New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The house will come to order.

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: Quiet, please.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Morning, colleagues. His eminence, archbishop Alpedopharus, will offer a prayer.

[Archbishop Elpidophoros of America]: 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, oh 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 two hundred and fifty 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.

[Speaker 0]: Amen. Amen.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Visitors are invited to join members in the pledge of allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, March 10. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with a further reading of the journal of Tuesday, March 10, and that the same stand approved.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection, so ordered.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you so much. I, first of all, wanna let you guys know that I actually did miss you for this 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 Lunceford and Charles Falls. 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 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 heated, not overlooked and not ignored. Again, these 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 gonna begin our floor work by taking up resolutions on page three. Then we're gonna take up our some debate. We're gonna do rules report 85 by mister Boris. After that, we're gonna take up the following bills on the debate list. Calendar 15 by miss Pollan, calendar 59 by mister Rivera, calendar 85 by mister Berger, and calendar 91 by mister 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. We have a few pieces of housekeeping. On a motion by Ms. Pollan, page five, calendar number six, bill number A-one 173, the amendments are received and adopted. On a motion by miss Rosenthal, page 15, calendar number 70, bill number a one eight six five a, the amendments are received and adopted. We will start with an introduction from mister Tanussis.

[Michael Tannousis, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. It is my distinct honor, as I do every year, to of course to welcome and introduce archbishop Epidophoros, 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 El Podoforos and extend them all the privileges of the house.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Mr. Tanussis, the speaker and all members, we welcome you, your eminent to the assembly chamber and extending to you the privileges of the floor. We are very excited to see you here today. As always, you are very gracious and humble with your words. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Thank you. Ms. Button Joan, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Marianne Buttenschon, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the co chair of the Legislative Sportsman's Caucus, today we hosted a outstanding seminar as well as information session in the well. With me today on behalf of Assembly Member Barclay is Bill Wilbur that is here today and is a resident of Assembly Member Barclays District, as well as Brett Miller, formerly of Ulster County that is with the Congressional Federation Sportsman. 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Ms. Buttonshone, Member Barclay, the speaker and all members, we welcome you, Mr. Wilbur and Miller, to our Assembly Chamber and extend to you the privilege of the floor. It's always exciting to see our sportsmen organizations here. I have participated in the Women in Nature event on a few different occasions and have already signed up to attend again next month as well. So, you do great work and I think it's very important for people to know all of the outdoor activities that sports people can do. So we appreciate you being here today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Resolutions, page three. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one zero three seven, mister Sayaj. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/01/2026 as horse protection day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ten thirty eight, Mr. Levine, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/10/2026 as International Day of Women Judges in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ten thirty nine, Ms. Jackson, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/12/2026 as Working Moms Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ten forty, Mr. Jensen, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 2026 as multiple myeloma awareness month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Jensen, on the resolution.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the resolution, I speak on this resolution introducing and recognizing March as Multiple Melanoma Awareness Month. Multiple melanoma 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 two thousand individuals are diagnosed with multiple myeloma each year, and approximately six hundred of those New Yorkers lose their lives to this disease. Nationally, it's projected nearly thirty six thousand Americans will be diagnosed this year alone, with older adults making up a majority of this population. While advances in treatment have improved survival rates in recent years, multiple melanoma remains an incurable cancer, making awareness, early diagnosis, and continued investment in research so critically important. By recognizing March as Multiple Melanoma 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Ms. People Stokes on the resolution.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. I certainly wanna honor the sponsor of this resolution for introducing it and is a very well stated reason why we should be doing this. I did not even I had never heard of multiple melanoma until my brother was diagnosed with it. And my family and I of course did our own personal research and it's not a challenge to find good cancer care in my district because we have the great Roswell Park Institute there. But the process that he had to go through in order to now be in remission 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 wanna again congratulate him for introducing this resolution. I I certainly hope that everybody is gonna be in support of it, and I know that it is something that we need to move forward on this as a cancer. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ten forty one, Ms. Levenberg. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as native plant month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number ten forty two, Mr. Tenussis, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 2020 March 2026 as Greek history month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Lamondes, on the resolution.

[John M. Lemondes, Jr., Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. In 2026, we marked the two hundred and fifth anniversary of Greek independence. We proudly trace our heritage back thousands of years in Europe where they developed the ancient Greeks 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 till 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 four hundred years ending four hundred 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Jensen, on the resolution.

[Josh Jensen, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. As the representative of Greece, the town of Greece, I rise today to commemorate Greece 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Page four, rules report 85. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Senate eighty eight twenty eight, rules report 85, senator Guarnas, an act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Barras?

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill represents the chapter amendments to the RAISE Act as passed by the legislature last year and has been negotiated with the governor and the senate. It keeps the intent of the original legislation while making amendments and restructuring it such that it is more consistent with California's SB 53 and establishes a nationwide standard for how we will regulate frontier AI while still maintaining seven or eight places where it goes beyond California's rules and provides real new protections for New Yorkers. Frontier AI AI in general is moving incredibly quickly. I would argue it is the most important technology of our lifetime and can bring a lot of benefits, but also comes with some real risks. And so this bill requires that the absolute largest providers of AI, the largest developers of AI, make a safety plan that they make public and actually stick to, report on critical safety incidents to New York State, and it establishes an office within the New York State government to continue to investigate this emerging field, to learn from the companies, and to suggest ongoing improvements.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a few questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you. I appreciate it. So, I appreciate the explanation. Can you just walk us through some of these specific changes here and how it is differing? So, I know there are new transparency measures. Can you just describe what has changed from the original bill to this chapter amendment?

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: Yeah. A lot is similar. I'd say more 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 a hundred deaths to fifty 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. You see you had to spend a 100,000,000 on the training. That's been removed and somewhat replaced by the company needs to have 500,000,000 in revenue in order for it to qualify. There's a new ability to opt in to 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 do care by frontier companies along with a number of other changes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Alright. I appreciate that. Now, my understanding is that this does resemble the legislation that was passed in California, which I think is a good thing. I think if we had to deal with a 50 state patchwork of different AI regulations that might hinder development and innovation. So, my question is how does this fit in with the executive order from December 2025 from the federal government that attempts to preempt any state regulation of AI models?

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. Great. Do we anticipate any legal challenges coming from the federal government? Again, we'd to let

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: 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 seem to take out the reference to SB 53, but leave perhaps implicit ones. So, you know, we're gonna move forward and protect New Yorkers and we'll deal with the federal government as it comes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Alright. Thank you. And the office that will be established for the state to regulate structured? Is it going to be a stand alone agency? Will it fall within another agency? And will that have to be funded in the upcoming budget?

