2015_PA82_HB6844.pdf - Connecticut State Library

Legislative History for Connecticut Act

Transcripts from the Joint Standing Committee Public Hearing(s) and/or Senate and House of Representatives

Proceedings

Connecticut State Library

Compiled 2017

PA15-82 HB6844

House 3437-3777 340 Senate 2502-2557 56 Higher 371-372, (373-380), (382- 78 Education & 383), 584, (585), 586, 593- Employment 594, 877-885, 910-915,

1013-1034, 1096-1119

474

H – 1211

CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE

PROCEEDINGS 2015

VOL.58 PART 10

3146 – 3496

c

c

c

003437 /pt HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

33 May 19, 2015

DEPUTY SPEAKER MILLER:

Thank you for joining us today. Would the

Clerk please call Calendar No. 274?

CLERK:

On Page 15, House Calendar 274, Favorable

Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Higher

Education and Employment Advancement, House Bill

6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION

ELIGIBILITY.


Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker.


Good afternoon, sir.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Madam Speaker, I move for acceptance of the

Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of

the bill.


The question before the Chamber is acceptance

of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and

passage of the bill. Representative Scott. I'm

c

c

c


34 May 19, 2015

sorry. Representative Lemar, you have the floor,

sir.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the

bill before us is intended to allow students who

have attended only two years of high school within

Connecticut to be eligible for in-state tuition

rates, rather than the current four-year

requirement.

Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of

an amendment, LCO No. 7015. I would ask the Clerk

please call the amendment and I be granted leave of

the Chamber to summarize.


The Chamber will be at ease.

(Chamber at ease.)


The House will come back to order.

Representative Lemar, without objection, I would

like to call Representative Scott.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

No objection, madam.

c

c

c


35 May 19, 2015

REP. SCOTT (40th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Out of abundance of

caution, I might have a conflict of interest here,

so I'm going to leave the room for this debate.

Thank you.


The House will be at ease.

(Chamber at ease.)



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the

Clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO No.

7015. I ask that the Clerk please call the

amendment and I be granted permission to summarize.


Would the Clerk please call LCO 7015, which

will be designated House Amendment Schedule "A."

CLERK:

House Amendment Schedule "A," 7015, introduced

by Representative Willis.


c

c


36 May 19, 2015

The Representative seeks leave of the Chamber

to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to

summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none,

Representative Lemar you may proceed with

summarization, sir.

REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker,

essentially current law prohibits non-immigrant

aliens from being eligible for in-state tuition.

Generally, these are people with a visa permitting

temporary entrance to the country for specific

purposes.

What this amendment does is carve out two

classes of immigrants from this prohibition,

trafficking victims and people who have suffered

substantial physical or mental abuse as a result of

a certain criminal activity. I ask for adoption.


The question before the Chamber is adoption of

House Amendment Schedule "A." Will you remark on

the amendment? Will you remark on the amendment?

Representative Candelora.

REP. CANDELORA (86th)

c

c

c


37 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, if I may, a question

to the proponent of the amendment?


Representative Lemar, please prepare yourself,

please. Representative Candelora, you may proceed,

sir.

REP. CANDELORA (86th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I, just for

clarification. As I understood the underlying

bill, we•re seeking to reduce the number of years

somebody is eligible for tuition when they attend

high school. Did I hear correctly?

So this particular amendment would, is sort of

not addressing a definitional section necessarily,

but we•re expanding the eligibility for tuition

under two circumstances, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, yes.

The amendment seeks to expand the groups of folks

who are eligible for in-state tuition.



c

c

c


38 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. And could the good

Representative repeat those two circumstances?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you,

these are trafficking victims and people who have

suffered substantial physical or mental abuse as a

result of certain criminal activity. They are

Subsection t and u of the General Statutes.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I believe that

these references are federal laws. And so my

question would be, how would we be able to identify

these individuals so that they qualify? Are they

somehow designated through a federal program, or if

a crime is committed are they identified that way,

and is that how we're able to determine, through

you, Madam Speaker?



c

c

c


39 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, the

classification of their visa is attributable to

those sub-clauses.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in these

circumstances the activity that, you know, I guess

the crimes that were committed against them or the

atrocities committed against them would occur in

foreign lands, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):


Overwhelmingly the preponderance of these crimes

occurred in foreign lands. As in the case of

trafficking victims it could be that they were

kidnapped and removed from their home country,

brought to this country, and crimes were committed

against them in this country as well. Thank you.



c

c

c


40 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. And then just

finally, you know, recently I think we, obviously

we also have human trafficking laws on our books in

the State of Connecticut. I think we just had a

bill here sometime in the last couple of weeks

expanding those circumstances.

Does our state law in any way play on this

definition or is this amendment just pertaining to

federal law, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, this

amendment just pertains to the federal designation.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate those

answers.


Will you remark further on the amendment?

Representative Alberts.

REP. ALBERTS (50th):

c

c

c


41 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon. If

I may, a question to the proponent of the

amendment.


Representative Lemar, please prepare yourself.

Representative Alberts, you may proceed, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand that

the universe of folks that fall into these

categories is probably relatively small. So for the

purpose of the education of the Chamber, if the

proponent knows how many people that may be

eligible for this, it would be appreciated, through

you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):


By statute the U.S. government cannot issue more

than 10,000 U1 visas per year, and on average they

issue about 1,500 T visas. Cumulatively, of course

that's 1,500. If we approximate the average

percentage that we have of the country, one percent

of the nation's population resides in Connecticut.

c

c

c


42 May 19, 2015

So if we were to be the recipients of one

percent of this population, that would be a total

of 195 recipients generally of U and T visas in

Connecticut, and of that would be a much smaller

group of individuals who would be eligible for this

program, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the total

universe may be 195 students. We're looking at

some subset of that, and if I understand correctly,

you know, we're not contemplating any changes to

the admissions criteria of any of the schools, so

all of the requirements for school eligibility

would have to be met as well. Is that correct,

through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, the proponent is

correct, yes.



c

c

c


43 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do rise in

support of the amendment. I think it's a

worthwhile endeavor. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on

the amendment? Representative LeGeyt.

REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Appreciate the

opportunity to speak. I have a question for the

proponent of the amendment if I may?



Representative LeGeyt, you may proceed, sir.

REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you, ma'am. My question has to do with

the underlying bill and how this amendment will

affect the qualifications for consideration as a

person who might take advantage of this bill.

In Line 4 it references 8 USC 1621(d) and then

in Line 5 it references the 8 usc 1101(a) (15), and

then the amendment adds other language to include

these other groups that Representative Lemar talked

about.

c

c

c


44 May 19, 2015

I'm wondering what it is about these

references to federal statute that precluded these

other groups from being considered in the bill as

it stands without amendment, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Specifically, the

prohibition in current law applies to non-immigrant

aliens, and there are 22 sub classes within that

section.

What we're trying to do is take two of those

22 and allow them eligibility for in-state tuition.

The other 20 pertain to folks who are non-immigrant

aliens here on guest worker visas, student visas,

business related visas. They're in the country

temporarily, and so we just determined that these

two subgroups deserved special consideration due to

the nature of their presence in the country.


Representative LeGeyt.

REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you. And I appreciate that answer. And

I couldn't quite hear the very end of it. What was

c

c

c


45 May 19, 2015

the consideration that determined the inclusion of

these two particular subgroups out of the 20 or 21

that this federal statute references as being

excluded, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, again,

these two subgroups are not here for the

traditional ways that you become a non~immigrant

alien, which is by the student visa, guest worker

visas, business visas. The special circumstances

due to the nature of the crimes that have been

committed against them and merited their presence

in our country on a temporary basis, we felt

deserved consideration for in-state tuition as

well.



REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Are these, the

people that inhabit these two subgroups under the

age of majority as to the United States and/or are

0

c

c


46 May 19, 2015

they here not of their own accord, or of their own

arrangement, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, to

qualify for a U visa or a T visa, you have to be a

victim of severe form of trafficking in persons or

in the case of U visas, suffering substantial

physical or mental abuse as a result of having been

a victim of criminal activity described in the

clauses.

And you also, there's an added requirement of

the people in these subgroups that they need to be

cooperating with the federal, state or local law

enforcement officials investigating or prosecuting

that criminal activity back in their home

countries.

That people who make up this U and T visa

classification of people can be any age, but the

underlying nature of our bill providing in-state

tuition still requires you to conform with the

other components of the bill, which is graduate

c

c

c


47 May 19, 2015

from a local institution after spending two years

in high school there. Thank you, through you.



REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you. So where, I remember when we put

forward this bill whenever it was, a couple of

years ago or last year. And one of the underlying

arguments in favor of granting people this courtesy

was to, because they were not here of their own

volition nor were they here, probably brought here

as a minor.

And it sounds like the people in these other

two subgroups could be coming here of their own

accord, and could be, certainly could be over 18

years old and might make it difficult for them to

even conform to some of these requirements in the

bill.

Is that what causes the universe of the people

from these two subgroups who might take advantage

of this so small, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


48 May 19, 2015


The questioner is exactly correct. The universe

could be as high as 18,000 nationally. But in

practical speaking, the number of folks who would

be in Connecticut one, and would meet the

underlying qualifications in the underlying bill,

we believe that universe to be very small. We

don't have an.exact number, of course, but we

presume that number to be a very small number of

folks. Thank you, through you.



REP. LEGEYT (17th):

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Appreciate the answer. So if that's the case, what

is the urgency, or what is the interest in

providing the benefits of this bill to those two

subsections when a very narrow, even for those

people who qualify for the benefits of this bill,

all it would allow them to get is in-state tuition,

through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


49 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. The

point of allowing these two sub classes of non-

immigrant, I'm sorry, I'm going to give you the

exact word, allowing these two sub clauses of

qualifiers, non-immigrant aliens in the country

access, despite the matter of fact the number is

small, is due to the fact that a number of them are

coming to light in the past few years due to the

federal authority's increased activities in

unearthing trafficking that's taking place here in

Connecticut and across the country, and cooperating

with local law enforcement officials who are

turning against officials back in their home

countries and cooperating with DEA, FBI and other

law enforcement in this country.

This number is present in our state.

Particularly, in my community, I've encountered a

few individuals who 16, 17, 18 years old who came

to this country because one of their parents might

be cooperating with a federal authority, or in

another circumstance, they were identified as a

trafficking victim.

So we thought it was important to extend this

benefit to this group of people who are in

c


50 May 19, 2015

Connecticut now and plan on remaining in

Connecticut for the foreseeable future. Thank you,

through you.

SPEAKER SHARKEY:


REP. LEGEYT (17th):


Appreciate the courtesies.



the amendment? Representative Ferraro.

REP. FERRARO (117th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, I

have a couple questions for the proponent of the

bill.



sir. Representative Ferraro, you may proceed, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the proponent of

the bill, through you, I have a couple questions

regarding the qualifications of the people for this

program.

0

c

c


51 May 19, 2015

Just because I'm reading the language and I

want to make sure it's clear. It says that

residents in Connecticut have to maintain a

continuous and permanent physical presence, and

then it says, they attended an in-state educational

institution for at least two years and then

graduated from a high school or equivalent of

Connecticut.

So am I to understand that as long as they

attend, I'm sorry, this is the amendment, right?


Yes, sir.


Yes, okay. I'm sorry. To the proponent of

the amendment, am I to understand that even though

they may have two years of high school, Connecticut

high school study, it is possible that they don't

live in Connecticut for two years. Is that

correct?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the

question pertains to the underlying bill, not the

c

c

c


52 May 19, 2015

amendment. But it is the intent of this program

that you comply with a, for this subgroup of new

additions, to the bill that they would qualify with

the remaining existing law, which requires

attendance of two years and graduation from a local

Connecticut institution.


Okay. I didn't realize when I stood to ask

the question that I was only on the amendment, so

if I can, I'd like to rise again when the bill.


You may, sir.






If not, let me try your minds. Will you

remark? I'm sorry. All those in favor, please

signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.


0

c

c


53 May 19, 2015

All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and

the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further

on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on

the bill as amended? Representative Betts of the

78th.

REP. BETTS (78th):

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker, thank you, a

few questions to the proponent, if I may?



sir. Representative Betts, you may proceed, sir.

REP. BETTS (78th)

Thank you very much. To the good

Representative, could you explain to the Chamber so

that they can understand the rationale for why this

bill's been introduced? What is the current policy

in terms of illegal immigrants being able to apply

for in-state tuition, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, in

2011 the General Assembly passed Public Act 11-43,

which allows students who are in the federal

c

c

c


54 May 19, 2015

government's Deferred Action for Childhood

Arrival's Program, and that the underlying

additional criteria in the bill to pay in-state

tuition at our colleges.

Those additional criteria required four years'

attendance at our local school and graduation from

a local Connecticut school. And they also had to,

in the final lines of the current existing law,

fulfill an affidavit requirement as well.


Representative Betts.

REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And as you had mentioned, in order

to do it, the current policy is, you have to be a

resident for four years. Is there a reason,

through you, Madam Chair, why the policy is being

reduced from four years to two years, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. We

looked across the country and of the 19 states that

offer in-state tuition to this group of students,

we're the only one that requires four years. Most

0

c

c


55 May 19, 2015

states surrounding us are two or three years. New

York, for example, is two years. Rhode Island is

three years. There are a group of states that only

require one year.

We also noticed that a number of the students

who fit this profile will have spent a few years in

New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and spend

their last two years here in Connecticut. So we

thought we could expand the opportunity to our

students, students who are in the Deferred Action

Program, who plan on remaining Connecticut

residents after they graduate, who fulfill that

affidavit.

If they meet a basic requirement of two years

and graduation from a local school, we really

thought that we could serve this population by

extending that opportunity to them.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And how do we know, if the good

gentleman could tell me, how do we know if they're

going to be staying in Connecticut after they

graduate? Is there some kind of commitment they

0

c

c

003460 /pt HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES

56 May 19, 2015

have to make as part of becoming eligible, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No. There's no

commitment that they have to remain in Connecticut

after they graduate. We just know that folks who

graduate from our local public institutions have a

substantially higher rate of retention in

Connecticut than those who graduate from private

institutions.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, lately, it's

become very apparent for numerous reasons that even

people who are graduating from Connecticut have

been leaving our state, and we obviously want to be

keeping those folks here but they are finding

better opportunities or have other reasons for

going to other states.

If these folks become eligible and they come

and graduate here, once again, I ask the proponent.

c

c

c


57 May 19, 2015

What assurance do we have that they will not leave

the state, much like many of the people who

currently are graduating are doing, through you,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, we can't,

you know, tie these folks to Connecticut upon

graduation. But what we do know is that over 80

percent of the folks who graduate from our

community colleges and our local public

institutions, 80 percent of those folks who

graduate from institutions stay here in Connecticut

upon graduation.

And we believe that this population is no

different than those people who make the life

connections, and social connections, and work

connections at their college of choice, and then

retain themselves in that state upon graduation.

And that is our hope with this bill, and that's

based upon the evidence that we've had to date in

our experiences with students in our local schools,

through you.

c

c

c


58 May 19, 2015



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And that's very encouraging. I

wonder if the good Representative could tell me

where he got that source of information of 80

percent of the people who graduate from here stay

here, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through testimony

from our state university system.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Okay. Thank you. Now this residency

requirement, does it also apply to people who are

citizens, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, no. If

you're a Connecticut citizen you normally, as a

c

c

c


59 May 19, 2015

typical past graduate from your local Connecticut

institution, you are eligible for in-state tuition

immediately.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And if this passes, I anticipate,

or there must be some kind of anticipation for

future planning, a certain number of applicants

will be applying for this.

I know in hearing the testimony many people

had said they had come over from New York and

attended Connecticut colleges. Could the good

Representative give us an idea as to what the range

is, or what the expectation is of how many more

people, were this law to pass, would apply for

this, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We don't have exact

numbers of anticipated folks who might apply for

this program. But we do know that the University

of Connecticut, for example. Their testimony

0

c

c


60 May 19, 2015

indicated that they are one, supportive of this

bill. And two, that they could certainly

accommodate folks coming in under in-state tuition

and look forward to welcoming these students, and I

didn't see any negative impact on their overall

enrollment numbers, through you.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. But that's one university. I ask

that from the perspective of if we were a

Connecticut set of parents in a Connecticut family.

And in these tough times, as we all know,

everybody's hurting and looking for every

opportunity they can to get a student loan or a

grant or some kind of financial assistance.

I wonder what the good Representative would

say to these folks if they came to you and said,

well, a couple hundred folks from this group

applied and received tuition aid, and they've only

been in this state for two years, and our family's

been here for their entire high school career ..

c

c

c


61 May 19, 2015

In terms of the issue of fairness, what would

you say to them if they were to say this doesn't

seem fair to them, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. You

know, I think that's an important question and we

all work with our student bodies. I'm in my local

New Haven high schools on a frequent basis

interacting with children who are looking to go to

college. And never once has it come up that this

person's been in the country longer and therefore

deserves more of an opportunity than somebody else.

I think everyone sits across and next to each

other in their classrooms and realizes that they're

going to high school together, and they're

imagining their futures together. And the status

of one of these kids may not be apparently known to

anyone else in their classroom.

So we help all of those kids to achieve their

dreams, to hopefully fulfill them at local

universities and stay in Connecticut moving

forward.

c

0

c


62 May 19, 2015

And as a point of fact, we do actually have

excess capacity within our state university system

and so hopefully this doesn't come at the cost of

anybody else. This just allows us to provide more

opportunities to our hard-working students. Thank

you, Madam Speaker, through you.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. What in general do you think? You

said other states around us had more generous

criteria for residency and that Connecticut was one

of the more difficult ones.

I wonder if somebody could, or if you could

explain to me what's wrong with the policy of four

years as a residency require just from a simple

point of view that at least if you're here a

minimum of four years, you clearly have established

roots. You clearly established relationships.

You've certainly gotten to know the educational

system. That's really all your high school, nine

through twelfth grade.

0

c

c


63 May 19, 2015

What would be the rationale from a policy

point of view for making it less than four years,

through you, Madam Chair?



REP. LEMAR (96th):


There are 19 other states in the country that allow

for in-state tuition for their students regardless

of documentation. We are the only one that

requires four years of high school. New York,

which was referenced, only requires two years of

high school.

The reason we want to move to two years is

because we are recognizing that a growing number of

people move from state to state over the course of

their high school career, and these are folks who

have chosen to be in Connecticut for their final

two years of high school, are graduating with other

Connecticut students.

And it's actually a more burdensome

requirement than we place on anybody else. If

anyone else moves into the State of Connecticut and

spends one year at a local institution and

0

0

c


64 May 19, 2015

graduates, they are in-state qualified child. And

we're trying to extend our current opportunity to

more students who we recognize as Connecticut

students and we want to ensure stay in Connecticut

moving forward, and we want to provide this

opportunity for them to afford college, and prosper

like the rest of our students here in Connecticut,

through you.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And I thank you for that answer,

and I certainly understand the fairness issue.

What I'm not clear about is the educational issue

and the overall standard by which we're offering

this in-state tuition.

It seems to me as if that's an incentive or a

reward for having spent a considerable number of

years here within the state. Or at least that's my

understanding for the rationale as to why you offer

in-state tuition aid versus paying a different

price if you came from outside the state.

So once again, I'm unclear as to, if that is

the policy and the rationale for offering a

0

c

c


65 May 19, 2015

discounted price, why would we make it easier for

more people to take advantage of something when the

current system right now seems to be working just

fine, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (86th):


know, what we're concerned about is the enormous

debt levels that many of these Connecticut students

are taking on by attending local schools. And we

recognize that if we want to keep our young here in

the state and we want to grow our economy, we are

in a much better position statewide if we allow

these folks to be educated here in our state.

And the cost of out-of-state tuition for these

folks makes UConn uncompetitive. It makes our

other Connecticut state universities uncompetitive

with a lot of our regional neighbors.

So by offering these Connecticut children in-

state tuition we allow them to keep their debt load

lower. We allow them to attend school here in the

state. We make our state university systems more

c

c

c


66 May 19, 2015

competitive nationally for these children, and

we're preparing them.

We've got a great university system here.

It's doing an outstanding job of preparing our

children for the next wave of jobs, and we want to

keep those kids here once we're done. So applying

in-state tuition for their needs I think is the

right policy choice, both for those children but

also the state as a whole, through you.



REP~ BETTS (78th):

Thank you. And listening to the testimony, it

struck me that a lot of the people who are going to

take advantage of this opportunity are not

currently Connecticut citizens, and in fact,

they're going to be coming from places like New

York where you said the standard was less than four

years.

So I wonder what it is, why they would leave

New York and come to Connecticut unless there's

something beside in-state tuition. What is it that

would lead to this anticipated growing number of

applicants coming to Connecticut, and then what

0

c

c


67 May 19, 2015

that would do to the revenue that colleges and

universities need to collect but they would lose

because they're doing a discounted price versus a

full price, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :


know, folks move across state boundaries all of the

time, and the qualification for in-state tuition,

if you are not an undocumented citizen, it doesn't

have any years of requirement to live in the State

of Connecticut. It's just graduating from a local

school and making that your permanent residence.

For these groups of folks who may have moved

during their high school career because their

parents are following jobs or they're living with

other family members due to home situations. or for

whatever reason they are in Connecticut for the

final two years of their high school academic

career, we think it's important to treat them like

Connecticut students and apply in-state tuition to

those children.

c

c

c


68 May 19, 2015

And generally, the University of Connecticut

and the state university systems do not see this as

a revenue drain on their behalf. There•s no fiscal

note attributable in the bill, and the University

of Connecticut stated that this would not affect

their bottom line.

So I think that gets to the underlying

question that they had, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you very much. I•m a little perplexed

by that explanation because from a business point

of view, and particularly as universities like

Connecticut and the community colleges are in need

of money because we asked them to reduce, or we•ve

taken away money that we•ve typically given to

these universities because of the economic climate.

It seems to me that in order for them to make

up that shortfall, the number one goal would be to

get full paying students as opposed to increasing

the number of discounted students, discounted

prices, or more students who would get the

discounted price.

c

0

c


69 May 19, 2015

Does that not seem logical to you, sir,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems logical

from a traditional business perspective. But

within our University System there are a couple

factors that make this a little different and why

these students actually generate revenue for the

Connecticut state university system.

One is because there's excess capacity within

the system and the additional students is actually

helping our bottom line.

And two, we have to recognize the other

federal and state laws at play here. These

students are not eligible for any financial aid.

They end up paying the full freight cost, whether

it's in-state or out of state. So ultimately this

ends up generating revenue for state university and

University of Connecticut system, through you,

Madam Speaker.



c

0

c


70 May 19, 2015

REP. BETTS (78th) :

Thank you. And before I follow up on that

line of thinking, the good Representative said the

universities have excess capacity. And what I

assume that means is that we have more room to take

more .students. Is that what the gentleman was

intending to state, or am I misreading what he

said, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, yes. Within the CSU

and community college systems there is excess

capacity and room for us to take additional

students, through you.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you very much. And it's been my

understanding because of the budget crunch that in

fact some places, some programs, are going to be

reduced or eliminated because of the financial

crunch. Is that your understanding, through you,

Madam Speaker?

0

0

c


71 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't have

intimate knowledge of the current budget

negotiations that are taking place internal to

these schools. But again, I do recognize that on

multiple occasions there's been testimony there's

excess capacity within the CSU and community

college systems. Thank you, through you.



REP. BETTS (78th):

Okay, thank you. So getting back to the issue

of revenue, and you were saying that it generates

more revenue for the universities and the community

colleges by having more students, even if it's at a

discounted price.

If you were looking at the horizon over the

next two to three years and given the current

trend, is that the model that you believe the

universities should be following financially to

address what are anticipated shortfalls, through

you, Madam Speaker?

c

0

c


72 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure I want

to make institutional policy choices about how to

attract new students in a general sense. I'll

leave it up to the university folks to figure out

the best direction to stay in that regard.

But I do recognize that these students, not

paying a discounted price. In fact, they are

paying the full freight cost of education because

they are not eligible for any other financial aid.

So this ultimately, and that's the underlying

reason why it ends up generating revenue for the

university is, and not costing as some are

concerned with is because these kids, when we

extend the benefit of in-state tuition one, it

helps them not accumulate long-term financial

constraint and strain.

But two, it actually helps alleviate some of

the capacity issues that we have at our local

universities, through you.



0

0

c


73 May 19, 2015

REP. BETTS (78th):

Thank you very much, ·and I thank the

gentleman, the good gentleman for his answers. I'd

just like to make a few comments that come across

my mind as we consider this bill.

I understand the fairness issue and the demand

for illegal immigrants, many of whom are children

of parents who came here illegally, and is of no

choice of themselves.

However, I balance that with the needs of

people who have lived here, whose families have

lived here for many, many years, if not decades,

and in fact plan on having their children go to

Connecticut universities and colleges because the

advantage is they can get an in-state tuition rate,

and that's really a reasonable return considering

you've been paying taxes for all this expansion

going on at UConn and other places.

So it is difficult for me to explain the

policy or the rationale to these folks whose kids

who will not be able to, in my mind, be able to

qualify for the in-state tuition aid because

there's only so many slots. There's a finite

number of slots that are available and it's fairly

0

c '

c


74 May 19, 2015

evident that they are not going to be successful in

their application because of the size of pool is

going to be increased dramatically for people

applying for in-state tuition aid and for

admission.

And for those people who have lived here for a

long time who consider Connecticut their permanent

home, that really causes a real dilemma, and I can

understand their feeling that this is not fair.

If the economy was strong and great, I don't

think this, as I said to Representative earlier on,

this would not be as much of an issue. But in

today's climate I think it's a very serious issue.

The second thing is, he made a very good

observation, with which I agree. There are people

who go back and forth between states a lot

nowadays. One of the questions that comes to my

mind and it bothers me is, if you come in here, you

only live two years versus four years. I don't

consider that to be anywhere as near the same as a

commitment as if you were living here four years.

I am not at all confident that they either

have the roots or the rationale for staying here

after they graduate. I mean, after all, they want

c

c

c


75 May 19, 2015

to be able to strengthen their ability, be able to

take care of themselves and their families, and

there may be many, many opportunities outside this

state.

For those folks who have families here and who

have lived here for a long time, they have

additional reasons because they have deep roots as

well as have been in the high schools with alumni

for decades. So they have friends. They have

families. They're a lot less inclined to leave the

state.

So the investment we make in them I think will

be returned by their staying in here and applying

for jobs and applying their new learning skills.

But most importantly, I just don't understand

why we lower the standard of four years. I just

don't understand why four years is perceived to be

a burden? I'm not, I don't frankly care what the

other states do. Being here for four years at a

high school level seems to me to be a realistic

expectation for anybody who wants to apply to a

college or a state university in Connecticut.

I mean, the high school years are the best

years. You form long-term bonds and friendships.

c

c

c


76 May 19, 2015

Certainly, you're going to have more success in

achieving that and feeling part of the school than

if you're here for just two years.

So for those reasons, Madam S~eaker, I'm going

to be opposing this bill, and I thank the good

gentleman for answering those questions and I'll

just listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you

so much.



the bill as amended? Will you remark further on

the bill as amended? Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, good afternoon.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

If I could, a few questions, through you to

the proponent of the bill.



please. Representative Davis, you may proceed,

sir.

REP. DAVIS (57th):

0

0

c


77 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you to the

proponent of the bill. I think you alluded to this

but it wasn't pa~ticularly clear with your

conversations with the kind Ranking Member of the

Higher Education Committee.

Do the rules that apply in this bill before us

apply to all students in the State ot Connecticut,

or only to students who are undocumented status

here in the United States, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :


rules in this subsection passed in 2011 under our

Public Act 11-43 apply solely to undocumented

students who fit the underlying criteria. Any

other student in the State of Connecticut just has

to attribute this is their permanent fixed

residence. There are no requirements that you

graduate, that you have a number of years in

Connecticut. You just have to prove that this is

your fixed residence here in Connecticut.

0

c

c


78 May 19, 2015

This two-year requirement is solely for these

individuals who we're trying to extend in-state

tuition ability to, through you.


Representative Davis.

REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Within this bill we

require that that student attend two years of high

school. Previously under the current law it's four

years. Through you, Madam Speaker, what would an

individual have to do to prove residency in the

State of Connecticut and/or in the town in order to

qualify to attend high school within the State of

Connecticut, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):


University uses a variety of ways to determine what

the fixed residence is of an individual. I'm not

familiar with all of them, but oftentimes it might

be a driver's license or other form of

identification, as well as, you know, other ability

c

c

c


79 May 19, 2015

to prove that this is your full-time residence and

you plan on remaining there, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And perhaps I'll

rephrase my question. In order to attend high

school in the State of Connecticut, if you were to

move from another state, as indicated within this

bill we're attempting to attract students for their

last two years of high school.

Through you, Madam Speaker, what would you

need to be able to prove for your residency here in

the State of Connecticut or in that town in order

to attend high school in the State of Connecticut,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, now I more

fully understand the Representative's question.

I'm not sure if it's true at each individual school

in every district across the state. I know in the

City of New Haven in order to register my children

0

0

c


80 May 19, 2015

for school we've gone down with birth certificates

and proof of residency at our local home, which is,

we brought our tax bill and I think a utility bill

to corroborate that we are who we say we are, and

we live at the address that we say we live at,

through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, is

there a standardized procedure or processes or

documents that are required to establish residency

within that town and/or school district in order to

attend that school across the State of Connecticut,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not certain if

there's a standardized process at all school

districts across the State of Connecticut. I'm

only familiar with the City of New Haven's, and

again, that requires proof of residency and it can

be a variety of different forms to illustrate that

c

0

c


81 May 19, 2015

your child lives at the address you say they do,

through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I certainly

understand the kind gentleman from New Raven's

point and that he perhaps does not know how every

school district operates. I certainly don't either,

and that's why I asked the question.

I do understand that there are significant

issues across the entire State of Connecticut of

individuals claiming to be in one district and

actually living in the other, thus indicating that

there are some significant either loopholes and/or

an ability to confirm residency across the State of

Connecticut, and whether or not an individual

actually is from that town and/or Connecticut when

attending that high school.

But I'll take another track of questioning as

far as the actual in-state tuition section of the

bill. Through you, Madam Speaker, is the kind

gentleman aware of how many in-state tuition

students in general, in total, there are here 1n

0

0

c


82 May 19, 2015

the State of Connecticut within our University

systems, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not have that

number in front of me, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And perhaps you

would know, given the direct impact that this bill

would have or has had over the last four years on

this particular topic. Is the kind gentleman aware

of how many illegal immigrants take advantage of

in-state tuition here in the State of Connecticut,




REP. LEMAR (96th):


University of Connecticut and the state university

system doesn't have a process by which they

otherwise account for the number of undocumented

0

0

c


83 May 19, 2015

immigrants who qualify under the DOCA Program that

they have currently at their local schools, or how

many this would add. There are no numbers that

they were able to sort of predict with any

assurance, so we don't have an exact number of

undocumented immigrants who may qualify for this

program or are currently taking advantage of

themselves of it, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And my

understanding that under the bill that was passed

in 2011, that each one of those illegal immigrants

would have to fill out an affidavit indicating the

fact that they are attempting to obtain legal

status and/or they will do so shortly upon

graduation.

Through you, Madam Speaker, do we have any

information from the university system as to how

many affidavits they have received, perhaps, for

these in-state tuition students and perhaps we can

use that as information toward how many illegal

0

0

c


84 May 19, 2015

immigrants are participating in the in-state

tuition program, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, each

undocumented student who avails themselves of this

program would require to file an affidavit with the

institution that they enrolled at. We did not

request that information. I'm not sure that the

University of Connecticut, without violating

privacy concerns that universities have regarding

the information, private information of their

students, if they would provide it to us even if we

did ask.

But we certainly did not ask for that

information, and I would hope that we would not

inquire as to any of the sensitive information,

personal information that our students have on file

with the university system, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

0

0

c


85 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I certainly

understand the concerns about educational records

and the federal laws that prohibit access to them.

Simply trying to ascertain how many students

actually attend our state university system that

are taking advantage of this program as we are now

taking up this bill, and looking to perhaps

increase those ranks.

Through you, Madam Speaker, for instance, the

University of Connecticut, do we have an idea of

what the cost for an in-state tuition student is to

attend the University of Connecticut in the

upcoming fall semester, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't have the

exact number. Basing off a recollection and other

information from educated folks here in the

Chamber, we believe it's around $22,000 per year,

through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th) :

0

c

c


86 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you to

the kind gentleman from New Haven, is he aware of

the cost of the University of Connecticut for a non

in-state student, and out-of-state student, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I am

not, again, not certain as to the exact cost for an

out-of-state student, but I believe it's in excess

of $35,000 per year.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And before the 2011

bill was passed, through you, Madam Speaker, were

illegal immigrants required to be counted as out-

of-state residents when they attempted to attend

the University of Connecticut, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


87 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Undocumented

students at that time were not eligible for in-

state tuition, so yes, they would have had to pay

the full cost of an out-of-state student, through

you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the kind

gentleman aware of how many students that had

undocumented status within the State of Connecticut

that attended the University of Connecticut prior

to the passage of the 2011 law, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Reviewing testimony

that was at the public hearing, those numbers

weren't offered at that point in time, and I

certainly don't have them at this time, through

you.



0

0

c


88 May 19, 2015

REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And is the kind

gentleman aware of any limits that the university

systems have on the acceptance of in-state students

in comparison to out-of-state students, such as a

ratio that they must maintain, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not aware of a

set ratio that the university must maintain. I

know they try to balance the number of in-state and

out-of-state students that they have for a variety

of reasons, because they believe it adds a level of

intellectual discourse and opportunity and sort of

creativity to have people from different

experiences.

I know there's, not a formula, but a diversity

index that they try to attribute to their incoming

class but it's not a set formula as far as I'm

aware, certainly not a statutorily defined

formula. And as the good Representative knows, as

the proud graduate of the University of

0

0

c


89 May 19, 2015

Connecticut, myself as a proud graduate of the

University of Massachusetts, there are a variety of

criteria that our public universities use when

building a class, and that numbers in the thousands

of students every year.

And this legislation does not impact the

underlying numbers of those students in any

substantive way, and the University itself

articulated on numerous occasions that they saw no

issue with qualifying these students as in-state

students in the make-up of their incoming freshman

classes, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):


the proponent of the bill, are these students that

would now be eligible after only two years of

attending high school, would they be eligible for

forms of financial aid through the universities,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

0

c

c


90 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, no.

Undocumented students are not eligible for either

institutional or federal aid, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I know

sometimes they're interchanged, sometimes they're

combined together. Through you, Madam Speaker,

would a student of undocumented status be eligible

for scholarships through the University, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A student could be

eligible for a number of private scholarships, but

they are not eligible for any publicly funded

scholarships, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And in looking at

the language in the bill, we're simply requiring

c

c

c


91 May 19, 2015

that that student attend two years of a high school

within the State of Connecticut or its equivalent.

Through you, Madam Speaker, would this include

students that are from out of state that attend,

for instance, a private school throughout the State

of Connecticut, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. Could

the Representative ask the question again? I may

have missed the construct a little bit. I

apologize, through you.


Representative Davis, would you mind repeating

yourself, please?

REP. DAVIS (57th):

Certainly, Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

Under the bill it requires that the student attend

two years of high school level education in the

State of Connecticut and then graduated from a high

school in this state or its equivalent.

0

c

c


92 May 19, 2015

Through you, Madam Speaker, does this include

private institutions, private high schools in the

State of Connecticut, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. If you reside

in this state, that being the first criteria. You

have to reside in this state.

Two, if you graduate from any educational

institution in the state. Those are the two

criteria I believe the Representative is asking

about, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):


the proponent of the bill, would this also include

individuals that are perhaps from out of state and

attend one of our many prestigious boarding schools

within the State of Connecticut, through you, Madam

Speaker?



H – 1212

CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

HOUSE

PROCEEDINGS 2015

VOL.58 PART 11

3497 – 3847

c

c

c


93 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):


first criteria needs to be met. One, that they are

a resident of the State of Connecticut and can

prove so. That would be number one, reside in the

State of Connecticut.

So after they've proven that first point, they

move on to the second point, which would be that

they attended two years at any educational

institution in the State of Connecticut.

Three, that they graduated from an educational

institution.

And then four, that they are registered as an

entering student for the upcoming academic year,

through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll frame the

question as such that if you reside in the State of

Connecticut do we have a definition of what that

term actually means, what it means to reside in the

State of Connecticut? Is there a time period in

which that individual must reside? Is there

c

0

c


94 May 19, 2015

certain residency requirements that are set forth

in statute in order to qualify as residing in the

State of Connecticut, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, for the

purposes of this bill it's residing for two years

and attending those two years at the educational

institution.

As for a general, you know, qualification of

what makes up a residence. We live in a country

that's prided itself on not requiring that sort of

stuff. We have freedom of transfer. We can move

to any state that we like. We can set up a

residence in Rhode Island, Massachusetts,

Connecticut, California, if we so like.

And being a resident of that state that we so

choose for two years and graduating from a local

high school after two years and providing in-state

tuition, that's what this bill seeks to do, is

recognize those students, those families who have

chosen to live in Connecticut for the last two

years, were attending educational institutions in

c

c

c


95 May 19, 2015

our state, were graduating from those educational

institutions, and then providing in-state tuition

like we would to anybody else who just showed up

tomorrow and said that this was their residence.

We will provide this opportunity for those

growing number of students based upon this set of

criteria, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th);

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, if

an individual perhaps was from the State of Idaho

and they were an undocumented immigrant, and they

qualified for attendance at say Choate or Taft or

Avon Old Farms, one of our other prestigious

universities, perhaps they go there for their final

two years of graduation, until graduation.

Would they be considered residents of the

State of Connecticut in order to qualify for in-

state tuition under this bill, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


96 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I believe if they

somehow manage to create a Connecticut address as

their fixed and permanent address for two years,

yes, then they would qualify. If there was a fixed

and permanent address in the State of Connecticut

that would qualify you as a resident of the State

of Connecticut. through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you,

the kind gentleman had mentioned in previous debate

that the universities have indicated that they have

excess space. In fact, they can actually include

additional students onto their universities.

Through you, Madam Speaker, is the kind

gentleman aware of any of our universities in the

State of Connecticut that have a wait list for

students who applied for admission into that

school, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

0

c


97 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know the

University of Connecticut annually, when they go

through their process, ends up with different

categories of students that they provide direct

entrance to some that are on, they have enrolling

admissions throughout the year. And at the end of

that year there are usually some kids who are on

the wait list pending the application decisions of

other students at the University.

I don't believe that is true at all of our CSU

schools or at our community colleges, but we do

have testimony from CSU and community college

systems that there is excess capacity within the

system. Not necessarily at the University of

Connecticut, but certainly at the CSUs and the

community colleges, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So as an individual

from the State of Connecticut you went to four

years of high school in the State of Connecticut.

You've lived here your entire life. You apply for

University of Connecticut. You're hoping to get

c

c

c


98 May 19, 2015

in-state tuition. You receive a letter, you could

potentially receive a letter saying that you are

wait-listed and that your admission is not accepted

immediately, and perhaps you have to wait for the

enrollment choices by other individuals, through

you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I missed the very,

the key component of that question, which was like

the last four words. I apologize. If the

Representative could repeat the question, that

would be great.


Representative Davis, would you mind repeating

the question, sir.

REP. DAVIS (57th):

Most certainly, Madam Speaker, through you to

the proponent of the bill, if you are a resident of

the State of Connecticut, you lived here your

entire life, you went to four years of high school

here in the State of Connecticut. You graduated.

c

c

c


99 May 19, 2015

You're looking forward. You really want to go to

the University of Connecticut.

You apply for the University of Connecticut.

You get a letter in the mail that says you're wait-

listed. You're not accepted right away.

Through you, Madam Speaker, is it possible for

an individual to receive a letter indicating that

they've been wait-listed from the University of




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, yes. The University

of Connecticut usually, at the end of its academic

cycle, will send out a list of letters to those who

have been granted admittance into the University of

Connecticut, those who have been denied admittance

to the University of Connecticut, and those who are

on a wait list pending the enrollment decisions of

other students.

That is true, I think, of most four-year

colleges in the State of Connecticut and is true at

the University of Connecticut as well, through you.


c

c

c


100 May 19, 2015


REP. DAVIS (57th):


the proponent of the bill, are we aware of any of

our neighboring states that offer similar in-state

tuition benefits to illegal immigrants, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. There are 19

states across the country that provide in-state

tuition to this group of students. Immediately

adjacent to us in New York they require two years

of in-state residency. The State of Rhode Island

requires three.

We are the only one that requires four. Most

states across the country are, I think three.

Places like Hawaii and New Mexico are only one

year. The most common number amongst these 19

states is three years of residency, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

c

c

c


101 May 19, 2015


have we seen an influx of illegal immigrants coming

into our high school system in the State of

Connecticut since we passed the in-state tuition

bill requiring four years of residency, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We did not receive

any testimony regarding an influx of undocumented

students into the State of Connecticut since the

passage of this bill.

In fact, there are numerous choices of where

someone chooses to reside when they move to this

country. This is a very small benefit provided to

some very qualified young children, who we hope to

keep in the State of Connecticut to help grow our

economy.

The local boards of education that testified

on this bill testified in favor. The University of

Connecticut testified in favor. The numerous

students who testified on this bill, all testified

in favor. In fact, we did not receive any negative

c

c

c


102 May 19, 2015

testimony regarding extending this public benefit

to this very select, relatively small, but well-

qualified group of students, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, if

I could, we've heard a number of times from the

proponent of the bill that this is a very select

few number of students. And I guess I'll revert

back to a previous question as to, through you,

Madam Speaker, do we know how many students would

qualify for in-state tuition if it was reduced to

only two years of high school, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, we do not have

exact information as to how many students would, in

fact, qualify. This is not information that's

tracked in any meaningful way either locally by

advocates or at the University itself.

c

c

c


103 May 19, 2015

We do know that there are students within our

public high school system, some that I have

interacted with at Wilbur Cross High School, and a

high school back in the community back in New

Haven. Students that were testifying before the

Higher Education Committee when this bill was

originally heard, who all indicated that there is

not a large number of these students, but enough

students that we needed to extend this benefit to

ensure that we're providing as much opportunity as

possible to a growing number of children who find

themselves in the State of Connecticut, through

you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and without the

adoption of this bill and/or the statutes that the

bill is amending, through you, Madam Speaker, would

an illegal immigrant be able to attend a college or

university in the State of Connecticut without

having this in-state tuition benefit, through you,

Madam Speaker?


c

c

c


104 May 19, 2015


REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, an

undocumented student would be able to attend any

university in the State of Connecticut. For

purposes of in-state tuition, they would not be

able to receive that benefit, that public benefit,

if it weren't for this bill, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So this bill makes

it easier to obtain a financial benefit from the

State of Connecticut if you're an illegal

immigrant, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill makes it

easier for a subsection of students in Connecticut

to qualify for in-state tuition. Again, they have

to meet the four criteria outlined in the bill

regarding residency, regarding attendance at a

local college or educational institution, local

c

c

c


105 May 19, 2015

high school or educational institution, graduating

from said institution, and fulfilling the affidavit

requirements outlined in the bill, through you.



REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I thank the

kind gentleman from New Haven for his answers. And

I certainly appreciate what we are attempting to do

under this bill. We're trying to give an

opportunity perhaps individuals that may otherwise

not have that opportunity.

But let's be particularly clear about what we

are actually doing with this bill. What we are

doing, and what was just confirmed within the line

of questioning that we just had, is that we are

giving a financial benefit to illegal immigrants to

come to the State of Connecticut and attend our

state universities and colleges.

Furthermore, under this particular bill, we're

making it even easier to do that. We're making

that benefit even more attainable for those illegal

immigrants to come to the State of Connecticut and

c

c

c


106 May 19, 2015

take an in-state tuition position without our state

universities.

What we have before us, and what we need to be

particularly careful of is the fact that as

Representatives in this Chamber, we represent a

certain constituency across the State of

Connecticut. And what my fear is that by passing a

bill such as this, that makes it easier for an

illegal immigrant to establish residency here in

the State of Connecticut and then take advantage of

financial benefits from our college and university

system is that we're possibly making it harder for

someone who is our constituent in order to access

these services and these financial benefits.

What we're saying to everyone across the

country and across the world in this particular

case, is that if you come to Connecticut we will

give you a financial benefit whether you are

illegal or not, to attend our state colleges and

university.

And we have heard through the testimony during

the debate that an individual can be wait-listed at

the University of Connecticut, that they could be

c

c

c


107 May 19, 2015

from our constituency, attempting to go to the

University of Connecticut and be wait-listed.

So what we could potentially have is that an

illegal immigrant comes to the State of

Connecticut, establishes residency for two years,

graduates, and takes the spot that would otherwise

be available to our constituents at UConn, at ECSU,

Southern, Western Connecticut State University and

our community colleges.

So let's be very careful with what we're doing

here today. We are making it easier for someone to

come and take these spots of our constituents to go

to our state universities, and at least a financial

benefit in order to do so.

These individuals are eligible. They can go

to the universities. They are duly qualified and I

appreciate the fact that they have worked

tremendously hard, whether they were here in the

United States the entire time or not, to get

acceptance into that university. They have proven

that they can.

But what we're doing under this bill is making

it easier for them to get that financial benefit,

and I quite frankly think that that is wrong when

c

c

c


108 May 19, 2015

so many of our students in our constituencies are

saying to themselves, I can't afford to go to the

University of Connecticut. I can't afford to go to

Eastern Connecticut State University.

And now we learn that they can't even get in

sometimes because the wait list is so long or there

is such a large amount of individuals applying to

go to these universities.

So I am not in favor of this bill here today

because it makes it that much harder, potentially,

for my constituents to attend in-state universities

and receive that in-state financial benefit that

they rightly deserve.

So through you, Madam Speaker, I oppose this

bill and I urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.




the bill as amended? Representative Bocchino.

REP. BOCCHINO (150th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the

proponent of the bill for all the time he's put

c

c

c


109 May 19, 2015

into this. But through you, I'd like to ask a

couple questions to the proponent, please.


Representative Lemar, will you please prepare

yourself, sir. Representative Bocchino, you may

proceed, sir.


Through you, Madam Speaker, and I apologize

for any questions that may have already been

answered. But to the proponent, would this bill be

targeting just those individuals.who are,now

residents of Connecticut for two or more years who

were victims of the illegal trafficking that you

had stated, or would it also apply to those who are

residents for more than two years who are residents

now, but were not subject to such illegal

trafficking, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. The underlying

bill, which we are now on, extended the public

benefit that we created in 2011 to any student who

meets the criteria outlined of having two years

c

c

c


110 May 19, 2015

residency in the State of Connecticut, attending a

local educational institution and graduating from

said institution.

We're also extending that benefit to two

subgroups of non-immigrant aliens. That's a

technical term for the two groups of folks we added

in the amendment we heard earlier. Those are folks

who are here on visas due to criminal activity that

they experienced back in their horne countries or

trafficking as the individual said.

