New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, will you please call the house to order?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The house will come to order. Good afternoon 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 Monday, April 20. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Monday, April 20 and at the same stand approved.

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

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: We have a quote today by Wally Shira who was a NASA astronaut. And the quote says, the things that we share in our world are far more valuable than those which divide us. These words are again by Wally Shira. Madam speaker, may I have the members attention so we can announce the schedule for today. Members have on their desk a main calendar and a debate list. Before any housekeeping and or introductions, we will call for rules committees to meet off the floor. That committee will produce a six bill a calendar which we will take up today. Members of the ways and means committee should also be ready as we will call for a meeting off the floor. We will begin our work today by taking up calendar resolutions on page three. I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed. Majority members should be aware that there will be a need for conference once we conclude our work on the floor. As always, I will consult with the minority on their conference needs. Members should also be aware that at the conclusion of our floor work today, the minority will be offering a motion to discharge. So with that as a general outline, madam speaker let us begin by calling for the rules committee to meet in the Speakers Conference Room.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Rules committee members please make your way to the Speakers Conference Room. Rules committee members, Speakers Conference Room. We have no housekeeping. We're gonna go straight into introductions. Let us start with mister Blumenkrantz for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Jake Blumencranz]: Thank you, madam speaker. Today, I rise to recognize a group of young leaders who are truly remarkable here with us in the people's house, the Nassau County Police Department Explorers. The Nassau County Police Department Explorers program is truly second to none. For young people ages 14 to 21, they are a diverse group with hands on training in law enforcement, community service and leadership. But more than that, it instills virtues of discipline, responsibility, teamwork and a deep commitment to serving others. The program is not just an extracurricular activity, it is a proven pipeline to public service. And today, we are proud to see the results of that pipeline in action. Among us is Leslie Quintildina Lopez, who made history as the first former Nassau County explorer to serve on the explorer board, who continues now her service in The United States Customs And Border Protection as an agent. An extraordinary testament to the program and what it could achieve. We are also joined by two exceptional current leaders in the program, Caitlin Page Slattery, the highest ranking Nassau County Explorer serving as a two star assistant chief. And Gina Michelle Gomez, who is the second highest ranking explorer serving as a one star deputy chief. Their leadership, dedication, and commitment to excellence sets a standard to all who serve. I also want to recognize the individuals who are behind the amazing success of the program. Detective Sergeant Daniel Johansson, whose leadership and mentorship have helped shape countless young lives in Nassau County. And Mario Doyle, a member of the Nassau County Police Foundation whose continued support ensures the program's success and that it thrives. Madam Speaker, at this time, when law enforcement agents across the state face recruitment challenges, programs like this one are more important than ever. These young leaders are stepping up and answering the call, prepared themselves to serve their communities. Today, we honor those explorers and what they've accomplished for New York's future. Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me and all the members in recognizing and applauding the Nassau County Police Department Explorers.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On behalf of mister Blumenkrantz, the speaker, and all members, we welcome our guest today from the Nassau County Police Department Explorers Club. We welcome you to our chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. And do hope you enjoy the proceedings today. It was wonderful to be able to have had the opportunity to meet you earlier today and get a little bit of background and information about the opportunity that you all have volunteered to take. And so thank you very much for continued stewardship in your community, and I wish you the best and continued success in your future endeavors. Thank you so very much for joining us today. Miss Seawright for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Rebecca A. Seawright]: Thank you madam speaker. Today I'm honored to introduce a very special guest, Ramson Karmusu. Ramson is an indigenous Maasai leader from Kenya and the founder of My Indigenous Knowledge in Action, also known as Makia Kenya, an organization dedicated to preserving indigenous knowledge systems and empowering indigenous communities. With nearly a decade of experience in research, advocacy and community engagement, Ramson has worked to ensure that indigenous knowledge is not only protected but actively passed on to the future generation through projects like Living with Nature, international partnerships, programs to exchange knowledge and boot camps with elderly and children. Through his leadership at Makia, the organization recognizes that women are the primary holders of indigenous knowledge. Makia actively supports women in taking leading roles in cultural preservation and community development. These initiatives safeguard cultural heritage while promoting its relevance in today's rapidly changing world. His work also extends to the global stage as a member and co lead of the working group on direct access to funding with the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. He emphasizes the central role of indigenous community in global climate and biodiversity efforts. Madam Speaker, will you please join me in welcoming Ramson to the house today.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On behalf of Ms. Seawright, the speaker and all members, we welcome you Mr. Karmuschu to the Assembly Chamber and extend to you the privileges of the floor. Thank you so very much for all of the engaging, wonderful work you do in our community to educate and contribute. And so vast international reach. So we thank you very much for all of the work that you're doing coming here to our assembly chamber. So thank you for joining us today. Mister Brown, Keith

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Brown Thank

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: for an you, introduction. I

[Assemblymember Keith P. Brown]: rise today to recognize and welcome a distinguished guest and former colleague, the honorable Andrew Reyes. Andrew served the people of the twelfth Assembly District with dedication and integrity for seventeen years and was our ranker of the health committee. Following his tenure in this body, he continued his commitment to public service as the town clerk for the town of Huntington for the past six years. And today, he joins us in Albany while attending the New York State Town Clerks Association Annual Conference. And to no doubt sing Sweet Caroline at karaoke because it is after all Tuesday night in Albany. So Madam Speaker, I ask that you please extend to our friend and former colleague, the Honorable Andrew Raya, the privileges and courtesies of the House. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Yes. On behalf of mister Brown, the speaker, and all members, welcome back mister Raya to our assembly chamber. Of course, we extend you the privileges, you have them already. Once a member, always a member. So thank you for for coming back and seeing us. And as soon as I saw your face back there, I could only think of one thing and that's you you singing. So welcome back. It's good to see you back here again. Thank you for joining us. Mister Caro, for the purpose of an introduction.