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: So part of that is defined in this bill. Additional aspects were defined in the executive budget proposal. And I think, 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 responsibility for both Frontier AI and I believe data brokers as well. In the long term, it will be funded by an assessment on the AI companies themselves. Again, I think in this first year, is funded by just a shift within appropriations because the assessments aren't starting till 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.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Alright. Excellent. That's all I have for you. Thank you for your responses, madam speaker. On the bill briefly.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. So, this chapter amendment does make some significant changes to the original legislation. But overall, it is aligning with what some other states are doing, notably California, which I think is important when we're dealing with AI regulation and a lot of new technology regulation to avoid a situation where you have a patchwork regulatory environment across 50 states that will hinder further development and innovation in these cutting edge fields. So, with that, I appreciate the sponsor taking the time to give some thoughtful answers. I will be supporting this bill. I think a lot of our colleagues will. We are satisfied with some of the changes made to address concerns brought by some of my colleagues and some in the industry. So thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Boris, to explain his vote.

[Alex Bores, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The RAISE Act, as we're passing it today, establishes the, itself is 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, make 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Boris and the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty four. Nose, one.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss Walsh, for the purpose of the introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much, madam speaker, for allowing me to interrupt these proceedings momentarily for an introduction on behalf of Mr. Lamondis. We would like to introduce a couple of guests that Mr. Lamondis has with him today, Doctor. James Toulonis and his wife Kelly. Doctor. Toulonis 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 Moines 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 thirty years, sold it in 2017 but continued to work there until he retired in 2024. Most importantly though, Doctor. Tolonis has been an active member at St. Sophia's Greek Orthodox Church in Syracuse since emigrating from Greece. He served as a member of the Parish Council, has been an active member of the AHEPA, AHEPA, Chapter thirty seven in Syracuse where Mr. Lamondes 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 fifteen years he ran the St. Timothy's 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 has provided empathetic care to so many of our families including Assembly Member Lamondis. And he's joined today by his wife Kelly, married for forty two years, who has also been instrumental in her support of the church and helping to raise their five children. Madam Speaker, would you please welcome our two esteemed guests on behalf of Mr. Lamondis. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. Lamondis, the speaker and all members, welcome doctor to our Assembly Chamber. We extend you the privilege of the floor. Always love to see a Dolphy alum in the house. So welcome. It's great to see you here today. Thank you for all of the wonderful work you've done in the community practicing, providing exemplary healthcare. So thank you to you and your wife for coming here today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Page seven, calendar number 15. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 536A, calendar 15, Ms. Pollan, enact to amend the insurance law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Pollan.

[Amy Paulin, Assembly Member]: The bill requires insurers to provide auto and homeowners policy holders with a summary document summarizing coverage.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Blankoposz.

[Kenneth Blankenbush, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm gonna go on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Kenneth Blankenbush, Assembly Member]: I remember this last year. We covered it. It's too bad we didn't have a video so we could just replay it. We're going to go over this again for those that are new here. The summary that the sponsor wants to put on the insurance bills are already covered in what is called the declaration page. So if you look at the, the bill, it says they want to put a summary of the limits of insurance. That's already on the declaration page. The term of the policy, already on the declaration page. The amount of the premium, already on the declaration page. But the one thing that isn't and is a summary of the exclusions. And I'll admit, as a licensed insurance agent since 1986, exclusions could be very difficult and to for our clients to understand. However, to put an exclusion in a summary is not is not really probably the legal way of doing it because exclusions are complicated. The way you get around knowing what those exclusions are is by sitting down with a licensed insurance agent and going over that policy. Now of all the years that I've been in the insurance business, when people come in to sit down, they want to know what the premium is, what the initial coverage is, and they want to get the hell out of my office. They do not want to sit there and read the policy even though I try to direct them that. And I'm not sure, I probably can't do this in session, but ask yourselves how many in this room actually sat down and read 100% of their insurance? Probably not a lot. The the bottom line is we're mandating the insurance companies to change their, computer systems, to put them to put it in red ink. Now, putting

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: it

[Kenneth Blankenbush, Assembly Member]: in red ink at the same thing that they have in their contracts and their policies. Now, I'm gonna be very brief today because that's basically the bottom line is that most people, one, don't read their insurance policies. And I'll tell you the other thing. If any of you or any of my clients or anybody else who's getting an insurance policy and calls an 800 number, gets a quote, and signs up for an insurance policy over an 800 number without talking to a licensed professional, you're making a mistake. The people are making a mistake. So, for example, with homeowners, one of the most expensive investments that people make in their lifetime hardly look at their life or their homeowners insurance policy. And so by putting it in red ink, in my opinion, is not going to do anything except pile it in another pile of insurance policy information. Most people are really interested in their exclusions after the fact, after they have an accident, after there's a fire, after there's flooding. Then everybody's interested in their exclusions. Over the years, I could tell you right now, and I told you, 1986 I've been in the business, except for three years ago I sold it, so I don't have any outside income, but I really don't care anymore. But so the bottom line is I can't remember three people, four people that actually wanted me to go over the policy and the exclusions. This is just putting another cost on an insurance the insurance companies by changing everything, the font, and and changing it to red. So it doesn't make any sense to me to be putting a mandate, another mandate on a policy that could possibly increase premiums of of the people that are that are our clients. One other thing. In the governor's budget, there were insurance reforms that were in her one house or her executive budget. Those reforms mimicked Florida that have already has that already did it. The results in Florida, and I think Georgia too, the results in Florida is that premiums went down, and I'm talking about automobile insurance now. Premiums went down for their clients, for the consumer. So what are we doing? We're looking at changing a changing a declaration page and making it red when I'm understanding is that in the one house bills of the assembly and the senate, they stripped those out of the of the policy. That's not in the in in those, in those budget bills. True economic help, and I hear affordability all the time, true economic help for our clients that were in the executive budget that both houses, in my understanding, I haven't read the total, but my understanding is they're not in that budget now. So we're not gonna

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: be

[Kenneth Blankenbush, Assembly Member]: saving we're not gonna be saving consumers money. We're going to making insurance policies, change their system, change the way they produce their forms, maybe cost of the insurance going up. That's opposite of what we should be doing in this house. So I I'm not in favor of this bill. I wasn't in favor of it last year. And so we're gonna be voting on this today. It's a consumer, in my opinion, you're helping raise the premiums of people in the state of New York. And therefore, I will be a negative on this bill. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a few questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Happy to. The sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague given a perspective from coming from the industry. But I have some questions about how this relates or similar to the current required declarations page. What is the difference between this proposed summary page and the current declarations page that's required by DFS to be included with a policy?

