Assembly Floor Session — 2026-03-11

The House will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. His Eminence Archbishop Elpidophoros will offer a prayer. ARCHBISHOP ELPIDOPHOROS: Let us bow our heads in prayer. In the name of God, who has blessed this nation and the great State of New York with every good and gracious gift. Amen. We give thanks to You and praise, O God, for gathering us together today to invoke Your blessings and mercy upon the esteemed New York State Assembly. In this year, when we celebrate 250 years since the American Declaration of Independence, we humbly ask for Your beneficence upon every member of this Assembly; for they sincerely and diligently seek the good estate of all people, the noble people of New York. We give You thanks and praise as well for the recognition of the Greek War of Independence, whose heroes of 1821 were inspired by the heroes of 1776. Finally, grant that they may persevere in justice and righteousness all the days of their service to the people of New York and thus they will render glory, reverence and honor to You. You, the righteous Lawgiver, who are the source and foundation of every just and good law. Amen.

Madam Speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the Journal of Tuesday, March the 10th, and that the same stand approved.

Thank you so much. I first of all want to let you guys know that I actually did -- did miss you for the couple days that I had to be in the district, but I'm honored to have my colleagues have served in this seat and I understand they did a great job: Jen Lunsford and Charles Fall. So, thank you very much to you both. I also have a quote that I would like to share for today. No question we are still in the month of -- that celebrates women's history in America and in the world, but -- so this quote is coming from Sheryl Sandberg. Sheryl is a technology executive and a philanthropic writer. She -- her words for us today: "We need women at all levels, including the top, to change the dynamic, reshape the conversation, to make sure women's voices are heard and heeded, not overlooked and not ignored." Again, words are from Sheryl Sandberg, a technology executive. Colleagues have on their desk a main Calendar and a debate list. After any housekeeping or introductions, we're going to begin our floor work by taking up Resolutions on page 3. Then we're going to take up some debate. We're going to do Rules Report No. 85 by Mr. Bores. After that, we're going to take up the following bills on the debate list: Calendar No. 15 by Ms. Paulin, Calendar No. 59 by Mr. Rivera, Calendar No. 85 by Mr. Berger and Calendar No. 91 by Mr. Dinowitz. There may be a need for additional floor activity, Madam Speaker. If that is the case, we will advise at that moment. However, that's the general outline of where we're going today. If you would please begin with housekeeping and introductions. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my distinct honor as I do every year to of course -- to welcome and introduce Archbishop Elpidophoros, who is the head of the Greek Orthodox Church of the Americas. He does a tremendous job leading the church and leading the priests. And I also want to welcome in the back here, we have quite a few Greek Orthodox priests from various parts of the State that also came to join us today in our celebration of Greek Heritage. So, Madam Speaker, I please ask that you welcome Archbishop Elpidophoros and extend him all privileges of the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the co-chair of the Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus, today we hosted a outstanding seminar as well as information session in the Well. With me today on behalf of Assemblymember Barclay, is Bill Wilber that is here today and is a resident of Assemblymember Barclay's district as well as Brent Miller, formerly of Ulster County, that is with the Congressional Federation Sportsmen [sic]. Each one of these gentlemen helped participate today to bring information to not only the legislative Body but staff. So again, the men and women that are members of this caucus are appreciative of you being here today and providing insight as we look at the importance of outdoors recreation for so many individuals across the State of New York. Thank you.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. <a name="1038"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 1038, Mr. Lavine. Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 10, 2026, as International Day of Women Judges in the State of New York.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. <a name="1040"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 1040, Mr. Jensen. Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 2026, as Multiple Myeloma Awareness Month in the State of New York.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, on the resolution. I speak on this resolution introducing and recognizing March as Multiple Melanoma [sic] Awareness Month. Multiple Melanoma [sic] is a cancer of plasma cells in the bone marrow. Though classified as a relatively rare cancer, its impact on individuals, families and communities continue to be significant. In our State alone, more than 2,000 individuals are diagnosed with multiple melanoma [sic] each year and approximately 600 of those New Yorkers lose their lives to this disease. Nationally, it's projected nearly 36,000 Americans will be diagnosed this year alone, with older adults making up majority of this population. While advances in treatment have improved survival rates in recent years, multiple melanoma [sic] remains an incurable cancer, making awareness, early diagnosis and continued investment in research so critically important. By recognizing March as Multiple Melanoma [sic] Awareness Month, the State Assembly and New York State as a whole can reaffirm its commitment to supporting not just patients, but their families, their caregivers and the medical professionals working tirelessly to combat this disease. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly want to honor the sponsor of this resolution for introducing it and his very well-stated reason why we should be doing this. I did not even -- I had never heard of multiple melanoma [sic] until my brother was diagnosed with it. And my family and I of course, you know, did our own personal research and it's -- it's not a challenge to find good cancer care in my district because we have Roswell Park Institute. The process that he had to go through in order to now be in remission is -- is grueling. And so I think once we begin paying more attention to these types of illnesses, then we can move the technology forward and perhaps solve the problem a lot quicker than we are now. So I want to again congratulate him for introducing this resolution. I certainly hope that everybody's going to be in support of it and I know it is something that we need to move forward on this as a cancer. Thank you.

