New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house house to order?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The house will come to order. Good morning, colleagues. In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of Allegiance. A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Wednesday, March 25. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Wednesday, March 25, and that the same should stand approved.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Without objections, I'll order it.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you so much, ma'am. Good morning, colleagues and guests that are in the chambers. I have a really short quote I'd like to share with you today. This one comes from a Swahili proverb. It says that a boat doesn't go forward if each one is rowing in a different way. Again, these words from a Swahili proverb, and it's pretty accurate as many points in our lives. Madam speaker, colleagues have on your desk a main calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping and or introductions, we're going to be calling for the following committees to meet off the floor, ways and means and rules. These committees are going to produce an eight calendar which we will take up today. Colleagues, today we will begin the process of passing the state's budget beginning with the debt service bill. That is on will be on calendar a. I ask for members' patience and cooperation as we get through this first stage first stage of our operation here. After you have done any housekeeping or introductions, we're gonna begin our floor work by taking up calendar resolutions there on page three, and then we're gonna take up the following bill on debate from calendar 42 by mister Boris. There probably will be a need for additional floor activity as we proceed, madam speaker, but I will let you know at that moment. However, majority members should be aware that there may be a need for a conference immediately following our work on the floor today. And as always, we check with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That's a general outline of where we're going today, ma'am. If you could begin by calling the Ways and Means Committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means Committee members, Speaker's Conference Room. We have no housekeeping. No introductions. We're going to jump right into resolutions. Page three, clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero nine five, miss Reyes. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 04/14/2026 as Bangalore New Year New Year Day in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Reyes on the resolution. One moment, Karinas.

[Karines Reyes (Member of Assembly, AD 87)]: Thank you madam speaker. It's an honor to sponsor this resolution to proclaim April 14 as Bangla New Year. District 87 is home to the second largest concentration of Bangladeshi Americans in New York City and I take immense pride in ensuring that every fabric of my constituency is recognized and appreciated. In fact, New York City has the largest congregation of Bengali speaking citizens globally outside of West Bengal and Bangladesh. This new year is celebrated by a substantial population in our city and state. According to the Bengalian calendar, this day marks the start of a new year, one that embodies unity and harmony among people from different backgrounds characterized by music, dance and fine arts. Bangla New Year Day promotes cultural awareness and appreciation, encouraging New Yorkers to embrace the diversity of our communities. We observed this significant holiday with our Bangladeshi neighbors and reaffirm our commitment to inclusivity. It's an honor to carry this resolution in honor of my community. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you very much, panel speaker. I rise to congratulate the sponsor on this one. I too represent a community that has a very large Bengali community, and I have to tell you that they are some of the best neighbors that you could anticipate having. They are definitely entrepreneurial in their spirit. They are opening markets all over the East Side Of Buffalo. And so I get to be in a position where I can reject the corporate response that we live in a food desert because corporate markets won't come. Well, sometimes you don't always need corporate markets. You just need the markets that people understand. Folks need fresh meat, clean meat, vegetables, and fruit. And that's what this community adds value to the one that I represent. And I welcome them when they came to Buffalo and every time they add more, I welcome them more because they are the kind of people who not only just respect their culture, but they honor their culture in a way that creates businesses around their needs the needs of their people. And it's very inspiring. So thank you for putting this resolution in. I will make sure I tell my friends when I get back to Buffalo that we did a resolution today and I didn't get a chance to invite them. But I won't let them miss next year because they will show up. They're really great people. So thanks again to the sponsor. I look forward to voting in favor of this resolution.

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

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number ten ninety nine, Mr. O'Farro. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/25/2026 as Medal of Honor Day in the state of New York in conjunction with the observance of National Medal of Honor Day.

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

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number 1,100, Ms. Walsh. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 03/26/2026 as Purple Day in the state of New York.

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

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and good morning everybody. I want to just thank all my colleagues who co sponsored this resolution this year and who wore purple today. I'm pleased to present this resolution again this year. Purple Day is another name for Epilepsy Awareness Day. Epilepsy Awareness Day aims to increase the public's knowledge of a neurological condition that impacts nearly fifty million individuals globally and approximately two hundred and fifteen thousand of whom reside in New York State. Epilepsy impacts the central nervous system causing seizures and other symptoms and it affects people of all ages. You know, just last weekend I was able to once again with my son Terry attend the annual confections and chocolate gala that the Epilepsy Foundation of Northeastern New York hosts. It was over in Troy this year. And they honored a couple of one winning kid in particular that I'm thinking of, a young lady that just shortly before she was brought to the stage and was awarded this, she actually had a seizure with her mom. And her mom said after only she would be able to have a seizure and then within minutes just be okay and up with, you know, to take a bow and to be recognized by everybody who was there. So it's something that has touched my family personally. My brother Bob and sister-in-law Debbie, one of their kids, my nephew Christopher, experienced the symptoms that looked like inattention rather than full seizure, like a physical seizure that you could see. It looked more like inattention when he was a middle schooler. He's now a very grown man with kids of his own, is doing very well and is very controlled. But it was something that really made my family more aware. My sister-in-law Debbie and my brother Bob both worked with the Epilepsy Foundation for a number of years. And just I think it was just last week, although the weeks kind of start to blend in for us, don't they? But Jeanine Garrop, who's the Executive Director of our Local Epilepsy Foundation was here with other advocates. And advocates from the western part of the state were here in the chamber and were recognized. So their advocacy efforts are constant. I think that, you know, there's much more to be learned to try to help young people and people of all ages who are impacted by epilepsy. It can really just throw your life into a complete disarray and impact your life greatly. There are medications to help it, but we can do so much more. So I'm glad to bring awareness to this today. Happy Purple Day. And many thanks to the Epilepsy Foundation for all their great advocacy work that they do year round. So thank you very much, 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.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number eleven oh one, Ms. Rosenthal, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 08:30PM through 09:30PM on Saturday, 03/28/2026 as Earth Hour 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.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one one zero two, mister Tague. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim March 25 through the thirty first twenty twenty six as Farm Worker Awareness Week 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.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one one zero three, Ms. Rajkumar. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 05/05/2026 as Indian arrival day in Guyana 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. Page 10, calendar number 42. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one one nine one b, calendar 42, mister Boras, an act to amend the executive law.

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. Madam speaker, the Safer Weapons Safer Home Act has been passed by this body twice before, both with bipartisan support. It recognizes the technological advances that have been made in personalized firearms, which is a weapon that has technology that restricts it to only be fired by one person or a set of people. The aim is to make all of us safer. Primarily, this is done via preventing accidents in the home, by limiting gun trafficking because a personalized firearm is one that can't be used if stolen, and in certain cases protecting law enforcement. We've seen nationwide ten percent of officers that are shot are shot with their own weapon, and personalized firearms might have a role in protecting them from those attacks. This bill has been simplified from the version that was passed twice before and now directs DCJS to study personalized firearms to come up with viability tests and to help inform the legislature and the entire state on the progress that has been made. I will note given the bill that we discussed on Tuesday that it does require the report that comes out to be sent to both the majority and minority leaders in both chambers.

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

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you madam speaker. Would you ask the sponsor to yield please?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

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

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. Good morning Mr. Borys. Good morning. We've done this a couple of times before and we've had offline discussions about this bill. I noticed it's been shortened quite a bit. What has changed since last year?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: The bill has been simplified. A lot of it is still there. But in the original structure it kind of set off two things to happen one after the other. First was to determine whether these weapons were viable, then to decide criteria by which we would evaluate it. This simplifies that into one process, but also gives the government a little more time to complete both. So instead of requiring it in a hundred eighty days, gives DCGIS two years to finish those requirements.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. And I remember the last bill, I think, well, first off, if I keep my questions on three by fives with the bill number. So if I ask a question from last year and it's no longer applicable, please let me know. I don't want to waste people's time.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I imagine most of them

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: will but please. I did see that it's quite a bit shorter. So the is there still enforcement action in this? I think there was, you know, there was going to be so many days that something, there were timelines that had

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: There to be were timelines for DCGS to complete their actions. There was never enforcement on anyone outside of the government, but those timelines originally was one hundred and eighty days for the first step and then a follow on. Now, it's two years for the entire study Okay.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. So, is this a like I know it's called safer weapons, but is this a storage type bill?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: It it could be related to that, and and other states when they've addressed this have talked about personalized firearms as a a substitute or a complement for safe storage at home. This bill doesn't really take a position on that as it is, but certainly that has been one of the arguments that industry has made for it is if you build in the fact that it can only be fired by a set number of users, that just makes it safer and might serve a similar purpose to safe storage at home.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Right. I noticed you you just mentioned other states and our neighbor New Jersey had this very similar bill. And is ours now much different from New Jersey?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Very different.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Very different.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: So New Jersey passed a bill a while ago. I think it was in the nineties, their first version. Maybe it was a little after, but that required a study of personalized firearms and then a mandate that the only gun sold in the state would be the personalized firearms. Even the original author of that bill realized that that was a mistake and amended it, and now that mandate was taken out years ago. This bill has never had any of those mandates