[Amy Paulin, Assembly Member]: So first, I think it's important to know that the person, a 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 reminded me this morning when I saw my Gmail pop up and there was a summary. It was a hugely long email 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 emails and it's very accurate. And it gave me a way to respond. So there were four clear points in an email 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 is 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 that exclusion when my own daughter was hit by a car. 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 could understand better what's in a very long, very small printed document.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, would this be included in in addition to the current declarations page? Yes. So, I mean, a declarations page is kind of like a summary. Is this a summary of the summary?

[Amy Paulin, Assembly Member]: Well, a declarations page is supposed to be an accurate portrayal of what's in your policy. So this is reducing that language to English or eighth grade English, let's And just it's supposed to be a very short version in large print so that people can better understand what's in the

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. Large document. So, my understanding, insurance law already requires insurers to use everyday meanings of some of the terminology where practical. And DFS also requires the inclusion of a declarations page, which is intended to summarize the entire policy. And DFS also reviews and approves all the policy documents that an insurer includes. So couldn't DFS then just require the insurers without passing legislation to to make changes to their declaration page? Because they approve it anyway. So are they falling short?

[Amy Paulin, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill please.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I don't want to belabor any of the points but one thing we also have to look at in this legislation I think is really a clinic in government bureaucracy. In order to produce this one pager summary of the summary of the insurance policy, DFS will have to form an advisory committee comprised of representatives from insurers or insurer associations, producers or producer associations, consumers or consumer associations, and academic experts on insurance regulation, who will then have to solicit and review public comments on what to include in this one page summary of the summary of the policy. And they have two hundred and ten days to do that, all to produce a one page version of the declaration, but now in red. So, I think it's really just an example of government bureaucracy and bloated regulation that just raises costs not only to the insurance companies, but to the state itself. So, I would recommend that my colleagues vote no on this. It's an unnecessary piece of legislation that will end up driving up costs for consumers and taxpayers as well. So thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This action will take effect October 1.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Ms. Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: And, Mr. Speaker, the majority conference is in favor of this consumer friendly piece of legislation.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: We'll be

[Speaker 0]: voting for it. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Miss People Stokes, to explain our vote.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker, for to explain my vote. I found it very interesting this year's debate as compared to last, I think. Something came up as very striking and that honestly is the point that AI can intercept a long email for you and translate it very shortly. You don't even ask them. I mean, never set that up on my phone, but it will do that. And so I'm hopeful that once people realize the value of this legislation, it will not cause 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. So I think sometimes we have to be the leaders on these things even though business pushes back on us. So wanna congratulate the sponsor, and it's my pleasure to support it.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Peoples Stokes in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 96. Noes, 42.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Page 13, calendar number 59, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number fifteen twenty nine a, calendar 59, mister Rivera, an act to amend the real property law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mr. Rivera.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Thank you. Before us is an act to amend the real property law in relation to requiring the disclosure of lead based paint test reports in real estate transactions. In New York, sadly we carry a burden of the statistic and that is that New York has more known cases of children with elevated blood levels than any other state. And there is a myriad of ways that we have to approach this and tackle this. And I feel like this piece of legislation is one of those ways.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. So I know that we debated this last June, I think in the waning days of session and I know it didn't quite get over the finish line on the Senate side and so here we are again. So I just want to go over some of the main points of the legislation. So from my reading, and I've been able to do a closer reading, this bill only applies to residential real property constructed after 1978. Is that correct?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: That is correct.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. And what is the average cost of doing a lead paint test and what does that entail?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: 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 test itself is handled within a few hours in a given residential unit. It's not too exhaustive. The technology that we've come up with over the years have made it much easier. Essentially a small, what looks to be almost like a surface thermometer is used 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 closing costs. So it doesn't come to the expense of the seller.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Well I just want to before we go on I just want to hear that last part again. Can you about the cost and that it doesn't go to the seller?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No what happens is that as the cost of the inspection itself would ranges from what I've heard to the $3.04 $500 range. That the cost of that inspection is deductible from the person's closing cost.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: From the as from the closing cost. Okay. I got you there. The the bill just addresses the disclosure of the presence of flood paint. Correct?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: But what's the what's the anticipated impact of a report that identifies the presence of lead paint in a residential home being filed with the clerk? I mean wouldn't it be anticipated that before the sale of that property that will need to be remediated?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Not necessarily. You know there's some misconceptions around lead paint and the cost of dealing with it. Know in many cases, in most cases, lead paint can easily be encapsulated at a very low cost. But at the end of it, want to make sure that any incoming buyer, any new owner 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Has there been any consideration about whether let's just say for example that a potential purchaser sees that there has been a report of the presence of lead paint in the property that they want to buy and that they need to go and get title insurance and insurance on the purchase. Has there been any discussion or consideration about whether it will be further complicated by that report being in existence identifying that there is lead paint present?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Not if it's applied across the board. So any residence built before 1978 this would apply to any of them. So if I'm looking at 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 be in the same position. So it's not as if there's gonna be an imbalance or an unfair thing where you know I'm not gonna get this house because of this reason, but at the end of the day as an incoming buyer, as an incoming person that's gonna be living in the home, I wanna be fully aware of where the risk may be if there's any risk. So I would say you know the transparency that comes with it out trumps any of the other concerns.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: And again going back to what the lead paint test is showing, it doesn't, it simply adds to whether yes, no there is lead paint present in the residence. It's not, it doesn't give for example any kind of a remediation plan or an estimate to remediate or anything like that, correct?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No, it purely provides the straight scientific data to the incoming buyer in the percentage of lead or the milligram count that may exist, but then also where in the house it may exist.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Where it exists, okay. And that would be part of the report saying it was discovered in the living room, it was discovered in the primary bedroom or something along that nature.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. So the memo accompanying the bill stated that the financial implications of this legislation is TBD to be determined. Can you just talk about that?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I mean it's, 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. Mean the markets will go up and down some years it will be one way, some years it may be another, but you know to the state itself it's you know the cost really isn't there. It's you know The inspections are done, that's covered by the cost in the closing like I mentioned before and you know there's filing that takes place in local jurisdictions and that's pretty much it.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: I want to just revisit before I go on to talk a little bit about some other things. When you mentioned again that the cost of the evaluation would be kind of absorbed, it sounds like, or would be used as a credit off in the closing, I mean it makes it sound like this is just financially neutral, but isn't it I mean wouldn't you say like I've had closings before where there's an inspection done on the septic system and or the roof or something like that and there's a problem. And then that, the fix of that becomes part of the negotiation between the purchaser and the seller. So it's just to imply that the seller isn't going to have to pay for this is not necessarily really accurate because I mean it's going to be something that's going to be a discussion in terms of the closing,

