Special Act town, they can find 100 to $250 one-time fee, but this bill, if the bill pass, allow them to execute also imports like regular other towns. So I mg/rr 151 urge my colleagues to support this bill. This is a really good bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. This is a very straightforward bill. It does exactly what it says in the OLR bill analysis describes it to do. I support the bill, and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on House Bill Number 5391, An Act Concerning the Enforcement of Zoning Regulations. An immediate roll call vote in the the Enforcement of Zoning Regulations. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on House Bill Number 5391. An immediate roll call vote in the

House Bill 5391, as amended: mg/rr 152 Total Number Voting 36 Those voting Yea 36 Those voting Nay 0 Those absent and not voting 0

Page 47, Calendar Number 476, substitute for House Bill Number 5288, An Act Concerning Utility Connection for Accessory Dwelling Units.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in conclusion with the House.

Yes, Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, utility connection for accessory dwelling units. This bill intends to create more affordable housing. Madam President, this is also another special act. Towns not covered under general mg/rr 153 law, but if this bill pass, we'll cover under the general law. If there is any property owner want a build two- bedroom or one-bedroom separate units, but the utility company make them too -- because under the special act, towns, new connection, which could increase the cost like, $15,000 to $20,000 for a two-bedroom sewage connection or electricity connection. So this is why this is very important bill to pass. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill does what the bill says it's going to do, including what the OLR bill analysis says. This is a bipartisan effort that came through the Planning and Development Committee to further help housing opportunity for people. It's a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. The chair happened to be in my way, so I couldn't step forward quite fast enough. I do have a question. So if I understand correctly, this connection is where -- it's a municipality that is going to be assuming the cost of the connections? Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 154

Thank you, Madam President. Yes. If it's the property owner, they have the extra lot, but is not creating the another lot. They want to open two bedroom or one bedroom build, but then they already have the properties, utility connections or sewerage connection, everything is there. But under the Special Act town, they are required to bring the separate connection or the sewerage line. It costs a lot of money. It's like 10,000, 15,000 because from main road to -- you have to bring to your property. Through you, Madam President.

I think if I understand this correctly, so we have a sewer line, water line in the road. We've got an existing dwelling, residential home. Someone wants to put an accessory building on the property by right. I don't recall what we've done here, but I'm assuming it's by right. We're building it for mom or dad. And the cost of bringing in those utilities are going to be borne by the municipality? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. No. It's not cost for the municipalities or town, the property owner. Through you. mg/rr 155

Thank you, Madam President. I'm sorry. I don't quite understand. Maybe it's just a yes or no answer. So the cost for that connection is one thing, the connection itself. And then the running of the line, the utility line, whether it's water or sewer, is that paid by the municipality? Through you.

So under the Special Act town, they are not covered, so municipality will not pay any cost. Property owner must pay. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. As it should be. If I'm putting an accessory building on the property for my in laws or for my parents, that cost to bring in those utility lines should be by me, the homeowner. I'm assuming that's what the answer was that I heard from a good Senator. Go ahead.

mg/rr 156 Thank you, Madam President. Yes. Like I said, under the Special Act town, they are not covered, but if it's any other town not under the Special Act town, they don't have to bring new line from the sewage line from main lines or electricity line because they already have the sewage line and electric line in their properties. They are just adding two- bedroom or one-bedroom separate units. So they already have the electricity lines or any other sewage lines, everything. But the Special Act town, they require separate line. They must bring another line from the main lines. Through you, Madam President.

Chamber will stand at ease.

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

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

The bill passes.

The Senate will stand at ease. Senator Duff.

So ordered. Mr. Clerk. mg/rr 158

Senator Winfield.

The question is on the passage of the bill. Will you remark?

Will you remark further, Senator Kissel? mg/rr 159

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

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

The bill passes. (gavel). Mr. Clerk.

Senator Kushner.

The question is on passage of the bill. Will you remark?

Will you remark further? Senator Sampson.

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

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

The bill passes. (gavel) mg/rr 162

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, two more items to go. Madam President, Calendar Page 27, Calendar 304, Senate Bill 137, followed by Calendar Page 27, Calendar 305, Senate Bill 138. Mark go, please. Both of them.

Page 27. Calendar Number 304, substitute for Senate Bill Number 137, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Office of Early Childhood. There is an amendment.

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

I am just wonderful. Let the clock strike 7:00, so we should get this done by 7:01. Question. Here we go. Madam President, I move the sentence of the mg/rr 163 Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.

Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of amendment LCO Number 4116. I will ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

Senator McCrory.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Senator Berthel. I'm sorry. I haven't eaten. My brain went blank. Apologies.

Will you remark further as to the amendment? If not, I will try your minds on the amendment. All in favor indicate by saying aye.

Madam President, I will, once again, thank my co- chair working through these pieces of legislation as rapidly as we can, come to a final conclusion that everyone will be happy with. And I'm sure that Office of Early Childhood will also be happy. So I move adoption and acceptance. And thank you. mg/rr 165

Madam President, good bill, ought to pass.

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. This is Senate Bill Number 137 as amended, An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Office of Early Childhood. We're now voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill Number 137. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill Number 137.

Total Number Voting 35 Those voting Yea 34 Those voting Nay 1 Those absent and not voting 1 mg/rr 166

Page 27. Calendar Number 305, substitute for Senate Bill Number 138, An Act Implementing the Recommendation of the Department of Education. There is an amendment.

Good evening to you, Madam President. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of this bill.

Yes, Madam President. Madam President, this bill is the State Department of Education's bill for the year. It comprises of a few minor changes and adjustments. It lists about six, seven sections, removing Section 2. Also, changing the dates around transportation grants to our districts, and lines the charter process up with our budget and small things like this. This is a great piece of legislation that we worked on together. Connect the league, and I move adoption.

I didn't see them.

I'm sorry. Yes. All right. Madam President, the Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO 4643. I will ask the Clerk to please call the amendment.

And let's get the amendment on the board, Senator, before you remark on the amendment.

Thank you. The question is on adoption of the amendment. Will you remark on the amendment? Sir. Senator Berthel.

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

Madam President, just like I said earlier, we got this bill done in seven minutes, and in one minute and two seconds. I think we did a great job. It was a great piece of legislation to move the State Department of Education further. And I thank the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Yes, Madam President. You missed it earlier. Good bill, ought to pass.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 138 as amended, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. We're now voting on the bill. This is Senate Bill No. 138. Senate Bill 138. We're now voting on the bill, Senate Bill 138 as amended. An immediate roll call vote in the

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

Madam President?

Thank you, Madam President. Our next item to go, please, is Calendar page 50, Calendar 63, Senate Bill 134.

Page 50, Calendar No. 63, Senate Bill No. 134, AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE TOWN OF PLAINVILLE.

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

mg/rr 171 Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, this bill before us had the unanimous support of the Commerce Committee. And in fact, it was several years reported out of the committee unanimously. Essentially, what it does is establish an airport zone in the town of Plainville. And we have witnessed here in the State of Connecticut actually three other airport zones. Those are Bradley International Airport, The Groton, New London Airport, and the Waterbury Oxford Airport. And each of those designations have proved to be exponentially valuable in scaling economic development and creating a hub for the growth of business industry, and most important, jobs in the State of Connecticut. I know with respect to the Waterbury Oxford Airport, which is, you know, in my neighborhood, so to speak, it went from being a sleepy hollow to a bustling economic center of businesses, restaurants, storage facilities, pads for new entrepreneurs. And it was all because of this designation, which specifically allows for a five-year 80% property tax exemption, partially funded by the State of Connecticut. But in each instance, if you look at the ROI, you can see that the investment, both on a state and local level, have exponentially paid off in terms of tax revenue to the state, sales and tax revenue, property tax revenue, and most of all, jobs to the economy. Madam President, I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President. I was approached two years ago, I believe, by the town manager who foresaw exactly what the good Senator mg/rr 172 mentioned about the possibility of development around the airport, requested this designation. And in hopes that what will come out of it is new business, new entrepreneurs coming into the area. I know recently Element 19 purchased, or they were in Cheshire and actually moved to Plainville, pretty close to the airport. And they are a thriving business and the product line that they have, services, the aerospace industry, and I believe the NASA industry as well. So, Madam President, you know, we're looking to develop that property and with this designation, we see a lot of future growth there. So, thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 134, AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE TOWN OF PLAINVILLE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on Senate Bill No. 134, AN ACT ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN THE TOWN OF PLAINVILLE. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. We're voting on Senate Bill No. 134. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

Total number voting 34 Total voting Yea 34 Total voting Nay 0 Absent not voting 2

Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. Would the Clerk now please call Calendar page 43. It's Calendar 456, House Bill 5127.

Page 43, Calendar No. 456, substitute for House Bill No. 5127, AN ACT CONCERNING CREDIT CARDS AND HEALTH AND VETERINARY CARE SERVICES, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A". mg/rr 174

Good evening, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

Thank you, Madam President. This bill is a one section bill. It comes to us thanks of the good work of our House Vice Chair, Representative Turco. Also, thank you to our ranking member, Senator Cicarella and Representative Rutigliano and Senator Lemar for their good work on this bill. This puts in restrictions on third-party financing for healthcare and veterinary services. It says that no health care provider or veterinary provider shall advertise or market third party financing, and it gives a number of restrictions. But making sure they're not jointly marketing it by including their logo with the third-party financer's logo, making sure they're not marketing while the consumer is receiving services or under sedation by anesthesia. They can't receive compensation for offering these services. With that, I move adoption.