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: in it. Yeah. Okay. So, is no mandate.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: There's no mandate whatsoever and I'll add that National Shooting Sports Foundation last year had commented that no no challenge with this bill and as long as there weren't mandates being put out on any buying that it was a consumer choice that there was no opposition.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: And I just want to comment now. I appreciate when you mentioned police officers being shot by their own weapon because that I carried one for thirty six years and that was it terrified me in crowds or any time like that because it can happen, but it never did. So thankfully

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: My my grandfather was a NYPD officer on the East Side Of Manhattan, so and I appreciate your

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: service. The

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: but the New Jersey bill, ultimately, they removed that mandate and I know it's not part of your bill, but I know we talked about this a lot. Could do you know why New Jersey did remove that?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I've long ago given up defending New Jersey as a Okay.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: So, what do you this is kinda like it works or it doesn't on DCJS?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: It works and it doesn't and also just to add more specific definitions. Are testing the viability. There's multiple techniques one can use to make a personalized firearm. Again, this bill doesn't get into those specifics, let's DCGS put out a list of how they're going to test it and what they think qualifies or not.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Right. I'm aware. I know they've had magnetic or rings. Yep. They've tried fingerprint technology.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yep.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: I know there's RFI chips. Yours mentioned something that's a little different than I've ever seen. That's called programmable. And I I kind of envision a chip in the gun and you can program who can, but I don't I don't know how that's gonna work. But DCGIS, eventually, if this passes and it becomes law, they're gonna have to come back with viability. Yes, it works. No, it doesn't. So if they come back and say, yes, it works. What is your vision for the future?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Well, will be up to this body. There's I'm not painting a vision with this bill. I think the I know that at least I mean, was true two years ago. I actually don't even have the updated. But two years ago, six law enforcement agent agencies across five states had tried these weapons. Having some definition in law could help with government procurement. You know, we talked about state safe storage. Right? There's many places we could go from there but that'll be up to this body. This is just about establishing the the definitions and

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: the tests. And you're you're you're putting a lot of responsibility on DCJS. Have you talked to them about this before you lump this task on them?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yes. I've had many conversations with that.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: They have the wherewithal to do this. Do they need extra funding?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Have not put in any request for extra funding and in our conversations have not expressed hesitation on the ability to do this.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: So everything that we do here always has ripple effects and some of them are unintended consequences. Have you thought about if I had a programmable or a personalized firearm at home, would I then get the false sense of security that I could just leave it laying anywhere because only I can shoot it and I'll just be leaving them laying at home, won't be safe storing it. Is that an unintended consequence that you envision?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Consumer education, gun safety is always going to be an important part of any of these conversations. I think part of the reason to set up a bill like this where you're doing real tests and results is that we'll have real data underlying that. So I don't want to speak how everyone will act, but I think that giving people more information generally will lead to better choices.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: And because of just the volume of firearms, and this is handguns only, correct? This is not rifles and shotguns.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: As I'm aware, anything on the market now is just handguns.

[Jodi Giglio (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yeah. It's not long guns.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Right. It's just riflers. It's just handguns. Yeah. So, with the volume of those types of firearms that are already out there, this can't be retroactive, can it?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: No, it's just a study going forward of what's out there. It could be that there's a model that's out there that already qualifies. My guess would be that that is true but it's not sort of there's no aspect of it that is retroactive. It's a going forward study.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: I just remembered we talked about that last year and we hate I think we got stopped because we were doing advertising for firearms.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Good memory, yes.

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Yeah. That just reminded me not to do that again. I believe that is all the questions I have. Thank you so much. Madam speaker, on the bill.

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

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: So again, this is a firearms bill, always well intentioned, and we usually hear the word common sense attached to it. But the the reality is it's it's a part of The US constitution that people can have a firearm, and the second amendment protects that. And the second amendment, the last words in it say shall not be infringed. And that's the only one that mentions, please don't screw around with this amendment. You know, this is similar to the first amendment requiring, you know, programmable printers because of things that can be printed. And it's there's people who take the second amendment seriously, and I'm one of them. And I just hate to see the further demonization of firearms. Firearms do what they're supposed to do. It's people that need to be demonized, evil people doing bad things with guns. And there are so many weapons in this state that aren't being used in crimes. And you start lumping everybody together because they have, own, or use a firearm. You know, there's all kinds of uses. And I know I've been on the range and we've traded rifles, handguns back and forth. You know, that that will this bill would, if it comes to fruition, would end that. But, anyway, I I always appreciate the conversation around this topic, but, again, we we can't just keep lumping one thing or or and then another onto these folks. It's a it's an amendment to the constitution that has great effect on everybody in this country. And, you know, we've seen around the world countries that have unarmed citizenry. And when you realize why the second amendment was put in there, it was to protect the people from tyranny. And, you know, we live pretty calm, cool, and collected right here. But I've been around the world a few times, and I've been in countries that the the only thing that would keep you alive is owning a firearm. I'm not saying that's gonna happen here, but I've we are a pretty civilized place, and you just can't keep attacking the second amendment. It's death of a thousand pinpricks, and it just keeps happening over and over again. But I'll end with that and I thank you very much to the sponsor and to you, madam speaker.

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

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Rules committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Rules committee members, please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room. Rules committee members to the speaker's conference room. Mister Pierzzolo.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Good day, madam speaker. How are you today?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Wonderful.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Would the sponsor please yield? Could you ask if he'd yield some

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: questions?

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

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Hi. How are you today?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Good. How are you?

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Alright. So if I understand what your bill is about, it's to make sure that a weapon can only be used by one individual.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Well, it just the market already exists and these weapons can be sold. You could buy them right now, but are we have not caught up to recognizing that there's a real distinction between guns that have those restrictions and those that don't. So this is about updating New York law and understanding for the guns that are already on the market. It's not it's not changing what can be sold.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Well, you talk about updating New York law. I'm gonna ask your opinion. If we were to do something like this, wouldn't we be going against the United States constitution?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: No. This is studying guns that are already being sold on the market. As I mentioned, one of the again, it's not in the bill. This would be the few for the future legislature to decide. But law enforcement agencies throughout the country have been procuring them. And it might be that the choice going forward is to for other law enforcement agencies in New York to take advantage of this definition. So it's not you know, this is giving us more information. It's not restricting anyone in any way.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Well, I disagree with that. I'm not a law enforcement agency. Right? And I would argue with you that through laws throughout New York state, we've already personalized handguns. If I had a handgun box here today, right, would you have access to my box?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: If you had a safe storage lockbox on your desk? I think I think our sergeant of arms might have something to say about that. But but aside from that

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: You're getting around it. The question specifically was if I had one here today or elsewhere Yeah. Right, would you have access to my box?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Unless you had given me the key?

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: No. So then who does have access to my box?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Whoever you've given a key to.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: That would be a personalized access. Sure. Okay. So I don't understand why we have to do this other step. Yeah. Would anybody else here have access to my box?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Can can I answer the why question? Sure. So so I would say we see a lot of handguns that are stolen out of the glove box, right, of someone's car. And you might not be traveling with a smart box. And so having it there, that would be an opportunity where having it built into the gun might be beneficial. We've also nationwide what we've seen is scenarios where you don't expect someone else to have a weapon but you're in close quarters. So police interrogations or court bailiffs or prisoner transport have been times when it's on them, it's not in a lockbox, they need to have access to it. But you want to make sure in close quarters someone can't grab it. So there are some use cases where having it built into the gun might be beneficial and it's working in the market, some people are buying it and this is really about the consumer choice to do that.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Well, first off, in New York state, is it legal to put your gun in a glove box?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: I

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: don't know specifically. I

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: do. The answer is no. Okay. You're not allowed to lock. So what you're trying to now bring into the situation is if someone does something they're not supposed to do, then, you know, their their gun could be stolen. But if they're not supposed to do it, you know, you you have a box. You put it in the box. Right? That's what New York State law is. So again, I'm arguing that what you're trying to do, personalized guns, it's already done. If I wish to give access to my box to someone else so that they can grab their weapon or, you know, whatever else it is, we can already do that. So why are we replicating and infringing upon someone else's second amendment rights? I mean I understand you want to give the option. Are we gonna make this mandatory?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: There's nothing in this bill that makes this mandatory.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: K. So we did make it mandatory to already personalize the weapons that we have. It's a handgun. Right?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I I I don't think that's true. I think that if a gun, again, respect, is is taken off someone's hip or yes. Sometimes people do put it in the glove box and it's stolen and it's used in a future crime. There's you know there are people law enforcement officers who are carrying their gun who can't carry it in a lock box when they're walking around. This is just to provide that option.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: So you keep going right back to law enforcement of which I'm not. I'm talking about personal carry, home self defense, right? Yeah. And I understand that even in those situations but you know you're talking about a minute percentage that you're looking of maybe maybe changing when we already have this law that personalizes every handgun in New York State by putting it in a box that only has access to one particular person. You know some of the lock boxes that I use have fingerprint buttons. Know not fingerprint but buttons that you have to push and it opens very quickly very easy. I can teach that to my wife. I can teach that to my son. I can teach that to you. And then you'd have access. So it is personalized. I don't see the reason to go forward especially to do a study where we're spending money that we have such problems in this state with homelessness, with drug use, with, you know, now we're talking about gambling because we're passing gambling bills that to put any type of study into something that we've already accomplished, in my opinion, to go after such a small minute percentage of what you deem to be a problem I think is wasteful. I thank you for your thought, your time and if I can madam speaker I'd like to speak on the bill.