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I think that's a good thing. I think sellers should be absolutely transparent when they're selling their properties and if there's an issue, let it be septic issue, a lead issue, a radon issue, a leaky roof issue, then the incoming buyer should be fully made aware of it. If that means that the seller is gonna 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: I I completely understand your your point of view from like a policy point of view. I just I just thought that in terms of transparency, it's just it would it's fairer to just disclose that that is the likely impact of of a report that's going to show the disclosure of what is that there's gonna have to be further negotiation. They're gonna the parties are going to have to maybe have a meeting of the minds about what's going to have to get done. Would it be anticipated that there could be a delay in a closing if there's a positive report that's determined?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say, you know, I've bought and sold a few houses in the last few years and I would say between the moment you first see a house and decide that's the one you're gonna put an offer in, 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 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 don't see it delaying much else given that you know there's already a length of time built into these sort of purchases.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: And again, just to go back to what you've already said, this legislation doesn't prescribe a fix or remediation or anything. I mean the parties could meet minds and say we're going to do an adjustment of x number of dollars and I'm going to purchase the property and take, you know, take this much amount off of the purchase price and I'll deal with it after the closing. Others may say, no, this is something that's going to have to get remediated before I purchase. Some people are going to walk away from transactions. But this legislation is neutral as to that. That's this is just simply providing information to the parties about what's present.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. And you mentioned before that you didn't really have a number as far as and that was my next question about do we have any data of how many residential homes built before 1978 were transferred or sold say last year or within a recent number of years?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I mean I will say you know in the city that I partially represent Buffalo is the city in the country with the oldest housing stock and I think that's got to be somewhat similar across a lot of Upstate areas. I'd say that you know where there is 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 it'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 delays of it all.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I think that's true. Anytime we're looking at anything, whether we're looking at you know our roads, our infrastructure, in a lot of ways you know we have the oldest parts of the country, the oldest infrastructure, the oldest housing stock is in the East. So New York is going to have that, I understand. Now you mentioned that the and I just wanted to place on the record that the federal government did ban the lead paint starting in the 70s, 1978. I think that that's probably why you chose that date as to testing on homes built before that time.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah and since then, know, around that time the federal government passed Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and challenged all sort of like chemical issues that they were finding. And the net of those decisions and those actions made it so that currently when you're in the process of purchasing a home or I should say selling a home, know you have to disclose to the incoming buyer you know to the best of your knowledge there's no lead in this home. And all it boils down to is often a one sheet piece of paper with boxes that one checks to sort of say blindly, well the best of my knowledge there's nothing there. But clearly I would say in going back and research around what brought the federal government to make this huge shift to say that we're going to treat lead this way from now on. You know the intention of there was to really tackle it and to really not just prevent it from being manufactured but to really address the genuine health issue that it was producing. So, know decades later, we're now in a position where still thousands of kids in this state alone every year tested positive for elevated lead levels and we know it's coming from the primary source being paint. And the houses that poison a family today will be a house that poisons the next family, the next family, the next family. And I would never you know push towards the demolition of old homes, but what I would say is that there is an issue of safety and you know there's cost of you know effective ways to address it knowing that the health issues of children should go above it all. But on top of it, the financial burden that comes with you know elevated lead levels really is a burden that

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: we all bear.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: You mentioned about the one, I think you said it was a one page federal disclosure that's part of the Closing. 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 three 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, 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Well, because just as much as we now take issues like radon and other issues that come up with inspections more seriously, the idea that we can just sort of acknowledge that since a house was built before this time that then the next incoming resident or owner now then has to sort of just shrug their shoulders and say well we're going to assume that it's here but not know where it is. I just think it's insufficient. I think when we're talking about something as devastating as this can be to the lives of children and families, I think it warrants a heightened attention to it. And I think the way that we do that is by conducting an inspection and providing the results of that inspection to the incoming owner.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: 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 why they were exempted? One second.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: You're talking about Section three? A transfer for a beneficiary of deed or trust, that's where that starts?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: That area, yes. So property rentals for example aren't covered. Yeah,

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: mean they're laid out. You know in some scenarios it's not the majority of them are scenarios where in which it's not a common purchase of person A selling to person B. There's other scenarios where there's not really a person in it. So like for example, a transfer by a sheriff. I imagine that's not very common, but there's some sort of scenarios where in which I guess a law enforcement agency would have taken possession of a property and then has to transfer it in that scenario. I would say it's not on the burden of the sheriff because or that law enforcement agency because they never owned the property technically in a sort of common way.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Very good. Alright. So once the inspection is completed, where must the report be filed?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It is filed with the jurisdiction's health department and the clerk office or equivalent of that area.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: The county clerk?

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. Does the county clerk have to do 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: They accept the document like they would in any other closing document packet. So it's all, yeah, no additional work has to be done other than filing it.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. Now 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 costs associated with lead paint hazards, remediation or removal. 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I'd say every year the state as well as the federal government, I guess I can't speak to them, the state does include in its budget lead, you know, to assist homeowners on lead remediation. Yes, there is, millions. I don't have the figure, but obviously we're in the middle of the budget so we don't know. Figure today might be one thing, figure in a month could be different, but now there's millions of dollars set aside for this. But I'd also say you know in the end I don't agree entirely with that position in part because it's assuming that in every scenario remediation is necessary when that's just not the case. The majority of times when lead is found in a home remediation isn't needed, encapsulation is a sufficient method of dealing with it and that is substantially cheaper than the figures that are mentioned there.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: What's the process required for encapsulation?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: In some scenarios it's the equivalent of painting over something. So it's not much of a financial cost at all.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. What about the cost of hiring somebody who is certified in remediation efforts for lead to come in and say what that remediation plan should be? Like should it be full removal? Should it be encapsulation? Or what it should be? I mean how much do those people cost? Are there many of them in New York?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The hourly rate of contractors is not my specialty but I imagine it's

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: It's not good.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It's good for them, yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So we think though that there are enough of these individuals around and that they're going be able to come up with a unique plan for each property that's involved in this kind of transaction

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, mean

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I to determine would say the the same folks that are doing the inspections that like I said you know their inspections take a few hours. I would say that you know those are the experts in that and they could certainly you know provide additional information to anyone interested that is the incoming buyer to the extent of what could be needed to handle the lead problem in a particular property.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say that this doesn't affect new housing, so no not at all. I mean if anything this encourages new builds because it only tackles homes that were built before 1978.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So it would encourage the creation of additional new housing then is what you're saying?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. Alright. Well thank you very much Mr. Rivera for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So I really want to support this bill. I mean in the sense that I don't want there to be a 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 impact the housing market. I think that if we're really 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 really huge new problem. I mean, maybe to the sponsor's point, maybe it's a problem that we need to have for 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. 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 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 no on this bill, but I thank the sponsor for his answers to my questions. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mr. Bologna?

