Legitalk:

[Room/AV line (mic checks and isolated vote response)]: White check. White check.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the general law committee's meeting for Monday, March 16. Congratulations on a wonderful session. You are at our last JF meeting of the day. Unless things go sideways today

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: We could be here until Wednesday at five.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Well, we'll we'll keep it going regardless. We always usually do this at the end. I wanna do it at the beginning because folks have a tendency to leave once the business is done. I just wanna thank you to say thank you to all of the folks who make our committee process work functional. This process starts early on before session even starts, largely led by Betsy Francolino, who's the, committee's clerk, organizing a number of meetings that go on for days, usually starting in November, December before, a short session which doesn't kick off until February. The ranking members, Senator Maroney and I end up spending a lot of time together digesting proposals from all corners of the state. And it's an exhaustive process that yields, I think, good product at the end of our JF process. Look, we're not going to agree on everything today just like we didn't agree on everything last week, but it's an agreeable process. Ultimately, Representative Vitigliano and I and Senator Ciccarella and Senator Maroney will negotiate a number of issues over the course of the next few months to bring most of these products to a much better place And we do that with the continued excellent work provided to us by, our LCO attorneys and our OLR, researchers. So I wanna say a specific thank you to Brian Valco and Marie Grady for their incredible, tireless work in getting, over 30 bills ready in a short session for us to consider this year. It's a remarkable achievement. Some of this is really complex. We're gonna get into it a little bit today on a number of these, but it really is tremendous work to get us to this moment. And similarly, I wanna thank say thank you to Chris and Duke and OLR. Look, we hear a 100 terrible ideas for every good idea that comes to us, and usually, the only way we know the difference is because folks in OLR are researching current existing laws, how other other laws play out, in surrounding states, the applicability of a certain, thought process to, conventions and dressing events. So it's it's it's really a team level effort that gets us to this point, and I just wanna say thank you at the beginning of this meeting rather than the end when everyone's already left. And at the end, there will be some wonderful Puerto Rican pastries that we picked up just on the way up. The are incredible. They're gonna be worth the wait, probably. Okay. With that, senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I would just like to say I associate myself with remarks of my cochair. Again, just to express our gratitude. It it's been great working, with with, representative Lamar as well as with our rankings, senator Ciccarello and representative Vitigliano. We all have a a great, working relationship. Thank you to our LCOs, to OLR, to OFA, and especially to, Betsy, our clerk, and our assistant clerks. The amount of work they put in behind the scenes is I mean, you it's unbelievable in the way that they're able to respond to our requests, our our many, many requests. So I just echo that gratitude. Looking forward to this meeting today. Happy that representative Lamar drew the short straw and gets to chair the meeting today. And also it's my understanding that after an hour and a half, half, those pastries don't taste as good. So if we could try to get done so we could really enjoy those pastries, it would be great. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Representative Ricigliano. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I just wanna echo the sentiments of the good chair, especially about Betsy and Brian. They do do a ton of work and keep us organized. But this committee only works as well because of the collaborative nature of both the chairs, and they don't have to be this collaborative. I know Paul and I feel like full participants in the entire process. And for that, I am eternally grateful, and I really do think the legislation gets better just based on how everybody treats one another on the committee. So thank you to both. Let's get to work. Senator.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yeah. I'll be brief. Just wanna echo the comments of our our chairs and our ranking member. A lot of work to be done, and it is a pleasure to work with you guys. Sometimes we don't always get what we want, but at least you you hear us out. So we we greatly appreciate that, and it's great to work with you guys. Just wanna thank our staff too, as as well as, you know, all of the the staff here at Betsy's phenomenal. But our attorneys, Paul and and Nick, they do a great job helping us understand a lot of these bills and with not a lot of time to do it. So we were working, what, till, like, 10:30, 11:00 last night, caucusing these bills. Just wanna thank everyone and all the other members, that participate. Pleasure working with you guys.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you very much. And it's a little daunting to know that you guys are up until 11:00 last night preparing to debate these bills. But it is what it is. Let's move on. Next up on today's agenda is item number three, bill to review. First up is s b four and that concerning consumer privacy. I'd entertain a j f to the floor of LCO number three two sorry, of LCO three two zero seven. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved. Second.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Moved by, Senator Maroney, seconded by senator Kissell. Senator Ackert. I mean, representative Ackert.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: He wants It's not a Paul Sarsay. Don't demote representative Ackert.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: It was seconded by senator Kissell. Representative Acura will have some questions after, senator Maroney does a brief overview. Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. I like how you emphasized brief, so I will do my best to be concise. Thank you to to senator Duff for a lot of the concepts in this bill. So senate bill four does a number of different things. Sections one to nine work on the data broker, creating a data broker registry in a one stop delete mechanism modeled after the delete act in California section 10 cars must show the amount of the price that is attributable to tariffs on the when they're displaying so some transparency in advertising Section 11 is the dynamic pricing or, algorithmic pricing. Initially it was just a disclosure. We heard a lot of testimony, and we changed it in in two ways. So one, even though I wasn't fully convinced by the argument, I did go for the argument that we're only gonna disclose if it's being used to increase prices, not to decrease prices. But then also we heard testimony about banning digital shelf labels. We did not ban the digital or electronic shelf labels. Instead, we put in a prohibition modeled after another state's legislation on for retail in person to use digital shelf labels to display dynamic pricing. So we kind of tried to go, take both of those things from the testimony. Sections 12 to 17 updates the data privacy law, tightening controls on facial recognition, banning the sale of geolocation data, and updating the definition of publicly available information. And then section 18 are some of the restrictions on license plate readers. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, Senator Maroney. Again, this is an exhaustive bill that reflect reflects a number of months, really years of work, and I appreciate, you shepherding this to the point, that we are at today. Questions? We're gonna start with representative Acker.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Thank you, mister chair. And, yeah, this is a complex bill. A couple of our bills are pretty complex, and some of this AI stuff is out of, you know, not my my wheelhouse. But I'd like to go to section 10 and ask a question on this. It doesn't seem to fit this bill very well, the tariff component of it. If you could explain the you know, where we got to this and the proposed and the I look at the fine component on lines, if I have the right LCO, four thirty seven, four thirty eight, regarding the finding component up up to a 100 up to a thousand dollars on what? A car, each car, each label missing? How was that structured through you, mister chairman?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative Becker. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Yes. It would so it would be per violation. So, that would mean, I think, per a label that was missing the designation. And

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: I I guess the tariff piece here is also an area that I have I mean, if it if it's a multiple component car or vehicle, right, this seems to be, like, cumbersome, to to be honest with you. You've got certain parts, and each of those parts are are have a tariff component because cars are you know, parts come from all over. I mean, we had when during COVID, we could not get the chip, and the chip was made in overseas. And I'm like, why can't we make chips here? And they were told I think it's just too costly to make them here. So I'm just trying to think how does somebody and and and he doesn't say estimate. How does somebody establish a tariff component? Is it an overall tariff? Okay. The tariffs on this vehicle cost us, $2,000. How is that going to be handled through you, mister chair?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Yeah. And so, again, the the way this fits in is we're looking at transparency in here. So we have the pricing with the dynamic pricing. This is another transparency piece. It's modeled after a bill from New York state, that had been passed. So I I you're right. It's going to be a best estimate. And so at times, it is difficult to tell. There's nothing that's truly made in one place anymore. I think we have, we as you mentioned, components come from all over the world.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Thank you. I'd like to interested in seeing how that's that gets rolled out. And then I I know others wanna ask us. I'm gonna use, what we do in, appropriations. I'm just gonna hold for two right now. Then I did see the testimony, from commissioner, Capparelli regarding how are we going they don't have the staff for this. How are we gonna gear up for this legislation? I'm sure, you know, as we know, commissioners support the governor's budget. This obviously is not in the budget. And I know sometimes we pass legislation to see what it's gonna cost overall from a from a result. So how do you see, the implementation of this going forward since, we don't have staffing for it now through you, mister chair?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. So last year, we did have the data broker registry as part of the bill. So the money was put in the in the budget. We were able to offset that with the, fees, that we're going to have for registering. So the $600 number is too low for the people who had registered in the data broker registry. Last year, I think we sell around the 1,215 doll $100 range. We went in between the Vermont and the California fees and estimated we would have the number of brokers who would register would be in between what who registered in Vermont and in California, and that would generate, the revenue, to cover that data broker registry. We are in you know, if we were to do this, we would likely talk with the state of California, Cal Privacy, which has already created a mechanism, and so they are willing to allow other states, to access that mechanism. So it would make it, more cost efficient.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: So Sure. Thank and just a follow-up to that, mister chair. How many of the brokers do we expect to be registered? What is, like, a is there a, you know, 10 of them? Is there 10,000 of them through you, mister chair?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: It it's in the hundreds, not in the thousands. It would probably my guess and I have to look at the numbers from last year at what I was estimating. I think it was, like, around three seventy. I was estimating, I think there's over 500 are registered in California and less are registered in Vermont.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Thank you, and I appreciate those answers. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Any other questions for senator Moroney? Representative Tibiano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you, mister chairman. Just I just had a quick question, a couple questions on the geolocation data. Is it are we banning the sale of the geolocation data or the sharing or both?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Mhmm. The number of location data.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So we are banning the sale of of geolocation data, but the way we define sale means, monetary compensation or other valuable consideration. So if you were and there are certain ways, like, in there, like, you can use it with other entities that are owned by the same place, or there are certain other purposes you may be able to use it for, but you just couldn't blatantly trade it to someone and say, I'm going to give you all of the geolocation data I have because that's a valuable consideration.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So the reason I asked the question through you, mister Cherry, is of on Star, say you have an accident or you have you sort of have that service in your car where it has a collision response. Would that be covered under this bill as far as that a share or a sale? Because you probably pay for OnStar. It's probably a I'm using OnStar generically for all the companies that do it.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. So that would be, like, a third party service provider. So there would be an agreement between them. So I you know, my understanding is that it would still be allowed if you had signed a contract and it was a third party service provider, but we can work to clarify that.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So so that question lends itself to sort of, like, when you call a ride share app, and you use an Uber or Lyft or something like that, and they sort of they're using geolocation, a, where you are to match you with a provider or driver, and they're using their geolocation to know where they are. And I didn't know if if that particular transaction because

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Nothing in this bill would prohibit that.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: But aren't they accessing geolocation data of two people?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: But they're not selling it to any outside party. They're using it to provide a service

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Okay.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: That's been requested by the consumer. But I And there's and and the legislation says nothing, you know, should prevent providing a a service requested by the consumer.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And then to ask a quick question on the electronic pricing, I know I fully support I I'm sure most of our caucus fully supports the not using the algorithm pricing, you know, for an individual. But if if a supermarket's using sort of a digital price tag on the shelf, are they allowed to connect all of those so they could change the prices at once? Meaning, like, they, you know, they entered in a computer in the back and that that little price tag gets out on the aisle. It updates the price electronically. It's not dynamic. It's just today, this is 2¢ more than it was yesterday.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Nothing. It it doesn't prohibit that. It only prohibits, the personalized pricing. So if you were to walk down the aisle, it couldn't show you and me a different price on the digital I

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: appreciate that.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Based on our personal data.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I appreciate that. But I know one of the concerns of that bill was that, you're sort of taking the human element out of the of the adjusting the prices or putting the stickers on the shelves, how much things cost. This this would stop the dynamic version, but it wouldn't actually stop them from putting up a digital display that could be changed by one person sitting in an office somewhere. Correct. Correct. Alright. I'm gonna stop with that. And it would Paul?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Senator Figueroa.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. So I know we we did, some legislation about two to three years ago regarding data privacy, and we learned a lot there. There's a lot of different types of data brokers, and they're sold for a lot of different reasons. They're sold for marketing and and sales. They're sold for gathering information for legal use, insurance use. And then they're just utilized for just the layperson, wanna get information on their neighbor. When we're trying to address some of the data privacy issues that we're seeing, and I think when we were talking, we discussed what we saw in Minnesota, which was horrific. A lot of that information is public information. You could go to a town hall and get it. You could go you know, if they had yellow pages, right, that, you know, that kind of stuff would be there. And I was just curious, you know, the difference between what we did two or three years ago, what is this really trying to capture and how will it affect those, if you will, just keep it simple, three types of of data brokers. Right? Sales per purposes, maybe permissible business uses for professionals that have access to information, both public and certain types of private information, maybe that a layperson couldn't get. Attorneys have access to certain things that maybe someone else will and maybe insurance companies, the banking industry, and I know there's a carve out specifically for banking. But if you could kinda break down what the difference is between our first data privacy bill to this one and what are we really trying to to wrap up the concerns on.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you very much, for the question. And I had to laugh a little when you said you could Google information about your neighbors, because my my father's favorite game to play was how old do you think she is, or