Thank you, Madam President. I just rise with a mg/rr 175 couple of questions. Through you, Madam President, my understanding is this bill did change after it left the General Law Committee. We had a public hearing, and we did hear that there were some concerns, that there may have been some bad actors possibly taking advantage of consumers. And after speaking to the stakeholders, companies that provide these type of credit card services or banking services, the professions that utilize them, as well as consumers who found them to be very helpful in certain times. I think I spoke briefly about myself and my wife utilizing a Care credit card for our dog. You know, you go to a vet. They will not see the dog or the animal without the finances. And sometimes individuals might not have that kind of money, and people, of course, will do anything to save their animal. And we wanted to make sure that these types of lending services would still be available, but still addressing the concerns that the good Representative brought forward when he proposed this bill. And the question is, through you, Madam President, the concerns of all parties I believe were addressed. And if the good Senator could just elaborate a little bit to address the concerns that were brought forward, through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you to Senator Cicarella for the question. And, yes, Representative Turco had worked with various stakeholders, including some of the medical credit card companies, some of the veterinary service providers to get this to a point where they had agreed to sign off on the mg/rr 176 bill. And as you mentioned, this can be a valuable product for some people who need that money to finance their services. Often, it comes with a zero interest period. And I believe from the testimony during the public hearing, 80% of the consumers actually pay off their bill in that period where they're not paying interest. The issue is just the disclosures to make sure that consumers are aware. They may have other options that, you know, sometimes they may be able to get insurance for that or to understand that there may be interest when they finish this up and this is not a payment plan offered by their provider, but rather a third-party financing vehicle. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the good Senator for answering my question. It is my understanding that that is, in fact, accurate. And I think all parties that came together when this possible issue was brought forward are in agreeance with the bill before us. It's a balanced legislation to protect consumers from possible bad actions and will not hinder the ability for the lending institution to provide this service, which used correctly, it could be very beneficial, 0%, almost free money. We wanted to make sure that that would not be taken away. We would not, you know, be solving a problem and creating another. And I think that this bill before us does just that. So, I thank the good Senator, and I believe I'll be supporting the legislation before us today. Thank you, Madam President. mg/rr 177

Good evening, Madam President. I just have a few questions for the proponent. I guess the first thing I would just ask is I want to understand this bill entirely. I've been looking through it over the last several minutes and just trying to refamiliarize myself with it. I did look at it earlier today as well knowing this might come up. And I guess the question I have is that the language begins by suggesting that health care providers are prohibited from doing all of this third-party financing and advertising for etc., etc. But then I noticed there's another section that's simply about requiring disclosures. So, which is it? Are these health care providers restricted entirely from offering this third-party financing and advertising for it, etc.? Or can they do it as long as they provide the proper disclosure? Through you.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. That is an important clarification. They are not prohibited from offering these vehicles. It is just they have to -- as you mentioned, there is a disclosure in here that they have to provide, and then there are restrictions around their marketing practices. But they are not in any way prohibited from offering these often valuable third-party financing vehicles. Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 178

Thank you very much. All right. So, that's good to know. And that certainly makes the bill a lot better from my perspective out of the gate, although there's a few other things I just want to clear up. How are they restricted from advertising compared to someone else that might offer a similar product to allow payment for the same services, through you?

Through you. Thank you for the question. So, the restrictions on the advertising include that they cannot co-brand the marketing of the product. So, they couldn't include their logo on any branding for the third-party financing vehicle. They couldn't offer a link or a quick response QR code to a website that have been co-branded. They cannot market while the consumer is under sedation. They cannot market during the service, while providing the service. If it is available, they should bring them into a separate area than where the service was provided. They cannot receive compensation for offering these third-party vehicles. They cannot complete the application on behalf of the consumer. They cannot submit the application for the consumer. And then others are around -- those are the marketing. And then other restrictions are around they can't charge that third-party vehicle before the service is provided. Or if it's used for an ancillary product, they have to have a return policy mg/rr 179 regarding that ancillary product. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. That's a bit of a mixed bag. I can see certainly restricting someone from marketing a product or having someone sign a contract when their patient is under sedation. I will go for that one. You got me. I think that's a good idea. We should restrict that from happening. But I think that that's already restricted under most contract law that the parties have to be of clear and sound mind when they enter a contract. You can't be sedated or intoxicated or anything like that. So, the other items, I'm a little curious about because it seems to me in most other fields, like for example, if I walk into a car dealer to buy a car, the car dealer is not going to finance it for me necessarily, although that does happen too. But they're going to have an arrangement with some finance. In fact, they're going to bring me to some guy whose job is in the car dealer to go through all these different loan products and help sell them to me, and they also make money on that process. So, why is it okay for a car dealer and not for somebody who's trying to get treatment for their ailing pet, through you?

Through you, Madam President. That's, first, a good mg/rr 180 point that it is most likely already illegal to offer a service to someone when they're under sedation. We are just clarifying that here. I think that the other point I'll make is that there are some professional services where you're not allowed to receive a commission for offering that or recommending that. So, it's just in line that because it is a professional service, I think that offering that imprimatur of the doctor or the veterinarian to the third-party service. Making it clear that it's not from that trusted professional but rather a third- party which they're making information available about for the convenience of the consumer. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the gentleman and his response, although it doesn't really answer my question about why, in this case, it's different than a car dealer, for example. I understand some professions. Maybe an example might be helpful and what the division is. What is the defining characteristic between what we're referring to here, which are health care and veterinary providers, and someone who's selling a product like an automobile or a boat or something like that, through you?

Through you, I think the difference is, I guess, the professional licensure that the doctor or the mg/rr 181 veterinarian would have working with the professional versus when you go into a car dealer, you're expecting to have financing of some sort and you're purchasing a product. So, I think it's that differential in the expectation when you're going in. And again, having that professional put their brand on it is different than just offering it so that it's clear to the patient or the consumer that this is an individual, a third party. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the answer, and I mean no disrespect, but it seems like it's simply an opinion that some types of products and services should have the ability to have the practitioner offer a financing product and some should not. I didn't hear anything that's really a distinction that should say that some should and should not. And my concern here is like it often is in this chamber, which is that we're talking about injecting our own opinions into decisions that, in my view, ought to be rightfully made by the citizens that we are respecting and representing here in this chamber. And again, I mean, I assume that this bill is here before us because of something that happened. I assume that there's something that happened in the world, and somebody said, "Well, we now have to jump in and start regulating this because we have to protect people." Am I right about that, Madam President? mg/rr 182

Through you, Madam President, that is correct. There have been incidences of harm and people who came to testify to that effect. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. So, is it a situation where in every particular case that someone has managed to get financing from their veterinarian about a treatment for their ailing dog, for example, that they've been taken advantage of or some other negative impact occurred as a result, through you?

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for the question. 80% of the people who have used these end up paying off before there's any interest. But one of the things that was brought to our attention is that oftentimes, when they don't pay off the entire amount, they don't realize that if you do not pay off the entire amount, the interest on the whole amount is due from the beginning. And so, they receive a much larger bill than they had anticipated. Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 183

Well, thank you very much, Madam President. But before anyone is given any sort of financing agreement, wouldn't it be incumbent upon the parties of the contract to know the terms? And in order for it to be enforceable, wouldn't the person that it was obtaining the financing have to sign something expressing what the terms are and have to acknowledge that with a signature at the very least, through you?

Through you, Madam President. Thank you for that question because it allows me to actually add some context to one of my previous answers. That, like the good Senator, I also believe in the free markets, but when it comes to health care and veterinary care, we're often not going to price shop. If you're hurt, you go to the closest doctor. If your pet is hurt, you go to the closest veterinarian. You're not able to compare, effectively compete the prices. And so, that is why it, in addition to that, is often an emotional decision. And so, since you need that care at that time, and you need a way to fund that care, sometimes you aren't in that proper state of mind to actually look through those disclosures, or you may just take whatever is offered to you because you know you want to provide that service to your pet or for your loved one. Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 184

