Assembly Live Stream

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you I Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We be right back Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

of Tuesday, June 2nd. Mr. Fowler. Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Tuesday, June 2nd,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm honored today to be with members of my family that have come to visit the Assembly and see where Nani works. With me today is my grandson, Alexandra. Alexandra, I'm sorry. I have Allie, my granddaughter, my grandson William, my husband Don, my son Matt, and my daughter Lindsay. So clearly each one of them I'm so proud of. They're excited to be here and look forward to spending the day with us in Albany to bring smiles hopefully as we have a couple more long days. So thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a very special guest I want to introduce today. despite her small stature and beautiful smile, don't let her fool you. This young girl can put you in an armbar 30 seconds or less and submit you in a triangle. She is a good friend of mine, hailing out of Bronxville, New York, represented by Miss Poland, joined by her family, her mother, Mitchell and Justin, and her son, Jackson. She fights out of Eagle Gracie Academy. Parker Malia has won 13 jiu-jitsu tournaments in a little over a year, including tournaments in New York, New Jersey, Boston, and Charlotte. She ended 2025 as the number two ranked girl in the world at her belt and weight. I believe she's ranked number one this year. She recently traveled to Dublin, Ireland for the IBJJF European Championship, where she fought amazing competitors from all around the world and won gold. She travels to Brazil next week to compete in the Brazilian National Championship. Madam Speaker, please extend the call to the floor and wish her good luck as she represents New York and the best of New Yorkers.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't want to cry. Oh, my goodness. Anyways, I'm so happy today, Madam Speaker, to have the chance to introduce to all of you my mom, go ahead, stand up, mom, and my wife, Crystal, bringing them here to our chambers. They hear a lot about down here. My mom's never been here. Now I'm going to take her around and show her a few things. And I just want to let her see how all of you affect myself in my life here and when I come home. So if you could give, oh my goodness, what is wrong with me? If you, Madam Speaker, could give them the cordialities of the

Assembly number 11534, Rules Report number 385, Committee on Rules, Ms. Pfeffer-Amato. An act to amend the Civil Service Law and the State Finance Law. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you Thank you

Ayes 136, nays 0.

Assembly number 9561, Rules Report 353, Mr. Magnarelli, an act to amend the transportation law.

Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would prohibit the DOT, municipalities, public authorities from spreading road salt at a rate higher than 300 pounds per lane mile on average during each snow and ice management season.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, back in August 2025, you hosted a four-hour road roundtable in the Legislative Office Building. That discussion included representatives from State DOT, DEC, Town Highway Superintendents, and advocates from the Adirondack Region. It is important to note that the state DOT and highway superintendents are responsible for plowing and maintaining more than 85% of New York state roads. The legislation before us would prohibit the state and its municipalities from spreading road salt at a rate higher than 300 pounds per lane mile, on average during each snow and ice management season. Can you provide the analysis behind the 300 pound limit, including who conducted the study in what agency, organization, or expert determined that this number is appropriate statewide? To be clear, I would like to see the report or data showing every region of New York State can meet this limit without jeopardizing the safety of its traveling public. The reason I ask is because both the state DOT and town highway superintendents have repeatedly asked the Adirondack advocacy groups for the analysis behind the proposed limits, and they have not been provided with data supporting it. We all agree that reducing unnecessary salt use is an important goal, but that goal must be balanced with public safety.

Yes, there is. How did you come up with the number?

Well, as far as I know, there was no specific study done after that hearing, roundtable that we had. However, we did talk to everybody. Everybody. The towns, the DOT, the Adirondack people, everyone. They gave us input. And what we tried to do is set some parameters so that we can start talking about this. And I want to reiterate one thing that you said. The number one thing that I kept saying around that table that round table was the safety of the public is paramount We know that We going to continue to make sure that the safety of the public is paramount Now how did we get to this 300 pounds per lane mile That happened by taking kind of a look at everything around us, having the Adirondack people give us information, and what we came up with is 300 as the limit, like no more than this. And we've basically found out that no one is really even hitting that. So it's kind of a top, top line on everything. And I can give you examples of things that we've looked at. For example, the state of Wisconsin has a limit of 100 pounds. New Hampshire, 250 to 300 pounds. Minnesota, 100 to 400 pounds. The Federal Highway Administration, 250 pounds. So what we're saying here is not out of line with anything else, and it's an average. So if you have an event that calls for more, you're going to be able to tackle that. We talked to the DOT. They were concerned about being able to do that and they can. So I think we're well within the parameters. What we want to do is start people talking about limiting salt, spreading salt and getting it out of our water. Okay, I just want to stay on

Hill region which experiences some of the heaviest snowfall in the country, and Long Island, which sees lower snowfall totals, but faces frequent icing conditions and much higher traffic volumes. How does this legislation account for those differences?

I know you're trying to explain that we've taken different state recommendations, but New York State's very unique from other places in the country. We have these snowmakers called the Great Lakes, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. I live in Syracuse. You're very, very familiar with that.

But we have a vast difference in climate across this state, which really asks for much, much different road salt applications than a lot of places in the nation.

I don't disagree with anything you just said. It's true. But what we're doing is putting a cap, a ceiling on it, which we feel everything is going to be right now should be below it, no matter which region it is. I don't see, I hope not, that Long Island is going to be putting down 300 pounds per road mile. It's going to be much less in those areas. On the other hand, in the Tug Hill, it may get to almost 300 pounds per lane mile. But right now it doesn't, and we feel we're just capping it and then starting a conversation of where it really should be and what you're alluding to, getting the data that we need to make decisions on just how much should be spread at any given point in time and in any given region. Well, let's talk about the data. The legislature is also considering A11105, which I believe is legislation introduced by you.

If we do not currently have standardized statewide data, how can we responsibly impose a statewide cap before collecting the information needed to determine what application rights are actually appropriate? Aren't we putting the cart before the horse on this one?

But the idea is to get all of those bills passed to have a plan to attack the problems we have with putting down salt on our roads. So I agree with you that this is an issue. I agree that we need to start collecting data. We are going to be doing that, and we do collect some. For example, in 24, 25 snow and ice season, New York State average application rate for granular salt was 172 pounds per year. So we know that we're setting some parameters. We know that we have to collect the data. I agree with you, and that's why I have a bill that would do that. Hopefully that will pass this session as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple quick questions? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question. In your roundtable, it indicated that it was necessary for all equipment to be properly maintained and calibrated. And I see the wording in this legislation indicates that all road sold equipment shall be metered and calibrated. Did you get information out of that roundtable to identify how many vehicles may be out there that are not calibrated currently that would need to change? No, I don't think we got an exact number. I know there are some. I think that some of the things that affect that are costs and changing equipment. but there are ways of getting grants to municipalities so that they can get their equipment brought up to date. Again, this is kind of a first step in a plan to really take a hold of this salt problem. That's going to affect us all. Whether you're living in the Adirondacks or you're living in New York City, this is going to affect our water. So we have to do something about it. This is a beginning, and so yeah, we know that there are some places that don't have the right equipment. We want them to get the right equipment. There's funds through the DEC that are available to do that.

So are we giving municipalities that may have to update equipment, who may not have the financial resources? Obviously, we know attempting to go out to get grants takes time. Is there any leeway there for our local municipalities if they have to update equipment to be able to meet the section in the law that indicates that they have to be metered and calibrated? I don't think there's any timeline per se, but on the other hand, I think if you're going forward with doing it and making an attempt to get your equipment up to speed, so to speak, I think that would be fine.