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: how old

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: do you think he is? And he would go Google and look it up as soon as he found he could do that. But the so this what this does is we already created and established in 2022 when we passed our data privacy law. We created a right to delete. Right? You can see what data you have the right to see what data has been collected about you on a website, to correct it, and to delete it. And we also, you know, at that time, we created a global privacy control, meaning the right to, we gave our constituents the right to opt out of tracking for advertising in the sale of their data. The global privacy control says that you can go to one place, and then you're automatically opted out of advertising. Everyone has to check that. This is a similar concept. Right? And so one of the things about the global privacy control, so, one of the assistant attorney generals, Michelle Lukian, who's the head of the data privacy unit, she would like to say why that was so important is we shouldn't make it hard for our constituents to access their rights. So they already have the right to deletion and we're making it easier to access that right to deletion. The data brokers who register will then have to go and check and see who wants to have their data deleted and then to delete that data. So that's what we're creating an easier way for people to delete their information. And I think one of the things you you mentioned, Minnesota, is the what's your why. Right? Like, why is this so important? And we know the horrific, in Minnesota, Melissa Hortman, the speaker of the house, was was assassinated. The gunman who went to her house, he also went to a colleague of ours from the cybersecurity task force that we're on, and he rang her doorbell. She was trying to ring doorbell footage, ringing her doorbell. She wasn't home. Lucky because she was with her grandkids at that time. And another person was on our task force was in his list of people he was going for. When they found him, he listed all of the different websites he used to gather their information. He had diagrammed their houses, knew which was their which ones were their bedrooms, and used that information. So a lot of people are are looking to expand on Daniel's law. Daniel's law is a law that was passed in New Jersey that allows for the protecting of the addresses of judicial branch employees. So police officers' addresses are hidden in other judicial branch because, unfortunately, a judge, I think her husband was assassinated and and, killed when he came to to kill, the judge. And so there are around the country, there are legislatures that are running a version of Daniel's law that will hide the addresses of, elected officials. I just personally, I have difficulty giving a right to us that we don't give to our constituents. And so that's why I thought this was a better response to that. And again, make it a choice. If you want to delete that information, and you're right. There are certain publicly available information. You're not going to you can't delete that. However, we don't have to make it so easy for people to find all of that information. So you can go to websites like Family Tree, Family Tree Now, I think it is. Not only will it list the names of some of the people, it can list the names and addresses of their children, where their children live. So why should they be at risk? Right? Your children, our children, or other people related to us who don't want their information out there. We chose to be elected officials. They didn't. Right? And so to give those rights. But that's in essence, we are making it easier for our constituents to access their rights to delete their data.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And, I I get that, and I completely understand why some people wouldn't want their information out there. And you you mentioned, you know, making it we're gonna reduce the avenues or or how easy it is to gather that data. But a lot of that information to to your point is in town halls. It's, you know, in newspaper articles. They're all not coming from just one data broker, if that makes sense. So I understand the the good intentions and what we're trying to do, but sometimes we have to think about maybe the unintended consequences. You know, if someone was gonna be hiring a nanny and they didn't wanna spend the money to hire someone to do a legitimate background check or search, we're gonna now be restricting the information that they would be able to to find on someone when making that kind of a decision. If if if that's a good example, I could think of a few others where people would wanna know, you know, who's coaching their kid in t ball. Right? Just to do some some simple, you know, background, and I could just see that there would be unattended consequences. Understand what we're trying to do, but when we try to make these laws, sometimes we may we might make things a little bit more challenging for people that are trying to gather information for not various and and and nasty reasons, just to gather intel to make an educated decision about something they're gonna be doing in their life. I just wanna make sure that we're not gonna be restricting that access. And when we talk about, you know, the Delete Act and and people are able to get their information off of these sites, you said that they'll be able to go to the data broker and write to them and say, hey, I want all of my information taken off. There are multiple different data brokers and there are well, I guess I'll I'll go with that. So they're gonna have to reach out to every single data broker that may have their information?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So the way it works is we would thank you for the question. We would create a delete mechanism similar to what was created in California. It would be a website where people would go my information. And all of the data brokers who are registered in the the state of Connecticut, every forty five days, would have to go and access to see who requested to have their information deleted and then delete that information. And again, we're not looking you can't delete, like, your criminal background checks, you know, like, if you've committed a crime, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to delete, because of this.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. And then there are certain services or sites that, individuals create maybe for their specific professions. So I know that people will request through, like, an FOI, get information maybe about driving history. You could just easily request, you know, some information from the DMV, see if somebody got a speeding ticket. And then there are companies or or even I don't wanna say it's their hobby, but they'll create a database. May they might not be registered at a day as a data broker, but they're essentially getting public information just making it easy to search, utilizing technology that could, you know instead of having hundreds of pages to go through to look, it will make it be specific to a person's name or an address or a plate or something along those lines. Would they fall under this as well?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I think that if you're talking about where you would need a license, right, to access, so you're if you had a private investigator's license and that was required to access the data, I believe that we I don't believe it would be, but I would need to double check and that's not the intention so we could work to make sure that, again, there is the security fraud and theft exemption, and so we we can look and see how that would apply in this case.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. And I know that was the concern of, the legislation tiers, but that's not what I was talking about. This is just an just an a layperson creates this website where you're able to get certain information about, again, all different types of things. You could talk it could be about coaching and you could look at all the different coaching jobs they've had, but they might not be registered as a data broker. So they wouldn't get wrapped up in this. They're just gonna take data from open source, categorize it, and then make it easy for someone to look at it. Is that gonna get roped up into this or it's specific to them being registered as a data broker?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: It's specific yeah. Dude, okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Yeah. So the question is, yeah, we'd have to look. We could look back to the definition of data broker and registered data brokers. So they they would not be drawn in. So any business is such business is not an individual, any portion of such business that sells or licenses brokered personal data to another person. And so, if they were taking information and an individual was collating the information from various sources and putting it out on the website that, you know, I guess it would be if they it is an inch interesting, because if they were selling access to that, they were selling it to another person. But if they had it up for free by advert for advertising, I don't think that an individual would be drawn in to that.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. Okay. And again, that's just the concern that we're just trying to flush out, that the information's still gonna be where the data broker found it, but we're just gonna be able to to I'm not saying hurt the business, because I know we're trying to do something good here and and and protect people's personal information. But if it's open source and this is a service, again, it's just a business, they're doing business providing a a service to someone trying to find information, I don't know if it really is going to address what we're trying to get to because, again, the person if they really want to do that, unfortunately, they're gonna be able to do that. They're gonna be able to go online. They'll go to the town hall. They'll run the the search. They could get your layout of your house from the the assessor's office. So it's really not taking away the people's personal data. It's basically kind of restricting an industry to conduct business that provides a service. For the most part, people are using this lawfully and to to to conduct business or just gather information for their personal use. And that's just a concern that I have. I I wanna try to find a way to strike that balance that we're not gonna hinder people from trying to be creative and create these type of databases or platforms for people to get information easily. I know my father has a hard time using his smartphone. Any way to make it easier for someone to find information that they want, especially for good reason. I just wanna make sure that we're not, again, you know, wanna make sure we're paying attention to the possible unattended consequence of what we're gonna be doing here. And and I appreciate you for answering the questions Yeah. That I had. And I I was gonna speak to the other permissible uses for a little bit more information that maybe the general public wouldn't have access to, but I think you you talked about that there are certain sections that kind of, you know, if there's an attorney or an insurance company or we have marshals that have access to information to actually you know, they have permission by the state and our laws to have that information. That wouldn't get rolled up into this. So that was something I just wanted to clarify, and I appreciate you clarifying that. In section 10, I'll move on. We're talking about the tariffs and how that affects the price. That's only gonna be done here in Connecticut. Correct? Correct. K. And I know It

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: it's already being done in New York State. I'm sorry. But this law only applies our law applies to Connecticut.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. And if you could just under if you could help me understand and maybe the general public understand what exactly is that trying to accomplish section 10 of this bill?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yep. Thank you for the question. And and it's a transparency issue. I think, just like with the the dynamic pricing, we were looking at making sure people understood that, you know, they could be paying more because dynamic pricing is is being used, just to help on people understand what what is contributing to the costs.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. And we were talking about this last night, late last night, between Dave, yelling about plays that that who made the great play?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Judge. Judge

[Sen. John A. Kissel (R–Enfield)]: had a great throw.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: People were all confused. So maybe maybe I missed this part where we were gawking the way time

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: of Yankees gonna get a come.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: That's on the record. But

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: but I just had some concerns again. Providing this information so people could know why the the cost went up is Yeah. A good thing. I'm just wondering, it's gonna take time to really figure that out. When when someone's building a vehicle, parts come from all over the place. Even though the the the product is built or assembled here in The States, different pieces and parts could come from all over the place. And I could just see that being really burdensome trying to figure out, you know, where did this part of the wiper blade come from? Where did this part of the brake assembly come from? And and I was just curious if we took into consideration what that will actually do to the price of the vehicle. Somebody's gonna have to do all this research. They're gonna have to be paid to do it. And at the end of the day, trying to to be transparent why the car is costing, what it's costing, and and maybe the effect that the tariff has in place, are we gonna then figure out how much it's gonna cost for someone to do that and if the end consumer is gonna be paying for it? Just something that we had some concerns about.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I understand. And I think initially, you're right. There it will take some work to figure it out, and then afterwards, it'll be de minimis. You know, it won't really add much. But they will take some work, and, you know, I I as you know, everything here, we kind of continue to work on after the committee process. So if that means pushing out the implementation date to go further past New York to let the New York car dealers figure it out, then definitely open to that and to working with you on this afterwards.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And I appreciate that. I know some of these sections, you're hearing concerns as the s language came out, and I know that you're willing to work on it. So this is not exactly the whole final product, so if we could flush some of that stuff out. And I'll just end with just asking a little bit about section 17 with the facial recognition and that technology. You know, we understand that this organized retail crime is becoming a really big problem, and, you know, at the end of the day, these businesses are gonna factor in that loss and pass it on to the people that are actually paying for their product. And this was a tool that I believe was implemented a few years ago many years ago. There was some concern with the the technology and maybe some false positives when it was, you know, trying to to figure out who is committing these acts over and over again. And my understanding is that the technology got better and it's it's a lot more accurate. And it is a tool that will hopefully deter some of the theft that is happening. And with this language, it's simply stating that they have to post that this is being utilized in the store, but it will not stop these these stores and their their loss prevention department from utilizing this technology. Is that is that correct?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you for the question. Yes. It doesn't stop them, from using it as long as they're not using it to identify individuals coming in. Right? Which, again, you're gonna swipe your rewards card, and we're gonna know who's in the store anyways. But but we're saying that if you're using it just to match people against the list of, you know, that you've created in your store. Right? Someone who stole from you in the past, someone who caused an an incident in the store. You can do use it in that purpose. They're saying that you have to post that it's being used so that people know it's being used in a link to your privacy policy there. So we're putting restrictions. We're not saying you can't use it. Right? And and so in 2023, Rite Aid was banned by the FTC from using facial recognition because of for five years because of the way they had used it. So we're trying to say we recognize this is a valuable tool, but we also recognize that constituents wanna write to privacy. Right? And and granted, we we many of us post on social media where we are at every given minute of the day, so we've kind of given up that. Right? But still, we wanna make sure there are restrictions around how this is being used.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Sure. So really for non loss prevention reasons, they can't use it, which I I I I would say I would agree with. Right? You You don't want them trying to sell this information to companies to say this is the best time to advertise because there's more people, you know, coming to the store at this time or, you know, specific things related to maybe marketing or or data brokers could use this for whatever purpose they may want. It's not gonna be used for that, but they can use it for loss prevention, and this will not restrict that in any way. There's just some oversight and regulations that all that delayed the the all the data that is being collected will be utilized for that purpose only and not other, maybe sales purposes or anything else, and they can't sell it. Right. Is that a fair assessment?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. There's so there is the the way they were able to do it, because biometric data, right, using data to identify a specific individual, we defined as sensitive. Meaning, you have to give your permission for someone to collect your biometric your sensitive data. And so but there's a theft, fraud, and fraud prevention exemption, and so it was being utilized without collecting that information. But we're saying, okay, you don't need people to opt in. You just need to let them know in setting parameters around how you can utilize it. So, yes, that part is correct.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Excellent. Alright. Very good. And then there is something in here that if somebody notices them, you know, being followed throughout the store, They've never done anything wrong. There is a mechanism in here that they could go to the store and say, hey, why am I being followed by on some type of a list? They would have to disclose that they were on that list. And if they feel that they did not commit any theft or some crime or should be on that list, they would have a a mechanism of getting off or marked as someone that's committing theft. Is that also, fair and accurate? Correct.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: And and it doesn't say it's a right to know if you're on the list. Right? So and then it's a right to appeal if you don't think you belong on the list. It's not a right to delete your name from the list. So you can't say, take me off your list. You can say, I think you have a mistake. I haven't done anything wrong. I'm not sure. And then if you had a twin brother and for some reason you were on the list or or whatever. So that's what what we're requiring the stores to come up with a policy for how they can and it's up to them right now. We don't to to decide whether or not then they would take someone off the list and then just notify them. That probably does need to be fleshed out a little more, that part of the bill, but that's the way it reads now.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. And it is my understanding that just because they're on the list, they're not banned from any stores. My understanding is these loss prevention departments would utilize it to know that this person may have a history of stealing, so they could maybe keep an eye on the individuals or maybe have someone maybe shadow them to deter that. It's not gonna stop anyone from going in any store. My understanding, the only way that could happen is if they have been trespassed and they were asked not to come back for a certain amount of time. So this isn't gonna hinder people that maybe made a mistake, they fell on hard times, they got caught stealing something. Just wanna make sure that everyone knows that this is not gonna stop people from coming in. Correct?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Correct. And we've heard from a number of different stores on how they utilize it, but the majority say, right, it is used to notify loss prevention, and then they may follow or keep a closer eye on that person when they are in the the store.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. Alright. Excellent. Thank you. My good colleague was asking me. He's like, now are you gonna support this bill? So I'm trying to flush it out. I I do truly understand that

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I was gonna ask you too, but I'm too far away.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So I do appreciate your work, and I understand that there is more work to be done on this. And I, again, understand the good intentions, and that we do wanna protect people and their information. It's just a very large bill, lot of sections, lot of stuff to understand. And I know that we're gonna continue to be discussing this and maybe finding issues that might create an unattended consequence. But I do, you know, appreciate your work, understand what you're trying to do. I am gonna be voting no to flag this and hope that we can continue to work on this because just, again, wanna make sure that it's not gonna do more damage than than it's intended to be doing. So just wanna get down the record, and I I thank you for answering my questions and all the work that you've done on this bill today.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Vitigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Well, the good senator stole a little bit of what I wanted to say before because we appreciate all the hard work that you do, James, senator. You're almost a a victim of your own ambition. I wanna reflect that some of my caucus members did have concerns about the sheer size of the bill, the amount of subjects that were in the bill, and that they were even though they agreed with most of it, that they had some worries about some of it. So there may be some no votes on our side of the aisle, but it doesn't mean that we're not willing to work on the issue or don't think data privacy is important. It's just that there's an awful lot in the bill that they thought still need to be worked on. So I thought I would at least qualify that. The congenial nave nature of the committee makes it so that I should say things like that when there are some noes. Okay? Alright.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Seeing no other questions, I would oops. Sorry. Representative Yacarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: I apologize for going after the ranking member, but I do have a couple of questions. I understand the intent of the bill. It is a large bill and especially protecting data privacy. But after forty five days, your data you have to request a delete mechanism. Is that correct? To delete your information?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So you would put your request into, like, the one stop shop, and the data brokers would need to check that every forty five days to see who who has requested that their data be deleted. California, when they instituted it, it went live this year. In the first two weeks, over a 155,000 California residents accessed, the right to delete.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Thank you.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So it is something that people want that convenience of accessing their rights.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Oh, without a doubt. But with that, does it so I'll use my credit I have two business credit cards. I use one for today and then a different one tomorrow. So that's gonna be different data because I'm shopping some something totally different. So that's gonna continually it's like a rotation. It's gonna constantly my data's out there every day. Like it or not, I wish it wasn't, but it is. I don't know how this I don't know if this really stops that and because you have competing you have competing data. And then why so when they sell when their broker wants to sell the data, they do they notify I should get notified, actually. Nobody should just sell my data about notify me, and it's not in this bill. There should be notification. I shouldn't just have somebody sell my data without me notifying me. That's just my opinion at least. Yeah. Third party. Right to know.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: You have the right to opt out of the sale of your data. Those rights would need to clarify, but they were in Alright. It would be in our existing data privacy law, forty two five fifteen to forty two five twenty four. I'd have to double check what the notification is from third parties.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: I'd like to vent I'm not gonna support it today, but I I definitely well intended. I just think that it's it's a vicious cycle. It's gonna continue. It's continuous, and there's real notification for the the consumer. And the tariff part, if you wanna put that in there, the language, you could actually say inflation. We don't address inflation in that, which you shouldn't either, actually, because but the fact is addressing tariffs in there to me just muddles the whole bill. There's no logic to it in my view because I'm against the tariffs, so just so you know, you know, for the most part. But to put that in there, just I don't see it relevant whatsoever. That's just my 2¢. If you're gonna do that, you might as well just put inflation also. And that's I appreciate all your time and all the hard work from the ranking members and the committee and the chairs. Thanks,

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. This committee deals with a a number of complex issues. Consumer privacy AI, the use of data in its varying forms is going to confound legislators and legislatures across this country, for the next decade. The complexity of this bill, I think, is reflective of the complexity that each of our specific agencies, each of our ways of conducting normal business affairs is going to change. I think Connecticut is well positioned due to Senator Moroney's leadership on this issue on a national level in moving legislative responses forward across this country. Thank you, Senator Moroney, for your leadership on this issue. And yes, he did just randomly pull sections of statute out of his mind, things that he's been working on for the last six, seven years to respond to a a direct question. So I appreciate your content knowledge and your ability to recall, past years' works and where they are reflected in current general statutes. That's pretty impressive. With that, the motion on the floor is to JFS s b four l c o three two zero seven. Seeing no need for further comments. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item one, senate bill four, an act concerning consumer privacy. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO thirty two zero seven. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator from Farah? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella? No. Representative Vertigliano? Representative Ackert? No. Representative Ali Brennan? Representative Anishkovich. Sender Geghhart Wilcox. Representative Gibson. Representative Jensen. Senator Kissell?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Lopes? Representative Luxembourg? Pass. Representative Martinez? Yes. Representative Osborne? Senator Austin.