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

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: So as I've mentioned and some of my colleagues or my colleague has mentioned about the second amendment and the right for firearms shall not be infringed. You know, I know the case is being made that there is not an infringement, but if my house were invaded and someone else in my house needed access to my weapon, then they would have that access. If this were to happen and yes, you say programmable. First of all, if it's programmable, it means it has to have a power source. Power sources drain, power sources die in a tense situation. If it's a fingerprint palm or a palm grip that's going to do that, if your palm gets sweaty, if you're in a fight, if it's dirty, I mean there are so many flaws that could possibly come up with this. Yeah, it's cool we see it in the movies you know like the bad guy you know you go in and you have a personalized gun. Life is not a movie and I think that's something that we all forget and we all think we have these great big ideas that I'm going to change the world But basically, the world was changed by individual gun ownership without any restrictions. So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, spending any money at all on a bill that's already been

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Scavoni/Skifoni')]: gutted because it was

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: ridiculous, in my opinion, is knowingly throwing good money after bad money, and it's not something we should do. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. Will the sponsor yield, please?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Absolutely.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, mister Boris. Just on the bill, it says 300,000 guns are stolen from their owners each year in New York. Is that in New York State or nationwide?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: You're you're talking about in the sponsor's memo?

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yeah. I I believe that's a nationwide stat.

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Nationwide. But this bill is just for New York State. Correct?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Correct.

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. On the bill. That was just the only question I had.

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

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: On the bill. In this memo, it says 300 children, you know, will be are hurt. Personally, I look at this, and I we do nothing to stop the illegal criminals, the illegal immigrants, the people that commit crimes, thousands of people shot in New York State, New York City. We do nothing to stop that. Actually, we we this this chamber loves those people and lets them out at the sake of the victim, the gangbangers. And you go to Chicago, they do nothing in Chicago. So this bill is only for New York State. It says it will prevent school shootings. I I I disagree. I don't think this will stop one school shooting. If someone wants to go into a school and shoot, they're gonna get a firearm from somewhere else or use a different firearm. I can't see anyone who wants to go into a school to cause havoc, stop and say, you know what? I don't have the access because of this personalized firearm. Oh, boy. I think I'm not gonna shoot today because that just stopped me. Of course. Because criminals are not gonna abide by these laws. If you enact this in New York, all you're doing is bringing in guns from all over, which they're already coming from. So this bill doesn't stop anything. It's all pie in the sky hoping that something will happen that will stop something, but it's just an infringement. You know, criminals will not abide by this law. And, basically, what happens is while there are unfortunate issues that happen occasionally, the fact is most gun owners, ninety nine point ninety nine point ninety nine plus percent, are very, very safe, secure, honest owners. It's the criminal the criminal who will not abide, who causes the havoc. And until this body starts addressing that, then this bill means absolutely nothing. Also, it's a mental issue. We know that nationwide. The problem with firearm fatalities mostly is a mental issue. We never seem to address that. When I always love looking at the, some of the people who say, literally, they their their their feel good is if we get rid of guns, there will be no crime. That's an amazing, amazing statement. I won't even get into it. I love the fact that during World War two, Japan was afraid to invade The United States because they felt everyone in this country had a firearm and would defend the homeland. That's a powerful statement. But this comes down to personal choice in the second amendment. And I know a lot of people don't like the second amendment. That's just too bad, isn't it? Because it was put there for a reason, and that is personal choice and the right of everyone in this country, young, old, up to a certain age, women, doesn't matter. They have the right to bear arms and not to be infringed. And this bill definitely infringes on their choice. It's just another bill, in my opinion, that goes has way too much overreach. I don't support it. And until we get to the root causes of what the sponsor put in his memo, then we're just spinning our tires as usual in this chamber. Thank you, madam speaker, for the time. Appreciate it.

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

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: With pleasure.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, sir. The intent of this long term is to personalize our our our handguns for pure safety. Correct?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: The the goal is to give more information on it. These guns are already sold in New York State. They're already sold nationwide. And we have not updated our understanding of these new capabilities. How it can keep people safe, when we might want to think of them differently. And so it's to sort of catch the New York government up with the technological advances that have occurred.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: So when this study is done, that study will go to our house here in the state assembly Yep. To update all of us? Yep. Is it possible to have a public hearing by the manufacturers to update us without a bill?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I I don't get to make that choice, but I I have talked to many of the manufacturers. They they seem more than willing to have conversations. I'm happy to connect anyone, and and I think that would be a good idea. Yeah.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: I I sometimes I'm concerned with the number of bills we pass here and what the implications are that we don't always think of. So I'll give you an example. So I'll have a personalized handgun. Would you be able to take my handgun and use it?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: In most cases, not, and and the intent is certainly for that to not be possible.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. So if you and I are at a public hearing on gun safety, an active shooter comes in, I'm carrying my weapon, I'm returning fire, the active shooter takes down everyone but you and I, Then the active shooter takes me down. Would you have a chance to defend yourself with my weapon?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: If I didn't know better, it would sound like you're advocating banning these kinds of guns.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: I'm sorry? I said if

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I didn't know better, it would sound like you're advocating banning personalized firearms.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: No. No. Not not at all. I'm trying to under I'm just trying to understand where we're going with this bill. So so to my question, if I was taken out and you were the last one standing and the active shooter is still active,

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: would you be able to defend yourself with my weapon? A personalized firearm can only be shot by authorized users. The scenario that you're describing, I would not be able to fire that weapon.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: So you would not be able to use my my weapon to defend yourself? Correct. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Madam speaker, on the bill.

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

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: This is exactly why I asked the question. Having defended this country, having the ability to protect my family as well about is all of you, having the ability to protect each and every one of us in this chamber, In good conscience, I could never support something like this because I want that individual, an American citizen, to have the ability to defend himself in a situation like this to save his life. So that's the only that's one of the reasons why I cannot support this bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for questions?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Happy to.

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

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Great, thank you so much. So looking at this bill, it appears that it's simply a study, is that true? Correct. So if it's a study, who is going to conduct this study?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: DCJS will be conducting it.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: And who is the head of DCJS? Is that the division of criminal justice services? Indeed. Who is the head?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Who is the current head?

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Quickly. Quickly.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Who? The head of DCGS or a designate will be conducting the study.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Who is the head of DCGS today?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I've been talking to lower levels. I I I don't have the head.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Is it commissioner Rosanna Rosato?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: It is commissioner Rosado.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Well thank you. I appreciate that.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: So Thank you.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: When this study is done and it's supposed to be done within two years,

[Charles D. Lavine (Member of Assembly)]: correct? Correct.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Will it be done by someone who's registered as a republican or a democrat?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Well, it's the it's DCGS or a designate, so that is not determined in the bill.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Not determined. So, well, I just wanted to to point that out because I think that it's likely that here we are in Albany in 2026. If this were to come out in 2028, that it would be done completely by a democratic administration. Would would that be a fair statement? The study?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: This study will be done by the commission or designate. It is not dictated in the bill who who does the study. And again, I will I will point out this bill has passed this chamber twice before with bipartisan votes and it is meant to give more information on weapons that are currently being sold that consumers are choosing that we don't really have rules or regulations around.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: So you can buy a personalized handgun today? Correct. Do you own one?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I do not. No.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Do you own any firearms?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I do not. Thank you. Where where do you live? I live in New York City.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. I appreciate that. Last question here. We we talked about this as a as a way to reduce so called gun violence, unquote. I would I would put that in quotation marks. Gun violence though is actually committed by people. Correct? There's a person that's the that that perpetrates the violence that's the criminal? If someone uses a gun in a crime, then they are by definition a criminal?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: If someone commits a crime, are committing a crime. Yes. I think that is a tautology.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. So when we look at crimes in New York overall and we look at law abiding citizens overall, do the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens commit crimes?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I think I think we're maybe farming for clips a little more than debating the bill at the moment, but I would say that

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Excuse me?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I said I think we're farming for clips a little more than debating farming? The bill. What I think you know what farming is.

[Joseph Sempolinski (Member of Assembly)]: I I will give you that

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: respect. Yes.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: So, yeah, I I just wanna ask you, do do criminals register their guns? Some

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: I'm sure do. Not all about registration.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: All abiding citizens is about 97 register their their personal handguns.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Sure. The the percentage that I was focused on with this bill is the ten percent of officers that are shot or done so with their own guns. That's that's a threat that I'm taking seriously.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Well, it certainly is a threat, but that's part of the training regime that law enforcement goes through. Madam speaker, I'll just go on the bill, please.