DC, right, or DOT. Yeah, I would think it's the DOT. It might be the DEC. Both were around that round table, by the way.

But I can't give you a definite between the two.

I would say so, yes. You would say that they're in compliance.

What are we determining there, or what in your scope when this was put together were we looking at that may have a financial implication in this? Is it back to the municipalities? Is it to our state DOT? Is it to the DOT and the department to maintain this data on the website? So what are we looking at from the financial end of things? Well, I would think getting the equipment, what we were just talking about, getting the equipment up to snuff, that's cost. There's a cost there. But on the other side of this, what we're seeing is that as they spread less salt, they're spending less money. And in the end, I don't know this for sure, but it could be somewhat of a wash in terms of the money that municipalities are going to be able to save versus how much they have to put in to calibrate and meter the equipment that they have.

Do we foresee it costing anything for the New York State DOT to have to maintain this data that we're now requesting for them to have on their website? I would assume it costs something. I mean, somebody has to input it and put it into some kind of a form so a report can come out. I don't know exactly what that is, but I think it's more than worth it, whatever it is.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Chairman. What is road brine? I think it's salt. It's a liquid salt. It's a liquid salt solution, right? Yes. And that has a reduced amount of salt in it? Correct. Do you know how much salt it has in it? No, I don't. It has 23% salt and 77% water.

And that's a good mitigation tool? Yes. Do you anticipate that salt being included in this cap? So in other words, if an agency, a transportation agency used road brine, would the amount of salt be calculated towards that 300 pound? I would think so. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the Chairman yield for a couple of questions? Sponsor yields?

Yes, ma'am. Excuse me. As you know, Chairman, I worked in the heavy highway construction industry for 25 years, dealt with a lot of highway departments, with the DOT, actually in three different states. What is the purpose of what we're doing here? Okay. I can tell you exactly how it was brought to me the first time. People from the Adirondacks came into my office. They gave me information and literature about wells being fouled. by salt affecting not only people, but their livestock, et cetera. So that was the first thing I heard. And just out of the blue, about three months later, the New York City Commissioner on Water came to my office and laid out a whole scenario where our reservoirs that hold the water for New York City, now that's 8 million people, OK? they too can be fouled in the coming decades if we continue using the amounts of salt we're using now.

And I get that. New York City has very strict rules on the roadways around NYPA, around the reservoirs that are in Delaware and Schoharie County, and I believe also Ulster and Sullivan County. They have very, very strict rules, and I can understand that. And I also, with the Adirondacks, I can understand maybe having some strict rules around those roadways because those roadways aren't usually frequented by regular vehicles. They're usually vehicles that are providing services to the reservoir areas or so on and so forth. My concern here is, number one, we are now telling our highway professionals, and in some cases people that have been doing this for 30, 40 years, we are telling them how much product they can use in what they do when we have a storm. And I will tell you this, and you and I both live in the snow belt of upstate New York, there is no winter like a northeast upstate winter. It can be 70 degrees one day, the next 30 below zero, and one day you might get one with three inches of ice. Unfortunately, even in those conditions, we have people that have to travel these roads, And I myself think that it's just common sense, another word that isn't used very often around here. But to me, it's common sense to let our professionals that do this day in and day out determine the application that's needed to make sure that a roadway is safe. And if it's 350 pounds per square mile or it's 600 pounds per square mile to make sure that it's safe, And most importantly so our fire and EMS and our law enforcement can travel in case of an emergency And you and I both know knowing where we come from accidents happen in those situations We have fires that happen and sometimes we have to get emergency equipment and emergency personnel to and from different scenes And usually the first person they call when there's bad weather is the DPW commissioner to tell them, we need a vehicle out there right away to salt the road so we can get our emergency equipment in and out. My question is, do you agree with me?

Well, I myself, Chairman, and I would hope that, you know, I'm going to be gone after this session, but you and I have had a great relationship. But I would hope that maybe you would consider, depending on what happens with this bill today or not, that maybe we take some of the environmental sensitive areas within the state and maybe put the cap in those areas. But the rest of the state, let's leave it where it's at the discretion of our highway superintendent professionals. I can understand in the Adirondack region people being very concerned. I can understand in some of the areas in my district around the reservoir where people are concerned. When I was in the heavy highway construction industry, back in the old days, you used to clean the equipment with diesel fuel, you know, the asphalt equipment. That is not allowed on a New York State DEP project. You can't even use it. Matter of fact, twice since I was doing asphalt paving, they've changed what you can even use to clean the equipment at least two or three times over the years because they've found something that is more environmentally safe. And my guess is, Mr. Chairman, is that as we continue, as technology gets better, as people get smarter, we may come up with some different applications that does the same thing as salt that we could use in these environmentally friendly areas.

I've heard of it. I mean, I haven't seen it yet. I'm going to start growing some. There you go. Well, Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman for this spirited and respectful debate. I am going to be opposed to this bill. You know, I think that this has to be left up to the professionals that do the work in and out. these folks, many have been doing these jobs for 20 or 30 years right now, especially in the area that we work, the application that they use with a mixture of sand and salt in many areas are what allows us to use our roadways during bad weather. So I will be opposed to this. Hopefully the chairman and the committee will take into consideration some of the things I brought up So I will be a no vote and thank you very much Thank you Mr Gandolfo Thank you Madam Speaker Would the sponsor yield for some questions Will the sponsor yield

Sponsor yield.

And I was listening to the debate but going over some papers over here, so I'm a little redundant on some of these. I do apologize. Now, this report, it was specific to the Adirondack watersheds?

What report? I think in the memo of this, there was a report that this bill was in response to about the salt pollution in the Adirondacks. Is that correct?

And is DOT unable to enact something like this via regulation and maybe take a more regional approach?

Okay. And how was the 300-pound limit determined?

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. And my colleague earlier brought up the case of using a saltwater brine. Is there a certain formula that would have to be used in that case on how it would be calculated to the overall poundage limit?

Or the brine machinery that they use to put it down. Okay, so in the case of, would they be measuring then the overall weight of the brine being applied,