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. Al Paolillo (D–New Haven)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: That would be a yes vote.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Santos.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Santos votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Absolutely. Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Yacarino?

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Nope.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Going back to the passes there. Representative Vertigliano?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I'll cut get it after. Okay?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: After. Okay. Anybody else who

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes. Yes. Luxembourg. Yeah.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Luxembourg. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: K. I believe I got everybody

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: buddy who is there anyone I did not call who passed? Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. We will keep votes, open until 04:00 or one hour after the adjournment of this, meeting, for purposes of, votes. Next up is another 100 section, build. So, next on the agenda is s b five, an act concerning online safety. Motion would be for JFS to the floor of LCO 3227. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved. Second.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Moved by senator Maroney, seconded by senator Kissell. Discussion, for purposes of brief overview, we're gonna, move to senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: In my defense, I think my bills add up are still far less than $53.50. So, I'll just give a brief overview if if that's okay. So, thank you. You know, this is our caucus priority on online safety. So section one comes with disclosure. This came from a constituent, purchases a subscription, doesn't in the middle of the month, they say, well, you've already used all of your tokens or you've already used all of your voice transcription, but he never knew how much it was. So it's just requiring disclosure with what comes with this subscription. Section two is whistleblower protections. You'll hear a lot of people say, we should just use existing laws. This puts in protections for employees who wanna report that customers are or that their companies are are at, potential of creating a catastrophic risk. Catastrophic risk is defined as a death to 50 people or over $1,000,000,000 in property damage, should not impact Connecticut small businesses whatsoever. Section three requires a plan, DECD, the banking, insurance, and DAS to come up with a plan for creating a regulatory sandbox. Sections four through six create, protections on companion chatbots, and unfortunately, we've seen throughout the country a number of children have died by suicide because they were encouraged, by a a chatbot, and even in Connecticut, there was a murder suicide where a man's delusions about his mother conspiring against him were validated, and he took her life and his own. Section seven through to 13 are automated employment related decision process as is, so using, an automated, decision making system to decide whether or not you're gonna hire someone. It's not saying you can't do that. It's just creating disclosures and rights afterwards. We did so one of the changes was we did narrow it because, again, we have the existing rights to access your data. So we're saying if you're denied for a decision this is part of, FICRA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. So companies are actually already liable for this, and there was a large lawsuit that was filed in California. They just don't realize they're liable for this. It's saying that if someone is denied, they have a right to see the data and the right to correct it in case it was based on wrong data. But if the decision is based only on your resume that you submitted, why should you have the right to see that and to correct that? So we've just said it that right to see the data is only if they're basing it on data beyond what you've submitted, so to try to narrow that. Section 15, digital watermarking. So just if an image is generated, there's something in the metadata so you can tell it was generated by AI. All of these things have passed in other states. And then there are that's those are the main regulatory components of the bill, and there are a lot of economic development pieces.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, senator Maroney. We're gonna start with representative Acker. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: And I and I am in support of this legislation. I thank you thank you for the work that you've done on this, the group has done on this. My question deals with section three. I almost thought that this was one of those trading you know, where they, you know, bid on or they bet on trading when they I saw a sandbox put in here, and I'm like, someone said, oh, you could get sandbox in legislation. You can you can bet on it or something. But then I looked up sandbox. And I said, oh, it's chip specifically used for a safe place, essentially, for information. So where do we stand on these departments in the state to actually is it on is is DCP in charge of this for the other other departments also, or is it each one does their own? How is this? Explain how three actually make put together through you, mister chair.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you for the question. And so we borrowed, this language was from the governor's bill, And so originally in the bill, we did have, the language to create the sandbox, and we were modeling it after Utah. So two states have created them so far. Utah and Texas have created a regulatory sandbox. Utah has been in effect for two years now. They've had a number of companies go through it, and then they study what they learned from the companies they're going through and then pass legislation. This is just saying we need to come up with a plan, and we actually may not even there are certain regulatory mitigation contracts that they can enter into without legislative authority already from the Department of Banking or Department of Insurance. But we're just asking the the DECD to work with them to come up with the plan, and then next year, we'll figure out how to implement that plan.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Thank you. And I appreciate I misquote. I said DCP. I meant to say DECD because I know that they are focused on this, and this is I you know, look. It looks like an opportunity for us to, you know, give guidance when, you know, companies or businesses are trying to use technology in a a productive manner. So thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Ricigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you, mister chairman. Just one quick question through you. In the employment decisions, if you use a third party provider for the sake of argument, Indeed. I know Indeed uses AI to sort through applicants to present them jobs or for me to see applicants. With that where would the liability lie, with them or with the person who's using that service and hiring the person?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, for the question. So Indeed is co headquartered in Connecticut. Right? Connecticut and Texas. And, part of the reason that we we changed the bill to narrow it down to not show, to not give a right to see your data if it was just based on your own resume? Is that something that they brought up? Why should we have to show people if they've sent the information to us? And so, it is on the Deployer. However, Deployer would mean the business. Right?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: To Meaning in Indeed, who's using the AI?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: It would be on, if you were using it, you would be deploying theirs if they developed it. However, what what will happen is they are already complying. Indeed is already complying, and they're getting set to comply when the law goes into effect in Colorado. New York City has the local law. California last October had regulations that went into effect that require this. And so they would be able to take on that liability for you, which becomes a, in essence, a competitive advantage because if their Yep. Opponents don't do that and they're already doing it in other states.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So I appreciate the answer and the explanation. I only ask it I don't mean to single out Indeed is sometimes you're you're using a service that they're the ones with the a AI. They're the ones deploying it. It's just really a matter of liability. If I'm looking at resumes online, I have no intention of discriminating. I have no idea if they did. So I just wanna make sure that the bill targets exactly who's doing something incorrectly. And with saying that is I am supporting the bill today because I think there's so many important things in the bill, especially the suicide component. I think the watermark's a great idea. I really do think that the we have to do something, and we have to look at it. But I just know for a fact that this is still a bit of a work in progress. I'm all for regulating and making sure the people who are doing something wrong are held accountable. As by usual speech, I just wanna make sure it's the right person. Right? I I don't want people to inadvertently get caught up in something that maybe they don't even know they're doing. And that was some of the problems we had with data privacy years ago and maybe a little bit with this AI now. But all in all, I do think it's a worthy goal, and, I will be voting yes. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Senator Chigurhila.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. And

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: just a couple

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: of questions. But first, thank you for all your work on this. I know that we're both on the AI task force. We realize that it is a a valuable tool. It's something that I believe plays a big role in everything we're doing. Sometimes we don't even realize we're using it. And I believe that it will become more and more relevant in in how people are conducting their business and how they gather information and process information. I think it's a great tool. There are sections in here that I I think are really important, you know, trying to expose people of all ages to AI and how to use AI. And a lot of the sections talk about certain agencies that will have to tell people that there is AI training and AI workshops to provide them with some tools to maybe get into the workforce or, you know, talking about children utilizing it and and utilizing it safely. Just it seems as if that there is a high cost to a lot of this. And I was just curious if we are gonna be able to, you know, really implement this and do it without creating additional cost to the state that we might not have the resources for. Maybe our our good chair of of probes could tell us about that. But I do think it's a worthy goal, but I just wanna see how realistic it would be because there's a lot of stuff put on other agencies, and if we were able to flush that out to make sure that this is something that is achievable. Senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you for the question. So a a lot of the things you mentioned, we've already talked to the agencies. They were in past year's bills. This is a a third iteration, so we're at a three point o now. And so for instance, you know, we, last year in the budget, we were able to procure money to start the Connecticut AI Academy. Our goal in the first year was to train a thousand residents with the free AI training. We had well over 2,000 about six months in to the training. We're also creating courses on how to use AI for small businesses. And so we've the secretary of state sends out a regular newsletter. So when we say require the secretary of state to make people know that these, you know, this training is available, it would be to put it in that newsletter. Right? So that's a no cost thing. The same as, it may cost I think last year, the fiscal note was a thousand dollars for DOL to update, filing for unemployment, that they're made aware of the free, training for again, the the free online AI training. So many of these things have a very low or negligible cost, but the benefit to our residents is going to be immense. And I was talking with someone on the train home about, you know, applying for all the job. She's applying for jobs, and all the questions are, what's your experience in AI? How can you prove that? We're giving and I told her about the AI Academy. And so once you finish, you get a free Google AI essential certificate. So you have that that you can put on your resume to prove. Right? And I didn't see this year this summer study, but, last, well, last year, meaning, the the year before, it was, like, two thirds of businesses said you need generative AI skills. Right? And so, we know the Bureau of Economic Research, by 2030, we need to reskill or upskill 60% of our workforce. And so, this is an aim at at starting to do that, making free training available, but what good is the the free training if people don't know about it? So how do we use our existing resources to make people aware of these opportunities we've created for them.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And I think that's so important, because we have so many great resources. I know 211, is a great lifeline to to really implement and and and get, our constituents access to all of the resources. So I think it's a worthy goal. I think it's important that we're gonna be offering this, that it does get out. And if it's not overly expensive and burdensome to these agencies, I think it's it's great. Another part that we really liked about this bill was the suicide prevention, also protecting the kids. We see we were talking about this at the the press conference or just after the press conference. Some of these bad actors that are using AI to get kids to do bad things, whether it's self harm or or even just bad acts and videotape them. You know, those bad actors I think there's three letters three numbers with seven three four. I always get them confused. But these guys are really bad guys and they compete to get people to do bad things. Will this legislation be able to get the bad actors? We see a lot of times we have laws on the books and some people don't follow the laws, so we add more laws to the books and it still doesn't address the people that are committing these bad acts. Is this gonna be able to protect the children from those bad actors, specifically with, like, the watermarking and and, you know, engaging with the chatbot, making sure the kids know about it? Will it stop people from being able to interact in that capacity if they don't let them know that they are, in fact, speaking to a avatar or or some type of an AI bot?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. They so I'm I'm just processing. So we've already done some things, to try to protect when because you're talking about talking to an actual person who is then, going to victimize the the child. And so through our children's data privacy laws that we've all that we already passed and we updated last year, we said that, on a social media platform, you have to have tools to prevent an unconnected adult from contacting a child. And by default, those have to be turned on. And so we already have created some protections there. I think this is more aimed at when the child is interacting with a a chatbot, which is not an actual, you know, not an actual human, and we do require the labeling, so if it's one, if you just come on once a day or you come on for a couple minutes at a time during the day, it just has to let you know once a day this is AI, it's not a human. Then if you're on for continuous use, it has to let you know at least every hour. That is different, I will admit, than other states. Other states are three hours. Maine passed a law last year, New York State, California. But three hours seems like a long time. Some people want it to be every thirty minutes of continuous use that you're notifying. So I think that the hour was reasonable there. It's you have to have protection so that the chatbot won't lead you into certain types of conversations. Right? Includes you need to do, of self harm. Right? You can't do harm to others, but guide you into sexually explicit, conversations is what we're we're looking for here to make sure that those protections and there was a an article last year, and I always quote it wrong. I think it was the CT insider who had the article on the the children in Connecticut who are being led into these, sexually explicit conversations by the chatbots. We were, you know, one of the meetings, someone's intern spoke up and said, oh, you're doing chatbot protections. I also, in addition to interning here, I work in a middle school, and last week, two of the kids were let into the conversation just in that past week, inappropriate conversation. So, we've already done some things to address what you're looking at. We know we need to go further. Right? And that's what the the social media bill that we've already passed out of here, the AG and the governor's social media bill that rep Turco and Replimar have worked so hard on. That will put in more protections for that. This will be a small step towards that, but not exactly what you're looking

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: for. Got it. Because I just know it's a a big concern and I was just curious if that would kind of rope in not just these bigger deployers of AI like, you know, ChatGPT or OpenAI or Gemini where you're communicating and just having a conversation asking them information, etcetera. But we see people that utilize AI where, I don't know, if you have a filter, you could make yourself look like a panda or talking banana. Right? And if somebody's using someone else's image and talking through that avatar to get the kids to make them think that they're speaking to maybe another child or something, if that would rope this in because they're using AI, but it's not these big, you know it's basically a bad actor utilizing these AI filters or features for bad acts. It's not, you know, open AI or or, you know, the developer of that's fault. It's the person using it incorrectly and didn't know how we would make sure we could we could kind of address that, and I didn't know if that would take care of this. And I I don't think it will, but we could continue to work

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: with that. And the digital watermarking will be a step towards that. But correct. We need to go further.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yep. And I think that's great. The digital watermarking, you see something, it's breaking news and it's like, wait a minute, did this really happen and it's completely made up and it drives me crazy. So I think that's also a great step. Just for a little bit more clarity on the utilizing AI for hiring. We talked about this last year as well that some employers may not realize that they're utilizing AI, and the responsibility to make sure there was no bias would be on the the developer or the deployer, not the individual utilizing it. So it'd be on the developer, not the user, the small company. Is that still the way this would read?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes. We don't really you know, in the past, we did require the impact assessments. So this is really focused more on the disclosures than on the testing. Although, section 14 does say it it you can't use AI to discriminate, but it doesn't require the testing. However, it does say if you've done testing, that would be considered a defense so that you can prove it wasn't biased.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So if I'll use Dave for an example, has a couple of restaurants and he wants a cook that has three years of experience and certain criteria to to operate in in his kitchen. And he utilizes AI and and not himself, but he's using Indeed or a platform. And for some reason, they have some type of flaw in their system that won't hire women or people over a certain age. But he didn't know that. It's not a criteria he set. They're doing something wrong. Will the small business get in trouble for that? Because the heat it's not I mean, how's he gonna test this type of a big, you know, company that knows what they're doing? He's just a restaurant guy. No no disrespect.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. You know That was fine.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: I just wanna get