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

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: So here we are again with with claims made that this has some sort of bipartisan support when, in fact, it doesn't. This this bill was debated last year and there were over 50 no votes. And I I only count, you know, 47 members of our conference, so there must have been some crossover there. But what what I look at here is the aggregate of the bills since I've been in the assembly. And I've been in this. This is my eighth session. There's been over 60 gun bills that have come before this body. And other than some very innocuous ones to say, for instance, allow deer hunting by rifle in Cortland County, the vast majority of them are against the second amendment. They are against the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, which according to the second amendment shall not be infringed. And we've gotten to the point where in this chamber, the death by a thousand cuts strategy is quite evident. It's the intention of this body to take away the lawful rights of citizens. And this is just one pathway. Let's study this and come up with a study that's done by one party in one party rule that says this this technology is viable. And the fact is is having been in the marines for twenty four years, having handled weapons of all sizes from a pistol to a howitzer, that it's not viable. Just like micro stamping, it's not viable. Just like anything that would restrict the ability of someone to use a firearm quickly to defend themselves as is their right under the constitution of The United States. It's not viable. That's the answer to the study that can be given right here on the floor of the assembly chamber today. And the idea that we're gonna give it over to the administration, to the division of criminal justice services to study this is a specious non argument. So I urge everyone whose voters think seriously about this to vote no because it's a clear violation of the constitution of The United States Of America. It's a clear vance it's a clear violation of the second amendment rights of New Yorkers. And for that reason, I will be voting no again on this bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Jacobson? Would

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: the sponsor yield?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: So concerning this bill, does this bill require anybody in New York State to have a personalized weapon as defined?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: No. It does not.

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: Does this bill restrict in any way anybody in New York State from purchasing a firearm?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: No. It does not.

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: Does it restrict in any way, people's rights to use their weapons that they have now?

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: No. It does not.

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: This is purely a study bill. Correct?

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Correct.

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: On the bill.

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

[Jonathan G. Jacobson (Member of Assembly)]: This bill does not affect the second amendment. It doesn't restrict your ownership. It doesn't restrict anybody from purchasing a gun. What this is, it's studying a certain kind of gun and that maybe it could be encouraged in the future. Because the problem with guns, you say that guns don't cause violence, guns in the wrong hands cause violence. Right? A law abiding citizen, as was mentioned, is by definition, abiding. But if that gun is stolen, if the if this if the gun ends up in in the hands of people who wanna commit other crimes, then violence happens. So I wanna thank the sponsor for having this bill. To remind everybody, this does not affect your rights and as under the second amendment, and perhaps, maybe when somebody goes to purchase a gun in the future, they would worry about and make sure that the gun doesn't get in the wrong hands. And if it does, this would this would, this type of weapon would protect them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. I want to remind my colleagues that we will confine our remarks to the bill and that we do have rules in this house for order and decorum and we will be respectful to our colleagues. Thank you. Ms. Giglio.

[Jodi Giglio (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. As a law abiding gun owner.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Are you on the bill ma'am?

[Jodi Giglio (Member of Assembly)]: On the bill.

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

[Jodi Giglio (Member of Assembly)]: As a law abiding gun owner with a couple of guns that are locked up, you have to chop off my finger to get into my gun locker. But just saying that we do so many studies on guns and on personalizing guns. And, you know, years ago, we updated the criminal gun clearing house at the New York State Police Repository for Tracking Firearms that are Used in Crimes. And I've been trying to get that data. As a matter of fact, in the budget hearings, I asked the superintendent, you know, from a colleague of mine because I had to leave, but we don't have the statistics as to where these guns that are being committed in crime in crimes. We don't know if the guns were stolen. We don't know if they're ghost guns. We don't know if the serial numbers were scratched off. We don't know what guns I I know as a law abiding gun owner, if my gun is stolen, I have to report it right away. I I recently renewed my full carry permit and to be honest, I don't want to carry in the capital because I know it makes people feel uncomfortable. But I can if I sign a book and I log my gun in. But I just I think that there are so many studies on law abiding gun owners and the classes that we have to take in order to renew our full carry permits. And the guns that are being used are being brought in from other states and they're they're being used in crimes. And those statistics should be available and on the the NYS the DJS website, and it should be on the state police website as to where these guns are coming from. Because they're not coming from law abiding gun owners. They're coming from people that are committing crimes, and some of them may be committed by law abiding gun owners. But those are the statistics that we should be looking at and those are the things that we should be studying. How many guns have the serial numbers crossed off? How many guns came in from other states that were reported stolen? How many guns are ghost guns? How many guns have been changed from their original composition from when they were purchased? These things are the things that we should be studying. But instead, we make it harder and harder for law abiding citizens that just want to defend themselves and protect their second amendment right to carry and and not focusing on the crime that these guns are are being used for. And I think that that needs to be information that is readily available to all of us as we're making decisions in this chamber about guns and law abiding gun owners and further restrictions on them when the crimes are still happening. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Burrows')]: Will the sponsor yield for

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: one question?

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

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

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

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Burrows')]: Okay, this is a study, correct?

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Correct. Okay. On the bill.

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

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Burrows')]: Okay, so I think when you look at a study, a study is something that's called preparation. And in my mind preparation is the key for success. So in order to protect ourselves you can better do that no way than having a study. So, one of the positives of having a study is to better understand risks. Gun safety risks, how to properly store to how to prevent injuries. These things all include storage and also having a lack of training. If you have a lack of training, it's almost impossible for you to prepare for success. Prevention of injuries, prevention of deaths, a study could also help with recommendations. How to lock your guns in storage practices, educational programs, awareness, campaigns. There's a lot of evidence based policies that come from studies. So with that being said, I think this bill will be something that will greatly help not only individual households but the entire state of New York. And so for that, I am an affirmative. Thank you.

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

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: This action will take effect immediately.

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

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The republican conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation. If there is anyone that wishes to vote affirmatively, they may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

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

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is in favor of this piece of legislation. However, I do believe there may be a few that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.

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

[Joseph M. Angelino (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise to explain my no vote. I've had three jobs in my life over the last forty five, fifty years, all of them required me to take an oath raising my right hand to support and defend the constitution. And I take the constitution very seriously. The amendments to the constitution are there for one thing, to protect citizens from the government. And I will defend the constitution until the day I die. The second amendment is a part of that. The first amendment, I've had to defend that before, and it was not popular. As a police chief, I had to assist protesters to say the most vile and vulgar things in public, and I took a lot of heat for that because I was upholding and defending the constitution. It didn't make me very popular because people wanted me to stop those people, but I couldn't and I wouldn't. We've I've been here for years. We continually infringe on the second amendment. As my colleague and I have both said, it's death of a thousand cuts, and we've gotta stop that. It's not gun violence. It's violent people with guns, and we've got all kinds of underlying reasons. We don't call DWI car violence. We call it drunk driving. The same holds true with gun violence. And then we even created an office of gun violence. When we need to invest more into mental health and education, I have a bill to educate high schoolers if they choose to on gun safety. That's where we need to begin. We need to be more to stop demonizing the ownership and possession of a firearm, and that's why I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Angelino in the negative. Mister Boris to explain his vote.

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I know passing a gun bill in an election year is always a challenging thing. This bill, which this body has passed twice before with bipartisan support, is about catching New York up to real developments that are happening. Consumers right now are making choices of buying personalized firearms or buying other weapons and the state government currently doesn't have a view into it. We've seen law enforcement agencies throughout the country choose to take actions like this to keep their officers safe because nationwide ten percent of police officers who were shot are shot with their own weapon. The first woman NYPD officer killed on the job was killed with her own weapon. And right now, it does feel like we wanna bury our head in the sand instead of learning more about this technology that legal gun owners are currently choosing to purchase. This is a bill that is not opposed by the NRA, not opposed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. It is meant to give us the knowledge to keep gun owners and non gun gun owners safe. I am proud to have worked across the aisle to deliver this. I am proud to work with advocates who are generally pro gun safety and pro rights to get this bill forward, and I'm very proud to vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, mister Boris in the affirmative. Mister Levine, to explain his vote.

[Charles D. Lavine (Member of Assembly)]: So some of us on my side of the aisle, including myself, have some familiarity with firearms. Although I do wanna say that I have never fired a howitzer. But if I did want to have a handgun or a pistol, I might want to have a personalized version of that to make sure that children who are coming to my house are not going to be in danger. The leading cause of death today among children in The United States is firearms. Now, I also practiced criminal defense law complex for many, many years and represented an awful lot of people who committed crimes with firearms. Few, if any of them, would have been considered mentally ill. So I want to just sort of deal with that myth. And I want to deal with the second a second myth that's been advanced. And it has to do with some sort of reference to the Japanese not wanting to invade The United States because some of us had firearms? Well, that sure didn't stop them from invading China where there was an army of 4,000,000 with firearms. That statement was attributed to admiral Yamamoto, and it is not true. So I think this is a good bill, and I am very pleased to vote in the affirmative. Thank you very, very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Levine in the affirmative. Mister Pirazolo to explain his vote.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I'm gonna try to clarify one more time why I

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: think this bill is bogus.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: If anyone wants to buy a personalized firearm, they are going to be free to do so. New York State does not need to spend any money whatsoever on a study for where the consumer is going to have that choice naturally. If a police department, if the military, if anyone else decides that this would be better for our membership, members of the police department, it will keep them safe, it will keep them alive, they are going to make that decision regardless of any study that New York State has wasted their money on. This is something that is going to happen naturally anyway. We don't need to study if it makes sense. The consumer will decide if it makes sense. Just like the consumer decides if I should be standing here and you should be sitting there. So that is why I'm voting no. This is nothing but a total waste of money. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Pierzola, the negative. Mister Zaccaro to explain his vote.