Thank you very much, Madam President. I appreciate the good gentleman and his comments. But basically, what he is suggesting is that consumers are too stupid to figure it out for themselves and they need the majority party here in Hartford to tell them how to live their lives and what loans they should be able to get and whether or not they're making an emotional decision, etc. Now, I get it, and I'm completely sympathetic to the idea that we want to protect consumers. But when you start to protect consumers by denying their individual freedom to engage in commerce or make a decision, then you're not helping them anymore. Denying people their rights to make their own decisions is not helping. I can't say that enough in this circle. It's got to sink in at some point. Our job, we are elected by people back home, who send us here to represent them. And the one thing that I will promise all of my constituents is I will not come up here and vote to take away a decision that you can make for yourself. And that's what we do all the time. And this bill takes away the right of people to make their own decisions. Now, the good chairman of the General Law Committee makes a lot of very strong points. And I understand the consumer protection avenues that we're traveling down. But let me just throw a few things out there. Suppose that you've got your dog at 2:00 AM in front of an emergency vet, and you've got to make an agreement about how to get treatment for this dog. If this ability for that doctor to be able to charge and produce an agreement for repayment of that treatment goes away, you might not be in a situation mg/rr 185 to price shop or anything else. And that denial of your individual liberty to engage in that transaction being denied under state law is a problem for me. So, I get it. And I understand, you know, when people look at these bills, people often go both ways. Yes, please, Senator, take my rights away because it's the best thing to do. I said the same thing when we were passing the law that said that you couldn't buy cigarettes until you were 21 years of age, which struck me as completely odd because you can vote when you're 18, okay? You could serve in the legislature when you're 18. So, you can come up here and vote on whether or not you can take other people's rights away, but you want to vote for other people who will tell you what you can and cannot do. It makes no sense to me. And I just want to remind my colleagues, our job is not to be taking people's rights from them. So, if the problem is that you had some criminal activity or you had some shady deals go down, or you were concerned that people are being taken advantage of, then let's create a mechanism to enforce changes to that problem, to require some sort of standard by which people that offer these products have to abide by. But to deny the existence of financial products being offered by certain entities to me is overkill and it is violating the rights of the people we represent. Let me just go to the one thing that really stood out and is the reason why I decided to get up on this bill altogether. And that's because if I'm correct, through you, Madam President, there is a section in here that gives the sole ability to enforce this statute to the attorney general. Am I correct about that? mg/rr 186

Through you, Madam President, that is correct. A violation of this is a violation of the Connecticut Uniform Trade Practices Act, and it is to solely be enforced by the attorney general. Through you, Madam President.

It's like two out of three bills that come before this chamber are giving the attorney general more power. Now, attorney general is a great guy, and God bless him for what he does every day. And I'm sure he's looking out for consumers a large part of that time, and I know he's got a good staff and all that. But come on now. Why are we eliminating the ability for civil litigation? For me, that's the mechanism here that would prevent the very calamities that this bill is being designed to thwart, right? Allow people to sue their veterinarian who ripped them off because they didn't disclose every detail of the financial transaction. But no, we're taking that away and we're going to leave it up to the arbitrary discretion of the attorney general's office? Do they have enough staff to handle every time something like this happens? Are people on the street even going to be aware of such a statute? Are even the health care and veterinarian providers that are out there in the world going to even be aware of this statute? I feel like we're creating a lot of pitfalls because I got to tell you, when I get up in mg/rr 187 the morning as a free American citizen, I kind of have in my head what I'm allowed to do and what I'm not allowed to do. And I would suggest that if I want to engage in some sort of voluntary contract with my veterinarian about how I'm going to pay a bill, as a free person, I should be able to make that decision. That's what I think. So, I don't like hearing that, oh, the state just passed a law that you can't do that anymore, Senator Sampson. You do not have the right to use your own brain. You're too stupid. We've decided for you. So, that's frustrating. And then when I find out that not only do I not have the right to engage in that activity anymore, if there is any activity that is suspect, there's one guy, an elected person, a partisan entity, who gets to decide who he's going to enforce the law against. Are there any standards by which the enforcement would occur or not occur in this bill, through you, Madam President?

Through you, the enforcement is done through the Uniform Trade Practices Act. So, the standards are established in that portion of the statutes. Through you.

Thank you. Senator Sampson. mg/rr 188

Senator Maroney.

Thank you, Senator Maroney. Senator Sampson.

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

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

(gavel) Legislation passes. Senator Duff.

Senator Osten.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Duff.

We will stand at ease. We are good at that. Good evening, Senator Duff.

Page 42, Calendar No. 450, substitute for House Bill mg/rr 192 No. 5350, AN ACT CONCERNING CANNABIS, HEMP AND INFUSED BEVERAGE REGULATION, as amended by House Amendment Schedule "A" and "D". There are several amendments.

Good evening, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the House.

Madam President, I rise for a point of order at this time.

Thank you very much, Madam President. I would like to point the Senate's attention to Joint Rule 3(b)7, which states that the Judiciary Committee shall have cognizance of any bills that have a civil penalty that may exceed the sum of an aggregate of $5,000. And in the bill that Senator Maroney is about to talk about, Section 54, in lines 2961 versus 2966 says in part and part that a potential violation can go before the Department of Consumer Protection for administrative enforcement, and which may result in a fine of not more than $10 million. mg/rr 193 And my point of order, Madam President, is that if that is not a civil penalty, then I don't know what is. And that would, since the Judiciary Committee has cognizance, in our view, require a referral to the Judiciary Committee.

Thank you. We need to ask the other question before we have the answer. At least make my point before we have the answer.

Thank you, Madam President. Pursuant to Joint Rule 3(b)7, the Judiciary Committee's mandatory cognizance over a bill favorably reported by another committee is limited to any bill favorably reported by another committee that carries a criminal penalty other than an infraction. This interpretation is directly supported by Senate precedent 6-3d.7 where the president, in 1986, ruled that the referral to judiciary is only required when changes in criminal penalties are involved. In that precedent, a bill altered a civil fine from being a $1,000 per violation to $1,000 per violation per day. In this case, in HB 5350, there's only a civil penalty. The penalty in section 54, while substantial, but it's terms levied by DCP in a civil administrative enforcement action, thus no referral to judiciary is mandatory. Thank you, Madam President. mg/rr 194

Well, thank you. And I do believe that the Senator Duff's point is correct. And the point of order is not well taken, sir.

Senator Duff. Senator Duff.

Thank you. And we will now have a vote. Mr. Clerk.

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

Appeal fails. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Will you remark further on the legislation? Good evening, Senator Cicarella.

Thank you, Senator Maroney.

We will stand at ease briefly while you do that. Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. mg/rr 204

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella.

Thank you. Please do summarize, sir.

We will have a roll call vote.

Thank you. Senator Maroney.

Thank you. Senator Cicarella. Or will you remark further on the amendment? Will you remark further on the amendment? If not, I will open the voting machine.

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

Amendment fails. Will you remark further? Senator Cicarella.

LCO No. 5269, Senate Amendment "B".

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

Thank you. And I just ask for a roll call vote at the conclusion of summarizing.

Thank you, Madam President. Basically, very simple. It's just going to say that no consumer, no one's smoking cannabis or type of electronic vape that gives those big clouds you have to walk through, can do that in a public area. I think a lot of your mg/rr 214 constituents would greatly appreciate. And it is only an infraction, so it doesn't have to go to judish. And I urge my colleagues around the circle to support the amendment before us. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I do appreciate the public health concerns of Senator Cicarella and his thoughtfulness in making sure that this was an infraction so that it would not have required a judiciary referral. I would say that we already require towns in other part of the enabling legislation for the cannabis to designate a place where the people can smoke outdoors. And so, I would just ask my colleagues to vote no and commit with Senator Cicarella to discuss this next year to make sure we're not conflicting with other parts of the statute. Thank you, Madam President.

Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the House Bill No. 5350. We are voting on an amendment, not the bill. Senate Amendment "B" of House Bill No. 5350. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate on House Bill No. 5350. mg/rr 215 We are voting on the amendment. This is Senate Amendment "B" of House Bill No. 5350, AN ACT CONCERNING CANNABIS, HEMP AND INFUSED BEVERAGE REGULATION. An immediate roll call vote in the

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

Thank you, Madam President. I'm disappointed that we didn't get that one, but we'll continue to work on that one. There's always next year. I do have a couple of more questions. In this, it talks about hemp. And it talks about, basically, individuals that create cannabis or THC, which is hemp derived, they could sell it. And I just want to make sure that's a fair statement when I'm speaking from Section from 94 to 101 through you, Madam President. mg/rr 216

Through you, Madam President. What it does is it allows for the extraction of the minor cannabinoids, CBG, CBN, and others from hemp. It does allow for hemp derived THC to be used in the Connecticut infused beverages. It creates a definition of an intermediate hemp product. So, there were issues with the way it was drafted previously that we weren't allowed to sell Connecticut hemp-derived THC to be used in the infused beverages. And so, that makes it clear that it allows for the Connecticut hemp-derived THC to be used in the beverages. So, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to the Senator for answering that question. So, it's not for anything else besides the seltzers. It's not going to be flour. It's not going to be any other edibles or anything like that. It's simply going to be for the hemp-derived THC, which would go in the seltzers. So, the individuals that are making the seltzers here in Connecticut don't have to go out of state to get it. They could get it from local providers. I do recall in our public hearings that that was a problem, and is that the fix to that, or is that going to allow the hemp manufacturers to get into the cannabis market here through you, Madam President? mg/rr 217

Through you, it allows for sales, I believe, of the minor cannabinoids, the CBG and others to, like, food and beverage manufacturers and manufacturers. And then it does allow for the hemp-derived THC in that intermediate hemp product, which is an extract. And so, it creates a process license for that hemp extraction to be sold to the infused beverages. So, through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. And I did hear that that was a concern. We did try to fix some of the situations we were seeing at all of these bodegas and smoke shops selling these products. And when we wrote the law, I think we went a little too far. And I was speaking about some of these hemp farmers and scientists, and they create all types of byproducts, if you will, CBN, CBD. And those things go in other products. And we essentially, I think, accidentally hurt an industry, and I believe that's a fix in that section. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't going to be a way for them to get into the cannabis market and bypass the licenses and all the other things that the other licensees had to do. In here, and it was one of my biggest concerns, the good Senator did address it, that raising the caps are going to be addressed. And I know another one of my colleagues going to speak to that. So, for a sake mg/rr 218 of time, I'm not going touch on it. That was one of my biggest concerns, but for a sake of time and I do know that I do have a colleague that will speak on that. So, I just want to wrap up with a couple of quick questions. In the beginning of the bill, it talks about a group. It's a Statewide Cannabis and Hemp- Controlled Substance Enforcement Board. And if the good Senator could just explain what's going to be the responsibility of this board. I understand it. It's already there. It's just the name change. It was the Statewide Cannabis and Hemp Enforcement Policy Board. Now it's going to be the Statewide Cannabis, Hemp, and Controlled Substance Enforcement Board. If the good Senator could just explain what's going to be their role and what would they be providing for a service to the state of Connecticut, through you, Madam President.