So it's two parts, if you meet the two-year

requirement. But we have also extended that

benefit now to these two other groups of

individuals, through you.


Representative Bocchino.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. So through you,

Madam Speaker to the proponent, then what we're

actually doing is to this small, specific group,

we're actually increasing that group, through you,

Madam Speaker.



c

c

c


111 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. There were

the group of individuals, children who qualified at

four years. We're extending the eligibility to

folks so long as they've met the requirements in

two years. We've also now extended it to another

group of children who have experienced physical or

mental abuse, trafficking, back in their home

countries, through you.





Madam Speaker, in regard to the illegal immigration

status, to the proponent, what is the approximate

time from the filing of the application to the time

such person receives his or her legal immigration

status, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That is not a fixed

period of time. That is a process which gets

debated in Congress. It's a process that gets

c

c

c


112 May 19, 2015

extended based upon familial research histories and

the actions and activity of a large federal

bureaucracy.

So there is no fixed period of time in which

an individual who's applied through the DOCA

program knows for certain that their application

will be heard and acted upon, through you.





Madam Speaker, does that then mean that there is no

requirement for the student to continue with his or

her immigration status, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The affidavit that

the individual student signs, the Representative

will find in Lines 12 through 14, states that this

person is without legal immigration status. Such

person files an affidavit with such institution of

high@r education stating that he or she has filed

an application to legalize his or her immigration,

c

c

c


113 May 19, 2015

and will file an application as soon as he or her

becomes eligible to do so.

Again, this is a legal affidavit that his

person has signed and attests to. It is the

requirement that other states put on their students

when they take advantage of their local in-state

tuition programs, and we thought it was appropriate

to ask of our students as well, through you.





Madam Speaker, it doesn't appear then that there is

any specific requirement that will mandate that

these students continue with the fulfillment of

their legalization status, through you, Madam

Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There really isn't

an additional role that the State of Connecticut

can play in that regard. This is a determination

that's reached outside of our auspices, and it's an

c

c

c


114 May 19, 2015

appreciable benefit that we provide to these folks

with the understanding that they are, like all

students who attend the University of Connecticut,

are appreciative of the opportunity they've been

provided.

And we hope, and the numbers suggest, that 80

percent of our children who graduate from local

public schools, public universities in Connecticut

stay and become part of our workforce. And that's

sort of the commitment that we are making.

Unless a benefit that is solely as a reward

for past investments, it's an investment in our

future and growing our workforce and creating a

21st century group of students who want to make

Connecticut horne, and grow and inspire, and create

businesses here.

We don't require that they do anything that we

don't have an ability to measure. And I think the

Representative's question gets to something that we

can't actually functionally enforce, which is a

granting of citizenship status. That's not done at

the state level, through you.



c

c

c


115 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and to the

proponent, then what is exactly actually the

incentive for these students to then stay and

remain in the State of Connecticut once they

receive this wonderful education through in-state

tuition? What is then the incentive for them to

stay, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the

question. I think the incentive is the one that is

true for me when I graduated from college, and

hopefully the one that we're offering to every

successive generation that graduates from our local

public universities, which is an outstanding

quality of life, and social and economic

opportunities that are without parallel in many

places across the country.

And we, in fact, have this outstanding public

school system that has not met capacity. We have

excess capacity within it, and we're providing this

opportunity to our kids, and we feel confident that

c

c

c


116 May 19, 2015

we can retain more than our fair share of these

young folks if we give them the opportunity, if we

make the cost of college competitive with peers

across the state, and we can have a 21st century

well-educated workforce.

The benefit that we provide to them based upon

their residency in the State of Connecticut is

remarkable. And I believe that, like most students

who graduate from local public universities are

appreciate of that, and will hopefully pay it

forward when they are older and start paying taxes,

and will provide that benefit to the next

generation of public school students moving

forward, through you.



REP. BOCCHINO (lSOth):


Madam Speaker, these children that are brought to

the United States by their parents at a very young

age, and then they begin their journey in our

education environment at a very young, again.

What programs are in place for them to realize

the end game, that once they do get into middle

c

c

c


117 May 19, 2015

school that they should be looking for their legal

immigration status?

Where is it that the. state is providing for

them this information so that we're not getting to

this point in their educational career, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a great

question. Right to the point of what we struggle

with serving a community largely of children who

are aspiring American citizens. If we're honest

with ourselves about our American history, these

children are likely to become American citizens at

some point in the future.

And what we see in New Haven, and what I've

seen in Hartford, and I know other communities

across the state, is that there's usually

collaborations between local community foundations,

public school systems, legal assistance groups,

advocacy organizations, nonprofits, who ban

together, who share resources to address the needs

c

c

c


118 May 19, 2015

of this growing group of students across the

country.

And I know in New Haven there's a

collaboration with the Greater New Haven Community

Foundation, New Haven Legal Assistance, with

Progressive Action, New Haven Public Schools to

identify children with language deficiencies,

who've moved into the system relatively late, try

to ensure that we're getting as many resources to

them so that they understand how to not be taken

advantage of because there are a lot of bad people

out there who prey on young immigrants and like

·promise them that they can get them citizenship,

who promise that they have connections with the

federal government.

And instead, we've got a good group of folks

who do this on a low-cost basis and ensure that

these kids are not taken advantage of. This

commitment that we make at the state level, again,

a small public benefit that actually benefits the

state as a whole. This benefit ensures that we've

got a group of children prepared to be a workforce

of tomorrow and to lead and to innovate, and to

c

c

c


119 May 19, 2015

make Connecticut a great place to live. Thank you,

through you.





Madam Speaker, then let me be clear that in our

early childhood education in the State of

Connecticut there is no education to these families

that they will need to gather the proper legal

status for their children so that they may then

attend our wonderful state college institutions

with that in-state cost. Is that the case, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the best of my

knowledge, that program does not exist within our

early childhood care system. Not to, you know,

suggest that we do something in another piece of

legislation, but if we could create a study or a

task force, maybe with the help of Representative

Belsito we can get a task force going and study how

c

c

c


120 May 19, 2015

we would innovate this in our early childcare

system.

But to the best of my knowledge we don't

currently have an articulated program identified

for these specific purposes, through you.





that would then raise a red flag to me that we

should be, we have a fractured program here, that

we should be addressing this at the core as opposed

to looking at the end of one's early childhood

career or secondary childhood prior to them getting

into the higher education level.

Another question that I have for the

proponent, Madam Speaker is, can you tell me how

many of the students or individuals who testified

in support of this bill were in fact victims of the

trafficking amendment that we put on, through you,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


121 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know the

personal histories of the individuals who provided

testimony. I know that there were a couple dozen

over the course of those two days that testified on

a variety of different bills. But I don't know the

personal histories of each of those individuals.

The trafficking and victims of violence and

physical and mental abuse was more of a post-

hearing amendment, based upon concerns that were

highlighted to a number of Representatives here

that there was this group of children who reside in

Connecticut who are not eligible for in-state

tuition due to the fact that they have these non-

immigrant alien statuses.

And we thought it was important when we had

this broader conversation that we allow that these

children have the same access. They're attending

local Connecticut schools. They're graduating from

local institutions. They exist not as DOCA

students, those non-immigrant aliens, and we

thought it was important that we extend the public

benefit to them as well, through you.



c

c

c


122 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you to the

proponent. Just a final statement. You know, in

echoing what Representative Davis said, we've now

created a conundrum where we're taking monies, you

know, or opportunities, I think, away from those of

us who may have children. Mine are younger, but

inevitably would hope that they go and attend, you

know, UConn or some of the other in-state

institutions that are affordable to us as

residents, you know, of the State of Connecticut.

If we can't tie these students to the State of

Connecticut after graduation like the proponent had

suggested earlier, then I would hope that we keep

our current requirements so that these students

would maintain their residency in the State of

Connecticut for at least those four years.

They would then be doing business in the

state, whether just going to the movies or going to

their local supermarkets, and being consumers in

the state, working in the summer months. I think

that that's vital to our state.

And I don't see any concrete benefit to

reducing the requirements from four years to two

c

c

c


123 May 19, 2015

years, when especially we•ve recognized already

that we have a fractured program with these

children who are elementary students who currently

may be not legal in the state, that they•re not

being informed properly, nor their parents are

being informed properly, that that•s going to be a

problem for them as they grow older.

Once they reach their teen years and they

start that process of looking out for colleges, I

find it hard to believe that these same students

and these same families that this is something that

is brand new to them.

I would have to have faith in our system that

our guidance counselors and our advisors in these

institutions would be notifying the parents. So

for that reason I•m against this. I urge my

colleagues to vote no on this bill, and I thank you

for your time and I thank you for the proponent•s

time as well. Thank you.



the bill as amended? Representative Shaban.

REP. SHABAN (135th):

I

I

I

c

c

IC I ;


124 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, a few

questions, through you to the proponent.



Representative Shaban, you may proceed.



gentleman for his persistence and longevity here.

He's been up for quite a while.

My questions really go more toward the

structure of the statute as it's currently written,

and how it's going to be affected vis-a-vis the

bill as amended.

In Line 5, in Lines 4 and 5, the bill reads,

and tracking the law, in accordance with 8 USC

1621(d) a person, comma, other than a non-immigrant

alien as described in the statutory section of U.S.

Code, comma, shall be entitled to in-state tuition

if, and then it goes on with A and B.

Through you, Madam Speaker, would the

gentleman agree with me then that the lines, the

words other than, in Lines 4 and 5 is language of

exclusion, through you, Madam Speaker?


c

c

c

003529 /pt HOUSE-OF REPRESENTATIVES

125 May 19, 2015


REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It would be my

contention that the entirety of Lines 4 and 5

outline who is and is not eligible for the public

benefit that's therefore defined in the succeeding

lines, through you, Madam Speaker.


Representative Shaban.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. And that's really

kind of the rub here because in Lines 4 and 5 the

language is straightforward. It's almost a plain

English rule. It says a person other than non-

immigrant aliens described in 8 USC Sections

1(a) (15) through, we just added (v), said a person

is eligible for in-state tuition other than the

non-immigrant aliens described in the United States

Code we're saying.

But then it seemingly, down in Line 12, if I'm

following the gentleman's argument, we're trying to

loop folks back in and saying, if such person is

without legal immigration status.

c

c

c


126 May 19, 2015

Is it the gentleman's understanding that the

language of exclusion in Lines 4 and 5 is then

linked to language of inclusion in Lines 12 about

who may or may not be eligible, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, if I'm

understanding the question appropriately, and I

think it's a question I was asked before this

conversation started. Folks who are in accordance

with 8 USC 1621(d) and other than a non-immigrant

alien as described in 8 USC 1101(a) (15). Those

non-immigrant aliens are actually here with legal

immigration status.

Those folks who are here on temporary visas

for work or for student visas or business

travelers, or they are the group of individuals

that we talked about before. Folks who are here as

victims of physical or mental abuse and cooperating

with federal authorities, victims of trafficking,

those folks who are non-immigrant aliens are

c

c

c


127 May 19, 2015

actually here with legal immigration status. They

have a status that makes them here legally.

So we want to extend this benefit to those

groups of immigrants who are here legally, and also

to those who are not here with status, so long as

they meet the criteria outlined in Sections 1

through 4. Thank you, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, respectfully,

I'm looking at 8 USC 1621(d) and it's entitled,

aliens who are not qualified aliens or non-

immigrants ineligible for state and local benefits.

In fact, the statutory section that this entire

thing is prefaced on speaks about who is not

eligible for in-state tuition, who is not eligible

for state benefits.

And it says, if a state is going to

affirmatively make them eligible, they have to do

so by affirmative proclamation. The preparatory

language in Line 4 citing 1621 does not define what

legal immigration status is, and that's the problem

with the internal inconsistency in this law.

c

0

c


128 May 19, 2015

The language of exclusion says all these

people are not eligible for in-state tuition.

However, if you do a and b maybe you are. But b is

legal immigration status.

Well, that is not the same as the language of

exclusion. Legal immigration status, so I'll ask

the question through you, Madam Speaker. Where is

legal immigration status defined either in this

bill, in our state statutes or linked to in the

United States Code, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Representative

Shaban asked a great question as to the underlying

immigration laws that predates the consideration of

this bill or it determined the consideration of

this bill.

I don't have the exact language that he is

looking for. But what we do outline in Sections 4

through 6, and then again in 7 through 12, are both

the classifications of folks who are considered for

this public benefit who have non, do not have

status and a subsection of folks who do have a

c

c

c


129 May 19, 2015

status that we wish to make available for in-state

tuition as well.

I hope that answers the question. It's

certainly the best answer I can provide given my

legal background knowledge. I respect

Representative Shahan's legal prowess of his own

right. I do not afford myself of the great wonders

of law school like he had, so I can't provide him

with a more detailed look at immigration law in

this regard, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I, just a side

bar, the gentleman's decision to avoid the legal

profession may have in fact have been a wise one,

but we'll leave that to other people's providence.

I thank the gentleman.

It's right. Where is legal immigration status

defined? Well, guess what? It's not. It's not

defined in Section lOa. I was looking in our

statutes. Frankly, it's not defined as it's used

in this bill in 8 usc llOl(a) (15). It's not

c

c

c


130 May 19, 2015

defined in any of the little sections that we

actually add.

So if you actually run out this statute, the

way it's written, our bill, the way it's written it

says, a person can be eligible for in-state tuition

if you do all these things except non-immigrant

aliens. That's what this says.

That's what, I don't think that's what they're

trying to say because you're saying this list of

non-immigrant aliens can, in fact, be eligible if

they're trying to pursue legal immigration status.

But it's an undefined term.

So the internal inconsistency of the actual

statute itself actually violates, believe it or

not, 8 USC 1623. We had this discussion four years

ago when this bill first came up in this Chamber.

I was at that chair instead of this chair. In

order to give in-state tuition to non-immigrant

aliens or to illegal aliens or whatever you want to

call them, you have to do it on the same basis as

you do to internal citizens. That's what Section

1623 of Title 8 of the United States Code says.

This is why whenever we start meddling around

by jumping into a federally preempted area, and

c

c

c


131 May 19, 2015

jumping out of a federally preempted area by saying

we're going to try and dial the knobs at the state

level. At the same time, avoid whatever the

requirements are at the federal level. This is how

we get mixed up. This is how we end up with

federal lawsuits.

This is how people don't know what their

rights are. This is how you end up in federal

court saying, what exactly are we trying to do?

Well, what this statute I think is trying to

do, it is not going to do by the virtue of the

words. Someone could be a non-immigrant alien and

not qualify for legal immigration status. Where

are they then? Where are they then? Are they

getting in-state tuition or don't they? Well, we

don't know, because they're two different terms.

Standard canon of statutory construction, if

you use two different terms they have two different

meanings. You can't use, you cannot use language

of exclusion and try and fix it with language of

inclusion using different terms. This statute is

internally inconsistent and frankly I think it's

probably going to be void for vagueness on that if

it was ever challenged.

c

c


132 May 19, 2015

The last question, through you, Madam Speaker,

and I heard the gentleman, you know, the intent

here. I heard what the gentleman was saying and I

agree with him. You know, the goal here is to get

folks in college and get them educated, and get

them working in the State of Connecticut and doing

all kinds of great things. We all agree with that,

and that's everybody's goal and it's a laudable

one.

But under, in the language in Lines 12, 13 and

14, the affidavit that says the student is going to

try and fix their immigration status, if that does

not happen.

Through you, Madam Speaker, isn't it true that

that person in fact cannot work in the State of

Connecticut. They can get in-state tuition for

four years, file an affidavit that says I'm going

to try and fix it, but if they don't fix it, then

they can't work here. Isn't that true, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

c

c

c


133 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are varying

degrees of status that immigrants have, either

undocumented or documented non-immigrant aliens.

If, for these children who graduate from a local

high school after spending two years in that high

school sign this affidavit saying that they are

going to apply for consideration for citizenship

through the DOCA Program, if they ultimately do not

receive status based upon that process, I don't

purport to know what the federal law is going to

state at that point in time.

Yes, they would have significant difficulties

in finding employment post-graduation if that

criteria was not met. What we are actually looking

at based upon past precedence in American history

is generally the folks who go through this process

ultimately end up with a status that allows them to

work on an ongoing basis in the country, and

frankly, we are in a great position as a state to

offer this benefit to our students to ensure that

we have a workforce of tomorrow.

Kids who are graduating from our schools,

going to our universities, becoming the workforce

of our future, like we know that it's a competitive

c

c

c


134 May 19, 2015

advantage for us to be a useful state, to be a

growing state.

And frankly, this is the population of

Connecticut that is growing, that is useful, that

is taking part in our public universities and

helping to grow the intellectual capacity within

our state.

And frankly, this public benefit is one that

we offer knowing that ultimately 80 percent of

graduates from these public institutions stay in

the state upon graduation. I think that this is

the right choice for the state and I believe is a

public benefit worth offering. Thank you, through

you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And, you know,

again, the goal, what tne gentleman just said,

thumbs up. Absolutely. I think we're all on the

same page here.

You know, whether or not we decide as a state

to give certain folks in-state tuition in addition

c

c

c


135 May 19, 2015

to other folks, well, that's a policy decision, and

that's what I guess we're dealing with here.

But again, the internal inconsistencies with

this bill, and the internal inconsistencies with

this policy, and the internal inconsistencies with

the statute as written, and as is about to be

amended, do none of those things. They do none of

those things.

The way this is written is your non-immigrant

aliens are on the off list and maybe get put back

on the on list if they meet certain criteria that's

undefined.

I can't support a bill that is that loosey-

goosey, that is internally inconsistent, and

frankly, I think is just internally flawed both

technically and, you know, for some of the grounds

you've heard today.

So I thank the gentleman for his tenacity and

his longevity and I thank the Chamber for its time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER MILLER.:

Will you remark further on the bill as

amended? Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31st):

c

c

c


136 May 19, 2015

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. Good to see

you there, Madam Speaker.




Through you, Madam Speaker, a few questions to

the good Representative.



Representative Srinivasan, you may frame your

question.


Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to begin by

thanking the good Representative for being here for

this length of time and very graciously answering

all our questions. We appreciate that very much.

As I understand this, a person, now if this

bill were to be passed, needs to live in our state

for two years, and having lived in the state for

two years could then qualify. Is that the right

understanding, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


137 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. There is a

series of subsequent requirements, but the first

requirement being they need to reside in the State

of Connecticut for two years, through you.


Representative Srinivasan.


Through you, Madam Speaker, after having

resided in our state for two years, if that family

including the student of course, moves out of our

state and then comes back to qualify for this in-

tuition, would that student then qualify, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the exact

situation that this bill envisions is someone who

resides in the State of Connecticut for two years,

attends a local educational institution for those

two years, subsequently graduates from that

institution, and enrolls, registers and enrolls at

a local public institution, then they are afforded

the benefit of in-state tuition.

c

c

c


138 May 19, 2015

Subsequent sorts of policy decisions I think

are handled internally based upon when they enroll

at the university, but those are the baseline

criteria that you have to meet to be considered,

through you.




Through you, Madam Speaker, so that I'm clear,

so if the student and the family live in the state

and then moved out, lived more than two years but

have moved out, and this student has not graduated

high school, you know, has gone through the four

years. But the final year or the final two years

are not in a school system within Connecticut, but

obviously they qualify because they've been here

for two years, would that student then be eligible,




REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Madam Speaker, through you, that student would

not be eligible as they would not have met the

c

c

c


139 May 19, 2015

requirement that they graduated from the local

institution, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the

clarification. I appreciate that.

Do we know, Madam Speaker, as to the number of

students that would qualify? I know I've heard.

I've been listening to the conversation and I was

not clear if we have an estimate of what these

numbers would look like if this legislation were to

pass, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. We do

not have an exact number. Even looking roughly at

the testimony there wasn't a rough estimate other

than folks saying it's not a substantial number or

an impactful number, I think were the language used

by the University of Connecticut with conversations

with them, through you.


c

c

c


140 May 19, 2015



So through you, Madam Speaker, then it is my

understanding that if it is not in fact impactful,

if it's not substantial, it would not then have,

through you, Madam Speaker, a significant fiscal

note to our state, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The great

Representative from Glastonbury hit the nail on the

head. It actually has no fiscal impact to the

State of Connecticut. The University of

Connecticut and the Connecticut state university

system both treated this as either generally

raising revenue, improving the capacity issues that

they have at the state university and community

college system, or in the case of the University of

Connecticut, having no impact on their underlying

financial sustainability, through you.




c

c

c


141 May 19, 2015

Through you, Madam Speaker, does our

university, our state universities, do they have a

formula for them to be able to stand on their feet

as to what should be the mix of in-state students

and out-state students, through you, Madam Speaker,

since their financial commitments obviously in

those two groups are very different, through you,

Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There is no

statutorily defined formula about in-state versus

out-of-state students. What their, internally they

roughly are around 80/20 I think is the current

makeup within our public university system.

Adding the further clarification to this

subgroup of students that we are talking about,

these folks pay full price. They are not eligible

for institutional or federal aid or any publicly

funded aid at all. So they ultimately, whatever

the cost of admission is, they end up paying it

without benefit of financial aid from the

university. So ultimately, I think that's where

c

c

c


142 May 19, 2015

some of the costs, not savings, but how a lot of

those costs are accommodated, through you.




Through you, Madam Speaker, and I want to

thank the Representative for clarifying about what

they will be eligible in terms of scholarships and

funding.

So it is my understanding that any federal

grants or state funding that is available to the

universities for other students, these students

would not be eligible to get any of those fundings,

through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, that is correct,

through you.

SPEAKER SHARKEY:



Through you, Madam Speaker, is there a

commitment, and I know we have touched upon this

c

c

c


143 May 19, 2015

subject matter, and I know the good Representative

was very optimistic in getting these students

graduated from our schools and then finding a job,

you know, given the economy, given the state that

we are in.

So through you, Madam Speaker, is there any

commitment to these students that they have to

commit? Not our commitment to them, but their

commitment to us, to the university, to the state,

that they will be gainfully employed for two years

or four years or whatever it is that it is decided

upon. Is there such a requirement, through you,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No. We don't have

a requirement regarding employment post-graduation.

I think it would be hard for us to enforce it and

toe, I'm not sure how that structure would work.

And ultimately, look, I am a family of

immigrants. I'm married to, my wife is a family of

immigrants, and ultimately everyone shares that

same aspiration. They choose a place where they

c

c

c


144 May 19, 2015

can find opportunity for themselves, for their

family.

We believe by offering a benefit such as in-

state tuition to our children at our public

universities that the numbers are going to bear out

in our favor, that the 80 percent of kids who

graduate from our public schools who stay in the

state, that's going to be this group of kids, too.

And when they have that opportunity to be

educated in the state, and to stay in the state,

and to work in the state, they opportune to

innovate in the state, and to grow the state, and

this is a public benefit that we think we can

afford in accordance with the 19 other states

across the country that do so, and have actually an

economic competitive advantage for us.

I hope that answers the question. I think it

gets to the underlying point the Representative was

asking, through you.




Madam Speaker, I wish that I could share your

enthusiasm about the economy of our state. I wish

c

c

c


145 May 19, 2015

that was where we were, where jobs were just

available. And these kids, not only them but all

our kids, any kid that graduates any school whether

it be an undergrad or post graduate, would just

come out and we would have a long list of options

they would have. Unfortunately, as we know, that's

not the reality.

But moving to other states, through you, Madam

Speaker, where they have such an in-state tuition,

do those states, our neighboring states, New York

as was mentioned earlier. Do they have any such

commitment of their students, through you, Madam

Speaker, to remain in the state for X number of

years, through you, Madam Speaker?

SPEAKER SHARKEY:


REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, no.

No other state has a tie to their students

requiring them to remain in state upon graduation,

through you.




c

c

c


146 May 19, 2015

Through you, Madam Speaker, a concept that the

good Representative has talked about a couple of

times including now, I'm still not able to get my

hands around that.

One is, excess capacity, and that we have

excess capacity, so giving these students an

opportunity to come in and pay in-state tuition

will kind of help it because we have excess

capacity to begin with. And I'm not so sure, and I

just want to be clear that in these universities

there is excess capacity that is not being met at

this time, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, we had

testimony before the Higher Education Committee and

other sources in which the CSU system and our

community college systems, there is excess capacity

within those systems, and that extending this

public benefit does not come as cost to anybody

else, through you.



c

c

c


147 May 19, 2015


And my final question on the same line of

thought. So since there's excess capacity, we

will, if these students are allowed to come in at

an institution, we will be generating revenue,




REP. LEMAR (96th):





Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I want to thank

the good Chairperson for his answers. I appreciate

that very much. Thank you.



the bill as amended? Representative Candelora.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I

rise in opposition to this legislation. I think

four years ago when we had this before us I also

c

c

c


148 May 19, 2015

stood in opposition. And I certainly want to

associate my remarks with Representative Shaban.

The way we had originally drafted this bill I

think certainly runs afoul of federal law, and

potentially puts Connecticut in a position of

buying a lawsuit.

My opinion still hasn't changed even though

over the years we have seen this particular

legislation play out. You know, I don't subscribe

to the notion that everything is free, and I think

we're trying to make that argument here today that

there's capacity, that somehow that UConn or

community college system could absorb these

individuals.

The bottom line is, and the reality is, that

the State of Connecticut subsidizes our higher

education system to a large amount of money and

we've seen it in these debates as we're going

through and fighting these budget deficits time and

again. We are continuing to cut our college

system.

Just about a month ago we had an amendment, or

a bill, on the floor to take decision making.away

from the Board of Regents because we were concerned

c

c

c


149 May 19, 2015

with the fact that they may have to close one of

their branches because of the budget deficits. We

didn't like that decision. We wanted to take that

away from them.

And here today we have a bill saying that the

schools could afford to absorb this cost. It

doesn't make any sense to me. I don't like the

optics of this, ,and I don't think certainly my

constituency is going to understand why we are

taking this step.

The one argument that I've heard today is that

we want to help these individuals become gainfully

employed in the State of Connecticut. The reality

is that in the State of Connecticut, and under

current federal law, these people cannot be

gainfully employed. And we're kidding ourselves if

we think that they could.

I'm an employer in the State of Connecticut,

proudly, and there is not a single person who is an

illegal immigrant that I could legally hire in the

State of Connecticut.

And so the fact that we're choosing to make an

investment in these individuals, regardless of how

we feel or how they got here, we all could be

c

c

c


150 May 19, 2015

sympathetic and empathetic to their situation. But

the reality is, and this is where the disconnect

continues.

These people cannot be employed in our state.

So I can't go back to my constituents and say, you

know, this is a good jobs bill for the State of

Connecticut. We're investing in our future,

because these individuals can't work here.

And so therefore on those grounds alone I do

need to oppose the amendment.

The other concern I have is how this bill

plays into the other bills that are kicking around

this General Assembly. You know, four years ago

when we extended this benefit of in-state tuition

to illegal immigrants, we then went further now.

And now we're saying well, it's not fair. They pay

in-state tuition and part of their tuition goes

into a pool for financial aid. And so therefore,

these individuals should be entitled to the same

financial aid that our Connecticut residents are

entitled. to, the individuals that are raised in

this state, their parents have lived here, they're

legal citizens, they're gainfully employed, they're

paying their taxes, that these individuals now

c

c

c


151 May 19, 2015

should be given the same financial aid benefits

that our current residents are receiving.

And as I understand it, that pool of money is

a finite amount of money. So what we're going to

do here today is, we're going to allow more people

to apply into our university system, and then we

have another competing bill out here that's going

to come right through the system and give all these

people eligibility for financial aid.

And I don't know how that jives with the fact

that when I go home, all I hear from my

constituents is how they can't afford college

anymore. And we struggle with trying to come up

with ways for individuals to be able to pay off

their student debt or to be able to afford college.

And this bill really flies in the face of that and

only exacerbates the problem.

I am sympathetic to these individuals. I

think Connecticut did enough four years ago when we

gave a benefit to people who are here illegally to

be allowed in-state tuition if they're here for

four years. I do understand that argument. I

don't agree with it, but I understand it.

c

c

c


152 May 19, 2015

But to now say that the individual only needs

to be here two years for whittling away, I think,

at that philosophy. And here's the danger where I

think we're going in this state.

We're inviting a system of individuals to move

into the State of Connecticut for the benefits that

we offer.

When I went to Connecticut College I took my

undergraduate major in economics and one of the

courses and many discussions we had is creating

welfare states throughout the country. And it's

long been debated of what is the tipping point. At

what point do you provide too many benefits where

you're actually creating a welfare state that

cannot pay for itself?

And interestingly, I think Connecticut is

proving that out over the last six years in the

policies that we've taken. And I think this bill

gets to that very issue.

We are painfully going through a process right

now of trying to close a budget gap of about $3

billion, and none of us like the choices that we

have to make. Whether we're looking at taxes or

c

c

c


153 May 19, 2015

whether we're looking at cuts, none of us in this

room like it.

And the reality is that we are, our economy is

growing slower than the rest of this country. When

I sat through the public hearing in Finance to

discuss the tax package, one of the gentleman that

testified that I didn't realize, Massachusetts I

think, their economy recovered already from the

recession of '09.

I think they've grown. It with somewhere

around 130 percent, their economy has grown. The

State of Connecticut, we are only at 80 percent.

So we still have not gotten out of the recession

when our neighbor to the north has already gotten

out of it and has created more jobs.

And you struggle with that notion, because I

think Connecticut has worked pretty hard in some of

its job proposals, and why is this happening.

Well, if you turn around to the DSS side of

the equation, we cannot keep up with these

programs. We cannot afford them anymore.

And so, what this very bill is doing is, it's

inviting individuals to move to the State of

Connecticut and partake in yet another program. I

c

c

c


154 May 19, 2015

think we're the top four in the country in our

welfare benefits.

And I think it was the Hartford Courant had

written an editorial on this very issue, and talked

about sort of when is enough, enough. And I

believe that the number was somewhere targeted at

around $38,000 in benefits that you could receive

through the State of Connecticut.

Ironically, I think if we all take a look at

what we earn as State Legislators, that's certainly

below that number. I think what, we're around

$28,000, and our welfare system is around $38,000

in the State of Connecticut. So we actually may

have been creating a system where we might all do

better leaving this building and jumping on the

doles, which I don't think is what we've intended,

but I think that is the reality.

So with that, Madam Speaker, I will certainly

continue to oppose this bill. And I guess I have

one question I just want to propose to the

proponent of the bill.



Representative Candelora, you may proceed, sir.

c

c

c


155 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. So under our

current construct in state law, and I believe this

question's been asked, if an individual is a legal

resident in the State of Connecticut they're

entitled to in-state tuition upon being domiciled

in Connecticut, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes. I believe the

criteria is a fixed established residency in the

State of Connecticut, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And we define

domicile, is that a six-month period or do we know?

Is that immediate, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I'm

not sure what the exact standard is. I know it's

c

c

c


156 May 19, 2015

far inferior to the programmatic elements that we

have included in this bill of two years, local

institutions, graduation. It's far less than that.

I'm not sure what the hard and fast rule is on

that, but I know it has to do with a fixed domicile

residence, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I guess it's

been stated under this bill that the community

college could absorb this tuition. You know, I

know under the situation of UConn we certainly have

full enrollment.

Did we hear testimony from UConn on how their

ability is to absorb these students? Are these

individuals going to compete in the in-state pool

so as not to affect that ratio so it does not

affect their budget, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, We did have

testimony from the University of Connecticut. I

c

c

c


157 May 19, 2015

believe it was the Director of Strategic Planning,

Vice-President of Enrollment, Planning and

Management, in which their testimony, if you permit

me to summarize, essentially stated that the

University looks forward to welcoming these

additional students and they saw no negative impact

on their overall enrollment, and their ability to

manage the in-state, out-of-state criteria, and

breakdown that they have currently at their

campuses. Through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do appreciate

those answers. And, you know, I guess we've

reached a point and when it pertains to UConn, I

think we've made great investments in the State of

Connecticut.

I know when I was growing up in this state and

graduating from high school, most students, I think

a lot of students viewed UConn as a safety school.

And so you didn't get a lot of people necessarily

interested or striving to go to UConn back then,

but it was sort of put down as a given that you

c

c

c


158 May 19, 2015

would be eligible and end up ultimately getting

accepted there, and a lot of our students looked to

other institutions.

And I think that the State of Connecticut has

made a lot of great investments to that

institution. And sometimes it's debated in this

building that we've given UConn too much.

But the bottom line is, what I've seen is a

huge transformation in that students in Connecticut

aspire to go there, and I think that it's a great

thing.

The concern I have here is, and I go back to

four years ago yet again, that this bill really

erodes in my mind, the expectations, I think, that

our taxpayers had in investments that we made in

the State of Connecticut.

Because what we're going to do with this

policy right now is, we're going to say that we'll

take individuals that are here illegally in this

country. They might not have resided in

Connecticut. They could have been raised in New

Hampshire or Texas or Florida or California their

entire lifetime, move here at the age of 16, go to

high school for two years and that's their only tie

c

c

c


159 May 19, 2015

to the State of Connecticut is two years of high

school education, graduate from that high school

and now they're eligible to enroll in UConn, and

frankly, at an in-state tuition rate.

And they're going to compete with all of our

residents that have lived here their entire lives.

My 12-year-old son already talks about how he wants

to attend UConn. And you know, this bill really

stinks, because the thought of somebody that's

going to be able to just move here, we're not

giving this same benefit to people that are

residents from other state, necessarily. We're

giving these benefits to people that are here

illegally that can't even be employed after they

graduate.

And so I think that these are the things when

I pick it apart. On a 30,000 foot level when you

think with your heart for about 30 seconds, the

bill makes some sense. And then you start picking

it apart and looking at it and it really starts to

get you aggravated.

And I think these are the things of why people

tell me, you know what? You guys don't care about

us up in Hartford. I want to get out of the state.

c

c

c


160 May 19, 2015

And it distresses me because I still think that the

State of Connecticut, and I wouldn't be here in the

Legislature if I thought otherwise, has a lot of

great things to offer, but I don't believe this

bill is one of them.

Madam Speaker, the Clerk is in possession of

LCO 7655. I'd ask that it be called and I be

allowed to summarize.


Would the House stand at ease? ...

(Chamber at ease.)



Representative Candelora, you may proceed, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this

amendment drives at some of the issues that I spoke

to.


I'm sorry, sir. Can you call the number of

the LCO number.


c

c

c


161 May 19, 2015

The Clerk is in possession of amendment LCO

7655. I ask that it be called and I be allowed to

summarize.


Would the Clerk please call LCO 7655, which

will be designated as House Amendment Schedule "B."

CLERK:

LCO No. 7655 designated House Amendment

Schedule "B" and offered by Representatives

Klarides, Candelora and Hoydick.



to summarize the amendment. Is there objection to

summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none,

Representative Candelora, you may proceed with

summarization, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, what

this amendment simply does is, it would require

that any person in the State of Connecticut would

be entitled to state financial assistance or state

benefits only after they have resided in the State

of Connecticut for two years or more, and I move

adoption.

c

c


162 May 19, 2015


I'm sorry, did you move for adoption, sir?


I did, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. The question before the

Chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule

"B." Will you remark on the amendment?

I ask, we have a very long list. Would you

like to continue, sir?


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to

summarize this amendment. Madam Speaker, what I

have spoken to, I think is two issues here.

One is that I really think the State of

Connecticut is headed down a dangerous path. I

think that this bill, along with many of the other

policies that we have created in the State of

Connecticut, has, we've created a welfare state.

We have grown our programs to the point where

people are moving into the State of Connecticut to

take benefit of what we provide. And it's

evidenced by the fact that if you look at our

revenue numbers we still see positive growth, but

c

c

c


163 May 19, 2015

those revenue numbers are far exceeded by the

growth that we've seen in our social services.

We cannot afford to continue down this path.

We saw a three or $6 billion tax increase over the

last two bienniums and we're looking at another

potential $3 billion tax increase proposal in this

biennium just to support all of those social

services.

And so what this amendment attempts to do is

to get this under control, to stop the bleeding,

and to say that in order to be eligible for these

benefits you need to reside in the State of

Connecticut for a couple of years.

Anecdotally, I've heard from individuals out

in the field, our state employees, who have told me

that people are actually moving to the State of

Connecticut to partake in all the benefits that we

are proving.

And I think this is a good measure to start

with stopping the bleeding. In fact, our fiscal

note is stating here that we are looking at in just

one program alone a potential savings of up to $2.5

billion.

c

c

c


164 May 19, 2015

And with that Madam Speaker, I ask that when

the vote be taken, it be taken by roll.


The question before the Chamber is on a roll

call vote. All those in favor of a roll call vote

please signify by saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.


All those opposed? The requisite 20 percent

has been met. When the vote is taken it will be

taken by roll call.




REP. DAVIS (57th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment goes

toward a very important issue here in the State of

Connecticut, one that I hear time and time again

from my constituency, that the State of Connecticut

should be doing more to ensure that those who need

assistance the most receive it. But those who

perhaps do not need that assistance do not receive

it.

c

c

c


165 May 19, 2015

And what we're simply asking here is that you

do not move to the State of Connecticut to take

advantage of our generous welfare system for those

who need it the most.

What we're saying is that you move here with

the intention of trying to work, trying to make

yourself better, trying to accomplish everything

that is necessary to live here in the State of

Connecticut on your own without government

assistance.

And what we are saying in this amendment is

that you have to live here for two years. Two

years, then if you can't make it work here in the

State of Connecticut, then we will allow you to

obtain the benefits that are made available from

the state.

We're not saying you can't get it. But what

we're asking for you to do is try to do it on your

own first. Don't simply move here to the State of

Connecticut to take advantage of our generous

welfare system for those who need it the most,

those Connecticut residents who need it the most.

c

c

c


166 May 19, 2015

So I applaud the proponent of the amendment

and I ask that my colleagues please support it.



Since there is a long line of Representatives

who wanted to speak on the bill as amended, will

you please raise your hand if you would like to

speak on House Amendment "B"? Representative

Devlin.

REP. DEVLIN (134th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wholeheartedly

support this amendment and would encourage all of

my colleagues in the House to do so.

Currently in Connecticut, unless you make over

$21.33 you are better off on welfare. And I've

been listening to the other debates and, you know,

there's two things I think that are really

important to think about.

One of them is the bright spot, the only list

we ever show up on for being positive in

Connecticut is our education. It is precious and

no doubt it is a draw.

And the other piece is jobs. We don't have

them, and they are leaving the state. So I would

c

c

c


167 May 19, 2015

absolutely support this. We are a wonderful state

offering so much to the people in need. Let's at

least require a little bit of residency in order to

earn them. Thank you.


Thank you, madam. Would you remark further on

the amendment? Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If you don't mind,

through you, a couple questions of the proponent of

the amendment.


Representative Candelora, please prepare

yourself, sir. Representative Lemar, you may

proceed.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker,

through you, I'm looking over the amendment that

was recently put in front of me and recognizing

that, is it the intention of the good

Representative to have this amendment apply to

every state financial assistance that we offer, and

similarly, to have that assistance apply to every

person in the State of Connecticut?

c

c

c


168 May 19, 2015

Through you.




Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you. The intent of

the amendment is to apply to every individual who

moves into the State of Connecticut, so there would

be a two-year residency requirement before state

assistance would be provided, through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you.

seeking further clarification. Does the

Representative intend for this to apply to

businesses that are offered economic assistance to

grow and expand jobs here in the State of

Connecticut, through you?




Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, it would apply

to individual only as we use the t@rm p@rson, which

c

c

c


169 May 19, 2015

is not including corporate or business entities,

through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wasn't sure if I

properly understood the last answer. Could the

good Representative clarify what his definition of

personhood means and who is and is not applicable

for treatment under this amendment, through you?




Thank you, Madam Speaker. The definition

would be an individual. It would not include

corporate entities, through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have more than a

few questions as to how we arrive at the definition

of person. We've had a series of conversations

nationally about corporations qualifying for

c

c


170 May 19, 2015

protections as persons under law. I'm not certain

if this meets muster constitutionally.

I am concerned that this violates the

privileges and immunities clause, which prohibits

discriminatory treatment of citizens or other

state. I am really, we have no, no understanding

whatsoever of who this might apply, who is

receiving healthcare benefits, how this would apply

to children who were born in this state and

receiving Medicaid and Medicare. Do they not,

because they've not been here for two years not

qualify for that assistance?

There are numerous people that are potentially

not covered here that we proudly provide assistance

to, and this would certainly upend a lot of the

economic development awards that we've issued to

companies who are trying to move to Connecticut and

trying to get to make the numbers work. They want

to locate their headquarters here. I think they

may be limited in their ability to receive

financial assistance as they expand jobs.

And finally, again, I do believe that this

violates the privileges and immunities clause,

which does prohibit discriminatory treatment of

c

c

c


171 May 19, 2015

citizens in other states, and I strongly urge my

colleagues to vote no on this amendment. Thank

you.



the amendment? Will you remark further on the

amendment? Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES (114th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. we•ve had a lot of

conversation ·today about this subject, and it•s

frankly been a lot of conversation for the past few

years. And I know a lot of my colleagues have

mentioned that it•s not about the exact subject

matter, it•s about setting a standard and setting a

precedent, and what we would like to do in setting

that as a State of Connecticut.

And I know the intention of putting this bill

forward, whether it was four years ago or today,

was to narrowly define this group of people that we

want to get to. But unfortunately, as lawmakers

and policy makers, it is our obligation to make

sure we look at things as a whole.

And unfortunately, when we look at timeframes

and how long people have to do this or do that, we

c

c

c


172 May 19, 2015

must be consistent. And what this amendment does

is make it consistent.

We may not like it, but it's reasonable. It's

responsible, and it's consistent, Madam Speaker,

which is what the people of the State of

Connecticut ask from us, so I support this

amendment.


Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on


amendment? If not, would staff and guests, Lemar,

I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Representative, I didn't see

you. Representative Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

That is quite all right, Madam Speaker. I'm

easy to miss over here. Again, I just want to

provide some clarification on this amendment for

the second time. Looking at Chapter 1, Title 1,

Provisions of the General Statutes, the

Construction of Statutes where it defines words and

phrases. Again, the words person may extend and be

applied to communities, companies, corporations,

public or private, limited liability companies,

societies and associations.

c

c

c


173 May 19, 2015

Again, this is broadly applicable to a lot of

different people and a lot of different entities,

violates the privileges and immunities clause,

which prohibits discriminatory treatment of

citizens of other states, and again, I can't urge

my colleagues strongly enough to vote no on this

amendment. Thank you.




amendment?

If not, will staff and guests please come to

the Well of the House? Will the members please

take your seats? The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by

roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of

Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the

Chamber, please.


Have all members voted? Have all members

voted. Would the members please check the board to

determine if your vote is properly cast.

c

c

c


174 May 19, 2015

If all members have voted, the machine will be

locked and the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk

will please announce the tally.

CLERK:

LCO No. 7655 designated House "B"

Total Number Voting 144

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those voting Yea 62

Those voting Nay 82

Absent and not voting 7


The amendment fails. Will you remark further

on the bill as amended? Will you remark further on

the bill as amended? Representative Szedzinski.

Szedzinski.

REP. SZEDZINSKI (112th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a challenging

one. A couple of questions to the proponent of the

bill, through you, if I may?


Representative Lemar, will you please prepare

yourself, sir. Representative Szedzinski, you may

proceed, sir.


c

c

c


175 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'll preface my

questions with the fact that as a freshman I wasn't

here during the lengthy debate that existed in

previous Sessions regarding this issue, so some of

my questions may seem redundant.

However, before I vote on amendment or a

change to the existing language, I want to be sure

that I understand the underlying bill as it exists.

So through you, Madam Speaker, in the section

where it says that a student would have to have

graduated from a high school or the equivalent,

what do mean by or the equivalent, through you,

Madam Speaker?

SPEAKER SHARKEY:


REP. LEMAR (96th):


equivalent is similar to receiving a GED, through

you.


Representative Szedzinski.


Thank you. Through you, my follow-up question

to that would be, how does someone take a GED class

c

c

c


176 May 19, 2015

for two years or longer, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Oftentimes, every

one of those provisions in the underlying bill

needs to be met, meaning they must attend a local

high school or educational institution for two

years and receive, graduate or receive a GED. They

don't need to take a GED program for two years.

They just need to receive their GED . . Many students will be in high school for one,

two years, will have work requirements, family

requirements. They don't fulfill their full

academic requirements and graduate from the local

high school. They receive a GED. But they would

need to receive that GED in addition to meeting the

other requirements within the bill, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the

gentleman for his clarification. As a follow up to

•

c

c

c


177 May 19, 2015

that question, are the two years necessarily

concurrent?

So let me give you an example. Through you,

to the proponent of the bill, if someone were to

attend high school freshman and sophomore year,

move out of state and then return to the state,

take a GED program and then qualify, receive that

GED, would they be eligible for in-state tuition

under this bill, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. Under

that situation they will have completed two years

at a local educational institution. If they

subsequently graduate, they would then meet the

parameters outlined in the bill, so long as they

follow the following two, which is enroll at the

local institution and sign the affidavit, through

you.




c

c


178 May 19, 2015

Thank you for the clarification. Although I'm

not excited about the answer, I do appreciate the

response and the fact that we are making it clear

that this student doesn't necessarily need to be

recently living in the State of Connecticut, just

that they have to have within the four past or so

years spent two years at an educational facility.

I do have a few more questions, through you,

Madam Speaker.


You may proceed, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. The current law as

it exists, that we're looking to change today, says

that four years must be spent in a high school. Do

we know what the difference is between the eligible

students that would be eligible for this service

under the new bill changing from four years to two

years, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not certain as

to the question. I believe the Representative

c

c

c


179 May 19, 2015

asked what the difference is between the students ·

who currently qualify with four years versus those

who would qualify with two years. Does he mean the

number of students? I'm not certain. Maybe we

could have greater clarification, through you.


Representative Szedzinski, would you clarify

please, sir.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd be happy to

clarify. And perhaps I wasn't clear. So what I'm

trying to say is, right now we have a program where

you attend high school for four years as an

undocumented immigrant and you are eligible for in-

state tuition. Under the bill as proposed today,

you need to spend two years.

So my question is, do we know, and the answer

might be no. Do we know how many students are

eligible today versus how many will be eligible if

this bill becomes law, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


180 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. We do

not have a certain number of students who would

qualify in two years versus four years. That

number wasn't easily known or collected by any of

the advocacy organizations, by the universities or

local high schools, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, another question,

through you, if I may?




Reading through the bill as proposed, I have

some concerns regarding a possible retroactive

application of this. Let's take a hypothetical

situation where someone spent two years in high

school, is able to somehow document that they live

in Connecticut, and would be eligible under this

bill to receive in-state tuition.

Right now they are not eligible. Let's say

they're a senior at the University of Connecticut.