Okay. Is there any distinction on how regular road salt might intrude into watersheds versus how brine might run off and impact the watershed? I think salt is salt. I mean, as it gets watered down and filters down, it gets into our water. Okay, and are there metering devices available to measure brine currently? Do those exist? I think so. I believe there is. Okay, so they are currently available? I believe they are. Okay, and would those be different types of, I guess, apparatuses versus what measures just pure road salt? I would assume they are different machines, equipment. And I heard my colleague mention this before, if there is a financial cost associated, that would be borne by the municipality to retrofit their machines? Yes, but there are funds available through DEC that can help offset some of this. Okay, do you know the amount of funds available and how much each municipality would be eligible for? I don't know exactly how much is available right now, but in 2025, over $2 million for 12 different projects was given out by DEC. Okay. And for this purpose specifically to... Yes. Okay. And I did see some opposition come in, I guess alleging that the 300 pound limit is too high and that the statewide average was a little significantly lower. So for the 300 pounds, you're just setting an easier bar for municipalities to clear? We're kind of starting the conversation, the education, that this is important and we have to look at it. and we're asking not only the state but all of our municipalities to do the same. Okay, and is there an exception to emergencies, blizzards, lake effects, snow? Yeah, as I just discussed with one of your colleagues, the idea that this is inflexible is not correct. It's very flexible. First of all, it's kind of a high bar, okay, and second of all, it's seasonal, so it's an average. So if you have a snow event, an ice event that takes a little bit more and it's absolutely necessary to keep people safe, of course you're going to do it. Okay, so you'd be, I guess that makes sense, you'd be more confident stretched over a 12-month calendar year that it would help bring the average down. Is there any concern that this bill isn't doing enough to... Yes, there is. And I would hope that over the next year or two, we refine the plan that we're trying to put together for salt on our roads, and we do a much more specific job. Another bill that was mentioned before that I have is to collect the data from the DOT and all of these municipalities to find out exactly how much goes down and in what conditions, what regions, et cetera. Okay, I appreciate the sponsor taking the time to answer my questions. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, can you please call on the Rules Committee to meet in the Speaker's conference room? Rules Committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's conference room. Rules Committee members, Speaker's conference room.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, Madam Speaker. The sponsor yield. Thank you. And I'm going to pick up where my colleague had left off. He had asked about, you know, the cap and how that would relate and concerns that have been expressed to you. I share those same concerns that 300 is too high of a number. I seen in municipalities that I represent Lake George where they been able to through advanced technologies and going to brine and the different applications of products that they been able to reduce their overall usage by 50 or even more save the communities a lot of money Do you think that this 300 pound, or yeah, 300 ton cap could lead to an increase in certain areas of the state? I do not. I think what I heard around the table, this roundtable that we had this past year, is a concern by not only DOT and DEC and New York City, but every municipality and organization that was represented there, including Lake George, including the Adirondacks. I think people are becoming very aware of what the problem is with trying to set a cap. I don't think people are going to willy-nilly go over it at all. I think it's an education process that has to begin. I would agree with you. It is education, but I've also seen where, you know, the plow operated, the amount of salt usage was tracked, tracked by tons, tracked the amount of tons that were applied through a season, and the amounts actually increased by the state DOT, used, applied, even though there's been many opportunities for education. and making people aware, people that are actually applying. There's a huge amount of error between a bill that establishes a maximum amount or a target or a goal and what actually happens in the field. And so as I started in this, my concern is that this will lead to more. We need to have data that we can say, you cannot, and give them the tools to be able to deal with it. And I don't think this is going to lead to that. I think it's a beginning. I disagree with your assessment. I think that going forward, people will be more aware of what they have to do. And by the way, there are other bills that are coming up, I hope, that will deal with training people, educating people who are running the machines and the equipment. and taking the data that is necessary to make the proper adjustments to this rule as we go forward. All right. Well, thank you. That's all my questions.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the chairman yield for some questions? Will the sponsor yield? Yes, Madam Chair. Sponsor yields. Thank you. Mr. Magnarelli, I apologize if I repeat some questions. I was in the Ways and Means Committee. So I did want to ask you a quick question. You would agree that different regions have different experiences when it comes to weather, like the North Country, Buffalo, Long Island, New York City. There are different regions, right? And Syracuse, yes. Okay. And then along with that, different geography, weather, things like that, infrastructure conditions, et cetera, correct? Yes. So, and you would agree that our highway superintendents, they use the road salt to make sure traveling conditions are safe for the residents that travel on that road, the tourists that are traveling on the road, is that correct? Correct. So right now there is no weight limit, correct? Correct How did this weight limit number come about Where did this come from Well as I said to your colleague before it was a couple of groups that I took in my office who told me about what was happening in the Adirondacks and the wells that were being fouled. And then a few weeks after that, New York City, its water commissioner coming up and basically laying out the facts about what was happening to their reservoirs in the Catskills. So it's a statewide problem of salt fouling our water supply. And it became very obvious to me that this is something we had to address as quickly as possible. Okay. And so this number came from that group, from that task force, I think? No numbers. No numbers. Just action requested. Okay. And have you discussed this with local highway superintendents and how they would adhere to this and address this? We've talked to everybody. Again, we had a roundtable. I think someone said it was in August of this past year. we had everybody sitting around the table, everyone from professors to the Adirondacks to DOT, DEC, New York City, Upstate Highway superintendents, everybody was there. So we tried to pull in information from everyone. everyone. And what we're trying to do here is simply get the ball rolling on a plan that will be changed as we go along, okay? But a plan that is going to address this problem now. We have to start now. And who measures it? How is it calibrated? Who's in charge with dealing with that, measuring that, and enforcing that? The people putting it down. Okay. And what if the highway superintendents, you know, someone from the north country or someone from Buffalo, where they get, you know, much worse weather, much more snow, much worse conditions, ice, what if they determine when they get this number that they need to exceed that to make sure the interest of the safety public is addressed? What happens? I doubt if it's going to happen. It's a top number. It's kind of like we don't want to see you go above this, but New York State DOT hasn't even come close. It's 172 for 24-25. It's already been brought out in this discussion. So I think there's a lot of leeway, and it's also an average. It's an average for the whole season. So if you get an event in a certain area, like Syracuse gets lake effect for three days, and we've got to take care of that, they'll be able to do so. Okay. Mr. Magner, thank you for your time. I appreciate you waiting around so I can talk to you a little bit about this bill.