On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. <a name="1042"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly Resolution No. 1042, Mr. Tannousis. Legislative Resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 2026, as Greek History Month in the State of New York.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In 2026 we marked the 205th anniversary of Greek independence. We proudly trace our heritage back thousands of years in Europe where they developed the ancient Greek's advanced civilization and brought so many things of such importance to the Western world that we still live by and enshrine today. Number one being democracy itself as we sit and participate that -- in that in this very moment. It is an honor and a privilege to recognize all of the contributions of our ancestors across the fields of medicine, logic, philosophy, mathematics, architecture to name a few on the intellectual side as well as bringing the world the Olympic Games by which Greece itself most recently hosted in 2004. With that and in recognition of Greek independence which from the time it was declared in 1821 'til it was achieved in 1832, we all trace our roots back to. And that's what led to so many of us thereafter coming under 400 years -- ending 400 years of Ottoman Rule and freeing our people, and we have been free since. It's an absolute honor to recognize all of those who have come before me by ethnicity, by blood, by contribution to the Western world and everything they have given us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the representative of Greece -- the Town of Greece, I rise today to commemorate Greece [sic] History Month on behalf of myself and the 96,000 Grecians in the Town of Greece who call this State home. The Town of Greece was named Greece in honor of the Greek fight for independence and I join with my colleagues here in the Assembly to recognize Greek History Month. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Bores.

Mr. Gandolfo.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Yeah. A -- a lot is similar. I'd say more is similar than it looks like because it was restructured and things were moved around. But a few of the things that have changed: There's now no requirement to not release dangerous models. That -- that bit of potential liability was removed. Our definition of catastrophic risk went from potentially causing 100 deaths to 50 deaths. There's no section for knowledge distillation as a definition of a Frontier model. There's no spending requirement for qualifying as a Frontier model; it used to be you had to spend $100 million on the training, that's been removed and somewhat replaced by the company needs to have $500 million in revenue in order for it to qualify. There's a new ability to opt into a national standard in the future if one develops. There's the establishment of the office, which is now in the budget process proposed to be renamed "Digit", but that is new since the bill passed. The legislative intent also recognizes a reference to due care by Frontier companies, along with a number of other changes.

Well, I'll let the federal government speak for itself. They actually -- today I think is the due date tied to that Executive Order in order to designate which state laws they're originally going to target. I will say that this -- we worked with California and legislators in a number of other states to make this bill quite similar to what has passed elsewhere, and I think ultimately and this is my personal opinion, not speaking for the Body or -- or the federal government, I think that it should be regulated at the Federal level, but the federal government is not passing things right now and so you're seeing states like New York step up. And so this is another example of states taking the lead.

Again, we'd have to let the federal government speak for themselves. I -- I will say that the original draft of the Executive Order specifically named SB 53 and -- and had a lot of implicit references to this bill as well. The final Executive Order, they seemed to take out the reference to SB 53 but leave perhaps implicit ones. So, you know, we're going to move forward and protect New Yorkers and we'll deal with the federal government as it comes.

So part of that is defined in this bill. Additional aspects were defined in the Executive Budget proposal and I think, you know, tomorrow we'll be discussing the One-House and there's pieces that are relevant there. But to summarize maybe all of those together, all this bill does is establish that there is an office to look at Frontier AI. The broader budget proposal puts that within a new office called "Digit", which has a responsibility for both Frontier AI and I believe data brokers as well. In the long term, it'll be funded by an assessment on the AI companies themselves. Again, I think in this first year it is funded by just a -- a shift within appropriations, because the assessments aren't starting until next year. But that office will have the responsibility of taking in some of the disclosure reports that come from the AI companies, reporting back aggregated statistics, anonymized statistics on what they are seeing, making suggestions for additional reporting and making suggestions to the Legislature as to new changes that they think should be enacted into law.

Thank you.

On the bill.

Read the last section. THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The RAISE Act as we're passing it today establishes the -- itself as the strongest AI safety bill in the country. I'm proud to have worked with industry, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and people nationwide to really contribute to a nationwide standard and framework that can protect New Yorkers while allowing innovation to thrive. This bill, which will only apply to the absolute largest developers, makes sure that they have to take New Yorkers' safety in mind. It'll be a benefit for the State and for people nationwide. I'm very proud to have sponsored this and proud today to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt these proceedings momentarily for an introduction on behalf of Mr. Lemondes. We would like to introduce a couple of guests that Mr. Lemondes has with him today, Dr. James Telonis and his wife, Kelly. Dr. Telonis was born in Greece and later emigrated with his family to the United States in 1966 and has lived locally in Onondaga County his whole life. He is a graduate of Le Moyne College and Upstate Medical University and completed his residency at St. Joseph's Health Hospital. He ran his medical practice, Family Medicine Associates CNY for over 30 years, sold it in 2017 but continued to work there until he retired in 2024. Most importantly though, Dr. Telonis has been an active member at St. Sophia's Greek Orthodox Church in Syracuse since emigrating from Greece. He's served as a member of the Parish Council, has been an active member of the AHEPA, Ahepa Chapters 37 in Syracuse where Mr. Lemondes is also a member and has been the president of it since 2024. It's one of New York's oldest active chapters. For over 15 years he ran the St. Timothy Summer Camp in the Adirondacks which allowed young members of the Greek Orthodox churches from Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo to attend the camp each summer. And an active member and part of running GOYA, the Greek Orthodox Youth of America at St. Sophia's as well. He's provided empathetic care to so many of our families including Assemblymember Lemondes and he's joined today by his wife Kelly. He's been married for 42 years who has also been instrumental in her support of the church and helping to raise their five -- or, their five children. Madam Speaker, would you please welcome our two esteemed guests on behalf of Mr. Lemondes? Thank you.

An explanation has been requested. Ms. Paulin.

Mr. Blankenbush.