[John Zaccaro, Jr. (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Let's be clear here. This bill does not ban anything. It doesn't mandate anything or infringe on anyone's rights. It simply does one thing and it asks for facts. Yet despite some of that, our colleagues in this chamber have rushed to oppose it. Arguing against a study, against gathering information, against even understanding whether technology could prevent tragedies. And that's not prudence. It's willful ignorance. If we are serious about public safety, we should be willing to examine tools that could reduce accidental shootings, prevent stolen weapons from being used, and keep firearms out of the wrong hands. Ignoring innovation doesn't protect anyone. It just keeps us stuck. This bill is a measured responsible step. It respects lawful gun ownership while asking whether smarter technology can make our community safer. We don't lose anything, madam speaker, by learning more. We risk a great deal by refusing it. And so, today I proudly stand and I will vote in the affirmative and I want to thank the sponsor for bringing this measure forward.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Ozzacaro, in the affirmative, mister Di Pietro to explain his vote.

[David DiPietro (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I was a little little I heard someone just speak about how they would like their children and their friends their children's friends to come over and make sure things were safe and not have an accident. I hope everybody in this chamber realizes that in New York State, you have to have your firearm safe and secure. I have a gun safe. Everyone if you have a firearm, you have to have it secured. If you don't have it secured, you're in violation of New York State law. So if children are in harm's way, that's because you're not safely securing your firearm. And I just wanna make that point known to everybody that that that that argument doesn't hold. If you you've got children coming to your house and your firearms aren't secure, boy, oh, boy, you better get get learn New York state law. That firearm has to be secured. And while this this bill doesn't ban, doesn't infringe, the fact is we don't need it. We don't need a study. We know. There's national studies all over. We don't need this. But, again, it's one side that is pushing this, one side that's gonna study it, one side that's gonna give us their opinion on what has to happen. So when it comes to willful ignorance, I gotta say that I have the sonogram bill, and the sonogram bill has has been shown nationwide to save babies' lives. But we don't do a study on that, and I'm not calling up here and saying it's willfully ignorant that we don't do it. So I do take offense to that, madam speaker. And I'll be voting no on this bill, and I encourage others to also. Thank you very

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister DPH, turn the negative. Mister Riley to explain his vote.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Michael Reilly (Member of Assembly)]: So we heard about protecting kids. As my colleagues have mentioned earlier, you have to have a lockbox. You gotta take a picture of it. You gotta send it to keep your firearms license. What strikes me is that willful willful ignorance comment. If you really wanna tackle gun violence with our youth like a real body, then we would address raise the age. And we would address it by making sure that we hold 16 and 17 year olds accountable if they use a firearm instead of going to family court. So that's really the study that should be done.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: And for that reason, I

[Alex Bores (Member of Assembly)]: will be voting no.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Why do you rise, mister Riley in the negative? Miss Peoplestokes, why do you rise?

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: For us.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Ms. Pepistokes, I didn't hear you. Your mic wasn't on when you spoke, Ms. Pepistokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: My apologies. I was asking if we could remind our colleagues to stay on topic of the bill before us. Yes.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: As a reminder, we will confine our remarks when explaining your vote on the specific piece of legislation. Please. Ms. Walsh, why do you rise?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: Right. So I would just point out that there are many reasons for voting yes or no and those reasons may have other things to do. It it all has to do with the vote and when they're explaining their vote, but they might be referencing things like other pieces of legislation that are informing their vote. I I think that that is they have two minutes to explain their vote. They're explaining their vote. I don't think that there's anything that's been said that is incorrect so far. So I would I would take issue with the way that the majority leader was urging caution.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Were you raising a point of order or explaining your vote?

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: I was responding to what Ms. People Stokes was saying and what you were just saying. I've if you want to call it a point of order I guess it is but

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Okay. Mr. Scavoni, to explain your vote.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Scavoni/Skifoni')]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today to, thank the sponsor for bringing this bill forward. And I wanna read the words of the second amendment of the US constitution. And it says, a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those were added to the US constitution in 1791. The technology at that time was a front loaded muzzle rifle. That was the firearms. The technology has changed since then, and now we have the dubious distinction of having the leading killer of children in The United States being by guns. I have personally been at the funerals of my students who have died by firearms. And the least we can do is to commission a study for the viability of personalized firearms in the state of New York. I proudly vote yes. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mr. Skifoni in the affirmative. Mr. Brooks Krasney to explain his vote.

[Alec Brook-Krasny (Member of Assembly)]: Madam speaker, thank you very much. Happy Thursday. Just very quickly, I'd like to explain why I changed my vote from yes from last year to no to this year. I think for me, the central point of my decision is lying where I think that, God forbid, in case of a home invasion, as a result of this study, my wife wouldn't be able to use my gun if it's personalized on my name to defend herself. That's the one reason that giving me an idea to vote no on this bill. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Mister Brooks Kasney in the the negative, mister Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Joseph Sempolinski (Member of Assembly)]: I'm gonna be voting no. Nice to have an observation. We swore an oath to uphold the entire constitution. There's a comment made about the technological level of firearms when the second amendment was put in place. When the first amendment was put in place, we wrote on parchment, but it applies to computers. It applies to television. It applies to everything. Second amendment still applies. I took an oath to uphold the second amendment. I vote no.

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

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes, 91. Nays, 48.

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

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you so much, madam speaker. It's an honor to introduce on behalf of our colleague, Eric Dallan, members of the Bengali community from in and around the Brooklyn community. They are the MUNA Alliance for Peace and Justice. The heart of this organization works steadfast and for this powerful mission to protect the dignity and the rights of every person in The United States through a nationwide network of activism and community leaders. I am going to do my best to correctly pronounce their names. We have doctor Jahagir Kabir. Shalom Raffin. Aminlu Islam, Madur Rahaboor, and Dilwar Majardar, all guests of our colleague Eric Delon, and from the Bengali community for Bengali Day. So would you please welcome these brothers to our chambers?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of miss People Stokes, mister Delon, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our friends from the MUNA Alliance for Peace and Justice. Our distinguished guests, welcome you to our assembly chamber today and extend to you the privileges of the floor. We are glad you were able to make it to us before our session ended today. I know you had some travel delays, so we hope you enjoy the proceedings today. Thank you so very much for joining us. Miss Peoples Stokes, for the purpose of an introduction

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, thank you for allowing me to make one other introduction for our colleague, Deborah Glick. She has to have joining us today, Tracy Wallin and her husband, Noah, as well as their son, Hendrix. Tracy is the chief of staff for our great member, Deborah Glick, and she's here with her family to visit the capital. So if you could welcome her to the chambers. She's monitored from a distance or employer working at. So you can welcome her to our floor if you would please.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On behalf of Ms. Peoples Stokes, Ms. Glick, the speaker and all members, we always love to see family members of our staff coming to see us in the chamber. So we are extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hope you enjoy the proceedings. The family members being able to enjoy the proceedings. You see what your spouse has been doing every single day. So thank you so very much for joining us today. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, colleagues have on their desk an a calendar. I would now like to advance that a calendar.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On a motion by Ms. People Stokes, the a calendar is advanced.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you so much. We should take that up immediately.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Before we start, I'd just like to remind our colleagues that there are limited reasons for a member to rise and interrupt proceedings. These include to offer a motion which is in order to raise a point of order or a point of privilege and to ask a colleague to yield to questions on the floor as a reminder to our colleagues. Page three, rules report 89, clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number one zero zero two a, rules report 89, budget bill, an act making appropriations for the legal requirements of the state debt service.