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: This bill is really agnostic to that because this bill is just saying that if you're using it, you have to disclose that. And so

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I completely considered the deployer. Yeah.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: The restaurant is considered the deployer. Yeah.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: There's a developer and then the deployer, you would be the deployer. Not the developer. But what I'm saying is, just to make sure in this, that there would be no penalties if he utilized some software and the the software did something wrong. The business, Connecticut business, small business would not get in any trouble or have penalties if one of these big, you know, companies that provide these screening services for hiring, like in Indeed, he would have no penalties or punishment if they did something wrong.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: There's no penalty that is created by this law. Right now, one of the issues that we really need to figure out, and it has been a point of frustration for me, is that, it is hard to determine who the liability lies with. And we are leaving that up to the courts, because no one wants to decide. And so we are leaving, you know, in some ways, businesses on the hook for lawsuits. There is a large lawsuit against a company called Eightfold that, scrapes the, Internet for data and makes profiles and recommendations on whether or not you should hire them. That's being filed under FICRA. There was a a large lawsuit against Workday. So typically, those large lawsuits are going to go against the developers because of the deeper pockets. There are law firms that I know in Connecticut who have seen those lawsuits who would like to file lawsuits. But there is nothing in this bill that creates a right for that, nothing that creates a a penalty. This is just a notification.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. Thank you for clarifying. Because that it was a concern of some of the small businesses, and even when we were discussing this last year, it was a big concern that people just wouldn't realize they're utilizing it, thinking that whatever they're paying for for a service is doing the right thing that they don't get wrapped into this. That was something I was just trying to flush out. But thank you for answering my questions. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Iaccarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Thank you, mister chair. One just just one question. So sort of to what senator Ciccarolo is talking about, if I am the applicant for a job, could I request a human instead of AI? Is do I have that ability?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: I don't think you addressed it. Rep senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: We don't establish the right for human review in here. There are there are places that they call for that, but we don't have that in this bill.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: It might not be a bad idea to to avoid some of the potential situations.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I don't disagree with you, but and I've tried to get that through. So with your help

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Well, because it makes sense.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: You you

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: obviously, you

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Right.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Utilize AI, and I get it. And it's overall, it's a good tool, but it there's nothing like, at the end of the day, one on one, if if possible. That's what I'm saying.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yep. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: That has been a focus of cinnamoroni for a couple years. It seems to not be so popular once we leave this room, though. Are there any other representative Johnson? Thank you,

[Rep. Susan Johnson (D–Windham)]: mister chairman. So, yeah, this is a big bill with with with lots of good parts to it. Right? And my biggest concern coming in was cost. And I think we're pretty much covered that, so thank you very much. I I that's been well covered. So I do just have one question. And that is, is the sandbox we're creating in section three the exact same sandbox we're creating in S P 86, Section two? Are they are we two sandboxes that are very similar, let's say? Does the right hand know what the left one's doing kind of question? Thank you.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. Thank you for the question. Yeah. We did, you know, copying is the sincerest form of flattery, so we decided to flatter the governor's office and copy their plan for creating a a sandbox. So the language will be the same in both both bills.

[Rep. Susan Johnson (D–Windham)]: Oh, excuse me. Yeah. So one sandbox. Right? It's a lot.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Seeing no other questions, the motion on the floor is to, JFS, senate bill five, an act concerning l online safety, LCO three two two seven. Madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item two, senate bill five, an act concerning online safety. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO three two two seven. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fonferra? Representative Turco?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella?

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Vertigliano?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan? Representative Anishkovich? Yeah. Senator Gaghar Wilcox. Representative Gibson. Representative Jensen. Senator Kissel.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. I can.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Lopes. Representative representative Luxembourg? Excuse me. Representative Martinez? Yes. Representative Osborne? Senator Austin?

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton. Representative Santos. Who I see online, but okay. Representative.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Moving on to next item, Senate Bill 86, enact addressing innovations in and the responsible use of artificial intelligence. The motion is a JFS to the floor of LCO three one nine two. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Is there a second?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Second.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Motion made by Senator Moroney, seconded by Representative Turco. Is there any discussion on this item? Again, this is, the governor's bill, brought to us at the beginning of the session. We know that a lot of ground that is covered in the bill before us is similar to ground that is covered in the bill we just passed. This is going to be an ongoing conversation, negotiation between the governor's office, our folks at the General Law Committee, Senator Maroney, chiefly, along as, Senate Dems who proposed Senate Bill five. Those conversations in the last few years have become more fruitful and our anticipation this year is that we'll have a bill at the end of the session and only one bill that addresses the myriad issues raised, and these numerous concepts. Senator Kissel.

[Sen. John A. Kissel (R–Enfield)]: Thank you very much, mister chair. I'm just gonna be voting no on this particular bill because I wanna cast my altogether huge power behind senator Maroney's aspects of the bill and and fight against governor Lamont. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Gonna gonna move on. Are there any other questions or concerns? Seeing none, madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item three, senate bill 86, an act addressing innovations and and the responsible use of artificial intelligence. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO thirty one ninety two. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fumfera? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella?

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Rutigliano? Yes. Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan, representative Anishkovich, senator Gaghar Wilcox, representative Gibson, representative Jensen, Senator Kissell? No. Senator Lopes? Representative Luxembourg? Representative Martinez? Yes. Representative Osborne? Senator Austin?

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton. Representative Santos. Representative Yaccarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Moving on to agenda item four. SB one seventeen, an act concerning breaches of security involving electronic personal information. The motion would be JFS to the floor of LCO number three two three seven. Do I hear such a motion?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So moved. Second.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Motion made by senator Maroney and seconded by senator Kissell. Discussion? Senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. And also, just to echo your sentiments on, Senate Bill 86 previously, we've had very fruitful, conversation with the governor's office and anticipate eighty six and five hopefully being merged at at some point, and continuing that. Senate Bill one seventeen is for, massive data breaches. So it's the breach of over of the personally personal information of over a 100,000 Connecticut residents, creates a liability that they would have to do a forensic audit that the company would have to pay for and could be requested by the AG's office. One of the changes from the original bill, there was a $100,000 penalty and then a $500,000 penalty. Now the penalty is set as up to $250,000, and it gives the AG discretion to consider the size of the business, and and other factors when deciding on the the penalty. I will say, you know, a concern was brought that, well, we list in this credit card number. And so maybe you have a couple small businesses, but together you may have the credit card numbers of a 100,000 people. We have spoken with the AG's office and what we are going to do, it's not represented in here is we are going to delete credit card numbers. We didn't get it in this one. It is going to be they will be deleted, though, the credit card numbers, because the credit card companies are are very good at protecting, their their customers. So thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. I know there's some questions on this one, representative Vitigliano, filed by senator Ciccarello. Thank

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: you, mister chairman. My concerns were when it comes to the definition of a small business and who this bill would pertain to. So it's a 100,000, for the lack of a better word, names and addresses or some personal information. Is that on a yearly basis, or is it a 100,000 in aggregate? Can somebody have been collecting information, say, for a loyalty program or something like that, a small business over ten years? And then and then that data got breached somehow, and would they be subject to penalty under this bill as written? I just wanna make sure I'm reading it right to senator because I understand that a small business with the credit card numbers actually could get roped into this pretty quickly. And now I thought I read it that that it came out of the s language unless we just got a letter saying that they were going to do it and or committing to do it. So I was surprised when you said it wasn't in the the s language because I thought it was. I thought it was in a section that got deleted. Did did I read it wrong, or was I just reading a note from the attorney general?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Which LCO are we? LCO

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: 3237.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: 3237. They'd sent an email with the the change language. It just wasn't in time for us to make that change. So in LCL thirty two thirty seven and the personally information, I did look in there. Personal information, so lines, personally, is military. So line 23, item number five, credit or debit card number, we will take that out later. It is my reading and I am not, you know, it's a breach of security, unauthorized access to unauthorized acquisition of databases or computerized data containing personal information when access to personal information has not been secured by encryptions or by any other means of technology that renders the information unreadable or unusable. And then the massive so again, if you're hacked and you had used that, right, it it been secured

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Right.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: That wouldn't but then the massive breach of security so it's the breach of security where the information of at least 100,000 residents has been breached, and the breach occurred due to an any unauthorized access to or any unauthorized use of a computer, computer networking. So I my reading of this

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: is it's a one time, the 100,000 for that one time not, accumulative over the year. So no. You're you're talking about one time reach. I'm talking about the collection of the information. Is it a 100,000 sort of visits or interactions in a year, or is it the aggregate of a 100,000 names? I was thinking really of a local supermarket chain or something like that that has a sort of a loyalty program that, you know, people have been signing up with, and then they had a data breach. In my world, they're still sort of a small business because there's maybe, say, they got three or four just here in Connecticut. Right. And I I didn't know if the bill was pertaining to that particular individual. It would

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: be a 100,000 names, not so, like, if I went to the store five times, I'm still only one name.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Right. So if you could just clarify exactly how we're defining a small business in the bill, because it it does say small business. And then they I guess they changed whose definition we were gonna use from one entity to the SBA. And the and if I was reading the SBA correctly, I mean, everything's a small business. I'm I'm not really if you can clarify that.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. So in the original bill before the substitute language, it did just reference the SBA definition. The SBA has several different definitions of small business, which is why I think they put in further information in here. Let me just find the line numbers. So line two thirty four to two thirty eight, determine the amount of the civil penalty to be imposed on such person. The court shall consider whether such person is a small business or micro business as such terms are defined in sections. So it was very specific where they were defined or be a non profit employer that employs not more than 500 employees, fewer than 50 full time employees. So the issue is that the SBA has, I think, three or four different definitions, so they wanted to reference a specific definition. Because you're right, 90% of businesses can be considered small businesses as defined by the SBA.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So there somebody has three or four retail outlets. Could be a grocery store, could be a clothing store, could be whatever. Each one of those is a different LLC, which is common in the world because for liability reasons, you know, they separate, but they all use the same sort of customer database or customer loyalty program, just as an example. Right. Would those LLCs count as one small business? Or since they combine the information, would that be the aggregate and they would all be subsequently responsible if there was a data breach as currently read?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I I think that in that instance, it would be whoever was holding the the database. Right? Like and so it's probably they may be LLCs under a common ownership. So it would be who whoever held the database that released the information would be liable.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Okay. Alright. So Yeah. Whoever was breached. I want to to be said that I am generally supportive of the of this type of bill as long as it doesn't apply. Once again, we we tend to have these conversations all the time, to an unwilling, unwitting, or a small business who just happens to be in the normal cost of business. I think excluding the credit card would really sort of exempt a lot of people doing on the smaller scale doing business here in Connecticut because even the smallest business over time can get to that 100,000 number pretty quickly. So I I think that's a good protection. I'm glad that we're gonna keep working on the bill, and I appreciate you answering my questions.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Senator Ciccarella. Thank you.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So my understanding of the purpose for this piece of legislation is god bless you. My understanding is there are companies that will fall victim to a hacker, and they are supposed to share that information with the AG's office so we could learn from our mistakes, find the vulnerability, and also for a consumer protection, you know, cover that we make sure that this information that was breached, somebody has, that we could notify the the residents of Connecticut, that their information may be out there. They could take corrective actions, you know, monitor their credit, so on and so forth. So my understanding is that some companies, whether they're embarrassed or maybe afraid of, punishments, are not sharing the data that the AG's office needs to make sure we're learning from these mistakes. And if someone was not aware, like a small business, was not aware that there was, in fact, a data breach, they had no idea, they would not get wrapped up in this. Is that a fair, question or a fair statement?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Right. Because it's from when you know. And there already is a data breach legislation, and there already, as you mentioned, a cybersecurity affirmative defense as long as you let the AG's office know that something had happened. This is really the addition of that forensic audit, to as you say, to go figure out what happened so we can fix it and and stop it, going forward. And just to go back the, you know, 32 dash three forty four, the definition of a small business, is a corporation, limited liability company partnership, sole proprietorship, or individual operating a business for profit, which employs 500 or fewer employees, including employees employed in any subsidiary or affiliated corporation.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. And thank you for that. And I guess the biggest concern that we have, very similar to the situation where a small business unit small business owner is utilizing some technology, unaware of it, and they get in trouble. We we really we really hear from our small business owners how hard it is to do business here in Connecticut. It's very expensive. Last thing we wanna do when trying to help a group of people is hurt our small businesses. That's where I think a lot of our questions or concerns come from, But I believe, between my questions and and rep Partigliano, we addressed that possible concern to the small businesses, and this is a way to protect consumers and their their private information. And I think that, some of the concerns that we may have had, especially when caucusing, may be addressed. So I I thank you for so I thank you for, for answering that question. I have one more I have one more question about the penalties and fines. I know that prior to the changes, there was some concerns that it was a really high amount, especially even for a smaller business. And, you know, let's say there's a scenario where somebody does not realize that they had to do this. They're a smaller business. They happen to fall in that category where they have, you know, that amount of data that would make them, have to let the AG's office know about this data breach. But it was just shared did not know. Not everybody watches CTN. Not everybody's paying attention to this. And, again, they knew there was a data breach. They just didn't realize they had to take this action to inform the AG's office, provide them with this type of data, which not too many people can pull these reports. You know, you'd have to have somebody that has maybe Oxygen or Celebrae. It's very expensive equipment. Most companies don't have I'd say all companies that are not in the, you know, cybersecurity would have this. You'd have to hire an outside expert to come in, find that breach, and then find a way to get the report to the AG's office. So the penalties were rather high, but I believe that was addressed with a simple change of language that the fine can be up to, but it doesn't have to be that $100,000 amount. Is that a fair assessment?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Correct. It's up to the 250,000. It doesn't have to be that amount.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And that can be taken into consideration. And they

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: take into consideration the size of the business and other factors.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Not knowing, and it was it was yeah. Alright. Well, that that's really good, and I do appreciate those changes. I know that we'll be we'll be working on this a little bit more. But if we could if we could just I'm gonna hold for yeah. See what they might be on this bill. You guys good? Good? Yeah. Good. Well, thank you for answering my questions, and we'll see what else is happening right here.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Okay.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: It's exciting. I hear all this whisper. I mean, I wanna find out. I'm excited. You guys out here must be excited to hear what's going on.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: People at home miss this.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yeah.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes. For folks following along, there's some confusion because there was an updated potential draft that was circulated on Friday that reflects some changes that, working with the attorney general's office, our respective counsels, and LCO, that we likely will include in a floor amendment before we take it out in the Senate. You have the commitment of the chairs and the ranking members to work on those suggested changes. They reflect a lot of the concerns raised by our ranking members, and you have the commitment of the chairs to address those concerns before it's taken out on the floor. With that, are there any additional questions on this bill? Seeing none, madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: K. This is item four, senate bill one seventeen, an act concerning breaches of security involving electronic personal information. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO three two three seven. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative mo representative Lamar?