The chamber will stand at ease for one moment, Madam President.

All right. Thank you, Madam President.

Yeah. Thank you. And thank you to Senator Cicarella for the question. And so, he's cracked it that there was somewhat of a name change. 2025 law established this board to look at policy enforcement and it's adding other controlled substances in addition to cannabis and hemp for the what they will be looking at in their quarterly reports through you, Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President. I think that's important the individual coming together to find ways to make it collaborative and addressing maybe abuse of the industry or individuals that are doing illegal things in this market. But I did notice in this section, it did say that the board in their meetings, certain things are going to be FOI exempt. If the good Senator could explain why that would be necessary through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. That's an excellent question and something that we should address. And the reason they will be FOI exempt is that during that meeting, they will be discussing sensitive enforcement actions and it should not become public information, through you. mg/rr 220

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for the explanation. I guess that maybe makes sense if, you know, the law enforcement agencies are going to be doing a raid. They're not going to want to publicize it and then tell the criminals they're doing it. Or if they're going to be under investigation and they're going to be doing an undercover shopping exercise, they're not going to want to let them know. So, I could understand why that could be there. You know, when you see FOI exempt, it does raise some concerns, and you wonder what's going on. And we want to be as transparent as possible. But when it comes to law enforcement and strategic strategies and tactics to maybe investigate or address problems and catch bad actors doing things, I guess I could see why that would be there. I thank the good Senator for answering my questions, and I'm just going to summarize with a couple of comments. You know, it seems like this bill has a lot of different sections that probably come from numerous bills that we heard in the General Law public hearings and in that whole process. And I say this often, but I do wish that they were separate. As much as I am not a fan of the industry, I do not believe that we should be hurting businesses. And I heard from many license holders whether they were, you know, delivery, whether they were in sales, and they had the actual shops, and they had rules and regulations that other states didn't have to do. And when you really dug down, there really wasn't a huge consumer protection component. So, you know, mg/rr 221 certain parts of this, I would say, I could support, but there are a lot of sections in this bill. It's a very large bill. And in my opinion, it does have more of a negative impact on my constituents than a positive by far in my opinion, and I am not going to support the legislation before us. I do thank the good Senator for attempting to change my mind, but, unfortunately, the way this is written and what is in it, I cannot support it. And I urge my colleagues to not support it as well. Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, thank you. In my many years here, this is probably one of the most shocking pieces of legislation that I've ever seen. You know, as the Senator referenced, there are a lot of components of this bill. And look, regardless of whether or not you care about recreational cannabis or not, regardless of whether or not you care about the business of cannabis and the revenue to be generated from it, you got to care about kids and their own health. Everybody cares about that. And any study you see about cannabis use and young people, 25 and under, any study you see shows a direct link to cannabis use and psychosis. Schizophrenia. Now, to be clear, psychosis and schizophrenia are serious mental illnesses. This is not one of those take two of these and call me in the morning illnesses. This is lifelong, debilitating, family-destroying, serious mental illness. And every study shows that the younger you are and the higher the THC levels, the more directly linked cannabis use is to mg/rr 222 psychosis. Lifelong, debilitating, family- destroying, serious mental illness. Incontrovertible. Fact. Now, look, it's almost 10:30. And I know we're not going to change this bill right here and right now to address this issue. But I strongly urge the crafters of this legislation who've worked very, very hard. I strongly urge the crafters of this legislation in another form, in another bill, with another amendment, in the next few days that we have left to find a way to restore the caps on THC levels that are eliminated in this bill. This is not fun and games. This is life and death. This is life-changing, family-changing, family- destroying when we eliminate these caps. So, I just strongly ask and urge and request and plead that we find a way to restore these caps before the end of session next Wednesday. We have the time to do it. We have the means to do it. And I know everybody here wants to do the right thing for young people. So, I'm happy to be a part of that process. I'd love to see it happen. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Good evening. I will not go long. The hour is late, and unfortunately, I lost the marijuana debate years ago when we legalized recreational marijuana. And I remember that year distinctly because I argued against it three times in this chamber. Because it was bouncing up and down and for a variety of mg/rr 223 reasons, when I thought that argument was done, it was not done. So, not only did I lose it, I lost it three times. And here we are down the road. And when the legislature as a whole decided to legalize recreational marijuana, you know, there were some laudable goals. Reference was made to the war on drugs. Primarily started or pointed to having started in full in the late '60s, but it probably started all the way back to the 1930s in one form or another. And did indeed the war on drugs have a disproportional impact on certain segments of our population and areas of our state? I think that's pretty evident. There's probably a lot of other factors involved there as well, not the least of which is just poverty. But here we are. And I don't speak against this bill from a position of the moral high road. I actually, for those of you who have been around the building long enough, was one of the even though I'm in the minority, minority members can actually help pass bills and fashion legislation along the way. We don't just stop what we consider have to be bad bills, but quite often we work collaboratively to try to make what we perceive to be bad policies, good policies, and certain things better. And once in a blue moon, we actually initiate legislation and get it across the finish line. So, I am not hesitant in my old age to take not a small share of the credit for medical marijuana. I was very much involved in that battle back then with a Representative Penny Bacchiochi from Somers. And it took a while to get that through the legislature. We took notice of a lot of impediments. But I can tell you through the multiple public hearings that we had in the Judiciary Committee that there were beneficial impacts by THC and mg/rr 224 cannabinoids, especially with young children that had epilepsy, and I mean severe. And we had folks coming from all over New England to Connecticut to testify about the beneficial impacts of cannabis and its related substances on their little children's epileptic seizures. And we're talking about children, really small children that would have a dozen epileptic seizures per day. And the cannabis and THC, when administered, brought that down extraordinarily dramatically. And, you know, being a novice to that whole dialogue and having to learn over the years, it wasn't that kids weren't smoking joints or anything like that. It was administered in a highly refined medical quality in liquid form. And there were others that had other kinds of diseases that testified. And so, I understand there was a great disagreement about the literature, and but I can tell you that for many, many folks in our population, they do find some medical comfort in a variety of ways and a variety of aspects through marijuana. Recreational is a whole new aspect of the drug. No one is arguing that they're doing it for medicinal purposes. The arguments regarding it's still being against the law still exist from the federal perspective. Although I do believe the president is signing some kind of executive order reducing how it's considered by the federal government. Although some of my colleagues here in the circle have informed me that that doesn't make it not criminal from a federal perspective, but I'm guessing that that may change how the federal government views enforcement and penalties. All of that being said, when I argued against the recreational marijuana, it was primarily based upon what message are we sending to our young people. mg/rr 225 Far be it for me to say, "Do XYZ to adults." And while I think that the jury is still out years after we authorized this substance to be legalized recreationally, there was awful lot of testimony from experts from Ivy League colleges, including our very own Yale University, where when you couple alcohol and marijuana, its ability to cause you impairment in driving in particular goes up exponentially. And so, by that I mean, you might say X amount of marijuana is not really going to cause me problems driving. Whatever that amount is whatever you think in your head. Couple of puffs of a joint, whatever. Or you might say, "And two drinks I know will not put me over point 0.08," which is the legal limit to drive in Connecticut. And pretty much it's accepted that two drinks will not do that. Will not cause you to be unlawfully driving. The crazy thing though, the Yale researcher and all the other researchers brought to the Judiciary Committee on multiple occasions over many years was that when you add those two quantities, and it's almost impossible to determine like a ready quantity of marijuana for a variety of reasons. And now even more so because it's ingested in so many different ways. But let's just say a similar quantity to the two beers or two glasses of wine or two mixed drinks that would not cause you to be driving under the influence. When you combine them, it's not like two plus two equals four. When you combine them, they ratchet up their influence exponentially such that two plus two could equal five or two plus two could equal six as far as its impact on your neurological system and your ability to drive safely. And as both Senator Cicarella and Senator Perillo pointed out, this creates a real danger on our roadways. And so, first and foremost, I still have mg/rr 226 the same concerns regarding the fact that we don't adequately address that here in Connecticut. And I think that we're gathering, sadly, a battery of data that we can look back on and as the years progress, we'll be able to look at it more and more, that the combination of legalized recreational marijuana with a state that has a package store in at least every community or almost every single community that we have, 169 towns, that that is a mixture for more car accidents, more injuries, more fatalities. Now, I think it was probably enhanced by the pandemic because when I served on the Transportation Committee, they told us through their research that because so many people stayed home during the pandemic, and now we've seen that sort of carry forward with a lot of working from home, maybe not every single day, but many days. But when we were in that first stage of the pandemic and so many people were constrained to work from home and limited in the places they could go, that the people that were on the roads tended to drive faster. Not because they were scofflaws or wanted to violate speeding laws, but because there was just a lot less traffic on the roads. And so, it's like if you're driving from Hartford to the shoreline here in Connecticut, you're going to hit some patches of let's say Route 2 that are just long stretches where there's not a lot of traffic. A lot of folks will tend to speed up just because there's just not a lot of competing traffic and they feel that it's safer and there's more straightaways. So, we've seen the confluence of a lot of things in the last five years because the researchers from the University of Connecticut on the traffic behavior said that when the pandemic, thank God, left us, that there's still a group of people out there in Connecticut that drive like demons. They just drive mg/rr 227 that fast way that they sort of adopted during the pandemic even though traffic is now built back up. So the traffic amounts on our highways have sort of crept back up to pre-pandemic levels, but now we have a group of drivers that felt comfortable driving much quicker when there was less traffic and they're still doing that now. And so I think that most of us, there's just things you will see on the roadways, at least me, that I never saw not that long ago, just people driving really fast, and when you add to that this new recreational marijuana element, I think the roadways are just fundamentally more dangerous. So we have all of that to contend with, but the most important problem that I see with this bill and the direction that our state is going is our young people. I have great hope. The studies that I looked at recently, I just think that we're in for a pleasant surprise. Kids like my son who's 22, Tristan, others his age, my aide, and outreach to my community, Reid, who just turned 23. A lot of young people in that age group and thereabouts, they are way more mature than we give them credit for, and I'm frankly pleasantly surprised. And as a generation, they actually as a group use drugs less, certainly use alcohol less, and I think maybe somehow despite the great disruptions to their adolescence and everything else that going through the pandemic was almost like going through World War 2 or World War 1. They had things just thrown at them that I certainly never had thrown at me. It was hard enough being a teenager when I was growing up and all the other things like a broken heart, your first beer, and learning to drive at 16, and everything else. They had a whole world of things thrown at them really, really fast. mg/rr 228 And so I think that there's a lot of good things coming down the road. But we as lawmakers, I think are setting a bad example in moving forward with freer and easier access to marijuana here in Connecticut without sort of looking back and looking at the data and saying, well, what are the problems that our legalization of recreational marijuana has caused? And so far, I just see our public policy racing forward without any look back. And I think there's plenty to look back at this point in