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

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Yes, madam speaker. Good I guess it's good afternoon, my my my colleagues. Today marks what I like to call the end of the middle. Some call it the beginning of the end, but this is our debt service bill. It should really be something that no one in this floor should have any objection to because it requires us to legally pay our bills. This year's debt service bill provides for $10,600,000,000 in appropriations in support of debt service payments of $3,700,000,000 for state fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven. These payments are estimated to decrease by $571,000,000 from the prior year and will remain in compliance with the limitations set forth by the Debt Service Reform Act of 2000. This bill is necessary for the State to make legally required debt service payments on outstanding bonds and New York State supported bond issuances. The appropriations contained in this bill pay for the State's general obligation bonds, personal income tax revenue bonds, lease purchase agreements and other special contractual obligations to public authorities. The debt service payment supports $72,200,000,000 in outstanding debt and allows the State to sustain payments on our transportation infrastructure, SUNY and CUNY infrastructure and other educational facilities, provide for economic development projects as well as housing and park initiatives across the State. In addition, total debt outstanding is expected to remain under the statutory debt cap for fiscal year twenty twenty seven and throughout the five year capital plan. With that, I am happy to answer any questions pertaining to our paying our bills.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Palmisano, your first venture into the budget.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Yes, madam speaker. I'm very nervous. First, good morning chairman Prowl. How are you today?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I I'm well. Is this still morning?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: It is still morning.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: It's it's gonna be afternoon.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: It's gonna be afternoon when we finish, though.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: So So will the chairman yield?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Yes. Will the chairman yield?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Absolutely. Second The chairman yield. Weeks.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: You're not the chairman yet, mister policy.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: No. No. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. I am glad to see we're taking up this bill. Sunlight outside in the morning to the afternoon. The bill is aged three days, things of that nature, not requiring a message of necessity for the governor. Hopefully that will continue with the nine bills to follow. Do you expect that to be the case or are you just hopeful that will be the case?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I'm hopeful that is the case.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Hopeful is a good word. As you know too, our Assembly Minority Conference has repeatedly called for five way budget negotiations in order to keep the best interest of all New Yorkers represented. You know, we're a few days away from the budget deadline. And you know, as the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, I'm starting to think my invitation got lost in the mail to those invitations. Is that something I should continue to look for or just not worry about it?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Mr. Paul, some of the keep raising the cost of postage. I think depost the stamp. It was not a forever stamp.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: I

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: know. And we had insufficient funds on our stamp.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: I'm not surprised with our budget situation.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, I'm just joking.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Obviously, as you know, we're dealing with late budgets since Governor Hochul took office. All the budgets have been late. We continue to rely on budget extenders. We got the April 1 deadline coming up with major religious holidays, so it doesn't seem like there's a sense of urgency. It seems like next week we've been notified we're going have to do probably a budget extender probably on Tuesday, March 31. Does that seem the trajectory or are you hopeful that we might get budget bills over the weekend and start actually voting on it? Vote on actual budget bills next week.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Hope springs eternal but that is not germane to the bill in front of us.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: I understand that, Mr. Prabhu. With that, before I get into really the details of this particular bill, I just think it would be good for New Yorkers who are paying attention to get into some of the broader perspectives and then dive into the bill itself if I could. Right now, do we have a financial plan that's in place that we can look at at this particular time?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: No, we don't.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. When we take up the other nine bills when they come in, we expect do you expect that we'll have a financial plan presented with the next budget bill we take up?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I would hope so.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Hopeful. That word hopeful. Is there any type of agreement yet relative to what we might be looking at from an all funds spending perspective yet?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Not at this time.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: We're hopeful that we see some budget bills next week. Do you think we should require the governor to prevent a financial plan at least one day prior to voting on any of our upcoming appropriation bills? Wouldn't that be wise? We have legislation that would do that.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well I'm not in position to advise the governor on anything and that's really not germane to this bill in front of us.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. The comptroller as we were talking about has indicated that we will need an emergency extender that will need to be passed by Tuesday at noon for the institutional payroll to be met. Is there any indication that this would not be necessary or we are to have to have that done just to back up?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I think we are looking for doing this extender next Tuesday.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And do you know with this extender, any idea how long that's going to last? Is it going be a few days? Is it going take us through their religious holiday week? Any intuition or insight on what that extender might look like at this point in time?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, normally it would be for a week, but the calendar of this year is really working against us through this entire budget process and there are future extenders that may be necessary that fall on holidays. There may be the need for an extender that's in excess of the normal one week that we do.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay, fair enough. And I know we're hopeful that we see remaining budget bills soon. Do you think when we do see those remaining budget bills, there will be sufficient time presented to us and maybe looking at the three day legal requirement, constitutional requirement to review those bills? Or do you think it's just going to be, on our desk and MR.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, it is always our aim to have the three days to look at the bills. But quite frankly, the bills are in print right now. And if someone wanted to read through the bills, they have every opportunity to do that because what's being discussed right now in negotiations has very little to do with the fiscal aspects of the budget but more of the policy. So if you are concerned, which I'm pretty sure you are as right or wrong ways and means of the fiscal implications of the bill, That's all available to you right now.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. Fair enough. Right now, obviously, the majorities and the governor of the same party, you guys are doing the negotiation there. What are the current sticking points? Are there certain sticking points? Is it taxes, tax increases?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Not in a position to discuss that because that gets in the press and that bogs down negotiations. But, would be comfortable to say all of the above.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay, all of

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: the above.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: All right, do you have any idea how much the enacted budget yet will increase state operating funds over last year? Do you have an idea yet or not? To be determined.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: That's still being negotiated.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. I guess I would ask the same question on our all year budget gaps. Do we know what that looks like yet?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I know it's under the cap, but the exact numbers I can't give you, but we're definitely going to stay remain under cap.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. And I and I apologize. Let me rephrase it. When I said that question, I'm looking at our out year budget deficit gaps. I know the governor had $2,728,000,000,000. I think your one house budget said maybe around 30,000,000,000. So, somewhere in between.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Somewhere in between

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: there. And, I was gonna I was gonna about to ask you if you think there will be tax increases in the budget, but I know you don't wanna lay your hand out before these budget negotiations. Is that accurate? Or do you want tax increases in the budget?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: That's being negotiated right now. I understand that. The governor stated that she is not in favor of doing any tax increases, but it remains to be seen whether the needs of the state would necessitate such an action.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Fair enough. Just about to move on to some more debt service questions, Obviously we don't have a financial plan, don't have a spending plan, we don't have a revenue scorecard, we don't know what the remaining budget bills are going to look like. As you said, we are hopeful those things will come with the next set of budget bills that are coming With that process and we again want to continue to emphasize you know five way discussions would be more productive in representing that. On the debt service and I think you heard in your statement but I just want to verify, how much does the debt service bill appropriate?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: The total appropriation I think is 10,600,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. And do we know how much the enacted budget plan will assume in cash debt service payments for fiscal year twenty seven?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: This is on my notes. Around, I believe it's somewhere around 3,000,000,000. Know the Okay. 28,000,000,000 I think the number is.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Sorry.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I'm sorry. Go

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: ahead. That's fine. Fair enough. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The governor has also proposed 3,000,000,000 in short term liquidity borrowing and this bill authorizes it and with tax receipts continually coming in higher than anticipated and both majority one house budgets rejected the proposal, is it still necessary to give the governor the power to decide to issue short term debt?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I really don't see a problem with that.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And do we know if that proposal is going to make it into an enacted budget language?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: As part of the negotiations. Yep.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And do you think the legislature should have a little bit more oversight over the issuing of such short term debt?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I've always felt the legislature should have a lot more oversight over budget items, but because of that court decision for Tacky v Silver, the court of appeals gave the governor extraordinary powers over the budget and took away many of the powers that the legislature had prior to that ruling.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: I just would say that we do have legislation on our side that would certainly, if we put in statute, it might give us a stronger case in hand when those negotiations

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: As we have legislation on our side to do the same thing, that's more like the nuclear option and I can guarantee you that the governor would veto it.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Fair enough. Now the state seems to continue to rely on debt prepayments for short term savings, but the comptroller has warned they don't reduce interest cost and can obscure long term debt growth. Do you, the majority believe that the debt service prepayments are helping or hurting the state in the long run?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, I believe any prepayment would help because it's reducing our overall liability.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Fair enough. So, how much of this debt service is going towards principal and how much is going towards interest?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: 25% is going towards the principal and 75% is going towards service.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Do you know how that compares to previous year's payments? Compared to last year for example?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, appropriation this year is 10,600,000,000.0 which is a decrease of 32,000,000 from last year.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Last year, majority of our debt service payment was applied towards principal. What has changed this year to make such a big shift that most of it is going towards interest? Is there something specific that

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, over the last five years, the debt service has been about 60% interest and 40% principal and we're kind of keeping within that framework.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: The governor in her budget projected a total outstanding debt to be about $72,000,000,000 in her executive budget. Those negotiations are ongoing. I know for this year, I'm sure that if you had, you couldn't really share it here right now, but out of that amount that the governor has proposed, know, set in her budget, how much of that is actually voter approved debt? Like bond acts and things of that nature. And then how much of it is public authority debt?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I think about 2.5 is voter approved. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And the remainder is public authority Authorities. Okay. Do you know what is the estimated debt outstanding for fiscal year thirty one projection?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: For fiscal year thirty one? Yep.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Just looking from a long term perspective.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: That's the end of the five year plan. '31 should be 98,300,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. So almost $99,000,000,000. And I think my colleague might ask