On the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Gandolfo.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

So first, I think it's important to know that the person -- constituent of mine who recommended that we do this worked and retired from DFS and believed that this was really problematic in the way that Declaration pages are presented to the constituents that we have. Second to your point, your question, the additional -- it's almost -- it -- it reminded me this morning when I saw my g-mail pop up and there was a summary. It was a hugely long e-mail and I didn't have time to read it and AI gave me a summary of four points. And I read the summary, because I didn't have time, knowing that I've already looked at many of those e-mails and it's very accurate and gave me a way to respond. So there were four clear points in an e-mail that was two pages long, and I thought it was very helpful and that's exactly what this is intending to do. It's to make it clear to the recipient of the insurance that there's a summary that they can readily understand in large print right in front that includes the basis of the policy. And it also includes major exclusions. I will remind this House that we have voted in the past and have made law for exclusions relating to auto policies that were, we thought by passing that law and DFS agreed by encouraging the Governor to sign, that were absolutely missing and that many people, in fact, I personally was the subject of -- of that exclusion when my own daughter was hit by a car. So, you know, so I think that major exclusions adding to the summary, which is not in the declarations, is a very helpful concept. And again, the list that is included is just a summary so that the average person, like you and me and everyone in this House can understand better what's in a very long, very small printed document.

Yes.

Well, a Declarations Page is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of what's in your policy. So -- so this is reducing that language to English (laughter) and -- or --or 8th grade English, let's just say and -- and it's supposed to be a very short version in large print so that people can better understand what's in the larger document.

I -- I can only tell you that someone directly from DFS reached out to me and -- and believes that this is an important -- something to change in the law.

On the bill.

Read the last section. THE CLERK: This act shall take effect October 1st.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minority Conference will be in the negative on this particular piece of legislation, but if members do wish to support it, they may certainly vote that way at their seats now. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, the Majority Conference is in favor of this consumer-friendly piece of legislation. We will be voting for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker for -- I want to explain my vote. I found it very interesting, this year's debate as compared to last, I think. Something came up that's very striking and that honestly is the point that AI can intercept a long e-mail for you and translate it very shortly. You didn't even ask them on that. I mean, I never set that up on my phone, but it will do that. And so I'm -- I'm hopeful that once people realize the value of this legislation, it will not cost additional resources for a national wide insurance company to speak with AI and say, this is what we want to do for our customers. We want to simplify this so that they understand it clearly what this Declaration Page means. And so I think sometimes we have to be the leaders on these things even though business pushes back on us. So I want to congratulate the sponsor and it's my pleasure to support it.

An explanation has been requested. Mr. Rivera.

Ms. Walsh.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Sure.

That is correct.

Sure. I've met with multiple folks in the industry that handle lead paint inspections and in fact, I've met with folks in my district who actually certify those who produce certified lead inspections. And the -- the -- the test itself is -- is handled within a few hours in -- in a given residential unit. It's not too exhaustive. The technology that they -- that we've come up with over the years have made it much easier. Essentially a -- a small what looks to be almost like a surface thermometer is used to -- to detect where lead is in walls. Once that's done, a report is issued and it's determined what the lead levels could be in certain parts of a home. The cost of it is not that expensive and as part of the legislation it speaks to the cost of the inspection itself being deducted as part of the transfer tax or part of the -- the closing costs. So it doesn't come to the expense of the seller.

No. What happens is that as -- the cost of the inspection itself which ranges, from what I've heard, to the 3-, 4-, $500 range. That -- the cost of that inspection is deductible from the person's closing cost.

Yep.

Correct. It does not require mandates expect any sort of remediation or encapsulation. It is purely just the furnishing of the information to the incoming buyer.

Not necessarily. You know, there's some misconceptions around lead paint and the cost of -- of dealing with it and in many cases, in most cases, lead paint can easily be encapsulated at -- at a very low cost. But at the end of it, we want to make sure that any incoming buyer, any new owner of -- of -- of the residence is made fully aware and that, you know, any future folks that might want to buy the house down the road, they're able to obtain that information from their local jurisdiction.

Not if it's applied across the board. So, you know, any residence built before 1978, this would apply to any of them. So if I'm looking at a -- purchasing my next home and I'm, you know, narrowed it down to three, four, five homes that I'm interested in pursuing, they're all going to be in the same position. So it's not as if there's going to be an un -- an imbalance or an unfair thing where, you know, I'm not going to get this house because of this reason. But at the end of the day, as an incoming buyer, as an incoming person that's going to be living in the home, I want to be fully aware of whatever the risks may be if there's any risks. So I would say, you know, the transparency that comes with it out trumps any of the other concerns.

Nope. It purely provides the straight scientific data to the incoming buyer in the percentage of -- of lead or the milligram count that -- that may exist, but then also where in the house it may exist.

Correct.

Yeah. I mean, it's -- it's -- you're -- we're never able to completely determine how many house sales are going to happen in a given year, so that's, you know, that's reflected by that. I mean, the markets will go up and down. Some years it'll be one way, some years it -- it might be another. But, you know, to the State itself, it's, you know, the cost really isn't there. It's -- it's, you know, the -- the inspections are done, that's covered by the cost in the closing like I mentioned before and, you know, there's filing that -- that -- that takes place in -- in our local jurisdictions and -- and that's pretty much it.

Yeah. I think that's a good thing. I think a seller should be absolutely transparent when they're selling their properties and if there's an issue, let it be a septic issue, a lead issue, a radon issue, a leaky roof issue, then the incoming buyer should be fully made aware of it. And if that means that the sellers going to have to, you know, adjust their price, well then that's part of any other negotiation. I mean, when -- if I buy a home and an inspection shows me that there's a hole in the roof, well then that's all that should be part of it and if this is one of those things then that's fine. I think that, you know, being fully eyes open as a -- as a buyer, means more than -- more than the inconvenience of the seller.