time. And I want to really thank Senator Cicarella for elaborating on this. The opening of the THC levels, to me, it's like the wild west now. When we stepped into this recreational marijuana debate years ago, we were told there were going to be all sorts of restrictions. We're only going to do x, y, z. Sadly, I see that in this legislature over the years’ time and time again. We start to take baby steps and everybody sort of gets -- not everybody, but a lot of people sort of get brought on board, and initial concerns are assuaged and placated and addressed and not addressed, but addressed halfway. Anything to sort of get movement in a certain direction. And it's almost like starting to run and then running faster until there's an element of momentum such that, woah, this railroad car heading downhill is not slowing up but speeding up. So now we're hearing from an industry that was started by trying to address inequities by prior drug policies and crimes that were visited on certain communities being held as inequitable, and a construct being created where certain groups would be favored by revenue, and things like that. And it was easily anticipated that big dollars have now entered into the arena. Big dollars. There's big backers so that you don't go in and out of the marijuana business willy nilly. There's money behind this because there's money to be made. mg/rr 229 Frankly, I'm amazed that given the amount of marijuana consumed in Connecticut, we don't see more detrimental things happen, but we see enough to cause me concern. But if you just want to wonder how many people are out there getting high in one way shape or another, just look at our revenues that are coming in from right now the sale of marijuana in Connecticut. And when you extrapolate out how much that means as far as people getting high, it's amazing. It's amazing. But part of the argument here is like you've got these people now, big businesses. Let's just call it for what it is. Big businesses out there, the big marijuana business, big pot. Right? We got pharma, big pharma. We have big food. My son was making a joke the other day. I went to Walgreens and I got some like the most inexpensive napkins they have. And the package said, big napkin. He goes, dad, now you're buying from big napkin. It was like some giant enterprise. Who knows? It could be the biggest corporation in paper products. Who knows? But there's a substantial money behind the marijuana industry. Such that one of my other sort of side concerns and I won't belabor it too much, but we say that we're trying to help the hemp industry in Connecticut, but I think they're just getting gobbled up by big marijuana. Part of the pitch is, and I sort of have more familiar with this than maybe some other folks in other parts of the state is, my district borders the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And so, it's not too far to get to Springfield, and it's only a half hour to get from Enfield to Northampton where my oldest son, who's now moved from Connecticut sadly, now lives up in Holyoke and works in Northampton. It's not that far from home. So I see him a lot, especially if he needs to do his laundry and things like that. mg/rr 230 But Northampton was way ahead of us on legalized marijuana. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was, and Springfield certainly is a large community just up the road. It's probably easier to get to Springfield from Enfield than to get down to Hartford. And it's only like a 25-minute drive from Enfield to Hartford. That's how close those places are. And just anecdotally, I haven't done a field test or anything like that as far as population trends as far as purchasing. But marijuana, and marijuana in its various product forms, is just cheaper in Massachusetts. It just is. And so if you're living in North Central Connecticut and you want legalized marijuana, now you have a choice, Connecticut or Massachusetts. And we keep hearing from big pot, big marijuana, big cannabis, however you want to call it here in Connecticut, "We have to compete better with Massachusetts." Okay. Let's change our tax structure so that the pricing is competitive. And I am not new to this argument. We've been making this argument in North Central Connecticut for a long time. In fact, once upon a time, my old friend and still current friend, Carl Schiessl from Windsor Locks, highly respected democratic representative from Windsor Locks, was at once upon a time the chairman of the Finance, Revenue and Bonding in this legislature. And at that point in time, we were at least getting more response when we'd say, listen, for the border communities, we can tell you that if we could just be competitive price wise with Massachusetts on things like tobacco, gasoline, then they would come stay in Connecticut and do the rest of their shopping, especially alcohol. But because we just tax so much in this state, we're not competitive with taxachusetts. Remember that nickname they used to give to Massachusetts? I'm not sure which is the most taxing state now. I mean, Massachusetts is no joy to live in. Trust me, as far as taxation goes, if you want to look at where mg/rr 231 population is fleeing from, Mass is right up there. But, gosh, I think that gives us an opportunity to cash in on the price differential, and we don't. And here we are, we're not doing it with marijuana either. So we're going to these big backers and the marijuana industry saying, okay, we'll work with you. And I totally respect Senator Maroney and all his hard work and his research, but opening up the floodgates on THC levels is not the way I would go. I think it's just bad public policy. And I think it's extraordinarily dangerous as Senator Cicarella said. We don't know the negative medical ramifications. And Senator Perillo pointed out, we have neuroplasticity and we have documentation about how this impacts young people and their brain development and addictive qualities. And as Senator Cicarella pointed out, we have a friend, I mean, once upon a time, I've been around this building long enough. It was a blessing to serve with Bill Aniskovich in this chamber. When I was wet behind the ears in my first few years as state senator, thank God, Bill took me under his wing because I was bouncing around this building. I had no idea how this place operated. And I got to say, he was a friend at all times, and he's one smart guy. And he's doing well out there, and his daughter's doing all sorts of great movie work down in New York, and she was on, like, in capital reports and all sorts of things. Great things are going on in that family. But as Senator Cicarella will know because he was there in the committee meeting, Chris Aniskovich, Bill's brother, now a state rep, again from the southern part of the state, spoke from his heart and took us all by surprise about a devastating tale to either his son or stepson, but his son that first took marijuana at the age of 14 and was dead by his mid-20s on a solid progression of being involved mg/rr 232 with drugs that he couldn't kick the habit. And it almost brought me to tears because it was so heart wrenching to listen to Bill's brother, Chris, talk about this tragedy that happened in his family. So this does happen, and that was just the latest iteration. Ed Meyer when he used to be a state senator here, from Senator Cohen's district, talked about devastating consequences to members of his family on young people that dabbled in marijuana. Toni Boucher had like a stack of books here, former Senator Toni Boucher fought legalization of recreational marijuana so passionately and would talk for hours. Yeah, we lost that fight, but the concerns that were raised back then still exist. And so, okay, if you're an adult and you're over 18, you're making your own decisions, and I think there's lots of problems that we sort of are turning a blind eye to, especially to safety on our roads. But that aspect regarding young people, I still have tremendous amount of concern about. Tremendous amount of concern about because, you know, on the one hand, what was it? Just earlier this week, we're talking about brain development, like, young people's brains don't finish maturing until 25, and then we have to give them parole hearings after they commit multiple murders. Okay. That's what the majority was saying. And now a few days later, well, we're not really worried about the effects of marijuana on a young person's brain. We're not going to pay attention to that. Even though there's medical data that says this can have real deleterious consequences based upon brain development, and the impact of the chemical on one's brain. So this bill does two scary things. It opens up the floodgates as to THC levels such that we're sort of like pulling the roof off. Because big marijuana says we want to be more competitive. How can we mg/rr 233 compete with New York and Rhode Island and Massachusetts? Well, if we have higher THC levels, the consumer's going to want to stay in Connecticut because they get bigger high for the dollar. That's their argument. I would say, if you got $60 burning a hole in your pocket and you can get twice as much goods, twice as much marijuana product in Massachusetts as Connecticut, I'm guessing at those, it may be completely different percentages, but still you'll get more. Then, I just think that consumers, it's just like, you know, soap powder. Right? This one, you know, sometimes you get to a level where it's so close, then you try to sell it on the number of bubbles and the amount of shine and all this little stuff. But when the price difference is rather large, people are just going to be motivated on price because they want as much as they can get for the amount of money they have to spend. Period. And, yeah, this might be like twice as much, but if you want so much for a certain period of time, maybe you don't want to get sky high in the first ten minutes. Maybe you want it to last a long time. I don't know. But I'm just saying, I think just pure price comparison is pretty much how consumers operate across a variety of products. And I think that marijuana is no different. No different. The other thing though, equally as scary, maybe not quite as much, but right up there is we're letting it now grow into a variety of products I don't think anybody anticipated when we had the debate not that long ago on recreational marijuana. And what that means is, I recall back then we were talking about doobies, talking about joints, talking about marijuana cigarettes, whatever you want to call it. Okay? Because that was sort of what we remembered from, for many of us our college years, and you had musical groups, the Doobie Brothers. If you didn't know what they were named for, now you do. Okay? mg/rr 234 And then there was edibles and that was sort of the other mystery area. And that was just sort of burgeoning at the time. And I'm not talking about decades ago. I'm talking about, like, five years ago. But with states, more and more states legalizing recreational marijuana, well, Americans if nothing are entrepreneurial. They like to make a profit. They like to get into the marketplace and see what they can do. And so all of a sudden, you know, if you were in the '70s and somebody made marijuana brownies, that was about as much of an edible as I'd ever heard of. Now, it's not even cookies and cakes and stuff you would find in any bakery, but it's candies and sweets and everything else. And now with this bill, it's way more than that. It's tinctures. Like, if you go to a homeopathic, doctor or if you want some sort of like herbal medicine, you know, you can get vitamin B6 in tincture form where you put a drop under your tongue and the selling point of that is it goes into your system quicker because it goes into your blood system faster from those receptors. Occasionally, I will get some fresh clove and you can bite into a clove and they'll tell you that it goes into your system. And in part if you break it, it'll go into your mouth through the glands that you have in your mouth. I'm not so worried about kids getting their hands on tinctures, but they've also expanded into other areas like bombs and salves and creams. Anything and everything that you can imagine where marijuana and THC can be used is now going to be wide open for business in the State of Connecticut. So you used to have to worry if you had a little toddler or a little one. Well, if you want recreational marijuana, I don't think they're going to break open a little box and start rolling a bone, but I would be really worried if I had an edible that looked like candy and I had some little hands. mg/rr 235 Anybody that's ever raised a child knows that as soon as they can toddle, as soon as they can get up on their feet, they're like grabbing anything on a table. It starts off with they're a little off balance so they need to hold on to tables and stuff like that just to stand up. But once you're at that new eye level, then now everything there is fair game. So if don't have it nailed down and you have a child that age, watch out. And I'm sorry but there was stuff that my little boys would come walking through, they put it in their mouth. It's just natural. They wouldn't always eat it but they would put it in their mouth. Well, if I had edible marijuana around the house, I would make sure it's like safe and sound somewhere. Now we have to worry about kids inadvertently putting a cream on themselves or getting mixed up in some other product that we could not even imagine. Add to that, there are new beverages now, and there's a little bit of a battle that we see in the General Law Committee because at first, it was such an oddball kind of product, we didn't know where to put it. We would have these specialized stores for the cannabis and the marijuana that we all sort of like knew about, you know, it looked like marijuana, it looked like an herb. Maybe there would be some edibles and they were in the specialized stores, but we had liquid that was sort of like a premade cocktail like one of those, or a fancy beer, but it was really some kind of liquid substance infused with THC. And I think in the beginning, we didn't really know what to do with that and so we let the package stores take a hold of that. And all of a sudden they realized, wow, this is a good product to have in our stores. So, whether you know it or not, we have a little battle. Well, who gets the right to be able to sell all that stuff? And every time I turn around, God bless America, the land of creative mg/rr 236 entrepreneurs, someone's coming up with a new way to package marijuana and an ability to get high in some way to make money. Now behind it all is big pot. Behind it all is this big giant money making machine, and I'm not against that. That's the American way. You see it in so many areas, and this is a brand new area. But I think that we have to use caution. You know, one of the things that I've learned over the years, and once upon a time when I was in the majority in the mid 