[Assemblymember Robert C. Carroll]: Good afternoon. Thank you, madam speaker. And as you may know, this week is National Library Week, and today is Library Assistant Day. And we have from Brooklyn, Cheryl M. Marriott, who serves as the coordinator of archives and special collections at SUNY Downstate Medical Research Library and is the current president of the New York Library Assistance Association. Miss Marriott and the library assistants across the state of New York are hard at work keeping our libraries running. Libraries serve not only as repositories for knowledge, but are also pillars of a democratic society. Please welcome miss Marriott to Albany, madam speaker, and may she have the cordialities of the floor. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. On behalf of mister Carroll, the speaker, and all members, welcome miss Marriott to the speaker, to the assembly chamber, to our people's house, and we extend to you the privileges of the floor. As you are the president of the New York State Library Assistance Association, it's fitting for you to be here today, obviously, for National Library Week. You are the foundation of our communities. Libraries foundation for educating and opening the doors for the community. When others shut them, libraries always keep them open. So, thank you so very much for what you do in our community, and thank you for joining us today. Mister Novakov, for a special introduction.

[Unidentified Assemblymember ('Mr. Novakov/Novakoff')]: Thank you. Thank you, madam speaker. It is my great pleasure to introduce my mother, Yelena. Today, she lives in Moscow, and I have this rare opportunity to present her here in the state assembly. My mother is a professional editor. She began her career in the late seventies as a proofreader at the newspaper called Socialist Industry. That publication ceased to exist in 1991 along with the Soviet Union itself. And by the way, if my colleagues in the DSA, they're all welcome to ask my mother any questions they may have about the collapse of the socialistic socialist society. So my mother my mother retired ten years ago after spending at least the last, two decades of her career as a senior editor for the Russian language edition of Harper's Bazaar, one of the America's oldest fashion magazines. Madam speaker, please join me in welcoming my mother to the New York State Assembly. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Yes. On behalf of mister Novakoff, the speaker, and all members, welcome ma'am to our assembly chamber, extending to you the privileges of the floor. It's always special to have parents join us in the chamber. Very proud, I'm sure, to see your son here, doing the people's work. So thank you so very much for joining us today. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you. Madam speaker, can you please call on the Ways and Means Committee to meet in the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Ways and Means Committee members, please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means Committee members to the speaker's conference room. Resolutions, page three. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution eleven fifty five, mister Magnarelli. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 19 to the twenty fifth twenty twenty six as abusive head trauma shaken baby syndrome awareness week in the state of New York.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution number eleven fifty six, mister r Carroll. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 04/21/2026 as Library Assistance Day in the state of New York.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution eleven fifty seven, miss Cruz, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as workplace violence prevention month in the state of New York.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution number eleven fifty eight, mister Santa Barbara. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as autism acceptance month in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Santa Barbara on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara]: Thank you, madam speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this resolution. This resolution is about something simple, that every person deserves to be included. For years, we talked about awareness, but awareness alone isn't enough. What people want is acceptance and action. Acceptance means we treat people with respect and we make sure that they belong. As the father of a son with autism, I share a passion for these issues like so many other families across New York State. My son Michael is 24 and we've been on a journey together. He teaches me new things every single day. I often share the story of how I started my career as a civil engineer, but when my son was born, it changed my life and set me on a new path that led me here. I'm proud to serve as chair of the committee on people with disabilities to sponsor this resolution every year, to have my son up here at the capital join us so many times with so many other self advocates speaking up, being seen, and being part of the process. That's what inclusion looks like. Not just being talked about, but being in the room. That's what drives me to do this work. The latest statistics show that one in thirty one children are affected by autism. That means every community, every school, and every neighborhood. But too many people still struggle to get the services that they need. And that's where we come in. In this chamber, we've worked to improve services, support providers, and invest in programs to help people live full lives. We've pushed for funding to strengthen the workforce because without staff, the system doesn't work. As we continue working to break down barriers so individuals and families can get the support they need, when they need, we continue down that path of acceptance. That is what acceptance looks like. Not just words, but real action. But our work is not done. We need to keep listening, keep improving, and keep breaking down barriers. So I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and in continuing this work. Because this only matters if it leads to real change. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to briefly add my voice. You know there's a very famous individual with autism and I don't know how old she is right now. She has got to be in her 70s at this point I would think. Her name is Doctor. Temple Grandin and there was a quote, you know so often we start our session with a quote from somebody, but the quote from Temple Grandin that really struck me today thinking about this resolution is when she said I am different not less. And I think that that's a really important way to think about individuals who are differently abled, who are neurodiverse, that I think about that with my son Terry that you know he's living a great life. He's got a great life and his life is different and has taken a different path than other people's lives. But all of our lives take different paths and he is much like I think Michael is to the sponsor of this resolution, Terry has taught me a great deal as well about how to treat people and how to view what success looks like in our lives. So I'm really happy to support this resolution. I know that we all will. And I think that that's a very important message for us today. Thank you so much.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution eleven fifty nine, miss Raj Kumar. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 08/15/2026 as Indian Independence Day in the state of New York.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Resolution eleven sixty, mister Syaj. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 08/24/2026 as Ukrainian American Heritage Day in the state of New York.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Syaj, on the on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Nader J. Sayegh]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. Today, I rise to proclaim 08/24/2026 as Ukrainian American Heritage Day in the state of New York. And this is in conjunction with the observance of Ukrainian Independence Day. New York state holds a 140,000 Ukrainian Americans, making it the largest Ukrainian population in America, which has over a million Ukrainian Americans. And I'm very proud in my city and my district of Yonkers, New York, and Westchester County, nearly 8,000 Ukrainians who are very involved, very active, and I've had the pleasure of attending so many of their cultural festivals by the Saint Michael's Catholic Ukrainian Church, and especially the Ukrainian Youth Center, and more important, the Summa Federal Credit Union, allowing businesses and the economy in our community to grow. Now, more than ever, you know, we need to show solidarity with Ukrainians because of what's happening in their homeland. The suffering that they've incurred due to war and violence has really caused trauma, emotional, and in many other aspects to the Ukrainian American community. So today, it's only fitting to show recognition for the Ukrainian American community, their contributions to our community, our state and nation, and to really support them in their time of need. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker members, have on a desk an a calendar. I now move to advance the a calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On a motion by mister Fall. The a calendar is advanced, mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: We will now take up rules report 100 by mister Delon followed by rules report one zero one by miss Paul.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Page three rules report 100. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10710, rules report 100, mister Delon, an act to amend the insurance law.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Delon.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill would allow the commissioner of health to make recommendations to the superintendent of financial services regarding immunizations that shall be covered by, insurance companies throughout the state utilizing utilizing generally accepted medical standards and taking into consideration, recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and other nationally or internationally recognized scientific organizations.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Blankenbush.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