I -- I would say, you know, I -- I've bought and sold a few houses in the last few years and I would say, you know, between the moment you first see a house and decide that's the one you're gonna put an offer in, you know, aside from that you're dealing with the bank, you're dealing with the inspection, you're dealing with an assessment, you're doing, maybe, a radon test. You know, there's countless steps along the way. And -- and I think one test that takes a few hours shouldn't really slow down a process, that, you know, in many cases takes two, three, sometimes more months. I -- I don't see it delaying much else given that, you know, there's already a length of time built in to these sort of purchases.

Correct.

Yeah. I mean, I -- I will say that, you know, in the -- the city that I -- I partially represent Buffalo, is -- it's a city in the country with the oldest housing stock. And I think that's gotta be somewhat similar across a lot of Upstate areas. I'd say that, you know, if we -- we're there as an old housing stock in this country, we will find lead. It's the nature of it. But, you know, over the years as new homes are being built that's less and less an issue because, obviously, lead paint hasn't been manufactured since the '70s. But we are still here kind of suffering the -- the delays of it all.

Yeah.

Yup. MS. WALSH -- testing on homes built before that time.

You mentioned about the one -- I think you said it was a one page federal disclosure that's part of the -- the --

-- yeah.

But then also the State also has a property condition disclosure statement that we require.

And lead paint is a question, I believe it's on line 3 of the property condition disclosure statement as well that contains a question about the age of the house, which if it is declared to have been built before 1978, encourages -- you know, affirmatively encourages the seller to investigate for the presence of lead paint. So why, with the federal form, which I understand is one page long, but then the -- the property condition disclosure statement, why do we need this legislation as a third step?

Now, I did see that there were some exemptions in the bill, some residential real property transactions that are exempted from the requirements.

Just for clarity, on the record, would you please just run through what those exemptions are and -- and --

-- why they were exempted?

That area, yes. So property rentals, for example, aren't covered. And then --

Yeah.

Very good. All right. So once the inspection is completed, where must the report be filed?

The county clerk?

Okay. Does the county clerk have to do any kind of -- I'm going to continue. Thank you. Does the county clerk have to do any particular research or anything or just accept the document?

Okay. Now the -- the New York State Association of Realtors is opposed to this legislation because, in its words, it places a Statewide mandate on all sellers of residential property but fails to address the significant cost associated with lead paint hazards for remediation or removal. It says -- NYSAR says that, New York State should focus on securing and distributing additional State and federal grant funding to assist property owners in remediation efforts where costs can range from $8 to $15 per square foot. And the State Department of Health estimating costs to remediate could exceed $10,000 per property. So -- there is a question here. Has there been any appropriation in this year's One-House Budget or in the Governor's budget or anywhere to address that concern?

What's the process required for encapsulation?

Okay. What about the cost of hiring somebody to -- who's a -- who's certified in remediation efforts for lead to come in and say what that remediation plan should be? Like, it should be full removal? Should it be encapsulation? Or what it should be? I mean, how much do those people costs and are there many of them in New York?

It's not good.

So we think -- we think, though, that there are enough of these individuals around, and that they're -- they're gonna be able to come up with a unique plan for each property and a -- that's involved in this kind of transaction to --

-- to determine what the cost will be?

I guess, my last thought is, you know, we've talked about it many times here, but at a time when New York State is experiencing such a grave shortage in housing, is this -- won't this legislation potentially make that worse?

So it would -- it would encourage the -- the creation of additional new housing, that is what you're saying?

Okay.

All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Rivera --

-- for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So I -- I really want to support this bill. I mean in the sense that I -- I don't want there to be a lead hat -- or lead paint or hazard risk for any New Yorkers, particularly our children. I am concerned, though, about the way that the bill handles things and the way that it's written and the way that it will actually, you know, impact the -- the housing market. I think that if we're really -- I mean, I -- I did ask questions about whether there was any real funding to eliminate the lead paint or lead hazards risk and the sponsor answered that there was. I don't know how that program operates. I don't know how much is in it, but it seems to me that if this legislation does end up getting passed and signed, this is going to open up a -- a really huge, new problem. I mean, maybe to the sponsor's point, maybe it's a problem that we need to have for the -- for the safety of our kids and residents, but it's a problem nonetheless. And I really think that when you have a bill memo that just kind of says, you know, "cost to be determined", I wish we could nail that down a little bit better, because I do think along with what the New York State Realtors are saying, this is going to be a very, very costly endeavor potentially. So I think that in all likelihood, I mean, last year we had a number of no votes on this legislation and I would anticipate that that will be the case again this year. There may be some who wish to support it, so I expect that there might be a mix of votes. But for my part, although I do believe in trying to preserve the safety of individuals from the problems of a lead paint, I don't know that this bill is really the best way to go about it. So I think I'm going to remain a -- a no on this bill, but I thank the sponsor for his answers to my questions. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Yes.

All right. So this legislation did pass the Assembly last year --

-- and has any -- has anything changed in the legislation since then?

Okay. So under this bill, even if a homeowner has no knowledge of any lead hazards in their home, they're still required to hire a professional to conduct testing before they can sell their home; is that correct?

Got it. Yes. I want to kind of circle back on some of the things that my colleague asked about and -- is the section that you're referring to when we're talking about the costs kind of being built into the closing, is that Section 532, sub-Section C? Is that --

That's what we're referring to?