Would they be retroactively allowed to participate

c

c

c


181 May 19, 2015

in these programs based on the bill as it stands in

front of us today, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, they would not

retroactively acquire new benefits. If they did,

in fact, meet the requirements in the bill residing

in this state, attended any educational institution

in the state and complete two years of high school

level education, thus graduating from the high

school in the state, registered as an entering

student, became enrolled at the public institution

of higher education and has signed that affidavit,

they would then acquire in-state tuition status for

the upcoming year. Thank you, Madam Speaker,

through you.




And I thank the gentleman for his answers. My

concern is that it would apply to someone who

currently does not receive that benefit, currently

not eligible, and there may be an expectation of a

c

c

c


182 May 19, 2015

refund, which is something obviously that we've

heard in this Chamber, the word retroactive when

applied to tax increases or tax rate increases, and

it's kind of a dirty little buzz word that I want

to make sure is addressed in the underlying bill.

I do have another question for the proponent

if I may, Madam Speaker?




In the bill as it exists today, it says that

the students without the legal immigration status

who meet the above criteria must file an affidavit

with the institution stating they have applied to

legalize their immigration or will do so as soon as

they are eligible.

And not being around for the original debate,

I'm sure there was plenty of questions and

discussion on that. My question to the proponent

is, how has that worked out in the past year or

two? Has it been successful, and do we know if

there has been citizens of the United States in

Connecticut, have they been made citizens as a

result of this program, through you?

c

c

c


183 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What we have is the

testimony before the Higher Education Committee, in

which the University of Connecticut and

representatives from CSU have indicated that this

program is successful, and they support the

expansion to individuals who meet the criteria that

we have under consideration today, through you.




Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And I

come from an area and an expertise of data. We do

a lot of data. We crunch numbers. We look at

differences. We look at percentages.

Is there any data or quantitative knowledge

that we have that can prove or point to the success

of this bill, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


184 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't have the, I

don't believe I have the data that he might be

looking for. We do, again, have the support of the

University of Connecticut saying that this has been

a positive development ultimately for the

University, and their continued support for the

expansion of this program.

So if you're looking at it from the students

who testified on that day, from the local boards of

education who wished to extend this benefit to more

of their students, to the universities themselves

and the numerous folks who felt that this was an

important economic development, human rights

development and policy development for the State of

Connecticut, they believe this is a qualified

success.

I don't know that I have the data specifically

that he's looking for or how we would even acquire

that given the privacy concerns that universities

have regarding release of personal information of

students.

But I do know that all of the individuals who

spoke on that cold day in February, came out and

spoke on behalf of this bill, through you.

c

c

c


185 May 19, 2015




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the

answer. I would like to believe that there is some

sort of data out there, whether it's citizenship

rates in the past compared to citizenship rates

now, graduation rates or anything like that.

I will just wrap up by saying that I stand in

opposition to the bill as proposed. I represent a

community where middle-class families fight every

day going to school, trying to pay for tuition.

I'm still paying student loans. Many of my

colleagues are still paying student loans. I want

to make sure that the in-state benefits that the

Connecticut taxpayers pay for are indeed placed in

the right direction.

Further, and maybe again because I'm new,

we're sitting here, you know, 15 days before the

end of the Session. We have a widening budget gap.

We don't have a budget to talk about in July.

We've got three budgets out there that no one

really knows where they're going to end up.

There's a large number on our 15-page Go List as

c

c

c


186 May 19, 2015

everyone can see, and I just think it's time for us

to get to the business that the citizens of

Connecticut want us to address, and I don't believe

this is it.

I think we need to get back to fixing our

economy, getting back to the budget, and doing the

best for the State of Connecticut. Thank you,

Madam Speaker.




the bill as amended? Representative Buck-Taylor.

REP. BUCK-TAYLOR (67th):

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. I have a

couple of questions that I would like to ask the

proponent of the bill.



sir. Representative Buck-Taylor, please frame your

questions.


You know, I would first like to say that

there's probably very few people in this House that

can understand what it's like to be a child in a

c

c

c


187 May 19, 2015

country where you are an illegal immigrant either

because of the fact that your parents brought you

here because they wanted to work here, or you were

brought here because of some type of illegal

activity.

So I know that that is something that we want

to help with. We have to make sure that we are

actually helping them with it, and I do not believe

that this bill is helping them.

The first question that I would like to ask

the proponent of the bill is that the Lines that

are 12 through 15 that says that if such a person

is without legal immigration status, such person

files an affidavit with such institution of higher

education stating that he or she has filed an

application to legalize his or her immigration

status or will file an application as soon as he or

she is eligible to do so.

Through you, Madam Speaker, can.the proponent

of the bill tell me, what is the purpose of that

provision of this statute, through you, Madam

Speaker?



c

c

c


188 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, again,

that•s current existing law that was put into place

in 2011 under Public Act 11-43, and I believe, if

I•m recalling from that debate at the time it was

essentially an understanding that these folks who

we•re extending this public benefit to, should in

effect, ultimately be living up to their

obligations under law, which is to apply for the

DOCA Program that was made available to them.

Similarly, there were concerns at that point

in time about whether or not this was an

appropriate public benefit to provide, and the

General Assembly agreed that it was an appropriate

public benefit to provide to students.

What we•re seeking to do today is just extend

that public benefit under the same terms currently

outlined in the general statutes to folks who have

met two years of education at a local education

institution and graduation, through you.


Representative Buck-Taylor.


c

c

c


189 May 19, 2015

Through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent

of the bill, would it be fair to say that one of

the reasons for that being included in the statute

in 2011 was to help these people toward becoming

legal immigrants, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't recall the

extent of the conversation in the General Assembly

regarding this provision, whether or not that was

an articulated purpose at the time. All I know is

today, we sort of generally accept that this is an

obligation that both Legislators and students

themselves find to be an appropriate obligation to

have, to take part in the system, through you.





of the bill, I've heard discussion today about the

fact that one of the reasons that we have this

statute and we're trying to lower the requirements

is to help these individuals get a job.

c

c

c


190 May 19, 2015

And I've heard people talk about the fact that

under the federal statutes, until they are not

illegal immigrants they are not allowed to get a

job. So is it the proponent's position that this

bill and statute was not put in place to help these

people become legal immigrants and to get a job,

through you, Madam Speaker to the proponent of the

bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th):


the purpose of this bill is to provide a public

benefit to students who meet the criteria, folks

that we see in our classrooms, graduating from our

schools, the future residents of our state,

allowing opportunity to continue their education,

to be the workforce of our future, to innovate, to

grow, to grow families, to grow a Connecticut that

we see a positive future for.

And providing this small public benefit to our

hardworking Connecticut students regardless of

immigration status, that is the purpose of this

bill.

c

c

c


191 May 19, 2015

Yes, we do know that providing that benefit

means 80 percent of our graduates stay in

Connecticut upon completion of their four-year

degree. We know that, we look at states that are

growing their young population, when we're growing

a population in urban centers it's largely folks

who have college educations, who are innovating and

growing, and becoming the workforce of the future.

With this background that we're providing, if

we can allow them to acquire that degree without

the extraordinary cost of going to UConn at an out-

of-state tuition price, that's a positive for our

economy and a positive for our state.

We know that we can make UConn and CSU systems

and our community colleges more competitive if we

allow folks to take advantage of our in-state

prices so they don't go, that these smart, bright

young kids who are going to go to college, we want

to keep them here. They're going to go to college.

And if we don't provide an in-state benefit to

them, they're going to go somewhere else.

And when they graduate with that degree, we'll

have wasted the opportunity we had to sell

c

c

c


192 May 19, 2015

Connecticut as a positive place to grow their

businesses and jobs.

And finally, it's not true that all of these

kids can't get jobs upon completion. If you are in

the DOCA Program you can, in fact, get a work

permit and work in this country. So yes, I think

of this as a great opportunity and a jobs bill. I

think of it mostly, as its original purpose was,

providing in-state benefits to our students.

And I was accused earlier of being too

optimistic. Maybe I am. I think this is good for

the state, and I think this is a good public

benefit to provide, through you.





of the bill, the actual statute says, or will file

such an application as soon as he or she is

eligible to do so.

So is it incorrect to assume that there are

going to be at least some people who are not going

to obtain legal immigration status, through you,

Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the bill?

•

0

c

c


193 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, there

have been numerous, through you, sorry. There have

been numerous immigration related bills discussed

in Congress over the last number of years, and I•m

certain we•ll see more and more immigration related

bills discussed in the future years.

I would not suppose a guess as to whether or

not all of these folks will become legal citizens

at some point. I presume, given the basis of

American history that most of these kids will, in

fact, become American citizens at some point.

And, you know, is it likely that some of them

will not? That is probably likely, too, through

you.





of the bill, the proponent of the bill has

mentioned several times how this is going to help

Connecticut•s economy.

c

c

c


194 May 19, 2015

There is a requirement in this current bill

that the people who have, who do not have legal

immigration status, that they either have to sign

an affidavit that they filed an application to

legalize their status or will file an application.

So is the proponent of the bill saying that

this requirement for them to legalize their

immigration status under this bill is for, is not

for the reason to help them become citizens,




REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, I'm not

sure. There's a bit of confusion as to the

question that I think the good Representative asked

me again, the one that I'm hearing.

Look, this bill ultimately is intended to

provide in-state tuition for our students. Why

that is good for economy? Look, we know a number

of things. We know it's good because people who go

on to our public universities in Connecticut and

graduate stay in the state at a high level.

c

c

c


195 May 19, 2015

We know that the graduation rates in our local

schools, our local high schools, our graduation

rates were markedly lower before the establishment

of this program than they are now, mostly because a

lot of these students didn't think that they had an

opportunity to succeed in college if it was at the

out-of-state tuition prices.

So we know by extending this benefit more kids

are availing themselves of the educational

opportunities we .have in this country. They're

going to college. They're preparing themselves for

a bright future here in our s~ate. Many of them

are in the process of the DOCA Program and will

ultimately achieve some level of residency and

status in this country that allow them to work and

flourish.

And it's infinitely smarter for us to prepare

our kids for a bright future here in Connecticut by

extending an education opportunity to them than it

is to recognize that without this opportunity

they're more likely to drop out, more likely to

never go through the process of receiving their

status, and not availing themselves of all the

I I l l

c

c

I jC ! I l

I I 1


196 May 1~, 2015

opportunities they have to grow jobs and innovate

here in Connecticut. Through you.





of the bill, the proponent was speaking about some

of these students becoming adults, would have the

opportunity to work in Connecticut. Now this is

only, this program is only allowed to people who do

not have legal immigration status of any sort.

So under what legal auspice would someone be

able to work a job in Connecticut, get a work

permit or any of those things if they don't have

any sort of legal immigration status, through you,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As amended earlier

this evening, we provide this opportunity to two

subclasses of folks who would be here legally with

status and allowed to work.

c

c

c


197 May 19, 2015

Similarly, if you're in the DOCA Program you

can apply to get a social security card and to

work. So ultimately a number of these kids will

ultimately have the opportunity to work upon

graduation, and there are numerous other

conversations that happen regularly at the federal

level regarding the future of these programs.

I think it's naive for us to presume that all

of these kids are going to be able to get a job

immediately out of college, but it is more likely

that they're going to remain Connecticut residents.

They're going to remain here in the state, and

ensuring that we have an educated workforce that's

prepared to take advantage of the opportunity that

will be eventually made available to them. I think

it's just smart public policy, through you.





of the bill, last night when we were discussing the

DO license, the illegal immigrant's license, there

was a statement made ~y a proponent of th@ bill

that the program was effective.

c

c

c


198 May 19, 2015

And there was a statement made that the reason

that the program was put in place was so that these

drivers would become insured. And then the

statement was made that even though apparently this

program was effective, we have no statistics at

all, showing how many of those drivers actually got

insurance.

I would ask the proponent of the bill what his

statistics are for showing that any of these people

were able to obtain legal immigration status or

that any of these people were able to obtain a job

through the use of this program, through you, Madam

Speaker, to the proponent of the bill.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. When

we're talking about our students, our people that

are graduating from Connecticut local institutions

and going on to our public universities, we don't

have necessarily the statistics that the proponent,

that the Representative is asking for.

What we have, in fact, are our University

partners saying that this is a successful program

c

c

c


199 May 19, 2015

that they want to see expanded in the manner in

which we've outlined here today.

Look, there are difficult political choices we

all make, and we're all responding to a

constituency like I heard Representative Candelora

indicate earlier. These are our children going to

our schools, sitting next to my daughter at the

Engineering Science Magnet School in New Haven,

going to every high school and every community

across our state, preparing our children for the

jobs of the future here in Connecticut by extending

a small benefit that doesn't cost the state a dime

is a smart policy choice.

I don't have the statistics, necessarily, that

the Representative is looking for, but we do have

the testimony from the University of Connecticut.

We have the testimony received, again, on that cold

day in February when countless folks made it up

here to testify on behalf of this benefit.

And through you, Madam Speaker, I think, you

know, this is a smart choice moving forward.




c

c

c


200 May 19, 2015


of the bill, if I may inquire as to what type of

records check is done to verify whether or not the

affidavit that was signed by the student saying

that they have filed an affidavit as to the legal

immigration status, the application, through you,



Representative_ Lemar.

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We did not request

the private information or confidential information

that universities have on the students that they

have enrolled, through you.




Through you, Madam Speaker,_ to the proponent

of the bill, so likewise, do we not check and make

sure that they've completed four years of high

school level education in the state, through you,




c

c

c


201 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our local public

universities are obligated by the provisions of

Connecticut General Statutes that insist that the

students that they enroll under this eligibility

meet all of the criteria, through you.




Madam Speaker, I guess I'll go back to my

former question where the university may get the

affidavit from the student, but who is under the

obligation, through you, Madam Speaker, to the

proponent of the bill, to show that the affidavit

is accurate, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The university that

the enrollee has registered at has a copy of that

affidavit, through you.




c

c

c


202 May 19, 2015

Okay. Madam Speaker, I'll try this one more

time and maybe I can phrase it a little bit

differently. Is there anyone responsible for

checking the records with the Immigration Services

to find out whether or not that affidavit is

accurate, through you, Madam Speaker, to the

proponent of the bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The local

institution is responsible for enforcing the

provisions of the Connecticut General Statute that

we are discussing here today, through you.





of the bill, what type of tracking mechanism is put

in place to determine whether or not a graduating

student who has not yet been able to file the

application does eventually file that application,

through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the

bill?

c

c

c


203 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not certain of

any tracking mechanisms that the local institutions

have to follow their students in this regard. I

know that the local institutions are obligated to

comply with Connecticut General Statutes in

ensuring compliance with each of the criteria

outlined in the bill, but I don't know about the

internal tracking mechanisms and privacy related

measures that universities are undertaking to move

going forward, through you.





of the bill, accepting the proponent's statement

that the universities are responsible for making

sure that the affidavit is accurate, and making

sure for tracking for, I guess, years after

graduation as to whether or not the application is

put in place, what are the repercussions to the

university if they do not follow through with what

c

c

c


204 May 19, 2015

the proponent is saying is their obligations,

through you, to the proponent of the bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not certain as

to what the repercussions are that the legislation

indicated briginally in 2014, I mean 2011, but we

do not seek to change those here today. I can look

back at the information to be able to get a better

answer for you, but at this time I'm not sure what

repercussions we put into place, through you.





of the bill, what are the repercussions to the

student if the student lies on the affidavit,

through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent of the

bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


205 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then they no longer

qualify for the program, through you.




Through you, Madam Speaker, does no longer

qualifying for the program have any part of this

that requires them to reimburse the university for

the use of the in-state tuition instead of having

paid, for not having paid the out-of-state tuition,

through you, Madam Speaker, to the bill, proponent

of the bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not certain.

Again, I'll have to look back at the 2011

conversations, get a more full answer. We don't

seek to change any of that in the current

legislation. So that would be the existing state

law that I can try to find some additional

information for the Representative in that regard,

through you.


c

c

c


206 May 19, 2015




of the bill, what are the repercussions for the

student who uses this in-state tuition for a four-

year period, graduates and at no time uses their

best effort to file an application as soon as she's

eligible to do so, through you, Madam Speaker, to

the proponent of the bill?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. They would then be

in violation of the criteria used to determine in-

state tuition eligibility, the repercussions of

which were probably discussed in the 2011 original

underlying legislation. I can try and find

testimony to that regard or what the stipulated

repercussions were. But again, we're not seeking

to change any of that criteria at this point in

time, so she'll have to; the Representative will

have to await a more full explanation upon time to

evaluate that, through you.


c

c

c


207 May 19, 2015



Madam Speaker, we are seeking to change all of

that. We are taking a program that we have no

proof is effective. We have no proof whether or

not those children are becoming citizens. We have

no proof whether or not they're getting jobs. We

have no way of there being any repercussions that

I'm hearing for them not upholding to the agreement

of going for that application.

And we are taking that now, we're expanding

the universe. We're expanding a program that we

have no proof is effective in any manner and we're

expanding it.

I don't understand how Connecticut can even

conceive of doing this. Everybody wants to know

that something's effective before they expand it.

They don't take a car and make a million of them

before they go through various models to make sure

that it's working most effectively.

It appears only here that we don't care

whether or not we get the results that we ask for,

that we were looking for, and what should have been

the results we were looking for is these children

c

c

c


208 May 19, 2015

becoming legal immigrants, is these children being

able to get jobs. And there's no proof that this

is doing that for them.

So until we have proof that this is working at

all, I think it's absurd to expand it to a much

greater universe. Thank you, Madam Speaker.




the bill as amended? Representative Belsito.

REP. BELSITO (53rd):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you to the

proponent. I have a number of questions that I

would like to have answered.



sir. Representative Belsito, please frame your

question.


To the proponent, what is the clear-cut,

definitive explanation for reducing residency to

two years for illegal immigrants?



c

c

c


209 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):


clear-cut purpose of this bill is to extend in-

state tuition eligibility to students who meet the

criteria passed in 2011, expanded to folks who have

been here for two years instead of four, and for

the subgroups that we identified earlier in the

evening.

The purpose, again, is to ensure that we have

a well-educated workforce of the future, where

we've got folks graduating from our local high

schools, going to college, becoming prepared to

take the jobs of the 21st century here in

Connecticut, knowing that this investment doesn't

come at the cost of anyone.

And what it does provide is an opportunity for

our state to grow with smart, hard-working young

kids ready to lead here in our state, through you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:

Representative Belsito.


Madam Speaker, it does come at a cost. It

comes at a very high cost because we have children

in this state who have been here maybe a lifetime,

c

c

c


210 May 19, 2015

more than four years, could be the second, third or

fourth generation. And now we're going to place an

illegal immigrant before them. That is a cost.

So to say that there is no cost, financially,

there will be a cost, but there will also be a cost

to the students who are here in the state. One of

them could be your daughter in the near future who

will not be accepted at UConn if she desires to go

there because of the bill that you are proposing.

Through you, Madam Chairman, Madam Speaker

rather, will this reduction to two years only apply

to illegals, or will it apply to everyone, through

you, madam?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. This

bill applies to undocumented students who meet the

criteria. Everybody else is eligible so long as

they prove that they are domiciled in the State of

Connecticut. These are requirements in addition,

additional to what we have on my daughter. It's

ensuring that the students that my daughter goes to

school with have every opportunity that she does.

c

c

c


211 May 19, 2015

The students that she's gone to school with

for the last few years are able to graduate from

that local high school. They want to stay in New

Haven. They want to stay in Connecticut. They

want the opportunity to grow their jobs, grow their

families here, to innovate here, to lead here.

We're providing a small benefit. Again, comes

at no cost. No fiscal note on this. The capacity at

our CSUs and community college systems is under-

enrolled. They think that this actually generates

revenue and helps pay the bills for them.

What we're doing here today is a good, public

benefit for my daughter. It does not come at cost

to her. It does not come at cost to the other

students in the State of Connecticut, through you.





Madam Speaker, the proponent mentioned a few

minutes ago that there are those individuals that

want to expand the program. Could he give us a

little more information on who those individuals

are, through you, Madam Speaker?

c

c

c


212 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):


received numerous pieces of testimony at the public

hearing back in February from the University of

Connecticut, the Vice-President of Strategic

Planning and Enrollment, received testimony in

support of this bill from local boards of education

across the state, from local students across the

state, from nonprofits across Connecticut, and from

advocacy organizations across Connecticut, all in

support of a program that allowed more of our

students, our students, to qualify for in-state

tuition, through you.




Thank you, Madam Chairman. Through you, Madam

Chairman to the proponent, he mentioned that there

would be extra funds generated, or extra revenue

generated. I would like to know in which way will

extra revenue be generated if the schools only have

c

c

c


213 May 19, 2015

a certain capacity, and many of them are at that

capacity right now, through you, Madam Chair.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. As I

mentioned earlier, our CSU and community college

systems, those have articulated that there is

additional capacity at their schools, that they are

under enrolled system wide, and that this would

actually allow them to fill, fulfill that capacity.

Additionally, because these are students who

generally are not going if they don't qualify for

in-state tuition. Additionally, these students do

not qualify for federal and state public aid, so

they end up paying the full freight of cost at

these institutions, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also have a

number of questions to the proponent. Will a two-

year resident receive priority acceptance over a

c

c

c


214 May 19, 2015

lifelong resident of Connecticut, through you,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You would not

receive a preference based upon your otherwise

qualifying for this program. Our local

universities seek to build a robust and

invigorating population and they take kids with the

best grades and the best ability to perform at

their university. They use a number of criteria to

determine eligibility and acceptance, and this bill

does not provide additional priority for those

students, through you.





Madam Speaker, will a lifelong resident, whose

parents have paid taxes for at least the 18 years

that that has been here, receive priority

acceptance over an individual who has only been

here two years, through you, Madam Speaker?

c

c

c


215 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No. There was no

priority of acceptance based upon the amount of

taxes that you've paid, through you.




Thank you, Madam Chairman. And through you,

Madam Speaker, rather, after graduation, will the

graduate be required to stay in Connecticut for an

additional four years, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. No. I don't

believe that public universities or states are

allowed to place restrictions on travel of their

graduates, and we in this legislation certainly do

not seek to do so, through you.




c

c

c


216 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, Madam

Speaker, will the student who has been here for two

years be required to be fluent in English, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, no, we do not

require of anyone in this country, including all

American citizens, to be fluent in any specific

language, through you.




Through you, Madam Chairman to the proponent,

if these students do not speak English, what is

going to happen at the college level when they're

in a totally English-speaking class, through you,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through their

process of going through high school and graduating

c

c

c


217 May 19, 2015

from a local high school and gaining admittance to

the local university, they've obviously showed a

proficiency and ability to perform at the college

level, and like all students at local universities,

a number of programs are made available to those

students, all students, if they're struggling with

math, if they're struggling with science, if

they're struggling with language, through you.





Madam Speaker, how many students does the proponent

expect to apply with only two years of education in




REP. LEMAR (96th):


were not able to get a firm number regarding how

many students additionally might qualify under two

versus four. What we were basing it on was

comments and concerns we heard from local boards of

education, from community advocacy organizations,

c

c

c


218 May 19, 2015

foundations, the University of Connecticut, and

Legislators who have been in their local high

schools talking to guidance counselors and

recognizing that there is a subset of this

population who is not currently eligible that we

believe should be treated like all other

Connecticut residents, and provided an opportunity

to gain in-state tuition eligibility, through you.





Madam Speaker, we were just told yesterday that

there are over 45,000 immigrants who are expecting

to get a drive-only driver's license. I'm

expecting that these individuals that are going to

be going to the college will be coming from these

45,000 people.

Could I get a somewhat a guess at how many

extra students are going to be applying to our

colleges, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

c

c

c


219 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the universe

of folks who are eligible for the drive-only

licenses is completely different than the universe

of folks who are eligible for this program.

I don't, I can•t proffer a guess and I would

hate to do so on the floor of the General Assembly,

make up a number. We don•t have a hard and fast

number, through you, Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the proponent,

through you, Madam Speaker, to the proponent, does

the proponent expect or anticipate a steady stream

of candidates who will only have two years of

education of high school after the first four years

of this program, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, I do not presume a

steady stream of applicants. I presume we•ve

extended this benefit to folks who don•t currently

qualify that we see in our local schools as our

c

c

c


220 May 19, 2015

students and believe that this benefit should apply

to them as they meet the following provisions in

the code, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you to the

proponent. Does it make common sense that if

within the first two years we have a number of

people who only have been here for two years, that

four years from now that there would be much less,

or less individuals who only have a two-year

degree, a two-year education in our school system.

Or are we expecting a tremendous amount of influx

of immigrants into our state that we cannot handle,

through you, Madam Chairman?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, you

know, if I had a crystal ball on immigration policy

at the federal level or its impacts on state

policy, I would share it with you. I'm not certain

that we know, ultimately, what the global effects

c

c

c


221 May 19, 2015

of immigration and economic change are going to

yield for the state.

What we do know is the population that we•ve

got in our schools, the kids that we•ve got that

are sitting next to my daughter at her high school,

that are sitting in our local high schools across

the state who are going to become American citizens

more likely than not, who are going to stay in

Connecticut more likely than not.

Who, if we educate them and allow them to

grow, will become highly productive innovative

leaders in our state, through you.





proponent, based on what the proponent has just

said, it appears that he is saying that the number

of students will peter out who don•t have a four-

year high school in Connecticut, through you, Madam

Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


222 May 19, 2015

Through you, Madam Speaker, again, I don't

know from a peter out versus a steady stream, the

number of students that this will apply to four

years out. I know we're addressing a situation

that we see locally in our communities, that we've

had indicated to us through our boards of

education, through our university partners, through

local advocacy organizations and nonprofits. We

know this population exists here in the state

today.

To proffer a guess about what the future

yields four years from now would be outside of my

ability, through you.




Through you, Madam Chair, the last question

that I have to the proponent. Do you expect more

immigrants to be coming through Connecticut without

four years of high school being acquired in

Connecticut?

In other words, are you expecting a steady

stream of immigrants to continue as the way they

c

c

c


223 May 19, 2015

have in the last few years, through you, Madam

Chair?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, I don't

suspect a steady stream or a petering out, .or any

number to be frank with you. Folks choose to

immigrate to different countries based on a variety

of different causes.

This bill will not yield a tremendous influx

of immigrants. This is compliant with what states

across the country are doing. That puts us in line

with a number of other states and what they offer

to their students who are graduating from their

high schools who are likely to yield families and

jobs in their communities in the future, through

you.




I thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the

proponent for his answers.


c

c

c


224 May 19, 2015

Will you remark further? Representative

Perillo.

REP. PERILLO (113th):

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. If I may,

through you, a question to the proponent of the

bill.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you,

what is the state's budget for tuition assistance

to in-state applicants, in-state students?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not sure what

the number is, our budget for assistance to in-

state students, but it's worth mentioning that

these students would not be eligible for that aid,

regardless of the number, through you.


Representative Perillo.

REP. PERILLO (ll3th):

c

c

c


225 May 19, 2015

Could the gentleman just clarify his last

statement, please, through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, through you, Madam Speaker, yes, of

course. The students that are covered under this

bill are not eligible for federal or state

assistance, publicly funded state assistance due to

the nature of their status, through you.




So to clarify, once this bill passes, the

gentleman is saying that no additional students

would be eligible for in-state tuition rates?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, madam. Through you, that was a

different question that was originally asked. Yes,

these students will be eligible for in-state

tuition rates, but they will not be eligible for

student aid. As the original question was, how

c

c

c


226 May 19, 2015

much do we allocate in student aid for in-state

students. We will not be able to provide federal

or state assistance to these students.

Will they be eligible for in-state tuition?

Yes, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Then to clarify my

first question, what is the budget for the discount

related to in-state tuition rates?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not certain

what the budget is for the discount. I don't know

that their budget is complicated in such a manner

but I can try to provide that information

subsequently, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just to

clarify. It is my understanding in speaking with

c

c

c


227 May 19, 2015

folks from the higher ed community that the tuition

revenue budget at our institutions is set based

upon estimates and expectations.

And those estimates and expectations are based

upon a) what the tuition rates are for out-of-state

students, what the tuition rates are for in-state

students, and the number of students who will

matriculate based upon either of those categories.

That is my understanding. Could the gentleman

confirm if that is correct?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you,

yes. That is my general understanding as well.

Again, a point that's worth mentioning in this

conversation is that these students are not

eligible for any federal or state assistance.

So unlike a lot of citizens who get discounted

bills even further from their in-state tuition

status, these students don't receive any of that

aid. They pay the full freight of in-state

tuition, which ends up with that revenue generating

c

c

c


228 May 19, 2015

component that our CSU and community college have

indicated, through you, Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate the

gentleman's clarifying statements that it's not

relevant to my line of questioning here, but r

appreciate it. My line of questioning is solely

focused on the rates related to in-state tuition.

Those rates are budgeted. They are set. So

one of two things exists. Either the number of

students from within Connecticut who can be

accepted and who matriculate goes down, or the

tuition rate for in-state students goes up. It is

the logical conclusion. The budget is the budget

at each institution. So what is the byproduct of

that?

The byproduct from my perspective, is it a

student who spent his entire life in Connecticut

from kindergarten through his 12th grade year, that

student's parents who have worked here all their

lives, saved in order to pay that bare minimum in-

state tuition all their lives here in Connecticut,

c

c

c


229 May 19, 2015

quite frankly, could be leapfrogged by a student

and their family who parachute in here two years

before that college education begins. And I

believe that is highly likely. It, in fact, is

inevitable.

And I want to just close with a comment. The

gentleman said something earlier during one of his

explanations that this does not cost the state a

dime. I think we all need to remember what the

state is. The state is not this institution. The

state is its residents, and this bill will cost

students and their parents money. That•s a dime.

In fact it•s a dime plus a lot more.

So I think we need to consider that when we

cast our vote. This costs people money. It costs

students and their parents who have been here all

their lives, money, and to say otherwise is not

accurate. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. Will you remark further?

Representative MacLachlan.

REP. MACLACHLAN (35th):

c

c

c

' 003634 /pt HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

230 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a

few comments and ask a few questions to the

proponent of the bill, ma'am.


You may proceed.


Thank you, ma'am. I have chewed on this bill

long and hard since it came through the Higher

Education Committee. I did vote in favor of it to

move it along. I was deeply moved by the multiple

public hearing testimonies that we heard.

But in doing just a little bit more of

personal research on the matter, I came to the

understanding that we are, Connecticut is one of

only a few states to offer the currently in-state

tuition in the New England region and surrounding

states. I believe Rhode Island joins us. New

Jersey and New York as well, not being in New

England, although they probably wish they were.

My question is, when New Jersey implemented

their in-state tuition law in 2013, I believe, they

had a three-year requirement, three years of

residency, I believe, or of high school to apply or

to remain eligible for in-state tuition.

c

c

c


231 May 19, 2015

My question, through you, Madam Speaker is,

what type of municipal impact, what type of school

board, school budget impact resulted in any

potential influx of students? What type of

reaction did local school boards need to make in

reaction to, on behalf of the 2013 legislation,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. With

regard to the New Jersey bill, I don't have direct

information. I recall reading a study that wasn't

necessarily well regarded, indicating that this had

tremendous municipal impact on their local budgets

because people were coming over the border to go to

New Jersey to go to their public schools.

The research that we've seen through NCSL and

our own OLR design indicate this. In fact, our

local school boards, there are a few who testified

in favor of this bill before the Higher Education

Committee.

So I don't know. I don't have the exact

details of the New Jersey experiment. I do know

c

c

c


232 May 19, 2015

here in Connecticut we have local school boards

saying that this is a good, positive development

for their students, through you.


Representative MacLachlan.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the good

Caucus Chairman for his answers. I don•t mean to

ask in a rhetorical fashion at all. I ask because

I represent three towns, two of which have just

finished very difficult and are actually ongoing

budget, school budget discussions and negotiations,

two school budgets that were recently, did not

pass.

And so they need to go back to the drawing

board, indicative of a great strain, at least my

three small towns, wonderful shoreline towns are

wrestling with in crafting a budget that meets the

needs of the students within their financial means.

And so, I will continue to chew on this piece

of legislation that I believe is well intended and

may do a lot of good. But I also chew on it

thinking very long and hard about what type of

c

c


233 May 19, 2015

financial means we have at our availability, and

potential municipal impact.

So I thank the good Caucus Chair for his

comments and his stamina, and I thank you for the

time, Madam Speaker.



Representative Ziobron.

REP. ZIOBRON (34th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to

talk about another issue within the bill, which is

in-state tuition. And as we were going through the

budget process over the last few months in several

work groups and meetings with the Higher Education

Subcommittee within the Appropriations Committee,

it came to my attention that we have an issue of

transparency in the State of Connecticut when it

comes to our tuition, and how we pay our tuition

bills.

And it really hit home to me as the mother of

a now almost junior in college. When I pay my

daughter's tuition bills, I see all the different

kinds of fees, just like, you know, your electric

bill, your cable bill.

c

c

c


234 May 19, 2015

And what I learned this past few months was

that in our tuition that we are paying for state

universities, within that tuition bill we are

paying 15 percent toward a set-aside scholarship

program that most parents are not aware of.

Now the program is a great program. Many of

our students across the state benefit from this

program, but I believe it's important that parents

are aware of that. So when they're complaining and

looking at their tuition bills, that they

understand that 15 percent of that bill is because

of this set-aside program that they are paying for.

So, Madam Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment,

LCO 6564. I'd ask the Clerk call the amendment and

I be permitted leave to summarize.


Will the Clerk please call LCO 6564, which

will be designated as House Amendment ncn?

CLERK:

House Amendment nc,n LCO 6564, as introduced

by Representative Ziobron.



for summarization. You may proceed, madam.

c

c

0


235 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment that

I've put forward is very simple. It requires that

each public institution in their tuition bills,

simply include documentation that this program

exists, and that 15 percent or whatever the

percentage is as ·based by the Governor's Counsel,

and that has to be submitted two years in advance,

be notified.

And when I was doing a lot of research on this

issue over the last few months, I came across a

number of things, one of which was a tuition bill

from 1893 that actually included items like key

finds, room rent and sweeping charges and other

things.

And yet, in 2015, we are not making sure our

parents of students understand all of the money in

their tuition, and we keep talking about the cost

of tuition. But 15 percent of that cost is never

notified to parents, and I really believe strongly

that we must do that.

Other universities around the nation make note

of university fees, student activity fees,

intercollegiate athletic fees, et cetera, et

0

c

c


236 May 19, 2015

cetera. But yet, we don't do that for the set-

aside program, which is so important certainly to

many of our students.

But in the light of transparency and the light

of fairness, I believe that notification should be

able in the tuition bill for the parents who are

actually paying for it.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of

the amendment and ask the vote be taken by roll.


The question before the Chamber is on roll

call vote. All those in favor p~ease signify by

saying aye.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Aye.


The requisite 20 percent has been met. When

the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Would

you care to remark further on the amendment before

us? Would you care to remark further?

Representative Betts. I assume this is on the

amendment, sir? You may proceed.

REP. BETTS (78th}:

0

c

c


237 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Very briefly, I

stand to strongly support this amendment, and it's

consistent with what I heard at the very beginning

of the Session when a lot of people were talking

about the UConn Foundation and other issues that

have come before us this Session.

Everybody was very concerned about

transparency and knowing what they're paying for or

what an institution is doing. This is really a

common sense, pro consumer bill that will tell the

people who are paying for the cost of education

what it is that is included, and what is covered,

and where the money goes.

So this seems to me to be very common sense,

very straightforward. It has information that

people would want to know, and that is the reason

why I strongly support it. Thank you so much.



the amendment? Representative Noujaim.

REP. NOUJAIM (74th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good afternoon

to you.


0

c

c


238 May 19, 2015

Good afternoon to you, sir.


Good to see you as always.


Thank you.


We came in the same year to this wonderful

Chamber. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this

amendment, and basically, I would like to tell a

little story, which really kind of illustrates how

reasonable this amendment is.

Madam Speaker, my daughter resides in

Manhattan. She has an apartment in Manhattan, and

I cannot tell you what the rent is. I'm sure you

know how expensive it is. So one time I was

walking into the lobby of the apartment building

where she resides and there is a big poster on the

board, and I looked to the doorman and I spoke with

him. I said, what is this poster all about?

And he said to me, he said, this poster is for

transparency. And I asked the question, well what

do you mean by transparency? He said by

regulations and laws of the State of New York and

the federal government, we have to set aside a

c

c

0

~-·----···--~-+------------------------------


239 May 19, 2015

portion of this building, which is a high-rise

luxury apartment building for Section 8 housing.

And I asked him the reason why. He said, this is

the law. We just need to let people know what this

is all about.

And when I read this, I say that's exactly

what this bill says, just transparency, letting

people know what they expect, what they should see,

and what is really before them insofar as expenses

paid by the State of Connecticut, or in New York,

by the State of New York.

So this is just a matter of transparency. It

is reasonable, and it makes common sense. And I

tell you this, Madam Speaker, not out of any

platform or anything, I just tell it to you as a

matter of not theory, but as a matter of practice.

So for this reason, I think this is very

practical and I rise in support of this amendment.




Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS (64th):

c

c

c


240 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Some questions for

the proponent of the amendment, please.


You may proceed, madam.

REP. WILLIS (64th):

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Tuition

set-aside. What is it? It's a portion of the

tuition that is paid by students and dedicated to

provide need-based financial aid to students

through institutional grants.

Colleges do this, including private colleges.

Are private colleges included and covered under

this amendment, because they in fact offer

institutional aid as well?





Chair of the Higher Ed for asking this question.

It's something we certainly have discussed before.

This amendment does not cover private universities

because they are not covered under the statutes for

this program as my amendment looks to do.

c

c


241 May 19, 2015

In fact, I'm looking here on the original

letter that was done on July 1, 1985, which really

talked about all of the public universities. So at

this time, my amendment only deals with public

universities in the State of Connecticut. But I

know that there are others across the state who are

doing the same thing, through you.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, another question,

and a comment. Since institutional aid is offered

by other private institutions you're really

competitively disadvantaging state colleges as they

compete for students. But other states do this.

Do they provide institutional aid set-asides, and

if so, what states are they?




Thank you, Madam Speaker, if the good

Representative could repeat her question? I wasn't

sure I completely understood it.


0

c

0


242 May 19, 2015


REP. WILLIS (64th):

Do other states provide institutional aid, and

if so, which states provide institutional aids?




Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'm sure there

are a number of states that do. I don't have the

breakdown of every state. But, you know, I met

with one of our public colleges on my amendment

last week. They were concerned about it. We had a

very frank conversation. It's my understanding

that there's a couple of states, including Texas,

who have now mandated this, which I wasn't aware of

when I drafted the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I drafted this amendment as a

part of the budgeting process through the

Appropriations Committee when I realized that we in

Connecticut are putting forward this amount of

money, which is a good thing. These programs are

very good. But parents have a right to know that

part of the tuition that they're working a second

job for, that they're asking their child to work a

c

c

c


243 May 19, 2015

part-time job, that they're cashing in their

mortgage for, and all of these things that they do

as parents to sacrifice for their children, they

have a right to know where all of that money is

going, and that's all this is.

It's a transparency bill that benefits not

only the student, but also the parent in the State

of Connecticut.



REP. WILLIS (64th):


another question. I believe Texas actually is the

only state in the United States that requires

disclosure of institutional aid, and it's been in

place for well over five years, but no other state

has followed suit.

Are you aware that any other states in the

union would be considering such action as we are

considering here in this amendment?




c

c

c


244 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So in my

conversation with one of the public universities,

they mentioned a couple other states who were

considering looking at this. I'm not aware of any

that are going forward.

Again, Madam Speaker, I brought forward this

amendment not because I had reached out to figure

out what other states in the United States were

doing. This is an issue of fairness that came

forward to me in my capacity on helping craft a

state budget. And when we're talking about

reductions in the Governor's scholarship program

and doing all those things, it became very apparent

to me that we had a transparency issue.

This is not about what one state is doing or

another. This is about the residents and taxpayers

and students and parents in Connecticut who have a

right to know where their money is going. That's

all.

When you look at your electric bill, your

cable bill, your cell phone bill, all of those

things, it's over and over again. We know exactly

where our money's going. Don't we have the same

right, don't we have the obligation to expect that

0

c

c


245 May 19, 2015

when we're paying our tuition in the State of

Connecticut? And I believe we do.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, another question

for the proponent of the amendment, thank you.

Different courses of study cost different

amounts to deliver. So if we are going to follow

that it's an issue of transparency, shouldn't we be

disclosing on bills that, for instance, a nursing

program's cost or a chemical engineering cost, cost

more to deliver than English, history or

philosophy.

And shouldn't parents know, or students know

that they are underwriting the cost of students who

are, in fact, in more costly programs to deliver?




Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I could ask the

good Representative to maybe rephrase her question.

I'm not exactly sure what she's trying to get to,

and I'd be happy to answer that, through you.

c

c

c


246 May 19, 2015



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, it costs different amounts to

deliver different programs. For instance, a lab

program, you know, a science-based program such as

nursing, a stem field is very costly, and tuition

really does not cover the cost of delivering those

programs.

So other students who are majors in history or

philosophy or English pay, theoretically

subsidizing the cost of the more expensive

programs.

So I'm wondering. Do we disclose that

information on a bill as well?





Representative for that question.

You know, when we're drafting laws here the

simpler the better, and that's what this amendment

is. It's extremely simple so that it's uniform

language that should appear on every tuition bill.

0

c

c


247 May 19, 2015

It doesn•t matter whether you•re a nursing major,

an engineering major, an arts major or anything

else.

And I•m pretty sure when people are signing up

for classes they really understand the cost of

those individual classes, and they choose what they

can afford, or what they strive to be. And if they

have to take extra loans out to be a nurse rather

than be something else, they choose to do that.

This amendment is very simple, extremely

simple, and it only looks for transparency on every

tuition bill, no matter what major you have, no

matter what state university you attend. It•s

about transparency in the State of Connecticut when

it comes to tuition bills, and I hope it•s

something all of my colleagues can support.


Thank you, madam. Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, another question

for the proponent.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

0

c

0


248 May 19, 2015

I usually have this question asked of me. Is

there a fiscal note on this bill?




I was hoping the good Representative would ask

me that question because there is no fiscal note.

There is no additional appropriation needed for

this type of amendment, which is why I was very

willing to put it forward, through you.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, just a comment on

that. While there's no fiscal note on this from

our Office of Fiscal Analysis, I really question

this because this is a really complicated

accounting issue.

Our tuition money gets comingled with state

grants and other grants that come into

universities. So it would be really difficult to

identify students from which, who got institutional

aid and accounting for that.

c

c

c


249 May 19, 2015

So the question really would be, this would be

very difficult in terms of accounting. Do you feel

that they would have, the colleges would have

adequate staff to be able to manage this kind of

fiscal challenge?




Thank you, Madam Speaker. The amendment is

just a notification that a portion of their tuition

goes for the set-aside program. It's extremely

simple, and I do not believe what the good

Representative is fearing for that is going to pan

out, and I don't agree with her assessment, through

you.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker. Would the

percentage of the institutional aid be indicated on

the bill?




0

c

c


250 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I could just

have a moment to just verify that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In Line 7 it says

that language that notifies such student or person

that one, a certain amount of funds are set aside

from such institution's anticipated tuition revenue

to provide waivers, tuition remissions, et cetera,

et cetera.

And in Line 13 it says, and two, a certain

additional amount may be set aside for such

anticipated tuition revenue for financial

assistance for students who would not otherwise be

eligible.

I don't believe what the good Representative

is again concerned about is contained within this

amendment, through you.


Thank you, madam. Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, so the question I

have for the proponent, then it would just be

merely a disclosure on the form telling the student

and/or the parent that their portion of their

tuition bill is going toward institutional aid, but

c

c

c


251 May 19, 2015

it would not give and declare an amount. Is that

correct?




Thank you, Madam Speaker, yes. That is

correct, through you.



REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, a few comments.

One of the downsides of going in this direction in

the State of Connecticut with financial aid is,

first of all, institutional aid is used for a

variety of things.

It•s used for work study programs. It•s used

for emergency situations where students who did not

qualify for financial aid, but their parents may

have lost a job or a parent got sick, and the

institution then has the flexibility to use this

institutional aid to help them out.

The State of Texas has adopted this disclosure

and the sad thing is that•s happening in that

state, it•s now being used to catapult initiative

c

c

c


252 May 19, 2015

to get rid of institutional aid. I think the

campaign has stopped tuition set-asides. This is

not a road that I want to see the State of

Connecticut go down.

Recently, this Body passed a bill that

established what the goals are for higher education

in Connecticut. And one of those goals was the

purpose to ensure that our state's workforce has to

achieve and sustain a competitive economy by

reducing economic disparities and the achievement

gap between whites and minorities. That is a goal

for us.

We should have a financial aid policy in

Connecticut that fosters that, one that we can be

proud of, and I think we do that now. I think the

fact that the State of Connecticut has something

of, in policy and in statute, that a proportion of

everyone's tuition goes toward institutional aid or

tuition set-asides.

The fact that private institutions do this as

well, and that would give our schools, send the

message that we do this in our state universities

but the private institutions of higher education do

not.

0

c

c


253 May 19, 2015

So just to conclude, I 1 d like to urge my

colleagues to vote no on this amendment. I hope

they will join me. Thank you very much, Madam

Speaker. Thank you to the proponent for her

answers to my questions.



the amendment? Representative o•Neill.

REP. 0 1 NEILL (69th):

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. And just if I

may, a question or two to the Chair of the Higher

Education Committee, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. 0 1 NEILL (69th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Earlier a reference

was made to some sort of an initiative being

undertaken in the State of Texas, and I wasn•t

quite sure if that was an initiative in the sense

of the concept of initiative and referendum where

people circulate a petition to put a ballot measure

on the ballot for people to vote on, or if it was

just some sort of an initiative in the sense of the

0

c

c


254 May 19, 2015

generic concept of people proposing a change in

public policy.

So through you, Madam Speaker, could the Chair

indicate which kind of an initiative it was that

was being disclosed or described before? Thank

you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS (64th):

Through you, Madam Chair, the answer to the

gentleman's question is the latter.


Thank you, madam. Representative O'Neill.

REP. O'NEILL (69th):

Okay. So it is, in fact, not some proposal

that's being circulated as a ballot initiative.

It's something that's being talked about being done

in the State of Texas, as I understand it. Am I

correct, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. WILLJS (64th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, by going on

line I noticed it was quite a campaign, and they

0

c

0


255 May 19, 2015

were, there's a website urging people to join the

stopped tuition set-asides.


Representative O'Neill.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because it is my

understanding that the State of Texas does have a

policy or state statutes that do allow for

initiative and referendum in the passage of

legislation in the State of Texas, and I was

curious if that was what was going on.

So basically what's happened is people have

discovered that significant percentage of the

amount of money they pay in college tuition is

being used for set-asides for these types of

scholarships, and at least some people have

expressed opposition to it.