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

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: With this bill, when you were make writing the bill, did any did you have any concerns about whether this bill should be just a bill for large groups? But you're saying that this bill will every insurance policy in the state of New York will cover vaccines. Correct? Or is that

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Yeah. So what this does, it there there should be no material change in what is covered by insurance companies today. What will happen here is that, these organizations will be added to what's already allowed by the federal government. So any any of the organizations that deal in in vaccines will still be, you know, allowed to do so, but would add, these organizations at these at the state level so that we can continue to have immunizations covered at the state level. So for these small organizations, they're still required, to cover these immunizations today under current, under current law, and that that should not change under this.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Well, if nothing changes, why do we need the bill?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Because if there are changes potentially in at the federal level, we would have coverage, here at the state. Okay.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Has the Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization that's within the US Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, have they tried to stop insurance companies for covering To my knowledge, no. They have come up with some recommendations on schedules of vaccinations, correct? Yes. So, my understanding is their recommendations then could be overruled by the Commissioner of Health and Financial Services.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: From what I from what I'm understanding and being being told that it would be in in in addition to, they I guess there would be is there is there if they repeal on the at the federal level, we just Yeah. So there there could be an instance where if the federal government relaxed some of the immunizations requirements that at the at the state level, we we would have the ability to be a little bit more more stringent in what is allowed and covered by insurance companies within the state.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Can't they do that right now?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: No.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Not for what? Not for for adults.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Adults.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Not for adults.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Now, when you talk with your bill, is there still cost sharing that insurance companies can do like co pays or stuff like that or do they have to cover it 100%? There's no cost sharing. There's no cost sharing.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: No cost So

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: how would the health and superintendent of financial services resolve differences between recommendations of the federal government and and the academies that we're talking about in this bill? Who how would that be determined by the department? How would they do that?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: So it would give the commission of health and the commission of financial services the discretion to make the final determination for what happens in New York state.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: So it would be strictly up to the commissioner to make that decision. Is that what you're saying?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: They would have discretion based on the recommendations from all entities at the federal and state level.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Okay. And that's a good point that I I wanna make because over the years, the academies that we're talking about have not agreed on everything that another academy does, even in The United States. Different organizations could have different opinions on this. How do you determine how does one person, the commissioner, determine on who's right and who's wrong?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: I mean, I I I would think that they would take the information gathered by, you know, all the groups that I mentioned, during the explanation and and largely see what's what's standard practice and make the decision that that they deem is best for the 19,000,000 people in the state. You know, they're largely, you know, professional medical, organizations. And, what it all this would do was just say, hey, insurance companies should cover this, but it it's it's not a mandate, and I know you didn't ask this, but it's not a mandate, by anyone in the state to have to take these immunizations.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: But, it is a mandate for the insurance companies to cover it, no matter what policy we're talking about, correct?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yes.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Also, in the bill it says that the commissioner could take recommendations from international organizations?

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Yeah. So the the thought is, you know, potentially, you know, groups like the World Health Organizations and other prominent international organizations. They they they could, but I don't think they're required to. They they could, but they're not required to on the

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: internationals. Because in your in some European countries, they've already did a rescheduling of immunizations like in UK, Germany, especially childhood immunizations. And that organization, if that's an international organization recommending that along with a few of the academies here, but not all of the academies. There could be conflicts between agencies. And so the bottom line is that one commissioner is going to make that decision.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Yeah. But they would also have the discretion to to especially on the internationals to not to not do it. They're not they're not mandated by anything international.

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: Okay. On the on the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Kenneth D. Blankenbush]: You know what? Amazingly that this bill came out, a program bill for the governor today, went through a committee today, and is first up on the agenda today. So without having time to research more than what I did, it's amazing to me that this bill is being pushed pretty much through pretty quickly. In the sponsor's memo, it makes it pretty clear that this certainly could be more of a political motive than an insurance motive. In other words, the committee that Robert Kennedy is involved in is, if you noticed, if you read the sponsors menu, it's really taken aim at that organization, which is the Trump Organization, with Robert Kennedy. So, obviously, if you look, it's anything that the Trump administration is doing and then add Robert Kennedy's name to it, it seems to me that this is more of a political motive to put this bill through put this bill through today quick and get it voted on today. I so I I'm not gonna be in favor of this bill, so I would encourage people that we should be voting negative on this bill. Thank you, madam speaker.

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

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

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested, miss Walsh.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are yes votes, they can be cast now at the desk. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote no, they can do so at their desk.

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

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Yeah. Just quickly to explain. I'm I'm proud to have introduced this measure at on on behalf of the governor. And just to respond quickly to some of the comments that my colleague said, you know, certainly, I'm not gonna question anyone's political motivations as to why they bring a bill before the house or not, but I could understand his concern for this being for this having the potential in this instance. But I would also say that there's a larger concern that should any committee anywhere in the federal level do something that could be in in adverse interest to the people of the state of New York that this would act as a safeguard. Now, certainly, if the federal government certainly, if the federal government set forth sound policy, this still allows that policy to be included. But should that policy maybe be not in the best interest of the 19,000,000 people of this state, with this bill, we would have protection, you know, against that. So, I urge my colleagues to vote in the affirmative. Thank you.

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

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 96. Nays, 41.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page three, rules report one zero one. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10711, rules report one zero one, miss Pollan, an act to amend the public health law.

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

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Yes, thank you so much. The bill would ensure that immunizations are available in New York pursuant to standards issued by the Commissioner of Health.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mr. Jensen.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

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

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I would be happy to.