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Thank you. Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Alright. So this legislation did pass the assembly last year.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: And has any has anything changed in the legislation since then?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No. Okay.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: If it was built before 1978.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: 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 five thirty two subsection C? Is what we're referring to? Just give me a little bit of latitude here. I'm not seeing in here specifically is it the bank? Is it the creditor? Is it the county that has the transfer tax? Who is where is that 3 to $500 come from? Because it says it's up to $500.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Where is it specifically on the transfer tax, so ultimately it's gonna be a county expense?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It would be deducted from the transfer tax at the point of sale and part of the closing. So

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Okay. So then that that's the the the transfer tax is the county. Correct?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: If The transfer tax in different counties will fund different things, but it would be on the county.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Yeah. Ultimately, it is the the count so what I'm trying to get at is the county is responsible for paying for this.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I suppose what I'd say is the county is already on the hook in countless ways when we're talking about public health. I would say that especially considering the cost by which homes are being sold and the values of homes nowadays, I would say that even if this took place tomorrow, know the the essentially the difference of what we're currently what the counties are currently receiving is minimal when we're talking about a few $100 considering all of the other expenses rolled into closing.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: So, yes. This feels a lot like an unfunded mandate on a county. Would you consider that a clear classification of what this is?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: No. I mean I would say that counties are also on the hook for, like I said, a lot of public health expenses. Know my county does a lot of work, my city does a lot of work around not just proactive rental inspections around lead, but certainly treating lead in its county health facilities. I would say you know the cost of this is just born once at every transaction. Once a house, once a owner of a home does this, they never have to do it again. So it's a one time cost associated with a piece of property. I would say that in the grand scheme of what counties receive, especially in transfer tax, but in all other revenues associated with house closings, I think it's a drop in the bucket.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: So if a 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.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: You're not taking into account the increased value and prices of homes that have escalated year over year over year, so it's not as if they'd be in the hole from a previous year or the year before that.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Okay. But they're still out the money for the inspection. I mean, the the you could assume if you could based on that logic

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: You could assume that the houses would increase in price every year.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. But the cost of the inspection won't. Are we sure? Well, because it caps the

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: the amount that's deductible. 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 the equipment that the inspectors uses gets more expensive, maybe a decade from now. So maybe a decade from now, we're talking about $6.07, $800, $900, and this is capped at 5. So is it safe to assume that in the future without any type of adjustment, that cost will in fact be borne on the home sellout.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I would say if we're talking about numbers that could be affecting us a decade from now or more, I'm confident that the smart people that will be in this chamber at that time can tackle that.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Oh, you have more faith than I do, John.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Appreciate it.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Maybe you'll be here then,

[Speaker 0]: so I

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: don't know. So, I guess the last question I will have is, you know, we kind of talk about workforce development and a changing workforce. And, one of the things that I've been hearing about in specifically the trades and 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 yes. Conceivably, 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 the delays on housing transactions if someone cannot find a certified inspector in a timely manner?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yeah. I mean, like I said, the the actual length of time an inspection takes is quite brief. An average inspector could do multiple homes in a day. I'd also say, know, there is something to be said about where we are in our workforce, but I would also say is, you know, where there are a shortage on these folks, there's also a shortage on roofers and carpenters and electricians and plumbers. So it's not unique to this area, but I'd also say there's something about the supply and demand of it all. If there is a higher demand for this workforce, there naturally will be a higher supply of it.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Okay. Then my last thank you very much. My last point 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, sell 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 gonna 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 be make sense for them to adjust the price of their sale of the sell the price of their house that they're selling to accommodate potential for re remediation?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Are you saying that now sellers will list their homes at a lower price?

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: 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 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.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: It's it's tough to think through such a big hypothetical of what one would do. I guess I would say is just as much as I said earlier, just as much if there is a, you know a foundation issue, a leaky pipe issue, an old electrical issue, the list goes on and on of what could be found in inspection at home. You know all these things get negotiated. Know every house I've ever bought there's been negotiations around you know things that we find and that's not that's hyper hyper common and if this is one of those things then it's one of those things. But you know I don't I can't imagine anybody ever buying a house and saying I'm taking it as is and there's you know just going to go with it. I mean I think that there's where you find old homes you'll find old home problems and this is just going be one of them.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: I appreciate it. Don't have any more questions but for the buying it as is, a couple years ago when there was like 20 people bidding on houses I mean there was there's a lot of people buying it as is. I I appreciate it, John. Thank you very much for answering my questions. Madam speaker, on the bill real quick.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: 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 a 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 they're supportive of this and they're aware of this going forward. So again, want to thank the sponsor for the intensive legislation, but with that I will be against it.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Bailey.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: 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 just, I want to, I wasn't going to ask but I am going to open it up. So going back to section five thirty two with the $500 or the $400 per unit that the funding comes out of the taxes paid. And back to the cost associated to be determined, I guess I would just raise the question as transfer taxes 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The bill doesn't contemplate what portion of transfer tax. It just speaks to transfer tax general.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: Okay. So, are we anticipating that that is something that might come up in chapter amendment where it's identified how that is being decided?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I don't think that that's necessary. I think that, you know, there are countless costs associated with closing and this is just now going to be one of them. You know, at the end of the day, we wanted to make it as consumer friendly as we could to make it so it's not on the burden of the individual that's going to be selling or buying their home.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: Okay. So we're taking it off the transfer taxes that are collected not necessarily taking it off of a sale price?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Correct.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: Okay. I'm gonna shift gears a little bit, still in that section in May and it goes back to something you had just indicated and I know we discussed at length back in June when we debated this bill. It's specifically on page five, line 31, where it indicates the office shall not accept for filing unless accompanied by such certificate where applicable. And we discussed at length back in June how that office would have the information to know when structures were built and you had indicated 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: So the language of unless accompanied by such certificate where applicable, do we anticipate that language being adjusted?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Why would it have to be adjusted?