I would say that here in the State of

Connecticut, first of all, you can't do it that

way. Any change in that would either be done by

the Board of Higher Education or by the people

running UConn or by people at the various state

universities, regions, or perhaps through this

legislative Body. But it's not something that can

0

c

0


256 May 19, 2015

be done by way of just petitioning. Certainly not

just petitioning on the Internet to get public

policy changed.

Second of all, the description was made

earlier of legislation that we had that sort of set

forth the goals of higher education in the State of

Connecticut. And I just want to be clear. Nowhere

in that recitation, nor do I recall in the bill,

was one of the goals of higher education to hide

from the people of the State of Connecticut what

the costs of higher education were or how the money

was being allocated and spent.

Now I understand that every institution of

government loves to keep people from really knowing

what's going on. One of the reasons why we have a

Freedom of Information law, why it was necessary 40

plus years ago to pass that kind of law both here

and across the country, was because government

agencies, including educational institutions like

people to not know what's going on so that the

bureaucrats and the administrators have freedom to

do what it is that they want to do, and not

necessarily do what either their consuming,

customers, students, the people who pay, or here in

0

c

0


257 May 19, 2015

the Legislature, those of us who have to decide

upon the budgets want to know, or want to do or

want to see done.

The piece of legislation that's before us in

the form of this amendment is simple disclosure of

what is being spent. Not every single dollar, not

precisely to each student, but just give people an

understanding that 15 percent of what you are

paying in college tuition is going for these set-

aside programs so that people understand.

Now that may result in widespread support.

People may be wildly enthusiastic for it, just as

when in the tax bills there is disclosure that a

certain amount of money comes to the town, property

tax bills, from the state government. That may

encourage people to believe that their tax dollars

that they give to the State of Connecticut are

being spent wisely, that is coming back to them in

the form of help.

Or if they find out that a certain percentage

of the total town tax bill is going for education,

that may encourage people to be more supportive, or

it may encourage people to be less supportive. We

don't know.

c

c

0


258 May 19, 2015

But having the truth, having the facts, having

knowledge, cannot possibly be a bad thing. If you

don't trust the public to be in possession of the

truth, then I seriously question what we are doing

here.

If we don't trust the public that put us here,

what are we doing here? And I think that for

someone who's been in the Legislature, because it

came as a surprise to me, that this much of a

student's bill is being used for the set-aside

program.

And·especially in light of all the cuts and

all the increases in tuition, this is something

that I think people should know. Even after 27

years in the Legislature, this is the first that

I'm finding out, this year, about the amount of

money that's being spent this way. And if I didn't

know about it after 10 years on the Appropriations

Committee, I would think that it's something that

ought to be more widely known and disseminated.

Most people don't know, and I think most

people, but especially the tuition payers, ought to

know how much of a percentage of their tuition is

being spent in this way. Perhaps they should know

0

c

0


259 May 19, 2015

more. Maybe they should know what percentage is

going for administrators, or which programs cost

more, and that's perhaps a debate for a different

day.

But the amendment before us just takes one

step in the direction of a fuller disclosure of

what that money is being spent for. Thank you,

Madam Speaker.




amendment? Okay.


the Well of the House? Will members please take

your seats and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:


roll. The House of Representatives is voting by

roll. Will members please report ·to the Chamber

immediately.



voted? If so, will the members please check the

board to determine if your vote is properly cast.

0

c

c


260 May 19, 2015


locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the

Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

LCO 6564, House Amendment 11 C11


Necessary for Adoption 72

Those voting Yea 63

Those voting Nay 79



The amendment fails. Will you remark further?



Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just stand

briefly to let the Chamber know that the Senate

just passed Senate Bill 398, which affords

financial assistance to illegal immigrants. So

with the construct now of the bill that we're

voting on today, we are essentially going to allow

individuals who merely go to school for two years

in the State of Connecticut to a high school,

graduate and be able to compete for slots with

0

c

0


261 May 19, 2015

students in Connecticut that have lived here a

lifetime.

And with the construct of Senate Bill 398 now,

we now are going to be affording them financial

assistance that has been reserved for our residents

who have gone through the school systems, who have

paid taxes in the State of Connecticut.

And I think it's a very sad day. Connecticut

can't afford to continue down this path, and I

would urge people to reject this bill. Thank you.




the bill? Representative Kokoruda.

REP. KOKORUDA (101st):

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple

questions to the proponent of the bill, please,

through you.


Representative Lemar, prepare yourself, sir.



Yes. Through you, Madam Speaker, we heard

earlier when the proponent of the bill was talking,

c

c

0


262 May 19, 2015

and he was talking about municipal impact with the

high schools, with the additional spots in high

schools that will be needed.

And I know he, I was curious to what exactly,

has SDE addressed this impact, and has

municipalities been contacted at all? I know in my

town we're talking about potentially closing

schools. We're worried about, you know, our

student population roll. I think towns need to

prepare for this, and I just was curious of what

exactly the proponent has done as far as getting

SDE involved and what their next steps are, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):


Representative, look, we have not engaged SDE on

this issue because we haven't seen it evidence

itself in any meaningful way here in Connecticut

In fact, we had departments of education, I'm

sorry, boards of education who testified in favor

of this bill because they believe it extends more

opportunities to their currently enrolled students.

c

c

0


263 May 19, 2015

The evidence of folks coming across borders

and going into our state to take advantage of this

public benefit has not evidenced itself. In fact,

New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, all extend a

similar benefit to the one that we•re considering

today, and that we have been expending for a number

of years.

So there hasn•t been an influx due to this

number, this policy. And true to form like most

school districts in the state, have not resonate,

have this resonate as an issue that they needed to

testify about or concern Legislators or SDE with.

And also, there are a number of districts that

are actually losing students right now, not seeing

an increase of students due to this policy, through

you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. Representative Kokoruda.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate

that question, that answer. I will tell you, I

know my two towns did not know about this bill, and

they•re not preparing for it. And the proponent

bill is correct.

c

c


264 May 19, 2015

A lot of school districts are seeing open

spaces, which is great, but they're planning to

make changes. I know one of my towns right now is

working with a group to decide what schools to

close, and I think they really, really, the idea

that these towns haven't been told that this is

potentially going to happen is a concern.

Another question, through you, Madam Speaker,

to the proponent of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENT.ILE:



Thank you, Madam Speaker. Are there any

requirements beyond the two years of high school,

that you've got to go to a school, a high school

here for two years. Are there any other

requirements?

For example, do you need to be in the United

States prior to coming to, going to school for

these two years, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

c

c

0


265 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The underlying

bill, the original bill that we adopted in 2011

didn't have any, you know, further evidence based

upon time in the United States. We just looked at

four years within the State of Connecticut, and

then also meeting the other parameters of the bill.

All we're seeking to do here today is move

from four to two. We don't exact any additional

proof from these individuals about how long they've

been in the country. What we're all recognizing

solely is that these folks have attended high

schools in our cities and towns. They've graduated

from those high schools in our cities and towns.

They ideally will spend the rest of their lives in

Connecticut with great jobs, growing their

families, innovating and leading in Connecticut.

We don't have a policy and/or legally, I

think, have the authority to track these

individuals or force them to provide additional

information in that nature.

I think I understand like what the urge is, IS

to make sure that these are citizens who are

committed to us long term. We don't ask that of

anyone. You, me, our kids, our neighbor's

c

c

c


266 May 19, 2015

children, we don't ask them to pledge to staying in

the state or to document every travel that they've

had over their lifetime, and we don't extend that

to these students either, through you.


Representative Kokoruda.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I was

asking that question because earlier the proponent

had made a comment that the purpose of this bill is

to ensure that we have a well-educated workforce.

So I assume that meant Connecticut has a well-

educated workforce, and to grow families.

And I thought that meant to grow families in

Connecticut. Could I have clarification of that,

Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you. The

good Representative is exactly right. That is what

I said, and based upon all of the evidence that we

have, these students when they go to public

university, all students in Connecticut, when they

c

c

c


267 May 19, 2015

go to our local public universities and colleges,

80 percent of them stay here in Connecticut upon

graduation.

We know a lot of these folks were not

graduating from high school prior to the

continuation of this benefit in 2011, and now we've

seen graduation rates increase within this

population.

And we know that it has something to do with

providing opportunities post-graduation for the

long-term success, with the establishment of the

DOCA Program allowing a number of our children,

again, in schools with my daughter and sons on a

daily basis, the opportunity to grow here in

Connecticut. That is the purpose.

And we can't tie people to the state upon

graduation, but we know by extending these

opportunities to all of our children we're making a

strong and significant investment in our future,

through you.



REP. KOKORUDA (lOlst}:

c

c

0


268 May 19, 2015

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the

proponent of the bill. I just would ask for

clarification. I would just like to know what 80

percent of these students staying here and working

here, and growing families here. That's a great

number. I hope it's correct.

Could I ask him for verification of where that

number care from, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. It was

testimony provided by CSU and community college

systems regarding the long term, where students

choose to reside upon completion of their time at

CSU and community colleges system, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have to say,

everything I've been hearing is just the opposite.

This is really good news we received today because

I know it's been a major issue with so many of us

about keeping our students, having our young people

0

c

0


269 May 19, 2015

stay in Connecticut. So this is remarkable news

today.

Just to continue. One of the things I brought

up was to see if these students, prior to the two

years had been in the United States was because I

was concerned about the language issue.

We've really addressed pre-K through 12th

grade English as a second language in our high

schools and our elementary schools, and we continue

to. We've actually done legislation about

qualifications here in this room, this Chamber,

this year.

I was curious. I know my husband's family

came over from Slovakia, and when they came they

didn't speak a word of English. Some of his

relatives would like to do this. If they don't

speak English, what accommodation would be in

college for them when they entered, were able to

get into, with in-state tuition in one of our state

universities?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


270 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the good

Representative has done great work with the

Education Committee in trying to incorporate ESL

language development both in her local schools and

here in the state as a whole. She may actually

know better than me what some of the programs are

that are offered at our local colleges for some

folks who don't have the language skills.

I know based upon my experience at our local

community colleges, and working at Southern

Connecticut State, that there are a large number of

kids who do struggle with reading ability both in

their, you·know, English language learners, but

also folks who need assistance just in

comprehension and capacity.

So I know that there are programs that exist

at our community colleges and local colleges. I

don't know about the full utilization for all

languages.

But these are children who have evidenced an

ability to succeed in our local schools, who have

evidenced an ability to complete the work that our

local institutions have determined would be great

c

c

c


271 May 19, 2015

representatives of our community at these

universities and can succeed there.

So I believe that they've got, you know, under

their auspices, the ability to move these kids

toward graduation. It is upon them as institutions

to fully prepare them to succeed there and to get

them toward graduation. It's their goal. It's our

goal, and hopefully moving forward we can make sure

that all of our kids, no matter if they're in

public schools in Madison or New Haven, are

prepared to succeed long term, through you.




Thank you, Madam Chair. And obviously I agree

with the proponent of the bill with that. We want

all our kids, all our kids in New Haven, Madison,

every town to succeed. And I think that's why

there's difference of opinions on this bill, this

legislation.

If we're going to have an influx of these

children, and after two years it's very likely that

they won't be able to take the regular course load

without some assistance in language. Is there a

c

c

c


272 May 19, 2015

fiscal note on the bill to address language,

English as a second language in our colleges?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. There

is a fiscal note for the bill as a whole in which

it was determined there was no fiscal impact.

Secondarily, the University of Connecticut

indicated in their testimony that they did not see

this limiting their ability to educate their

children. There is no specific reference to the

language learner programs at our universities and

how this would impact them.

Generally there are, these programs exist with

static fixed costs. The increase in students is

something that they clearly have anticipated and

have some experience with over the last few years,

and in their testimony indicated that they were

proud to welcome these students, and they're proud

to see this eligibility extended to folks who have

two years as well. Thank you, through you.


c


273 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Representative. Represent~tive

Kokoruda.


Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Does this

legislation, through you, Madam Speaker, also

relate to graduate school?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the underlying

provisions of the bill are met in which they

graduated from a local institution, having

completed two years of high school level education,

that they then enroll at a public institution, and

fill out that affidavit, it would extend to

graduate school, that they would be considered in-

state students at our public university system,

through you.




Thank you. And that brings to mind one more

question. Does the bill say that it has to be,

that these, after two years this student graduated

c

c

0


274 May 19, 2015

from a Connecticut high school. Could I just have

clarification on that?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. It

requires that they attend any educational

institution in the state completing at least two

years of high school and graduate from a high

school in this state or equivalent thereof, through

you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that

clarification. You know, I was on the

Appropriations Subcommittee for Higher Ed this

year, and it's quite interesting. And I know in

February our university system got quite a surprise

with the proposed cuts.

And I know UConn came and testified about this

bill being, you know, this legislation being

something they'd be interested in, and I know all

our universities with the exception of UConn really

c

c

c


275 May 19, 2015

have openings. They're, you know, they're looking

for people, which is great.

But I'll talk about UConn for a minute. UConn

is seeing over $40 million, I believe $40 million

in cuts. That's not even touching the Governor's

Scholarship Program that starts, concerns all our

students and all our colleges and universities,

private and public.

And it was a significant cut. I can't

remember the amount but it was significant. I

believe it was at least $20 million if not more.

In my town there is so many kids that are so

thrilled to go to UConn, and a couple of years ago

we added spots in our flagship university in the

honors program, and I'll tell you, and I've said

this at public hearings to UConn. My students are

so thrilled to fill those spots, but it's getting

more and more competitive.

And I was talking to a young student the other

day that's going to go to Avery Point for a first

year because they're really, she didn't get into

one of those spots at UConn. And it is a concern

of mine that we're really, really making it even

harder for kids in Connecticut who have grown up

c

c

c


276 May 19, 2015

watching our basketball, grown up cheering for our

Huskies, and really when it comes to our flagship

university, we're really saying we've got some new

people coming in, you've got to get in line.

And I'm really concerned about that. I'm

telling my constituents, and really all kids in

Connecticut that have grown up wanting to go to

UConn, that they now have to, you know, we teach

them to share. But this is something, this is

something that we're asking them maybe not to be

able to go to UConn now, maybe to go to a different

school. A school that even though they deserve to

get in, they've got to get in line because there's

just so many spots.

And the idea of being bumped by a group that

they never expected to be bumped is going to be big

news to them. And I think we want to welcome

everybody in our country. But really in this tough

economic times what every one of us is talking to

our parents about tuition cost. Every one of us is

talking to our young adults about the debt they

have from school.

And we're asking them as they watched our

flagship university, and we put so much money into

c

c


277 May 19, 2015

it in the last 15 years, money that we're proud to

have spent to make our University better.

But now we're telling our kids, there's a good

chance you're not going to be able to go. And I

for one, I don' know about the rest of you, I for

one have a problem telling my constituents that

today.

And I wish I could support this bill. I

actually thought I was when it started, but I'll

tell you. The idea that they only have to show and

go to school. They could come and visit with a

relative and stay with a relative. Their family

doesn't have to be here. The idea that they really

don't even have to have committed to staying in our

state is a real problem for me, and I just can't go

back and tell my constituents to get in line.

So thank you very much, Madam Chairman, Madam

Speaker.



the bill as amended? Representative O'Neill.


c

c

c


278 May 19, 2015

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, on the bill. I

was hoping to speak to the Representative who sits

in the Seat No. 108.

First question is, there was a conversation

repeated over and over again to talk about

something called excess capacity, and I was

wondering what is that exactly? I'm not quite sure

I understand what excess capacity means, through

you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, I got

disconnected. I think they're looking for Seat

108. I'm not certain that I fit in it, but I will

certainly answer the question.

With regard to the excess capacity statement,

it was offered by officials at CSU and the

community college system in determining their

overall ability to educate students versus their

current number of registered students, through you.




c

c

c


279 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Was that testimony

offered in connection with the bill before us,




REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know it was

offered on that particular day. It may be

connected to another piece of legislation that was

also offered that day, but it was testimony

submitted that day, trough you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because I looked

through all the testimony that was offered that day

and there was no reference to anything called

excess capacity mentioned by anybody relating to

this particular piece of legislation.

In looking at, for example, the Western

Connecticut State University, they accepted 59

percent of the students who applied, which means

that they rejected 41 percent of the students who

applied.

c

c

c


280 May 19, 2015

And so I guess I•m puzzled by the concept that

they have lots of extra seats that they would like

to fill and that they can•t fill if they rejected

approximately half of all the students, or close to

half of all the students who applied.

Similarly with Southern Connecticut

University, they have a 75 percent acceptance rate

of the students who applied. Again, if they had a

substantial number of vacant seats that they were

carrying that they would like to fill that they

didn•t fill, I•m a little puzzled at why they

rejected 25 percent or more of the students,

approximately 25 percent of the students who

applied.

And again at Central Connecticut State

University, they accepted 64 percent of the

students who applied and rejected, therefore, 36

percent. Again, if they had extra seats, I don•t

understand why they didn't accept more of the

students who applied and are sort of waiting for us

to create new students who would be eligible to

apply to these various universities.

So perhaps maybe I should ask the question

this way. Does the proponent of the legislation

c

c

c


281 May 19, 2015

know what the capacity for, say the freshman class

at UConn is? How many students can they take?

Through you, Madam

Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. Again,

when I was discussing the capacity at their school,

and it's system wide, not for individual colleges.

When these individual colleges make their

determination about who to admit and who to reject,

they use a variety of factors including what they

think is their ability to succeed within that

university, whether or not they meet the basic

qualifications for admittance to that university.

And in growing years, each of our CSU system,

our community college system have determined that

they have access capacity based upon a number of

kids who are actually enrolling at their

universities.

Yes, kids are getting rejected from some of

these universities. It's because they don't meet

the requirements of the university or the

c

c

c


282 May 19, 2015

university has determined that they do not have the

ability to succeed at that university.

Again, CSU systems, community college systems,

have on numerous occasions say they have excess

capacity within the system.

As to the other question regarding the

freshman class at UConn, I'm not sure of the exact

number for the upcoming year. It know it varies a

little bit year to year depending on the number of

kids who actually accept their acceptance, through

you, Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because in the most

recent count that I could find, UConn said that it

had received applications from 34,000 students, up

nine percent from the previous year and that the

applicants had an average increase in their SAT

score of 13 points. So it's hard for me to believe

that the University of Connecticut, I don't know

exactly what the freshman class is, but my

understanding it's somewhere in the realm of 5,000

or 6,000.

c

c

c


283 May 19, 2015

If they got 34,000 applicants, they're

rejecting the overwhelming majority of the people

who apply to UConn, even though those students seem

to be pretty highly qualified and more qualified

than the year before.

So I guess I'm really puzzled by this concept

that we've got all these extra slots that we are

carrying in our public educational system.

I think there was a reference earlier on to

the boards of education. I gather someone

representing local boards of education testified on

this piece of legislation. Did I understand that

correctly, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I apologize. I

missed the question. If the good Representative

wouldn't mind repeating it, that would be great.




I would be happy to. Thank you, Madam

Speaker. My understanding is earlier on in the

c

c

c


284 May 19, 2015

debate there was an exchange during which I believe

the proponent of the legislation indicated that

someone representing local boards of education had

testified regarding the lack of impact of this

legislation, or the earlier version of this

legislation that went into effect four years ago.

And I'm just wondering. Was that testimony

offered during the course of the hearing on the

bill before us, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe so, yes.

I would have to take a moment to find it. I

believe it was, if I'm guessing, it was a

representative from the West Haven Board of

Education, perhaps. I mean West Hartford Board of

Education. And I believe I received testimony

maybe, I can try to locate the exact testimony, but

it was in coordination with this particular bill,





c

c

c


285 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because again, I

went through all of the testimony and I didn't see

anyone testifying who identified themselves as

either a member of a board of education or a

representative of the Connecticut Association of

Boards of Education or any similar kind of

organization that would be authorized to sort of

give evidence regarding the effects that the

underlying legislation that we seek to amend here

today had on local boards of education.

So again, I would ask. Was this perhaps,

because if I'm missing it, maybe that could be

brought to my attention. I would know exactly

where to look, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm recollecting

that it was the President of the West Hartford

Board of Education who testified on behalf of this

bill. Subsequently I received communications from

the New Haven Board of Education. They think it's

important to extend this benefit to their members.

c

c

c


286 May 19, 2015

I can, if it's not registered on the system, I

can certainly try to find it. It wasn't the

official Boards of Education. It was the president

of a local board of education in Connecticut that

articulated support for the bill. Thank you,

through you.




Okay, thank you, Madam Speaker. So as I said

before, I've looked through all the testimony that

we have before us that was at the public hearing,

and it sounds like at most, one member of one board

of education said that they hadn't seen an impact,

an adverse impact from the passage of the

legislation four years earlier, but that no one on

behalf of the Connecticut Boards of Education

testified to that effect or any similar

superintendents of education or any other kind of

statewide group that would be able to kind of give

us an estimate of what the overall impact in the

State of Connecticut might have been.

Do we know how many students, potential

students would be affected by the bill that is

c

c

c


287 May 19, 2015

before us today, the number, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think we

discussed this a little bit earlier. There isn't

an exact number that we have easily attainable to

like add greater clarity to this conversation.

What we have is testimony from again,

presidents of local boards of education, nonprofit

organizations, advocacy organizations, University

of Connecticut. Me and my local guidance

counselors, we have a group of students that the

original legislation did not cover that we are

hoping to extend this same benefit to with the

goal, of course, of educating a workforce that will

likely reside in this state for many years to come.

You know, the number is not something that's

easily identifiable or that anyone can, you know,

peg with any like complete accuracy. And so that's

why I struggle to provide a concrete number for

consideration. It's because that concrete number

c

c

c


288 May 19, 2015

doesn't naturally exist anywhere, through you,

Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Because again, in

looking through all of the testimony that was

offered during the course of the discussion, I did

not see any indication of numbers. I saw a number

of people who said that they would like to take

advantage of this piece of legislation or that they

thought there were people who might take advantage

of this legislation, many of them coming from one

particular organization. I believe C4, something

like that, something related to promoting the Dream

Act, or a group that was sort of inspired by the

Dream Act legislation of some years ago.

But basically, what we were looking at in

terms of testimony was a lot of people talking

about what they liked about the bill but nobody

really specifying any numbers.

There were several exchanges earlier on also

regarding the capacity of UConn to absorb students.

I read very carefully through the testimony of the

c

c

c


289 May 19, 2015

individual who's a Vice-President for sort of the

Director of Enrollment at UConn. Nowhere in his

testimony, perhaps I missed it, it was 107 words in

length altogether, but nowhere in his testimony did

I see anything indicating that UConn had the

capacity other than his statement that he would

welcome students. But there was nothing in there

that said they had extra seats.

Was there something that was said that was not

part of the written testimony, whereby the Director

said that they had extra empty seats at UConn that

they were holding or would be available for

students who might take advantage of this bill that

is before us today, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, just

for clarification points. I think I was indicating

that the CSU and community colleges had excess

capacity when I was referencing the statement from

the Vice-President at UConn. His exact language

was, the University looks forward to welcoming

these additional students to our campuses should

c

c

c


290 May 19, 2015

the legislation pass, and that's what I was

reference where UConn indicated that they were in

favor of this and they were welcoming these

students, and look forward to welcoming these

students at the CSU system. Community colleges

have access capacity system wide, and our internal

fiscal notes reference conversations with UConn

officials saying that they can make this work

without any fiscal cost, through you, Madam

Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Getting back for a

moment to the numbers of students, do we know how

many students have taken advantage of the law that

passed 2011, the existing law that was being sought

to be amended here today, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We do not have an

exact number of students who have taken advantage

c

c

0


291 May 19, 2015

of the program. This is information that's handled

privately with a university official and the

student who's filing the affidavit, who's providing

the information. We do not seek this information,

and I'm not sure that we want to get into the

business of seeking some of this personal

information from our university. But we don't have

an exact number which will add greater clarity to

the conversation for the benefit of the

Representative, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, perhaps not

an exact number, but do we know that the number is

100 or less? More than 100? More than 200? More

than 300? More than 500? Any idea at all as to

how many students are taking advantage of this

program, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The good

Representative can throw a lot of numbers out

c

c

c


292 May 19, 2015

there. I'm not going to pick one out of the air.

I am not certain what the number is. I don't know

that in the testimony that number was provided.

I know what this bill seeks to do largely.

The underlying bill is to change one word of

existing state statute from four to two. The

underlying amendment broadened this definition to

include some subclasses of non-immigrant aliens, so

I don't have the exact numbers from the 2011

legislation.

I do know that people are availing themselves

of this program. Connecticut residents are

graduating from our schools who are going on to our

public universities, who are hoping to make a life

for themselves in Connecticut post-graduation.

Those students exist in our public schools, and

extending this opportunity to more of our students

who are in classes with my children and with all of

our children is a good choice.

I don't know the exact number. That's a hard

number to get considering the population that we're

talking about. But the number is real. The kids

are real. Those futures are real, and the

c

c

0


293 May 19, 2015

opportunity we're providing to them is real as

well, through you.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, again, I'm

not really interested in a precise number, and it

was 107 or 212 or anything quite like that. But

there must be some idea as to whether we're talking

about dozens of students, hundreds of students or

thousands of students. There must be some

curiosity on the part of the folks who are

proposing this legislation as to how many more

students are going to be helped, as they see it, by

this legislation.

Is there no knowledge whatsoever, other than

they know there's at least one student, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appears as if the

good Representative is asking me to proffer a guess

here, because as I said, we don't have the exact

c

c

c


294 May 19, 2015

number. Based upon the testimony, our

conversations with our local university partners, I

would estimate that number to be in the upper

dozens to lower hundreds, through you, Madam

Speaker.




Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's not

too far off from the kind of level of accuracy that

I was looking for.

Now, one of the things that's in the

underlying legislation that's repeated, I believe

in this legislation, is that the students are going

to make an effort to get their immigration status

regularized. Is there anyone that is tasked with

the responsibility of verifying that that is being

undertaken within any of our universities or

anywhere in the state government, that that effort

is being in fact made, that they're required to say

they're going to try to do, through you, Madam

Speaker?



c

c

c


295 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, it's certainly not

being undertaken through a state office. Again,

this is private student information that's held at

the local university level. I imagine the

university has identified those individuals that

are responsible for adhering, ensuring compliance

with the underlying bill, but it's certainly not a

state official who's collecting this data, through

you.




Okay. So just so I understand. There's no

state official like from the Department of Higher

Education who is doing this. Is the proponent of

the legislation aware of anyone in any of the

universities or colleges whose job it is to check

to make sure that the promise to try to get their

status regularized is being attempted to be

fulfilled, they're making any effort, through you,

Madam Speaker?



c

c

c


296 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This current bill

makes no change to whatever practice is currently

being undertaken at our local community colleges

and universities. So whatever process is being

undertaken now with, we foresee continuing in the

future.

As this bill does not address that as to who

specifically is doing it at each individual

university, I am uncertain, to be honest, through

you.




Does the proponent or anyone on the Higher

Education Committee, have they ever expressed any

interest in finding out the answer to whether or

not any effort was being made to verify that,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, based

upon my conversations with members of the Higher

0

c

c


297 May 19, 2015

Education Committee and proponents of this bill, no

one has asked who specifically at our local

university is measuring compliance.

I, again, I don't know who the individuals are

tasked at each university with determining

eligibility for in-state tuition programs broadly,

and I certainly don't know who that person is

specifically. But the universities themselves are

responsible for ensuring compliance with the

eligibility programs that they have in place,





Thank you, Madam Speaker. And during the

course of any of the hearings related to this

program, does the proponent recollect anyone ever

asking anybody, any university official if they

were, in fact, trying to enforce that requirement,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

c

c

c


298 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot purport to

know the knowledge of all the conversations that

took place. But I do know that based upon my

evaluation of the testimony from the public

hearing, and my conversations with officials, there

hasn't been offered up an individual whose specific

duty is to measure the specific conditions of this

bill.

I do know that they do take it seriously to

ensure that their folks are complying with the

components of the bill, but I don't know the

specific individual whose responsibility lies there

within. Thank you. through you, Madam Speaker.




Okay. Well, I perhaps phrased my question a

little too broadly. Has the proponent ever asked

anyone if there is any compliance efforts being

undertaken, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

0

c

c


299 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My personal

conversations I think in this regard have been

limited to that provision, have been limited to

like, I think it was with, gosh, it was one of the

vice-presidents at Southern Connecticut State

University in asking how they handled a couple

students that came to them out of high school in

the community in Wilbur Cross.

And I asked them how difficult it was for them

to determine eligibility for in-state tuition. And

they said it was relatively easy. The hard part

for them originally was finding the form, the

affidavit form that they had to sign.

And I said oh, so people are signing the form?

They said yes, of course. And that was the only

conversation I've ever had in this regard,

regarding that component of the underlying

legislation.

I don't know whose responsibility it is at any

of the other local universities or community

colleges or at the University of Connecticut as a

whole. I know on my one specific conversation they

indicated that they are complying with it, through

you, Madam Speaker.

c

c

c


300 May 19, 2015




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Now one of the

people who testified in favor of this piece of

legislation was Secretary Barnes of the Office of

Policy and Management. And in his testimony he

encouraged support for this legislation and I guess

it's part of the Governor's budgetary

implementation.

And a piece of his testimony related to

another bill, Bill 6845, which was reported out by

the Higher Education Committee I believe in March,

and it was directed toward creating a scholarship

program for undocumented students for $150,000 in

the first year and $300,000 in the second year.

This is legislation I guess analogous to the

legislation earlier described by the Deputy Leader

from North Branford, who was talking about a piece

of legislation just passed in the Senate, I guess

very recently.

But this was a piece, the one I'm talking

about, the House bill that passed out of the Higher

Education Committee, which would have created a

c

c

c


301 May 19, 2015

funding program, a scholarship program, as far as I

can tell using public funds for undocumented

students.

And I guess I would ask how that program,

which was passed at the same time and heard at the

same time as the legislation that is before us, in

light of that, how was the, how were we able to say

that the undocumented students will not receive any

public scholarship aid, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In direct

relationship to the bill referenced in the

question, it's my understanding that that bill is

not moving forward at this time. House Bill 6845

is not moving forward. I talked to the Chair of

Higher Education earlier and they indicated that

bill was not moving forward.

So what we have before us now is the simple

bill that allows for the in-state eligibility

program to be extended to individuals who meet the

requirements outlined in the original legislation

passed in 2011, extended to folks who only have two

c

c

c


302 May 19, 2015

years attendance at a local high and again,

extended to folks who meet the sub clauses within

US Code regarding trafficking victims and victims

of substantial mental and physical abuse. through

you, Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. But clearly, it was

the intent, was it not, of the Higher Education

Committee, to create a program at the same time

that this bill that is before us today was being

moved forward. It was the intent of the Higher

Education Committee to create a program that would

provide for scholarship aid to the undocumented

students. Is that correct, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I do not want to

speak on behalf of the Committee as a whole or any

individual thereof. Votes, you know, legislation

gets moved out of Committees in advance of

0

c

c


303 May 19, 2015

conversations all the time. I think there are

members of, I think the Representative Caucus, who

spoke today that they voted for this bill to come

out of committee and I don't think that they

intended to say that they intended for this bill to

pass, necessarily. They wanted to continue the

conversation.

And here we are today with this bill moving

forward in this conversation, and not the other

bill, which would have created the funding

mechanism for these students.

So I don't want to, you know, harp on this too

much, but like we have to treat this bill in

isolation because all that is before us is this

component regarding eligibility, and I think that

answers sufficiently the question of the good

Representative, through you, madam.

REP. O'NEILL (69~):

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I would note

for the --



REP. O'NEILL (69~):

0

c

0


304 May 19, 2015

Thank you. I would note for the Chamber's

edification that the gentleman who is the proponent

of this bill also voted in favor of that other

bill, which would have created a scholarship

program. And I know that there are different

motivations people may have and we are not supposed

to look into the motivations. But clearly, there

was a vote for the bill that would have created

that scholarship program.

Now, if we do look at this piece of

legislation in total and absolute isolation without

reference whatsoever to any other pieces of

legislation that are pending within this building

or any other laws or any laws that might be right

around the corner, then it probably is not worth it

to say that these students will not receive any

public scholarship aid because we don't know that

tomorrow morning there will be some sort of public

scholarship aid program for these students.

We need to look at this piece of legislation

as if these students might get it, or they might

not get it. Right now they're not getting it, but

that could change before this piece of legislation

passes or certainly before it goes into effect. So

0

c

c


305 May 19, 2015

I don't think anyone should rely on the idea that

they can vote for this piece of legislation and be

able to say to their constituents, but don't worry.

The students who will benefit from this piece of

legislation will not get any kind of public

scholarship aid.

There's already a proposal from the Governor

to do that, and usually Governor's proposals fare

fairly well in this Chamber. And there was a

Committee vote to move that piece of legislation

out of Committee and over to the Appropriations

Committee, and as I understand it, budget

negotiations are still ongoing. The budget is far

from finalized.

So for all I know, maybe there will be a

scholarship program in the final budget. Maybe

there won't. I don't know what the status of that

is going to be.

So I really think that rather than every time

we talk about this piece of legislation say, but

don't worry about it. The students don't get a

public scholarship. They are ineligible for any

kind of financial aid. Perhaps we should just

0

c

c


306 May 19, 2015

focus on this piece of legislation that is squarely

before us here tonight.

I opposed this piece of legislation when it

was first proposed. My constituents believe that

there is a bumping effect that occurs. They

suspect that if their student, their child, their

grandchild, their niece, their nephew does not get

admitted into a public university, and someone who

was illegally in this country does get admitted

into it, that there is at least a chance, and

perhaps more than just a chance. Maybe a

probability that that slot, that that spot that is

going to the person who is not here legally could

have gone to their child, their grandchild, their

niece, their nephew, their brother, their sister.

And that is one of the reasons why I am

opposed to this piece of legislation. We just

don't know. We don't know how many students there

are. We don't know, really, whether there is

excess capacity because the colleges are rejecting

many, many applicants, 20 or 5 percent, almost so

percent of the applications get rejected by the

state colleges.

c

c

0


307 May 19, 2015

I don't know what the percentage is exactly

for UConn but it's even higher than that. So the

idea that there are plenty of seats in college,

that there are as many empty seats in colleges as

there are in this Chamber right now, and anybody

can just sort of walk in and sit down and get a

college education, and we're not allocating

something of value to somebody by passing this

legislation, I think is a seriously mistaken idea.



Thank you, sir. The Chamber stand at ease for

a moment, please.

(Chamber at ease.)


The Chamber will please come back to order.

Will you remark further on the bill as amended?

Representative Zupkus.

REP. ZUPKUS (89th):

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just rise to make a

comment. In listening to all of my colleagues, I

just really echo what has been said, and especially

0

c

c


308 May 19, 2015

Representative Candelora with, you know, I

understand why people want to come to this country

because it is a great country.

What I don't understand is that why we give

this group of people, we give them driver's

license, we give them in-state tuition. We're in

the process, we give them financial aid, and we

don't give them any incentive to become a citizen.

So for that reason and all the reasons that my

constituents too, agree, that they're going to be

bumped. Everybody works hard, tries to get their

money to get their kids in college, and we give a

group of people an advantage that we don't give our

own people.

So for that reason, I would not be supporting

this bill. Thank you.


Thank you, madam. Will you remark further?

Representative Lavielle.

REP. LAVIELLE (143rd):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good evening. I

have just a couple of questions for the proponent,

if I may.


0

c

c


309 May 19, 2015



Thank you. I know there have been some

questions before, earlier this afternoon, about the

signed affidavits and follow up. So I'm not

necessarily as, I think we've talked a lot about

the follow up. But what I'm curious about is first

off, what does constitute, how do we define the

moment that constitutes when someone becomes

eligible to legalize his or her residency, through

you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, I

believe this will answer the question. Again, they

have to be registered as an entering student. I

think that is when the process starts by which they

fill out the affidavit. That affidavit essentially

asks them to comply with all laws of the state that

they reside, and that they plan to file an

application upon eligibility, and if they are

currently eligible that they file that application,

0

c

c


310 May 19, 2015

or that they have filed that application today,





Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that's

precisely my question. I think the wording in

here, it's not up on my screen at the moment, but

the wording is that when you sign the affidavit if

you're not currently eligible to legalize your

status. It says that you're signing an affidavit

that says you will go and that you agree to go and

legalize your status as soon as you are eligible.

And I wondered what is the defining moment or

defining thing that constitutes that eligibility,




REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So each class of

immigrant may have different standards by which

they, makes them eligible. A number of these

students are in fact eligible already to take part

in the deferred action program. So some of these

c

c

0


311 May 19, 2015

folks are obligated currently if they want to

afford themselves of this benefit to sign up for

DOCA. And those who are not currently eligible are

required to do so when they do become eligible, and

that again, that's a moving standard, sometimes

based upon federal law, sometimes based upon their

status of when they came to this country, how long

they've been here and forthright.

It's not a, you know, a consistent thing for

every immigrant, through you, Madam Speaker.




Thank you. One of the things is, I'm curious.

I know that legal immigration status, and it

certainly doesn't have to be citizenship by any

means. There are plenty of forms of legal

residency, which give you documentation as a

resident.

But all of that, if I understand properly, is

determined on a federal level. A state can't do

that, because the state doesn't confer nationality

or admission to the country. Am I correct, that

c

c

0


312 May 19, 2015

this is a federal determination, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, yes,

the good Representative is correct.




Thank you. So I'm wondering, is there an

official channel through which the education

institutions in Connecticut communicate with the

INS or other federal agency that would make that

determination, through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm not aware of

that official communication or relationship. I

know that the universities ask their students to

sign the affidavit. From there I'm not sure the

exact mechanism by which they enforce the signed

affidavit or check up on the signed affidavit.

0

c

0


313 May 19, 2015

I do know that there are numerous privacy

concerns about coordination, communication between

intergovernmental agencies regarding student data,

and I•m not sure how all those rules interplay in

this regard, through you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. Representative Lavielle.


Thank you, and I thank the good gentleman for

his answer to those questions. There•s something

there that I think is, there•s a glitch in this

whole situation around the affidavit because first

off, we, I think established earlier that it•s not

clear that there•s a follow up. But okay, we•ve

established that.

But I 1 m not sure that there would be a way for

there to be one. we•re asking people here to make

a good faith statement, which contains a couple of

elements. One is that they will do something

concrete. They•ll apply for legal status when they

receive eligibility to do so. Eligibility can mean

all kinds of things and all kinds of situations, so

that•s not a black and white kind of thing.

0

c

c


314 May 19, 2015

And then the other question is timing. It

would be very difficult to associate, it would be

very difficult to identify the moment at which they

become eligible.

For example, somebody might, some event could

occur in their life where they would become

eligible in January but they wouldn't file until

March. And it might be an oversight. But then

again, it could be six months or a year, and it

might not be an oversight. It could be just

negligence or not taking the responsibility or

something.

So at what point do you determine whether

they've done what they said what they were going to

do in the affidavit. So it's, it's kind of, that's

kind of fuzzy, which is always a worry in statute.

But I'll move on to a couple of other

questions. One is, when I was on the Higher Ed

Committee last term, one of the things that we

discussed frequently, and we passed some

legislation to deal with it and help to improve the

situation, was the number of students in our, that

come from our public education syst.em in

Connecticut regardless of their residency status,

0

c

c


315 May 19, 2015

who need remediation when they arrive at either the

community college or the university or college

level.

And it was something like 70 percent of them

at the community college level needed remediation

in reading or math. And at the college level, it

was somewhere between SO and 60 percent. And

certainly there are a lot of folks who are

undocumented who arrived here when they were tiny

and I'm sure they are completely 100 percent fluent

in English or bilingual, or whatever. But there

are others who are more recent, and in fact we're

taking account of that with the two years

requirement.

So do we anticipate that there could be an

increase in the number of students who might,

sorry, tripped over my computer case. Any increase

in the number of students who might be in a

situation to require remediation when they arrive

at an institution of higher education, through you,

Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

0

c

c


316 May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, look,

I've seen the statistics as well and it concerns

me. Even in my own home community when we're

talking about graduates from New Haven public

schools and public schools across the state, that a

growing number of folks do need a level of

remediation when they attend two or four-year

institutions post-graduation.

I don't know that that's attributable to their

immigration status, however. We've addressed a

number of bills in this Chamber over our collective

four years here meant to target programs that can

help recognize why so many of our students need

remediation at our schools, and what we can do

internally within our primary education, secondary

education system to address that.

I don't necessarily see that this group of

individuals is going to be more inclined to need

remedial services than another population. I know

it's a serious concern system side regardless of

immigration status.

So I, this bill doesn't presuppose that this

group of students is going to need higher level of

remediation services. I guess it's a potential

0

c

c


317 May 19, 2015

outcome from this, but we certainly don't, not see

it as a definitive one. through you, Madam Speaker.




Well, that's good. I'm glad to hear that. I

mean, I certainly wouldn't equate it to status,

because as I said, there are people who have been

here for years. It's more a question of when did

they get here, and how long have they been here,

because that could eventually influence their

familiarity with the language and some of the

material, frankly, that we learn in school.

So another question I have, Madam Speaker, is

when, and I just really don't know the answer to

this. When people are applying to our institutions

of higher education are they required to indicate

what their residency status is, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. They are not

required to indicate what their residency status

is. It's just when they compile their request for

c

c

c


318 May 19, 2015

in-state tuition that the residency evidence is

required, through you, Madam Speaker.




So when they make their application they

simply appear as Connecticut residents on the

application, just like any Connecticut resident,

and then later the determination is made for

financial purposes. Is that right, through you?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, yes, that is my

understanding of the process.




Thank you, and finally, just one more question

for the good Representative who's been very

patient. We had in the Appropriations Committee

the other day the contract that has recently been

negotiated for the graduate students at UConn, and

there were quite a number of benefits that they

0

c

0


319 May 19, 2015

receive under the contract regardless of their

status, whether they're from Connecticut or from

some other state or from some other country, for

that matter.

But there is also a difference in their

tuition. I believe it was something like $31,000

tuition, which they are, which is waived for

anyone, any graduate student at UConn if they're

not from Connecticut and it's $1~,000 if they are.

And I just wondered. Are folks who do not

have a legal, who have an undocumented status, are

they allowed to be a member of a union of the

graduate students, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, my

honest answer is, I am uncertain. I presume that

they would be eligible to be a member of a union.

They may not be eligible to receive any of the

benefits, the state-sponsored benefits based upon

their immigration status. But in a more general

answer, I am not sure about how that interplay

0

c

0


320 May 19, 2015

would work out for graduate students, through you,

Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Actually, it's

difficult~ I believe, of course I'm not a federal

immigration expert, but if you don't have residency

status, whatever, it's difficult to be legally paid

for working and to have a social security number

and all those things.

And these folks, were they to be a graduate

student and teach or research or do something else

to receive these benefits, they would be receiving

them with all of that, with all the legal pay slips

and the social security number and so on and so

forth.

So I guess, am I then correct that at this

time we don't know if they would be eligible to

participate in or receive any of that or not. Did

I understand that correctly, through you, Madam

Speaker?



c

c

0


321 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, there

are certain immigrants under this definition who

are eligible to be paid based upon their current

status, even as lacking official status. They can

be on the DOCA Program. They can apply for

worker's permits under that program and be paid.

But I think it's true to say that a number of

these folks are ineligible to receive social

security numbers or get paid legally or receive

state or federal benefits legally.

And so I think, again, the broader answer is,

I'm not sure. I think it's a little bit of both,






Representative for all of his answers. On that

last bit, there are certainly plenty of absolutely

straightforward student visas that are available to

folks who come here just specifically to go to

graduate school.

0

c

0


322 May 19, 2015

I went to graduate school with a lot of them

myself. I don't know whether they're allowed to be

from here and residence here, and at the same time

get the visas because that's a bit complicated.

But that, again, is a federal question.

I think, you know, what comes out of all this

besides what everyone else has said is that there

is a lot of unknown, and there's a lot of things

that it's kind of hard to pin down. And that

always makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

I'm not sure that we really have a handle on

all the implications and all of the outcomes and

what some of the attendant costs are, ·and how you

really would do the housekeeping around something

like this fully and properly so you can evaluate

it.

So those are some of the additional things

that I would just bring up as potential concerns.

And again, I thank Representative Lemar for his

patience, and I thank you, Madam Speaker.


Thank you, Representative. Will you remark

further on the bill as amended? Representative

Miner.

c

c

c


323 May 19, 2015

REP. MINER (60th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, good evening. Madam

Speaker, I've listened to this debate now on the

legislation before us as I did yesterday on the

driver's license bill, and I can't help but think

that probably everybody in this Chamber has the

same interest.

I can't think that there's one of us who would

choose not to provide opportunity to someone in

this country, someone outside this country. But

unfortunately, I think, you know, our system isn't

functioning as well as it should because at the

federal level, they, I believe have failed to take

any real, strong initiatives to limit the flow of

individuals to the State of Connecticut or to this

country as they have in the past.

I think if you look back under certain

generations, many generations, people that came

here understood pretty much what the rules were

within which they arrived to the United States.

And so now we have individuals that we want to

provide additional opportunities for, and so this

one's merely education, so I think to myself at

times, all right, so what's the big deal?

0

c

c


324 May 19, 2015

If we reduce the number of years that you have

to be a resident of the State of Connecticut, live

here in order to qualify for in-state tuition,

what's the heartache?

Well, I heard the gentleman talk about

individuals not being displaced, and I suspect that

someone, somehow, somewhere, testified that this

would not be a problem. But I know that I get

almost yearly requests for me to intervene on

someone's behalf to get into one of our local

colleges or institutions.

I don't know why they would do that? It seems

to me that there are limits, and if there are

limits, limits and spaces, and I believe there are

limits. Then it's not possible that you could have

more people come in and take this benefit and not

displace someone. It's physically, financially

impossible.

On the Appropriations Committee I listened to

testimony from UConn where they begged us not to

make cuts. They begged us not to follow the lead

of the Governor and put in place cuts that they

felt would have an impact on our tuition, have an

impact on their ability to provide a good

0

c

c


325 May 19, 2015

curriculum to the students that live here. I don't

see the difference.

Maybe the numbers are different. Maybe the

magnitude of his cuts are different than what this

influx would be, but I'm just not sure there's a

difference.

When I think about what we're doing is, I'm

wondering whether we're creating a circumstance

where in our effort to provide opportunity for

everyone and anyone, we also increase the

likelihood that we're going to increase the

exposure to uncompensated care in our hospitals.

I don't think we can deny that. It's on every

hospital's balance sheet across this state. Under

federal law, certain individuals are not permitted

to·benefit from this federal healthcare system, and

if they can't benefit, we in the State of

Connecticut, the hospitals that serve us, all

believe that they have a duty to provide

healthcare.

So I can't imagine that you can disconnect

those things. You can't have this conversation in

a vacuum. It can't today be about solely whether

c

c


326 May 19, 2015

or not there are 15 slots, 20 slots, 200 slots and

forget about everything else that follows with it.