On the bill. I certainly appreciate sponsoring what he's trying to do with this legislation. I think my concerns on this are, it seems like it's almost like a one-size-fits-all approach. We recognize that each community has different varying conditions. It's a large state. the many variables, you know, the geography, lane miles, road miles, weather, current infrastructure conditions, they all play a part in this. And I think they're certainly concerned about possible liability this type of legislation might create for our local governments and our local highway superintendents Obviously I think this is something we need to have engage our local highway superintendents more in this discussion It seems like you know they work to address best practices And I think we all recognize we want to try to reduce that salt content, road salt on the roads, but we want to make sure at the end of the day, these highway superintendents are putting the road salt down to make sure the traveling public, make sure tourists are safe on those roads, because the last thing we want to have is accidents because there is a limitation on the amount of road salt they can put down. I'm kind of questioning where this goes from an enforcement perspective. What happens, I know the sponsor says they wouldn't exceed it, but what happens if they do? What happens if the weather changes and they need to exceed that? And I just think from that perspective, I just get very, very concerned about this approach and how it's put together. And I think at the end of the day, really, I mean, there's going to be costs, I think, associated with these measuring and things for our local governments. There's going to be costs, and I didn't ask the question. I'm sure it was brought up. But at a time when our local roads, bridges, and culverts are at serious deficits and deficient ratings, some of the worst in the country, we need to be providing more assistance to our local governments, to our local property taxpayers for those local roads, those local bridges, those local culverts. We've advocated time and time again. And I know the chairman has to, but our side of the aisle have advocated time and time again for increased CHIPS funding. This year, the final budget has an additional 50. 50 is better than zero, but it's woefully inadequate from our perspective because all you have to do is look at the Federal Highway Cost Index. Those inflationary numbers have increased over 70% over the past three years. So any little bit we're giving to our local municipalities to fix their roads, bridges, and culverts is being eaten away by these inflationary cost increases that they need to deal with. So I think we need a better use of our time to look to provide them more resources so they can make sure our roads are in good condition, our bridges and culverts are in good condition, so when the traveling public is coming through, and even in the wintertime or bad weather, it's a much safer condition. So some of these things are going to have to be, are probably being neglected because the funding stream is not adequate enough. In the context of more than a quarter of a trillion dollar budget, it seems like we could do better than $50 million for our local highway departments. But given all of this and some concerns, I just wish there was more discussion. I certainly, again, I appreciate what the sponsor is trying to do with this legislation. I think it's something we could work at more collaboratively, but I think to make that work, we need our local highway superintendents at the table and always make sure the priority is number one, is make sure they have what they need, the resources, the tools, and not put more costly regulations and restrictions upon them, which hurts or make their ability to make our roads, bridges, and culverts safer for our local property taxpayers, for our local residents, for the traveling public, much better. So based on those reasons, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I'm going to be voting in the negative on this piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to speak on the bill. On the bill. On the bill, A-9561. It's good that we're planning now well ahead of time for the reduction of road salt, and we're starting to learn about the brine and the beet juice and everything else that we can put down. because we all recognize the damage that road salt use is doing to upstate New York and everywhere. There's water contamination, the runoff, it's also ...ruining soil content. We've seen the infrastructure damage to bridges, and I think everybody in upstate New York knows about the value of a used car when the rot starts showing through the paint. So planning now is a good idea. Right now we use so much road salt that the motoring public has grown accustomed to almost a bare road policy. You know, it might be wet, but you can still see pavement. And, of course, we all know the speed limit is 55 or 65 miles per hour, and the motoring public expects that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They expect when they get up every day that their road is not going to be snow-covered or be icy. So what we should also be doing concurrently with planning for the reduction in road salt use is we need to start planning to protect our state DOT, our municipalities, from the liability exposure. We need to start educating the public and also changing some of the liability laws if somebody does have a crash with their car. They are going to be looking for somebody other than themselves to be responsible. We must have a committee here someplace in this assembly, in this body, that can help reduce the liability and the civil lawsuits that are sure to come because of so many years that we've expected our roads to be snow-free and also covered from ice. So this bill needs to have a concurrent plan going on on how to protect municipalities from the expected lawsuits that will come from this.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be in favor of this bill. For those that would like to vote differently, they can do so here in the chamber.

Mr. Tague, to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, like I said during the debate, common sense is not frequently used in this chamber. But I will say we could alleviate this whole bill. Every single one of our DPW agencies across the state, village, city, town, county, the state, feds, they all keep track of how much salt that they use. They know how many miles. They know the weather patterns. So to me, this bill is just a waste of our time. You know, we're sitting here towards the end of session during a long, hard, grueling budget process. And as my colleague had mentioned, we were only able to come up with $50 million more for CHIP's funding. And it doesn seem that priorities or infrastructure or the safety of our roads and bridges are top of order on people mind which is a real shame But to me this is really a waste of time We are worrying about how much salt we're using during emergency weather times when the information is already there. We had a hearing. Did anybody ask those DPW commissioners or anybody else how much salt they've used in the last 10 years and how many miles of road that they cover? I mean, it's simple. You could probably come up with the answer in about 15 or 20 minutes. All this information is already in the system. So I'm going to be against this bill because, again, I came here to help the people of the state of New York figure out the affordability problem that has been created here in Albany and to help them. We need to worry about the safety of our roads and bridges, but we need to let the professionals that do it every day come up with it, not some pie-in-the-sky idea out of this chamber. So I will be opposed to this bill, and I hope my colleagues will be the same.

Madam Speaker, to explain my vote, first and foremost, I want to thank the sponsor for moving this legislation forward. As a member that represents part of the Adirondacks and speaking with our communities, there certainly is a deep acknowledgement that there is a salt contamination for waters. And I would agree with my colleagues across the aisle that we need to invest more in our infrastructure, but we also know water is life. We need to protect the very essence of what our communities are dealing with on a daily basis. New York State has a moral and ethical responsibility to invest more in our infrastructure overall, as well as protect it. This is a methodology to make sure that we are protecting our communities, especially around the realm of water. There is more work that we should be doing within the regional capacity. I would agree with that 100%. But having the high level of this provides us a methodology to move forward. And I would also say this, it does not prevent. One of the questions that was on the floor was, what about some of the municipalities that are managing some of this stuff? I know that the men and women that are our highway superintendents and the crews that they run are very conscious of their budgets. They're very conscious about the material that they lay down. Many of them have been leading with programs with the Cornell Cooperative Highway School and a number of other things. So I know collectively we are moving forward in the right direction. And like everything, recalibration should be the word that we focus on. So with that, I vote in the affirmative.

Ms. Bailey to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. To explain my vote, as was discussed in my line of questioning to the chair and sponsor of this bill, I have concerns at the end of the day when it comes to the financial implications that this may bring about. I understand, you know, when we're looking at 300 pounds per road mile down, folks that you talk to say that that is on the high end of things. But the language in the bill that indicates that all municipalities, that their vehicles need to be metered and calibrated, understanding what scope that is and what that means to our municipalities. And I hope that there's some additional funding, you know, if it's, we didn't see it this year necessarily in the budget but hopefully there some additional funding that isn necessarily through a grant that our municipalities have to apply for but the funding is there for many of these mandates that come down that add additional costs to them each and every day. And as my colleague across the aisle just indicated, they are very conscious of their budgets. And that is what I hear is, you know, how do we rob Peter to pay Paul mentality sometimes sometimes when some of these unfunded mandates come down. And that's really where my concern comes into play, is not understanding a scope of how many vehicles we are going to be investing in based on the metering and calibrating, and then how is that going to be enforced. So for those reasons, I will be in the negative. Thank you.

Assembly number 10182A, Rules Report 357, Mr. Taylor, an act to amend the civil practice law and rules.

Good morning, Madam Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to simplify consumer debt litigation by providing consistency across the law for all types of consumer debts.

Read the last section.

Party vote's been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you, Mr. Fall.

Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes, 94. Nays, 45.

Yes. On consent, on the A calendar, page 3, Rules Report 386.

An act to amend the correction law. On a motion by Ms. Rosenthal, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced.

an act to amend the real property law. On a motion by Ms. Solage, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Read the last section. This act shall take effect

Assembly number 3556A, Rules Report number 388, Mr. Santa Barbara, an act to amend the mental hygiene law.

This act shall take effect on the 90th day.

Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill. I think this is fantastic. This is something that's come up in budget hearings, and we had the People on Disabilities Committee had a wonderful hearing last fall on residents placements for those with developmental disabilities. And there's always been a question, how many placements are there? Where is the list? Is there a list? And so making it clear what we're dealing with as far as housing issue for those with dental disabilities provides clarity and transparency to those individuals, their parents, their family members, those that care about them. And I think this is just a good example of how the legislative process is supposed to work, where we have a hearing, we get people together, we talk about the issue, we listen to those that are impacted, and then we legislate on it. So I'm very happy to vote in the affirmative on this piece of legislation.

Ms. Walsh to explain her vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker. I will be supporting this bill, but I think the only thing that could have made it better, because we're always looking for ways to improve, aren't we, is that this report is going to be issued to the governor, the speaker of the assembly, and the temporary president of the senate with all this great information that we want everybody to have access to because we all represent individuals in our districts who have family members who are going to be either going on this list or trying to move up on the list. It's information that we could all benefit from. And so I would ask again that when drafting these pieces of legislation, please, please don't forget us because all of us on the minority side represent individuals with disabilities too. But I will be voting for it because I do think it's an important report to happen. So thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Assembly number 4105A, Rules Report number 389, Mr. Cunningham, an act to amend the public service law.