Okay. So -- and just give me a little bit of -- of latitude here because it -- I'm not seeing in here specifically, is it the -- is it the bank, it is the creditor, is it the county that has the transfer tax? Who is -- where is that 3- to $500 coming from? Because it says it's up to $500. Where -- is it specifically on the transfer tax so it ultimately it's going to be a county expense?

Okay. So then that -- that's the count -- the -- the transfer tax is the county, correct?

Got it. But ultimately, it is the -- the count -- what I'm trying to get at is, the county is responsible for paying for this.

So yes. (Laughter) This -- this feels a lot like an unfunded mandate on -- on a county. Is that -- would -- would you consider that a clear class -- clear classification of what this is?

So if 100 houses were sold, theoretically in, let's just say Erie County, at $500 a pop, up to, I mean theoretically, you could get to a place where it's $50,000 that's -- that the county is ultimately paying for these inspectors to come and inspect homes.

Okay. But they're still out the money for the inspection. I mean, they -- they're -- you could assume if you're -- based on that logic --

-- you could assume that the houses would increase in price every year.

Are we sure?

It does? Okay. So thank you for making my next point for me, because in here in the legislation it says that it's capped at $500. So with things like minimum wage continuing to increase, as technology increases, maybe the equipment that the inspectors uses get more expensive maybe a decade from now. So maybe, a decade from now we're talking about 6-, 7-, $800, $900 and this is capped at 5-, so then is it safe to assume that in the future without any type of adjustment that cost will in fact be borne on the home seller?

Well, you have more faith than I do, Jon. I appreciate it.

So I guess the last question I will have -- have is, you know, we kind of talk about what work -- workforce development and a -- a changing workforce. And one of the things that I've been hearing about in specifically the trades in building, is that there is a shortage of, you know, whether it's craftsman, roofers, drywallers, you know, there is a shortage of people that are in the trades, and I think that while it -- it -- it -- yes, conceivably it would be pretty easy to get people certified to test for lead, the fact of the matter is in some areas, finding lead inspectors may not be as easy as one would think. So I guess a question is, has any consideration been given as to the delays on housing transactions if someone cannot find a certified inspector in a timely manner?

Okay. Then my -- my last -- thank you very much. My last point to -- to this is, you said something earlier where it is -- it's -- you believe it's important that a homeowner or someone selling a home, you know, sells something -- or someone purchasing a home knows that they're getting a safe house. And I would agree with that sentiment. I think that's -- that's -- that's important. My question, though, with regards to that is, do you have any concern or is it possible to conceive that now sellers are going to be prepared for this, whether it's remediation -- if someone knows they have lead in their house that was built prior to 1978, would they now adjust -- would it not make sense for them to adjust the price of their sale, of the seller -- the price of their house that they're selling, to accommodate potential for remediation?

No. I'm saying that now they'll list them at a higher price and the reason is, if they're anticipating that they may have to remediate or it's now a negotiating point for a sell -- for a buyer, as a seller it would be incumbent upon you to actually inflate the price of your house to come back to your actual price. You see what I'm saying? I mean, that's -- that's capitalism.

I -- I appreciate it. I don't have any more questions but -- for -- for the -- the buying it as is, a couple of years ago when there was like 20 people bidding on houses, I mean, there, there was -- there's a lot of people buying it as is. (Laughter). So I -- I appreciate it, Jon.

Thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill real quick.

Again, I think the intent of this bill is -- is spot on. I -- I don't think that anyone wants our children, you know, to be exposed to lead paint. You know, I have come across my kids many of times gnawing on a windowsill, so trust me, I -- I -- I get it. My concern again is availability of inspectors. My concern is where is that -- where is this getting paid for and if this is in fact an unfunded mandate on a county, I would like some, you know, assurances that, you know, they're supportive of this and they're aware of this going forward. So again, I want to thank the sponsor for the intent of the legislation but with that, I will be against it.

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

Yes.

Thank you very much. Some of these questions we probably discussed back in June, but I do have one that my colleague just brought up that I -- I just -- I want to -- I wasn't going to ask but I -- I am going to open it up. So going back to Section 532 (C) with the $500 or the $400 per unit that the -- the funding comes out of the taxes paid and back to the cost associated would "to be determined", I guess I would just raise the question as transfer tax is split between the municipalities and the State, would that then be coming out of the portion that gets paid into New York State Tax and Finance being a State mandate?

Okay. So are we anticipating that that is something that might come up in a -- in a chapter amendment where it's identified how that is being decided?

Okay. So we're taking it off the transfer taxes that are collected, not necessarily taking it off of a sale price?

Okay. I'm going to shift gears a little bit. Still in that Section in 532 and it goes back to something you had just indicated and I know we discussed at length back in June when we -- we debated this bill. It's specifically on page 5, line 31 where it indicates, "the office shall not accept for filing unless accompanied by such certificate were applicable." And we discussed at -- at length back in June how that office would have the information to know when structures were built, and you had indicated that -- that your county has that information readily available. But if I'm not mistaken, I think today I just heard you say that there's nothing more that's needed by that office. They would just accept it as they would any other closing document; is that accurate?

So the language of, "unless accompanied by such certificate were applicable." Do we anticipate that language being adjusted?

How is the office to know when it's applicable if they don't know when the structures were built?

How does the office determine when the house was built or when the structure -- I think back in June, we said any structure on that -- on that lot?

The county clerk's office maintains the deeds on record which is technically the land. It does not maintain the records of structures built, and that's still my concern with the language in the -- in this bill.