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

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So this is going to seem a little bit like deja vu. But could you tell me what the purpose is for moving this legislation today?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Absolutely. So, if you look at the history, recent history of Vaesip, which is the group that recommends to the CDC on vaccinations. They've made some changes in their recommendations. And they did so at a time, very coincidentally, where I was at a conference with health commissioners and health chairs across the country, red states and blue states. And there were articles that a few of the states were, I'm going to say unprotected from changes from one recommending body. So I asked at this conference, what do you do differently? Why is New York potentially at risk for making changes that we agree as a health community shouldn't be made. And they said it was because in their laws, the health commissioner could look at a wider spectrum of recommendations. So, I immediately called the health commissioner of New York and although we believe, because if you look at what we're amending, public health law 2164, although we're changing and then there's 2A, B and C, only in 2C when it relates to meningitis is it specific to ACEP. The others are broader. But if you look at the regs, because of the tradition in New York that the regs have always relied on ACIP, there was a concern that perhaps we want to give more authority to the health commissioner like we do in most states to have that broader array of perspectives. And so, I wrote a bill with the health commissioner that the governor has embraced as well that essentially allows for that broader spectrum of health perspectives for the commissioner to rely on like these states both red and blue.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So when ACIP makes the recommendations and for the benefit of our colleagues so they can fully understand the process as written in public health law currently. So, when ACIP makes its recommendations at the federal level, do they provide the guidance to ACIP or does it go to the CDC and then the CDC is the entity that publishes the guidance for the state, and then the state, as under current law, abides by that order or direction or guidance via CDC as recommended by ACIP?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's the latter. The recommendations from ACIP then go to the CDC. And in this instance, it was you know in September, ACIP made certain recommendations as it related to measles and mumps and that vaccine. And in December, ACIP removed recommendations for hep B.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So is the when ASIP makes recommendations to the CDC, are they acting as the name of the organization is advisory and it's up to the CDC to verify or disagree upon publishing their guidance to the states?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's CDC and in January the CDC accepted ACIP's recommendations eliminating six of the 17 recommended or prior mandated vaccines. So, in January, that's when the panic hit among the health community that we were potentially going to be at risk for insurance coverage and other things. So, that's when we knew we needed to make a change if we wanted young people to continue to be vaccinated in New York.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So, under current New York state law, does the federal government hold supremacy on our own state's vaccine and immunization recommendation, or does the health commissioner already have discretionary power to add or subtract based on their own belief or recommendations from trusted healthcare entities? Or is the health commissioner bound by statute currently to accept the CDC recommendation?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: So, in 2164, 2A, B and C, in C, when it's relating to meningitis, they're obligated by our law to accept ASIP's recommendation. In 2A and 2B, I would argue that there's flexibility. But because we allowed regs to be developed from 2A and 2B when we originally passed those laws, The health commissioner used ASIP because that was what was common. So, the concern is that we just want to make it very clear that they could revise those regs if they have to.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So, understand, so we keep on saying that under the way the law is currently written, it has to accept ACIP's recommendation.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: It's two thousand one hundred sixty four two c.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So, but it's not ACIP that's publishing it, it's the CDC. So are we also in this legislation updating that in addition to adding a various number of organizations that the health commissioner take in, are we actually clarifying that because if ACIP makes a recommendation to inject pasta sauce in everyone, but the CDC says that's dumb, we shouldn't do that. But if the current law says, well, you gotta take ACIP's recommendation, then all of a sudden, people in Greece are getting injected with pasta sauce. Wouldn't that mean that we should update the law to ensure that CDC is what the health commissioner is following, not ASIP?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I think in the past we didn't have nervousness or concern that one might out rule the other. The advisory committee is the one historically that have made the recommendations on vaccines that yes, CDC has embraced, but it's the advisory committee's recommendations that we've always relied on.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Has, to your knowledge, has there been any incident, incidents whether under the current administration Washington or previous administrations where ACIP made a recommendation that was not rubber stamped by the CDC?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Not to my knowledge.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Not to your knowledge.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: And has there ever been, in your knowledge, any incidents where the state health commissioner disagreed with guidance offered from the CDC not just on vaccines or immunization but on any CDC guidance?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I think until recently, no. But I do think that there's a disagreement now on particularly hep B and in meningitis.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So are we does this legislation only address the recommendations received from the CDC via ACIP when it comes to vaccines and immunizations or does it apply to all of the recommendations that the state receives from CDC on healthcare guidance?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: No, it's only limited to immunizations and vaccines.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Is there any other provision in this legislation that would eliminate federal supremacy on healthcare law, or is it just exclusive to this one particular issue?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: We've never had federal supremacy. We've always allowed the health commissioner to have discretion. This just includes other known medical experts in the understanding that the health commissioner will make the best decision possible.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Okay. You referenced medical experts and I know our colleagues who debated a bill previously that I'm not going to talk about because I know it's not your main. But what are the organizations that are listed in this legislation that the health commissioner would be able to utilize as a recommendation in determining New York State's immunization or vaccine policy?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Well, it's the appropriate academies. So you have pediatrics for children, you have obstetricians, gynecologists for potentially an HPV vaccine for example. You have the American College of Physicians, the American Academy of Family Physicians. I can look. I know there's that international, let's see, ASIP is still in here of course. And other similar nationally or internationally recognized scientific organizations. And I know my colleague referenced who, you know. Yep. And that would be an appropriate international group.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: So how often do these organizations, because certainly, not being a member of any of these organizations, I'm unfamiliar with the methodology in which they provide recommendations. So do they publish recommendations on a year to year basis? Do they host their own peer reviewed journals? Do they conduct their own medical research? How do they come to making their own recommendations? Or do they just get in a room at a conference, do a show of hands and make a recommendation?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I would hope that you know the earlier part, but you said, but I

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: have hope it's not after an open bar.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: I don't know how they make recommendations or how many times they update or any of that.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: But wouldn't that be an important piece of information for the body to be aware of? Because if now we're going to change the law to allow these bodies with OPEG decision making prerogative with unclear peer review or scientific standards to be the overarching medical advisory board when it comes to these and eliminate the CDC, which that is their job.