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: How is the office to know when it's applicable if they don't know when the structures

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: were It's only applicable to homes built 1978, that's what it's referring to. Any closing that takes place on a house that was built after 1978, it's not applicable.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: 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 that lot.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: I think the county knows when it's parcel, when it's, I mean you can look up, if the county clerk's office already has the title and already has every other documentation associated with the house, they know when it was built.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: 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.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Yep. I mean my understanding is that my county does have that information. I imagine other counties do as well. But you know, there's a record of when homes are built and that is a hyper public thing that one can search very easily.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: Okay. Thank you very much for taking my questions. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified 'Ms. Bailey' (Assembly Member)]: 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 can remedy those situations as to where those that we're 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Kevo Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would the sponsor yield, please?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Unidentified male Assembly Member (R), possibly Michael Brabenec]: Yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. I wonder if you know how many children in the state of New York are right now poisoned.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The last numbers I saw is that it approached over 30 approximately thirty thousand.

[Speaker 0]: Say that again?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: The last numbers I saw were in the tens of thousands. 30 ish to more thousand children.

[Speaker 0]: Wow. That's a lot. And if these are young people that have been poisoned by lead, particularly in the homes that they live 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 Northeast. And clearly, lead paint was being used at that time. So most of those students that you've just mentioned that have been poisoned are probably in our school systems.

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Certainly.

[Speaker 0]: 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Certainly. Certainly. You know, I touched briefly on on the ramifications of what lead paint poisoning can do to a child. And it's sad in that we can read about it all the time about what it does and what it can do to a child neurologically and the effects could be lifetime effects. But doing the work that I've done on this bill and on other lead related bills, I've gotten to not just read about it, I've gotten to meet countless families that have genuinely suffered traumatic problems, having their children well past adolescence and into their teenage years. And some parents are able to find the resources and their children are able to come back a bit on being able to progress like their cohort around them. But other children are really plagued by this for a very, very long time. And it puts a burden certainly on not just the family, which is sort of above all, but there's also this financial burden of the public health system, but there's also this burden on public education that is constantly attempting to keep up with all of the things that we're finding out are affecting our children. And we do have a shortage of all educators, but certainly special educators. And some school districts really are struggling to keep up with it. Know, some school districts are well equipped with all types of services, but others are not. And you know we will find that as long as we continue to allow children to be in these spaces and many times parents are absolutely unaware, then this is going to be a problem that won't go away.

[Speaker 0]: So the largest part of most of our budget 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?

[Jon D. Rivera, Assembly Member]: Certainly.

[Speaker 0]: So this is actually thank you. On the bill, madam speaker. This is actually it's a health concern because we're we're talking about children. The likelihood of a somebody 30 or 40 getting leg poisoned is almost slim to none. They may get it, 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 gonna 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 of whether or we should put lead in paint. And I'm sure there were 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 and I understand, you know, we're capitalists excited. We like to get into the business and make the resource do that, but not at the expense of our children because at the end of the day, it cost 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 is 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 have 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 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 eighty five years since we've been debating this issue in this country. Yet we still have children who are 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 don't leave this opportunity on the table. Let's approve this today and ensure that it gets implemented. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect 08/01/2026.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Mister Gandalfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference is generally opposed to this piece of legislations for the reasons outlined by our conference. However, any members who wish to vote yes may do so at their desks now.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority the conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. There may be a few that would desire to be an exception. I would ask them to withhold that and vote in support of this bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Glick to explain her vote.

[Deborah J. Glick, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. There is no safe level of lead. And it is a serious toxin, a neurotoxin. And I've been here a long time and I've heard people always say, if we can just save but a single child or children are our future, How about we put a little bit of spirit behind that and recognize that when people buy a house and they may be moving a family into it, they have a right to know and the seller should, if they know and are obfuscating, that's to me a sin, but we certainly should put transparency and awareness in the hands of the public. Especially when we will be exposing those children who are our future. I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Blake in the affirmative. Mister Meeks, to explain his vote.

[Demond Meeks, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker, for an opportunity to explain my vote. I wanna commend the sponsor on this legislation. The sponsor has been steadfast in the fight to eradicate lead poisoning throughout New York state, in particular, Western New York. We've been fighting this good fight for some time now. And anything that we can do to improve the outcomes of our children, we must. So I'm I'll vote in the affirmative. And, thank you to my sponsor.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Meeks in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 98. Noes, 44.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Page 18, calendar number 85. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twenty three thirty two b, calendar 85. Mister Berger, enact to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Berger.

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Could you talk a little bit about how this bill came about or why why this bill has been developed?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: So there's been a long history of of massive theft and fraud when it comes to EBT. In one of my neighboring council districts, council member had in between August and December 2024 about 1,900 fraud cases. And many of those victims, English is not their first language, a lot of them spoke you know Mandarin Korean, the EBT Edge website application, it's not available in those languages. And so it just makes it very hard to navigate and this is all about just giving them

[Jeffrey Dinowitz, Assembly Member]: the tools. This is you know,

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: this cost pennies in the face of I think since 2022 about $80,000,000 of theft that we've seen in the state and it's just about making sure that we're providing access if we're going to be spending this much money to give these benefits to people that we want to make sure that it actually stays in their pockets.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Yeah. So could you so you mentioned EBT, that stands for electronic benefit transfer system, correct?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: 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?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: It's primarily things like that are in the snap world. These are for people who are lower income. This is to help them put food on the table. Unfortunately, in my own district, we had you know people went to their local supermarket, they used their EPT cards, someone put a skimming device on the bottom of one of the you know the card readers, and these cards don't have the protections in place,

[Jeffrey Dinowitz, Assembly Member]: I believe there's a push to put you know, implement chip cards which

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: I think would solve a lot of these situations, but you know right now we don't have that. Within twenty four hours, there's about 150,000 worth of benefits stolen. This is for people to put food on the table that they can't otherwise afford to do.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So that EBT card that an individual has, is that a physical card that they have or is it on their phone or

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Physical card.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Physical card. And is that reloaded each month with a certain amount of benefit that that person is entitled to?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. And I totally appreciate the concern about skimming devices. I had that happen on 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 could happen, unfortunately, that they might have a zero balance because that's gotten skimmed off the card, right?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: Yeah.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. So and I think we all will agree that that's, you know, if folks are entitled to and are getting money through this plan, through the CBT plan, 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. Question I've got is, and 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 the way that the EBT program is run between the state and then the locals, the counties and the localities in administering this program?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: So with this bill, this does not affect local counties whatsoever. This is specifically the EBT Edge website and application. This is how if you're going to report theft or fraud, if you're going to, they have the ability to lock and unlock the card. So if you're not using it, right, you just, you did your shopping and you know you're not using it for another month, you're able to lock the card so it can't be used. All of that is done through EBT Edge, it targets that specific vendor which is contracted with OTDA I believe. It has nothing to do with local governments, it will not cost them anything.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay, 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?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: They have that ability to do so. Again, it's not entirely effective which is why I think chip cards are better. But that is currently what is available.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. So 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 administrators of the program and be able to basically put a stop on their card. Is that what this is doing?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: This is, yes, just allowing all of the different safety mechanisms that are in place, just allowing for that to be in the 12 most common language.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. And I guess, 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

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: The solely only company that's going be responsible for that is the one that does EBT Edge. That's

[Jeffrey Dinowitz, Assembly Member]: I have the language here.