Assembly number 5213A, Rules Report number 390, Ms. Buttonshahn,

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So again, this is a very good commission that's going to be formed, and I think it's going to create a lot of really great information. This bill, interestingly, says that appointments will be made all by members of the majority. There are no direct minority appointments to this committee. But interestingly, it does say that the appointments are to be made in consultation with the minority leaders of the Senate and the Assembly. So I guess that's better than nothing. I don't know exactly what consultation is going to mean in that case, but I do hope it's meaningful, and I hope that it results in choosing members to serve on this commission that will be representative of all of the people that you and I represent all around the state. Thank you very much. I'll be in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So this bill creates an emergency repair pilot program to allow cities to repair immediately hazardous code violations. And the municipality can then bill the owner of the building for the repair costs. The Secretary of State will be required to prepare a model local law for municipalities to adopt to satisfy the requirements of the pilot program It doesn apply to residential dwellings that are owner occupied or that is the primary residence of a homeowner I have liked this bill I will support it I will be voting in favor of it I do want to note for some of my colleagues that previously in 2023 we had a vote that was 114 yes, 26 no, and then there was a subsequent veto from the governor. So I just wanted to alert my colleagues that if you were around in 2023, you may have been a no vote and you may want to check your vote. But I will be in the affirmative. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of our colleague from Queens County, Mr. Raga, he has a few guests here today from his district in Albany celebrating Polish Heritage Day. It's a celebration of the remarkable contributions that the Polish-Americans have made to the fabric of New York and our labor movement, our civic institutions, our arts, and our cultural life. And the folks that are here today are six individuals that include the Council General Matusz Siewicz, Saratoga County Historian Laura Roberts, Executive Director of Campaign for Saratoga 250, William Titor, Kirsten Marcel of the Schenectady County Historical Society, Andrzej Szczoak of Dabora Polska-Skola, and Marie Glowowski of the Polish Community Center of Albany. If you could be so kind to welcome them to the People's House and extend the cordialities for Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to thank you as the sponsor of this legislation. And I just want to shine a light for a minute on some really wonderful programs in my district for women veterans. We have the Guardian House, which was established a number of years ago. It's pretty much right down the street from my home. It's a home that was converted into different rooms and spaces for women veterans that require housing and connection to different services. And then right behind it, very recently, they built a home that they're calling Foreverly House. And that's specifically for women veterans who have children. And so they need a little bit of a different setup than the women that stay in Guardian House. But my point is that I just think that this bill is very important because I think that establishing those peer-to-peer connections with our women veterans is so important. So I'm very grateful that this bill was brought forward, and I'm very, very happy to support it. Thank you.

Ms. Thank you to explain my vote. We are passing this bill today in memory of Elijah Alavi Silvera, who passed away at just three years old from an allergic reaction he experienced while at daycare. Despite having a known allergy, he was provided a grilled cheese sandwich, and when he suffered an allergic reaction to it, the staff was not prepared to respond and administer the EpiPen his parents had provided. Over the years, I've worked closely with his father, Thomas Silvera, and his team at the Lijah Alave Foundation. We have passed laws to make child care facilities safer for kids with food allergies in recent years, but this bill will ensure that every facility has the devices they need to keep kids safe. And I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to thank the sponsor of this legislation. Elijah was, as she said, three years old, and the incident took place in my district where he ended up with food that he should not have received, but I've worked alongside his parents on legislation. In fact, my first bill passed into law was Elijah's law. So again, I want to thank the sponsor so that this does not happen happened in other places and is so preventable and I applaud her and thank the speaker for bringing this through as well. I vote in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just really want to thank the sponsor for bringing this forward. You know, two of my stepkids have, or kind of getting over parts of it, but very, very severe peanut allergies and nut allergies when they were kids. And it was so scary to send them into any setting where we weren't right there to really monitor exactly what they could get and what they didn't have. And kids being kids, mistakes really can happen despite all the best efforts. So I was so happy to see this bill. I was a little bit surprised that we didn't already have this in place, and I'm so glad that it will be in place. And I think it will bring some peace of mind to parents who are very rightfully very anxious when they have children with this particular problem. So I think this is really an important bill, and I'm glad to see it passed. Thank you. I'll be in the affirmative.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. on behalf of our colleague from Suffolk County, Mr. Ramos. He has a special guest here, Milagros Escarom Spuveda, who is the director of the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic and the wife of former member assembly member now Senator Spuveda If you could be so kind to welcome her and the Senator to the People House please On behalf of Mr. Fall, Mr. Ramos, the Speaker, and all members, we welcome our very distinguished guests to the Assembly Chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. An honor very much for you to be here today. Director of the Supreme Court in the Dominican Republic. So thank you so very much for joining us with our Senator Sepulveda. We hope you enjoy our proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill protects infants and young children from exposure to toxic heavy metals in baby food and infant formula by requiring regular testing, prohibiting the sale of contaminated products, mandating public disclosure, clear labeling, and establishing consumer reporting and enforcement mechanisms.

Yes.

Thank you, Ms. Torres. Just to go through this, so can you explain to me what this bill would enact? In other words, talking about the testing, the labeling, can you walk me through what the process is that's being set in this bill?

Okay, so just to break down a couple of those things, so when you talk about the labeling, what would the labeling have to say? In other words, if that particular baby formula is being tested where it's tested or what it's been tested for, or is the labeling gonna say that this baby formula has toxic chemicals in it?

Okay, so the label essentially would say that it's being tested for toxic heavy metals, other items in it, and then next to the label would be a QR code that you could scan, which will bring you to a publicly accessible... Which would be the manufacturer's website. Okay, so really the label's not telling you anything other than this is being tested. It's been tested. Okay. Now, when it comes to being tested for those toxins, you said it has to be in the aggregate, correct? So meaning what? It's gotta be the whole entire lot of that particular formula for the month? Because you're saying it has to be tested monthly.

And each individual type of formula, correct? No, so not, you know, not for example, like one tub of formula. That tub of formula doesn't have to be- I mean type, I apologize. Type, yes, type.

Along with the ready to feed options, the powders and the liquids, have to be tested separately also.