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fonferra? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Senator Ciccarella?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Yes. Representative Vertigliano?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Ali Brennan votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Anishkovich, senator Gedcar Wilcox, representative Gibson, senator Kissel, senator Lopes, Representative Luxembourg.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez. Yes. Representative Osborne. Senator Austin. Representative Paolillo. Representative Pemberton, representative Santos.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Santos votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Yacarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Moving quickly now. This is great. Moving on to item number five, s b two two seven, an act concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplement supplements. The motion would be a JFS to the floor of LCO number 3032. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Moved by Senator Maroney, seconded by Senator Kissel. Is there

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: discussion? You can get to the summary. Sure.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So, thank you very much. So in this bill, we when we did hear the bill initially, we did have in a band for the use of, diet pills or muscle building supplements for those under the age of 18. We thought we need a little more time for that. So section one of this bill is just to do a study on that to make a recommendation for next year. We included the commission for women, children, seniors equity, and opportunity, to be the, chair of that, task force because they did bring that item to us. Sections two through five are for prescription drugs, prescriptions for drugs related to reproductive health care services and gender affirming care. And we say that at at the prescriber's option, the label should include, the name of the facility and not the individual doctor. Again, at the doctor's, request. We have heard, you know, that this parts of this may not be federally legal, but, you know, we know that they are doing this something similar in Massachusetts. So we are committed to working with the independent pharmacies and any pharmacies as we move forward to make sure that we get this language correct, and we're doing what what is already being done in some other states.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Questions, representative Vitigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you, mister Jay. Just to be sure, personally, I I don't think it's federally legal. I think you have to have the prescriber's name on it, but that'll get all sorted out. My concern was in the original drafting of the bill is that certain drugs were not going to be reported into the drug monitoring program, which can cause an inherent conflict if, the another doctor's treating someone and, they don't know what drugs their patient's on, so there's no reference. Is that still included in this bill?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: No. We took that out. Got taken out? Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. That's all I had.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Seeing no other questions, madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item number five, senate bill two two seven, an act concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplements. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO three zero three two. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar? Yes. Senator from Farah? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella? Representative Vertigliano? Representative Acker, representative Ali Brennan.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Ali Brennan votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Anishkovich, senator Geckhart Wilcox, representative Gibson, representative Jensen, senator Kissel, senator Lopes, representative Luxembourg.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez. Yes. Representative Osborne. Senator Austin.

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Paolillo. Representative Pemberton, representative Santos, representative Yacarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister Chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Moving on to the next item on today's agenda, item number six, Senate Bill two twenty nine, and that's concerning legislative proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation. The motion is at JFS to the floor of LCO number two nine three two. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Moved by senator Maroney, seconded by senator Kissel. Is there discussion? Senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. When we originally heard this bill, there were three parts. We couldn't get agreement on all three of the parts. There was agreement on, the first part of the bill that basically changes the time of the verification of the geolocation to be when it is the purchase, instead of when someone initially goes on on the website. And so that would bring it in line with federal requirements.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Titliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thanks. So thank you, mister chairman. So just to be short, from the original public hearing to now, a lot of the loyalty programs and other things that were sort of in the original bill are are going away. This is just now a where you are verification bill through you?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Through you. And then if another bill passes, you won't be able to sell that geolocation data.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I was just gonna say, as a follow-up to s p four, noting that all these bills have been senate bills, by the way, just let everybody know that we're almost two hours into just the senate bills. S p four

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: may win this competition.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: S p four bans the geolocation, and then this bill sorta requires geolocation in order to use the service. So not that I say we're being contradictory except that, you know, we're being a little contradictory, but whatever.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Through you, no, we're not. We're saying that you need to collect that for an important use, but use it for what it's meant for, to verify you're here, and there's no need that you need to sell that information to someone else who knows where you were when you purchased your lottery ticket. So it is very much there in line with each other.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Senator Chigurilla.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Just a quick question. I know that two sections were cut cut out. Sections two and three were cut out of the bill. We're just discussing section section one. And I was just curious. I know that there were some concerns with three, because of, I guess, our relationships and our our our, agreements with, the casinos. But is there any reason that section two was also taken out with this s language?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Dewey, we had the most broad based support for this section, and that's why we decided that we would go with this section. Typically, we try to ensure that we get all parties in in line with the the gaming issues in the state.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Okay. Thank you for for for clarifying that. Alright. I'm all done with my question. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Are there any other questions for us? Seeing none, madam clerk.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item six, senate bill two two nine, an act concerning legislative proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO two nine three two. Senator Maroney? Yes. Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Funfera? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella. Representative Reticliano. Representative Ackert. Representative Ali Brennan.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Ali Brennan votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Amoskovich. Senator Gaghar Wilcox, representative Gibson, representative Jensen, senator Kissel. Yes. Senator Lopes, Representative Luxembourg.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez. Yes. Representative Osborne. Senator Austin.

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton? Representative Santos?

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Santos votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Thank you. Representative Yacarino?

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Moving on to item number seven on today's agenda, h b five two two six, an ad concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks. The motion is at JFS to the floor of LCO number 3233. Do I hear a motion?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So moved.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Motion made by Cinnamoroni and seconded by representative Luxembourg for purposes of this bill. I just wanna say before we begin, this has been an extraordinary amount of work over the last session and a half. This is a bill that passed out of this committee last year that we had on the floor on a couple different occasions last year. There are a lot of questions and concerns that have been raised in the interim. Specifically, I wanna highlight the work of a member of this committee, Representative Martinez, who's spent hundreds of hours working through negotiating, talking to residents, manufactured home park owners, committee members and members of the legislature who have developments inside of their districts. The amount of work that's gone into a bill that has now received sign off from a number of advocates and from the mobile home manufactured parks themselves, I think we're in a really good spot and I wanna commend you for the work. There's some things in this bill that some things that were part of this bill that are not included here today and largely that is the fault of me. I made a determination pretty early on that only some things were possible to be done this year. So if there's advocates who are upset about this bill not going far enough, that fault should be laid on my shoulders because the determination in a short session was that we could only get so much of this done and I commend all the advocates for their work and the continued pushing towards a better outcome here. But ultimately, Rebecca I mean, sorry, representative Martinez did an extraordinary job getting the pieces that we could pass this year to this finish line, and I wanna commend her for that. And with that, I'm gonna turn over this discussion to representative Martinez for purpose of, this bill.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Thank you, mister chair. Since the public hearing, I've worked really hard to listen to the feedback of all stakeholders and work with them to establish some policy that would protect the residents of these manufactured mobile home parks. I know that we've all heard over the last year that the people living in these, parks have different circumstances than those living in, say, apartments. One is that it's more like a land lease versus a rent. So people are just renting the piece of land and they're still paying property taxes as well as mobile homes are not actually that mobile and it's expensive for them to move. So this bill looks to create a regionalized fair rent commission to hear from these residents specifically so that they would have a better understanding and see them on a more frequent basis than just periodically throughout the state to understand the different laws that come to focus with these residents. This bill also looks to strengthen all the disclosures pertaining to fees as well as this bill increases the amount of money that would be spent if a park were to change its use completely and a manufactured mobile home resident were to have to move at that time. This bill, with the substitute language, removes section four, the portfolios. It's, ensures that there establishes a sixty day notice requirement for rent creases and, the other changes to ensure that there is both a member from the Manufactured Home Alliance and a member from the Connecticut Manufactured Housing Association on the regional board.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative Martinez. Any questions? Representative Justin Jensen.

[Rep. Susan Johnson (D–Windham)]: Sorry. Thank you, mister chairman. So, again, we have a a bill that does a lot of good things that clarifies a a lot of issues around these mobile homes. But I I do have an issue with section one and that's about requiring all municipalities with a mobile home manufactured part to join a fair rent commission. So we just dealt with this in 08/00/2002, section 35, was all about fair rent commissions. At that time, what we did is we changed it from a town with 25,000 to down to 15,000. But in in housing, you know, we've heard from municipalities that have said we just passed this four months ago. Right? It's it's a huge bill with over 52 sections over a 100 pages. Let us get our heads around it. Let's figure this bill out before we start changing it again. Alright? I mean, we're we're we're changing the the goalpost before we even know where they are. So, you know, to me, to to to change the requirements for a fair rent commission this soon after 08/2002, it just seems too soon. So that's my comment on the bill. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. I would highlight we this was the approach taken in this bill is sort of a compromise between the idea that the community had to establish a fair rent commission. Instead, we would require a regional council of governments to establish a regional fair rent commission for the purposes of adjudicating these cases. We thought it was a a happy medium approach and we understand that there's going to be continued conversations about whether or not we hit the right metric on determining happy medium. Are there any other questions?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Just

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Vitigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I'm sorry. I I wasn't gonna ask questions, but your comment made me have one. The the the Metro COGS, do they currently have a Fair Rent Commission, or now they have to establish one? And is there anything in the bill that tells them who is on the Fair Rent Commission or where what town the Fair Rent Commission comes from?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Representative Martinez

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: has

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: been engaged in consistent negotiations and conversations with the COGS themselves about the construct of this commission and how it would best be determined and and and filled out. So, representative Martinez, if you feel comfortable sharing some of those conversations, that would be helpful.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Sure. So first, I do just wanna point out that for the smaller municipalities under 15,000, this bill would state that they would be able to have the option to join the regional. So it wouldn't make those municipalities have to put in a fair rent commission in that municipality. So this would take care of, I believe, it's 17 manufactured mobile homes that would still be able to have a place where they can go for for their issues. I am speaking with COGS as well as some people from legal aid. We've started having some meetings to discuss how this will look in COGS and potentially how many COGS could take it on and what their issues or concerns are, and I'm committed to working through all of the COGS issues and concerns.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Titano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Just to be just to be clear, you said that the municipality has the option. Does that mean that the Fair Rent Commission discussed in this bill for a town of under 15,000 that has a mobile home park, for them to join the fair rent commission is optional?

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: So the park would have the option to join this regional fair rent commission.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So but but not the town. The so

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: oh. So this would give all people living in manufactured mobile home parks the option to go in front of a regional commission.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: And and there's no outline of who's on that fair rent commission. So say so I I live in the Bridgeport area, and I'm part of that COG, Metro COG. But so I know Trumbull, my the town I live in, has a fair rent commission, but there's smaller towns near me that probably don't. So if MetroCog sends sets up its own, they could put everybody from Bridgeport on that fair rent commission. Is is that potentially possible?

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: So between municipality and the regional, what the discussions are so far is that and what it, first of all, says in the bill is if a manufactured home community wanted to if they have a fair rent commission in their town, they could choose to opt out and go to the local, but they would be going to one or the other. They wouldn't be obviously, going to both. And as far as who's on the board, what's been determined so far in this bill is that there would be a park owner and a park resident on the board, and we'd be looking for the COGS current fair rent commissions to hear, the manufactured mobile home park concerns. And, this bill says that we would make sure that they had education and people would be able to, you know, go to those few versus having sporadic cases around the state.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So did you want me to wait for you?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes. For point of clarification, the bill as currently drafted does require a regional council of governments to establish a regional fair rent commission, if there is a mobile manufactured home park in any of its member jurisdictions. And then each muse each of the municipalities under the construct of this that has a mobile manufactured home park must join that commission. Now they have the option of going through this process or establishing their own fair rent process. But if you have a mobile manufactured home park in your community, you must join and you don't have a fair rent commission, you must join the regional, fair rent commission located with within the COG for the purposes of adjudicating complaints involving mobile home park residents.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So so through you, mister mister chair, the way you just read that, you're saying that if you have a mobile home park in your town that doesn't have a fair rent commission, it really the membership of that commission would be a one owner, one resident. Or am I am I hearing that correctly, or does the MetroCOG get to set that up any way they want? And is there any cost or anything to the fact that the MetroCOG now has to set up a new board commission on and who would they be appointed by? Would that be a local council of governments or I mean, you know, like your town council? Sorry for this spiraled because I was listening, and then I was like, oh, it it raised a few questions of just how this is actually gonna work.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Of course. And these are the nature of the conversations that representative Martinez is engaged in currently with the COGS. So if, representative Martinez, you wanna elaborate a little bit further about where you are in those conversations, that'd be great.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Sure. So the metro COGS would take on what I wanted to if I didn't say it clearly, I apologize, is at the municipal level, the municipality would not have to have a fair rent commission of their own if they don't currently have one. They they could go to the regional. As far as the makeup of the regional, I'm still in discussion with COGS. I was trying to specify that in this bill, it does say that there would be equal representation. That was a concern that came up with the park owners and the residents, and I have been speaking with COGS. I did think that COGS was, a good choice to go with as we know that they are building fair rent commissions and we know that, people living in these manufactured home communities have the right to fair rent commissions. But as we've all heard over the years, they the year and a half, they have very specific needs and we just wanna make sure that they are being heard and addressed.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Luciano. Thank you. So

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: you said that they are they currently are MetroCox currently bound or not bound? For lack of a better word, assigned or required to do a Fairbank commission currently? Because you said that they were in the process of setting them up. So is that structure in place already, or is this bill create that structure?

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Well, after after last year's housing bill, we know that the COGS are looking to set up, you know or or looking at fair rent commissions as well as being looked at.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Does last year's housing bill make them? I thought it was only towns with 15,000 or

[Rep. Susan Johnson (D–Windham)]: less.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: So the COG currently isn't required to set up a fair rent commission. We're we're requiring we're sort of requiring them under this bill. Am I hearing that correctly?

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Well, each COG has towns that are above 15,000.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Right. But they would have their over 50,000, they would have their own fair rent commission, not the actual COG.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Correct. This would create a regionalized fair rent commission for the purpose of hearing cases from manufactured mobile home parks.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: K. I feel I've asked enough questions. I I was generally supportive of the bill because I I thought it was a fair negotiation. I am looking at sort of a cog mandate here maybe a little bit. Maybe I don't really understand the the workings of how that's gonna work, what you just said, but I'm I'm certainly open to continuing discussions and, see where we end up. So thank you, mister chairman.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. And you you have you are hitting on the area where there's still a lot of work to, take place so you can reach an agreement, but those conversations have been ongoing for, the last few months. And if there's any indication from the work that representative Martinez has done, with the mobile manufactured Home Park Alliance, and other advocates, that, that we're gonna we're gonna get to a good place on this, and I trust the process she's going through. Other Senator Ciccarella.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Just briefly. So I understand what we're we're trying to accomplish here, and I know that this has been a work in progress. And it seems like there's still some stuff that you guys are flushing out, and I look forward to hearing that kind of in its final form. Some of the concerns that I may have is maybe just this possibility of a mandate, and I just look forward to hearing kinda what you guys flush out. But at this time, I'm just gonna vote no to flag it. But I do look forward to seeing the final product. Thank you for your heart.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Seeing no further questions, madam clerk.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. This is item seven, House Bill fifty two twenty six, an act concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks. The the motion is to JFS to the floor LCO three two three three. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fonferra? Representative Turco?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella? No. Representative representative Rutigliano? No. Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Ali Brennan votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Anishkovich, senator Gaghar Wilcox, representative Gibson, representative Jensen, senator Kissel, Senator Lopes. Representative Luxembourg.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez. Yes. Representative Osborne. Senator Austin.

[Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) [voice announced remotely]]: Senator Austin votes in the affirmative.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton. Representative Santos.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Santos votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Yaccarino.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: Yes for today.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Quickly, I'm just gonna change my vote. I did happen to speak with, the good representative to explain that the my concerns are gonna be worked out in this, so I'd like to change my vote to a yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Thank you, senator.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Moving on. Item number eight, an act concerning HB fifty three fifty, an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation. The motion via JFS to the floor of LCO number three 230. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Is there a second? Is there a second? Thank you. Moved. Motion paid by Cinnamoroni and seconded by representative Luxembourg. For purpose of discussion, I will start that as we continue to proceed with the responsible regulation of the cannabis industry here in Connecticut, following up on what was a groundbreaking agreement that this legislature reached a number of years ago, this industry has evolved in ways, in some cases, foreseeable and in many cases, unforeseeable at that time. There are, annually, questions and concerns that are brought to this committee about amendments, adjustments, and regulation standards that need consistent review and this committee will continue to do so on an annual basis. The legislation before us is the largest reform of the program that we've seen since its enactment and I don't think that precludes continued involvement from regulators and the regulated, but I do think that this sets a direction for where this committee and the State is going in this marketplace. There were a number of questions and concerns that were raised at this meeting. We have, in the JFS language before us, made a few changes to the bill as it was proposed in committee. The JFS removes provisions requiring DCP to establish additional licenses and license endorsements allowing for sales of cannabis and cannabis products at on premises consumption lodges across the State. It also removed an endorsement allowing alcoholic liquor establishments to serve infused beverages on premises. I think what was highlighted during that public hearing testimony and felt by a number of members of this committee was that we're not quite ready, for that consideration at this time. There's too many outstanding concerns associated, with those, licenses and, we determined not to move forward, with those proposals. That being said, there are still a number of provisions of this bill that have some controversy and I'm certain we're going to hear a little bit more about that today. Some of those concerns, I may share to a certain extent. I think members of the company, particularly on my side of the aisle, are concerned about potential increases in potency and the caps therein that we've established by law. I think that will be the focus of ongoing conversations as we proceed. I think there there's a widespread agreement though that the framework for social equity cultivators to potentially move out of their business interests if necessary was at this point, I would I've been a hurdle on that consideration, but I think the the point was made, and I think business owners are going to be given an opportunity to move away from their business if they so choose. I think there's a number of changes here with respect to infused beverage marketplace, to our work in progress standards that allow us to have a more robust industry in a variety of different areas. Look, this represents a lot of work from our Majority Leader's Office, this committee, the cultivators, and participants inside of this marketplace. And when taken into context with a bill following this one regarding the social equity council's recommendations, you will see a robust bill passed, by the end of this session that takes the best ideas and maybe leaves behind some of the worst, and hopefully, this conversation will continue, after the State. Are there any other yes. Senator Kissel.

[Sen. John A. Kissel (R–Enfield)]: Thank you very much, Chairman Lamar. And and at the outset, I just wanna say that I have the utmost respect for you, mister chairman, and I know that you're getting a I can't give to you motivation, but I know that the leadership on your side of the aisle in your chamber have strong feelings regarding this. I think this is a heartbreaking situation on many fronts. I have the I really wanna say that I respect my ranking member from the house, representative Rutigliano. It was not that long ago where I heard the heartbreaking testimony regarding his nephew. And I I think it would be lost on us if we if we think that marijuana today is, not dangerous. I fought three times, against recreational marijuana. It's not the marijuana that people remembered from the seventies, if they engaged in it back then, if they inhaled, unlike former president Clinton, who still denied that he did it. It's very, very potent and very powerful. So let me just, share my concerns, and as I said, it's on multiple levels. First of all, I think we're dealing with something that's really dangerous and deserves a lot more regulation than it's being given. I think we're taking a step into the Wild West. I don't agree that we're maybe not as competitive as our surrounding states because we have less potent cannabis. I think it comes down to dollars and you're talking to someone who represents towns along the Massachusetts border. First of all, Northampton and Springfield beat us to the punch because they just made their marijuana, recreational marijuana, legal before us. But also, just by way of cost, it's just less expensive. And so, the quality is there Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but also the cost, too. So, that puts the businesses that are popping up in Enfield and some of my surrounding towns at a competitive disadvantage. And so, I think that the only way that we're going to gain a foothold as far as being able to compete with surrounding states is to take a walk across to the other part of the building to the finance committee and work with those folks to reduce the tax situation regarding marijuana. Two, this was sold to us because of things that happened in particularly urban areas, but not necessarily urban areas, but areas that were targeted in the war on drugs. And, a lot of this is supposed to go and help the war on drugs. I have yet to see that. I know the next bill may address that to some extent, but I'm not necessarily seeing that. And, the part that I really feel has become disconnected is that I think that we were sort of sold a bill of goods, that all these small entrepreneurs and these disaffected communities would be able to get in on the action. I see an industry that is just fed by big money. I don't know who's behind it, but to get into the big marijuana business in Connecticut, you have to have hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to be able to invest. And that's just not moms and pops from, disparaged communities or communities, in our predominantly urban areas that were hurt by the war on drugs. And so I think as we go year after year after year away from the, legalization of recreational marijuana, we say, see, and you know, it's natural in a capitalist environment, that the big dogs come into the arena and they've just taken over the show. The third area that I have great concerns with is we made a great commitment a few years back in moving to try to help our hemp producers. And to me, this is like the final death knell for the hemp producers in Connecticut. And we've had this debate in the regulations review committee a little bit regarding some regs that have come down from consumer protection, but I just don't think that we can say on one hand, we're helping our hemp farmers and producers and retailers and we want that area to grow, while here, we're giving all this new area to the marijuana producers. And I want to thank, my ranking member, again, Representative Rutigliano, for pointing out that this bill moves down the line to topical applications. God bless you. So topical applications are creams and things like that. I think people that are concerned about the marijuana might think that that's gonna get into a bloodstream, and I don't know how it's gonna affect people's, ability to to process things. So is it getting one step closer to, like, smoking it or having an edible? I don't know. But even if you just take it on face value, that it's going to be like an asper cream or icy hot or just something topical for a sore ankle or something like that. Now, you're taking a step right into the area where a lot of the local hemp retailers in my neck of the woods, that's their niche. That's all they've got left. They have these like products that are not marijuana, that are hemp, and now, by allowing marijuana into these fields, I just think you're gonna end up wiping out the the hemp people. And so, and it goes as far as sublingual, right, under the tongue. So we're not talking about, we're talking about beverages now, that I think we're taking off the limits. We're talking about edibles. Now we're going into sublingual, which is now like those little drops under the tongue. We have topical applications, which definitely stepping on the toes of the hemp, little areas left to the hemp retailers. What is left for the hemp producers and retailers? I think nothing. I think nothing. And they're holding on for dear life financially. And I think with all the money backing the marijuana, I think the die is cast. I think it's I think it's game over if this bill passes. And I think that's a missed opportunity. In my neck of the woods, you know, we have these wonderful tobacco fields where because there's been a shift in where some of the shade tobacco in particular is produced, some of the the growers and the the the the families that have had these fields for generations, they're looking for other ways to utilize some of the best soil in in the world that's in our Tobacco Valley and and and Connecticut River Valley. Some of it goes to fulfillment centers. If you go on the Bradley Connector from 91 to Bradley International Airport, up in my neck of the woods, you'll see one of the largest warehouses going. And and that's, you know, for Amazon. You can see it on your left as you go into the airport. But I have other areas where now they're opting for solar arrays, and I gotta be honest. We've done our fair share in North Central Connecticut for solar arrays. And, I'm working on a bill through the environment committee. Knock on wood, it can get across the finish line. But I do believe it got voted out, as a compromise, last Friday, to test the soil and find out what the solar arrays are doing as far as heavy metals and things like that, which is an area we haven't really explored. We've been focusing on the green energy aspect, but not on the net consequences of the rainwater pouring through the solar arrays day in and day out, year after year. So that's a whole another area. And so hemp was supposed to be an opportunity for some of the areas in our state to maintain its agricultural quality and be able to form the basis for an industry, an area that could grow. And I just don't see that happening. I don't see that happening now. And so it leaves those farmers with that land with one less opportunity to keep it the way we love it here in Connecticut, the beautiful agricultural and and pastoral lands that once you lose it, you can't get it back. Very, very hard to get back. So I think that, you know, in my view, voting in favor of this bill is saying, goodbye, hemp. That ship has sailed. We can talk it to death, but it's it's we're not giving it any props to stay alive. I think that we're just going all in a 110 with with big marijuana. I think that, you know, maybe our commitment to the areas of our state that were ravaged by the war on drugs, maybe there is some giving out of some funds to help in some areas, but I think that that is slowly shifting gears as well. And so for those reasons, not the least of which is the fundamental danger to our young people with this very high potent, marijuana products coming in every way, shape, and form, You know, we it's not unusual to read in the paper of a child hospitalized for taking an edible. So what's next? A cream? A sub a sublingual product sort of gets under the tongue of an infant or or not an infant, but maybe a toddler or something? I mean, where does it end? I don't see it end. And for those reasons, mister chairman, I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you for your comment, senator consent senator Kissel. You raise a lot of a lot of points, and I'll just address one of those with respect to the hemp industry. This bill does put a little bit of effort into establishing a marketplace for hemp farmers. If you want to take a look, sections 88 through 91 establish a commercial extractor license and there's also a food and beverage manufacturer capacity here that allows folks in the wake of the federal legislation that was passed last year, we're worried about the entirety of this marketplace and we think we've created, a space for, our hemp manufacturers and cultivators and farmers to, succeed in a new business entry, point that no longer that previously did not exist and it's my hope to continue to work with them to get to a, more comfortable place that doesn't, risk, the cannabis, growers and and instead creates a new outlet and potential opportunity business opportunity for them expressly. Are there any more questions or concerns? Representative Anaskovich.

[Room/AV line (mic checks and isolated vote response)]: Thank you, mister chair. I will also speak out in opposition of this legislation. I agree with a lot of the comments that obviously senator Martin had I'm sorry, senator Kissel had. And I think the biggest concern for me is the the increase in the THC and the potency of the of the marijuana and the cannabis. This is personal to me. I lost a son to an accidental overdose who started smoking pot at the age of 14 and escalated at a very rapid level going through to the point that two years ago, he died. And, you know, the situation is and and we've been through, you know, you know, you you go through a lot of second guessing. You got you go through a lot of therapy. You go through a lot of concerns, comments, everything. It just goes through your mind. And one of the biggest things that I learned was, you know, you would go and you would talk to people who would wanna tell you that cannabis isn't a gateway drug. And the one thing I learned is that you can't say that about any one individual because you do not know how that will affect them. You don't know when these kids start smoking pot, how it will affect their brains. And they're kids. They're babies. My son started at 14. My son died at 26. And and there's not much that, you know, that you could do to help. And the thing is is that, you know, he started with with pot, and this was, like, so sixteen years ago. And now you wanna try to increase the potency, and it's gonna make it even worse. It's gonna make it even worse for these kids. My brother also runs a rehab facility in Stonington. And it's not even just the kids anymore, it's the adults because it's the the potency is higher. And basically, they they're they're searching for another high. They're searching for more. They're they they want a bigger high. And the only way they get that is to increase the potency. And unfortunately, I think when legislation has passed, you don't think of those things. You think of the fact that this is going to be something where we can increase some tax revenue to the State of Connecticut and be able to generate some income. And when you put income before kids or you put income before, you know, the healthy I mean, the mental health, I mean, the the parts of this that you can go down are just, you know, I the text messages I still remember to this day that I get from my child, and they're painful. And, you know, at the end of all of it, the part that hurts the most is that the people that are left are the ones that hurt. Completely destroyed my family, my daughter, my son, you know, my ex wife. It was everything that we went through. And it it completely destroys your family because you're left to deal with the consequences. For them, it's over. You know, the the demons are gone. They're no longer here. You know, but for the people that are left, I mean, those are the things that that I think about. Any legislation that comes through that relates to cannabis and to to this kind of stuff. And and I get it. I understand it. You know, but for me personally, it's just hard to accept, you know, when things like this come through and you wanna try to increase potency for something that's already destroying our youth, and that's what it's doing because they don't know any better. And then the other thing that that occurs and and it occurs a lot, obviously, is that why you start? Why did you start smoking weed? Well, it's legal. It's gotta be safe. So, you know, if we're not gonna teach the kids, you know, and be able to, you know, give them information and provide them with correct information so that they know that this is a problem and that you don't know what it will do to you. You know, nobody can say what they're it will do to anybody. Whether you start when you start smoking weed, you don't know how it will affect your brain. You know, you said that the kids brains aren't fully developed to 24 or 26 now. And, you know, you start, you know, taking drugs and doing things that you do, it's gonna be a problem. It's gonna be very big problem. So again, I post the legislation obviously, but, you know, I hope there's just more things we can do. I mean, you know, it's here now. I get it. You know, can we make it better? I don't know. But I think the fact is is that we need to spend more money putting, you know, programs together to to for mental health programs for the for our youth so that they understand they have a to go and talk because they have nothing I mean, they're just really they're lost. I mean, there is a generation of lost individuals. I think COVID had a problem with it. I think, you know, obviously, cell phones. I mean, we're just in a different environment, and I think we just need to do more for our youth and be able to, you know, get their mental health into a position where they're able to make, you know, a good judgment and, and good decisions, but it'll still be hard. So thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative Vasco, for sharing. I think when it comes to the potency increases and cap increases, I think it is something that this committee is gonna continue to look at post, JF. It is a concern raised on our side of the aisle as well. There are numerous provisions in this bill that I think improve operations and improve the financial ability for cannabis establishments to succeed. There's a number of things regarding remote pharmacists and high quality out of state patients, dealing with hybrid retailers. I actually think there's a lot of consensus and agreement on a lot of those modifications. And I think when we made some of the early changes, to the in this JFS language, we hit most of the public hearing testimony that was opposed to the bill. But what remains and I understand your concerns with is increased THC limits. That is something we're gonna continue to work on both sides of the aisle and this committee and with leadership of both chambers to try and figure out a responsible approach to that. The question and concern about it being like, well, we're just trying to bring consistency to the marketplace and model what's happening in other states. We have responsibility here in Connecticut. And whether it matches New York or Massachusetts doesn't mean we have to do something in Connecticut. And I I take your very personal and direct comments and concerns to heart and you'll have our continued attention on this issue. Are there any other questions or concerns?