Does it mean I don't want to provide

opportunity? I can tell you that many of my

constituents would love to provide this

opportunity, and they would love to do it until

they find out that it puts pressure on something

else.

So what troubles me about this conversation is

that we're having it in a vacuum. Not that we're

trying to benefit somebody. Not that we're trying

to help someone get a better education. We have

great institutions here.

But it's not in a vacuum. We can't pretend

it's in a vacuum. We can't pretend there aren't

unintended costs both at the state level. When I

think about individuals that have moved just into

Litchfield, never mind the other communities that I

represent, when I think about meeting the needs of

people just on the bilingual aspect of education,

it's no small undertaking.

And when you talk about smaller communities,

they have no less desire to do it. They want to do

it. It's just a bigger challenge.

c

c

0


327 May 19, 2015

So ladies and gentlemen, you know, as we talk

about this legislation and other legislation like

it, I want to be clear. It's not that I don't

care. It's not that I don't want to help. It's

not that I don't think that at some point in some

place, we do have an obligation to do as much as we

can. But we can't deny that we're in a deficit

right now in the State of Connecticut, $150

million.

And we can't deny that the Appropriations

budget doesn't match the Governor's budget to the

tune of $400 million. And so when you put all

these things together I keep thinking, so we passed

another law. We've provided another opportunity,

or have we?

Do we even know what the state contribution to

UConn is? As we sit here today, do we know what

our contribution is to the University of

Connecticut or the other institutions that we

generally fund? I woul.d say we don't. We don't

have agreement.

And so we can't make a blanket statement that

this won't havs an impact. We certainly can make a

statement that we would like to help as manx people

0

c

c


328 May 19, 2015

as we can, but I think the challenges that we face

are undeniable, and I am absolutely convinced that

legislation like this, as much as I think many of

us would love to do it and would love to support

it, comes at a time when it just isn't possible.

So I wish I could vote in favor of providing

people more opportunity. I am concerned that by

doing so I'm going to give people false hope, and

for that reason I am going to be opposed to the

legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


'Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on

the bill as amended? Representative Noujaim.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, good evening.


Good evening, sir.


I saw that someone was on the board before me

so I just was not really preparing myself, but

thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, this

speech is not a political speech. It just comes

from the heart.

c

c

c


329 May 19, 2015

I have experienced, Madam Speaker, and I think

everybody in this Chamber knows this. I am an

immigrant. I came to this wonderful country of

ours when I was 22 and I could not speak a word of

English, not one word, couldn•t even say thank you

because my education was in different languages

altogether. English became my third language.

And it was difficult for me, Madam Speaker.

It was extremely difficult. I think I made a

presentation like this in here once before when a

similar bill was presented to us several years ago.

It was emotional back then. It was emotional now.

I had a very difficult time when I first came

to this country. Five years it was miserable. I

scrubbed floors. I was paid $1.85 an hour and I

put myself on the work study program. And thank

God I graduated. Thank God my constituents trust

me to represent them in this wonderful Chamber, and

it•s been a wonderful opportunity.

But Madam Speaker, I used to apply for my

citizenship, and as I said to you, I was earning

$1.85 an hour. I used to drive to Hartford to

apply for my citizenship and pay $10 just to park

before I even walk into the building. It was

0

c

0


330 May 19, 2015

difficult. It was a difficult time. It was a

difficult environment for me, but thank God I did

okay. I hope I did okay, Madam Speaker. I am with

you.

So it just, I look at this and I say, there

are so many students who really want to attend

UConn and they can't. I know, and I was told by

UConn officials that 35,000 applications were

received this year for a class entering UConn, the

freshman class, and they only accepted 3,500.

So when I hear that there's a capacity at

UConn, I immediately question it. I know a

student, Madam Speaker, from Watertown who was on

high honors, high honors. She was an unbelievable

student, hundreds, 4.0 grade point average. She

was not accepted at UConn because there's no space.

So I don't understand the logic when we talk

about having capacity at UConn. Or, more

importantly, I can't understand how if we grant

this bill, this piece of legislation, we are going

to increase the revenues to the State of

Connecticut.

It's just like from an incentive point, or

from a financial standpoint it just does not make

0

c

0


331 May 19, 2015

sense. It just doesn't make sense. And then I

look at it and say, how can we stand in this

Chamber and with a straight face, tell the entire

State of Connecticut and more importantly tell the

Legislators that we do have capacity at UConn.

If somebody is listening at UConn now and they

can come down here and convince me that we have the

capacity at UConn, I will just apologize and I will

vote in support of this bill. I would. And when I

give my word, I don't go back on my word.

But Madam Speaker, for somebody who had it

very difficult, very difficult, I want people to

have the opportunity. You know, I'm an American.

I want people to become Americans. I want people

to have an opportunity. But I want people to show

some faith. I want to show, I want them to show

faith. I want them to show some tenacity. I want

them to show some hard work. I want them to come

in and put their dues in into this community and

into this state.

We just shouldn't be just jumping around and

just handing people anything they want. And right

now in this Chamber that's exactly what we're

doing.

c

c


332 May 19, 2015

You know, Madam Speaker, I'll give you an

example, too, the City of Waterbury. We have more

people coming to the City of Waterbury for one

reason, because they know that special education in

the City of Waterbury is a great thing, and then

people who have mental disabilities are well taken

care of in our city, so they move to Waterbury.

And once they don't need the system any more,

they just leave us. And that's not fair. It's not

right. This is not the American way. The American

way is to work hard for what you have. And right

now in this Chamber one bill after another, one

bill after another, one legislation after another,

we're just handing things out. And taxpayers are

just going broke and they can no longer afford it.

We have to put the brakes on. We have to stop

and think and say, is it logic what we are doing?

Are we doing it logically, or are we just going by

emotions, or by politics?

And my presentation right now, Madam Speaker,

has nothing to do with politics. It doesn't have

to do with emotion. It just has to go with facts.

These are facts. I lived it. I lived it when I

came to this country.

0

c

c


333 May 19, 2015

So it's important for us to step back and say,

we should ask people to put their dues, to be part

of this community, to contribute to this community.

And we should ask them to work hard for what they

get. No one handed me anything, no one, not even

financial support.

I was on the work study program and I scrubbed

the floors for it. I didn't ask somebody just to

hand me something, and that's what we should do.

This is the mentality that we should adopt. That's

how we should encourage people to be, to be

entrepreneurs, to become entrepreneurs.

And I think, Madam Speaker, if someone had

handed me things when I first came to this country,

I don't think I would appreciate this country. I

appreciate this country and what it does and what

it has because I had to work for everything I

gained.

So I encourage us to stop and to think and to

say, are we doing the right things. And honestly,

Madam Speaker, as much as I want to help people, as

much as I want to support people, I say I cannot

support this legislation.

0

c

c


334 May 19, 2015

I think if the two amendments that were

presented by this side of the aisle were adopted, I

think I would have voted yes in support of this

legislation. We have two amendments, one of them

by Representative Candelora, and the other one I

believe by Representative Miner, or someone else,

but they would have added something to this piece

of legislation.

And had those amendments been adopted and been

accepted by this side of the aisle, I would have

voted yes, absolutely. That would have been a

nonpartisan, bipartisan vote in support of somebody

who really wants to work hard for this state and

for this country, and to make a future for

themselves.

We can hand to people, but we cannot train

them. We need to train them. They need to learn.

You can't just hand them things and expect them to

excel in life because they will not appreciate you,

and they will not appreciate us. Thank you, Madam

Speaker.



Representative Tweedie.

c

c

c


335 May 19, 2015

REP. TWEEDIE (13th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, good evening. I

have a question, through you, a question to the

proponent of the bill, please.


Representative Lemar, prepare yourself,

please. You may proceed, sir.


Thank·you, madam. On the OFA fiscal note it

says that there's none, and there is none to

municipal impacts. It says that the

municipalities, it says that because the state

university system has the ability to adjust the

ratio of in-state and out-of-state students, you

can change that to make it revenue neutral. Could

you elaborate on that please, through you, Madam

Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you. That's

the same OFA report that I received as well. Upon

questioning of UConn officials regarding that

statement from OFA, I asked how this would impact

0

c

0


336 May 19, 2015

their bottom line. They said it would have no

impact on their bottom line, through you, Madam

Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for your

answer. Although as I look at this, and I see that

we're going to take students who would previously

be paying out-of-state tuition, and now they will

be paying in-state tuition, which obviously is less

than out-of-state tuition and less income to the

state university system.

We will then have to get more out-of-state

students, which would restrict the amount of in-

state students because now there's more in-state

students that would have been out-of-state

students.

So I guess I don't even have a question with

that. I think that that says it, that answers

myself. But, you know, 40 years ago I joined the

Navy and I enlisted for a school that I wanted and

it was the San Diego Naval School of Dental

Assisting and Technology, and I went there and I

c

c

c


337 May 19, 2015

was, after that I was stationed aboard a ship for

two years. And then while I was aboard that ship I

decided I wanted to go into advanced training for

dental prostheses and I applied for advanced school

out at San Diego again and I got it. But I had to

extend my enlistment for two more years to pay back

the United States Navy for educating me.

And I look at this and through you, Madam

Speaker, my final question I guess would be, if you

only require someone to be a resident here for two

years, they get accepted and they complete a four-

year college program, do you really feel that

they're going to stay here, through you, Madam

Chair, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, there

are numerous studies that indicate that folks who

are Connecticut residents who graduate from our

local public universities do have a much higher

rate of retention in the State of Connecticut post-

graduation than folks who corns hsrs from out of

c

c

c


338 May 19, 2015

state, or our children who graduate from

universities outside of state.

So if you're a New York resident and you come

to Connecticut as an out-of-state student there's a

likelihood that you go back to New York or go

someplace else to begin your professional career.

If you are a Connecticut resident who attends a

university out of state, there's a much higher

likelihood that you will not return to Connecticut

post-graduation.

But the kids who stay, the kids who are

building our 21st century economy, are Connecticut

kids who go to school in Connecticut at our public

institutions.

And again, one of the reasons why we're moving

folks, this subgroup from out-of-state tuition to

in-state tuition and why it doesn't necessarily

impact the operating costs of the university to

that degree is a lot of these students don't go.

They get the bill. They recognize that they do not

qualify for in-state tuition. They choose not to

go to college in Connecticut. They go out of state

and they don't come back.

c

c

0


339 May 19, 2015

And these kids generally are going to become

citizens one day. We know, based upon American

history and the movement of federal legislation and

how there have been certain amnesty programs

offered numerous times over American history that

there's a great likelihood that these kids become

American citizens.

And it would be in our best interests and in

our economic self-interests to have these kids be

educated here, for them to stay here, for them to

grow here. I do hope, yes, I've been accused of

being a little too optimistic a couple times today.

I do hope that these kids, when we provide a

public benefit to them, will be like the other 80

percent of Connecticut students that when they

graduate from a local high school' and go to a local

college, stay here in Connecticut. These are our

kids. I want to see them succeed here, and yes,

the answer is, do I truly believe it. Yes, I truly

do.

And I think that's why we've had this

conversation today in a very respectful way. We

may disagree on certain components of the issue and

have different visions of what this might yield,

c

c

c


340 May 19, 2015

but we've done it in a very respectful manner

because I think generally you guys respect that.

Where we're coming from, where I'm coming from

is a fundamental belief that this is going to move

forward in a positive direction for the State of

Connecticut. I understand the concerns. The

question is, do I believe it? I certainly do,

Representative Tweedie, and I believe it for our

kids in New Haven as well as Manchester as well.



Thank you, sir. Representative Tweedie.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank you. I

thank the proponent for his answers, and I just do

have one more question for the proponent, through

you, Madam Speaker.




Now, four years ago, or, yes, four years ago

it was changed to four years of residency. Now

it's 2015 and it's two years of residency. And in

your opinion, do you think that the end, the goal

0

c

c


341 May 19, 2015

would be no requirement for residency in the next

round, through you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's certainly

not the goal that I've·heard indicated by advocates

or by the Higher Education Committee, and certainly

not one that, you know, I've seen expressed myself.

Generally, we're trying to recognize what is an

appropriate public benefit to offer, and what are

the commitments we hope to expect from many of our

students.

We looked across the country at the 19 other

states that offer in-state tuition eligibility for

undocumented children, and we thought that two

years was right in line with where we wanted to be. •'

We are the only one, the only one of the states

that required four years. We thought two years was

an appropriate consideration, and an appropriate

term to extend, through you, Madam Speaker.




c

c

0


342 . May 19, 2015

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And again, I thank

the proponent of the bill. He put on a tremendous

performance today. He answered all questions.




the bill as amended? Representative Belsito.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. I speak for the

second time, and I thank you for giving me this

opportunity.

I just want to say that just about everybody

here, we either came as an immigrant, maybe not

illegally. We're all from immigrants. America was

born on immigrants, and it's a really great thing.

But there's also something else that we have

here that I think, I know that you can pass this

bill as soon as we stop talking and pass it in your

favor.

What I would like to request would, maybe we

could have a compromise on this bill to ease it up

some so that the individuals who have been living

in our state for 20 years or 18 years and would

like to go to the University of Connecticut, would

0

c

0


343 May 19, 2015

get an opportunity to do that, and maybe everybody

should have the opportunity to do that.

And I'm willing to give it to the immigrants

because they are future Americans. But without

compromise, I don't think we're going to succeed

much. Yes, you do have the majority and you can

pass this bill, which will pass in about 10 minutes

when we're through speaking, if that's the length

of time we're going to speak.

But I really think that a compromise would do

some great good for the people who want to go to

UConn who will now be cut out of UConn. And after

all, their parents have been here and they've

probably been here for more than 18 years, and I

don't think it would be fair to them to just pass

this and throw them aside and that's what we're

doing.

So the word here is compromise. I think we

can compromise on a bill that would make some minor

adjustments and would give these individuals a

chance to get to UConn if they want to.

Madam, that's all I have to say, but thank you

very much for allowing me to say this.


0

c

0


344 May 19, 2015


Representative Ferraro.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, I'd

just like to make a few comments and maybe ask a

couple of questions to the proponent of the bill.




I rise after much discussion and admiration

for the proponent of the bill who's, I think he's

working on five hours now, maybe six. He's had a

lot of patience and he's answered all the questions

in a very calm and respectful manner, and I just

want to say that I truly appreciate what he's done

in his work and his effort to make this a civil

discourse.

With that being said, I'm sort of a guy who,

you know, worked his way through college after

having been, problems at home. I was basically on

my own at 15 years old, and many thought that I

would never make it to college.

And so I applied to the state college system

and was accepted to Southern Connecticut State

0

0

0


345 May 19, 2015

University, or state college at the time, and thank

God tuition at that time was only $52 a semester or

I probably wouldn't have been able to go.

And when I graduated after four years, and my

tuition had escalated 500 percent to $250 a

semester, I thought that that was a lot of money

then. And now I look at what tuitions are today

and how much it costs to go to school at a school

like UConn, and I know how difficult it is for

children who want to go and whether they're a

resident or a citizen of the United States, or

whether they're here undocumented or not a citizen

for whatever reason or visa that they have that

brought them here.

I know that everybody wants to succeed and

everybody wants to get ahead in life, and that

getting a college education is a rite of passage if

you're going to be successful in life.

And some of the things that I've heard today,

I've heard a lot of great speakers. I heard a lot

of people speak from the heart, and basically

emphasize why they thought that this bill might not

be a good bill in the best interest of Connecticut.

0

c

0


346 May 19, 2015

I have just a couple of questions I'd like to

ask. One of them has to do with those folks that

are qualifying for in-state tuition under thi.s

bill. They are not getting any preferential

treatment with regard to being accepted into the

university. Is that correct?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you and to

Representative Ferraro, who I think we started this

conversation together six hours ago. I think it

was me and you at the beginning.

The Representative is correct. There is no

preferential treatment with regard to admittance to

these students when they apply, through you.



REP. FERRARO ( 11 7th) :

And thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank the

proponent of the bill for his answer. So once the

student has established his eligibility through

this bill and through the requirements set forth in

the bill, then he is, or she, is on equal footing

0

c

c


347 May 19, 2015

with every other in-state resident to be accepted

into the University of Connecticut with in-state

tuition. That is correct?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Through you, Madam Speaker, that is correct.



REP. FERRARO ( 117th) :


the proponent of the bill again, so the

university's criteria for how they choose who is

going to be accepted into the university for that

year matriculation is done through their standards,

and those standards are the same for everyone once

they have qualified for the in-state tuition. I

think that's the same question I asked, but I just

want to clarify it. Thank you very much.



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, that

is my understanding of the admissions practices of

c

c

c


348 May 19, 2015

the University of Connecticut. The community

colleges have an open enrollment process. The CSU

standards I am less familiar with, but that's my

understanding of how the University of Connecticut

process works.




Okay. And one of the things that's been known

about the University of Connecticut of late is that

their standards have been rising and their position

within the state college rankings has been rising,

and more and more of the top students in high

school classes, valedictorians and salutatorians

and top-ranked students in high school classes are

being accepted into the University each year, and I

believe that's correct. Yes?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, through you, yes.

If you were to evaluate the average standards of an

admitted student back in 1994 when I applied to the

University of Connecticut versus the average

c

c

c


349 May 19, 2015

standards of a student admitted in 2014, those

standards have risen quite dramatically.

And again, the appreciation and acceptance of

the University of Connecticut as a global, leading

school has really changed in these last 20 years

that I've been paying attention to the point that

when I was accepted at UConn in 1994, God, it was a

long time ago, I never even considered it. I

didn't think of it as a place I wanted to go.

And now, I see students from all walks of life

identifying UConn as like their dream school. And

yes, appropriately, the standards have raised there

and people are appreciating this incredible asset

across the world, and growing numbers of folks are

applying to attend a prestigious university like

UConn, through you.




And thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you,

proponent of the bill, for your answer.

So what's becoming apparent is that we

residents of Connecticut, parents who are raising

children in Connecticut, we dream of the day that

c

c

c


350 May 19, 2015

we can send our children to one of the top state

universities in the country, and UConn, the

University of Connecticut is fast approaching to

the point where it's looked upon as one of the best

state colleges in the country.

So with that said, there's been a lot of talk

about the number of students accepted into the

University of Connecticut for the freshman class

each year, and I thought I heard the number of

about 3,800 freshmen are accepted in each year. Is

that true, To the proponent of the bill, through

you, Madam Speaker?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe that is

the number who are, who accept their, so those who

apply to the University, those who accept and those

who end up ultimately matriculating I think the

3,800 number was the matriculation number. I may

be incorrect with that, but I think that there may

be some discrepancy in the numbers, through you,

Madam Speaker.


c

c

0


351 May 19, 2015



And thank you, Madam Speaker. So through you

to the proponent of the bill, does he have a

specific n~mber of freshmen who are admitted to the

UConn program each year?



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was actually

looking for that information a little bit earlier.

And again, the accepted rates versus the

matriculation rate was what we were struggling with

earlier. I don't have the exact numbers. The

numbers I have suggest that 79 percent of the

student body is in-state, 21 percent are out of

state, total enrollment numbers, but I'm having a

hard time locating the exact number of students who

ended up matriculating at the University of

Connecticut versus the number who were accepted, so

if the Representative might mind waiting a moment,

I can try to find that information for him, or we

can do a quick little Google search with my

colleague next to me, through you, Madam Speaker.

c

c

c


352 May 19, 2015


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, the

proponent of the bill, because I understand having

all this information at your fingertips on demand

is rather difficult.

But it would probably be fair to say that the

number of freshmen accepted into UConn each year is

somewhere south of 3,800. I would say that would

be a legitimate assumption, through you, Madam

Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the number

is higher than 38 who are accepted, certainly less

than that who matriculate, through you, Madam

Speaker.


Thank you, Madam Speaker, and to the proponent

of the bill, so since the, does the proponent of

the bill have a number of folks who under this bill

would be qualified to get in-state tuition for, as

freshman in say the next coming academic year,

through you?

c

c

c


353 May 19, 2015



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Looking at some

data that we were able to quickly pull up with the

assistance of my great colleague from East

Hartford, it looks as if 54 percent of students

were admitted to the University of Connecticut.

The matriculation rate who accepted that admittance

was the number around 3,800. So there are a

substantial number of folks who are admitted to

UConn who don't accept that admission and are going

to another university. The 3,800 number is the

number of folks who end up matriculating

eventually.

As to the second question when providing this

answer, I think I've overlooked what the latest

question was. I apologize to the Representative

from West Haven.




And thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you,

so we have a matriculated rate of 3,800 and of

c

c

c


354 May 19, 2015

those 3,800 that matriculate, how many of them

would you say are freshman, not transferring in

from other schools, and not including graduate

students who matriculate?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Through you, Madam Speaker, that 3,800 number

I referenced appears to be the freshman number. Of

that, the closest numbers that we have at my

fingertips suggest the ratio being about 80 percent

in state of that student body, are those who

ultimately end up matriculating, through you, Madam

Speaker.




And thank you, Madam Speaker. And through

you, so doing the math in my head approximately 79

percent, we're looking at about 2,600 of those

3,800 students receive in-state tuition, through

you, Madam Speaker.



c

c

c


355 May 19, 2015

REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through you, that

appears to be the numbers. We have been basing our

estimates off of the same spreadsheet at this

point. Thank you, Madam Speaker, yes.




Thank you. And I thought great minds think

alike so I figured we'd be close.

With that being said, I'm still looking for a

number of the number of folks who would qualify

under this bill for in-state tuition on a yearly

basis, through you, Madam Speaker.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it is a search

sadly that I cannot fulfill as we do not have an

exact number of folks who this bill will

necessarily apply to. That is not a number that is

readily available or easy to ascertain given the

nature of the students that we're talking about,

the population that we're talking about.

c

c

c


356 May 19, 2015

And on an annual basis the number of U and T

visas that are issued that we would extend this

program to, it•s quite limited, very small in

actuality. Moving it from four years to two years

for eligibility is a larger number but still not a

substantial or impactful number as testimony has

indicated, through yo~, Madam Speaker.




And thank you, Madam Speaker. And to fully

understand what the good gentleman is saying, then

since we don•t have the number available, it•s very

difficult to really understand the number of people

who are being impacted.

So we•re going to talk in somewhat

generalities and the generality that I need to make

at this point is, since we are looking at strict

qualifications to get into UConn, and we•re looking

at a small, what appears to be a small, finite

number of individuals that qualify under this bill,

by the time we get down to the actual matriculation

number of the people who would matriculate from

this bill, this is a very valuable number to have

c

c

c


357 May 19, 2015

because it's from there that I think many of my

colleagues are basing their emotions and their

feelings as to why they oppose this bill.

So with that being said, is there any estimate

at all which the good gentlemen from the other side

of the aisle can put us in a ballpark as to what

we're looking at with regards to the number of

folks that would matriculate under this bill in a

given year, based on the two year, the new two-year

regulation?

Through you.



REP. LEMAR (96th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Over the course of

these six hours, I've had numerous people actually

tell me that they think the number is X. Sadly

that number has varied by 20 or 30 on a couple of

different occasions to the point that I don't know

that I feel comfortable expressing an exact number.

I do feel comfortable saying that we think

\ this might apply to dozens, upper level dozens to

less than a few hundred individuals on a yearly

basis. But I frankly don't feel comfortable giving

c

c

c


358 May 19, 2015

a number more well versed than that, through you,

Madam Speaker.




Thank you, Madam Speaker, and through you, I

certainly respect the good gentleman's desire not

to put out a number that would not, possibly not be

true. So the bottom line is then, we're not

talking about large numbers of individuals, but

we're talking about a relatively small set of

individuals who would qualify for this program.

But therein lies the philosophical argument

that's being made on this side of the aisle. And

that is, there are folks that since there's a

finite number of matriculation, people who

matriculate each year into UConn, then for every

seat that is taken by an individual who qualifies

under this program, that's one less spot that will

be taken by a hard-working U.S. citizen who has

come up his entire life in the Connecticut school

system wishing and hoping that one day he would be

a UConn Husky.

c

c

c


359 May 19, 2015

But after hearing, you know, all the testimony

and seeing that the individuals on this bill,

covered by this bill actually have to compete under

the same rules and the same regulations, and the

numbers involved, I'm still as, a little bit

confused as to what the impact is here in

Connecticut. Without those numbers it's really

hard to support a bill or not support a bill.

So I was kind of at a point where I don't know

which way I'm going to vote yet, because I'm kind

of wondering what the actual impact is. And, you

know, I don't think the good gentleman on the other

side could offer anything more with regard to a

definite number. Am I correct in that?



REP. LEMAR (96th) :

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I appreciate

the struggle, and my goodness, what I would do to

be able to give you a number that makes this an

easier vote for you. I don't have that exact

number to offer here this evening.

Again, we're talking about dozens, maybe a few

hundred students system wide, not just at the

c

c

c


360 May 19, 2015

University of Connecticut, at our community

colleges, at our state university system, and at

the University of Connecticut. I do not feel

comfortable proffering a more exact number at this

time. Trust me, I wish I could if I made that vote

a little bit easier for you on your side, but

that's the best I can offer at this moment. Thank

you, madam.


Thank you, sir. Representative Ferraro.


Thank you, Madam Speaker. And to wrap up my

talk here today, I'd just like to say that the

entire subject is troublesome in that it's hard to

tell what the final direction is going to be, and

what the final impact is going to be.

As we heard earlier from Representative

Candelora, there was a bill that was passed out of

the Senate, which is going to provide funding for

undocumented aliens in their college tuition. That

bill, coupled with this bill, basically has the

potential to give a free ride to a number of

individuals who are not citizens of the U.S. and

who are going to prevent hard-working u.s. citizens

c

c


361 May 19, 2015

with the same dream, not being able to attend their

in-state university, and that is troublesome for

me.

So with that being said, I don't know how much

longer this is going to go, but I'm going to

continue to listen to my colleagues and make my

decision when we actually vote. Thank you very

much.



the bill as amended? Representative O'Neill for

the second time, I believe.


Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you. Yes, for the

second time. And this time will be, I think, much

more brief than the first time.

With respect to the conversation that just

occurred I have some data that I did pull off of a

website, so one has to be somewhat skeptical

perhaps about that's not official UConn statistics,

but it looks like a fairly serious website that

collects college data.

And this says that the number of students who

were admitted. There was earlier discussion about

c

c

c


362 May 19, 2015

that, and we're talking about for the class, I

guess of 2019 was 3,900, which was about 27 percent

that were admitted to the college. I guess that's

the freshman class.

The statistic that I think is, to me at least

the more interesting and relevant to what we're

talking about here today, is that students were

offered the waiting list and that 2,600 of them

accepted the waiting list.

Rather, 2,000 were offered. Twelve hundred

and seventy-one accepted the waiting list. That

is, they agreed to be on the waiting list and that

24 students were admitted from the waiting list.

So to me that indicates, in effect, if there

are spare or extra or possibly available slots that

aren't quite filled in by the initial wave of

admissions, that number of perhaps 24 indicates how

many positions might be available at UConn.

And we're not talking about a lot of

availability. If people are saying that there's

excess capacity or suggesting that there's excess

capacity in our higher education system, it's not

much at the University of Connecticut of over

almost 4,000 students who were admitted, 24 came

c

0

c


363 May 19, 2015

off the waiting list. Twenty-four were people who

almost but didn't quite meet the standards that

UConn had set up, and they only got admitted

because some other students decided not to go to

UConn.

So I think that's the kind of number that is

really in play here, so to speak. It's not

hundreds of students or hundreds of empty seats.

Certainly not at the University of Connecticut and

I really doubt that there are hundreds of empty

seats at the other colleges like Central, Western

and Southern.

Maybe the community colleges have more of an

availability. They are intended to be almost an

open admissions kind of system, but these other

universities are rather different. Thank you,

Madam Speaker.


Thank you, sir. The Chamber will stand at

ease for a moment.

(Chamber at ease.)


c

c

c


364 May 19, 2015

The Chamber will please come back to order.

Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES (114th):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, it's

clearly been a long day and a lot of discussion on

this very important bill, and although I certainly

understand the intention and all the standing that

the Representative did, and doing his best to

answer our questions, I still feel like it's a few

years back when we did this the first time and we

had these conversations.

I was taken by a comment by my colleague from

North Branford when he had mentioned in his

comments that when we were in college a long time

ago, longer for others than for some but, that the

University of Connecticut was our safety school as

we like to call it, the school that we know we're

going to get in and we can apply to all these other

schools, but we know we'll always have that if all

else fails, which, and I hadn't thought about that

in years until he mentioned it.

But throughout time we all know how the

University of Connecticut has evolved, to a premier

state university, a school that we're very proud to

c

c

c


365 May 19, 2015

call our own, a school that we prioritize, a school

that we put a lot of attention and time and money

into, a school that we defend, and also a school

that we have now heard for the past few years come

to us in hearings and in private meetings

explaining how we can't cut their budget.

So we sit there and we listen, and we don't

want to do that because we want to make sure that

that University thrives and gets better and grows

and stays at the stature that it is now.

Unfortunately, based on some of the comments

we've heard today, we now have to tell people who

have lived here, who have grown up here, who were

raised here, I don't know if you can get in. And

that has nothing to do with this bill, but it has

to do with the fact that a lot of people want to go

there from all over the world, and that's

wonderful.

But when we look at bills like this, this is

not about Republicans, Democrats, cities, suburbs.

This isn't about saying we don't think certain

groups should have the opportunity. We believe

strongly, strongly, that every group should have

the opportunity to live in this country, to go to

c

c

c


366 May 19, 2015

school in this country, to raise a family in this

country, to do whatever we offer. We believe

strongly in that.

Unfortunately, when we see proposals like

this, and we see language like such person files an

affidavit with such institution of higher education

stating that he or she has filed an application to

legalize his or her immigration or will file, and

we have no way of knowing if that's going on.

So I guess it just throws me when we all hear

about our grandparents, parents, people we know

coming to this country for a better life, and they

went through, they followed the rules if they

wanted to, if they wanted to avail themselves, and

we all have those stories.

I know, Madam Speaker has those stories of her

family. I know my family has those stories, and a

lot of people in this Chamber, because there were

rules and there were laws, and if you wanted to

avail yourself of them, you did so.

And then we come here and we say, you know

what? You're not supposed to be here but it's not

really your fault and we want to help you stay

here, and we want to help you get an education,

c

c

c


367 May 19, 2015

which is all laudable. I don't know one person in

this Chamber that disagrees with that.

But you've got to sign this affidavit and if

you tell us you did, that's great. But if you tell

you will, that's great, but we don't really know if

you did or you will. But we're going to believe

you because as the Representative mentioned, we're

optimistic. And that's also great.

But we don't know. We don't know numbers. We

don't know who's doing it. We don't know who's not

doing it. And what I guess really confuses me is

when we were asking a question today and going back

and forth about what's the intention of this.

Well, you know, one of the good parts of it is

that if somebody goes to a school in Connecticut,

they are more likely to stay in Connecticut. Yet

another wonderful idea. We certainly hope that

happens, but we don't know if it does. More likely

there's studies, people say, I heard, those are the

words we heard today.

Optimistic. Wonderful. But we don't know how

many. We don't know who they are. So I guess,

Madam Speaker, in conclusion I will say this.

c

c

c


368 May 19, 2015

Separate from this bill we're discussing

today, all of us, Republicans and Democrats talk

about how we are losing the best and the brightest

in the state, people that have lived here their

lives or most of their lives, gone to schools here,

and then leave. And then leave. They don't leave

because it's not a beautiful state. They don't

leave because they want to leave their families.

They don't leave because Connecticut isn't a great

place to live.

They leave because they can't afford to stay

here. They cannot afford to stay here. And we

hear this every day, every night, year after year.

So I would submit to everybody in this room that

when we think about the intention of the bill,

because people will be able to, more people will go

to our state colleges and those people are more

likely to stay.

What makes us believe that those people that

are talked about in this bill will be more likely

to stay here than the young men and women who have

lived here their whole lives but can't afford to

stay here because we make it impossible for them to

stay here.

c

0

c


369 May 19, 2015

So we want to discuss and address why people

can't afford to stay here. Maybe that should be

the beginning of this discussion. Thank you, Madam

Speaker.


Thank you, madam. Will you remark further?

Representative Aresimowicz.

REP. ARESIMOWICZ (30th):

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. We are

about to wrap up nearly seven hours of debate on a

simple bill that's before us, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-

STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY. Simple title. Simple

theory.

Should those that live in this state, whether

it be two years, four years, be entitled to the

same education as everybody else? That's the

question. We can twist it around. We can talk

about it any way.

Do we believe those deserve an opportunity

that maybe their parents didn't have, that maybe

when they were children they came to this country

by many means. I can't trace my family tree all

the way back and figure out exactly how they came

c

0

c


370 May 19, 2015

in. They came here. They worked. They want an

opportunity.

Reality is, we can talk about the University

of Connecticut. In more cases than not, it's

Tunxis Community College~ Manchester Community

College. It may be UConn and God bless them. It

could be Central, Eastern, Southern, right down the

line.

What do we stand for as a state? Are we going

to continue that divide between the haves and have

nots and just say, either figure it out on your own

or go somewhere else? We're not an outlier.

Nineteen other states offer this. Nineteen other

states believe the policy is important, to give

people the opportunity to better themselves for

themselves and their family.

We heard in the way of an amendment tonight,

talking about any state assistance you needed to

establish residency for longer than two years. So

someone's grandmother is sick from Florida, comes

to stay with them because this is where their

family is? Oh, no, no, wait, grandma. Two years

before you get anything from us. Don't worry about

your meds. You'll have to figure that out

c

c

c


371 May 19, 2015

somewhere else. Is this is what we stand for as a

state? Figure it out on your own?

Because that's not the state I grew up in.

The state I grew up in and the neighborhood I grew

up in looked out for their neighbors, gave them the

hand up, told them there is a chance if you work

hard enough.

We're not saying show up at college and we're

going to hand you a degree. That's not what we're

saying. You should pay the same thing that the

folks that graduated from high school paid for it.

That's all. No different.

I love this Chamber. I love having these

debates, but sometimes we debate a little bit too

long, and we make it a little too complicated.

Simple question on the board today. Are all

Connecticut high schoolers that graduated, should

they be treated fairly? Vote on that when the

machine opens up. Vote on that simple question.



the bill as amended? Will you remark further?

c

c

c


372 May 19, 2015


the Well of the House? Will members please take

your seats? The machine will be open.

CLERK:


roll. The House of Representatives is voting by

roll. Will members please report to the Chamber

immediately.



voted? Will members please check the board to make

sure your vote is properly cast.


locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the

Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill 6844 as amended by House "A"


Necessary for Passage 75

Those voting Yea 78

Those voting Nay 70



c

c

c


373 May 19, 2015

The bill, as amended, is passed.



Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam

Speaker, in a few moments there's going to be a

Democratic Caucus in Room 207A upon recess, 207A,

mandatory Democratic Caucus.




Thank you again, Madam Speaker. Madam

Speaker, with that announcement being made, I move

we recess subject to the Call of the Chair.


The House will recess subject to the Chair.

(Upon motion of Representative Aresimowicz of

the 30th District, the House recessed at 8:15

o'clock p.m., to reconvene at the Call of the

Chair.)

(The House reconvened at 10:05 o'clock p.m.,

Deputy speaker Gentile in the Chair.)

S - 686 CONNECTICUT

GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE

PROCEEDINGS 2015

VOL. 58 PART 8

2311 – 2667

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

7 May 29, 2015

002502

On page 24, Calendar 565, House Bill No. 6844, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY. It's amended by House Amendment Schedule "A," Favorable Report of the Committee on Higher Education and Employment Advancement.

THE CHAIR:

Good afternoon, Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Hi. Good afternoon, Madam President. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Joint Favorable Report and I urge passage of this bill as amended by the House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR:

Motion's on acceptance and passage in concurrence with the House. Will you remark?

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, the bill we have before us today is regarding the qualification for in-state tuition at the - our institutions of higher education.

We currently have a law by which someone is eligible for in-state tuition if they have a variety of qualifications, including residing in our state for four years. We are now changing that with this bill language to two years and that would include our undocumented immigrants and a couple of other categories of nonimmigrant aliens. With that, Madam President, I would urge passage of this bill.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Witkos. Good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR WITKOS:

0

0

/dd SENATE

8 May 29, 2015

002503

Good afternoon, Madam President. If I may, a few questions to the proponent of the bill?

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, sir.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, to Senator Bartolomeo. You mentioned in-state tuition as the premise of the bill. And what other types of tuitions do we offer in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, I'm aware of in-state and out-of-state.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And if the good Senator could just define what the difference is between the two and - at that point.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Sure. Through you, Madam President, I will define instate and then anything other would define out-ofstate.

So in-state would be if a person resides in this state and is attending any institution of higher education in the state and has completed at least, currently

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

9 May 29, 2015

002504

four years the bill has two years, of high schoollevel education in the state.

They also would have had to - had to - excuse me. Okay, so - complete at least four or two. They would hafta have graduated high school in the state and be registered as an entering student or enrolled in an institution for higher education.

They also would have to, if they are not currently a legal citizen, they would hafta file an affidavit that they have an application to legalize or that they will apply to legalize in order to be eligible.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And you said anybody that's not- falls into that category is considered out-of-state for tuition purposes. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

As far as I'm aware, that is correct.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. So if a family moved from Kentucky to Connecticut and they had a son or daughter that was a senior in high school. And that senior wanted to apply to a school that fell within the Board of Regents authority or one of our community college CSUs, how would, under what you just described, how would - what kind of tuition would they pay? Would

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

10 May 29, 2015

they pay in-state tuition or out-of-state tuition? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Okay, so the question would be if they were emancipated or not emancipated.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos, would you -

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, sorry.

THE CHAIR:

-repeat your question,, please.

SENATOR WITKOS:

002505

Yes, certainly. A family moves from Kentucky to Connecticut. And their - when they move, their son or daughter happens to be a senior in high school so does one year of high school, we'll say in the Meriden high school system, and then wants to go off to a college, a CSU college in Connecticut.

And my question, through you, Madam President, is would that family or that student, which is part of the family so not emancipated. Would they pay instate tuition or out-of-state tuition? Through you.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Bartolomeo. I apologize.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. My understanding in that situation is that they would - they would need to be

! ()

0

0

/dd SENATE

11 May 29, 2015

002506

here I believe it's for six months. But I'd be more than happy to go through lOa-29, which is a variety of determinations of residency and domicile if the good Senator would like me to.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Well, I'm just trying to understand when we - when the bill first came out, we talked about how to be eligible. So the eligibility clause in this particular language, I guess I'll narrow it for the discussion purposes, are only for folks that don't have legal immigration status. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

It - well, it actually would apply to - it would apply to everyone except that Section 9 - so lOa-29, Section 9 is where we speak to immigrant status, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Through you, Madam President, I don't know what the different acronyms are but if - in Section 9, it says in the beginning on line 4, "In accordance with 8 USC 1620(d), a person, other than a nonimmigrant alien ... shall be entitled to classification ... "

So this person that they're talking about other than a nonimmigrant alien, is that person the same type of a situation I described in my earlier example? A family that moves from Kentucky to Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

12 May 29, 2015

Thank you, Madam President. So a nonimmigrant alien -are not eligible for in-state tuition unless they're defined as a nonimmigrant alien under the statutes that we are exempting here, which is 8 U.S.C. 1101 (a) (15) (T) or (15) (U).

And the reason why I think that this is important.

002507

The exception for a nonimmigrant, in general, makes sense because these are people who are legally allowed to be here but they don't have an intent to stay here permanently or surrender their citizenship in their home country because it's typically like studyingabroad students or children of diplomats. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. So for clarification purposes, the classification of individuals that you described. They came to - they arrived in Connecticut through the legal, proper channels by receiving some type of a visa to come to the United States from their country of origin. And they cannot attend Connecticut state colleges because of the fact that their visa or their alien card is not a long-term mechanism. That's why we're moving forward for this bill? Am I correct in that, Madam President?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you. And through you, Madam President, to the good Senator. This is extremely confusing and so I

.......................................... ________________________________________________ _

0

0

0

13 /dd SENATE May 29, 2015

understand why - either I'm having a hard time understanding or we're both having a hard time grasping it.

002508

So the challenge here is that we are speaking and that amendment was added to this to clarify two groups. So when we're talking about aliens, we're talking about their home is another country, obviously. And so -but in here and when they're not intending to make Connecticut their residency because they're here studying abroad or because they're the child of a diplomat, we are not feeling as though it's appropriate that we give them in-state tuition.

However, there are two groups of people that we do feel are appropriate and that would be under the T and the U sections. And correspondingly, there are T visas and U visas that go along with that. Those are victims of crimes. And under the U category, those crimes- there's a huge list of them actually and they involve things like sex trafficking and others. If I could read, Madam President, with your indulgence?

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed, ma'am.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Those that are under the U are things like abduction. They're victims of abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence, extortion, false imprisonment, these types of things. There's a whole laundry list of them. And the situation under the U visas, they have typically agreed to or are likely to agree to work with law enforcement because of their crime that they've gone through.

So we are saying in this that they should be allowed in-state tuition. And the - those under the T are victims of trafficking.

SENATOR WITKOS:

I didn't want you going too far.

THE CHAIR:

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

The acoustics just went out a little bit.

THE CHAIR:

Okay.

SENATOR WITKOS:

14 May 29, 2015

I heard the first part but the second part - the part of the law enforcement, I didn't quite hear that clearly. So if you wouldn't mind repeating that?

THE CHAIR:

Could you go again? Do it a little slower.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002509

So the way it's worded is a little bit odd in the amendment but it's like a double negative, right? So what we are saying here is that nonimmigrant aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition except for two categories. And those are in the statutes under T and U and they have corresponding visas, T and U.

So the Us are those who have been victims of the crimes that I mentioned and others and the expectation is that they will work with the police in - as far as solving those crimes or, you know, identifying the criminals. And we are saying by this amendment that they should be eligible for this in-state.

•

0

0

0


The other category under the T is victims of trafficking. And so we are also saying that they should be.

Now there are - I think it goes up to, like, V under the statute. So there is A through S and V - I guess there's a couple more that are not going to be eligible for in-state tuition. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And the good lady is correct. It is confusing.

Now, we had a similar bill here not too long ago in this Chamber, which was a tuition-based, I guess, access to financial aid. And I was supportive of that.

And this bill, I'm trying to understand, by matter of circumstance, are all the- and I'll have to classify'm as young adults because we're- I think we're still requiring a minimum of high school grade. So predominantly, most folks that're in high school are young adults. They are here legally through a visa process? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002510

Okay, so there's two answers to that. Those that're here legally through a visa process are the ones that're referred to in the amendment. And again, it's that double negative.

So in the amendment, we are excluding those that qualify under the 8 U.S.C. 1101-whatever A all the way up to Sand then excluding those that're V, which

•

0

0

0


means we are including the Us and the Ts. Those people are here with visas.

We also, in this statute but not part of the amendment, are saying that even if they're an illegal immigrant, they're not here legally, that they would be eligible for in-state tuition if they meet the criteria that we have in here, which is current law except that we're changing the four years down to two years. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. I'm tryin' to understand that I know it's current law and I'm tryin' to get my arms the T and the U.

So say somebody is here illegally by matter of circumstance of their family situation. And I don't think these youngsters were able to get here without some type of an adult assistance, whether it's by force or by their own family nature.

The Ts and the Us require a certain victimization of them in order to qualify? Is that - am I correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, the Ts and the Us [laughs] are legally - well, the Ts and the Us are nonimmigrant aliens, okay? So they're of another country. They have a visa. And they are- we're including just those two categories.

002511

And then anyone who is here illegally now would be able to- well now for four- if they're here for four years and they meet all these criteria. They don't have a visa. They don't have anything. No

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

17 May 29, 2015

002512

documentation. Right now, it's four years and the law is to make it two years and they would qualify for instate tuition.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

I think I move on because I'm still a little confused about the Ts and the Us. Why we even have those in our state statutes that you would hafta be a victim of sex trafficking and abuse and other things to be able to receive the - a benefit.

I mean, I personally I think that's absolutely ridiculous that we hafta have something like that in our statutes so I'm glad we're not talkin' about that as part of the underlying bill. It's already current statute.

But how do we get to - or the rationale from reducing from a four-year to a two-year high school education as a requirement to receive in-state tuition for college-level classes? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So the way it works, because there's also the requirement about graduating from a high school here in the state. So right now you could - you hafta start basically your freshman year, right? You hafta do freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate, and then you're eligible.

What our change is is that it's only two years of high school but you still hafta graduate. So it's really your junior and your senior year at least, right?

We -when we look at other states, they're -we are one of 20 states that allow in-state tuition for

0

0

/dd SENATE

18 May 29, 2015

undocumented. But also, of that, we are the highest threshold with the four years. We're the only one with the four years. So that's why the bill is before us to lessen that requirement. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And oftentimes, when we talk about legislation and I know in Connecticut we like to be pioneers and there's actually a book called Connecticut First and how we led the way in a lotta different things. So it sounds like we might be playing catch-up a little bit here because there're so many other - at least roughly a third of the states in our country have lessened the requirement.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Forty-something percent, Madam President.

SENATOR WITKOS:

I wasn't a math major. [laughs] So I guess my question is the - if - we tend to look at the New England region when we do a lotta comparisons versus countrywide. And if the good Senator has any of that information as it pertains to the New England region, I'd appreciate those kinds of statistics. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, may I be allowed to read?

THE CHAIR:

Please do.

002513

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

19 May 29, 2015

Thank you, Madam President. So we have closest to us -well and it's not New England but New York only requires two years. And New Jersey requires three, Rhode Island three and the others are not part of New England. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you. And the other New England states, do they offer any type of a benefit to immigrant students for in-state tuition purposes? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, I am not aware that they do. The report that I have, which is from the Office of Legislative Research, speaks to the Connecticut and the other 19 states, which allow students without legal immigration status to pay instate tuition at public colleges and universities. So I do not believe that there - there might be other types of benefits but not that I am aware of. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

So there's no states I guess outta that in New England. Was - Rhode Island, I think, is the only New England state.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002514

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

20 May 29, 2015

Through you, Madam President, Rhode Island and New Jersey are both three years and then New York, which is just outside, you know, is two years.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Okay.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

002515

Thank you. And the purpose of reducing the tuition from four to two, I mean, we know what some of the others states are doing but why are we doing that here in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through, Madam President, the proponent of the bill felt that that is a fair and just policy. And we're also trying to encourage more of our population to acquire degrees.

You and I spoke yesterday, as my very supportive ranking member, about the strategic plan for higher education and the need to increase our adult population who has higher education degrees. The idea here is that generally this population will be staying in Connecticut, will be working in Connecticut, and we certainly are only benefited by their acquiring a higher level of education.

There is really right now- it's very, very challenging for them. They are not able to apply for any type of financial aid as we do know unless our other bill passes. And they also are not able to pay the lower in-state tuition. So we have many, many hurdles and feel, quite frankly, that for our economic

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

21 May 29, 2015

development and our work force that it truly does make sense to offer them the very small benefit. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And I do recall the public hearing and I thought it was quite informative and I wish more of our residents had the opportunity to tune in and listen to some of the stories that came before our Committee.