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: Will remind you that one of the things that ACIP recommended is that what parents should be doing now is having that conversation with those very people that you're worried about having a So, peer review if the individual doc is basing his analysis to make a recommendation to that parent, they're generally relying on their academy to give them those thoughts. So I would think the academy should be thought about as an important body to listen to because now that's going to essentially be, but it's going to be a one to one instead of looking at the umbrella.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: And I don't disagree on that when it comes to my wife and I's children that we have a pediatrician, we trust our pediatrician, and we listen to their recommendation when it comes to the healthcare decision making of our children. But the reason why I bring that up is if it's unclear or if different academies or colleges in this context have different priorities or standards when it comes to making recommendations, there is the potential that you could have one or more of these institutions in direct conflict with one another. So, for example, if the Academy of Pediatrics and the College of Physicians have different opinions, what would the health commissioner be mandated under the terms of this legislation to listen to?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: So currently we're talking about limited number of vaccines, 17. Again, six were eliminated from ISIP's recommendation, right? There seems to be common agreement among the academy. So, I'm not really worried about some future vaccine where potentially one academy could disagree with another one. I'm worried about the 17 and maintaining the herd immunity that we've been able to achieve in New York. Okay.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Do we know so going back to the original question I asked about the reasoning for bringing this legislation forward was because of your concern with the current leadership of ACIP, of CDC, and I'm guessing of the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington. What do we know about the leadership of the organizations that are prescribed in this legislation?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: We know that they're elected by your pediatrician and my former pediatrician. And I have confidence in my former pediatrician as you do in yours, current one. So, I believe that they're looking at their leadership from the lens of wanting the best policy makers, the most the very best of the best in terms of practice and education. So I have confidence in those academies.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: What if we I feel like I'm asking a lot of hypotheticals, but I feel like that often times in healthcare that is a lot of things are hypothetical. So, in a situation where we'll say in 2029, there's new leadership in all these different organizations that are in the bill but there's also

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mr. Jensen, do you want to use your second 15?

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Yes, please.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Very good.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Thank you kindly. There's new leadership of these organizations because they're on a one or two year cycle, but there's also a new administration in Washington that would lead to a new Health and Human Services Secretary, a new director of the CDC, a new advisory board of ACIP. They make, ACIP makes a new recommendation based on the immunizations that are listed in this legislation. And it goes stronger than what these organizations have in their current guidance. Would the health commissioner still have the ability to make a determination to stay with the guidance of the ancillary organizations rather than abide by a stronger or more stringent mandate or recommendation from ACIP via the CDC?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: This is yes. The short answer is yes because we are allowing the health commissioner to look at the whole group of them. It doesn't require the commissioner to pick one over another. And if there's a change, then from one organization, let's say it's the World Health Organization, it would alert the commissioner to look at it and maybe ask questions of the academies and to involve the department in making another reg going forward, but it certainly wouldn't require.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: Is there any provision in this legislation? Because now that, and once again not being a member of these organizations or familiar with how they operate, that I'm sure they all have permanent staff in addition to having members from across the healthcare continuum across the country. Is there any guidelines in the legislation or

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: in

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: your intent, on a set period of time, the health commissioner would have to either proactively reach out to them or review existing guidance as well as the provisions and operations through the New York State Department of Health to make sure that New York State's guidance is aligned with the guidance of these organizations?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: No, we don't specify a time period. But I can tell you as we saw with the news alerts that we all got when there were changes to the recommendations and later adopted by the CDC, there would be news alerts if all of a sudden there was a stricter view of how often you needed to get the measles vaccine or something else.

[Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara]: Okay. So we know.

[Assemblymember Josh Jensen]: All right, thank you very much Madam Chair for answering my questions. Madam Speaker, thank you.

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

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

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

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation, generally speaking. But if there are any yes votes, members may cast those now at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Foll.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you madam speaker. Majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote no, could do so at their desk.

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

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So there are a number of us who are not supporting this legislation. I just wanted to speak for myself and explain why that is. I just think it's an overreaction to the present administration. You know, I think that the federal administration, I think that the MAHA movement, it focuses on questioning and restructuring the federal vaccine policy. And some of us, some people believe that the current vaccine schedules are over medicalized and that over medicalization concern some people believe that it really attributes to excessive vaccination. And supporters of that movement argue that vaccines are linked potentially to chronic illnesses. I just found it interesting that, you know, we're taking up this package of bills or some of these bills on a day that we just talked about the resolution for autism acceptance. I mean there are a lot of people that are opposed to bills like this that are coming out of the autism and disabilities community. So no one is preventing anybody from getting vaccines if they want them. I just think that having a more questioning attitude towards what vaccines are truly necessary should be individual decisions that are being made. And I think that that's really what the federal government is trying to get at here. So I just I don't support this bill because I think it's an overreaction. So I I again will cast my vote in the negative. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Walsh in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Aye, it's 93, nays 44.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Mr. Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you madam speaker. Can we now take on calendar number '62 by miss Kellis?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Certainly. On the main calendar, page nine, calendar number 62. Clerk will read.

[Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one five five six g, calendar 62, miss Callis, enact to amend the agriculture and markets law.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: On a motion by Ms. Kellis, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. Ms. Kellis, an explanation has been requested.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Absolutely. This bill does two main things. It bans three chemicals that have already been banned in multiple states in the country across the political spectrum that have been identified through extensive research to be harmful to human health. And it also creates a chemical disclosure component. So it's important to note in this component all it is saying is that for the research that has already been required by federal standards, that the industry does on particular chemical, that they have to share in a PDF format the findings of the analysis that they did per those federal standards to show that one, their analysis is complete and two, that it is in fact safe, that their research showed that it was safe. I will note that this is not duplicative of anything that's happening at the federal level because at the federal level, it is voluntary to disclose. So food groups or food advocacy groups have estimated that there's about 10,000 chemicals in our food that we are not aware of because it is unnecessary at the federal level for the industry to disclose their findings. So this simply says, those findings that you already had to do, you need to disclose those in a PDF file. The last thing I'll note is that it also says that if there is anything proprietary, any proprietary information that it can be redacted. That's also in this bill.

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

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

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

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Of course.