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Anybody else?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I I have to tell you. Dave? Right. Well, I had some things to say, but after Chris, I've I really tell you, I need a minute. And, if you wanna go, feel free.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes, sir.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: God bless, Chris. I I have to be honest with you. We should be looking at lowering it, not raising it. It's actually it's sorta ridiculous. It's so anything synthetic is just not good. When I first got here, we had a fifteen years ago, sixteen years ago, we we eliminated synthetic bath salts. It's manmade. This is just so potent. It gives kids schizophrenia. I I it's just it's just not good policy. That's all. So I that's all I wanted to say.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Vitigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you, mister chairman. And, you know, I'll be brief. I'll save my seventeen hours of questions for if this bill ever makes it to the floor. That was a kid in 60. Just that's all jokes aside, it was really an unbelievable story, representative Anaskovich, and I am moved by it. You know, I have the reputation for sort of being that sort of the anti cannabis guy, but really that isn't my purpose. My purpose was always to sort of get the illegal market done. Get this stuff, the synthetics and the illegal stuff out of gas stations, out of convenience stores. Stop selling the kids. Stop importing it. And most importantly, stop the dab pens and all that other stuff that are 90 plus percent THC. So I I understand the fact that I've lost the argument. Cannabis is legal. It is what it is. And so but why in the world would we sort of be more irresponsible than we already are? We've already commercialized the product. We've taken a product and handed it to the hands of capitalists like myself, who's my whole job is to have more sales and have more customers and make more money. That's just the truth. They can pretend that everybody's a happy hippie farmer, but it's not true. We're in here just to make money. That's what happens. Okay? So that being said, we have some reasonable restrictions on on cannabis currently. Right? We have labeling restrictions. We don't wanna make it attractive to kids. This bill undoes that. It says three colors, but three colors, black and white aren't considered colors. So that's five. Right? We said, oh, your limits are too low. We're gonna raise the limits. Out of all things that you could do is to actually raise the limits of THC when we should be lowering them. So it has a committee in here, a task force to understand the regulations and the burdens put upon a campus business. Do we have that for any other business in the state? Do we can we get a little minimum wage sort of task force to figure out how much more it's cost us and how much inflation has hurt us over these past four years? I digress. All I'm saying is is that before we do anything, in my opinion, before we pass what I consider an irresponsible bill, this is an irresponsible piece of legislation. The testimony was so moving by some of the people that are in here and the the the harm that's being done. I understand if children get their hands on, cannabis that they got their hands on a legal product, but it's only around because we made it legal and they think it's okay. They start with the money. Start with the taxes. You wanna know why people go to Massachusetts to buy their their marijuana? They don't go there because the THC is a little bit higher. They go there because it's cheaper. They have less taxes. It's the same reason they buy gas when they after they get out of Connecticut. Some of the booze taxes that are, when they get out of Connecticut. Same thing with the marijuana taxes. They wait till they get out of here because it's cheaper. So before we do anything as irresponsible as raising the THC limits, actually uncapping them entirely, we should address this with the finance committee, lower the taxes, and then see if these businesses can make their money that way. So I know we could've all went on for hours and hours. I'd this isn't a proposal that was made by the committee, so I will spare everybody some of the questions. I just wanted to get that off my chest, and I really we all have a personal story. It all starts somewhere. Mine started not with my nephew. It ended with my nephew. It started with my employees. You forget I employ a lot of people, a lot of young people, and I can't tell you the amount I've lost over the years. Now that was opiates. I get it. They they bumped into something they shouldn't have bumped into, but they all started with marijuana, every single one of them. It's it's everywhere now. We all smell it on the highways. We I was gotten to an argument before this committee saying, well, what are the effects been? Well, maybe a 1,400 increase in wrong way wrong way drivers in the highways in the state of Connecticut. There's no effective way to test for impairment currently. So I'll leave it at that. I'll save it. I thank you, mister chair, for the indulgence. And, Chris, I really am so sorry for your loss and, and anybody else that's been affected by it. So thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative Tiglano. And, I have expressed to leadership that this is a longer conversation, on the house floor than it will be in the committee, and it's out of, respect that you and I have that we're able to have this, conversation here today. But recognizing that if this, comes to the house floor in this manner, we are in for a very long day or week. Thank you, representative Tiguan. Senator Ciccarella.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I'll also try to be brief. You know, it's no secret we were not supporters of this legislation. When we were first debating this, we heard the concerns from other states that did this before us, Colorado, and we're seeing some of it right now. Put aside the battle we lost, and it is legalized, I I share a lot of concerns that I've just heard. You know, when it's legal, people think that it's okay and it's safe. And maybe just like anything in moderation, maybe it is. I don't know much about it. But I do know looking at a bill with a 100 and something sections, and we did this, what, three or four years ago, every single year. One of the biggest pieces of legislation, probably either right next to or or right behind senator Maroney's AI bill, is this. You know, I do feel for the people who got into this industry, and I feel for them that it's hard to do business in this space. And I think I said this in one of the public hearings. It's, you know, the state of Connecticut is not just picking on this industry. Just about every industry is challenging to do business here in Connecticut. And I am sensitive to the fact that people are investing money into the industry. And every time we pass one of these bills, we're we're we're changing the way somebody can make a living or make a buck or lose a buck. And I am sensitive to that. But I do agree with the comments of of my good ranking member to say, we should explore how to make all business in Connecticut friendly. I I know individuals own package stores in Connecticut, and then on the border, they own them in Rhode Island. And it's night and day to conduct business. That's what we should be looking at. Turning around and and raising the limits, I really do not believe will solve the problem. I've had a lot of conversations with a ton of people in this space, extremely fascinating, really smart individuals that really educated me on this this this new, space. But I I I really, we have to be mindful of what we're gonna be doing. And in the in the vein of trying to to save an industry or make it more competitive with other states, we really have to consider the unintended consequences. And for that reason, I'm gonna be a no on this bill today. And I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say if we discuss this on the floor. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Turco to be filed by senator Maroney.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Just for some some comments, just first wanna say that some of the concerns in this legislation are are, as the chairman said, are are definitely shared bipartisanly on this committee. Although I do think there are some important elements in this bill to help the industry that we legalize to be competitive and to be fair for them in competing with surrounding states for the investments they've put in, that that makes sense in in trying to, help businesses. My biggest concern was regarding the potency limit increases as well. The testimony that we heard here from mental health groups and parents and what that might do to them. I originally thought that the lifting of the cap on the potency included edibles, which I was extremely concerned about for numerous reasons and would have adamantly spoke against and voted against this bill today. But after looking at all the details of this very long bill, it does not raise the caps on edibles. And in fact, we are one of the most highly restricted states with THC potency on edibles, and I'm actually proud of that. I think that's good that Connecticut has a lower milligram limit on edibles. So then, I looked at the potency limit on the flower and the concentrates that we are lifting the cap with and almost every other state but Connecticut and Vermont does not have any caps on those products. Now, I'm not necessarily saying all of those states are right in what they're doing, but it does mean that Connecticut is not the first now in lifting the cap for this flower and for the the the concentrates. And that this has been happening for many, many years in states where it's legalized. There's been some time for them to look at what not having caps on those specific products, how that might be affecting the population. And, there's an opportunity for us, once we pass this bill out of committee today, to do a little bit more studying and and look at, you know, some of the research out there, to talk to some experts, and really see if that is a big deal or or not. I, you know, I still wanna reserve the opportunity to do that research, but will be voting for the bill today to get it out of committee, out of respect to my leadership on this committee, and house leadership, that is trying to do some really good things, with this, bill. So, thank you, mister chairman, for the opportunity to give my opinion on it.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative Turco. Seeing no other discussion, madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: This is item eight. It's h b fifty three fifty, an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation. The motion is to JFS to the floor, LCO three two three zero. Senator Maroney?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fonferra? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella? Representative Retigliano? Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative Ali Brennan votes yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Anaskovich, senator Gagcar Wilcox, representative Gibson, senator Kessel, Senator Lopes? Representative Luxembourg?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez? Yes. Representative Osborne? Senator Austin? Representative Paolillo?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton, representative Santos, representative Yaccarino?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: No.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, madam clerk. And, again, we're leaving votes open until 4PM. It appears as if that will be a relevant time, that we randomly established earlier today, and it's gonna hold up true. Moving on to the final item on today's agenda which is HB 5,351, an act concerning the Social Equity Council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation. The motion is a JF to the floor. Do I hear a motion?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So moved.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Is there a second? Second. Motion been made in second for this bill reflects the legislative proposals of the Social Equity Council and their and their chair, former representative McGee. He brought to us three specific policy recommendations as I pull up my next set of notes. This allows the social equity council to conduct investigations to carry out its duties. Specifies that no change can be made to the ownership or control of certain equity joint ventures during the seven year period filing licensure. Requires the council to issue policies and procedures and dApp regulations to implement requirements on changes in the ownership and control of certain cannabis establishments. It eliminates a monthly report the council must submit to the Black and Puerto Rican caucus but instead requires a quarterly report with similar information be submitted to the governor, legislative leaders, the general law and appropriations committees and also the BPRC and allows social equity applicants, provisional licensees to apply to DCP for a one time replacement of an original backer if the original backer is to be replaced as not a social equity applicant. You will notice that inherent in this request is an inconsistency with a bill that we just passed with respect to the seven to three framework. We recognize that this continues to be a point of contention and concern and conversation between the Social Equity Council and the will, frankly, probably shared in a bipartisan way of this committee based upon the public hearing testimony that we received over the last number of years. That will continue to be a point of negotiation. But out of respect to the Social Equity Council and their work, we decided to have the vote on their bill as submitted.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: And with

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: that, are there any questions or concerns? Senator Martin. Oops. Sorry. Senator Kisselt. Yes.

[Sen. John A. Kissel (R–Enfield)]: I know. You you get two senators for the price of one. No. I just have a concern with, like, freezing the ownership situation of these individuals for seven years. And I know I I believe that that may be a bone of contention. But it just seems to me that if we're and again, it comes down to the the previous discussion, setting aside the THC levels, the the financial stressors on businesses in Connecticut vis a vis our surrounding states. And it it it just strikes me that their ability to respond nimbly within their own structure might help them stay afloat if they're, like, teetering. And and I just I don't know. I'm gonna vote no to flag it. I just have concerns with what we're doing regarding this whole aspect. It has nothing to do with former representative McGee. I have the utmost respect for him, but I just gotta flag it until we see what what shakes out down the road. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Senator Ciccarillo? Oh, sorry. Senator representative Iaccarino to be filed by senator Ciccarillo.

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: I'll be I'll be pretty quick, actually. You know, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the social equity council, but, fundamentally, I'm against the legalization. You know, that's out of the gate, but it's still horrible, I think. And it's all about the money. You know, I didn't wanna start weighing in again to the second time last time, but it's all about the money. You know, we proposed back in finance years ago. I think senator representative Lamar was on the committee, but used the Vermont model, erase all the you know, decriminalize marijuana. We had no problem with that. But it's all become about money, and it just it's a horrible policy. I I told the story back in finance probably ten years ago, how it it almost destroyed. It wasn't even strong forty years ago. My life and certain things I did, I just think it's we it's just just I can't even fundamentally support this. It's just a horrible policy. Just I think we went down the wrong road, and I don't care what other states are doing. The fact is to constantly try to make it a bad policy better just not helping, and I don't think it's helping the people that just hurt all these years. We should have just erased the records, decriminalized it, and, moved on, but I I cannot support this fundamentally.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you, representative. Senator Ciccarajal.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you. And, over the last couple of of weeks, maybe a month, I've had the privilege of working with former rep McGee who is doing a great job on the Social Equity Council trying to find ways to to help these businesses, but more importantly, invest back in the communities and and do a lot of great things. So it's been great to work with him. We do have another conversation scheduled, I think, for tomorrow, trying to really understand the difference in opinion. We have the social equity council and then we have the social equity members. And I think that they're not entirely agreeing on the three to seven years. And I I didn't get a chance really to flush that out. So so I do look forward to continue to have some conversations trying to get to understanding of of, you know, why they believe that this is so important and and how it does help these members. So I I will continue those conversations. But I did have one quick question if you happen to know the answer. I see there's a part in here about the authority to investigate or giving the ability to investigate to the council. If you could just, maybe let me know what what they're looking to accomplish there.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: The council currently does have some limited investigatory authority. They want to have a broader, more clear ability to investigate ownership structures, to ensure that some transactions that may be intended to circumvent social equity requirements, they want to make sure that they are that their social equity members are not vulnerable to exploitation in the absence of strong internal regulatory or legal counsel that they may have available. In testimony, mister McGee indicated that there were at least four instances where backers had made critical sale decisions or shutdown notices without a proper vote. And and, you know, we wanna make sure that our our members are protected and this will give them an ability to kind of analyze a lot of the ownership structures and then decision making processes that will negatively impact their membership. They see this as not to create a punitive authority, but to just strengthen the structural compliance with the rules, regulations, and statutes that we've already adopted.

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Got it. Excellent. Thank you for answering that question. I didn't know if I had anything to do with, like invest investigating maybe individuals that may be applying for some of these grants. I know they're they're trying to do some really good things when it comes to business development in in these communities. So I didn't know if I had something to do too with just, you know, doing some more due diligence before handing, you know, grant money out to applicants. But I always think it's good to make decisions with facts. So it's something that I'm also looking forward to having a conversation with with the the chair, Rep. McGee or former Rep. McGee. But but at this time, I am going to vote no to flag this and look forward to having conversations, really trying to get understanding of the middle ground between the social equity council and the social equity applicants. But thank you for answering my question.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you. Are there any more questions? Seeing none, madam chair, can you please call the roll?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: This is item nine, h b fifty three fifty one, an act concerning the Social Equity Council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation. The motion is to j f to the floor. Senator Maroney? Yes. Representative Lamar?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Fonferra? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Senator Ciccarella? No. Representative Vitigliano?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Ackert? Representative Ali Brennan? Sorry. Looking at the screen here. Representative Vaniskovich? Senator Gaghar Wilcox. Representative Gibson. Representative Jensen. Senator Kissell. Senator Lopes.

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: Senator Lopes. Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Lopes and

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Martinez. Yes. Representative Osborne. Senator Austin. Representative Paolillo.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Representative Pemberton. Representative Santos. Representative Yaccarino. No.