1990s, I was cochair of the General Law Committee. And so for two years, I got to work with a gentleman from down Stamford, John Wayne Fox, and we were co- chairs of the General Law Committee. And I Senator Maroney will get a chuckle out of this because things have changed so much. But I will take credit as one of the fathers of being able to use bar codes in stores in the State of Connecticut. Because way back then, it was brand new technology and a woman named and she was a wonderful woman, a lobbyist for the food industry, the late Grace Nome said, "Senator Kissel, you're the senate cochair of General Law. We have a pilot program we want to try here in Connecticut. We don't want to have to label every single item like we've been doing for decades and decades. We have this new technology where this reader will read a bar code and it'll pop up the price and they will be able to scan it at the register." This is like Star Trek stuff for me. It was crazy. And so we had like a giant pilot program and that's where the whole idea of, by the way, if it doesn't scan the right price and the consumer finds out it's the wrong price, you get it free. Because that's how they had to sell it to me, because I didn't trust the system at all. It's like, alright, Grace, we'll let you do this, but there's going to be a huge penalty. And we didn't want to really talk about having money, but if they made a mistake and you could point it out as a consumer, you got it free on mg/rr 237 the spot, that was good motivation for them. And, obviously, since then, it's just taken off like wildfire. Well, now we have this. This is the same kind of thing that what seemed like amazing brand new technology, Oh, gosh, now I'm dating myself. Thirty years ago, just now it's like, wow. You were around? Hasn't that been around forever? We're at this, like, wild west first stage of marijuana now. And so I think it's time to sort of do a true up and an assessment of where we are before we start making further leaps forward under the guise that we want to be more competitive with surrounding states. Because I think we're ignoring the major factor, which is just a fundamental price differential to a large extent pushed forward by not just our taxation system, but all the other associated costs that go into the cost for a like product of marijuana in Connecticut versus a similarly situated product in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the State of New York, in the State of New Jersey, and the State of Rhode Island. Once you go beyond those states, I don't think there are any kind of huge competitive thing. No one's driving to Georgia to get marijuana or whatever. I don't even know if it's legal down there. So all we have to do is really do some sort of, like, objective study of the surrounding states, use a similarly situated product, and do an objective assessment. Why are we not as competitive with that product? And I think it's going to be motivated by price, not THC level and nothing else. And we're just not doing that. And remember I was talking about former representative Carl Schiessl? Again, I relate back to those days when I said, we charge too much tax on gasoline in Connecticut. Massachusetts, for all its taxation, knows how to beat us to the punch on these things where people can easily drive across state lines. Let's fight the mg/rr 238 fight that God has given us being a small state in a rather congested area of the nation. Let's be nimble, and let's be clever and thoughtful about how we tax things. I can't solve the problem of the over taxation here in Connecticut. That's a fight for another day. But on this product alone, we have a chance if you want to be competitive, and God bless his soul, Carl said this on the Finance Committee over and over and over again. You can lower taxation and bring in more purchasers from surrounding states when you're a little state like Connecticut, and actually raise more revenue than you were by doing the simple math of I'll just raise the percentage of tax and get that much more money. Because people have legs, people have wheels, people can travel. So we're a little state with other states around us where people can purchase, and so we want to attract the people that live in our surrounding states into Connecticut to do their purchasing. And even with this one product, if you make it attractive financially for people from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to come from Springfield or Northampton into Enfield to make their marijuana purchase, they will buy other stuff in my community too. Now, my constituents are probably, like, having their head explode saying, John, what are you doing? We don't want a million people buying pot here in, like, Enfield. That's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying though, if you want to address the big marijuana backers that are involved in this industry, which are the major players, despite we have these altruistic goals of helping the small people that got affected by marijuana policy in past decades, but there's big big dollars involved here. Hey, we had a debate in the rules right at the beginning of this, and the Department of Consumer mg/rr 239 Protection has an ability to assess a penalty, granted a civil penalty, up to $10 million. Why would that be in a bill unless there's big money involved? Right? We're not going to do that on some mom and pop that's in the middle of Hartford that's trying to eke out something because they were discriminated against 30 years ago. Now you have something in a bill where there's a civil penalty up to $10 million because there's a lot of big money involved. That's why it's there. Make no mistake about it. I'd be hard pressed to find any other bill that comes before us this year in this legislature that has any reference to a penalty of a million dollars, let alone $10 million. So we're talking big dollars. We want to help them? Let's have an efficient tax policy to make us competitive with surrounding states. Let's look at just plain old basic economics. But we're not doing that. We want our cake and eat it too. We want to keep our high tax rates and all the other ancillary costly rules and regulations. And, by the way, we might do that comparison and say, okay, as public policy, we can't give up the rules and regulations and the other things that make us financially not competitive, and we're just not going to be able to compete with surrounding states. Okay. I'm not greedy. Let's just live within our means. But I think that by ignoring the giant financial aspects on the one hand and opening up the floodgates of THC levels and variety of products, a lot of which can get into the hands of little ones, having very little policing out there, you can't even pull someone over and figure out if they're driving under the influence of marijuana, and in any kind of way that is calculable. You have to have specially trained police officers, and we've never done that. mg/rr 240 We've never invested in having every community have a law enforcement officer that has that special training. It's, like, super expensive. So, we just don't have that. So, maybe there's not enough of these being prosecuted, but I guess the arrests aren't having, because it's just really difficult to pull someone over. Now, if you have the someone who drank and did marijuana, you'll probably be able to get them on the, either the field sobriety test or on when they do the breathalyzer. But if they didn't drink at the same time, yeah, the car might smell like marijuana smoke and you can do a test, but unless you have someone that's certified, even if you arrest that individual, it's very hard to prosecute to conviction. And then the last point, because I went way longer than I thought I would, but to Jason Perillo, Senator Perillo's really important points. The young adolescent mind in particular. Now I'm moving from the toddler to the older child, but to the young person. Their minds are still developing as we heard regarding other areas, so much so that in other aspects of our legal system, we want to give them another bite at the apple after they've committed murder. Okay. If you want to believe that, it's that bad, at least you have to acknowledge that that's a developing brain with neuroplasticity and that it has been proven time and time again that some percentage of young people are going to be addicted. And the marijuana itself is going to have a very deleterious consequence on their growth and their psychology and their ability to process. And it might be just the marijuana itself that will end up doing them in, if not in a fatality, but an inability to cope in our world. But also more likelier than not, and I hear this all the time, and maybe you can call beer the same thing to some extent or tobacco, but there's no doubt in my mind that when you cross the line into marijuana, mg/rr 241 it is a gateway drug. And that the addictive properties and the allure alone can cause you to end up, as Senator Cicarella said, getting fentanyl and other drugs that can kill you laced into what you're dealing with by someone who's unscrupulous along the way or just did something stupid along the way. Because as you're high, you're not making the appropriate decision. And the last thing I'll say is it probably, and I'm not as familiar with this as I probably should be, but like other things that affect us as human beings, when you have a dopamine surge, you build up resistance over time. And so whether it's alcohol or eating a lot of food or something else like that, the thrill of gambling and winning, if it sends a surge of dopamine through your nervous system, your body over a period of time, some more, some less, creates neural passageways that want to be fulfilled. And you build up a resistance in that, the amount of dopamine that made that person high the first time is very hard to continue. And so you ingest more and more and more to get to the same high. And so you're creating addicts, and there's no way else to say it. Marijuana is a drug. And if it's creating a dopamine surge, it has the propensity to create addiction. And that means more and more and more and more. And when you play that story out, rarely does it end well. And so we're playing with fire. And I think we're making a bad public policy decision with this bill, and I think there's a lot of way to look at it. Is there some good in this bill? Absolutely. Will the majority move it forward? I don't doubt. We wouldn't be here before us unless it had enough votes. But I really think at some point in the not too distant future, we need to put pause on this movie and do a true up and do an assessment. What is the positives that's happening to Connecticut and what are the negatives? And we need to give some credence and credibility to the negatives and figure mg/rr 242 out how we can clean up behind us so that the negatives don't outweigh the positives and we're not leaving a trail of broken lives behind us as we race for the almighty dollar in front of us. And for those reasons, Madam President, I'll be voting no. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President. And I rise for a couple questions and just a statement or two on this bill. I'm concerned after having serious conversations with the head of the emergency room department near me at Lawrence + Memorial, which is part of Yale, as to what they've seen, and I had them take a peek at this bill. They're very, very concerned about the levels of THC in the products and the idea that we are now raising the bar for the amount of THC that can be in the products, and that, I believe, is in all the products. And what they've said is they have seen an increase in the number of children coming into the ER. But more importantly, the head of the ER talked about a situation with his own child who was a young adult who had or really didn't understand or know how his body was going to react to taking gummies. And if you take too many, he had an experience of panic, paranoia, hallucinations, anxiety and had to go to the emergency room. Felt like he had to, felt like his heart was jumping out of his body. And now you're taking up a hospital bed for somebody who really needs to be there. There's no treatment, you just provide supportive care. And I have to tell you, the physicians that I've talked to are absolutely against looking at increasing the levels of THC. mg/rr 243 Now I understand that maybe we're going to get a bill to fix that at a later time, but that is a big concern for me. I think it's moving us in the wrong direction. I do agree with Senator Kissel on some of the points he made as far as taxation. You know, you can have a product, but when you tax it so highly, people are going to go to other states to get it. We had that with the boats here in the State of Connecticut. We taxed them so much that people went to Rhode Island, and we lost 27,000 boat sales. When we lowered the tax, we made up that difference within less than six months. So we have to think about our taxation policy. We understand that the goal of this is money coming into the state, but I think that there has to be a balance between what's right for our residents, what's right for the future generation, what message we're sending to young people, and how we look at our tax policy in the State of Connecticut. I do not necessarily believe that marijuana is a gateway drug to other drugs. You know, people can disagree with me. I've talked to physicians all over in many specialties and everybody has different opinions as to, you know, is it the marijuana or is it a predisposition that we have that that makes us somebody who is prone to addiction, and when we start on whatever drug of choice that is, we become that way, you know, that's up for debate. I don't think that any of us, even the physicians really know what that is. But I can say from my personal experience, I have a younger sister who started in high school smoking pot, moved on to other substances, is a nurse and is currently right now fighting a really serious fentanyl addiction. So I have seen that and I've seen how it destroys families, it destroys children of those people, and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. It is a horrible thing to see a loved one go through. I have a concern and a question. mg/rr 244 I know that the good senator touched base on it previously, but I wasn't really clear on the answer, so I'd like to go back there. And the language for me does not make sense to be in this bill. So in section 13, through you, Madam President, it talks about coming up with this statewide cannabis, hemp and now Controlled Substances Board that's going to consist of the attorney general, the commissioner of Consumer Protection, commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, but it has now removed the DPH commissioner and their designee, and I believe the social equity council person. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, thank you for the question. Yes, that is correct.