they have to be tested separately, yeah. Now, who is deciding on the laboratories that these will be tested at? That would be the Department of Health in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture for the state of New York. So now they would be telling those manufacturers who will be testing baby formulas, right, that are approved by the New York State Department of Agriculture and the Health Department in connection with each other. And then the formula producer would be sending out those samples to those laboratories, or are the laboratories or the Department of Health getting the samples from the manufacturer? The manufacturer would be testing the samples alongside the laboratory, yeah. Okay, so that's where I'm confused. They would be sending it. They would be sending it? They would be sending it, I'm sorry, apologies. They would be sending it to the laboratory and the laboratory would be testing. Okay, so that's part of my confusion and maybe you can help me work through this because I also want children to be healthy, not have these toxins in baby formula at all. but not all of these companies are in New York state, correct? So they're not here. They may deliver products here, right? But they're not based out of New York state. There's a couple. I noticed three right off the bat that pop up, but some of the bigger ones are not based out of New York. So how is it that the department of health and the department of Agriculture are going to make sure that those companies are sending the proper samples to the approved laboratories I mean, the Department of Health cannot go, New York State Department of Health or Agriculture cannot go into a facility in Pennsylvania or California or Florida and see anything at the manufacturer level. So they're actually trusting the laboratories and the manufacturer of sending in the proper sample. How can we do that? I want to trust them, and I hope that they do. But do you think that there's a danger in saying a company that's based out of California or Florida or Texas or Alabama or Louisiana is sending the proper samples to a Department of Agriculture and or Health Department approved laboratory, which I'm assuming is going to be in New York State or in their state. They have to send that sample there. And then how are we as New York State, because we want to make sure everybody's safe, going to check to make sure that that's the same batch that they sent? And it almost seems like we have a great idea, but we have zero way of checking on if it's actually real. So, I mean, I would say, you know, thanks for sharing the concern. There are several rules and regulations and processes that the Department of Ag and the Department of Health will be putting together to ensure that's the case. For example, the manufacturer has to send the sample. They have to send the results. and the Department of Ag and the Department of Health together have to determine, did they actually do it? They could send inspectors. They're going to figure out ways to ensure that it's enforced. Well, that's my question. How is the Department of Agriculture of New York State, or the Health Department of New York State, going to send inspectors to a different state? This seems like, and what I'm saying is, this seems like a job for the federal government, the FDA, who already does this, and that's why they do it, because they can go anywhere. We can't. And please don't take my questions as I disagree with the premise of this, because I do not in any way, shape, or form. But how is the New York State Department of Agriculture or Department of Health going to say to California or Florida or anywhere else, we're coming into your facility? They can't. We now have to, we're actually trusting the facility that's making these formulas, that they're sending the proper samples to approve laboratory and then taking in their products and selling them here, which is fine because that's what we do now. I almost feel like we're giving a false promise to consumers by saying, New York State, and we're going to make stricter regulations for these companies, which I'm all in favor of, but have zero way of enforcing it. So I'll say that in order to sell baby formula in the state of New York, any baby formula manufacturer is going to have to abide by the law. Yes. They're going to have to abide by the law, and it's going to have to be enforced by the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture. They'll have to investigate any issue with the test results, for example. And one thing I want to say about the FDA and the reason why we're introducing this bill is because the FDA does not have any legal requirement for testing toxic heavy metals. They do not. They do not. So there is no standard for that. So this would be a new standard that we are setting for the state of New York to protect babies to protect infants on the baby formula side and the baby food side And as I said I can reiterate it enough I agree with you And I think we should impose heavier standards. My question is, and how? How can the Department of Health and the Commissioner of Health cannot say to a company in another state, hey, we're coming into your facility to check. What we're doing with this legislation is basically getting in bed with a laboratory and saying they're an approved lab and we're gonna trust this company, which we're already trusting with our infants already, in saying that they're sending in the proper sample to get tested, then we're gonna trust the results. Do these have to be New York State laboratories. Well let me let me go back to your your first point or question in that if a baby formula manufacturer does not abide by the law they cannot sell in the state of New York. So if if let's say an investigator from either department wants, let's say they want to go and they're not allowed, then fine you can't sell here. That was that was gonna be my question to you. So if if the Department of Health or agriculture want to do a site visit to a company that sells products here and they deny them access or you can walk in, but you can't just walk in and say I'm the Commissioner of Health in New York State, I'm coming to test your formula, that doesn't work. So my question is the laboratories that are gonna be approved by the Department of Health and Department of Agriculture, do they have to be New York State laboratories? That I'm not, I don't think that has a restriction. I don't think there's a restriction that they have to or they don't have to. I don't think there's a restriction on that. Consumers can report potential violations or suspicions or what have you, but I would hope that if a manufacturer wants to sell in the state of New York, they would comply, not that we trust them, but that they would work with the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture to figure out the testing and to make sure that everything is clean on the testing. Okay. And now just so we have a label, we have a QR code. The QR code can be scanned by whoever's buying the formula, and that's going to take you to what? That takes you to the manufacturer's website. Which they have to post the results of the testing of each individual formula, correct? Okay. I just want to make sure I don't have any other questions. Oh, and Ms. Tori, is that the publicly accessible website? Yes. Okay, and it also has to have a link to the FDA guidance, correct? Yes. FDA guidance of what? of that particular formula, the ingredients in it, the testing? Of the health effects of the potential toxic heavy metals. So if we're not trusting the FDA, why are we giving a link to their website? So while unfortunately the FDA does not test on these toxic heavy metals, they do provide guidance on it. Okay So that why we prepared to share that And then the results that New York State gets from these individual manufacturers are we sending that information to the FDA No Where's this information? So we're not going to share the information and we get on toxic heavy metals with the FDA? Not in this bill. What are we doing with the information? We're compiling it, we're studying it, we're collecting it to ensure that babies and infants don't have exposure to these toxic heavy metals. Okay. And if any of these toxic chemicals are found in these formulas, does New York State instantly, due to finding these chemicals, have the right to ban the sale of that instantly? Yes. Without the legislature, correct? Yes. The Department of Health and Department of Agriculture could ban those instantly? Yes, it's in this bill. Okay. Ms. Torres, thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Yes.

First of all, I like the bill. It's a nice idea. Of course, we all care about the health of the infants who are receiving formula on a daily basis. But I just want to understand a little bit better the genesis of this. Have there been children or toddlers who have been poisoned in New York State? Yeah, in 2023, there was a case of heavy metals in cinnamon applesauce in 2023 in the state of New York. Hundreds of cases, around 650 cases of babies, individuals, children that were exposed to it, many that were sick. There were also two cases of recalls in 2025 and 2026 on infant formula, not in the state of New York, but nationwide. Okay. So in New York State, there was 650 cases in 2023. Yes. And do we check this on an ongoing basis? What about year after year? Well, that was reported. I presume that we would keep on. That was reported, and that was the inspiration of this bill. Okay. And was this a specific company, or was this a few companies? I'm not familiar with, I imagine it was. I'm not familiar with the name of the company. I can get it to you. It was what? I'm not familiar with the exact name of the company, but I can get it. But it was one company? I believe so, that produced it, yeah, that produced this particular cinnamon applesauce. Okay. How many companies do we have who are wholesalers in New York State in general? That I am not aware of. Okay. But there's probably a few dozen or even a hundred or something like that. Okay. Are there any other states in New York State who have introduced similar legislation such as this? Yes, Maryland, Virginia, and California. All right. So we're going specifically on formula and baby food products. Why not expand this to anything else? Let's say that specific company, if there was one company that did that with 650 poison occurrences, why not specifically look at other products that this company has? I mean, it's a good idea. Like, go after the company instead of going after the industry. That's my question. I mean, I think that's a good idea. The inspiration of this bill, though, was for babies and toddlers and to provide it at scale so that we're not isolating a particular company but making sure everyone is protected. Because this could happen at one company. It could happen at another company. like the the incidence of the baby formula recalls in 2025 and 2026. Those are two different labels, two different brands. So it could happen potentially anywhere. Because here, I would believe that the Attorney General would have a better job at finding out what happened with this specific company and then just going after them with violations or even completely banning them from New York State or whatnot. But the entire industry, to penalize them in such a way or to make it harder for them to do business within New York State, which would cause, we would have less wholesalers here, which would cause prices to rise for these products. So I'm just trying to look at a way that this might impact the affordability of baby products for families. Well, I'm not sure it would stifle business. I think this is also a consumer protection bill. It's a baby protection bill, toddler food protection bill. So I don't think it would stifle business. I think it would promote business because we'd be one of the few states that actually check on this for our babies and our infants. So I would trust more of the products that are coming and tested in the state of New York than perhaps elsewhere. All right. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank my colleagues for the debate and the questions. Look, I think this bill is really important to protect babies and infants across the state of New York from heavy toxic metals. We don't want any of these in our baby food or in our infant formula. And I think New York has been a leader in consumer protection for a long time and we should continue to lead. And so I'm really happy to see this bill come across the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, to explain my vote. I want to thank the sponsor for taking my questions. Again, I will be supporting this bill because I think any testing we could do and the more information, the more knowledge we have of the things that we're putting into our children as food, any of the contaminants that could be in it would be great. I do have concerns about this bill. lulling us into a false sense of security with what the Department of Agriculture can and can't do, the Department of Health can and can't do on products that are made in other states. We're actually putting a little bit too much trust, in my opinion, into those companies sending in the proper samples. But again, I think it's maybe just another layer of protection for our children, which I do think is important. But again, I actually don't think the bill goes far enough. but I will be supporting it in hopes that we can do more in the future to protect our children. So I thank the sponsor.