And I think for - at least personally for me it was an eye-opening experience to hear some of the difficulties and the struggles and folks, these young adults' lives just to get to where they were. And now to have the possibility of going on and sometimes being the first generation of their family to go on to higher education is spectacular.

And I know that the - some of the universities came and - or submitted testimony anyways to this proposed bill. And I was wondering if the good Senator could speak to some of the testimony that was supplied by our Connecticut colleges, whether it be one ~f the independent Connecticut colleges or one of - our flagship university or one of our CSU universities? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Sure. Thank you, Madam President. You know, it's funny. I can certainly look that up as far as what the specific universities said. I don't have that right in front of me. I'd be happy to go through my packet and look that up.

I do have one story that was just s~ imprinted on my memory and you probably remember as well, sir, about

002516

c

0

0

/dd SENATE

22 May 29, 2015

002517

the student who said they did not even know that they were an undocumented immigrant until they became 16 because their parents hadn't shared that with them. And all of a sudden they were excited with their peers to go and get their license and realized they couldn't get their license at that time. And they could -probably couldn't go to college because their family situation wasn't gonna allow for that if they couldn't apply for financial aid. They didn't have the benefit of the in-state tuition.

So for me, that's probably the most memorable of the testimonies that we had but I'd be more than happy, while - if the Senator wants to either stand at ease or he would like to ask another question, I would look for the testimony by the universities. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

Thank you, Madam President. And if I may just - no need for the good Senator to research through the files. I mean, I want it just to get on the record. One piece of testimony I have, if I may be allowed to read for a moment?

THE CHAIR:

Please.

SENATOR WITKOS:

This is from the University of Connecticut and they state that they support the - this important legislation, which increases access to Connecticut's public colleges and universities. And we look forward to welcoming these additional students to our campuses should the legislation pass.

So I think that speaks volumes from - coming from our colleges and universities that they welcome these students to their campuses. I think when the topic first hit some of the newspapers and the news media

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

23 May 29, 2015

outlets, there was some pushback from folks saying, well, they're taking our students' spots. And other than the University of Connecticut, every single university has seen - in Connecticut anyways, has seen a decrease in enrollment.

So it's not taking your child or your child's spot, if you will. We're only talking about a small percentage of the population in the State of Connecticut that this would be eligible for. And I think that Senator Bartolomeo really set the ground rules that oftentimes, which we heard in testimony, that some of these kids wouldn't have the opportunity to not only further their education but further expand - to live the American dream 'cause where are they living? They're living in America. And sometimes it wasn't by their choice.

I recall a story where there was a young man and his parents worked for an American company. And I wanna say it was in Honduras if I remember correctly. And there was some kind of a natural disaster. I don't know if it was a typhoon or a hurricane or whatever. Anyways, it wiped out the entire the plant and the owners of this plant felt so highly attached to their workers and specifically this couple who, by the way, just had a newborn son that they asked them to come to America on a work visa, stay here, and implement the strategies that they learned at the plant that they were working at. So this family came to America, left their son who was a newborn home with grandma, and they stayed here and they fell in love with their community and didn't want to go back.

You know, it's hard for us that- those of us that were born in this country to say, well, you know, you don't know anything else other than what you're in. We were born into the American dream, the ability to do whatever we want as long as we obey the state statutes or the guiding laws and live whatever life we wanna live and we can be the best we can be. We can grow up to become the President of the United States of America if you so desire.

And these people felt that this was the best place to raise their child. So eventually, they went and got their child back, who they hadn't seen for five years.

002518

0

0

0


And it wasn't until this young man was looking at going to get a job and applying for colleges that he realized he was an illegal immigrant. And he was an Honor Roll student, top of his class. Well, he shared with the Committee that day that his grades that next quarter plummeted. He didn't know - his future was bleak. He didn't know what was gonna happen to him. He was afraid that he may get deported.

I mean, this is a 16- or 17-year-old that is not a world-wide known brain of everything. He just -absorbs themselves into what they read on the internet, what's being said in the news, and there wasn't anybody in his community initially that he could go to to help him sort that out.

Eventually, there was a counselor at his school that helped him and sent him in the right direction and said, no, they're - you're not gonna get deported. There's not- there's things you can do. You can turn your life around. You can go to college. Look what you can become.

And he went from where he failed - fell off on his grades right back up to - and I think he graduated valedictorian. He was chosen out of his class to participate in some invention somewhere. He designed something that - I can't - I couldn't even pronounce in the Committee. It was just spectacular. And he was going on to be - he wanted to go on to college.

And then, of course, the financial picture comes into play because these students aren't eligible, as most of our students are, to apply for federal dollars. Unless you're wealthy or you get a scholarship, almost everybody that goes to college gets a loan. And because of their immigrant status, they're not eligible for a loan. So these people are paying outta their own pocket that money.

So what we're hoping to do today is to say you're already eligible for in-state tuition. But we're trying to say that you've - if you've only been here for four years, you only hafta do two years of high school. Is that not correct? Through you, Madam President, to Senator Bartolomeo. That the only thing we're asking is rather than providing a four-year

002519

0

0

0


requirement to attend a Connecticut high school, reduce it two years? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002520

Through you, Madam President, yes, sir, that is correct. And I thank you very much for explaining that story and I do remember one other little piece that was tough to hear was that while he was away and his parents were here, they had another sibling. So he ended up coming back and he was the only one in his family that wasn't allowed to be here. So I'm with you on sharing that story and the importance of this issue. Thank you. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you very much. Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

So - through you, Madam President, I just wanna clear up a couple more questions and then I think I'll be done.

THE CHAIR:


SENATOR WITKOS:

So the - this immigrant student is still required to graduate from a Connecticut high school or get a Connecticut GED? Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, that is correct.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

26 May 29, 2015

Thank you. And through you, Madam President, that this immigrant student is still required to have a residence in the State of Connecticut in order to attend a Connecticut state college. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes, that is correct. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS:

And lastly, Madam President, that if this bill passes, this student or this immigrant student will still be required to attend at least two years of a high school in the State of Connecticut? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002521

Yes. Through you, Madam President, and with your indulgence, I would also add that they absolutely have to be signing an affidavit that they're going to apply for legalization. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Witkos.

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR WITKOS:

27 May 29, 2015

Thank you, Madam President. I have no further - any questions. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Chapin. Good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. Madam President, I remember well when we first passed this bill. I was a member of the House. And it's the only time in 15 years in serving in the legislature that I actually had to ask about having my name removed from a bill I had introduced.

As it happens in this building occasionally, sometimes they gut a well-intended bill to do something else. And in this case, they happened to choose my bill to do that.

I remember the debate in the House. It was long. I suppose it could be considered insulting if I said tedious but that's my recollection. So I apologize if I offended anybody by saying that that was recollection.

And Senator Witkos did a good job asking a lotta - a lot of the same questions I had as far as the rationale, which other states do it, what brought us to the point of seeking this legislative change. But I do have some questions that I'm hoping the good Chairwoman can answer for me regarding how the program has run since it was originally passed, so I can make a determination on -

THE CHAIR:


SENATOR CHAPIN:

- thank you, Madam President.

002522

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

28 May 29, 2015

So while I didn't subscribe to this particular theory back when it was passed, you know, a little bit of the sky is falling-type rhetoric. I guess I'd like to know how the program really has gone since it was originally implemented.

Have there been a lot of students who have taken advantage of it even with the four-year requirement that's in existing law? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, to the good Senator, that is something that I've asked myself. But by the very nature of the fact that they're not documented and that that is not a question that's asked of them while they're applying, we truly don't have a way of knowing that number. We simply know how many students qualify for in-state versus out-of-state based on their residency that they hafta prove and all of that. But we're not asking immigration status, so I don't have an answer you through the present.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. And again, through you, is there anything in federal law or state law that would prohibit us from tracking that information so we could have a better understand as to how it has worked and how it would continue to work if we do make this change? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002523

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

29 May 29, 2015

002524

You know, Madam President, I'm embarrassed to say I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if there's anything that prohibits us. I know it's not something that we do ask. I could look- we're not sure about that. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Chapin.

SENATOR CHAPIN:

Thank you, Madam President. Chairwoman for her answers. and honest. And I think it should be doing. We should as to how it has worked.

And I thank the good They were very upfront

is something that we have a clear understanding

I was struck by the fiscal note on the bill before us and it's written a little differently than what we normally see here. It talks about the ratio, that there would be an offset because, of course, the state university system or UConn can accept more out-ofstate students at a higher tuition rate if they feel that they need additional tuition coming into the coffers. I understand that premise.

I don't think it's a good reason to accept students or to reject students from attending a university. But I certainly understand why the fiscal note reads that way. I think information that I was hoping I would have before me today that could answer some of that had we tracked that information. I think that that would be very helpful to the debate.

To be honest, Madam President, I haven't heard - I can honestly say I don't think I've heard from anybody who has complained about how that policy I think that was created maybe in 2011 how it's played out. I don't serve on the Higher Ed Committee, so I didn't have the advantage of listening to the public hearing testimony.

But I'm very appreciative of some of the thoughtful comments made by both the Chair and ranking member and I look forward to more of the debate. Thank you, Madam President.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

THE CHAIR:

002525 30

May 29, 2015

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Fasano. Good afternoon, sir.

SENATOR FASANO:

Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to talk about this bill but in no way is that to impinge others from the protocol of talking. I have a meeting I'm gonna have to attend to, so I just wanted to get some words in before I left for the meeting.

Madam President, I think Senator Witkos asked a lotta good questions. I supported the bill before this relative to four years. And my remarks at that time were to say if someone has gone to high school for the four years and made a number of commitments to the state, and through the President Obama program, registered such that they intend to become a legal citizen and show the commitment, I was all in favor of the bill. I think that makes equitable and fair sense.

I think in this case cutting it down to two years goes exactly against the very principles for which I believed was important, for educational purposes, for long-term, because someone has shown a commitment to the state. Now, at two years, we're lessening that requirement. And that gives me trouble.

Now, the last time members of the Circle and downstairs voted on this bill with four years, some writers and critics suggested that their negative vote was somehow disparaging their feelings towards illegal immigrants or others. And I take issue with that. Reasonable minds can very well differ on that first bill. Although I supported it, people could differ. And to read anything otherwise is very disrespectful to the process that we have in this Chamber here and downstairs.

However, with this particular bill, there may be more no votes on this particular bill. Mine at least will be a no vote because, once again, there's a difference. What we were saying is, in my view I

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

31 May 29, 2015

think what the bill was saying, because if not I don't know why they had the language in the first time and not had this language.

What they were saying is if you show a true, substantiated, fundamental commitment to the state as identified by four years in high school and a commitment to this country as identified by applying to the program that the President of the United States set up, then you should be afforded certain opportunities in our country to excel, make a good living, and continue on as a citizen. I could not agree more with those words and that foundation.

Our immigration system in this country is messed up. And unlike Washington, in Hartford, we talk to each other. In Washington, a lotta that doesn't take place. Unfortunately in Washington, it's politics over people. I'm proud to say not in this Chamber.

But as long as that is occurring in Washington, we're not gonna fix the principal problem, which is the immigration doesn't make sense. If someone hasta go back to their country for 10 years before they can come back to be a citizen, that is illogical to me. I wouldn't do that.

002526

So I understand the purpose of the bill that we passed with four years of high school and the registration but I can't get past the two years. I don't see that being the commitment, in my mind, that would say we're ready to say we're gonna make this exception to the rule.

So, Madam President, I'm probably gonna vote no on this bill for the reasons so stated. And once again, this not to end the debate on my side of the aisle. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Good afternoon, Madam President. Great to see you once again today.

0

0

0


THE CHAIR:

Same here, sir.

SENATOR KISSEL:

A few questions, through you, to the proponent of the bill.

THE CHAIR:


SENATOR KISSEL:

Good afternoon, Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:


SENATOR KISSEL:

I think to put this in perspective, what I'd like to do is sorta go back to the beginning of our state's change of policy. And although I've been lucky enough to serve the people of north central Connecticut for the last 23 years, I'm just wondering - I don't recall the exact year that we changed the rules for tuition regarding illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens or whatever phrase people wanna use. And I'm just wondering if the proponent of the bill recalls sorta that history of how these policies began to change? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you. Through you, Madam President, I believe that was 2011.

THE CHAIR:

002527

0

0

0

/dd 33 SENATE May 29, 2015

Senator Kissel, sorry.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And so prior to 2011, at that time, what would the colleges and universities of Connecticut - colleges and universities within Connecticut's public system charge undocumented aliens? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

I truly am sorry. Could you repeat that question again?

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002528

Sure. Prior to 2011 when the policy changed, what did our public colleges and universities charge undocumented aliens as far as tuition? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, that would hafta be outof-state tuition.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. So my understanding is that there's a- at least for the University of

0

0

0


Connecticut, there's a large growth in out-of-state students not only from other parts of the United States but even amongst international students as a total number that's growing rapidly as well.

Do you not believe that Connecticut has as much of a chance of having those folks stay in our state as an undocumented alien? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. You know, I guess I will answer that but with the caveat that it is simply my personal opinion, that I don't have any statistics to back that up.

But certainly with some of the direction that we've been taking UConn with bioscience and STEM degrees, you know, and the understanding that I've heard is that we do see a lot of those students are going elsewhere and not necessarily staying in the state. You know, the population at UConn is about 30,000 students. We have about 90,000 students in our Board of Regents system. That's a 17-institution system. And I think it's important to note that at our community colleges, those 12 institutions - the rate is actually the same. The tuition is the same instate or out-of-state.

And, you know, we have, as I said, three times the amount of students in there. And of the other Board of Regents institutions, we're actually seeing a decline in enrollment. So out of 17 total, there's only three that're increasing in enrollment.

So I understand the good Senator's question was about UConn but I'm just simply trying to point out that the majority of our population is at other institutions. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

002529

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR KISSEL:

35 May 29, 2015

Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President, has there ever been a study or analysis conducted as to graduates since 2011 who have stayed in Connecticut after graduating, comparing folks that're here from either other states or the international community that're paying out-of-state tuition versus those who have been granted in-state tuition? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002530

Through you, Madam President, I do not know if there's been that study.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And so - and I have further questions but my first concern and red flag is that I think that comparison should be made. If one of the purported goals, and I have no doubt that it is indeed a goal, is that we want to have folks that graduate from our public colleges and universities stay in our state. Then at this point now in 2015, there's been plenty of time to at least do a rough analysis as to who stays and either goes back to their other state or other country.

And while somebody may live here for a period of time, one may instinctively believe that they're going to stay in our state, I don't think that that's necessarily the case. And I think it would be advantageous if we're gonna follow this path to maybe try to get some empirical evidence.

Second question is regarding the undocumented aliens or illegal immigrants. Was our change in 2011

0

0

0


prompted by any change of federal policy? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, I was not here in 2011 and I do not know if what we did then was prompted by anything federally. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002531

Thank you very much. And again, through you, Madam President, to Senator Bartolomeo. I have to admit and I was listening very intently to the excellent questions promulgated by Senator Witkos but when we got to the whole Ts and Us, I had a hard time following that.

So going from what - actually, lemme rephrase it. What construct did we set up in 2011? Was it all undocumented aliens receive in-state tuition or were there qualifiers along the way that we had set up whereas some undocumented aliens would qualify and others would not? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, the best way I think that I can answer that question is by looking at the language before us. And the way that the statute has been done is that a person other than a nonimmigrant alien as described in this statute in its entirety. We are simply now stating that, although all of the people in the 8 USC 1101(a}-(15), it- or Subsection (15) they've all been excluded until now.

0

0

0


And we are saying that of that entire group of all of those different categories of nonimmigrant aliens, that we would like to allow those that're in the Tor the U category to be able to be eligible for in-state tuition. And those that I'm speaking about in the T and the U category are those that are victims of trafficking and a variety of other crimes. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. So the law that was passed in 2011 did not grant in-state tuition for all individuals who have - who lack documentation. But they would've had to fall into those T or U categories? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, so I'm trying to figure another way - the whole category, including those victims of trafficking or other crimes, today cannot qualify for in-state tuition.

002532

So we have now added a group of the nonimmigrant aliens, this very small piece, that we say really should be eligible. And that's what this amendment, although it's written in a way that I would agree is confusing 'cause it's really a double negative the way it's written, in order to isolate those in the T and U part of the U.S. Code.

So the reason that they've all been excluded previously from in-state tuition is because they make up categories of individuals that we do not expect to want to remain in the United States like, you know, those that are here because they're studying abroad or

·0

0

0


they're children of diplomats. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002533

Okay, thank you. I'm still completely in a fog. Through you, Madam President, in 2011, we changed the law in Connecticut that had stated that if you're an, let's just say, illegal immigrant, you're paying outof-state tuition. In 2011, we changed that policy for whom? Who was now allowed to qualify in 2011 with this policy shift to become eligible for in-state tuition? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. Through you, illegal immigrants. We did not change it for those with visas. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President - okay so are there other categories, undocumented aliens to my mind is synonymous with illegal immigrants, but then there's other terms that you've been using.

And I'm just wondering what're those other categories? And I think they refer to people that're here on work visas that're expected to go back to their home countries, maybe students from abroad that're here just studying that're expected to go back to their home countries.

0

0

/dd SENATE

39 May 29, 2015

002534

So I'm just trying to figure out at the, you know, using 2011 as our change - as a policy shift benchmark, what were the groupings of individuals that - and how are we treating them? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, and I'm gonna look up the statute in its entirety because the only pieces that we were, were really relevant to what we're doing today with the T and the U.

So I'm more than happy to read the A through the Ss and the V for the good Senator. I just need to look that back up again. If you'd like to stand at ease, we can do that.

SENATOR KISSEL:

I'd be happy to.

THE CHAIR:

We'll stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease.)

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come back to order. Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. So in the A part of that section, we are referring to ambassador, public minister, career diplomat. There's a variety of others accredited by a foreign government and I am skipping a lot of information here.

In the B immigrant - excuse me, in the B section, "an alien other than one coming for the purpose of

0

0

0


stud~.having residence in a foreign country that has no intention of abandoning that country and who's living in" -

SENATOR KISSEL:

Can I - if I may?

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Sure.

SENATOR KISSEL:

When we get -

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002535

- I think it would be more helpful to me if after each sort of A, B, C, if I could just stop if I have any questions.

So on the first one, the ambassador and diplomat.

arms around. the U.N. that

A category sort of the I think that's easy for

There may be some folks are here in Connecticut.

us

And to get our that're at maybe they like that.

wanna take some courses or something else

Clearly, they're not gonna settle here and so they're sort of - they were in 2011 excluded from the in-state tuition. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Through you, Madam President, that is correct.

SENATOR KISSEL:

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

Okay.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

41 May 29, 2015

And from what I heard so far in the B category, there's an intention kinda thing like an illegal- or an alien that has no intention to reside. And so if there's more to that definition, I'm- I wanna hear it.

But my question's first gonna be how do we judge intention? Is that - do they hafta sign a statement or how does that work? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes. Thank you, Madam President. So if we look actually at line 13 of the bill that's before us, one of the things that someone needs in order to qualify for the in-state, in addition to the time that we've talked about and residing, it says here, B. If this person without legal immigration status files an affidavit that states that they are applying to legalize or will file such application then they'd be eligible.

So that here in these category of people that we're talking about, diplomats and others, they're notthey wouldn't comply with this B because they're not intending to file an application and they haven't filed that application. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002536

0

0


Thank you. So we have A and B. Are there other categories too or it's just that A and B category?

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, I would clarify that the B I was just speaking about was the B in our bill that requires that they apply. So everyone that, you know, has to have the intention and sign the affidavit to qualify for in-state tuition under our current law, as well as what - the way we are expected to change it.

Now the other A and B that we're talking about is the U.S. law. And that's where we got to our Ts and our Us.

So now the A under the U.S. Code is that - with the ambassador, the public minister, the career diplomat. The B under the U.S. Code is where we said that it's an alien having residence in a foreign country, which has no intention of abandoning, who is just visiting the United States temporarily.

I could go on to the C if you'd like. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you. So in the federal code, there's just A, B, T and U? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

No. It goes right in order of the alphabet, through you, Madam President. So we've got A through S. We are not granting them in-state tuition under our proposal here or under our current law.

002537

0

0


We previously didn't grant those under T or U. And then we did not nor are we going under V through -lemme see how far it goes, through you, Madam President. It's takin' a little time.

THE CHAIR:

Take your time.

[pause]

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002538

B is pretty long. [pause] Through you, Madam President, it might only go till V. I have yet to see another.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel. Oops, sorry.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Yes, that is confirmed. We have A through V in the federal codes.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. So through you, Madam President, we had excluded individuals in these various categories. And now what we're saying is- but theybut to be brought in, they would sign a statement saying we intend to reside here. This is 2011. But that the Ts and Us didn't have that opportunity.

And now we're changing the amount of time, as one aspect, but we're also bringing in these two other letter categories? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002539 44

May 29, 2015

Madam President, through you, no, sir. We at no time before - not 2011, not today. At no time anyone under the U.S. Code for A all the way through V has been able to receive in-state tuition.

We are simply saying now that these two categories, which have been victims of terrible crimes under the Us and the Vs, the trafficking and so forth, that we wanna allow them in-state tuition. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And through you, Madam President, I've heard that we wanna be receptive to folks that have been victims of torture and political crimes in other countries to gain status in the United States. I guess that's a little different than these two carve-outs. And so I sorta - lemme take a step back.

In the bill we have before us then, there would seem to be two major changes. One is the shift from four years to two years and the other is the shift to now open up for accessibility the folks that're classified in the T category and the U category. Would that be fair and accurate? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, that would be a fair way to state that.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Senator Kissel.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR KISSEL:

002540 45

May 29, 2015

Only took me 20 minutes to get to yes on that first set of questions but it's becoming clearer. Okay now, public - what is the public policy, to the best of the good Senator's ability to describe, as to why we're taking the T and the U category, which we did not see fit to treat differently four years ago. And now we have decided as a matter of public policy, if you're -fall into one of those two categories, we're going to afford you in-state tuition. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President, I would say that there's two reasons for that. One would be that many of these are crimes in which those who are here with us now did not come here willingly. One of these is slave trade, another is sexual trafficking, another is- let's see, kidnapping, so that's one of the things. The other is that there is, especially for the U visas, it's actually written here that they're - they- I'm gonna read again, if I may, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Please proceed.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

U, nonimmigrant status or a U visa is set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental and physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or the prosecution of criminal activity. So that, I believe, would be the second reason. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR KISSEL:

46 May 29, 2015

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. And I - I think the public policy on the human trafficking and slave trade and things like that is pretty clear to me.

002541

And if someone has been brought to our country under duress, I can understand wanting to be sympathetic and give them a benefit. Although, if someone was brought to our country under duress, I'm not so sure they've severed all ties and so I don't know whether they would wanna go back to their home countries or not unless their home countries were fertile ground for these kinds of crimes to take place and therefore, not a good place to wanna go back. So I understand that.

So in those two categories, I understand the proposed public policy shift. On the cooperative with law enforcement, I wish I knew a little bit more about that. I mean, through you, Madam President, do we have any documented cases where folks in these categories, in the U category, have helped solve crimes or anything like that? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I do not have that information. I can speak to why Congress created this if this is something that the good Senator would like me to do. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

I'm sorry. I didn't understand the last part of that answer.

THE CHAIR:

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

47 May 29, 2015

Through you, Madam President, I don't have statistics. But I do have reasoning behind why Congress created this if this is something the good Senator would like to hear.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Yes, I'd like to hear. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

With your indulgence to read, Madam President?

THE CHAIR:

Please - please continue.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002542

~congress created the U nonimmigrant visa with the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, including Battered Immigrant Women's Protection Act in October 2000. The legislation was intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of aliens, and other crimes while also protecting victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse due to the crime and are willing to help law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal. The legislation also helps the law enforcement agencies to better serve victims of crime." Through you, Madam President.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

48 May 29, 2015

Thank you very much. And I appreciate that response. So hearing that and, actually, what that tells me is that the U category is closely related to the T category fundamentally.

Is there a reason why those two groups were excluded from the original reform in 2011? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

002543

Through you, Madam President, I can give you anecdotally again because I was not here. But I think it was just really a matter of oversight and we've simply had many groups that have advocated recently and pointed out the, you know, the importance of including them at this point. Thank you. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much. And I definitely appreciate the answers to all those questions because that was an area that - I know that Senator Witkos was trying to elucidate it but I got a little lost and now that part is much clearer.

And to be honest, I agree substantially with - if we're gonna pursue this path as a public policy, it strikes me that those two groups were inadvertently left out in 2011, although I did vote against the measure in 2011.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

49 May 29, 2015

002544

So that gets me to the other sorta major prong of this bill before us and that's the shift from four to two. And I'm just wondering - some states have three and I'm just wondering why we decided now four years later to do the shift from four years to two? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

Through you, Madam President. So as you know, this bill came to our Committee and so I can't speak for the intentions of the proponent. But what I can say is that it very nicely ties into some of the other work that we're doing.

So yesterday we had the Strategic Plan for Higher Education and some of what we know is by 2025, studies show that we need to actually have 70 percent of our adult population with degrees higher than high school, whether that be Associates Degrees or Certificates or Bachelors, in order to fill the workforce needs. So we're not there yet. And we need to increase our degrees.

So in order to do that, we also know right now that we're gonna have a really hard time getting to our percentages and goals that we've set for ourselves if we just stay status quo in some ways. And if college doesn't become more affordable overall and more accessible overall, we're gonna have a very difficult time getting to the point where our higher education and our employment advancement are actually a linear relationship and working together.

We also know that out of the 17 institutions of our Board of Regents, as I said before, only three of them have actually had enrollment growth. The rest have actually stayed status quo or declined. So this is a place where it can make a very, very big difference if we can just help these people over the edge to be able to afford college to enter either our community colleges or our state universities and to be able to

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

50 May 29, 2015

contribute in a way that, quite frankly, they'd very much like to. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002545

Thank you very much. And this is a term that I had heard in the past and was actually coined last year by our Lieutenant Governor, the Silver Tsunami is coming down the road if it's not already here. And also last night in the colloquy I had with Senator McLachlan on an amendment that he had, I pointed out that Senator Kelly had noted and he substantiated this through his speaking after that that, indeed, Connecticut has the seventh oldest state - is the seventh oldest state in the nation. So we have that out there that's a responsibility for our state.

I also acknowledge Senator Bartolomeo pointing out that we need affordable and accessible higher education. And I did, as Chair of Program Review and Investigations, initiate the study of the University of Connecticut as they - how they fit into all of that. And based upon other institutions of higher education, particularly flagship universities, they actually measured up well. Although, I would note for regular middle-class folks in Connecticut that're either making above what it takes to qualify for means scholarships yet below what it takes to save up enough money to pay for college that's upwards of $20,000 a year. Those folks in the middle are getting squeezed and squeezed and squeezed. And there doesn't seem to be an appropriate downward economic pressure on our institutions of higher education. And I think, in the long run, we hafta get our arms around that.

One of my concerns, though, with the response from Senator Bartolomeo is that we have one of the states that have lost population is my understanding. Is that correct? Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Bartolomeo.

0

0

/dd SENATE

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO:

51 May 29, 2015

Thank you, Madam President. I don't know that to be correct and I haven't looked at our overall population. I was looking actually at the - when I said enrollment for our institutions of higher education. Through you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Senator Kissel.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002546

Thank you. Well, lemme just put it this -anecdotally. As I look through the 169 municipalities of the State of Connecticut, I see the school-aged population dwindling. For example, in Enfield in my neck of the woods, we see it coming. It's not the Silver Tsunami. It's the lack of school-age children tsunami. And so it's- what it's constrained us to do is look ahead, consolidate our elementary school structure, take Enrico Fermi High School and consolidate it with Enfield High School and combine them down the road, which will be finalized in a couple of years.

But I'd hafta go and study it town by town. But indeed, for example, on National Public Radio I have heard that there are smaller communities in Connecticut that in just a few years will have such a small school-age population and dwindling population within the town and a position of ability to pay taxes that are not retired that the ability of municipalities to even survive will be precarious.

I also believe, quite firmly and I'm not blaming it all on state policy. Much of this is being driven -and you're correct, take a few minutes' break but I may get back to more questions. I also believe firmly that we're in a very interesting historical era and it's a painful era.

We've gone through changes as a nation many times. As much as we are struggling what is called The Great Recession, there have been severe depressions prior to

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

52 May 29, 2015

002547

The Great Depression that I believe all of us are aware of that took place starting in 1929 and then proceeding into the 30s. But if you go and you look at the late 19th century, there were certain panics being driven that created these terrible depression periods of time - two years, three years, four years where people were really struggling.

The era that we're in now and I've spoken to experts in the field, people that're working on Platform to Employment - Mr. Carbone who I give an awful lotta credit to is leading that charge and I've been to a couple graduation ceremonies there. It's been brought to our attention on Program Review and Investigation whereas my good friend and colleague, Senator Bartolomeo points out that we're trying to align our various policies to try to make it easier for people to get higher education, for that higher education to better match job opportunities.

But what we've learned is that while there was a recession, for example, in the late - or the early 1990s, middle-aged folks actually fared better than they are now. Right now, employers are driving policy. And I believe that's in part because of the incredible advancements in technology.

If you look at each of these elements that're going on in our society and in our world individually, it's hard to point out any "culprit." But people are in pain. People are struggling financially. There are winners and losers. And the old saying that it's a recession out there if your neighbor loses his job but it's a depression if you lose your job. That happens each and every day.

Can we just stand at ease for one second?

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease.)

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will come back order. Senator Kissel.

0

0

0


SENATOR KISSEL:

Thank you very much, Madam President. I just wanna finish my overarching remarks and - but I certainly won't have any further questions for Senator Bartolomeo.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you, sir.

SENATOR KISSEL:

002548

But I really wanted to make this statement. As I had indicated, we do have the Silver Tsunami. We have the lack of school-aged children within our state as a whole. We have municipalities that depend upon enough wage-earners to help pay those property taxes. Just shifting how the taxes are paid doesn't solve the problem. Just saying, oh, we'll take out this form of property tax but we're gonna incorporate it into another form of property tax shifts some of the responsibility for the taxation but doesn't eliminate the taxation.

We have lost good, middle-class paying jobs. We can't backfill those with undocumented aliens filling the work for us 'cause the jobs aren't there. It's not a slight to the undocumented aliens but we need to try to find a way to create a - an economy in our state that will help with those middle-class jobs.

It's just not going to work if we have people that're working two and three jobs on call for retailers and now that policy is spreading to the medical field and nurses and things like that. And then we have people primarily in Fairfield County that work in the city in financial markets and other places, granted hardworking, entrepreneurial but that're making far more money than places in other parts of the state. And that doesn't even scratch the surface of what's going on in our urban areas, where young people can't even find a job in proportions that we haven't seen in our lifetimes.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

54 May 29, 2015

002549

I have colleagues not living in our urban areas but regular, middle-class folk that say I want my son or daughter to learn what it's like to have a job. He or she is in high school. They also, because it's so competitive for higher education, wanna participate in sports or in theater or in music and that means working after school, as well in those groups.

So I had my son or daughter go to a major retailer because I wanted him or her to get a job. And they said, well, the way we do it now is we don't schedule our floor workers for certain days and certain hours. It's we'll call you before 4:00 and 6:00 and we'll tell ya if you need to come in. And he or she told me and others have told me, that just wipes out their ability to do after-school things.

So I'm concerned about that shift in how our economy is working. And if you're in charge of those giant retailers and it's- I'm a little worried that that policy is now moving to the medical field to other caregivers and things like that. What we thought of as the bedrock in our nation, the rock solid middleclass is being squeezed and squeezed and squeezed and squeezed.

I understand the sympathetic nature of this bill. As I indicated, including classes T and U, I am completely in agreement with and I think it was a mistake not to include'm in the original 2011 policy.

The reason I can't support this bill, though, is I agree with Senator Fasano that shifting that change from four years to two years, I think, undermines how it was originally sold to us, that people really want to plant their roots here, make a commitment here and by doing so are granted the benefit of in-state tuition.

I haven't gotten to the question and I know that we wanna try to move along today. But there was the other bill that went through the Chamber that had to do with qualifying for the student aid and I voted against that. But that seemed to be predicated on the four-year commitment and I'm thinking if we switched the two - four to two on the in-state tuition, my guess is not too long down the road, should the other

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

55 May 29, 2015

002550

bill get through, that the same pitch'll be made. Well, we changed the in-state tuition requirements now we need to conform the in-state tuition requirements with the ability to get the aid from the aid fund and qualify. And I can understand that one policy following the other.

But again, when I talk to my constituents, they say we're getting squeezed in every direction. What're you doin' in Hartford? And it's not what're you doin' in Hartford business? What're you doin' in Hartford for, you know, the horribly poor? You - those folks seem to be getting taken care no matter what. But what about the middle class? What about us? Who's watching out for us?

All my neighborhoods, I go there, I'm hearing it. People that, a few years ago, felt a lot more secure than they do right now. And I keep struggling to come up with good answers for them.

I think we need a better overarching economic policy for the state. I think we need a better overarching 30,000-foot educational policy for the state. I think we need a better response to Sheff v. O'Neill, which I thought was a bad decision, a one vote decision, and we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars with very little to show for it.

And now I'm hearing from my superintendents and my principals in my public schools with one voice saying now we can't even compete because all the good students are being drained out of our system. And we don't even - we have so many new rules and regulations and these other schools, magnet schools and charter schools, don't have them.

We need to try to get an overarching policy that will bring all these things together, so that we can remain the land of dreams. So that we will still will maintain the fact that you want to achieve those things that you can. America and Connecticut is the place to do it.

• So I had to use this bill as a little bit of a platform to express some of those concerns that I have. But I do appreciate the hard work that Senator

0

0

0


Bartolomeo and the members of the Higher Education Committee put into this bill, Senator Witkos working very hard on these higher education issues as well.

There's a lotta merit in here but there's just- I have a concern with the shift from four to two and where that's going to bring us as a state. And I think there's just, you know, nothing against undocumented aliens but I got people that've been here 50, 100 years that're really struggling and they wanna stay in Connecticut, too. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Boucher.

SENATOR BOUCHER:

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to also discuss my opposition to this particular bill. And just on the tail end of what Senator Kissel just remarked upon. In the same vein, I believe that I was on the Higher Education Committee when this bill was originally enacted that would provide in-state tuition for those that had at least four years of education. And Senator Kissel is absolutely right. It was sold based on the premise and the primary premise and why many did vote for it then was that they had to show that there was a commitment to Connecticut, to our state. They had been here long enough, there was some contributions to the tax base to being dedicated.

And there was some concern at that time that this might change or be eroded down the road. There is such an argument to be made right now, given the economic circumstances of the state. And speaking on behalf, and as I've done on a number of occasions of those individuals, the few of us that're here in the legislature, that actually were immigrants.

In my case, I was very young. I was taken here not because of my free will but because I was 5-years-old and my brother was seven from a different country with parents that worked extremely hard to try to find a legal path to immigration because they believed so fervently in a better life for their children as so

002551

c

0 '

0

/dd SENATE

57 May 29, 2015

002552

many do. And that background that they had that impacted our lives on a daily basis, the background of a father with a fifth grade education, a mother with not one day in school, not one. It was the biggest embarrassment of her life. But she honestly was the most brilliant person in our family and we know that genetic gene pool went right into my brother, who was essentially a prodigy in science, in art, in music. He became an astrophysicist.

And by the way, was eligible for in-state tuition but he could not - our family could not afford the great acceptance to Yale University because he was number nine in the country in science at that time. And he could get a four-year college education just based on his intellect. Because, certainly, our family [laughs] could not have afforded a Yale college education, though he would've loved to have gone there.

But their story is so compelling. It's like a million stories. They weathered The Depression. They weathered a World War. My father a prisoner of war -tortured, nearly starved to death, went through untold - as a teenager and ended up back on the family farm and he had one brother left in Italy, which he was bound and determined to have him be the first one to get an education beyond fifth grade, and not only that, but go on to college.

And as soon as he was able to get him through college, he sold everything he had, put us on a ship, on a boat in steerage and got us 30 days later to the shores of this wonderful country. And ultimately in Connecticut where we were raised in public school systems in the urban factory towns that made up Connecticut at that time, where most of the immigrants ended up.

And it would've been, you know, an interesting argument if they were here and alive to discuss this with them. I would've loved to have had that conversation. But there is something to be said about the fact that there're so many immigrants that had to face those great barriers, that had to undergo that kind of difficulty and challenges to their existence of being here. And it would've been nice. I know certainly my father would've appreciated a break to

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

58 May 29, 2015

002553

help him get both of his children through college instead of having to work three jobs every, single day except Sunday to make sure that there was enough money on hand to get them through college.

And certainly, he was proud of what he was able to do with as little education as he had. But the fact is that he was a legal immigrant. He made sure we were all naturalized at the New Haven Court, raising our right hand. As a 10-year-old, that was pretty awesome and frightening experience for my brother and I for sure. And my father, who painstakingly learned as much English as he could so he could write his name and answer the questions. And that process, all the while, paying taxes in all manners.

And as such, when we see that we're giving these additional advantages, albeit education is key. It's so important. But we also have competition for those in-state funds and scholarship monies and loans in different programs by a whole slew of others as well. And there is a limited pool. It is - if we could say that every one that needs it and wants it could have access to it and its unending pool, there might not be as much, you know, debate or discussion about this.

But in fact, there is a limited pool and that does concern us. Because right now, college tuitions are so expensive even in-state and a lot of it is - goes up in the way of tuition to offset those individuals that get a free educational system. That hasta come from somewhere. And it's very much the case that the additional increase in tuition costs helps to offset those individuals that get a full scholarship.

So we do have a limited pool. And the question is what is the fairness in the process that we have? And have we been truthful in passing previous legislation based on the fact that we wanted to show a certain level of commitment and time put in, not just commitment but also how much in the way of taxes have been expended to make the case, that they should be also getting those privileges as well.

And so to shorten it to two years makes me ask the question, well, why two years at all? Why not just say if they're living in Connecticut, they are

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

59 May 29, 2015

residents, whether they're legally documented or not, why shouldn't they then have the privilege of getting an in-state tuition? In fact, they have an address that is Connecticut. They don't have an out-of-state address. You could make that argument as well. So maybe next year we'll see this change once again.

But at some point, you hafta make a commitment and live by that commitment. And I'm concerned that we are backtracking on that. And it is in a way that is not equitable and maybe doesn't appear to be just for those that have had to go through that other long, difficult process.

002554

And though I continue to be adamant about having access to an educational program whatever your status is. And we have that here, whether you're in school, whether you go to a hospital for medical care, or whether you go to higher education or - and quite frankly, some of our undocumented immigrants come from families with a tremendous amount of good educational background from whatever country. Some of'm have college degrees, the parents, or even graduate degrees or beyond, PhDs in some cases, and their children were brought here as well not with legal status. So they do have means to be able to pay slightly more.

So that, I think, is the question is about where is the financial fairness in this process? How are we sold on the issue of providing in-state tuition yet the majority of states do not have any programs as yet? And where does Connecticut stand on this?

So given the economic situation that we have, given the costs of higher education, we would be adding an additional financial burden to our universities as well. So for a multitude of reasons, I stand in support of higher education for all of our students but not in support of extending in-state tuition to just two years. Thank you, Madam President.

THE CHAIR:

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk. Oh - Senator Looney. Senator Looney.

SENATOR LOONEY:

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

60 May 29, 2015

002555

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, speaking in support. Madam President, this is an important provision to invest in our future. That the young people who would be able to take advantage of this bill are highly motivated young people. And we never can have too many highly motivated young people well prepared through education for the increasingly demanding future that life in our highly sophisticated technological society is going to offer challenges in the future that may in some ways be unknown today.

Four years ago, we passed legislation, which was, I think, far-sighted at the time. Four years prior to that, the in-state tuition bill was first passed by this General Assembly in 2007 but was then vetoed by Governor Rell at that time. It came back later and passed it and it was signed into law by Governor Malloy in 2011.

Many other states have since then passed legislation or modified the legislation in place to provide for either a two- or three-year period rather than a fouryear period as is our current law. So by passing this law, we would be moving in the enlightened direction of states that have already done this to try to increase the number of people with access to higher education at a time when we all know that higher education is increasingly expensive. That out-ofstate rates are in many cases beyond most people able to - who are living in marginal economic circumstances. And even the in-state rates are a challenge.

And obviously, we passed a bill here in the Senate last week to allow for some limited access to institutional aid for those who are taking advantage of the in-state tuition provisions passed in 2011 that we seek to amend today. But the reality is that these are young people who, in fact, are living in Connecticut. Whether it's two years or whether it's four years, they have graduated from high school here. They are looking to make a life in this state. They are trying to prepare themselves to be productive members of society through education.

0

0

0

/dd SENATE

61 May 29, 2015

And we should support that dedication, that motivation, that aspirational nature wherever it occurs in whatever young people have it and pursue it. And it is something that we should nurture as a part of an investment for ourselves in our own productive future rather than looking necessarily at the background of these young people, many of whom, as we said four years ago when we were debating this bill, have come to the - into Connecticut at a time with decisions made by others because they were, in fact, children in many cases when they arrived along with their parents or other family members. And this is a way to help prepare us for our own economic future.

002556

The higher education officials in the State of California who have been a leader in this regard have said that this really is an investment by the state in its own future. That no state can afford to turn away from or put additional roadblocks in the way of motivated, hard-working young people who want nothing more than the opportunity for an education that will allow them to become contributing members of society. And that's what we are doing here, trying to make the hurdles that exist and that're so high just a little bit lower in this case.

And that's why this is an important provision here today and I urge support, Madam President. Thank you.

THE CHAIR:

Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk, will you please call for a roll call vote. The machine will be opened.

CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

[pause]

THE CHAIR:

Mr. Clerk, you wanna try one more time for that roll call vote,, please. Thank you.

0

0

0


CLERK:

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. -··--·~

Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.

[pause]

THE CHAIR:

All members have voted, all members have voted, the machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, please call the tally.

CLERK:

House Bill 6844

Total Number Voting 32 Necessary for Passage 17 Those voting Yea 19 Those voting Nay 13 Absent/not voting 4

THE CHAIR:

The bill passes. [gavel] Will you remark further? Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF:

Thank you, Madam President. I would like the Senate to stand at ease for a little bit.

THE CHAIR:

The Senate will stand at ease.

(Chamber at ease.)

THE CHAIR:

Okay. The Senate will come back to order. Senator Duff.

SENATOR DUFF:

002557

JOINT STANDING

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

ADVANCEMENT PART 1

1 - 511

2015 INDEX

c

c

c

000371 211 fb/gbr

February 26, 2015

COMMITTEE

HIGHER EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT

10:30 A.M.

executivedirector of the Latino and Puerto Rican AffairsCommission. I want to thank the Co-Chairs of theHigher Education for having a discussion about thisimportant bill.

I am speaking in support Looney's SenateBill 398. speaking in reference to it does not deal with --

of Senator I'm also

anotherbill that with the

discussionor the matter at hand. So but I am submittingwritten testimony for that proposal for your records.

So to -- to start my testimony, I wanted to pointout that LPRAC specifically recommends the HigherEducation Committee to reduce the requirements forin-state tuition from two years -- I'm sorry, fromfour years to two years of high school in Connecticut.

This recommendation is currently not in SenatorLooney's bill, Senate Bill 398, but we highly recommend the Higher Education Committee to consider amending it, as suggested by the Governor'sBill Number 6844.

LPRAC also urges this committee to expand Senatebill 398 to a broader student population, not justDACA-eligible students, so we can better serve awider number -- a wider number of students withfinancial needs.

I also would like to point out to the committee thatproviding state financial aid to undocumented immigrants would not result in a cost to the state.

000372 212 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

According to a preliminary information releasedfrom the Office of Fiscal Analysis, and you willget more of this documentation in writing as thebill moves forward, but in conversations with OFA,we found out that -- we found out that existing fundswould simply be spread across a larger populationof students.

Furthermore, I would like to highlight that reducingthe four-year in-state requirements to two yearsfor in-state tuition, as recommended by 6844 by theGovernor's office, it's also not anticipated toresult in a fiscal impact to the constituent unitsof higher education.

The University of Connecticut and the ConnecticutState University System have policies or the abilityto adjust the ratio of in-state to out of statestudents and therefore can make charging instatetuition to persons without legal immigrations status who reside in Connecticut revenue-neutral.

The regional community technical colleges, as faras the data can tells can tell us have no suchpersons paying the out of state tuition and, therefore, it is also anticipated reducing the number of years required for in-state tuition fromfour to two has having no fiscal impact at all.

Furthermore, again, we applaud the Governor forproposing to set aside these additional funds from-- $150,000 that was

c

c

c

000373 213 fb/gbr

February 26, 2015

COMMITTEE


10:30 A.M.

mentioned before, in fiscalyear '16, and $300,000 in fiscal year '17, from theGovernor's Scholarship program for a merit basedgrant available to students that lack immigrationstatus that I believe should be merged to SenateBill 398.

The Governor's office, as you heard earlier today,is currently working with New Raven's Promise asthe likely administrator of this merit-based grantprogram because of their track record of administering a similar grant program for New Havenstudents, including undocumented New Haven residents.

This grant program will be available to undocumentedstudents with Connecticut residency attending topublic institutions of higher education in Connecticut and, again, LPRAC supports this recommendation and urges the Higher Education Committee to do so.

To conclude, I want to point that the Latino andPuerto Rican Affairs Commission

·also had a -- asignificant discussion about this and my -- my boardis actually bi-partisan.

So my Republic appointees and my Democratic appointees voted in support of this proposal at ourlast commission that we hosted this month. So Iwanted to point out to you.

For the record, I also want to point out that theLatino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission is theonly state agency in

000374 214 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

Connecticut that already provides scholarships to undocumented immigrantsand -- and so, having done this now for several years,we have raised over $200,000 from the private sectorto do this, is that we see the -- the demand. Andthere's nothing better when you have the brighteststudents competing for funds to go to college.

Because this is what this is all about. We -- ifwe are talking about expanding the pool of studentsthat are going to be eligible to use the funds of-- of institutional aid, we are talking about competition and our -- our country is based on thevalues of competition.

We believe that competition is good for our countryand for our economy and, therefore, this actuallyexpands the pool of great students that are goingto be competing to actually pay for tuition and geta very tiny percentage from the high -- extremelyhigh cost that it takes for somebody to pay for theireducation. And keep in mind this, the student population that we're trying to help does not qualifyfor federal financial aid.

So we have other students that are U.S. citizensor residents that are applying for financial aid.They have access to federal financial aid and statefinancial aid. This population that we're talkingabout would only now have access to state financialaid.