Okay. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

Madam Speaker, on the bill.

As my colleagues have indicated and I also agree I believe that this bill is well-intended, has great intent. Unfortunately, I believe that there are flaws in the ability to execute when this does go into effect and for those reasons, I will continue to vote no on this until we -- we can remedy those situations as to where those that were asking to execute, have the understanding and the tools necessary to not put themselves in -- in jeopardy of not following the way in which the language of the law is written. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, would the sponsor yield, please?

Yes.

Thank you. I wonder if you know how many children in the State of New York are right now lead poisoned?

Say it again.

Wow! That's a lot.

And if these are young people that have been poisoned by lead, particularly in the homes that they're living in, because it's already been stated that we are a part of the country that's the oldest in the nation because we're in the Northeast. And clearly, lead paint was being used at that time. So most of those students that you just mentioned that have been poisoned are probably in our school systems.

And so, can you talk a little bit about how the increasing number of Special Ed Teachers is called for in our society of late?

So the largest parts of most of our budget is -- is education. And very often, a lot of those increases come as a result of there needing to be more Special Education teachers, more highly-qualified and more students in the classrooms that have special education. Would you agree?

So this is actually -- thank you. On the bill, Madam Speaker.

This is actually -- it-- it's a health concern because we're -- we're talking about children. The likelihood of a somebody over 30 or 40 getting lead poisoned is almost slim to none. They may get it, but it won't have the same impact. But a child under six -- five or six, it's gonna impact their neurological development, and when that happens, they are going to need some special attention. Not just at home, but when they get to school. And it's not like they can't make it, they can but we have to invest in that, and I believe we do in a great way in the State of New York, but we can turn that investment into being able to decrease things if we stop the spread of lead poisoning in our children. It's possible to do and I think this piece of legislation is a piece of that. Now, none of us remember this, but in 1942, this country was in that debate on whether or not we should put lead in paint. And I'm sure there were con -- some consumers who said, oh no. We don't want that because it could impact children and their ability to learn. But there are some countries who said, you know what, we don't want lead in our paint. Cuba has never had lead in their paint because they decided that it was more important to protect the children than it was to let -- allow business to make the product faster. And I understand, you know, we're a capitalistic society. We like to get into the business and make the resource to that, but not at the expense of our children, because at the end of the day, it costs us all more money to take care of them. And so, I think this is a -- is -- is -- is a good bill. By the way, it's not enough. We still need to do more because there are still concerns. But just looking at the number of support letters that came in with this legislation makes it real clear to me that this is an opportunity that we had before us to begin a process of trying to bring that number down instead of allowing it to increase of children and young people who have their entire developmental neurological system destroyed because they live in a place where there's lead paint. So I will be voting in support of this and I hope my colleagues understand that this is -- this is bigger than just about, you know, business. This is about government and how we protect our citizens and we have to begin protecting our citizens. It's been 85 years since we've been debating this issue in this country. Yet, we still have children who are born -- born and raised in communities, in homes where their houses have lead poison in them and then they end up in our school system costing us all more money. And so I really do believe that there -- there -- that this can end, but maybe not this year because we gotta do a little bit more work. But let's try to get this solved by -- within the next four to five years so that we don't have this issue. Let's not leave this opportunity on the table. Let's approve this today and ensure that it gets implemented. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A Party vote has been requested. Mr. Gandolfo.

Thank you. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.

Thank you. The Clerk will record the vote. Ms. Glick to explain her vote.

Ms. Glick in the affirmative. Mr. Meeks to explain his vote.

Mr. Meeks in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. The bill is passed. Page 18, Calendar No. 85, the Clerk will read. <a name="02332"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly No. A02332-B, Calendar No. 85, Berger, Lee, Kay. An act to amend the Social Services law, in relation to requiring any website or mobile application associated with an Electronic Benefit Transfer system to be offered in the twelve most common non-English languages.

This bill would require websites and mobile applications for Electronic Benefit system, EBT systems, to be made available in 12 most common non-English languages.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

Absolutely. Yes.

Could you talk a little bit about how this bill came about or why -- why this bill has been developed?

Yeah. So could you -- so you mentioned EBT. That stands for Electronic Benefit Transfer system, correct?

And could you just, for those of us who are the uninitiated, talk about what those EBT benefits are and kind of walk me through an individual that would be receiving those benefits, how that all works?

So that EBT card that an individual has, is that a physical card that they have, or is it on their phone, or --

Physical card. And is that reloaded each month with a certain amount of benefit that that person is entitled to?

Okay. And I -- I totally appreciate the concern about skimming devices. I had that happen to one of my credit cards about six months ago and it was a real pain in the neck. So if somebody goes to the grocery store and they're trying to use this EBT card to pay for groceries, it -- it could happen -- it could happen, unfortunately, that they might have a zero balance because that's gotten skimmed off the card, right?

Okay. So, and I think we all will agree that that's, you know, if we're -- if -- if folks are entitled to and are getting money through this plan, through this EBT plan, we want to be sure that they're getting it and that they're able to use it. I mean, there's no argument there at all. The question I've got is -- and we -- we spoke about this a little bit earlier and I want to just be sure that we get it on the record, what's the relationship between -- in -- in the way that the EBT program is run, between the State and then the locals, the counties and the localities in administering this program?