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: One second. Fidelity National Information Services Incorporated. That's who is contract with the state, that's all that's there, right?

[Kenneth Blankenbush, Assembly Member]: If you were to go to

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: a county website and we checked several different counties, you know when they talk about applying for SNAP benefits, that links then to the OTDA website, that's where you would then you know make your application process. None of that is going to impact then what local governments have to do, right? You're providing that link but you're not in any other way associated with the EBT benefit in and of itself.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. All right. So there was a concern raised by the New York State Public Welfare Association and 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?

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: I think there's broader requirements when it comes to social services and what counties have to do. If you go to, I think again most county websites they'll say if you're having issues in your language, you know, please contact us. This specific bill is not addressing the obligation that's on counties, it's the obligation that's on the state.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So there might be other bills out there that we may take up at some later point.

[Sam Berger, Assembly Member]: This is not that.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So I appreciated the dialogue because I do think that now that I have 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 in 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. As I indicated, I will be supporting this bill. However, the minority party in general will be taking a no position on the bill. If there are members who wish to vote in the affirmative, they may certainly do so now at their seats. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. Majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, if those some desire to be an exception, they should feel free to do so at

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: their seat.

[Marianne Buttenschon, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one ten. Noes, 32.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoplestokes?

[Speaker 0]: Mister speaker, if we can now go to calendar number 82 by mister Braunstein on debate.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Page 17, calendar number 82. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number twenty two twelve, calendar 82, mister Braunstein. An act to amend the state finance law and the general municipal law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Braunstein.

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Gandolfo. Thank

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: you madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a

[Speaker 0]: couple Yes, I would.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield, the sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Thank you. And I'll be generally brief. We had this discussion last year but still have a couple of questions here. So now currently what is the allowable retainage on materials?

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: 5% and then for some public projects it could go up to 10.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And does this apply to all materials or just the prohibition on the retainage? Does it apply to all It only

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: applies to materials that are graded or covered under a warranty.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. So, the onus would be on the buyer of the materials to inspect them when they arrive. That way they can detect any potential defects or issues there and work out whatever issue they have. Correct. Now, in the case of, let's say, they inspect the material, everything looks fine, but then they notice when they go to install it and it's everything's unbundled that there is a defect that prevents them from installing it properly. How what would their recourse be if they don't have the five or 10% retainage?

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: Well, it's covered under a warranty, the warranty would cover that correction. And generally with graded materials, that's not common. Okay. 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.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Right. So essentially the buyer then and since it's under warranty instead of going back to the supplier they would go direct to the manufacturer with whatever problem they have.

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: That's their protection.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: Okay. And now again so if it wasn't if it's a material that isn't under warranty they would still be able the retainage would still remain. Correct?

[Speaker 0]: Correct.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assembly Member]: To account for that. Okay. That's all I have. Not much has changed from last year. I thank you for the responses, and thank you, madam speaker.

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Miss Walsh, to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. To explain my vote, I will be in favor of this bill this year as I was in previous years, and I just wanted to briefly explain why. I represent a couple of businesses in my district that certainly extend outside of my district as well, but that supply lumber. And the sponsor indicated that any materials that are graded, which lumber would be or under warranty, are covered by this bill. Consequently, the support for this bill, a lot of the support is coming from the Northeastern Retail Lumber Association and lumber dealers. And the reason is this, that if they're supplying lumber for a job, say it's to frame a house, and then it just takes a long time for that house to be completed, they have to sit around and wait for retainage to get paid to them until sometimes a really long time. And they have absolutely no control over the delays that occur on that job site. They're often the first stuff that's provided to the job site. So I don't see why they should have to be penalized, and and that's why I think that this bill is a good idea. So I will continue to support it, and I thank you for the time.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Walsh in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty one. Noes, 11.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Page 19, calendar number 91. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 2539, calendar 91. Mister Dinowitz, an act to amend the general business law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: An explanation has been requested, Mr. Dinowitz.

[Jeffrey Dinowitz, Assembly Member]: Certainly. This bill would require mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to be printed in large font. When I say large, I mean 16 points which actually isn't that large but it's larger than 12 points.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Know you're disappointed. Yes, 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 they're already banned in New York State starting in 1984 and some of 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 and 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 altogether. 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 and 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Are there any other votes? Oh. I was ready for this to be done. I'm sorry. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this particular piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to support it, now would be the time to do so at their seats. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority the conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, should there be one that desires to be an exception, they should feel free to do so at their seats.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 98. Nose, 44.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, if we can now bring our attention to calendar number February by Mr. McDonald.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Page 37, calendar number February. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 9519, calendar two forty two, Mr. McDonald. An act to amend the insurance law.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On a motion by Mr. McDonald, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced and explanation has been requested. Mr. McDonald.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Thank you madam speaker. 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 the current Medicaid rate.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for just a few questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Of course.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you. I guess first of all, are pharmacists required to consult with customers or patients and administer these contraceptives or is it optional?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Pharmacists are allowed to do that. They allowed. We passed a law in this chamber a couple of years ago, in 2023 I believe, that allows them to have the authority just like they're allowed to administer vaccines.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay, but are they They're not mandated to do so. That's where I was So going with 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 going to do it.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: They're not compensated for it currently, correct. Well, me, should clarify that. Under commercial health insurance, they are not compensated for it. Under New York State Medicaid, they are compensated

[Speaker 0]: for it.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Oh that's interesting.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Yeah. Okay. That actually, when we passed this in 2023, as soon as it was chapter under law, within two weeks the Department of Health had assigned an administrative fee, dollar amount to it and pharmacists have been billing Medicaid, not a huge amount but probably several 100 over the last couple of years.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Several 100 per patient? Several Several 100 patients. Patients, okay. And do you happen to know how much they get for or they have been getting for each Medicaid patient?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Yeah, so for Medicaid, for a new consultation, first time only, it's $48.2

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: And then that allows basically a patient to receive up to a year's supply under that standing order issued by the Commissioner of Health. If the patient comes back year two for a follow-up, it's $15.29