Mr. Fall for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of our colleague from Kings County, Ms. Lucas, she has a number of students, educators, and the leadership from Bear Aguila, which is an educational institution in her district that serves her families and so many individuals. And they are in Albany to understand the work that we do here, and if you could be so kind to recognize the guests of Ms. Lucas and extend to them the cordialities of the floor, it will be greatly appreciated, Madam Speaker.

This bill amends the executive law to ensure that emergency service organizations and members of the press maintain real access to law enforcement radio communications. Mr. B. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Gladly. Sponsor yields.

and I understand that you amended the bill in this current version. Can you kind of go through those amendments? Sure Several amendments We added newscasters as a separate eligible category and created a more detailed credentialing framework In the previous bill, it relied largely on the civil rights laws as for the definition of professional journalism. We, in this new iteration, created a detailed definition of news gathering organization and require such organizations to carry libel insurance. We expanded the exemptions to include undercover, well, previously it only covered fair trial concerns, confidential sources and investigations and investigative techniques. And we expanded those exemptions to cover undercover operations and their personnel and non-public movements of government officials. In the first version, it would cover any agency employing police officers, and now it limits it to agencies that employ at least 25 officers or more. in the first version Department of State had to establish a process application review that needed to be completed within five business days this version removes the five-day mandate and instead directs Department of State and state police that was a change as well we now involve the state police to promulgate regulations and determine eligibility this one expressly states that nothing in the bill prevents New York City from acting pursuant to local law 46 of 2026. And the first version created a broad standalone definition, including fire, medical rescue, housing, food, and other relief organizations. Instead, references the existing definition

have access to this type of equipment or is a financial burden how did you come to that number of 25 employees or more the broadcasters Association recommended

definitions to be a bit more restrictive on who has access now? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

than the initial bill? I believe so. I think it's much narrower.

Correct.

No, I actually said that as part of the veto. It expressively states that nothing in this bill prevents New York City from acting pursuant to their local law 46.

how do they gain access to that frequency? That would be determined by the regulations that the Department of State and the Division State Police promulgate.

passwords, and anything else? Not explicitly in the language.

database of those passwords or frequencies? It doesn't speak to that, the bill.

This bill doesn't speak to that as well.

It could also be quite expensive to obtain some of this infrastructure and equipment. Who's responsible for providing the journalists with this type of equipment?

We assume the news agency that is interested in having access would have to purchase the equipment.

No.

there's some times that law enforcement officers may not be able to change their frequency or may not be time sensitive enough to switch their frequency to relay sensitive information.

I mean, unfortunately, that burden falls on the police organization that is transmitting to.

No, I mean, I think that should be part of law enforcement training to know what information you're sharing. And we've been, you know, we listened to the concerns and we were proactive in narrowing who has access to the radio, to the frequency and the credentialing process to ensure it's bona fide news agencies and news organizations.

Sometimes, especially when adrenaline is in the mix, it's not that simple.

access those channels? Again, we don't speak to that in the language of the bill.

That would be antithetical to what we're putting here forward. The point is we're trying to delineate who can have access to the frequency.

No, no, not the Department of State. I'm talking about what if a journalist decides to share that information with a colleague that's not vetted or even publicly for some reason. I mean, that would be a violation of the law. In the rules that are promulgated by DOS, they can determine the consequences of that sharing of information, but that is not the intent.

Yes.

Correct.

Has it gone live as yet? I don't have that information.

It's not active as yet.

owned by a news agency or a journalist, we are not required by any statute or provision to change what our current system is. Correct. All right, understood.

all be exempt from this if they are undercover personnel or read the language here.

Revealing criminal investigation techniques or procedures or undercover personnel they would be exempt

Yes. It's actually line 13. It says sensitive information shall mean any portion of a radio communication that, if disclosed, would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication, identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation, reveal criminal investigative techniques or procedures, accept routine techniques and procedures, reveal the location, activity, or identity of undercover operations or undercover personnel, or reveal the location and movement of government officials that are not otherwise made public.

I mean, they can try to do that.

It would be determined by the regulations.

Well, thank you, Mr. Reyes, for your time. You're welcome.

Will the sponsor yield? Will the sponsor yield?

Thank you, Mr. Reyes.

Were there, as we spoke about last time before this bill was vetoed, is there a buffer time included in the amendments? No, we didn't add that to the amendment. Oh, in the rules. We didn't. There isn't a buffer time explicitly in the amendments, but there is a possibility that in the promulgation of rules, the Department of State might wish to add a buffer time. So how would creating the rules, so the State Department would create the rules? Correct, with the Division of State Police. In conjunction with the Division of State Police the Department of State, they will promulgate the rules. All right. So in this bill, we delineate specific requirements for credentialing journalists, correct? Yes. So those details are included in the bill, correct? The credentialing details, yes. Yes. So in this legislation, we're dictating to the State Department and the Division of State Police who is a bona fide journalist, correct? Correct. So why is it that we're excluding the requirement for a buffer time on transmissions? You asking why we didn put that in the bill language Yes We didn have it in the previous bill language But after the governor vetoed the last bill language, this new bill includes clarification language on bona fide news journalists. So why would there not be a delineation that would include language of a buffer time? That wasn't a concern that was raised in the veto message. So we tried to address the concerns in the veto message. Okay. Okay. So specifically, everything that was addressed in this new revised bill is all from the veto message? Some, yes. So what else? And one of the reasons why we also included the Division of State Police is so that they can provide some guidance and some input. We heard from our law enforcement colleagues about some of your concerns. So the Department of State and the Department of State Police can promulgate those rules. So some of those concerns may kind of be played out in the rules. Okay. So just now in your answer to the question, you said some of the amendments were due to the veto message. So which ones weren't due to the veto message? Is that the state police that you were just mentioning? That wasn't specifically in the veto message, but... That wasn't in the veto message? No. No. Okay. That was one that wasn't in the veto message that we added. The one about the state police? Yeah. Okay. Can you give me an example of an amendment in this legislation, the change in this legislation that wasn't in the veto message? She didn't say anything about the five-day application review. It didn't say anything about Local Law 46. Say that again. I'm sorry. It didn't say anything about local law 46 for New York City. It didn't say anything about non-public movements of government officials. Those are all things that we've added that weren't necessarily in the veto message.