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: you Closer to '98 to '99.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. Figure it out. Do you know about how many and my colleague might have asked you this question, but I I think it was a good question, so I think I'll ask it to get it on the record. You Do know how many other states have a total budgets under $98,000,000,000?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I personally don't know what other states have.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Well, if you don't, I can help you with that mister Prefel.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: But I can I can tell you that your standing day compared to states with total budgets would rank twentieth as of 2024? So, we're close to the middle. Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: If debt outstanding increases to $99,000,000,000 or $98,000,000,000 in fiscal year thirty one, this would be a significant increase of like $37,000,000,000 or almost 60% increase from fiscal year twenty six. Do you believe this large increase in debt over the next five years is sustainable and fiscally responsible? Absolutely. Okay.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I'm just looking at a list I have since we have time. I'll read you some of the states whose outstanding debt is higher than our $54,000,000,000 Of course California is $453,000,000,000 and then we have Texas, 145,000,000,000, Illinois, 140,000,000,000, Ohio, 100,000,000,000, Arizona, 96,000,000,000, North Carolina, 70,000,000,000. Our outstanding debt is 53 you concerned? $54,300,000,000 Am I concerned about debt? Yes, I wish our debt was zero, but comparison to the rest of the country, we're doing just fine.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And I know you're concerned. What I was going add with that is are you concerned that this level of debt might possibly impact our state's ability to respond to an economic downturn in any way?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I really can't anticipate that.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: All right. Do you believe that with our population continuing to decline due to affordability crisis, we have become too reliant on personal income tax and sales tax receipts to back our bonds? Is there any concern that we're putting too much on this?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: No, but where else would you suggest that we tax if you don't tax income? Are you advocating property taxes or higher fees?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: I'm more advocating fiscal responsibility and the more we continue to increase taxes, the more we continue to risk losing higher income earners and businesses that pay those taxes, leaving the state and will have less revenue coming in, and then we're going to be more sophisticated. So, that's what I'm advocating for here, Mr. Brettwell. Along with that press issue, the vast majority as we talked about our state supported that seems to be continues, you know, the word backdoor borrowing, you know, through the public authorities, which really kind of circumvents the constitution requirement for voter approval of state debt. Would you support, or does the majority support amending the constitution to prohibit backdoor borrowing?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I personally would not and when the authorities do bonds, they also have their own revenue source to pay those bonds back. So it all balances out and we're not using the state general funds to pay off the bonds of the authorities, the public authorities raise their money and pay off their bonds.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Fair enough and we've recently seen Moody's downgraded New York City's credit rating due to budget deficits and the fear that New York State's credit rating is at risk when budget gaps continue to increase and the over reliance of personal income tax receipts to back our bonds and our debt outstanding is projected to be close to $100,000,000,000 in five years. Is there a concern on that prognosis and what we're hearing from Moody's and those other financial industries? No. Okay. Fiscal year state supported debt per capita is projected to be about $3,600 an increase of five thirty six over or 14% from fiscal year twenty six. How much would the state debt per capital be if public authority debt were included?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I'm not sure of that number. No? I don't know.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: All right. I think by our estimates, we're looking at about nearly $17,000 per capita. But, that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to ask the question. In 2022, the New York State voters approved a 4.2 environmental bond act. Do we know how much of that $4,200,000,000 we have borrowed against so far?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: You want know how is outstanding? How

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: much of the total we have borrowed so far out of that 4,200,000,000.0

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: It's all been issued. 4,200,000,000.0 bonds have been issued to date. Half of it has been allocated and the debt service on that is $190,000 per annum.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. I'm getting to the end of my questions, but how much room is under the debt service cap for fiscal year twenty twenty seven?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: For 2027, you are jumping around here. Sorry about that, Mr. One year at a time. I understand. 9,100,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Okay. How about the debt outstanding cap for fiscal year twenty seven?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: 16,100,000,000.0.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: When it comes to our debt outstanding cap, at what point do we reach its lowest capacity and how much is it over the next five years? Like say, if you're up to fiscal year thirty one, do you have that projection on how that debt outstanding cap?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: By saying for fiscal year thirty one, it would be $351,000,000.

[Brian Manktelow (Member of Assembly)]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: $351,000,000? Okay. Right.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: With a cap remaining.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: All right. And I remember too also, we excluded from the debt outstanding cap during the COVID pandemic. Do you know about how much money was excluded from the debt cap with that? That we're looking

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: at? For which year?

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Much, under the COVID pandemic we had excluded?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, for state fiscal year '26 is $14,300,000,000 state fiscal year twenty seven dollars 14,100,000,000.0 State year '28, 13,900,000,000.0. State fiscal year '29, 13,700,000,000.0. State fiscal year '30, 13,100,000,000.0. And for state fiscal year '31, $12,500,000,000.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: So is that about just shy of 18,000,000,000, right around there?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Yes.

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: And if we included that money that's excluded from the debt cap, would we be exceeding our debt cap right now? No. Or close to it? No. Yeah. Alright. And, you know, mister Pratlow, really appreciate your time. I enjoyed this discussion. I look forward to more in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later. With that, I'm going to speak on the bill and thank you again for On your

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

[Philip A. Palmesano (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you. I first want to say obviously thank you to Chairman Pratlow for his time. It's nice that we're doing this here before April 1. It's a sunny day outside. Everyone was able to get a good night's sleep, especially our staffs who worked so hard for us, as we all know. It's our hope, and the word hope came up here quite a bit today. It's our hope that the rest of the nine bills that we bring forward will also do that. But knowing our history, I'm not too optimistic. But again, yes, we can have hope. I know yesterday was opening day. Our leader, Ed Ra, is hopeful about the Mets. I'm hopeful about the Yankees. But the hopeful part about this is this really kicks off the budget process. And so I look forward to having future conversations about the budget bills that will come next. Listen, understand that this budget bill is about paying our debt, fulfilling our obligations, sending a message to the bondholders that it's important for the financial markets, know, talking about paying for our roads, bridges, or water and sewer it' important. That is why I plan to support this bill here today. But what can' be ignored however is a very troubling picture and outlook. There will be no votes from our side on this bill sending those no votes are not to say we shouldn' pay our bet but to send a very important message that the fiscal path that this state is undertaking is not sustainable and not fiscally responsible. It's not sustainable for our seniors, our families, our farmers, our business community. It's a dangerous pathway. And we're not just talking about increasing the debt. It's the entire fiscal policy and practices that are being implemented by this governor and the state. Look at just over the past five years, our spending in the state has increased over $80,000,000,000. We're talking about a budget of more than a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000. There's proposals on the table to increase income taxes. There's proposals on the table to increase business taxes especially for the financial sector industries that are like the anchor of the economy. Our all year budget gaps are growing. Mean we talked about it we're looking at all year budget gaps of up to nearly $30,000,000,000 between 20 and $30,000,000,000. Ladies and gentlemen this is not sustainable. This is not responsible. So as I zero more in on this bill, I'm hoping the changes will come with the future bills. I'm hoping the next budget bill we have will have a financial plan, will have a spending plan, a revenue scorecard. We don't know when that's going to come, but again, we remain hopeful. And since Governor Oko has taken office, debt has increased by $10,000,000,000 prices have increased by 20% and energy mandates which are going increase thousands to monthly bills is on there. New York State is one of the most indebted states in the country. According to the comptroller, we are the second most, just behind California. The executive budget estimates that state related debt per capita is $3,644 for fiscal year twenty seven. That's per resident. And for fiscal year thirty one, we're looking at over $5,000 That's a 5.1% annual increase. And at the same time, our state related outstanding debt is projected to increase to $99,000,000,000 or $98,000,000,000 by fiscal year thirty one. That's up from $72,000,000,000 that's $27,000,000,000 increase that we're looking at. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is not sustainable and not fiscally responsible. And two other important points on that to consider, that ninety nine billion dollars is more than the total budgets of 42 other states. Yes, I know we're the Empire State, but still, those numbers are staggering. They're concerning. And then, when you add into the fact that the public authority debt, the backdoor borrowing that we talk about all the time, that's not directly approved by the voters, And keeping in mind that 96% of our state supported debt has been issued in this way through backdoor borrowing, which our controller, our former colleague, has continually sound the alarm of saying not to do this. That total public the total debt with the public authorities that we're talking about, we're looking at over $330,000,000,000. That equates to almost $17,000 per New York resident. And then you add the federal debt on top of it, that's just getting more and more mind blowing. Again, this is not sustainable. This is not fiscally responsible. We need to keep that in mind as we move forward. But again, I do plan to support this bill. I believe it is important to pay our debts. It's important to, you know you know, for our roads or bridges to fulfill our fiscal responsibility. Send that positive message to our bondholders in the financial markets. But make no mistake about it, what can't be lost in this message and with the no votes that you'll see here today, they're not saying not pay our debts, they're saying wake up as we've been saying for years. We can't continue down this dangerous financial fiscal path. It is not right for New Yorkers. This should be those nobles should be a reminder to all of us that our families and businesses are tightening their belts each and every day. They're making difficult decisions, but for some reason, the state of New York fails to do so. The state of New York needs to do so. And I think what gets lost in this chamber often is I think sometimes the governor and my colleagues in here thinks it's their money, but it's not. It's the people's money. And we have to remember that as we move forward. I hope we remember that as we continue these budget negotiation and prioritize spending and taxes in the fiscal plan because with the remaining bills that are coming, we have to adopt a fiscally responsible budget that takes those concerns and sacrifices that New York families, seniors, businesses, farmers are nuking right now. So let's try to work together to address that and work that way as we move further and take up more budget bills and have budget negotiations because New York's families and businesses deserve nothing less. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the chair yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The chair yield? Absolutely. Chair yields.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you chair. I just wanted to go back to part of the conversation that you'd had with my colleague about how much does the state actually owe in debt this year?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Outstanding debt is $72,200,000,000

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: And how much of that is new debt this year?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: 10,400,000,000.0.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Very good. Now, I'd heard you mention a comparison between California and New York about outstanding debt and that we are in the middle of the pack. But New York's debt does not include the all of the public authorities that have debt on behalf of the citizens. Isn't that true?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, that is those are public authorities which are actually separate entities.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: But the state guarantees their debt, does it not? Yes. I think so. Shouldn't New York State include all public debt in its calculations when we conduct this debt service bill each year?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: I don't believe they should.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Well, what are the top five agencies

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: have It's like you co signing a car loan for your next door neighbor. It's not your debt but you're guaranteeing it so your neighbor can buy a car.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Think it's actually more like co signing a debt for one of your children where it actually is your debt because you have to pay it if they don't.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: As you pay the car, no for your neighbor if your neighbor refuses to pay the bill.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Same So, those public authorities, what are the top five public authorities that have debt in New York State?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: The top five, well off the top of my head, I would probably say the MTA is number one.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: The MTA is one.