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: And the consultation, you know, it's not just sinus sheet of paper, there's about a fifteen, twenty 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. So those $2 amounts that you just mentioned for the initial consultation and then for follow-up consultations, is that the same dollar amount structure that this bill would apply to commercial insurance?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: So for commercial, well for the commercial insurance what we're saying and this bill was vetoed last year, don't know if you realize.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: We were going get to that.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: I figured you would be. Should I go into it now?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Sure.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Why not?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Why sure.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Not? 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 by saying, you know what, the Medicaid reimbursement 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 nurse practitioner is. Nothing is restricting them from doing that.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So we are being

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: sensitive to the cost. So

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: really then, based on what you are

[Speaker 0]: saying,

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: if a patient goes directly to a pharmacist for the contraceptive needs rather than to a nurse practitioner, it really would be a cost savings then, correct?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Okay. So you mentioned, and I was going to get into the veto, the Governor stated last year that and claimed that although the bill would have increased reimbursement for pharmacists dispensing contraceptives, it would also require health insurers to update their billing systems to comply, which would be a burdensome and costly requirement. Does this new version of the bill, does it address that particular concern of the governors?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Yeah, I think actually, I think we discussed this last year in the debate. I still am questioning. I've asked, could you give me an example of what you're talking about because, and I don't want to get into weeds on pharmacy reimbursement methodologies, but I actually kind of know that. All they did was adopt a CPT code and an administrative fee and basically the pharmacist just like that. We did this for COVID vaccines administration fees. We did this for tests. Remember during the pandemic, 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. I'm still confused by that because I don't really find that to be a valid concern.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So in any event, this version of the bill that we're voting on today did not make any changes in response to that part of the governor's veto message.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: It did not because the issue was moved at the time earlier.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: So there's no reason to change that.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Understand. And what you had previously addressed I believe just a minute ago, was the other part of the Governor's veto message cited concerns for higher costs for insurers, employers and consumers as PBMs or pharmacy benefit managers would charge health insurers for reimbursements paid to pharmacists and that those costs would likely be passed on in the form of higher premiums.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: I find that to be an incorrect statement, not that you're saying that, you're just

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: it's a fair message.

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: Right, right. Actually quite honestly, if you compare what a provider would 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 twenty years they've been Pharm Ds. They're following a doctor's order no different than they do for any other standing order, whether we're giving out Naloxone, 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 will be less than the other providers.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: I guess the last question that I have for you is just out of my own curiosity that it seems that in recent years, certainly since I've been here, we've been gradually expanding the scope of what pharmacists can do. And I know I love my local pharmacist. I get into conversations with her with some frequency and they seem to be very overworked in my viewpoint, very overworked. And one of the concerns I guess I, maybe it's not as big as a concern, but one of the things I'm curious about is when you start looking at contraception and then as you mentioned COVID vaccine, other vaccines, are we reaching a point where whether we compensate pharmacists or not, are we really overburdening pharmacists with things that really had previously been not within the scope of what they were doing?

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: I think that's a valid concern but I could tell you that I have the same conversation with nurses and doctors and PAs and nurse practitioners. We seem to be struggling to have enough primary care providers in general. So sometimes expanding scopes, and yes today we're talking about scopes of pharmacists, but as you know, because you've been here for a bit of time, there's no shortage of scope expansion bills

[Speaker 0]: And in the higher ed

[John T. McDonald III, Assembly Member]: the reality 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. And 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 connect them to somebody else. But we really the main interest here is the fact that 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.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: So this is a bill that the vast majority of us did support last year. We only had five no votes. It also had passed the senate and then as we had just discussed, the senate the governor vetoed it. So this will be another attempt. The the the bill does address at least a portion of the veto message. And I do think it is important to note that this is optional with pharmacists if they don't wish to participate in prescribing oral contraception after in meeting with patients to do that, that's their option. But if they do, it does seem fair to me that they should be able to get compensated to some extent. And that if that patient was going to a primary care physician, if they could get into that office or meet with somebody else in that office, whether it's a physician's assistant or nurse practitioner, somebody to do that work, they would be compensated as well. So I will continue to support this bill. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This section will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one thirty eight. Noes, four.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Miss Walsh, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Edward C. Braunstein, Assembly Member]: Thank

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: you Madam Speaker for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for an introduction on behalf of Assembly members Brown, Keith Brown, Fitzpatrick and Levine. We're greeted and joined here today by students from Long Island from Roslyn High School and Hopag 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 joined with today including Magaline, Bianca, Kara, Sophie, Ellen, Mana, Zoe, and Elizabeth. So Madam Speaker, would you please welcome these great advocates for mental health to the People's House?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Of course. On behalf of Ms. Walsh members, Brown Fitzpatrick Levine and the Speaker, all members, we welcome you to the chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. It's wonderful to see young people, especially all the way from Long Island coming here to Albany to advocate for mental health now more than ever. So good luck to you and all your advocacy and thank you so very much for joining us today. Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you again Madam Speaker. So we have another introduction here. We're greeted by more folks in the chamber today. On behalf of Assembly Member Pierisolo, we'd like to welcome people from the Siemens Society for Children and Families who by the way are celebrating their 100 birthday, the Siemens Society, on April 2. So we have David Gaskin, who is the President and CEO Teresa Cerreli, the Chief Development Officer and Maureen Higgins, 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Ms. Walsh, Mr. Perizzolo, the speaker and all members, we welcome our friends from the Siemens Society of Children and Families. Happy anniversary to you. It's wonderful that you are here today and welcome you to our assembly chamber, extending the privileges of the floor to you. I hope you were able to enjoy some of the proceedings. Saw you back there so I hope you were able to enjoy some of the proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions? We

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: have no housekeeping. We do have a number of resolutions before the house without objection. These resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assembly Member]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am here to announce that the minority conference will be beginning a Zoom briefing within fifteen 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.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you minority conference members. There will be a conference after the conclusion of our session in approximately fifteen minutes. So you need to get back to your office and get on your Zoom. The link will be forwarded to you. Ms. People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam Speaker, would you please call on our colleague, Sarah Clark, for the purpose of an announcement?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Clark, for the purpose of an announcement.

[Sarah Clark, Assembly Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am announcing majority conference immediately following session in the Assembly Speaker's Conference Room Immediately following session.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Assembly majority conference will be in the Speakers Conference Room. If you can hear the sound of my voice, assembly majority members, you need to make your way over here to the capital for an immediate conference. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10AM, Thursday, March 12. Tomorrow being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss People Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.