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

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: That's great. There are so many questions to ask. I'm going to at least kick it off. Imagine that there will be some other folks that are going to want to ask questions as well. So I guess my first question was I noticed that the bill is in a g print and by my fingers and toes and counting that to me looks like it's the eighth iteration of the bill. So could you just review for us kind of what the evolution of the bill has been over those those various amendments that take us to the bill that we're addressing today?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I'm not going to go step by step because that's not germane to the bill that we're looking at today. The bill that we have is the bill that we're negotiating or that we're, you know, we've discussing got sick and debating. But we have talked to retailers for example to make sure that retailers one are for the food that they already have on the shelves, for example, that have one of these three chemicals, that they can continue to sell up to three years their existing supply, And that they, as long as they have a contract with their distributor and manufacturer of the food, that is clear in the contract, that the manufacturer and distributor is held responsible for making sure that any of the ingredients are listed and posted that the retailer cannot be held accountable. So those are just some examples of some of the changes that we've made based on some of the industry concerns So make sure that it's fair for everybody.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: That's great. And please don't misunderstand me. I don't mention that it's been amended as being a flaw or a fault. Think that that's a very healthy part of the development of bills and I would editorialize and say that if we had a better committee structure around here, some of that committee work could be done to improve all of the bills that we take up on the floor. So I don't I don't please don't take that as a slam. I I think that that's a Yeah. That's not a bad thing. I just want to understand what we're doing. One of the last amendments it seemed to me talked about that this bill was going to be specifically addressing food meant for human consumption and the way that I understood that is that that then exempts things like pet food for example, correct? This was always intended to be

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: for human food so we made it clear explicitly.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Very good. Okay. So when we talk about the reporting piece,

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: what items would need to be reported? So it's very clearly listed in multiple pages in the bill but you know the analyses that were used, the concentration of the chemical, name of the chemical, the independent scientists that evaluated because that is required by federal law, the findings and I do want to repeat these were, the analysis had to be done on publicly available data but those analyses and findings those are some examples.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. If there is FDA approval, would the manufacturers still need to report those to Ag and Markets? That would already be publicly available. Okay, so there's no need to in a sense double report to Ag and Markets because it's already available through the federal reporting Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Now I noticed, it was funny, happy anniversary anniversary to the FDA because I guess they've been around now for one hundred and twenty years this year. So why does New York need to enter this regulatory field when the FDA has occupied the field for so long and has built a team out of researchers and scientists and appears to be funded pretty well, looks like. I had 7,200,000,000 in the budget for fiscal year twenty twenty five as a combination of federal appropriations and industry user fees. So why not just rely upon the FDA?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I will note again as I said, this is not duplicative. It is explicitly because the requirement at the federal level is voluntary. And if you look at the what I mean by that is the disclosure is completely voluntary. So, if you look at the number of chemicals that have actually been disclosed, that have gone through the intended pre market review analysis, a very, very small number of chemicals have actually gone through that process. So that is explicitly why that available that data exists. They did the analysis and there are many people across the political spectrum that simply want to say if you've deemed it safe, it's voluntary, you're self regulating your industry right now, we'd love to see those results too.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Has there been any communication with the FDA or the federal government regarding potential collaboration?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Well so this is by nature collaborative because anything that they already have publicly available, they do not need to report it here. So by its very design, it is collaborative. And actually there has been a recent statement by a I can't remember his name director at the FDA in HHS that applauded these state bills for their forward thinking clarity. So that seemed to me pretty good evidence.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Now you mentioned that other states I think and you said across the political spectrum have taken up legislation like this. So California I know has one such law that's in existence that and I know that there are other states that have legislation in various stages of consideration. But other than California, does anybody else have one that's completely passed and is in the process of being enacted?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, are you referring to the transparency component of it or the ban on foods component? The ban at Okay. This point, the last time I looked, there were over 20 bills that have been introduced. I know West Virginia is one of the most extensive. For example, they have one of the largest list of food dyes that they've banned and instead of what for example California did, banning it only in schools, they banned it for the entire state. And I know Arizona, Louisiana, California Illinois and Washington have also Yeah. Well that's what I remember. Washington and Illinois have also introduced it. There's a whole list. Colorado, I could keep going but that gives you okay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I just think it's important to understand, so as far as the ban, New York's legislation, this proposal bans three things, three things that and I won't try to butcher the, you know, the pronunciation, but one is the red dye three, right? And then but didn't the FDA or didn't they come out in January and already ban that at the federal level? Yes, so they did and this would remove it from

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: the food supply sooner because we do already recognize, they recognize, so that changes the date for New York. But it is you make a very important point that I do think the propylparaben, potassium bromate and red dye number three have been banned by several other states. We are joining those other states but because several other states have already done it, the EU already has bans on all of them and restrictions on red dye number three, the food supply already exists with the same foods without these chemicals.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, there are like the ideas that there natural replacements that can go in to either color the food red if that's the desired effect or the other now I do have to look at the list There's one substance, let me get it in

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: front of me,

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: that is is it the it's the bromate one. That is like it's a like an improves flower or something. That's another one. And then the other one is like the propyl paraben is a petroleum derived chemical preservative. Determined. Is that right? Okay. And all three of those things have been banned by other states. The red dye number three has been banned by the FDA, by the federal government and I see then we're going to follow suit. Okay, moving back and I apologize for jumping back to the idea the for the reporting structure that's contained in this bill. But how will the database be funded?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I want to be very clear that people understand this is not a significant expense because literally as explicitly described in the bill, a company can either take a PDF and send it to Ag and Markets of the analysis that they did as per the federal standards or print out a piece of paper and ag and markets can scan it and create a link on a website with the name and create a hyperlink. There is no massive database that needs to be created. There's no significant analysis that has to be done. There's no expectation of that. So, for example, when you talked about scientists, there's no need for that. That's not what this bill requires because all that analysis has already been done. This is simply creating a hyperlink of that PDF file of the results of their analysis that they did to prove that this is

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: safe. That's really interesting because that's not what I've heard from others.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Oh yes, I'm aware. Sure you are. I

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: just think that that seems like a huge expansion of ag and markets to be creating this reporting structure and my question was, you know, we're in the midst of budget negotiations, has there been any budget ask or appropriation to set this up? How much? Are there more employees that will be needed to be hired? And how long will this take to actually set up? So just to be clear, creating a list of hyperlinked PDF files you're suggesting is going to be massive workload. Others are suggesting it. That it's going to be a lot