[Unidentified member/staff (brief acknowledgments)]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you very much, everyone. This concludes the business of the general law committee for, the short session. We will maybe have some referrals coming to us, so we'll likely, be seeing a number of you again. There are a number of bills that will continue to be worked on as is the case every year with this committee right up until we get them out on the house floor. We do so in such a collaborative fashion that I know while we're sitting up here, representative Titliano and I have probably worked out half of the bills already. Some of them we haven't quite gotten there on yet.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: But gay guy.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: That's right. But I, again, just wanna highlight the incredible work that goes behind getting these bills prepared and ready to be voted on. There's a lot of work to do, but just to get into this point, the work of our team in OLR, LCO and OFA is greatly appreciated. We don't exist like some other legislatures with robust internal staff that is beholden to our whims and needs. These are folks that are professionals in their fields at a nonpartisan basis. They work on behalf of the committee in close collaboration with every member. It's a very difficult and challenging workspace to operate in and they do it in incredible turnaround times and all hours of the day. Duke sent me a detailed analysis of every one of the bills on our agenda that he and Chris compiled over this coming weekend in advance of today's meeting and I just want to highlight the incredible work that people do to make this work and again, all of that is championed and led by Betsy Francolino, who leads an incredible team in the clerk's office that ensures that everything runs on time, the ship is steady, but also that members are prepared, documents are prepared, and we couldn't we really couldn't do any aspect of this work without her. So thank you, Betsy. Senator Maroney.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: And again, I think it's appropriate we both started and are ending with, the thank you for the staff. Also, to add the thanks to our agency partners, who we work with, our caucus staff who are in on the meetings and provide us with a lot of assistance. So, Bridget, thank you. And to all of the other caucus staff members who assist us. But also, you know, representative Lamar, thank you to you. It's always a great pleasure working with you. Thoughtful, diligent, good sense of humor, and you bring food from New Haven. So I really couldn't ask for more in a co chair. Thank you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Representative, particularly Thank

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: you, mister. I just wanna point out that you were correct that half the people did leave, so that was a good call in the beginning to thank everybody. And how do I get the Duke synopsis of all the bills? I mean, is that, like, available to everybody, or is that sort of you have to win an election to get that kind of stuff? So senator Ciccarello and I just really also wanted to reiterate how important it is that we have the support staff that we have. We have our attorney Paul from House Republicans and Nick from Senate Republicans that do a great job, and we're so grateful to the agency staff except for CJ and Betsy and everybody else. Just kidding, CJ. See if you're paying attention. And, really, it's you know, the this committee has started to take on some petty issues, and it's getting tougher. And some of these things require a lot of we're not just fighting over liquor bills anymore. But I really I appreciate the work of both the chairs that we at least are always heard, and we always feel included whether or not we agree on stuff. At least, I could walk away knowing that, I was able to express myself and somebody actually paid attention. And for that, I could speak for myself and senator Ciccarolo that we are eternally grateful. Thank you, everybody.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Alright. Let's see. You have

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: I'm taking this Martinez, Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez Martinez,

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: you're good. Let's see.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Hello. Hello.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Hello.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Hello.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Hello. You're good. Alright.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Congratulations.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: You already get the name tags.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: That's it for today.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: You can?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. Okay. Hey, Betsy.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: It's alright. Let me

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: see if I can hear you. Representative, Ali Brennan.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Hey. I'm a yes on the the bills that I

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: missed. Let's

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: see. Let me check. So that would be SP4?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Correct. Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. So I'll mark that there. Then SP5?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Yep. Okay. And SP86?

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And I got you on 01/17. I have you on 02/27.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: I missed

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: the last one.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: I have you

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: on 02/29. Just making sure we got you over here. Got you on 5226. Have you on 5350, and then 5351, social equity counsel.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Yes. Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Great. Thank you. Have a good day. Bye. Alright. Let's see. Hi, Cinderella Lopes.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Howdy.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Hey. Alright. Let's go through the agenda here. Item one was JFS to the floor, LCO3207SP4. Yep. Okay. Item two was a JFS to the floor, LCO 3227OfSP five. Oh, I lost you, center lobes.

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: Oh, hang on a second.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Ah, there you are. Okay. This is JFS

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: I'm yes on that. Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: With that

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: I got I got the agenda in front of me. You could just

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: say the bill. Okay. Very And then s b 86, JFS to the floor, governor's annual bill. Okay.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: One one one one.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: And one seventeen, AAC data breaches?

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And s p two twenty seven, JFS to the floor, prescription drugs. Yep. Okay. The gig. And two twenty nine JFS to the floor, AAC proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation.

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: Yes.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: That's six. Seven is, HB5226 JFS to the floor

[Sen. Rick Lopes (D–New Britain)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: AAC mobile homes. Okay. And item a j f s to the floor, h b fifty three fifty, that's the AAC canvas hemp infused beverages.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes. Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: And last but not least, HB fifty three fifty one. I see the Social Equity Council's recs regarding cannabis regulation. Jay is to the floor. Okay.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Thank you.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Alright. Thank you. You're all set.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Bye bye.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Bye. But why do

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: you mind calling me and it's fine.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Oh, well, I'm telling them votes will be held open for general law until 4PM and thirty five hundred and via Zoom. What do you call that? 301 Yes. Yeah. Hi. This is Myvian from Genmar. I was just wondering if we can be be an option if we have we'll be building both of them for

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: I appreciate you taking the blame you know. Someone else take my balls too. Just kidding. Oh, even for if there's a problem. Every time, Freddie. Thank you so much. Yep. No problem, buddy. Thank you. I talked again. I called inside. No. It's I don't know. Real lucky thing. I mean, it's Yeah. Yes, sir.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: Thank you, miss Banks.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Yeah. Make sure you take

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: I'm driving around with my dirty car.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: I know. You know?

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: It has beige interior to the outflow. But that's not the end of the world.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: It's pretty. It has other 100,000 out or

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: 100,000 miles on it. Right. It has a new set of tires on it. Yeah. Arguably, nicest, prettiest, most awesome car I will probably ever buy in. Not It's the newest vehicle I've ever purchased in my life. Cool.

[Sen. James Maroney (D–Milford) — Senate Chair, General Law Committee]: So I just have

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: It's

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: a Hi. How are you? Good. How are you doing? Let me put the audio.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: I think the 29 of the panel

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Hi, senator. Hey there. Sorry. I just was putting you in a couple of votes for another committee. Oh, no problem. Yeah. Just saw you trying to connect there. I don't know if you have the agenda in front of you, but I'll just go start from beginning. Yes. That would be great.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Thank you. Let me just pull it up. Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: So item one is s p four, an act concerning consumer privacy, JFS to the floor? Yes. Okay. Item two is s b five, JFS to the floor, l c o three two two seven, an act concerning online safety? Yes. Yep. Okay. And item three, JFS to the floor, LCO thirty one ninety two, s b 86, enact addressing innovations and the responsible use of AI? Yes. Okay. And item four, it's a JFS to the floor, l c o three two three seven, s p one seventeen, and that concerning breaches of breaches of security involving electronic personal information. Yes. Okay. And item five, it's a JFS to the floor, l c o three zero three two, s b two two seven, and are concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplements. Yes. Okay. Item six, it's a JFS to the floor, LCO2932, and are concerning legislative proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation. Yes. Okay. Item seven, it's a JFS to the floor, LCO three two three three, HP fifty two twenty six, and that concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks. Yes. Okay. Item eight, another JFS to the floor. LCO thirty two thirty. HB fifty three fifty, an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation. Okay. Thank you. Was there s language on this one? I just wanted to yes. There is some s language on this one. Thanks. Can I steal your And was that was that sent with the I don't I just wanna look at the s language on this one? If I can hold off on that, look at the s, and I'll I'll just get I'll come back. Okay. There's time to call your senate chair too, if needed. Perfect. Okay. Yeah. Yep. And then item nine, HB fifty three fifty one, an act concerning the social equity council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation. Yeah. Let me ask him about because I think I don't know don't remember which one I have the question about. Let me ask him about both of those, and then I'll get back to you on those. Okay. See you in a little bit. Okay. Great. Thank you. Alright. Great. Thank you. Hello, senator. Alright. Go through the agenda. How much

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: to show

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: for when you From the top here. Item one, s p four GFS to the floor, not concerning consumer privacy.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: I'm gonna follow the senate chair.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Are you included? And item two, s b five and act concerning online safety, JFS to the floor.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Same.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: I think we're going to move on and then if that when was she first back in, please let me know. Item three, SB 86, enact addressing innovations in the responsible

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Same.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Sorry. I was gonna go find Item four is Building 17, an architect who reaches a security bug in electronic personal information, JFS to the floor. Solve the signature. And item five, s b two two seven, an app concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diapals and supplements. Yeah.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Solve the signature. Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: S b two two nine and representative of legislative proposals of Connecticut Lottery Corporation.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Follow the signature.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item seven, fifty fifty two twenty six and that concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: This is true.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item b, h b fifty three fifty. JFS to the Floor of 07:32 thirty, and that concerning cannabis not been infused beverage regulation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Hello? Say

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: that one again. I'm sorry.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: This is an h b 5350, JFS on the floor, LCO 3230. It's an act concerning cannabis, hemp, and infused beverage regulation. Thank you. Hello? Mister Lottis, go right ahead.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: Well, if I were stare at the

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: technical game. The definition that I need to follow this in the chair.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: I can't hear you.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: I'm gonna follow this in the chair.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And item nine, h b fifty three fifty one, j f to the floor, an ad concerning the social equity council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: With ED, I

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: support Okay. Alright. That's all, ma'am. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: Sorry. I'm in the middle of the hearings.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Sorry. Have a good day.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Thank you, sir. And especially, I don't think the fire department.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Alright. Good afternoon, representative Gibson.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Hi. Good afternoon. How are you doing?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Good. How are you?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Good. Thank you. Alright.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Starting at the top here. Item one, s b four. It's a JFS to the floor, LCO thirty two zero seven, and act concerning consumer privacy.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes. Mhmm.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And item two, JFS to the floor, LCO thirty two twenty seven, s b five, an act concerning online safety.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item three, it's another JFS to the floor. LCO thirty one ninety two, s b 86, an act addressing innovations in and responsible use of AI.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. What time? Item four, another JFS to the floor, LCO 3237. S p one seventeen, an act concerning breaches of security involving electronic personal information.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Can y'all hear me? Anybody need to Okay. And item five, a JFS to the floor, LCO thirty thirty two, s p two twenty seven, and at concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplements.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item six. Another JFS to the floor, l c o two nine three two. And at concerning legislative proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (D–New Haven) — Acting House Chair, General Law Committee]: And last week, I

[Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R–North Haven)]: got it.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: I got that. And fine. And item seven, this is another JFS to the floor, l c o three two three three, h b fifty two twenty six, and at concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item eight, this is a JFS to the floor LCO thirty two thirty. H b fifty three fifty, an act concerning cannabis hemp and infused beverage regulation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: And item nine, h b fifty three fifty one, an act concerning the social equity council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation. It's a straight j f to the floor. Yes. Alright. Okay. Great. That is all of it. Alright. Have a good day. Okay. Alright.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: You too. Thank you much. Okay. Bye bye.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Bye bye.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: About

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: his nonprofit.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Hi, representative Santos. Sorry.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: You. Hang on one second. There you go. Sorry.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: How are you? Sorry.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: I had a weird thing with my connection here, and then I had to jump into another meeting. So forgot

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: to know. No problem. Busy day. It is

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: crazy busy. But this went shorter than we predicted last night. So

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Yeah. Not too bad. Good. Let me see what I have you for. I've got you for item one. Mhmm. Alright. Item two is s b five. It's a JFS to the floor LCO thirty two twenty seven and that concerning online safety?

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yep. I'm a yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Thanks. And then let's see. Item item three, another JFS to the floor, LCO thirty one ninety two, s b 86, enact addressing innovations in in the responsible use of AI?

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yep. Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item four, s b one seventeen, an act concerning breaches of security involving electronic personal information, JFS to the floor. Yes. Okay. We got you on that already.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Oh, we did.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Yep. We got you on that. Okay. Number this is item five. Another JFS to the floor, LCO 3032, SP227, and that concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplements.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: K. We got you on 02/29, the lottery bill. JFS to the floor. You were a yes on that. Mhmm. You were a yes on 5226MobileHomes. Item eight, this is JFS to the floor, LCO 3230. HB fifty three fifty, an act concerning cannabis, hemp and infused beverage regulation.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And number nine, HB5351, an act concerning the social equity council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation, straight j f.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Perfect. Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Alright. Great. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Farley Santos (D–Danbury)]: Thank you. Take care.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Have a good day.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (R–Trumbull) — House Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: You too.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Hello?

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Hi, rep Pemberton. How are you doing?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Good. How are you doing? Just calling to finish my voting up.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Ah, got busy day here. Right?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (R–Tolland)]: I

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: don't I don't know if you have the end the agenda in front of you, so I'll just start from the top here. Item one, JFS to the floor, LCO 3207, S P 4 and act concerning consumer privacy?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item two, JFS to the floor, LCO thirty two twenty seven, s p five, an act concerning online safety?

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item three, JFS to the floor, LCO thirty one ninety two, s p 86, enact addressing innovations and and the responsible use of AI. Yes. Okay. Item four, another JFS to the floor. LCO thirty two thirty seven. S p one seventeen, an act concerning breaches of security involving electronic personal information.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Rep. Martinez (first name uncertain)]: Okay.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Item five, another JFS to the floor. LCO 3032, SB2 SB two twenty seven, an act concerning prescription drugs and over the counter diet pills and supplements.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item six, another JFS to the floor, LCO twenty nine thirty two. SB two twenty nine, enact concerning legislative proposals of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Item seven, JFS to the floor LCO thirty two thirty three. HB fifty two twenty six, and that concerning mobile manufactured homes and mobile manufactured home parks? Yes. Okay. Item a, another JFS to the floor. LCO thirty two thirty. HB fifty three fifty, a net concerning cannabis hemp and infused beverage regulation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. And last but not least, item nine. This is a straight j f to the floor. HB fifty three fifty one enact concerning the social equity council's recommendations regarding cannabis regulation.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Oh, yes.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: Okay. Alright. You are all set. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Gary Turco (D–Newington)]: Thank you very much. You have a good day.

[Betsy Francolino — Committee Clerk]: You too. Bye bye. Welcome, bank. Thank you. Okay. Great. I checked in with my senators, so that's perfect. So I I am gonna vote no on oh my gosh. Now let me make sure I have the right one. I think it's the first one. Hold on. It's a a fifty three fifty. I'm gonna vote no on fifty three fifty. Okay. That was the act concerning cannabis hemp and infused beverage regulation? Yes. Okay. And then the other bill was social media council? Yeah. And then yes on on that one. That one's okay. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. Bye. Bye bye. Thanks, James. Appreciate

[Sen. Paul Cicarella (R–North Haven) — Senate Ranking Member, General Law Committee]: it.