[Sam Pirozzolo (Member of Assembly)]: Dasney is

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: two. Empire State Development or Economic Development? Well,

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: should be number three.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: And, number four is actually the Thruway Authority. Did you know that?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Authority probably then the Tribal Bridge and Tunnel Authority probably

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Weren't we supposed to have paid the Thruway off fifty years ago and not have any tolls?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Well,

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: they have to fix the road, all these heavy trucks,

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Of course, the highway is going

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: to be lanes and there's a lot of repairs that have to be done in the throwaway. So, that's where our tolls are going now.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: But but those agencies, those public entities, they have about $330,000,000,000 of debt that are obligated by New York State, taxpayers.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Cosigned by New York State. Yes.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Yes. They are. They certainly are cosigned. Now the actual debt itself, the 70, plus billion, how can it be brought down sooner in your estimation? We're adding to it. We're not actually paying more off. It's actually gonna balloon out to $99,000,000,000 in 2031.

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: Well, in in the past, mister governor has been doing a lot of prepayments on on on the outstanding debt. We are making an attempt to pay the debt down. I think this year we are looking at a prepayment of $2,800,000,000

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: But shouldn't we use our reserves to pay off even more so we could avoid those interest costs?

[J. Gary Pretlow (Member of Assembly)]: No, because we have to maintain what the other obligations of the state are as it comes to health, it comes through education, and everything else that comes under the state budget.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: Sure, well I certainly know about the state living beyond its means and having to incur debt to justify the spending of revenue.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Yeah.

[Robert Smullen (Member of Assembly)]: But but thank you mister Pretlow. Madam speaker, on the bill? On the bill. So what the problem is here isn't paying our bills. We should, of course, pay our bills that we incur, but it's actually the when we actually incur those bills. I've been in this body. This is my eighth budget that we've that we've done. And we've gone from spending about a $170,000,000,000 in that year to 260 plus billion this year. And that's an an increase of over $90,000,000,000. That's up something up over 50% just in a short period of time. That's way above the rate of inflation. And I know some of it was from COVID, but that doesn't justify World War two levels of increases in spending for a state like New York. New York is a state in The United States. It is one of the 50 United States. It has about 20,000,000 people. In fact, it's been shrinking in population ever since I've been a kid. And the reason it's been shrinking is that opportunity, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been decreasing in New York State and people are actually voting with their feet. And it's a bit of a shame because when you look at the whole country, The United States, and what debt we have, $39,000,000,000,000 of debt right now on a per capita basis, that's a $113,000 per citizen in The United States. When you add on New York's share of that debt, state debt along with public authorities debt, which is $16,000 per citizen, our children and our grandchildren are being saddled with an impossible situation. They're going to have to unbury themselves from this mountain of debt that's been incurred on their behalf to pay for things that they will never enjoy. These are things that have been been long gone and spent. And it's not just the building of infrastructure, it's paying for things that we don't need on a pay as you go basis. And that's a problem also at the federal level where we are borrowing money from things like the Social Security Trust Fund to be able to justify our debt level. And we can't do it for much longer. The fiscal responsibility of the government at the federal, at the state, and the local level is to make sure that people understand that taxes have consequences. And that's what's happening in New York State. We're about to hit a critical point in New York State where our aggregate, our average debt per capita is unsustainable. It's number two. That's second only to California, which has twice as many people as New York does. So when you think about it, you think about our business climate, you wonder why it's the way it is, now you know. It's because we spend money that we don't have on things that we don't need. And it's the obligation of this body, at least on an annual basis, to hear this. And I'm here to speak the truth about what happens with debt and about fiscal responsibilities and obligations. And it's it's incumbent during this budget time that we realize, as we are about to vote on budgets, of which I will vote no on every bill out of principle, to say that this quarter of $1,000,000,000,000 that we spend on new in New York is too much. It's for things that we don't need with money that we don't have, And it starts here today with this debt service bill. For that reason, madam speaker, I will be voting no on this bill. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. On a motion by mister Pretlow, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. Read the last section.

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

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

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but there will probably be some exceptions. And those who wish to vote yes may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

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

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in favor of the speech of legislation.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Clerk will record the vote. Miss Walsh to explain our vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So as has been said during the debate of this bill, I too support the state paying its debts. My no vote is in protest to the sheer amount of the debt that New York has and the outsized amount of debt that has been incurred without voter approval. I'll be voting in the negative. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Miss Walsh in the negative. Mister Yeager, to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member ('Mr. Yeager/Yeger')]: Thank you, madam speaker. I too would not vote to extend the ability of the state to borrow, but I believe in promises made, promises kept and I don't want to see what's happening in New York City right now happen to New York State. Right now New York City's bond ratings have dropped tremendously. The bond markets don't trust our leadership in the city and we have to give certainty to the markets because otherwise we will simply fail. So for that reason I vote in favor. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Mister Yeager and the affirmative, are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Ayes one zero six, nays 37.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed, Ms. Peoples Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: We don't have any housekeeping. We do have a resolution, colleagues. This is a memoriam resolution. So if we could be quiet and take our seats. We're honoring the memory of a life lost and to recognize the impact that a loved one had in our community and to their family. A resolution by mister Slater. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk of the Assembly]: Assembly number 11 o four, mister Slater. Legislative resolution mourning the untimely entrapped tragic death of Sheridan Grace Gorman.

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

[Matt Slater (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I rise to honor the life of Sheridan Gorman, a young woman taken far too soon whose loss has left her family, her friends, and our entire community simply devastated. Sheridan was just 18 years old. A daughter, a sister, a friend, a student beginning what should have been an exciting new chapter of her life at Loyola University in Chicago. She carried with her the hopes of a family that loved her deeply and a community that was immensely proud of her. And now, instead of celebrating her future, we are mourning her absence. There are no words that can fully capture the heartbreak her family is experiencing. As a father myself, I can't begin to imagine the pain they are going through. And as a community, we feel it alongside them. In our schools, in our neighborhoods, and in those quiet moments where we're reminded just how fragile life can be. But this is not about the circumstances of her passing. This is about Sheridan. It's about remembering a life, not defined by how it ended, but the love that she gave, the relationships that she built, the joy she brought to those around her. You know, Sheridan was a proud Yorktown girl, and she carried that pride everywhere she went. She graduated from Yorktown High School, where she was an athlete and a leader, playing field hockey, lacrosse, and bowling. Sheridan also gave back to the next generation, coaching for years with the Yorktown Athletic Club, the same place where she once competed, pouring her heart into mentoring young athletes and helping them build their confidence both on and off the field. Sheridan is remembered for her generosity, her loyalty, and her faith. It has been said that she brought people together, lifted them up, and made the ordinary moments feel extraordinary. I also want to honor Sheridan's family. Her father, Tom, her mother, Jessica, her sister, Maddie. They now carry an unimaginable burden, but they don't carry it alone. They have an entire community standing beside them and all of New York as well. And finally, I wanna thank my community. Yorktown has come together in grief, in prayer, and in support to lift one another up during an incredibly difficult time. That's the Yorktown way. And once again, I couldn't be more proud to call that my home. In moments like this, we are reminded of what really matters. Family, community, and the responsibility we all share to care for one another. So today, in this historic chamber, we pause. We remember Sheridan Gorman. We honor her life, and we stand with her family, not just today, but in the days, weeks, and years ahead. May her memory be a blessing. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. We have an additional, resolution before the house. On this resolution. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: Madam speaker, could you please call on our colleague, missus Clark, for the

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

[Sarah Clark (Member of Assembly)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will have majority conference immediately following session in the speaker's conference room. Majority conference immediately following session.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you. Immediate majority conference speakers conference room immediately after adjournment. Miss People Stokes.

[Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes (Majority Leader)]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourn until Friday, March 27, tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we will reconvene at 2PM on March 30, Monday being a session day.

[Acting Speaker (Presiding Officer)]: On miss Peoples Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.