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: of work. Mean I've done that. I've got some high school student in my office doing that. I'm sure we could get probably an intern to do that pretty well. I'm not sure what the suggestion is of it being a massive expansion of their responsibilities. But I don't see it as that nor did the analysis for the fiscal on this see that as a significant impact. Okay. I mean and that by the way is not to denigrate any of those positions only that those are not a significant expense and those were just examples of.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I have a note that independent analysis estimates that building and operating this new system would cost at least $21,000,000 in its first three years alone.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Yes, I've seen that too and I think that is an industry assessment. So I would love to see an independent economic analysis of that and maybe we can talk about that at some point in the future.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well I just think that if the state is going to embark on something new like this and has really say California to look at because they've set up this reporting structure as well and I would say that you know I know that you talked about other states as well but California has a reporting structure too that they had to build out. I thought that theirs took, has taken a while to set up, right?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: They have not done this but they do have a great bill on it that is a replicate of this bill. Okay. Alright. Okay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Is there any plan at all to have businesses charged to help support this reporting structure to be created? And it sounds like from what you're saying, Ms. Kellis, is that the existing ag and markets, the existing employees, there's no like there's are you saying that there's going be no financial impact? I'm just a little stunned by that.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So in the bill on page seven, line 50, in the list, let's see, it is under the commissioner. It gives the option to charge a fee to the reporter of a GRAS substance in order to recover the costs incurred in listing such GRAS substance and maintaining the database so if at some point for any reason they do find that there is any fiscal associated with it,

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: they have the ability to charge the reporter of GRAS. But in your conversations with the folks at Ag and Markets, they anticipating that that's the case? I mean I know it's written into the bill as a possibility, but it sounded like from what you were saying earlier that that's not the case. We did

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: a fiscal analysis and this was not found to be a significant fiscal or it would have been required to be in the budget process and negotiation.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. And what was the fiscal impact that you determined in your

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: analysis? It would not be a significant or I would have pushed for it to be considered in the negotiations of the Okay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Alright. Is there any concern that this legislation could end up making New York a less desirable place for business? And I'll tell you why I'm asking you that. If businesses can't manufacture using the items of their choice, there is a concern that it could hurt businesses in the state that some folks in the industry have indicated that if this bill goes forward, there may be a result where they're gonna be have to pull food out on not only off shelves, I mean, at some point they would have to, but they're saying that there could be problems with, you know, there could be all kinds of problems actually. Yes.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So I have read the industry statements as well and in the same statements it has said both that this is completely duplicative to what the federal government does and it will be mayhem and chaos and cause all food to no longer be on our shelves. I would say that's an exaggeration of what was physically but that is what I'm hearing from them verbally. Those two things are mutually exclusive. You can't be both completely repetitive to everything we're already doing and also create chaos and mayhem in the food supply. So I would suggest that there may be some effort to simply not move the bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, so some concerns that have been raised about, and I think you alluded to this either in your explanation or in response to an earlier question, but some companies were concerned about the requirement that they post their ingredients on a publicly accessible database. So with the idea that some some things might be considered to be trade secret or proprietary, but you mentioned there was something to do with redaction I just wanted Yes, to get that on the

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: that is that is true. In the bill, it explicitly has language that if there are trade secrets, there can be a request to have that information redacted and approved by Ag and Markets.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Is there any exemption at all in the bill because I didn't see it as far as small or mid sized New York producers? Because the concept of reformulation might be small potatoes for a multinational company but it could be really costly for like an Upstate bakery or a confectioner or a specialty producer that's serving a regional

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: market. So I'd be very skeptical of a small bakery creating its entire own chemicals and doing all of the research because this is for chemical companies that have already done all of their entire analyses already and it's simply requesting that they share it. However, the bill does exempt small businesses under 100 employees or less.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: As far as the substances that are being banned, we mentioned already that in January the FDA took the step with red dye number three. I also read that the FDA has committed to phasing out petroleum based dyes by the 2026. A petroleum based dye is different from that other petroleum based substance. Preservative. Okay, the preservative, But I guess one of my questions is doesn't that show some good faith that's going on at the federal level? I mean really reactionary to what you feel is not being done at the federal level that needs to be done?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I mean I can say we all put out good intentions all the time. How many times have you said you're going to go on a diet? How many times have people in this room said we're all going to go on exercise and craze? Those aren't necessarily being excessive. We're just putting out our intentions but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to happen. And there's a lot of steps that need to be done in order to actually make that reality. So that could be decades but what we're saying is that these chemicals have been already identified to have significant negative health consequences on human populations. And if they have significant scientific evidence of their health harms to human populations, there's nothing else needed to remove these three chemicals. I will note though that this bill is not about the other food dyes and I don't think that it's necessarily the best practice for us to make our decisions of protecting New Yorkers based on the intention of the federal government of doing something at some point potentially in the future.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So it might happen but what you're saying is you just can't count on it happening?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I mean I think that's saying to anyone that we would be basing law on intentions.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Well I mean I just didn't know if on those other two substances that they haven't banned yet that are part of this legislation. I mean what if they It

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: took them thirty five years I think after the original evidence came out for red dye number three for the federal government and the FDA to bring forward and pass that ban thirty five years on PDO that was also banned recently. It also took multiple decades of existing scientific peer reviewed proven research on the negative health harms for them to ban it. So I'm not willing for these chemicals that have already been banned in other states and that have already been banned in the EU, that have been found to be significant negative impacts on human health, for us to be so far behind the eight ball and not ban them even though the food supply, you know, will it's not going to affect the food supply, we know that because they're we're not the first.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Would it be your position that even if the federal government stepped forward and banned the other two substances that are the subject of this legislation that the creation of this reporting structure would have kind of like independent merit that you would still wanna move forward with the bill just on that basis?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It has tremendous independent merit because we're saying that we want it done now, and they are putting out the intention of at some point in the future considering it. And as I said, if it took decades for red dye number three, I would say for New Yorkers across the political spectrum, we're being responsible and saying that we're we're putting their health first instead of industry.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Will the state help businesses to find alternative substances to use instead of the ones that are going

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: to be banned? Well, that is not our job to help the industry. However, it's actually not germane to this bill however, alternatives already exist for all three and they are cost comparative. But I will note that the volume of the total ingredients and total cost for the foods that use these chemicals, the percentage of the total volume and total cost is very small for these three.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: What will happen if additional substances beyond the three named here are identified as needing to be banned? Will ag and markets make that determination or will new legislation be required, do you think?