Okay. So -- so let's just take an example of where that might come up. An individual gets their EBT card, they get that monthly amount, say it's the first of the month and they're going out, they shop, they spend a portion of it. They're supposed to then lock that card right after using it in between say grocery store visits? Or --

Okay. So is -- is the idea then -- so the way I had read the bill or the explanation was that if someone who is the recipient who has the EBT card, if they suspect that maybe that balance is going down faster than what they used it for or something like that, that they would have an ability in their own language to be able to communicate with the administrators of the program and be able to basically put a stop on their card.

Is that -- is that what this is doing?

Okay. And -- and I guess -- and -- and I probably just don't know this, but I had always thought that either an outside vendor or the county would be somehow involved in -- because I know that, you know, my constituents, they'll go to the county office in order to set up their benefits. Are you saying that once they set those benefits up, they're being administered just solely through the State?

Okay. All right. So there was a concern raised by the New York State Public Welfare Association, I want to just give you an opportunity to comment on what they said. They indicated that it was preferable to allow individual counties to provide language services needed to serve a particular group of residents; for example, refugees, rather than require translation services for the same 12 languages in every county throughout the State. So could you just address what that concern was that was raised?

So there might be other bills out there that we may take up at some later point --

-- but this is not that. Okay. Very good. Well, I want to thank you for answering my questions, I appreciate it. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

So I appreciated the dialogue because I do think that now that I have a greater understanding of exactly who is responsible under this bill to provide the language services in the 12 most common English languages and that it doesn't appear to have any impact on localities or create a mandate for our counties, my viewpoint about the bill has changed. I know that last year the bill passed the Assembly, died in the Senate Social Services Committee and we did have a significant number of no votes in opposition to the bill, I think based upon the understanding or the concern that it may impact counties. And since it's clear from the debate today that the sponsor's point of view is that it does not have any impact on the counties, I would imagine that some of our members may feel differently than last year, but we may still have a scattering of votes. And I, for my part, will be supporting this bill now based upon the debate that we've had and I'm going to be changing my vote from last year. And the reason is, that I think that we talk about all of the problems that we have and wanting to make sure that any money that we're appropriating as a State is going to actually reach the people who need it and that it's going to be spent in a responsible manner. We are always talking about the need to prevent waste, fraud and abuse and I think that if you take a look at this bill, I think that that's exactly what it's aiming to do. So I will be in support of this bill and I thank you, Madam Speaker.

A Party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.

Thank you. The Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. The bill is passed. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.

Page 17, Calendar No. 82, the Clerk will read. <a name="02212"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly No. A02212, Calendar No. 82, Braunstein, Woerner, Steck, Paulin, Brabenec, Stirpe, Jacobson. An act to amend the State Finance Law and the General Municipal Law, in relation to requiring full payment for delivered and accepted materials pertaining to public work projects; and to amend the General Business Law, in relation to prohibiting the retention of any payment due and owing a material supplier for a construction project.

This bill amends the State Finance Law, General Municipal Law and General Business Law to prohibit retainage on payments owed to material suppliers for delivered and accepted materials on public and private construction projects. The bill ensures suppliers receive full and prompt payment for their materials.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple of question?

Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

Five percent, and then for some public projects it could go up to ten.

It only applies to materials that are graded or covered under a warranty.

Correct.

Well, if it's covered under a warranty, the warranty would cover that correction. And generally with graded materials, that's -- that's not common.

And it's also similar to like if you and I would buy something at the store and, you know, you bring it home and you realize that there's a defect, you, you know, you --

That's their protection.

Correct.

Thank you.

The Clerk will record the vote. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.

Ms. Walsh in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. The bill is passed. Page 19, Calendar No. 91, the Clerk will read. <a name="02539"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly No. A02539, Calendar No. 91, Dinowitz, Weprin, Williams, Colton, Seawright, Simon, Raga, Otis, Alvarez, Sayegh. An act to amend the General Business Law, in relation to requiring mandatory arbitration clauses in certain consumer contracts to be printed in large font type.

Certainly. This bill would require a mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to be printed in large font. And when I say large, I mean 16 points which actually isn't that large, but it's larger than 12 points.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the bill.

Yeah. So, really what I had to say didn't require any further questions, the explanation is sufficient. So this bill would establish specific requirements for mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts and consumer -- and that -- they're already banned in New York State starting in 1984 and some of our -- the 40 under 40 that are in this Body right now probably weren't even born then. Given the existing prohibition on these mandatory arbitration clauses on consumer contracts, the impact of this bill is kind of difficult to see. There are very likely few consumer contracts that were signed prior to the prohibition on mandatory arbitration that remain in effect today. So it seems to be a problem that has already been solved with the prohibition of such clauses in consumer contracts all together and while we can understand the intentions behind a bill such as this might be laudable, this bill could be argued to only confuse business entities and average consumers because it runs contrary to the existing prohibition on mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts that's currently in New York State Law. And for that reason, I will be opposing this fine bill with apologies to the sponsor and I would note that the New York State Insurance Association is also opposed. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

A Party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

Thank you. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.

The Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results. The bill is passed. Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.

Page 37, Calendar No. 242, the Clerk will read. <a name="09519"></a> THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09519, Calendar No. 242, McDonald, Lunsford, Cruz, Simon, Levenberg, Sayegh, Clark. An act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to requiring certain health insurance policies include coverage services provided by pharmacists related to contraceptives.

Thank you, Madam Spaker. This bill would require health insurers to pay an administrative fee to a pharmacist who dispenses a self-administered hormonal contraceptive and provides related services no less than a current Medicaid rate.

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

Of course.

Thank you. I guess first of all, is -- are pharmacists required to consult with customers or patients and administer these contraceptives or is it -- is it optional?