Thank you, Madam President. So if this board is looking to identify the need and enforcement opportunities concerning illegal cannabis sales, intoxicating hemp product sales and controlled substances, examine the developments in national trends and best practices, wouldn't we want the DPH commissioner who's in charge of health to be part of that committee? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. Thank you. That is a good question. The majority of the work is actually on enforcement, and some of it is sensitive information they're discussing in regards to, to performing an enforcement action or an investigation, pending investigations. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you for that answer. That doesn't make sense to me. Why would we be having this board that's supposed to be looking at best practices, et cetera, and we've removed the DPH commissioner? You're going to look at studies, and specifically what is the definition of controlled substances within this bill? Is it benzos? Is it fentanyl? Is it heroin? What are the controlled substances? That's a pretty broad definition. Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. First to expand upon my previous answer is because they are doing enforcements, and Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services helps with some of the sting operations. And that's why they are part of that task force. The Department of Public Health does not do enforcement actions. The controlled substances are not defined in this section. However, I believe you are correct, it wouldn't include any of those illegal substances and controlled substances that you had mentioned. mg/rr 246

So why are we creating this new board that's now going to look at all kinds of controlled substances and drugs when we have already a police department, we have DCP, we have all these organizations that can already work together and that should be working together on these exact problems, why are we creating this new board that is now getting rid of the social equity person, getting rid of DPH, and that's going to meet four times a year? I'm not sure how we can decide, okay, we're going to do a sting operation or we're going to have all this secret information that we can't disclose to anybody, but we're going to do it once a quarter. That makes zero sense to me. So I feel like there's something else going on that we're not being informed on. Through you, Madam President, could you please address that?

Through you, Madam President, the role of the task force has transitioned to be mainly about enforcement and not to be weighing in on policy. And so it has been highly successful in their enforcement actions. I think they have closed operations and discovered, you know, through their actions have made many closures and seizures of illegal substances that they have detected on those operations. Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 247

Thank you for that answer. I'm concerned. I understand not having to be able to share information, freedom of information, when you're conducting a sting operation or as you described it, these enforcement. But the way I read this, and I could be wrong, after reading some information from the current cannabis advocate, it appears that this will also, this FOI exemption would also apply, let's say that somebody worked with a social equity partner, they purchased a facility, and then the business was transferred. There was a transfer of ownership. That would also be not subject to FOI. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, are you referring to the exemption in lines 316 to 319?