So the majority of the money that they're going tobe paying into the program, it's

c

c

c

000375 215 fb/gbr

February 26, 2015

COMMITTEE


10:30 A.M.

coming out of theirown pockets and it's going to actually help -- have-- add so much more money into the coffers of tuition,which is, by other means -- other students pay that.Maybe a smaller percentage because the higher percentage is subsidized by either federal financial aid and state financial aid. Thank youvery much.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. How many students doyou currently provide financial aid to with thescholarships from LPRAC?

WERNER OYANADEL: We try to provide about 20 studentseach year funding from $2,000 to $5,000. And --and we -- every time --we have more students nowthat are participating and competing for these numbers.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. That's wonderful.

WERNER OYANADEL: Many of the students that we are seeingthat are considering having access to this financialaid are the valedictorians, are the students thatare doing the best in every school. They're outcompeting all their peers.

And so we have, in my mind, an economic opportunityhere to make sure that this student population getsmuch more education so that they can pay back theircontribution to our state.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. Senator Witkos.

000376 216 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you, Madam Chair. It would behelpful, Werner, if you could get us that informationregarding the scholarships that you're doing now.

And I -- I want to thank you personally for takingthe time to come to my office and -- and sittingwith me and going over the bills and what we're tryingto accomplish here today.

And I think that you're going to be pleasantly surprised that you're going to find a friendly reception on this side of the aisle this year.

Thank you for all the work that you do.

WERNER OYANADEL: Thank you very much, Senator. I --went I met with you, I -- I believe I -- I gave yousome wrong information. I wanted to correct it forthe record.

I think I pointed out to you that the FAFSA was --that there was a fee for applying for it. But itis actually a free application. So I just wantedto correct that, which I stated to you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. Any other questions?Representative Sanchez.

REP. SANCHEZ: Just a quick comment. Werner, thank youfor the testimony and Senator Witkos, thank you.

This -- this -- I mean, this is going to -- there'sa lot of questions out there

c

c

c

000377 217 fb/gbr HIGHER EDUCATION AND

EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT

February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

COMMITTEE

and I know I've beenhearing -- and -I've been hearing from people whohave been reading blogs that are so much againstthis bill. But you're absolutely right.

I have met so many students in the past four or fiveyears that are the brightest of the brightest. !mean -- and all they want is an equal opportunityand a chance.

And -- and they even said to me, I have no plansin leaving this country or leaving this state. !want to stay here, buy a home. You know, get a joband and be like any other American.

So you know -- and that's good to hear. So I justwant to thank you for giving this -- the testimonyand Senator for, of course, bringing this bill forward.

WERNER OYANADEL: Representative Sanchez, I want to commend you for also meeting with us and -- and havingan open mind about what the -- the impact of thislegislation would have on -- on everybody in thestate of Connecticut.

Through the research that we are conducting in LPRACand with the help of the students -- Connecticutstudents, we are doing -- we're finding so muchinformation that it's so valuable.

I mean, if -- we have a population shift that hastaken place in Connecticut and I think lawmakersneed to be cognizant of that change. Connecticut,in the very near future, is going to become verymuch

000378 218 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


older.

February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

The Baby Boom generation is retiring in a significantly high proportion and we know that themajority of young people between the ages of 18 toabout 40 are actually not cannot afford to bein Connecticut.

And so in order for Connecticut to remain powerfuland -- and to have a -- a strong economy, we have-- lawmakers and public commissions like mine, wehave to look for policies that will allow us to havemore people having better education and be highlyeducated so that we can keep Connecticut's economyvibrant.

So what we are suggesting to you today is that byhelping this population continuing with their education, we are also helping Connecticut staystrong. The Supreme Court, back in -- back in 1982decided in a -- in a significant court case thatall students, regardless of immigration status,have a right to a free -- primary education andsecondary education.

So Connecticut already made a significant investment, monetary investment, in making surethat the students have an education and we -- andConnecticut paid a significant amount of money forthat. But what are we going to do if we don't continue their education now so.that they can returnthat investment back to the state?

I think it's -- this is not a radical policy. !think that this is a policy that it's economicallysound and I believe

c

c

c

000379 219 fb/gbr HIGHER EDUCATION AND

EMPLOYMENT ADVANCEMENT

February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

COMMITTEE

that it -- it would make senseto continue with that support that we have receivedsince we started with this back in 2004 is when westarted the in-state tuition battle here in theLegislature. So this is the continuation of thateffort.

REP. SANCHEZ: And I want to admit that I had some reservations in the beginning. But after talkingto you, after talking to many of the students, andafter actually -- in the City of New Britain, !attended a meeting where I talked -- I was able totalk to some more ..:_ some more students who -- whobasically aid to me, you know, we want -- we wantto stay in Connecticut.

And -- and I think that's what sold me. You know,they -- they want to becoming engineers. They wantto be doctors. They want to be nurses. And theywant to stay in the state -- state of Connecticutand they want to buy a home here and they want tomake a living here and that's important. But thankyou.

WERNER OYANADEL: Thank you, Representative.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. Anyone else? Thank youvery much for being here today. We appreciate yourtestimony.

WERNER OYANADEL: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. to the general public Kyla Teal, whowill be Bloom and Irina Anta.

We are now going list. First, we'll followed by Will

000380

ss 39~ (OO (ogyy)

220 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

Okay. So do we have Kyla Teal? Okay. Do we haveWill Bloom and Irina -- I'm I'm sorry Irina. I'mnot sure of the pronunciation of your last name.

IRINA ANTA: Anta -- Anta.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Anta?

WILL BLOOM: Senator Bartolomeo, Representative Willis,members of the committee, thanks so much for theopportunity to testify. My name is Will Bloom, ZariNanta, and we are law student interns with the Workers and Immigrants Rights Advocacy Clinic atYale Law School and we represent Connecticut Students for a Dream, which has been working tirelessly since 2011 to ensure students acrossConnecticut have equal access to higher educationregardless of immigration status.

And we're here today to emphasize how vitally important it is that you end unequal access to highereducation in Connecticut. Today, there are students across the state who cannot go to collegebecause they lack access to financial aid.

Bright students, hardworking students, studentsbursting with purpose, but without financial aid,they cannot afford tuition at our state's publiccolleges and universities. They cannot furthertheir education, earn their degree, enter the middleclass, and fully contribute to Connecticut's economy.

000382 222 fb/gbr

COMMITTEE


February 26, 2015 10:30 A.M.

opportunity to make Connecticut abetter place.

And this is particularly important, as Werner mentioned, given that Connecticut has already invested in the high school and, in many cases,elementary school education of these students. Connecticut should benefit from that investment byallowing undocumented students to stay in Connecticut and pursue their degrees and build theirlives.

This expansion is the natural next step after Connecticut granted undocumented immigrants equalaccess to in-state tuition in 2011. Nineteen otherstates have also equalized tuition rates and a numberof them have equalized access to financial aid,including California, New Mexico, Washington, andTexas.

We can look to these states for lessons for implementing -- for implementing this equalizationhere in Connecticut while doing it in a way thatfits Connecticut's particular character and needs.

Now, some state agencies have said that they wantto help -- they may want to help these students, but Congress said that it's up to you, the state Legislature, to act. It is up to you to do this.

And while we support Senator Looney's Bill 398, we think it's a fantastic step in going forward, we think there's more to be done. We support much of the Governor's proposal, both in terms of expanding state aid in terms of lowering

c

c

c

000383 223 fb/gbr

February 26, 2015

COMMITTEE


the residency.

10:30 A.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you, Will. Are you going to speak as well, Irina?

IRINA ANTA: No. questions. question.

I'm just here if you have We can both answer the

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay.

IRINA ANTA: Will (inaudible) .

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. So do we have questions?

A VOICE: I just have --

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Representative McLachlan.

REP. MCLACHLAN: Could you -- could you go into some of the -- the additional reforms that you'd want to see in addition to Senator Looney's bill?

WILL BLOOM: Sure. So we believe that both institutional aid and state aid should be -- should be opened up regardless of immigration status. As was pointed out earlier, when it comes institutional aid, many of these students, some of them are here, are already paying in when they pay their tuition dollars.

But when it comes to state aid, many of these students are also paying taxes. Their family are paying taxes.

In both cases, undocumented students are paying into the student and they should

JOINT STANDING

COMMITTEE HEARINGS


ADVANCEMENT PART 2 512 - 842

2015

c

c

-

SENATOR MARTIN M. LOONEY PRESIDENT PRo TEMPORE

Eleventh District

Nr.,w Haven, Hamden & 7'{gph Haven

February 26,2015

~tate of ~nnccticut SENATE

000584

State Capitol Hartford, Connecticut 06106- I 5 91

132 Fort Hale Road Ne~ Haven, Connecticut 06512

Home: 203-468-8829 Capitol: 860-240-8600

Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420

'11.>ww.SenatorLooney.cga.ct.gov

HP> ~~ 4~ . . .\W2b~~.5

Good Morning Sen. Bartolomeo, Rep. Willis and Members of the Higher Education and

Employment Advancement Committee. I am her~ to testify in support of SB 398 AN ACT

ASSISTING STUDENTS ACCEPTED INTO THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR

CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS PROGRAM WITH THE COST OF COLLEGE.

In 2011 the Connecticut General Assembly passed PA 11-43 which allows students who are in

the federal government's deferred action for childhood arrivals program (DACA) and met certain

additional criteria to pay in-state tuition at our colleges. That legislation was compassionate,

fair, and pragmatic. Allowing DACA students to qualify for the in-state tuition rate has assisted

many students in their pursuit of higher education. Many others, however, ate still unable to

afford the costs of higher education without fmancial assistance.

SB 398 would allow these students access to certain forms of financial aid at our state

colleges and universities including the grants that are funded by tuition set-aside. These grants

are funded by money set aside from the tuition of all students; the DACA students' tuition

provides some of the funding and it seems equitable that they should also benefit from the

program.

000585

c Many of these students have lived in·our state for virtually their entire lives; they are our

neighbors and our children's friends and classmates. They are also a significant part of

Connecticut's future. Students who attain degrees from public universities and colleges in

Connecticut are more likely to build careers in Connecticut. Connecticut has had a significant

. . out-migration of young people (ages 18-34). It is widely accepted that university attendance in a

particular state increases the likelihood that students will remain in that state upon graduation. . .

However, the cost of attending Connecticut's public colleges and universities has been

~ncreasing dramatically which can adversely affect stude~ts' ability to further their education.

The provision of financial assistance would ensure that more young people will have the

opportunity to attend college and succeed. Terri Carbaugh, the Vice Chancellor of the California

Community College system, stated that "The higher the number of degree-holders living in our

state, the more likely we are to meet future workforce demands." She is correct; we must do all

we can to create a workforce that is attractive to businesses. California is one of the states which

already has a law similar to what is being proposed for Connecticut.

College graduates generally pay much more in taxes than those without degrees and they

are six times more likely to have a job. In addition, the jobs tend to be higher paying for the

college educated, who are less likely to commit crimes or seek government assistance of any

kind. This legislation will increase the number of future taxpayers, thus reducing the overall

burden on families.

-

000586

c The governor has two bills that address this matter as well. HB 6844, AN ACT CONCERNING

IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY, changes the qualification criteria for in-state tuition from

four years in Connecticut schools to two and SB 6845, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE

BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER

EDUCATION; creates a scholarship program for these students that would be administered by

New Haven Promise. I believe that these bills present an equivalent alternative to SB 398 and I

would support either approach.

Thank you for attention to this important issue.

-

c

c

-

Chairmnn Richard A. Cruz Vice-Chair Elena Trueworthy Secretary Emanuela Palmares Leaf Treasurer Yolanda Castillo

Commissioners: Ramon L. Arroyo Migdalia Castro Ana Gonzalez Jay Gonzalez George Hernandez Dr. Ruby 0 'Neill Dr. Agnes Quinones Ruben Rodriguez Dr. Eugene M Salorio PabloSoto· Feny Taylor Don.~y Torres

Executive Director Werner Oyanadel

Special Projects Director Lucia GoicoecheaHernande:

Associate Legislative Analyst Orlando Rodrigue:

Senior Legislative Secretary Clarisa Cardone

State of Connecticut Latino and Puerto Rican

Affairs Commission

Testimony of Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director of LPRAC before the Higher Education Committee Thursday, February 26,2015 10:30 AM in Room IE ofthe LOB In Support ofSB 398 and H.B. No. 6116

000593

18-20 Trinity Street Hartford, CT06106 TeL (860) 240-8330 Fox (860) 240-0315

E-MaU: loratfii!ga.ctgov Web Site: www.cga.etgoviiDrac

Senator Bartolomeo, Representative Willis, and distinguished members of the Higher Education & Employment Advancement Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA); my name is Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (LPRAC). I am here to speak in support of Proposed Bills SB 398 and

1HB No. 6116.

LPRAC fully supports Proposed Bill No. 398 "AN ACT ASSISTING STUDENTS ACCEPTED INTO THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS PROGRAM WITH THE COST OF COLLEGE (DACA)i," which would enable low income Connecticut students that lack immigration status the ability to better afford a college education in our state - In 2011 the Connecticut General Assembly adopted Public Act 11-43 which addressed accessibility issues for this population.

In specific, we recommend the higher education committee to reduce the requirements for in-state tuition rates from four years to two years of high school in Connecticut - this recommendation is currently not in Sen. Looney's bill (SB 398) but we highly recommend the Higher Education Committee to consider amending it as suggested by the Governor's Bill No. 6844. LPRAC also urges this committee to expand SB 398 to a broader student popUlation, not just DACA eligible students, so we can better serve a wider number of student's with financial needs.

I would also like to point out to the committee that providing state financial aid to undocumented immigrants would not result in a cost to the state. According to preliminary information released from the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OF A) on the subject we found out that existing funds would simply be spread across a larger population of students. Additionally, I would like to highlight that reducing 4 year instate requirement to 2 year for in-state tuition (HB6844) as recommended by the Governor's Office is also not anticipated to result in a fiscal impact to the constituent units of higher education. The University of Connecticut and the Connecticut State University System have policies or the ability to adjust the ratio of in-state to out-of-state students and therefore can make charging in-state tuition to persons without legal immigration status who reside in Connecticut revenue· neutral. The Regional Community-Technical Colleges as far as data can tells us have no such persons paying out-of-state tuition and therefore it is also anticipated reducing the number of years required for in-state tuition from 4 to 2 as having no fiscal impact it all.

Furthermore, we applaud the Governor for proposing to set aside $150,000 in FYI6 and $300,000 in FY17 from the Governor's Scholarship program for a merit-based grant available to students that lack immigration status that I believe should be merged with

c

c

000594

I.'IIN,lk. PUI'I<I\1 llK·\N AH,\Ilt' Cll,\1\IIS'I~ lN

SB 398. The Governor's office is currently working with New Haven Promise as the likely administrator of this merit-based grant program because of their track record of administering a similar grant program for New Haven students, including undocumented New Haven residents. This grant program will be available to undocumented students with Connecticut residency attending public institutions of higher education in Connecticut - again LPRAC supports this recommendation and urges the Higher Education to do so too.

LPRAC also supports Proposed Bill No. 6116 "AN ACT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF INTERNSHIPS AND SUMMER JOBS FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH THROUGHOUT CONNECTICUT." Connecticut has very high unemployment rates for its young workers looking for their first job. In many of the state's towns, unemployment for those ages 16-19 is over 25 percent, which is much higher the statewide unemployment rate of 6.4 percent as of December 2014. Historically, young workers from low-income households obtained their first job through' federal summer jobs programs; however, funding for these programs has been cut. Each year a young adult does not get their first job, they become harder to employ and it increases their chances of becoming dependent upon social services for much of their life. It has been estimated that each opportunity youth (i.e. idle or disconnected; not working and riot in school) results in, " ... an immediate taxpayer burden of $13,900 per year and an immediate social burden of $37,450 per year." After age 25, each opportunity youth will," ... impose a future lifetime taxpayer burden of $170,740 and a social burden of $529,030." In addition to increasing workforce readiness, some summer job programs for low-income youth have resulted in (1) increased school attendance, (2) decreases in violent crime arrests, and (3) decreases in drug and alcohol use.

It is within this context that LPRAC urges the Higher Education & Employment Advancement Committee to support Proposed Bill No. 6116, which - If adopted by the Connecticut General Assembly - would increase the number of state-funded internships and summer jobs for low-income youth in urban and rural areas with the highest youth unemployment rates and to implement a lottery system for internships and summer job programs to ensure there is no nepotism involved in hiring for such internships and jobs.

LPRAC is a nonpartisan policy agency within the legislative branch of government created in 1994 by an act of the Connecticut Legislature (i.e., P.A. 94-152, amended by P.A. 03-229 and amended by P.A. 09-07). Under Public Act 09-07, LPRAC consists of 21 appointed community leaders that are mandated to advice the Connecticut General Assembly and the Governor on policies that foster progress in the Latino communities residing in Connecticut.

1 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is an American immigration policy which allows certain undocumented immigrants who entered the country before their 16th birthday and before June 2007 to receive a renewable two-year work pennit and exemption from deportation. It does not confer legal immigration status or provide a path to citizenship. It was started by the Obama administration in June 2012.

-----~----~-----------------·--·-- __ .. _________ --·--·

2

JOINT STANDING

COMMITTEE HEARINGS


ADVANCEMENT PART 3

843 - 1232

000877 28 aac/gbr HIGHER EDUCATION AND

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Alright, now I want to hear you say Bartolomeo.

WERNER OYANADEL: Bartolomeo.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay, alright. Better than I did.

WERNER OYANADEL: My name is Werner Oyanadel. I am the Executive Director of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, a commission that is within the legislative branch. I submitted written testimony to the Higher Education Committee. I am not going to read it. I also submitted testimony and I testified in support of Senator Looney's bill that provides institutional aid for undocumented immigrants that are accepted in the back up Program.

Today I'm actually here to applaud the governor for submitting two bills,.,6844 and 6845. These two bills would allow us in Connecticut to have some additional or funding from the governor's scholarship program set aside to provide undocumented immigrants access to this financial resources to that they can continue their higher education here in the State of Connecticut. The governor also is proposing to reducing the limit by which a students comply with in-state tuition law that was passed in Connecticut back in 2011.

There are probably seventeen states in the country that provide in-state tuition around the nation and Connecticut is the most restrictive. The majority of the states provide this program for students that have attended high schools for two to three years. Connecticut's law is actually four years. So, what the governor is proposing is actually reducing it from four down to two years and

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

everybody at the commission that I represent is supportive of that change as well.

In terms of financial aid that is proposed around the nation in regards to this population, five states, including Texas provides institutional aid for undocumented immigrants. As a matter of fact, Texas was the first state that passed the in-state tuition and signed by Governor Bush at the time and so when this concept was originally introduced around the country it was actually something that was supported by both political parties. In Connecticut that has not been the ca.se but we hope that this year we can actually talk to members of the Republican Party so that they can actually understand that this is an issue that originally had received bi-partisan support and we are seeking their support on this proposal here in Connecticut was well.

With that, Madame Chair, that ends my written remarks.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you very much. Do we have questions? Representative Sanchez.

REP. SANCHEZ: Thank you Madame Chair. Hi Werner, how are you doing? In regards to the -- to the __ llfl~BJJL four years role going down to two years, do you 4lll~ ~ have any numbers of how many students are kept out at the present moment because of this law that's in place?

WERNER OYANADEL: Thank you for the question Representative Sanchez. We don't have a quantified number. It is very difficult to measure this population because there's really not enough data to be able to provide you any specific information. What we do know is that, at least from the students that have applied



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

and have been accepted to a docket program. We are talking about a population that is probably in general terms about 3,000 and the students that have accessed the in-state tuition law since it was initiated back in 2011, lets say UCONN for instance, only about 90 students throughout the history just applied for the program. So, it will probably not impact UCONN or the state universities that much. Or it may not have a significant impact even if you change it from four to two years.

Where we are probably going to see an increase in population is in the community colleges. That's the level of affordability that they can probably do. So, while I don't have a number, given the fact that ninety-six students applied at UCONN, we think that this is not going to have a significant impact but it will at the community college level.

REP. SANCHEZ: I thank you for your answer. It's a good bill and I hope my colleagues support it.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. Next we have Representative Ackert who will be followed by Representative Carney.

REP. ACKERT: Thank you Madame Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Do you know what our surrounding states have for years and do they actually have the same level of legislation that we have? I mean Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New England body mainly?

WERNER OYANADEL: Well the states that have this legislation around the country are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon. So the short answer to your question is we have a

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

couple states that already have this legislation near or geographically close to Connecticut. Not just New York.

REP. ACKERT: Yeah, but Massachusetts, Rhode Island, these areas -- these states. You didn't mention -- I was most predominately thinking about the states localized to us. You know, not for the wrong reasons, but just thinking about you know, the ability to move cross borders so to say to take advantage of what we would offer.

WERNER OYANADEL: That's a great question and we're concerned about that too. This is exactly why we created a program that would actually prevent the crossing of closer states to Connecticut to apply for this program and the reason why we think that that's not going to happen at a higher level or at a high level is because, number one, they have to be residents of the State of Connecticut and for that and to comply with residency requirements, you have to be in Connecticut for a minimum of two years. They have to have attended an educational institution in the state and completed now if this legislation is passed, two years in a state school. They have to have -- they have to graduate from a Connecticut school and they have to be registered and accepted into the higher education system. So there's a lot of pre-requirements that they would have to comply in order to qualify for this program. So the short answer to your question is that we do not believe that we will have a lot of people crossing because there are a lot of prerequirements to comply with this law.

REP. ACKERT: Thank you for your answers and thank you for your advocacy. Thank you Madame Chair.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. Representative Carney.

REP. CARNEY: Thank you very much. Actually, Representative Ackert asked the question I was going to ask but there's a couple other things I was just curious about. So, I don't know if you know off the top of your head, you had mentioned community colleges would be what -where most these students would turn. Do you know if they have a lot of resources because I think -- I can foresee an issue possibly maybe a potential language gap. So, I don't know if you know if there are currently resources available at community colleges where certain courses could be taught in that -- and I don't mean English language courses, I mean maybe science courses, things like that in a bilingual setting? Do you know if there's anything already in place?

WERNER OYANADEL: Representative, we believe that the student population that we're talking about are mostly English speaking. As a matter of fact, based on some of the information that we're collecting from the students is that these students are graduating valedictorian. These are the best of the state school graduates that we have and they're getting accepted into the colleges on their own merits and so we don't expect that this is going to be an issue for English language learners but rather monolingual that are very capable of doing their school course just in English.

REP. CARNEY: Okay, thanks because I was just wondering because some of the students that did testify did have a little bit of a gap in there so that's why. I know a lot of the students that did testify were extremely bright and I

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

agree they really they would do Connecticut very well.

Along that topic, and I guess, I apologize for I guess not being s up to date on these sorts of issues as probably I should be, but do you know -- I'm just curious to the current state of -- current state of becoming a United States citizen right now. Because I think that is really the source of the problem and something I personally would like to see changed a bit. Because I agree, those students that came, they're not going anywhere anytime soon, if ever and they really are Connecticut and American people but there currently is that barrier. So, do you know if there's anything done to really help target, help those particular young people to become citizens quicker.

WERNER OYANADEL: Well, that's a great question. It's a very complex answer. We know that since the conversation at the national level we have always you know discussed the number of about 12 million people that are residing in the United States without any documentation. That number has been decreasing significantly after 9/11 and certainly after some of the changes for-- the passage of comprehensive immigration reform have stalled at the national level. So we believe that the numbers are in a decline but we have now a number of students that have you know been residents of the state for a long period of time and I don't know if you're aware of it but back in 1992 the Supreme Court decided in a significant case, I believe its called (inaudible) where it said that all students, regardless of immigration status have a right to a free primary and secondary education.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

So, in our mind we think that the state already made a big investment for them to actually be educated in our schools. So now the question is, what are we going to do now that they have -- they are graduating from the schools and just not knowing what else to do. In our opinion it would make more economic sense for them to have more access to higher education so that when congress decides to make an opinion about the passage of comprehensive immigration reform that the students can actually now pay back their investment that they have received here in the State of Connecticut and that would actually be important considering that in Connecticut we are looking at a decline in student population in the years to come. our (inaudible) are going to move forward

So, here think in this committee, we're going to have to

about how are we going to fill those (inaudible). This is the population that is highly capable that are graduating from our schools and want to continue their education. So I think it would make sense for this committee to explore areas and programs like this.

REP. CARNEY: Well thank you very much for your answers.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you and Representative Willis.

REP. WILLIS: Hi Werner how are you?

WERNER OYANADEL: Good, how are you Representative?

REP. WILLIS: You've certainly done this in-state tuition bill before.

WERNER OYANADEL: Yes it goes back to 2004 I believe.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P;M.

REP. WILLIS: Wow and here we are today talking about in-state, not just in-state tuition, but opening up to financial aid.

I have a question for you. We have two bills before us, before this Committee. One is the Governor's Bill and one is Senator Looney's Bill. Same concept but there are different universes that they talk about.

Could you define the differences between the universe of students in the Governor's Bill and the universe of students, the DACA students that Senator Looney -- trying to, which is more and which is more open in terms of eligibility.

WERNER.OYANADEL: Great question, Representative Willis. The bill that was introduced earlier by Senator Looney refers to a universe of students that we call DACA, which actually stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This is for those that don't -- that aren't aware of this program -- this is a program which allows certain undocumented immigrants who enter the country before their sixteenth birthday and before June 2007 to receive renewable two year work permit and exemption from deportation. It does not confer legal immigration status or provide a path to citizenship. It started by the Obama Administration back in June of 2012. Since the program was initiated and put into place in Connecticut, we believe that there are about 3,000 students that would be in that universe and that would be the universe that Senator Looney's bill would impact.

In the governor's proposal I think its more open and so all students regardless of their immigration status that comply with the

MW@ &~



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

regulations of the in-state tuition law would be eligible for this program. As a commission we would hope that you would allow the program to be expanded as the governor is proposing it and if you are considering drafting a bill that would include all the concepts we would actually ask you to be more encompassing than the one that Senator Looney proposed originally.

REP. WILLIS: Thank you very much. That was helpful.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay so I think that was all the questions by committee. Am I correct? Anyone else? Okay well thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

So we are now actually exactly to the minute just about moving on to the list of the public. I would just notate that we allow for a three minute testimony. That's okay, Sarah, come on up because you're next. This is Sarah Greco and her beautiful baby.

So, it's three minutes for testifying and we do often -- well we'll allow a few extra and then we often have questions for you. Just a reminder that the microphone where you sit, to push the button when you're talking but to turn it off when you're not. One microphone at a time works best.

So, welcome and thank you for the challenge you must have incurred getting here today.

SARAH GRECO: So, good afternoon. My name is Sarah Greco and I'm a student at Southern Connecticut State University and I'm also the Chair of the Student Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

cut. You said you're percentage of Pell Grant students was what forty-six?

MICHELLE COCHRAN: Forty-nine percent of our undergraduate student population qualify for the federal Pell Grant.

REP. WILLIS: That's an incredible number because we were saying how incredible it was that UCONN was twenty-six percent Pell Grant recipients. So, forty-nine is an extraordinary number. So, we thank you for being an advocate for your students and hopefully, I know this is a very difficult year for us, I know this has been an issues. I think you've been before us before. Not your first rodeo on this one. So, let's keep this conversation going. Okay? Thank you again.

ALLISON MARTINEZ: Good afternoon, Madame Chair and members of our esteemed committee. My name is Allison Martinez. I live in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, and I'm a member of the organization Connecticut Students for a Dream.

I stand in support of the following two bills. House Bill number 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in state residency requirements for undocumented students from four years to two years, and House Bill number 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up some access to financial aid to undocumented students.

I arrived to the United States at the age of four from Ecuador. During my first five years of residing in Connecticut I went through the Hartford School Public System. Afterwards, I migrated to Windsor Locks for the rest of my



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

primary and secondary education. I am fortunate to have been able to move and place myself in a better school system. This is an opportunity that minorities do not usually get. We are usually placed in an urban area where the education we receive is not the best.

At a young age, I realized that in that perspective, I was privileged and had to make the best out of this opportunity. I felt that nothing could stop me from being the first person in my family to go to college and have a career, but I was wrong. As I got older I learned what it meant to be an undocumented student. While researching how I could be admitted into college, I learned that Connecticut did not welcome my pursuit of a higher education because, like many undocumented students, I was shut out of many scholarships and financial aid. Despite these circumstances, I found the courage to apply to several schools.

When I got accepted to the University of Connecticut, it reinforced that Connecticut is where I belong. While in my freshman year at UCONN, I paid out of state tuition because the Connecticut Dream Act had not passed yet and when it did I felt a raised hope that I would actually be able to finish school. But as years progressed, it got harder to pay tuition. I expected to earn my degree in Urban and Community Studies this year but my road to graduation has been slower than my classmates because of the financial barriers I faced as an undocumented student.

I realized that the Connecticut Dream Act was not enough. Despite working two jobs, I constantly worry about not being able to pay for school anymore. I have been shut out of

-------------------------------------------------------------------- I

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

applying for institutional aid due to Connecticut not having an alternate to FAFSA for undocumented students to show need. I have paid an estimated $23,000.00 into my college tuition these past four years, which means I have paid into the pot of money that makes up institutional aid.

Lastly, I am testifying in support of legislation that takes vital steps toward education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students. Thank you for your time.

REP. WILLIS: Thank you and thank you for your commitment to obviously your education, take it quite seriously. You should be commended for that and we do consider your efforts valuable and --

ALLISON MARTINEZ: -- thank you I appreciate that.

REP. WILLIS: Yes, Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you Madame Chair and I apologize for coming in toward the end of your testimony and missing the previous speakers. Could you help me understand what it's like if you're an undocumented student and you go through high school and then it's time to apply for college and you're not able to get any funds. Do you feel that there is movement earlier that you should try to obtain citizenship or -- just explain to me either the difficulties or the decisions you have to make internally.

ALLISON MARTINEZ: I can't speak for all undocumented student, but personally you don't really understand what 'it is to be undocumented until you're sixteen and you find out you



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

cannot obtain a driver's license. So then you start learning more about what your status means, which basically means if -- there's no path to try to obtain residency -- permanent residency here or citizenship because you're not guided, you're not told this is what you can do, for one. For two, you have fear that if you express that you've been here undocumented for a certain amount of time that you will go back to a country that you know nothing of and don't know how to survive in.

So, when you get to that point that you're going to apply for colleges, you're not sure how to state that you're undocumented. They ask you for a Social Security number you do not have to provide. So, to answer your question, I know that there isn't specific guidance, you're not out there telling people that you need help and something that for such a long time you're told to be ashamed an quiet about.

SENATOR WITKOS: I appreciate that response. Take me back to when you were sixteen and you were in Hartford? You went to Hartford Public Schools?

ALLISON MARTINEZ: I did up to fifth grade and then afterwards I continued my primary education and my secondary education in Windsor Locks and it's primarily Caucasian population so I was definitely in the minority and just being a minority in itself really made me feel like I couldn't express what I was going through and have an advisor advise me on to how to obtain a higher education.

SENATOR WITKOS: So, was there somebody at the school, a guidance counselor or school social worker that you could go see to say, I went to go to DMV, I went to mom or dad and I said I'm

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

sixteen I want to get a drivers license, they told me I'm not eligible. Was there anybody at the school able to guide you in steps that you could do to do anything or did you have to do the situation on your own?

ALLISON MARTINEZ: The first option is community college because it's cheaper. I knew what I wanted a degree in and I knew that UCONN and Trinity Colleges were the only schools that had it, therefore that wasn't an option for me.

I was lucky to have been accepted in UCONN and afford it at the time but like I mentioned in my testimony, I don't know if you were here for that part, but you know, every semester I don't know if I'll be able to pay or even when I'm going to graduate. I know that in my high school, I can speak for mine when I was in high school, there was not an advisor that was able to guide you through these decisions and what the next steps are.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you. Thank you Madame Chair.

ALLISON MARTINEZ: You're welcome.

REP. WILLIS: I have a question. You also signed up to testify on another bill

ALLISON MARTINEZ: -yeah, I--

REP. WILLIS: -- the Earn and Learn pilot program and I wondered if you or someone --

ALLISON MARTINEZ: No, ma'am. That was not me. I signed up for/6845 and 6844.

REP. WILLIS: Okay. Thank you.

ALLISON MARTINEZ: You're very welcome.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay, you're all set. Did you submit written testimony.

ALLISON MARTINEZ: Yes.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: You did. Okay I didn't find it when I came back in and I missed what you said so I'll look for it. Thank you. Thanks for advocating.

So, next we have Mr. Stephen Adair it is finally your turn. And then after Mr. Adair will be -- we have a note here they'll be together, Gladys Mercado and Darryl Kenui.

STEPHEN ADAIR: Senator Bartolomeo, Representative Willis and members of the committee. I'm Stephen Adair. I'm a professor of Sociology at CCSU. I'm vice-chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the Board of Regents and exofficio member of the board and I'm here to urge your support for H.B. 6812 AN ACT CONCERNING FACULTY REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS which would strengthen faculty representation on the subcommittees of the board and broadening and deepening the understanding of the board on matters of teaching, learning and the life of the campus.

I'd like to begin just by thanking this committee for establishing the Faculty Advisory Committee and for recent bills in recent years to expand our committee and to provide two seats on the Board of Regents.

Over the last couple of years the FAC has done an awful lot of activity including working hard in both revising the policy and implementing the transfer and articulation policy which is

001013 164 hc/gbr HIGHER EDUCATION AND


March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

helping us to do a little extra research while we are talking to the previous gentleman.

Thank you all very much. We appreciate your coming up today -- or down.

Okay. Have a safe drive home, everybody.

So now, we have Alejandra Corona Ortega, who will be followed by Abby Carrillo. Alessandra is not here -- or Alejandra is not here? Okay.

How about Abby? Abby, come on up.

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Abigail Carrillo. I am a junior at Wooster High School in Danbury, Connecticut.

I am here in support of,Bill 6844, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY, I'm sorry, and Bill 684~, IMPLEMENTING THE -- THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION.

I am like many well-deserving and talented students in the state who was born here in the United States in Danbury, Connecticut.

I stand, say -- asking you allow these bills to move forward because many of these students that are not being allowed access to higher education are smart and talented. This is unfair because all students are deserving of the opportunity to go to college.

Education should be allowed no matter what. There needs to be a change in our community now.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

If students who aren't undocumented can struggle with paying for college, it means undocumented students must struggle so much more. Passing this bill will change the inequality and and allow everything -- I mean, everyone an equal starting ground.

I have grown up with many of these kids. Many have gone through school with me and many managed to reach achievements higher than me. Yet, they're forced to struggle more and have less opportunities to go to college than I may have.

To me, these bills mean a step closer to equality for all students. These bills means that these students will not be judged by their uncontrolled current immigration status, but rather by their character and their ability to contribute. Thank you for listening to me.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you, Abby. Did you submit written testimony?

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: No. I haven't.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. That's okay. But if you would like to, you can still do that.

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: Okay.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Online. Okay?

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: Okay. Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you very much. Anybody have questions? Representative Candelaria.

REP. CANDELARIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. If this bill was allowed to pass, how would this bill help you?



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: So I have cousins who are undocumented and -- well, many of my family members are and I can see that she struggles to pay for college because -- well, she goes to community college and she still has a hard time paying for it and she works at McDonald's and I try and help her sometimes to pay for college when she struggles.

And she comes home to me sometimes, like, crying and I can see that she, like, her -- her desperation for a need of money. And also trying to focus in school, too, is really hard for her because of this. Because she works a lot of -- a lot of hours.

So I think not only for my cousin, but I think will benefit for a lot of students because college is a lot of money, like we all know. And I think we'll benefit for a lot of students.

REP. CANDELARIA: Thank you for that answer. I fully agree with you.

ABIGAIL CARRILLO: Thank you.

REP. CANDELARIA: So it's a large cost. I have two of my own in college currently right now, so I know how much that is. So thank you for taking the time to testify.


SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. Thank you so much and thanks for sticking around. We appreciate it. It's important to hear from you. So thank you very much.


c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. And next, we have -- is Nadine Nieves here? Nadine is gone? Okay. How about Lucas?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Sorry. Madam Co-Chair, members of the committee, my name is Lucas Codonolla and I'm the lead coordinator of Connecticut Students for a Dream. I'm a recent UCONN graduate and I'm undocumented.

We, Connecticut Students for a Dream, urge the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee to support both bills under consideration today, House Bill 6844 and House Bill 6845.

We commend the Governor and his office for taking these steps to increase access to higher education for undocumented students.

We -- as an organization, we are a statewide organization of undocumented youth and allies and we seek to fight for the rights of undocumented youth and their families and empower them through community organizing leadership development and advocacy.

We support any legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in-state tuition through lowering the number of in-state residency requirement and the creation of an alternative to the FAFSA form that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

Connecticut Students for a Dream stands in support of House Bill 6844, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY, which would lower in-state resident requirements for -- for undocumented students from four years to two years. The 2011 legislation that granted instate tuition rates to undocumented students was an important first step towards increasing access to higher education.

Unfortunately, Connecticut remains a clear outlier in requiring that undocumented students complete four years of Connecticut High School in order to access in-state tuition. Out of the.19 states that have in-state tuition for undocumented students, no other state requires four years of -- of an in-state high school as a condition of receiving in-state tuition.

We've seen time and time students who have been in the country for most of their lives, but moved to Connecticut usually from New York State or other states around us, doing their high school years as either freshmen or sophomore, and these students will not qualify for in-state tuition, even though their American classmates in the same situation would.

H.B. 6844 will bring Connecticut policies more in line with other states that passed similar legislation.

We comment the Governor's office on his efforts to increase financial aid to undocumented students in House Bill 6845. This bill would establish a -- a student financial aid program through the New Haven Promise Fund that would provide merit-based aid to undocumented students and have the potential to make real

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

change in the lives of so many undocumented students who consider Connecticut their home.

However, we share a concern that this legislation, by focused on -- on merit-based aid, is not as inclusive as it could be. The proposal, as it stands now, overlooks some of Connecticut's neediest students, low-income students of color from immigrant families.

We urge the Legislature to consider expanding this legislation to include need-based (inaudible) assistance as well.

I know I'm running out of time, so I just wanted to say, through our organization, we've seen firsthand the difference education can make. And we urge the committee to consider bills that would sufficiently address our concerns of education equality for undocumented students. Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you. And Lucas, is this the -- your testimony?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Yes.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. So -- because it was signed Connecticut Students for a Dream, but we didn't have your name anywhere and I was just trying to figure out which --

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Yeah.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Lucas, thanks for hanging in there. It's been a long day.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

But I have a couple of questions I wanted to ask you.

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Mm-hmm.

SENATOR WITKOS: You testified -- actually answered part of it in your testimony, that most of the undocumented students are here for their entire lives.


SENATOR WITKOS: But then, you said something because I was going to say -- my question was going to be, well, why the need to reduce the high school requirement from four years to two. But then, you said that a large majority of the undocumented students come from New York to Connecticut in their freshmen/sophomore year.


SENATOR WITKOS: And so it's not applicable. But why is that, if you know, families would wait so long if most of the undocumented students have been raised in New York, wherever they came from for most of their lives, and it wasn't until the high school years where it seems to be the migration to Connecticut?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: I mean, I think it depends on the family. I think it's a family decision to move from Westchester County, let's say, to Fairfield County. I mean, I -- I think it could be different doctors. I don't I don't necessarily have, like, a right or a wrong answer, I would say.

In my experience, in in seeing students --in -- in seeing students moving from -- you know, in our organization, we have students who

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

came from New York and from other states and that's because of, you know, Connecticut has the highest standard of living and it's better for their families here than in the other states.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. And I asked a previous speaker, who was also undocumented and went to high school here and I'll ask you kind of along the same lines, did you -- you grew up in Connecticut?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: I did. Or I -- I moved from Brazil in 2000, I immigrated to the U.S. I lived in New York for a year and I was nine years old when I came to America.

I lived in New York for a year and I moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I've been there since then.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. So what -- what was it like for you when you turned 16? I always try to put myself in that situation. It's hard because I'm not in that situation, to say when -- when young people turn 16, I -- I think they want to run out and get a driver's license and go get a job.

And so that -- what was it like for you when you turned 16 if you wanted to do a couple of those things I mentioned?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Yeah. No. I -- for me, that was actually when I found out that I was undocumented. Or, better yet, I found out what undocumented really meant for me.

I was in the -- my birthday's in January. So in my group of friends, I was the first one to



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

turn 16. And so all my friends were, like, go get your license. Go get your permit.

And I sat down with my parents and they explained to me that I couldn't. And at that time, they also told me that I would not be able to go to college.

It was a really scary experience for me. We didn't have organizations like Connecticut Students for a Dream now to turn to and ask questions about what does it mean for an undocumented student to go to college, to access all these things?

And so for me, it was really scary. And, you know, if you look at it -- like, my transcript, when I turned 16, sophomore year, my -- my grades started going down because I started recognizing what it meant to be undocumented, being scared of my status, of -- of the future.

Yeah. And so for me, it was -- it was almost traumatic.

SENATOR WITKOS: And at Stamford High School, did you have a counselor or somebody that would -or your parents hook you up with somebody that would say, all right, well, this is your pathway to citizenship, to start applying, or what you need to do, or if you wanted to go and get a job, you have to apply to the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services to get a tax number, or to -- was there any services available like that or you just were so young you didn't really realize how to go about it?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: I thank God every day that I had a guidance counselor who was knowledgeable on the issue of immigrant students. So she was able to let me know that without a Social

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

Security, I could still go to college, which, to this day, in a lot of the community organizing efforts that we do, there's a lot of students out there that -- undocumented students who still believe that they cannot go to college.

And so my guidance counselor did let me know that I could go to college and, for me, that was great. I went to Norwalk Community College and then to UCONN.

In terms of sort of my immigration status and just my family status, we came here in 2000. With my parents, we came in through a tourist visa, but my parents always had the intention of staying.

And after 9/11 happened, all -- and, you know, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and all of that, the immigration system that we have in our country is -- is basically broken and it traps folks in -- in this undocumented status. So now, there -there isn't a -- a pathway to citizenship. There is no way for me to just apply to become a citizen.

And -- and that's the reality that we live in and that's why we have over 12 million undocumented folks in -- in America. Yeah.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. And my last question is, you testified in support of one of the bills that -- while I am a very -- I -- I think I'm supportive of the fact of allowing undocumented students to avail themselves of the funds on a need and merit system, I have concerns with the other one, where the New Haven Hope program, if that's the correct one, because -- and the reason why I have concerns, maybe you can tell



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

me your thoughts on this, is we defunded the Governor's partnership scholarships that you heard students testify here today in the budget. But yet, we took that money and moved it over to here.

So I struggle with how will we in the Legislature, taking away from one group and putting it into another group, because we feel that's the way to go and -- shouldn't it just be a merit need based for everyone?

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Yeah.

SENATOR WITKOS: Just some thoughts.

LUCAS CODONOLLA: I agree with you. I think it should be and, as an organization, what we ultimately want is to have all Connecticut high school students, regardless of their immigration status, be able to access financial aid to go to school.

And so yes. And -- and it's a little tricky. We commend the Governor for -- for thinking about undocumented students and creating a way for us to get financial aid.

But I -- I agree with you in that, you know, I think it's -- it would be better if we equalize sort of access for financial aid for everyone and we fight for them. We -- we can still have these funds and there's no more (inaudible).

SENATOR WITKOS: Yeah. I want to thank you very much for corning up and testifying today and for hanging in there. It's appreciated and your answers really help me in my thought process as we move the bills forward. Thank you.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: I want to echo what Senator Wickos said because you just -- your description of all of this and how even you could look to you your sophomore transcript and see the stress and the fear that you were under when you realized all of this. My heart just breaks.

So it's extremely helpful to us and I appreciate your sharing your very personal story. It -- it does mean a lot. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you so very much for being here.

LUCAS CODONOLLA: Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: And next, we have Junior Sierra. I think that's a Y, but maybe it's a J. Tell me your first name. Is it Junior?

JUNIOR SIERRA: Junior.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: It -- I'm sorry. This writing, it looked like a Y.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, esteemed members of -- of the committee. My name is Junior Sierra. I'm a senior in high school. I'm a dreamer. I'm undocumented, unafraid, and unashamed.

I'm here as a low-income student to testify in favor of Bill 6844 and Bill 6845. Today, I stand in front of you as one of thousands of students who will soon be graduating high school and forced into the statistic of only 5 to 10 percent of undocumented students who graduate each year that are allowed to get some form of higher education.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

That means that at the low spectrum, it's only 3,250 students out of 65,000 that graduate each year that go to some form of higher education. As things are, 95 to 90 percent of undocumented students are not able to go to college.

We are barred from getting student loans, a majority of scholarships, federal and state financial aid, and institutional aid. We are barred from accessing pools to which we contribute to.

Students may not qualify for in-state tuition because they arrive into the state a year too late. These students are paying up to three times the amount other students who qualify pay.

These students are contributing up to three times the amount in these pools of money, yet they don't have access to them. Not only are we forced to fund our education, but we are also forced to contribute to funding to education of those who do qualify.

My parents, as recipients of temporary permits of status after 1998's Hurricane Mitch have paid taxes, bought a home, bought cars, and contributed a lot to the state, as many other citizens. Yes, as their son, I am singled out and barred by the system, unlike my peers.

Moving these bills forward would allow for a step in. the right direction towards equality for all students. I stand in front of you all today as another student who will be -- who will not be able to afford to dream.

Over $300,000 are invested per student from K through 12. By barring students from continuing to higher education, not only are we

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

limiting students from achieving their dreams, but we are also limiting the state from having students continue to higher education and investing back to the state, permitting -permitting money loss across the spectrum.

By allowing these bills to move forward, we'll be allowing many undocumented students to go to college, to return and invest in the state of Connecticut. By allowing these bills to move forward, you would be -- you would allow me to study engineering, develop an invention I won multiple awards for in the science fair.

And, as the older brother, I would be -- you would be allowing me to empower my U.S. born brother and sister to go to college. By allowing these bills to pass, you would be allowing me an opportunity to prove that I am somebody and that a situation for which I have no control over define me and what I can and cannot do. Thank you for your time.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you, Junior. Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Junior, where do you go to school?

JUNIOR SIERRA: I got to the Center -- I go to Brien McMahon, which -- so I go to the Center for Global Studies in Brien McMahon.

SENATOR WITKOS: And where -- where is that?

JUNIOR SIERRA: So it's in Norwalk and what it is, it's a problem within -- it's a school within a school, where my education actually revolves around learning one of the three hardest categorized languages in the world, which, you know, are Japanese, Chinese Mandarin, and Arabic. I take Arabic.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR WITKOS: Good for you. And what -- what do you want to do when you get out of school?

JUNIOR SIERRA: I want to go to college. That's my main thing. And I definitely -- I want to -- I want to study engineering.

And the reason being is because my sophomore year, I entered the science fair in Norwalk and I won best in the fair with an invention. And the invention was an idea to allow disabled people access and more ability.

