Despite significant protests from Republican lawmakers, the State Senate yesterday voted 28-8 to approve Gov. Ned Lamont’s proposed extension of the state’s emergency response fund, which was created last November to counter federal funding cuts. 

“This emergency funding has been a collaborative process with the state legislature, and over the last several months it has been used judiciously and carefully to ensure that programs supporting basic needs – such as food and nutrition assistance, healthcare services, homelessness prevention and response, mental health services, and other health and human services programs – remain available and aren’t suddenly and cruelly terminated without warning,” said Lamont. “Here in Connecticut, we will stand with our residents to ensure they have the basic assistance and support they need.”

Created in response to Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the original emergency fund allocated $500 million of the state’s surplus funds for the use of countering federal cuts to state social programs. Thus far, the state has spent approximately $169.2 million for purposes such as the offsetting of premium hikes caused by the temporary expiration of the ACA enhancements, as well as announced federal cuts to SNAP and HUD programs. The $330.8 million in remaining funds were originally set to be reallocated to the state’s Reserve Fund yesterday, but if Lamont’s extension is approved by the House today, it will instead remain on hand to be used for any future federal cuts until June 20, 2027.

“We just never know what we’re waking up to,” said Sen. Bob Duff (D-Norwalk). “And that is really the crux of the issue, is that it’s hard to plan, it’s hard to make decisions about everything that we want to do, when sometimes we hear the news in the morning or we see a tweet or something else, and there now may be cuts to something that we didn’t know about.”

Republicans criticized extending the fund on the argument that it vested too much spending authority in the hands of the Governor with too little oversight, violating the state government’s separation of powers. Sen. Rob Sampson (R-Wolcott) called it a “slush fund,” and also shared doubts on whether or not the current situation in Washington was worthy of being considered an emergency.

“We are witnessing, not an emergency government, we’re witnessing convenience government,” said Sampson. “It’s much more convenient to slap the emergency label on this bill and bring it in here and jam it down our throats.”

Minority Leader Stephen Harding (R-Brookfield) said that while he agreed with the disbursement of funds for the purpose of offsetting ACA subsidies, and said he appreciated that he had the ability to object to the funds disbursement over the past few months, that lawmakers agreed to the original measure with the understanding that it would be a temporary measure that would expire when legislators reconvened.

“When this Fund was established, it was established to expire, and we all agreed upon that,” said Harding. “So it makes me think and question; Is this just a mechanism by which we can utilize more money to get around the spending cap?”

Republicans offered three separate amendments to the bill; Sampson proposed an amendment which would convert the remaining $330 million into income tax refunds for residents, Sen. Jeff Gordon (R-Woodstock) proposed an amendment which would require both houses to vote in approval before any funds could be disbursed, and Sen. Paul Cicarella (R-North Haven) proposed that any release of funds require detailed reporting mechanisms. All three amendments were voted down on party lines.

Martin Looney (D-New Haven), Senate President Pro Tempore, argued that even if many of the expected funding shortfalls did not ultimately come to pass, the “fear and discomfort and unease” caused by back-and-forth messaging over what cuts may be coming out of Washington over the past several months “shows us that this extension is, if anything, more necessary than the original adoption was in mid-November.”

“That very week, just prior to our vote, we had seen the Trump administration take about four different positions on SNAP,” said Looney. “As to whether or not the benefits would be paid, or whether or not a federal court decision would be respected or appealed, whether states might be penalized for filling in at the time beyond the 65% that the Trump administration put out there as another option.”

“How do you plan when all of these things are out there?” asked Looney. “You don’t know which ones will turn out to be threats and which ones will turn out to be actual.”

Three of the 28 votes in favor of the bill were cast by Republican Senators Tony Hwang (Fairfield), Heather Somers (Groton) and Jason Perillo (Shelton). If passed by the House of Representatives, which is composed of 102 Democrats and 49 Republicans, the bill will then be officially passed and signed into law by the Governor.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.