Yes, I am. Through you, Madam President.

mg/rr 248 Through you, Madam President. That only applies to the meetings of the task force. Through you.

Thank you. So the task force is not informed or has nothing, no knowledge, there's nothing discussed when there's a transfer of ownership from, let's say that I went in on a marijuana operation or hemp operation, I guess, marijuana operation, with a social equity council or person that would qualify and then, a big company came in and purchased me, I thought the board previously would have knowledge of that. And if that is the case, would that also be subject to FOI or is it only enforcement issues that are no longer subject to FOI?

Through you, it is only the actions of the task force, the statewide cannabis, hemp and controlled substances enforcement board task force meetings, that are exempt from FOI. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, does this board have any say or knowledge or do they have notification of transfers of business for cannabis? Through you, Madam President. mg/rr 249

Through you, Madam President, I do not believe so because they're focused on enforcement. Through you.

Does this board have knowledge or are they informed of a license transfer of a business operating, producing, selling cannabis? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, no.

Thank you for that. So I just want to confirm, the only thing that would not be subject to FOI is this board because all they're talking about is enforcement? Through you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President, it would be anything that they were discussing. The majority of what they are talking about is enforcement actions. And, again, we wouldn't want to jeopardize potential enforcement action. Through you, Madam President.

Thank you for that answer. I think this board is going to discuss more than enforcement actions, and this is a government board made up of government commissions paid for by the taxpayers, where most of our other boards are subject to FOI, I think and I believe that everything outside of enforcement that they come in contact with should be subject to FOI, and I am not going to be able to support this bill specifically because of that. This basically is stepping backwards, in my opinion, with transparency. We've heard from the advocate that he believes that we're moving in the wrong direction as far as transparency. So I understand the enforcement part, but anything else this board discusses, whether they're looking at studies, they're looking at best practices as far as cannabis, I think that should be publicly available information and the minutes should be available and, therefore, I urge my colleagues to not support this in the movement towards greater transparency. Thank you, Madam President.

Through you, Madam President. And thank you for recognizing me, Madam President. And I do understand we are being asked to vote on the bill that is in front of us today. But I do appreciate, again, I think Eastern Connecticut is good at defending strong open government. I know Senator Osten is a strong and fierce advocate for open government. And what I will let you know is that in a bill that is coming up next week in a compromise language that has been negotiated, they're just going to exempt from FOI when they go into executive session. So the rest of the meeting, if it weren't in executive session, so they would be able to discuss potential investigations so that they would not jeopardize a future sting operation in executive session that would not be subject to FOI, but the rest of the meeting minutes will. Again, that is on a bill that's coming next week, and I do understand we're being asked to vote on the bill in front of us. So I appreciate and understand your concerns, and they have been recognized. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam President. Just a little bit before we will say good morning, and I rise for a couple of comments with respect to the legislation before us. I want to thank my good colleague for doing such a tremendous job in working to perfect this or get this to a better place, certainly, over the course of this legislative session. But I do feel like it's important for me to articulate some of my concerns with respect to this legislation, particularly because I have been such a huge mg/rr 252 proponent of our farmers and our agricultural history here in the State of Connecticut. I was one of the lead sponsors of our hemp legislation, creating a new cash crop here in the State of Connecticut in 2019. I did that together with Senator Osten, and I was really proud of that, that we were able to create this new industry for our farmers here. And then, fast forward, and we had the legalization of recreational cannabis before, or adult use cannabis before this chamber. And I stood and made some similar comments at that time. And those comments really still hold true today. I still have many concerns about what has happened to our hemp industry in the wake of legalization. We've really made it very difficult for the hemp industry to be economically viable here in the State of Connecticut. We've disrupted this entire industry that we worked so hard to build in 2019. And for this reason, Madam President, I am really torn tonight because I do think that this Bill 5350 really takes some important steps to do some of the repair necessary to the hemp industry. I think we are making some progress to provide them with opportunities and fairness and stability here with this legislation. But I also think that we're not being incredibly thoughtful about what is going on with the legalization in terms of THC and the content and what impact that has, particularly on our youth here in the State of Connecticut. I have some strong reservations and concerns with increasing potency levels, but I do want to say that I am torn, because I do really want to support our farmers. I want to make sure that we're supporting small business here in the State of Connecticut. I have always been concerned with equity, and so the social equity council has been incredibly important in this process. But for the reasons that I state in terms of mental health and the impacts on mental health, with respect to the potency levels that we're providing here in Connecticut, I did hear this mg/rr 253 is not your father's or your grandfather's cannabis. Very different what we're dealing with here and now. And so for that reason, Madam President, I will be a no this evening.

Thank you, Madam President. I don't know if I'm going to change anybody's point of view. I like to think perhaps. That's why we stand up here and we debate. We argue. We try to make clear our perspective or our point of view in order to convince. I ask all of us here, are we protecting and preserving public health, safety, and the welfare of our public, those that we represent? I was here when this recreational marijuana was passed. And actually, we had stopped it during the session. And then I think within two weeks, we're back here under special session to vote on it again. I was away on vacation, had it planned. So the numbers, I don't recall what the final vote was, but it eventually did pass. I don't think the science has changed since then. Science, to answer my question, are we protecting and preserving the public health and safety and the welfare of the people of the state? The science says no. Medical industry says no. And the parents who have experienced the pain and the suffering say no. The passage of recreational marijuana, a bad legislation and bad policy. You take a look at the CDC, the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. The guidelines that we followed for COVID, see what they have to say about it. The science, they say there are negative and mental health effects associated with high potency THC. Psychological harm mg/rr 254 of cannabis use such as develops schizophrenia, anxiety, depression, respiratory damage, cancer, and a new one that I just read about was chronic vomiting due to long term marijuana use. We had testimony come in front of the committee. Doctors, emergency room doctor, he says notable increases in cases of schizophrenia in younger patients, which he referred to as an epidemic of cannabis-induced psychosis. THC is getting our kids sick. Another doctor testified testimony emphasizing that as potency increases, public health risks increase. He urged us not to give into pressure from big marijuana. Big business [John]. Let me read to you a parent's testimony. "I am a mother of a 21-year-old boy who took his life this past 10/30/2025. Our son was a normal, active, smart boy, fun to be with, always curious and good student, busy playing ice hockey and golf, and he earned multiple academic excellent awards. Our son was planning to be a mechanical engineer, loving his life and his parents. And then in the late fall of 2019, as a 15-year-old boy, high school freshman, he started to change. His behavior, normal behavior changed, became lazy, missing homework, had no interest in spending time with us and spending more time alone. He became verbally aggressive, impatient, and disappearing for long periods of time after school and missing dinners. All escalated and we found out he was smoking weed and consuming THC products. From the fall of 2019 until now, our life turned into a nightmare with our boy out of control, barely graduating from high school, crashing cars, losing his driver's license --"

Sure. I think everyone gets the message of what this mother and family went through. I heard earlier about market share. We're losing business to the north of us, other states. Have you considered this? Think about this. We want to increase what we had put a cap on. We want to take that cap off. We want to increase the potency so that individuals can get a quicker high and they don't need to go across the state. Our sales are going to go up. But have you thought about by removing the cap, that harm reduction mechanism or regulation that we put in the bill that we passed in recreational marijuana? Making sure that the THC levels had a cap, there are safer levels of THC, that that product line is going to decrease in sales and eventually get pushed out of the market? Are we just simply swapping the sales from one to another and then increasing the risk in health of our youth and those that use it? And then there was mention about a black market. Do you really think eliminating the cap is going to move sales away from the black market? Let's not fool ourselves. The dealers in the black market are not going to lose market share because we have removed the cap. Please don't fool yourselves. Madam President, I don't believe we're doing our job in protecting public health, safety, and the welfare of our public. This bill takes or removes the harm reduction regulations, the caps that we originally placed in the marijuana legislation, and we're all for revenue. That's why we're doing this. We should be listening to the science, the medical industry, and the stories, and listening to the parents that are living through the pain and the loss of their loved ones. I urge my colleagues to vote no to this piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam. mg/rr 256

An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill. This is House Bill No. 5350, an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation, as amended by House Amendment Schedules A and D. We're now voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate for House Bill No. 5350, an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation, as amended by House Amendment Schedules A and D. We're now voting on the bill. An immediate roll call vote in the Senate. Immediate roll call vote has been ordered in the Senate. We're now voting on the bill. This is House Bill No. 5350. Immediate roll call vote in the Senate.

House bill 5350 as amended: Total Number Voting 35 Necessary for Adoption 18 Those voting Yea 18 Those voting Nay 17 Those absent and not voting 1 mg/rr 257

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, it is our intention to be in session tomorrow at 11:00 o'clock. We'll come right in and we'll get started with our business at 11:00. So ask people to be on time, please. And I don't think there's any other points of personal privilege or announcements, except for a journal notation. Senator Hartley missed votes due to business outside the chamber. Senator Martin.

I believe he just covered it, but Senator Harding missed votes because he is doing business outside the chamber. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move for all items to be immediately transmitted to the action.

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