And then, I won at the state's -- I won a $20,000 scholarship, right, and I also won other awards because of this invention. And going to college to would give me the opportunity to be able to develop this invention, learn ways to further expand it and help other people out.

SENATOR WITKOS: I want to say I'm very proud of you for coming up here today. I think you're going to go far in life. Congratulations and good luck to you.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Thank you so much.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: And Junior, if you feel like sending us a little bio about your invention and -- and what you received from it, that's pretty cool. We would love to know that.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I will.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay? And --

REP. BETTS: And I -- I would -- thank you, Madam Chair. But I would certainly like to represent his interest. Not that I don't trust you, but

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

it's important to have a patent and copyright and --

JUNIOR SIERRA: Yeah.

REP. BETTS: We want to make sure he gets the full financial benefit of his genius.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. So don't give us the details. Just describe for us this contest, this invention, this scholarship. Because you know what? It's extremely impressive.

And for us to even be stifling your learning and your participation in, you know, our economic development of our state is shameful. So send me whatever you feel like sending me.

JUNIOR SIERRA: And

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: that story you

I'd like to be able to share anonymously.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Yeah. And, you know, one thing I do -- would also like to share, you know, it's also kind of going back to what Lucas said, right, how his sophomore year, his credit, his grades fell down, too, you know? And it's something that it evens happens to me.

And actually, back in December, I withdrew from school. Right? Because I hit that point where I realized that, you know, no matter what I did, you know, it was almost impossible for me to do it, especially when -- it hit me was when I was in math class and I had the highest grade in my class, right, and, you know, I'm there thinking, like, oh, man. I won't be able to afford college.



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

And then, in the back of the room, I hear a kid, you know, who is failing the class and he says, oh, it doesn't matter if I'm failing this class. I'm going to go -- he's, like -- he's like, once I get out here, I have enough credits to graduate, so I'll graduate and then I'll be able to go to college because I'm going to get financial aid.

And I'm sitting here and I realized at that moment that no matter how I tried, no matter how good my grades were, no matter how better I was than that student, I wasn't going to have more opportunities. Right?

And I think that's also another reason why I'm here. Because I would like the opportunity.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: All right. So now, I'm going to really insist that you stop and check with the Clerk and -- and find out how you can email us. Okay?

This is really important stuff. These personal stories are extremely important and just send us a little note, a recap. Because when we are trying to discuss this with our colleagues about why this legislation should pass, those are the really important stories that I would like to be able to share, if you wouldn't mind. Okay?


SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: So whatever you're comfortable sending to us. Any other questions? Comments?

SENATOR WITKOS: Junior, where are you from?

JUNIOR SIERRA: I'm from Honduras.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay. And you have U.S. born brothers and sisters you said?

JUNIOR SIERRA: Yes. And my parents actually have been legally in the country since 1998. However, I'm undocumented.

SENATOR WITKOS: Okay.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Right? And that•s -- you know, that•s kind of, like, back in 1998, Hurricane Mitch struck and all the American-built companies that my parents, you know, were working for were destroyed and they didn't want to rebuild.

So my parents were forced to come to the U.S. because they found themselves at a point ripping up their shirts and their clothing to make me clothing and diapers. So they left me in Honduras when I was about a year and a half old, right, and then I didn't see them for five years.

And I was in Honduras and because -- you know, because they said coming to the U.S. is going to be way too dangerous to bring, you know, a one-year-old baby. Right? However, when they got here, they received temporary permits of status because of the -- of the disaster.

And my parents spent, you know, those long five years trying to research and talked and spent hundreds and thousands of dollars talking to lawyers to see if they can bring me into the country legally. But since we were part of a low-income family in Honduras, we weren•t allowed to get visas. So they were forced to bring me into the country illegally.

SENATOR WITKOS: We're glad you•re here.



JUNIOR SIERRA: Thank you.

March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: You told us a little bit of that story the other night, didn't you?

JUNIOR SIERRA: Yeah.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: You did. Well, whatever you're willing to -- you know, to get us, again, and share with us would be wonderful. And I hope, I hope, I hope that you have a renewed sense of hope and -- and --

JUNIOR SIERRA: (Inaudible).

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Okay. Hang in there.

JUNIOR SIERRA: Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you.


SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: No? Okay. Thank you so much.

We now have Erika. Erika here? No? Yeah, actually she already was on another list. I think she was a duplicate.

Do we have Michael? No Michael. Right. Okay. How about Lina? Come on up, Lina.

That is the end of the list as far as what we have for anybody signed up. If there's anyone else wishing to speak, please stand up.

LINA HORWITZ: Good evening. Dear members of the Higher Education Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly, my name's Lina Horwitz. I am an ally of Connecticut Students for a Dream.

c

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

I stand in support of House Bill 6844, AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY, which would lower the residency requirement to be considered an in-state student from four years to two years.

I'm also in support of House Bill 6845, AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access of some financial aid for undocumented students.

I support legislation that takes vital steps toward education equality while making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including opening access to institutional and financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition on the creation of a state-level financial aid forum that would allow undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

How does the law as it stands affect the DACA students? They, as part of their requirements, need to be employed or be in school, in college. So it allows the students to have hope.

This is essential for mental health of the DACA students. It is essential to the ability to stay without fear of being forced to leave.

The students are motivated to do their college studies. This improves the variety of worldviews in colleges.

How does it affect documented students? Well, it rips apart long-standing friendships, teams,



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

clubs. It has a big effect on friendships developed over years.

One friend can receive financial aid and the other, who has attended school in Connecticut for years, cannot receive financial aid to pay for college. The friends will be separated by different levels of education. This is a shame.

Also, it is unskillful for the state to pay to educate students to teach them to read and write, do computations, and to stop there before they receive professional training and further education. We all know that a college education and training is essential to gaining good paying jobs and reaching one's potential.

Thank you for the chance to speak. I support House ~ill 6841 and House Bill 6845 and hope the committee will do the same.

We cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing about the lack of access to higher education for Connecticut students. These -- these bills are an investment in the future of Connecticut. These bills will improve high -- high school graduation rates and increase college graduation rates. Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you, Lina. Do we have questions? Senator Witkos.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you, Lina, for corning up today. I'll pose the same question to you that I -- I posed to Lucas. And that is, you heard other students today testifying on the Governor's partnership scholarship program, which lost all of its money in the current budget proposal.

c

c



March 12, 2015 1:30 P.M.

And this new program is being created, so we 're shifting dollars around. And -- and I'm I'm the one that believes that everything should be on a need and merit base for everybody. Everybody should be on the same playing field.

And I just wondered if you could -- would care to comment on that?

LINA HORWITZ: I would say that the playing field is not level. So any extra help that could be given to the undocumented students should be available to them.

SENATOR WITKOS: Thank you.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Anyone else? Well, thank you.

LINA HORWITZ: You're welcome.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: Thank you for sticking around to the very last speaker. You made some wonderful points and we appreciate your being here.

LINA HORWITZ: Thank you very much.

SENATOR BARTOLOMEO: And with that, we will now close the public hearing of the Higher Education Committee. Have a wonderful evening.

c

c

c

001096

UCDNNI UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee

March 12,2015

Testimony

By

Wayne Locust

Vice-President

Enrollment Planning & Management

Co-Chairs, Ranking Members, and Members of the Higher Education and Employment

Advancement Committee, thank you for allowing me to submit written testimony today on Hous~

Bill 6844, An Act Concerning In-State Tuition Eligibtiity.

The University of Connecticut supports this important legislation which increases access to

Connecticut's public colleges and universities. House Bill 6844 allows more students who do not

have federal immigration status to be eligible for in-state tuition at UConn, CSU or a Community

College. The bill reduces the number of years, from 4 to 2, that students have to attend a

Connecticut high school in order to be eligible for in-state tuition. The University looks forward to

welcoming these additional students to our campuses should the legislation pass.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and as always, thank you for your support of the

University of Connecticut.

1

c

c

c

001097

Dear Members of the Higher Education Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly:

My name is Jessica Manfredini, and I am an undocumented student and a member of the organization CT Students for a DREAM.! stand in support of the following two bills. House Bill 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students.

I support legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to, opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition, lowering of the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students, and creation of an alternative to the F AFSA that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

I was born in Brazil, but I came to United States at young age not only seeking opportunities but searching for the comforting embrace of a mother. Since the economy in my country was very weak and very poorly distributed my mother came to the United States to live the American Dream as many others did before. She left me with my father who always supported me in every way, however, as a teenager I needed the support of a mother. Adolescence was not an easy processes for me, I encountered many pressures along the way and the absence of a maternal figure worsened the process. My father and I were both emotionally affected by my mom's absence, and in a matter of time I developed a severe case of depression as described by my psychologist on that time. Tough I always prioritized school and my education, my grades were going down, I was demotivate and I honestly did not care if I lived or died. I felt like a victim of my own destiny until I came to the United States.

In America I found more than maternal affection, I found hopes and dreams where I could only see darkness. I had the opportunity to rebuild my life and for the first time I was given the freedom of expression and a freedom of choice which I never had before. This propitious environment restored the serenity in my mind and my heart. Once I was in peace with myself I could return my focus to my education. In High School I struggled with language and cultural barriers, however, it did not stop me from doing the best I could. Many times I had to stay over after school or lose my lunch period to get extra help. My determination paid off when I received my test scores and when I saw others asking me questions and wanting my help. Besides the educational setting, I also gave back to the community by joining Connecticut Students for a Dream, assisting on volunteering events and by providing food for those in need as the president of the club "fighting child hunger" in high school. Having the opportunity to study in the United States and geting involved with the community has been an amazing experience for me, but as I was about to graduate high school I came to realize that I had more obstacles ahead of me.

For me going to college is not a choice, it's a duty. I am very committed to get my bachelor's degree in Recreational Therapy. The fact that I was cured of my depression makes me want to help others on a clinical setting as I was helped in here through recreational activates I experienced in classroom. I believe that spiritual growth is only achieved through mutual assistance, based on that I want to be able to give back to this marvelous country. However, acquiring a higher education it is very expensive. As an undocumented student I do not get access to financial aid and since I only completed 3 years of high school in America I am required to pay out-of-state tuition. Therefore, I hereby give my testimony in favor of the mentioned bills. Those bills would positively impact my life by allowing me to afford my higher· education. Passing those bills would create the chance to help students like me: eager learn and willing to help community.

Thank you, Jessica Manfredini

______________________ .._ ________________ __j_._ __ ..

c

C-

c

001098

G.B.-6844 and G.B.-6845 --Senator Bartolomeo, Representative Willis, and members of the Committee on Higher Education and Employment Advancement,

My name is Adan Martinez, and I am a law student intern with the Worker and Immigrants Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. We represent Connecticut Students for a Dream, who have been working tirelessly since 2011 to ensure students across Connecticut access higher education regardless of immigration status. We are here today to empha~ize how vitally important it is that you end unequal access to higher education in Connecticut. Today there are students across the state who cannot go to college because they lack access to financial aid-bright students, hard-working students, students bursting with promise. But without financial aid, they cannot afford tuition at our state's public colleges and universities. They cannot further their education, earn their degree, enter the middle class, and fully contribute to Connecticut's economy. Connecticut must equalize access to aid regardless of immigration status and tear down the barriers that hold back these students and hamper Connecticut's economic growth.

No student should be denied the opportunity to attain higher education and contribute to their community because of their immigration status. Undocumented students are among the best and brightest Connecticut has to offer. Many have worked to support their families even while studying through high school, graduating as valued members of their school community. They play on teams, join clubs, sing in the choir, write for the school newspaper, and act in school plays. They have the potential to be future business and community leaders-some already are. That potential will be squandered, however, if we fail to ensure they have equal access to Connecticut's colleges and universities.

Not only does unequal access to education hurt these students, it hurts the state. These students want to use their education to establish meaningful lives here in Connecticut. They will become engines of economic growth, they will also bolster state tax revenue. A college degree translates to an average lifetime increase in taxes paid of more than $55,000. Providing students access to financial aid would give them the opportunity to make Connecticut a better place. This is particularly important given that Connecticut has already invested in the high school education of these students. Connecticut should benefit from that investment by allowing undocumented students to stay in Connecticut to pursue their degrees and build their lives.

This expansion is the natural next step after Connecticut granted undocumented immigrants equal access to in-state tuition in 2011. 19 other states have also equalized tuition rates, and a number of them have also equalized access to financial aid, including California, New Mexico, Washington, and Texas. We can look to these states for lessons while implementing it here in a way that fits Connecticut's particular character and needs.

While some state agencies may want to help all students succeed regardless of immigration status, they cannot act themselves. Congress has said that it is up to the state

c

c

c

001099

legislatures to take this kind of action. It is up to you, the members of the committee, and your colleagues to ensure equal access to education. Only you can act.

Governor Malloy's GB~and GB-~are important steps toward ensuring equal access to higher education. GB-6844 allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition after two years rather than four. Currently Connecticut's four-year requirement is the most conservative of the 19 states that grant in-state tuition to undocumented students. GB~sets aside funds to be used to aid undocumented students in paying for their educations. As important as these steps are, there is more we can do to for these students. Undocumented students should be able to access institutional aid as well as state aid. Though we support the steps proposed by the Governor, we believe it is important not to create a separate fund for undocumented students, but rather to give undocumented students the same access all students have to institutional and state financial aid. This is consistent with Senator Looney's recent proposal to grant undocumented students access to institutional aid. Additionally, we believe that the funds proposed by the Governor should not be merit based, but rather should be need and merit based to better equalize access to higher education. In this way, we can ensure that all Connecticut students have an equal opportunity to pursue their education.

Thank you,

Adan Martinez Law Student Intern, WIRAC, Yale Law School [email protected]

c

c

c

001100

At five years old, I immigrated from Mexico to New Haven, Connecticut because of my

parent's desire to strive for better opportunities. At first, their need was economic, but

with a family at hand, they eventually knew that education was a key to being successful.

Therefore, sending me to kindergarten was a head start for them. Fast forwarding a

decade later, high school was the era where I found myself passionate in music education.

This was inspired after the death of my middle school music teacher: John Miller, whose

dedication was to unveil hidden student talent; and I wanted to follow this philosophy.

In order to achieve this, I needed to pursue a higher education. By college application

season, my parents then acknowledged how education came with a high price, even with

the Dream Act Law enacted. To more of my disadvantage, citizenship status also deterred

me from opportunities such as scholarships as well as face hardships like discrimination

for not being a U.S. citizen-making college seem more of a burden than a dream.

Against these odds, I still made the commitment to become a student at the University

of Connecticut by working on campus on top with my parents working twice as hard

to pay this worthwhile expense. In any other event, the House Bill 6844 AN ACT

CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state

residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND

House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would

open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students can fundamentally help

me afford a degree that will then give me the opportunity to pass on the education as a

teacher to my students, and as parent to my future children. But in real time, the current

c

c

c

labor that my parents are putting towards me can then be divided for my sister, who will

also pursue a higher education this fall.

Sincerely,

Jesus Cortes-Sanchez

001101

c

c

c

001102


My name is Joseph Patrick Veloso, and I am a member of the organization CT Students for a DREAM. I stand in support of the following two bills. House Bill6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part ofwhich would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students.


I was born in the United States and I have lived my entire life in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. I am Filipino-American and grew up in a very traditional Filipino household. From my parents I was taught the significance of higher education for personal success. I grew up learning education can dictate one's social mobility in this society. For example, the chances of getting a good well paying job can be based on whether you have a Bachelors degree versus an Associate's degree or Doctorate degree versus a Masters degree. The type of degree you have attained from college or grad school, aside personal skills and experience, is crucial to acquiring a good job nowadays. This last Spring 2014, I graduated with Bachelors of Science in Public Health. Alongside my degree I left college with a little over 20k of loans. Despite the amount of money I owe, I was simply happy to have a degree to further my education and my work experience. The importance of a high education degree resonated with me so much that it saddens me to see money being the determining factor if a student will receive education or will not receive education. I became a member of CT Students for a DREAM to fight these inequalities of our education system. It is unfortunate our education system is second most expensive country in the world, second to Australia. With this fact being a living reality, everyone, including the undocumented students, should be entitled to financial support to receive higher education. This is why I am in support ofHB 6844 and HB 6845.

These bills are a way to meaningfully address the educational equality achievement gap in Connecticut. Our legislature has adopted a goal of closing this achievement gap and of fostering progress among low-income and limited English-proficient students. These bills would be a step in that direction. I support !ffi 6844 and HB 6845 and hope the committee will do the same. We cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing about the lack of access to higher education for all Connecticut students. Each year, hundreds of talented undocumented students graduate from Connecticut high schools with hopes of college attendance. These students cannot wait any longer; we must do what we can right now to help them achieve their dreams.

Thank you, Joseph Patrick Veloso

c

c

c

001103


My name is Stephanie Marquez and I am a member of the organization CT Students for a DREAM and a student at the University of Connecticut, pursuing Biomedical Engineering.

I stand in support of the following two bills. House Bill 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING INSTATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students.

I support legislation that takes vital steps toward~ education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to, opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition, lowering ofthe in-state residency requirement for undocumented students, and creation of an alternative to the F AFSA that allows undocumented stupents to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

I am originally from Peru and I came here when I was five years old. I have gone through the whole school system here in America and can honestly say that I identify myself as an American. I attended St. Augustine and Northwest Catholic High School. No one ever knew that I was an undocumented student, and that made my schooling a bit more stressful. It was as if I was in constant hiding, even though I would always be the best student in my class. All throughout school, we were taught that college was the next step, but when the time came it was as ifl had hit a brick wall. Everyone expected me to go to my number one college and receive a full ride, however I could not. It was very frustrating because I could not "afford to dream". My guidance counselor would offer me scholarship opportunities that I could not take. Everything seemed to come with a "Can Not". At Northwest I was the only student that was going through that at that time and I felt very alone. I would not wish that situation upon anyone. My education is very important to me and I want to achieve them to create a better life for my family and me.

As undocumented students, they do not have access to financial aid or certain scholarships. The 2011 legislation that granted in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students was an important first step towards increasing access to higher education. However, it is not enough, many immigrant students and their families remain unable to afford the high cost of tuition-whether at in-state or out-of-state rates. Lowering the residency requirements and extending financial aid to undocumented students is an investment in the future of Connecticut. Having a realistic path to college will result in improved high school graduation rates and increased college graduation. Further expanding access to higher education will increase state revenue, in the short term through tuition from new students and in the long term as the higher incomes of these college graduates translate to increased taxes each year.

Many students, including myself, have to work at least two jobs to be able to afford it. Most of the time when we are working two jobs we can only attend school part-time, which causes the number of years in school to be longer. Also, juggling the situation of being undocumented, working, and going to school can cause a lot of stress on a student. I cannot not be generalize, but for the most part many of the students that would benefit from this are amazing students that deserve to "Afford to Dream". The system already. pays for their schooling from K- 12th, so why stop now? The state does not want to spend money unnecessarily but the money they invested on these students is basically going to waste; towards nothing.

I support HB 6844 and HB 6845 and hope the committee will do the same. We cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing about the lack of access to higher education for Connecticut students. Each year, hundreds of talented undocumented students graduate from Connecticut high schools with hopes of college attendance. These students cannot wait any longer; we must do what we can right now to help them achieve their dreams.

Thank you, Stephanie M Marquez

c

c

c

March 12, 2015

001104

Connecticut Students for a Dream Empower. Educate. Advocate.

Dear Madam Co-Chair and Esteemed Members of the Committee:

We, Connecticut Students for a Dream, urge the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee to support both bills under consideration today: House Bill {?844 and House Bill 6845. We commend the Governor and his office for taking these steps to increase access to higher education for undocumented students.

Connecticut Students for a Dream has been actively working on higher education access and equality since our founding as an organization. We are a statewide organization of undocumented youth and allies that seek to fight for the rights of undocumented youth and their families and empower them through community organizing, leadership development, and advocacy.

We support any legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to, opening access to institutional and state fmancial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition through lowering of the instate residency requirement, and creation of an alternative to the F AFSA that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to fmancial aid.

Many undocumented Connecticut high school students hope to pursue higher education. Unfortunately, many are unable to achieve this dream because they are ineligible for all federal and state need-based fmancial aid, and may also fall short of the requirements for in-state tuition. Without access to fmancial aid and in-state tuition, higher education remains out of reach for many low-income, deserving students. These bills would address these concerns.

Connecticut Students for a Dream stands in support of House Bill6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY, which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from 4 years to 2 years. The 2011 legislation that granted in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students was an important first step toward increasing access to higher education. Unfortunately, Connecticut reinains a clear outlier in requiring that undocumented students complete four years of Connecticut high school in order to access in-state rates. Out of the 19 states that have in-state tuition for undocumented students, no other state requires four years of in-state high school as a condition of receiving in-state tuition .. We've seen time and time again students who have been in the country for most of their lives, but moved to CT,

c

c

c

usually from New York State during their high schools years as either a freshman or sophomore. These students would not qualify for in-state tuition, even though their American classmates in the same situation would. HB 6844 will bring Connecticut policies more in line with the other states that passed similar legislation and give many more Connecticut students the ability to afford college.

001105

We commend the Governor's office on his efforts to increase financial aid to undocumented students in House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION. This bill would establish a student financial aid program through the New Haven Promise Fund that would provide merit-based aid to undocumented students and has the potential to make real change in the lives of so many undocumented students who consider Connecticut their only home. However, we share a concern that this legislation, by focusing on only merit-based aid, is not as inclusive as it could be. The proposal as it stands now, overlooks some of Connecticut's neediest students -low-income students of color from immigrant families. We urge the legislature to consider expanding this legislation to include need-based assistance as well.

We understand that this could be a stumbling block as the F AFSA that is commonly used within institutions to calculate a student's need is not sufficient to determine need for undocumented students due to their lack of a social security number. However, We firmly believe that there is a cost-efficient way to include need-based aid, which will allow this legislation to reach an even greater number of students and truly begin addressing the barriers to higher education for undocumented students. Other states have successfully addressed this concern and have implemented an alternative form to the FAFSA.

Through our organization's "College Access Program" and our work to help students achieve their dream of going to college, we've seen firsthand the difference that an education can make in a student's life, and consider it our duty to expand higher education access for all Connecticut high school students. We urge the committee to consider and favorably vote on bills that will sufficiently address our concerns of educational equality for undocumented Connecticut students.

CT Students for a Dream

www.CT 4aDream.org

c

c

c

!\{arch 12, 2015

Dear Madam Co-Chair and Esteemed Members of the Conm1ittee:

001106 ,01 g) L I -,'l.e J 0 ,J

My name is Alison Martinez-Carrasco. I live in Windsor Locks, Connecticut and I am a member of the organization CT Students for a DREAM I stand in support of the following two bills. House Bill No. 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to two years. And House Bill No. 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students. I arrived to the United States at the age of four from Ecuador. During my first five years of residing in Connecticut I went through the Hartford school public system. Afterwards, I migrated to Windsor Locks for the rest of my primary and secondary education. I am fortunate to have been able to move and place myself in a better school system. This is an opportunity that minorities do not usually get. We are usually placed in an urban area where the education we receive is not the best. At a young age I realized that in that perspective I was privileged and had to make the best out of this opportunity. I felt that nothing could stop me from being the first person in my family to go to college and have a career. But I was wrong. As I got older I learned what it meant to be an undocumented student. While researching how I could be admitted into college I learned that Connecticut did not welcome my pursuit of a higher education because like many undocumented students I was shut out of many scholarships and financial aid. Despite these circumstances I found the courage to apply to several schools, and when I got accepted to the University of Connecticut it reinforced that Connecticut is where I belong. While in my freshman year at UConn I paid out-of-state tuition because the CT Dream Act had not passed yet, and when it did I felt it raised hope that I would actually be able to finish school. But as years progressed it got harder to pay tuition. I expected to earn my degree in Urban and Community Studies this year. But my road to graduation has been slower than my classmates because of the financial barriers I face as an undocumented student. I realized that the CT Dream Act was not enough.

Despite working two jobs I constantly worry about not being able to pay for school anymore. I have been shut out of applying for institutional aid due to Connecticut not having an alternative to FAFSA for undocumented students to show need. I have paid an estimated 23,000 dollars into my college tuition these past four years which means that I have paid into the pot of money that makes up institutional aid. As a working class immigrant I should have the equal opportunity to apply for such aid. What keeps me from giving up on g~aduating from Connecticut is the time that I volunteer to make my home state a better place. Through my volunteer work, I see the change that I could bring, and a degree in Urban and Community studies will help me make even more change. I have also dedicated time to work with CT Students for a DREAM where I am also motivated by other undocumented students that do not give up hope that one day their human right to an education will be supported, and that is why I am testifying in support of legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to, opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition through lowering of the in-state residency requirement, and creation of an alternative to the F AFSA that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

Thank you,

Alison Martinez-Carrasco

c

c

c

001107

To the Members of the Higher Education Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly:

My name is Kenneth Reveiz, and I am a member of the organization CT Students for a DREAM. I am also an active member of the Democratic Town Committee in New Haven and a Key Leader in New Haven Rising. I have spent countless mornings and nights knocking on doors, registering voters, mobilizing volunteers, and getting out the vote.

I stand strongly and proudly in support of the following two bills: House Bill 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND House Bill 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students. .

I support legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality by making higher education more accessible for undocumented students, including but not limited to: opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students; broadening the number of students eligible for in-state tuition; lowering the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students; and creating an alternative to F AFSA, one that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

My parents immigrated to the United States from Colombia in the late 1980s. Supported by their love and support and because of my hard work and persistence, I won a full scholarship to Yale University and graduated in 2012. I am an agent of change in my neighborhood, and am responsible for a huge boom of civic engagement in my city. I have translated a full-length book of poetry from French to English, and have educated hundreds of New Haven residents in everything from cooking to communitybased policing to voting rights to art therapy. I have seen first hand how access to financial aid changed my life.

It is, without a shadow of a doubt, in the best economic and cultural interest of our great state to sign into law and graciously implement HB 6844 and HB 6845. Connecticut has garnered municipal and national attention for leading on the minimum wage, paid sick days, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. It behooves us to add college affordability -for all -to our impressive list of accomplishments. The bills in question are one more important footstep forward trailblazing the path that other states should follow. We will be proud to say "Connecticut is a leader in education equity for immigrant youth."

When you invest in the education of someone who knows what it means to struggle, to persist, to work hard, to innovate, and to dream, they prove you right. They thank you. They return the favor twofold. By allowing Connecticut's youth to Afford to Dream, you do yourself and our state a great favor. I am sure ofthis, because I have invested in my family at CT Students for a DREAM. At C4D, in New Haven, and across the country, I have met countless immigrant youth who are brilliant, talented, passionate, generous, and hilarious. They deserve the same educational and economic opportunities that I had, and more. They can give back as much as I have given back, and more.

I thank the leadership of the CGA and the State for your very important work. I end my testimony in support of these bills, and with hope that Connecticut will continue to lead.

Thank you, Kenneth Reveiz

c

c

c

Chairman Richard A. Cruz Vice-Chair Elena Trueworthy Secretary Emanuela Palmares Leaf Treasurer Yolanda Castillo

Commissioners: Ramon L. Arroyo Migdalia Castro Ana Gonzalez Jay Gonzalez George Hernandez Dr. Agnes Quinones Ruben Rodriguez Dr. Eugene M Salorio PabloSoto Feny Taylor Danny Torres

Executive Director Werner Oyanadel

Special Projects Director Lucia GoicoecheaHerruindez

Associate Legislative Analyst Orlando Rodriguez

Senior Legislative Secretary Clarisa Cardone

State of Connecticut Latino and Puerto Rican

Affairs Commission

Testimony of Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director of LPRAC before the Higher Education Committee Thursday, March 12,2015 1:30PM in Room IE of the LOB In Support ofHB6844 and HB 6845

001108 pa.~ tf; /.,;/1-e_ I 3 I

18-20 Trinity Street Hartford, CT 06106 Tel. (860) 240-8330 Fax (860) 240-031j

E-Mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.cga.etgov/lorac

Senator Bartolomeo, Representative Willis, and distinguished members of the Higher Education & Employment Advancement Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly (CGA); my name is Werner Oyanadel, Executive Director of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (LPRAC). I am here to speak in support of the Governor's Bills HB6844 and HB6845.

We, at LPRAC, applaud the Governor for proposing to set aside $150,000 in FY16 and $300,000 in FY17 from the Governor's Scholarship program for a merit-based grant available to students that lack immigration status Governor's Biii No. 6845). The Governor's office is currently working with New Haven Promise as the e y a 1strator of this merit-based grant program because of their track record of administering a similar grant program for New Haven students, including undocumented New Haven residents. This grant program will be available to undocumented students with Connecticut residency attending public institutions of higher education in Connecticut- again LPRAC supports this recommendation and urges the Higher Education to do so too.

LPRAC also supports the Governor's recommendation to reduce the requirements for instate tuition rates from four years to two years of high school in Connecticut (i.e., governor's Bill No. 6844) which based under Public Act 11-43, a person regardless of immigration status qualifies for in-state tuition if he or she (1) resides in Connecticut; (2) attended any educational institution in the state and completed at least four years of high school here; (3) graduated from a high school in Connecticut, or the equivalent; and (4) is registered as an entering student, or is currently a student at, UConn, a Connecticut State University, a community-technical college, or Charter Oak State College. Students without legal immigration status, who meet the above criteria, must file an affidavit with the college stating that they have applied to legalize their immigration status or will do so as soon as they are is eligible to apply. Currently, such students who apply for student visas or lawful permanent resident status are subject to deportation under federal law. Thus, they are not eligible to apply to legalize their status unless federal law is amended to allow them to do so.

Extending in-state tuition status to people without legal immigration status who reside in Connecticut and meet certain criteria according to the Office of Fiscal Analysis of the Connecticut General Assembly is not anticipated to result in a fiscal impact to the constituent units of higher education. The University of Connecticut and the Connecticut State University System have policies to adjust the ratio of in-state to out-of-state students and therefore can make charging in-state tuition to persons without legal immigration status who reside in Connecticut revenue neutral. The Regional Community-Technical Colleges currently have no such persons paying out-of-state tuition and therefore it is anticipated charging in-state tuition would result in no fiscal impact.

c

c

c

SENATOR MARTIN M. LOONEY PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

Eleventh District

'JV!,w Haven, 1-famden & Njph Haven

March 12, 2015

~tatr of Q:onnecticut SENATE

001109

State Capitol Hartford, Connecticut 06106-1591

132 Fort Hale Road New Haven, Connecticut 06512

Home: 203-468-8829 Capitol: 860-240-8600

Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420

www.SenatorLooney.cga.ct.gov

Good Morning Sen. Bartolomeo, Rep. Willis and Members of the Higher Education and

Employment Advancement Committee. I am here to testify in support of HB 6844 AN ACT

CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY and HB 6845 AN ACT

IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR

CONCERNING ffiGHER EDUCATION.

In 2011 the Connecticut General Assembly passed PA 11-43 which allows students who

are in the federal government's deferred action for childhood arrivals program (DACA) and met

certain additional criteria to pay in-state tuition at our colleges. That legislation was

compassionate, fair, and pragmatic. Allowing DACA students to qualify for the in-state tuition

rate has assisted many students in their pursuit of higher education. Many others, however, are

still unable to afford the costs of higher education without fmancial assistance.

HB 6844 would change the qualification criteria for in-state tuition from four years in

Connecti~ut schools to two. This is in line with the requirements in other states. HB 6845

creates a fmancial aid program for these students at our state colleges and universities. It

allocates $150,000 in the fiscal year ending in June 2016 and $300,000 in the fiscal year ending

in June 2017 to New Haven Promise which will administer a merit based financial aid program

with this allocation. This legislation takes a different tack than SB 398 AN ACT ASSISTING

c

c

c

001110

STUDENTS ACCEPTED INTO THE DEFERRED ACTION FOR CHILDHOOD ARRIVALS

PROGRAM WITH THE COST OF COLLEGE which you heard last month but both would

represent equally good public policy.

Many of these students have lived in our state for virtually their entire lives; they are our

neighbors and our children's friends and classmates. They are also a significant part of

Connecticut's future. Students who attain degrees from public universities and colleges in

Connecticut are more likely to build careers in Connecticut. Connecticut has had a significant

out-migration of young people (ages 18-34). It is widely accepted that university attendance in a

particular state increases the likelihood that students will remain in that state upon graduation.

However, the cost of attending Connecticut's public colleges and universities has been

increasing dramatically which can adversely affect students' ability to further their education.

The provision of financial assistance would ensure that more young people will have the

opportunity to attend college and succeed. Terri Carbaugh, the Vice Chancellor of the California

Commurity College system, stated that "The higher the number of degree-holders living in our

state, the more likely we are to meet future workforce demands." She is correct; we must do all

we can to create a workforce that is attractive to businesses. California is one of the states which

already has a law similar to what is being proposed for Connecticut.

College graduates generally pay much more in taxes than those without degrees and they

are six times more likely to have a job. In addition, the jobs tend to be higher paying for the

college educated, who are less likely to commit crimes or seek government assistance of any

kind. This legislation will increase the number of future taxpayers, thus reducing the overall

burden on families. Thank you for attention to this important issue.

c

c

c

001111

GB-6845

Dear Co-Chairs Bartolomeo and Willis, and the Members of the Higher Education Committee,

My name is Cristian L.; I have lived in New Haven for 5 years. I attended one year of

high school in my Mexico before I came to the United States. I had to stop attending high school

for financial reasons. Although upon arriving in the United States, I had work instead of

attending high school, I am now pursuing my G.E.D. The work I was able to find at fourteen

years old, when I first came to the U.S., was working 12-hour night shifts at a grocery store and

restaurant in New Haven. The owner of that store has since been found by a Connecticut

Department of Labor investigation to have committed wage theft. I was one ofthe workers

whose wages the owner stole. You will understand that I would have preferred to be in school.

I have dreams of one day owning my own business, and for that reason I would love to

attend college in Connecticut to study business administration. Unfortunately college is very

expensive, and without access to financial aid I would not be able to attend. I am in the process

of pursuing aU-Visa, which would provide me with a path towards citizenship, and eventually

allow me to access financial aid. I am told, however, that the U-Visa process can be very slow

and I would love to attend college as soon as I complete my G.E.D. I have many responsibilities

beyond paying for my own rent, transport, and books including supporting my parents who

depend on me for a financial contribution. Because of these responsibilities I simply cannot

attend college without access to financial aid.

Ifi could attend college my future will be different in two respects. First, ifl attend

college I am certain that I would be able to make more money, to support my family and myself

and have a better life here in Connecticut. Second, college would allow me to realize my dreams

c

c

c

001112

of owning my own business. I would love to have the independence of being my own boss and

having the freedom of making my own ideas a reality. I know that I could be a successful

business owner, but I also know that studying finance, management, accounting and other

subjects will be essential to my success.

The proposed bill before the Higher Education Committee GB 6845, that would grant me

access to financial aid, would allow me to realize these dreams. I love Connecticut, I love New

Haven, and I want to give back to this community. With access to financial aid I could get an

education that will let me give back as much as I possibly can. Please pass GB 6845.

Sincerely,

Cristian L.

c

c

c

001113

--~~~~~!~--~-------• 95 Park Street, Hartford, CT 06106 • (860) 247-3227 • ['A. f(N 0 • www.ctprf.org • email: [email protected] •

PROGRESS

March 12,2015 . Dear Members of the Higher Education Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly:

I, Yanil Ter6n stand in support ofH.B. No. 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY. And H.B. No. 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATION. As representative of Center for Latino Progress - CPRF I write to ask for your support in granting undocumented students access to financial aid at Connecticut universities and colleges on the same terms and conditions as other Connecticut students. We understand that the General Assembly is currently working on addressing this issue and we urge you to consider legislation that will open up access to financial aid to as many students as possible and also expand the number of students that are able to access in state tuition to be more inclusive. We support legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality including opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition and creation of an alternative to the F AFSA that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

Many undocumented Connecticut high school students hope to pursue higher education. Unfortunately, many are unable to achieve this dream because they are ineligible for all federal and state need-based financial aid, and may also fall short of the requirements for in-state tuition. The 201 I legislation that granted in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students was an important first step toward increasing access to higher education. Unfortunately, Connecticut remains a clear outlier in requiring that undocumented students complete four years of Connecticut high school in order to access in-state rates. No other state requires four years of in-state high school as a condition of receiving in-state tuition, and many immigrant students and their families remain unable to afford the high cost of tuition-whether at in-state or out-of-state rates. Without access to financial aid and instate tuition, higher education remains out of reach for these Connecticut residents.

Extending financial aid and in-state tuition to undocumented students is an investment in the future of Connecticut. A realistic path to college for these students will result in improved high school graduation rates and increased college matriculation. Further, expanding access to higher education will increase state revenue, in the short term through tuition from new students and in the long term as the higher incomes of these college graduates translate to increased taxes each year.

All students deserve access to higher education, which is increasingly necessary in today's economy and for Connecticut's fastest-growing jobs. Opening financial aid to undocumented students is one way to meaningfully address the pressing need for educational equality in Connecticut, which unfortunately is the state with the worst achievement gap in the country. Our legislature has adopted a goal of closing this achievement gap and of fostering progress among low-income and limited English-proficient students. Enabling access to higher education for undocumented students, who are often low-income and people of color, will help Connecticut meet its statutory mandate and increase racial and socioeconomic diversity in the state's colleges and universities.

We cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing about the lack of access to higher education. Each year, hundreds of talented undocumented students graduate from Connecticut high schools with hopes of college attendance. These students cannot wait any longer; we must do what we can right now to help them achieve their dreams. Tl'\ese simple policy changes will not only help ensure a more prosperous Connecticut economy, but also make a meaningful difference in the lives of many current and future students in Connecticut.

I support }LB. No. 6844 and H.B. No. 6845 and hope the committee will do the same, hope that the Connecticut General Assembly will address this urgent problem.

c

c

c

001114

UCONN UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Re: Bouse Bills 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY and 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE

- GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and members of the Committee,

My name is Mark Overmyer-Velazquez, I am an Associate Professor of History and Director of the Institute of Latino, Caribbean, and Latin American Studies at the University of Connecticut.

I also volunteer in an elected political position as Chairman of the West Hartford Board of Education.

My roles as a town official and university professor have allowed to me appreciate the support the state of Connecticut has done for education from pre-kindergarten through university and how difficult a task it is to pass a balanced budget. But we need to do more to support all our students in public education. We need to continue to be national leaders on this vital issue for our children, our students, and the overall health of our state.

I have the honor of working alongside undocumented students as a researcher and teacher at UConn. These students: Charlie, Jorge, Emilia, Paula and many others are among the hardest working and most diligent I have had the pleasure to teach in my 11 years at UConn. Passionate and determined, they deserve the same opportunities their fellow Connecticut students receive without a second thought.

Providing access to our most committed students not only is the right thing to do ethically, it is also the best choice economically: as our state works to retain its college graduates and create a welcoming environment for new immigrants, efforts such as House Bills 6844 and 6845 are a step in the right direction.

I encourage you to support House Bills 6844 and ~and continue to be national leaders in education by supporting all of our Connecticut students equally, student residents that add so much to our communities and state as a whole.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

I" '~ ') /'1/':;A/ -"'

'? 4_ 4~-~ Mark Overmyer-Velazquez Director, El Institute; Associate Professor of History [email protected] Ellnstituto: Institute of Latina/o, Caribbean, & Latin American Studies

c

c

c

001115


I, Luis Recoder-Nuf'iez stand in support ofH.B. No. 6844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY. And H.B. No. 6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATION

As a resident offfle town of New Britain, I write to ask for your support in granting undocumented students access to financial aid at Connecticut universities and colleges on the same terms and conditions as other Connecticut students. I understand that the General Assembly is currently working on addressing this issue and we urge you to consider legislation that will open up access to financial aid to as many students as possible and also expand the number of students that are able to access in state tuition to be more inclusive. I support legislation that takes vital steps towards education equality including opening access to institutional and state financial aid to undocumented students, broadening the number of students eligible for in state tuition and creation of an alternative to the FAFSA that allows undocumented students to get fair and equal access to financial aid.

Many undocumented Connecticut high school students hope to pursue higher education. Unfortunately, many are unable to achieve this dream because they are ineligible for all federal and state need-based financial aid, and may also fall short of the requirements for in-state tuition. The 2011 legislation that granted in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students was an important first step toward increasing access to higher education. Unfortunately, Connecticut remains a clear outlier in requiring that undocumented students complete four years of Connecticut high school in order to access in-state rates. No other state requires four years of in-state high school as a condition of receiving in-state tuition, and many immigrant students and their families remain unable to afford the high cost of tuition-whether at in-state or out-of-state rates. Without access to financial aid and in-state tuition, higher education remains out of reach for these Connecticut residents.

Extending financial aid and in-state tuition to undocumented students is an investment in the future of Connecticut. A realistic path to college for these students will result in improved high school graduation rates and increased college matriculation. Further, expanding access to higher education will increase state revenue, in the short term through tuition from new students and in the long term as the higher incomes of these college graduates translate to increased taxes each year.

All students deserve access to higher education, which is increasingly necessary in today's economy and for Connecticut's fastest-growingjobs. Opening financial aid to undocumented students is one way to meaningfully addresses the pressing need for educational equality in Connecticut, which unfortunately is the state with the worst achievement gap in the country. Our legislature has adopted a goal of closing this achievement gap and of fostering progress among lowincome and limited English-proficient students. Enabling access to higher education for undocumented students, who are often low-income and people of color, will help Connecticut meet its statutory mandate and increase racial and socioeconomic diversity in the state's colleges and universities.

We cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing about the lack of access to higher education. Each year, hundreds of talented undocumented students graduate from Connecticut high schools with hopes of college attendance. These students cannot wait any longer; we must do what we can right now to help them achieve their dreams. These simple policy changes will not only help ensure a more prosperous Connecticut economy, but also make a meaningful difference in the lives of many current and future students in Connecticut.

c

c

c

001116

I support H. B. No. 6844 and H. B. No. 6845 and hope the committee will do the same, hope that the Connecticut General Assembly will address this urgent problem.

Yours truly, Luis Recoder-Niiiiez

c

c.

c

March 12,2015

Meghan Vesel 139 Elm Street Apt. 8

West Haven, CT 06516 meghanvese!CW.global.t-bird.edu

Via email: [email protected]


001117

My name is Megh\ln Vesel, and I have had the privilege of working with the immigrant community in Connecticut since September 2012.

I am a strong supporter of two bills: House Bil16844 AN ACT CONCERNING IN-STATE TUITION ELIGIBILITY which would lower the in-state residency requirement for undocumented students from four years to 2 years. AND House Bill6845 AN ACT IMPLEMENTING THE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GOVERNOR CONCERNING HIGHER EDUCATION, part of which would open up access to some financial aid for undocumented students.


As the former deputy director of the Brazilian Immigrant Center, I had the pleasure and privilege of working with Connecticut's domestic workers, primarily in Bridgeport. As part of our work to encourage civic engagement in the immigrant community, the BIC collaborated with CT Students for a Dream. The dreamers provided training in civic engagement and legislative advocacy to domestic workers, many of whom are mothers of dreamers. The domestic workers themselves work extremely hard, pay taxes with the hope that their children will have access to higher education. Because the CT dreamers are exemplary in their work to investing in their own community and the broader community in our state, HB 6844 and,6845 will make public higher education more accessible to a group that has already demonstrated that they will succeed, prosper and also contribute to Connecticut's economy. These legislative initiatives make sense as college graduates make higher incomes and therefore pay more state income taxes. HB 6844 and 6845 represent an investment in the future of Connecticut's immigrant students who are destined to be high social contributors and community leaders. Our state needs their contributions, and their contributions can only be cultivated through broader educational opportunities. Expanded access to educational is a both a matter of social and economic justice and social investment in a group in our community whose families have already proven their outstanding contributions to our state.

The 20 I I legislation that granted in-state tuition rates to some undocumented students was an important first step towards increasing access to higher education. However, it is not enough, many immigrant students and their families remain unable to afford the high cost of tuition-whether at in-state or out-of-state rates. Lowering the residency requirements and extending financial aid to undocumented students is an investment in the future of Connecticut. Having a realistic path to college will result in improved high school graduation rates and increased college graduation Further, expanding access to higher education will increase state revenue, in the short term through tuition from new students and in the long term as the higher incomes of these college graduates translate to increased taxes each year.

These bills are a way to meaningfully addresses the educational equality achievement gap in Connecticut, which unfortunately is the state with the worst achievement gap in the country. Our

c

c

c

001118

legislature has adopted a goal of closing this achievement gap and of fostering progress among lowincome and limited English-proficient students. These bills would be a step in that direction.

I support HB 6844 and HB 6845 and urge the committee to do the same. Help make the dreams of the dreamer mothers and their children a reality in Connecticut.

Cordially,

Meghan Vesel

c

c

c

~~GOODWIN - -COLLEGE ._,-,...

Testimony of Goodwin College in Opposition to H.B.6845

001119

An Act Implementing The Budget Recommendations of the Governor Concerning Higher Education.

Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee- Thursday March 12, 2015

Goodwin College, a private non-profit higher educational institution, located in East Hartford, CT with over 3,500 students coming from 132 Connecticut cities and towns strongly opposes H.B. 6845, AAC The Budget Recommendations ofthe Governor Concerning Higher Education. The average age of our students is 29 years old many returning to college after a false start years before. Goodwin students are +70% female and 47% persons of color.

Specifically the concern of the bill is the portion that statutorily removes the ability of new students at Connecticut's independent colleges and universities from receiving funds from the Governor's Scholarship Program.

Many of our students are of borderline poverty status and in a typical year it is not uncommon that approximately one-third of Goodwin Students and their families are categorized in the "0-0" Expected Family Contribution (EFC) range, meaning they have no assets to help off-set the cost of their college education. Accordingly, the Governor's Scholarship Program is critical to those students ability to begin and sustain in their quest for a college education.

On average, in the past two years, Goodwin College students have received approximately $1.5M per year from the Governor Scholarship Program. In the year 2013-14, some 1571 Goodwin students received Governor Scholarship Funding and in 2014-15 that number dropped to 1393 students. The average award during those periods was $1,145. While that number doesn't appear to be significant it may represent the ability either to enter or finish a college education for a needy student.

Many of our students receive public assistance through food stamps, housing assistance and other publicly funded programs. For many, getting an education is their path to self-sufficiency and gaining their independency from public support.

Goodwin and its students strongly urge that the CT General Assembly in its deliberations continue to allow CT's private college's and universities continued access to the Governor's Scholarship Program for its students.

Contact: Gary Minor Senior Director, College Relations Goodwin College (O) 860-727-6733 (M) 860-471-0379

2015_PA82_HB6844.pdf - Connecticut State Library

Documents

Transcript of 2015_PA82_HB6844.pdf - Connecticut State Library