They're allowed, but --

Okay. But are they -- so --

That's where I was going with that. So they're not mandated to do it. So the fact that under our current setup, they don't get paid anything for doing this work. They could just say, like, I don't want to do it then. If I'm not going to get compensated for it, I'm not -- I'm not going to do it.

Oh, that's interesting. Okay.

Several hundred per?

Per patient? Oh, several hundred --

Patients, okay. And -- and do you happen to know how much they get for -- or they have been getting --

Yeah. So for Medicaid, for a new consultation --

-- first time only, its $48.20.

And then that allows, basically, a patient to receive up to a year supply --

-- under that standing order issued by the Commissioner of Health. If the patient comes back here, too, for a follow-up, it's $15.29.

And the consultation, you know, it's not just "sign this piece of paper", there's about a 15, 20 minute conversation that goes on getting a patient's medical history, any allergies, any health conditions that are applicable. This is all clearly defined in the Commissioner's standing order.

So for commercial -- well, for the commercial insurance, what we're saying and, you know, this bill was vetoed last year. I don't know if you realize --

I figured you would be. Should I go into it now?

Why not, right?

So --

The veto message was about the fact that they were worried about an impact on commercial health insurance, which I think we all share that concern. Currently, if a physician or a nurse practitioner provides the same service on commercial health insurance, they're reimbursed and it's a range between $92 and $148 for their visit. So what we decided to do recognizing the veto message is saying, you know what, we'll start off and the language is such -- We okay? Yeah. We'll start off and saying, you know what, the Medicaid reimbursement is -- is reasonable. We'll start off with that and still give the authority to a health plan if they want to compensate pharmacists more than what a physician or a nurse practitioner is. Nothing is restricting them from doing that.

So we're being sensitive to the cost -- being sensitive to cost.

The -- the pharmacist will be paid less for the administrative fee for doing in that particular situation one versus the other would be paid less, and yes.

Yeah. I didn't -- I think actually -- I think we discussed this last year in the debate. I - -I still am questioning. I've asked, can you give me an example of what you're talking about? Because -- and I don't want to get into weeds on pharmacy reimbursement methodology, but I actually kind of know that. All they did was adopt a CPT code and an administrative fee and basically the pharmacist just (indicating) like that. It's -- we did this for COVID vaccines, administration fees, we did this for tests. Remember during the pandemic we had -- people were getting the swabs and pharmacists were able to do that. It's just a simple transaction. It's very widely known, it's through the NCPDP protocol which is accepted between all medical and health insurance systems. So I'm still confused by that because I don't really find that to be a valid concern.

It did not because the issue was moot at the time earlier --

-- so there's no reason to change that.

Yeah. I -- I find that to be an incorrect statement. Not that you're saying that, you're just --

-- just sharing that. Right, right, right, right. You know, actually quite honestly, it -- if you compare what a provider, you know, what a provider will be paid, a doctor or a nurse practitioner, this actually saves the healthcare system money. I don't promote it as that. I look at it more from the fact that pharmacists are licensed professionals. For 20 years they've been PharmD's. They're following a doctor's order no different than they do for any other standing order whether we're giving out Melixol, whether we're doing vaccines and like any other healthcare provider, they're providing a public health service. They should be reimbursed accordingly, although it'll be less than the other providers.

Right. MS. WALSH: -- are we really overburdening pharmacists with things that are really, you know, had previously been not within scope of what they were doing?

Correct. MR. MCDONALD: -- in the Higher Ed Committee.

Right? And the reality is is that our healthcare system struggles because we do have a lot of silos. When quite frankly, multidisciplinary approaches is the best way to improve healthcare. So I think, yes, there are going to be some locations that it may not be able to fit into their work plan. That being said, pharmacists are a nice little community like everything else. If someone can't provide something, they help somebody -- they help connect them to somebody else. But we really -- the main interest here is the fact that in -- in regards to women's health, sometimes there is just a dearth of providers. Whether it's an urban area, whether it's in a rural area and we're just trying to expand that access without making it mandatory.

On the bill.

Thank you. Read the last section. THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for an introduction on behalf of Assemblymembers Brown -- Keith Brown, Fitzpatrick and Lavine. We're greeted and joined here today by students from Long Island from Roslyn High School and Hauppauge High School from Cohen Strong Mental Health Advocacy Program. They're here to advocate during Mental Health Matters Day, which many of us passed through today. Joined today -- we have a number of people that we're -- we're joined with today, including Madeline, Bianca, Cara, Sophie, Ellen, Manha, Zoe and Elizabeth. So Madam Speaker, would you please welcome these great advocates for mental health to the People's House?

Thank you again, Madam Speaker. So we have another introduction here. We're greeted by more folks in the Chamber today. On behalf of Assemblymember Pirozzolo, we'd like to welcome people from the Seamen's Society for Children and Families, who by the way are celebrating their 180th birthday, the Seamen Society, on April 2nd. So we have David Gaskin, who is the President and CEO; Teresa Cirelli, the Chief Development Officer and Maureen Higgins who is the Senior Development Coordinator. So would you please also welcome these great folks to the People's House and afford to them all the cordialities of the House?

Madam Speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm here to announce that the Minority Conference will be beginning a Zoom briefing within 15 minutes or so of the conclusion of Session. So please take a look for the link and we'll see you all on the Zoom. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, would you please call on our colleague Sarah Clark for the purpose of an announcement?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am announcing Majority Conference immediately following Session in the Assembly Speaker's Conference Room immediately following Session.

I now move that the Assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10:00 a.m., Thursday March the 12th, tomorrow being a Session day.