So one thing that I continue to advocate for is that buffer time. to allow journalists to hear the transmissions. Now, there's a reason I explained that last year when we discussed this bill, and I'm going to try and lay it out quickly this time. Oftentimes, there's stuff that's transmitted over police radio transmissions that give pertinent information about active crime scenes. Now, if journalists can be reporting on that in real time, it can jeopardize response times and getting more updates. Additional emergency service personnel to the location. One example can be an active shooter at a school, whether it's confirmed or not confirmed. When officers are putting that information out over the radio, the idea of keeping the area clear is paramount so that emergency vehicles can have access. If that information is going out in real time to journalists who are putting it out on social media, on other news broadcasts, it may cause undue panic and parents and other community members may rush to the scene. And yes, we know that parents are going to be very concerned about their loved ones. Being a parent, I understand that. But when we come to the point of causing a bottleneck of getting emergency vehicles to that scene, lives are at stake. That's why having a buffer time is essential. because allowing emergency responders to get to the scene without having that bottleneck is really paramount. So I hope that the additional things in this bill, allowing the state police to have input and to put together the actual way this will roll out, I hope that they include necessary buffer time so that we can ensure emergency responders will be able to get to those scenes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for...

Sponsor yields.

It said...

Expands the exceptions to include undercover operations and personnel and non-public movements of government officials. Non-public movement of government officials.

Some government officials have public calendars, so the public knows where they will be at certain times of the day. some of that movement is non-public and may be transmitted through radio frequencies with law enforcement so that's exempt. So if it's a public calendar for the governor or anybody else those radio transmissions have to be allowed to go through the channels to where a credentialed journalist can hear it, correct? If they're public.

Correct.

Government officials Okay Is that only for and so when you say government officials it something that I asked the last time is that for all public officials not just our state

They would be, it's not, we're not saying what information has to be on the public channel. We're saying what information we're excluding from the public channel. And there's still a lot of broad discretion for law enforcement to change channels. I think this was part of the debate last time and some of the questions that were asked today where law enforcement, I would hope, is trained to kind of determine when, you know, this is sensitive and I can switch. But because there was some concern around sensitive circumstances, we added some explicit language. So to the beginning of your question, because I think...

the term government officials is broad and will capture those scenarios that you post.

What I'm saying is a lot of those movements, a lot of those times...

The journalists that are going to be credentialed will have access to what's on the public aspect of the radio. If law enforcement decides that they need to change the channel for whatever reason, because they believe it's a sensitive circumstance, then they can do that, and the credentialed journalists won't have access to it.

With the consultation of the state police.

all have become law and then those rules are made after.

I fine It takes effect 180 days They can start on the regulations as soon as the bill is signed So within those 180 days they have to have

about the buffer time. No, Ms. Reyes, that's all the questions I have. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Angelina.

Will the sponsor yield?

Sponsor yields. So I came in late. I probably missed the first couple of people who were debating with you. So now I have to pay for it. So if I ask something that you've already asked and answered, just say asked and answered. I won't be offended, and we'll just move on more quickly. And I appreciate your time here. I see this is still real-time radio broadcast. Is that correct?

Okay. And it's very, these radios are very, very expensive, digitally encrypted. So when we're dealing with this, there's going to be costs incurred for other people to listen to this. short of a police agency giving a radio to one of your credentialed journalists. I don't know how to do this. How is this going to happen, and who pays for it?

You can take that up with them too. A lot of encrypted radios use something called channel hopping frequencies and it changes daily, or it changes however it's prescribed to change. And there's a thing called an encryption key. Is that something that the police have to daily tell the journalists that this is today's encryption key?

Okay, you just brought up something three cards ahead. Who gives the state police and the Department of State authority over every police department in New York State? How can they dictate to every police department how this is going to happen? I know you're creating the law, but I don't know how the state police can dictate.

Right.

Yeah, they can promulgate the rules, but there's hundreds of police departments across New York State that don't take orders from the state police or the Department of State. They work autonomously under their local unit of government Unless you create a law that says they have to do this This doesn say that This would be the law This would be the law, but the law says the state police and the Department of State are going to dictate this.

Right.

Yeah, and as a police chief, I can say I'm not doing that.

The law says the state police are going to promulgate rules. We're starting to get into collective bargaining agreements and all kinds of complications because each police department is independent. But in practice, we can't have every individual police department help promulgate rules. So you use the division of state police, which is the highest kind of... You may think they're the highest, but... I don't mean to be offensive. No, it's not.

They have 4,000 people. New York City has 36,000 people. So, it just... Well, this isn't about the size of their personnel. It's kind of like the hierarchy of government. But, again, we can't in practice ask every local law enforcement department to participate in

In the definitions, you have sensitive and restricted information, and the journalists can hear that, and then we trust them not to do it? Or is that being redacted somehow?

Okay.

So the reason we're doing this is because, when I say we, the reason the police are doing this is because everything they transmit is potentially sensitive with ages involved, things that happen. And even one of the most routine things, pull somebody over, I don't have my driver's license with me, it's okay, I'll just go to my radio, what's your name and date of birth? and they transmit over the radio last name, first name, middle initial, date of birth. How does that get redacted in real time?

That would have been the perfect time to say asked and answered. Thank you. The real time is what I have a problem with, because just that even here, I think we're on a 30-second delay in case there's some sort of outburst, but police radio traffic that goes back and forth is so sensitive at times. A lot of times it's boring stuff that no one even cares about. about.

I'm glad you asked that question. Was that asked and answered?

I saw that. Yeah. But, you know, we saw what.

No, I've read it. Oh, okay. But I could almost be fit under that criteria as a journalist if I'm reporting something to the Internet.

And I guess the hard thing would be for me to get libel insurance. And that's a requirement. Yes, I saw that.

So depending on the answer to this one, I may be done. So are you telling me there's no costs incurred to the police departments or agencies? It's all on the journalists to figure out how to listen to this if it's encrypted?

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Sponsor.

Mr. Novikoff.

Will the sponsor yield?

Yeah.

Law enforcement determines that in real time.

We define it in the bill to determine what information the journalists won't have access to,

In real time, law enforcement decides what is sensitive, what they deem to be sensitive, and which they have to change the channel for.

It's not that they share information with the media. It's that the frequency is available to the media.

the content on the frequency oftentimes gets determined by law enforcement They the ones creating the content I just trying to understand how is it going to happen in real life

Thank you.

Read the last section. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican Conference will not be supporting this legislation. But if there are exceptions, they may be noted right now at member seats.

Thank you. Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will generally be in the affirmative on this vote. If anybody would like to vote no, they may do so from their seats.

The clerk will record the vote.

Mr. Beepin in the negative. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Mr. Yeager to explain his vote.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. Ayes 82, nays 58. The bell is passed. Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you. On the A calendar, page 7, rules report 411.

Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill is a result of a public hearing that the Committee on Technology and the Labor Committee had last year in connection with the impact of artificial intelligence on the work force. That's the genesis of the bill and the purpose of the bill is to require employers to submit annual impact assessments to the Department of Labor regarding how artificial intelligence is used and to require the department then to report on such data and assessments.