[Assemblymember Amy Paulin]: So

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: in that context, new legislation would be required and that is a future consideration as that information comes out. There are a handful of other chemicals that are being considered by other states but at this time this bill has these three.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Let me just check my notes really quick. The bill seeks to require, among other things, the reporting of descriptions of food and food additives that are generally recognized as safe substances or GRAS substances, the acronym. I'm trying to understand how extensive this new mandate would be and the impact upon our food supply and affordability. This would presumably not extend the bill's disclosure requirement to food contact materials including packaging, correct? Correct. Okay. And what are the potential costs to consumers with the new mandates in this bill?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Excuse me? Can you repeat the

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: question?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: What are

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: the potential costs to consumers as a result of this bill?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So we've there's in the evaluation, this has not been found to have a significant notable fiscal impact.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Because I did As

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I said, also done in the other states.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I did see some study finding that a patchwork of state ingredient laws could raise grocery prices by 12% nationwide.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Yes, so my understanding if it's the one that I saw that comes from the industry, that is not an independent study. So I would like to have that on the record. And that has not been found in the other states and the other countries where this has been implemented. It has not affected total cost. In all three cases for the foods, there are alternatives already existing and in the market and significantly used.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So is it your position then that this is completely cost neutral? It's neutral in terms of the cost upon ag and markets to set it up in the state and it's cost neutral to consumers as well?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: The fiscal analysis that was done on this did not find that there would be a significant fiscal impact of this bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Could you talk a little bit about the enforcement process that's under this bill? Like, as far as compliance issues with the companies that are gonna be required to report?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: You mean beyond not reporting something?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. If they don't report or if they if they I guess if they don't take this seriously.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: What

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: what's what's in the bill to address that? So

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I'm gonna read this. Penalties, commissioner can sue to force compliance through an injunction. There are also penalties not directly in this bill but that apply to any violation of the chapter. Civil penalties imposed by AG and Markets thirty nine provides that violations of chapters subject to a penalty in the sum of not more than $600 for the first violation, no more than $1,200 for the second in each subsequent violation, each day during which any part of which such manufacturer or production is carried on or continued shall be deemed a separate violation. Each day the sale or the offering or exposing for sale or exchange of any prohibited substance shall constitute a separate violation and each day on which any substance is offered or exposed for sale or exchange shall constitute a separate violation that is already existing Ag and Markets Law.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, very good. Thank you so much Madam Speaker, on the bill.

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

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, so with this bill it would probably take me all of my remaining time to read out to you all of the organizations that are opposed to the bill. It's a very long list. I'm going to borrow heavily from the memo received that my office received this morning from the Teamsters. Teamsters local number eight twelve and Teamsters local number three seventeen who put in a memorandum of opposition to the bill. Let me say first, as representatives of individuals and families all around New York, we all believe in the importance of food safety. But this legislation will add another layer of cost and red tape on the businesses that employ our constituents, including number of good union jobs. Independent analysis estimates that building and operating this new system will cost at least $21,000,000 in its first three years alone. Another new study finds that a patchwork of state ingredient laws could raise grocery prices by 12% nationwide at precisely the same time that folks are grappling with affordability and the higher cost of just about everything. The FDA federal GRAS requirements, the generally recognized as safe requirements are being called into question and the states attempting to take over this process. The federal GRAS requirements are extensive and are continually reviewed and probed to make sure that consumers are safe. We've already had science based safety standards at the federal level for these products. This bill would require specialized scientific expertise that our state government simply does not currently have. A state GRAS system would create an extra New York only compliance hurdle. The results could be companies could pull products, companies could cut product lines, companies could stop shipping certain products to New York, additional compliance costs on companies with new filings, new testing, new legal review, new disclosure work, all in addition to what companies already send to the FDA. Those costs are going to land on employers. And we know that when employers are forced to absorb new costs, some will very likely cut hours, freeze hiring or even lay off workers to balance their budgets. This proposal raises costs, creates unnecessary state bureaucracy and threatens the jobs and hours that our working families depend on. For those reasons, I mean I have about a minute left, but I'm going to yield the rest of my time. I know that there are other people who have questions. I will not be supporting this bill because of all the reasons aforementioned. I think the sponsor for her answers to my questions, I think that there's a big gap between what I understand and what the answers were. And in its current form, I'm not going to support even the g print of this bill. So thank you very much, mister speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mister Bologna.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Thank you, mister speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?

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

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Thank you very much. So would it be an accurate statement to say that food manufacturers located in New York would be now required to comply with standards that differ from federal law set by the US FDA?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That would be a 100% false.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Can you can you how how so? You said this is not duplicative. So, how is how is that not accurate?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: The only reason it is not duplicative is because the federal government outlines very explicitly all of the assessment that a company would need to do on an ingredient in order to prove that it is safe. But federal law does not require that the company tell the federal government that chemical was under consideration, that they did an analysis on that chemical, share their results of that chemical, or ever tell the government or consumers that that chemical was added to our food. So all this bill is saying is for that analysis that you have already done, which by the way the industry says that it will be a significant cost, The only reason that this would be a cost is if in fact they were not following federal law and they are out of compliance with federal law and they did not in fact do the analysis that by federal law they're required to do. So I did want to note that. But because it is voluntary to disclose at the federal level, we are asking simply that they disclose all that analysis that they have already done. If they have disclosed it at the federal level, then they do not need to do a subsequent duplicative disclosure and submission of that information here. And in that way, it is not duplicative and it will gather information that they currently do not disclose to the federal government regardless of the fact that the federal government does outline what they're supposed to analyze. They just don't require that they share it.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: But are we not banning three different substances in New York State? Didn't you say that other states have either legislation to do so or have already done so?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, the question is whether that would be a massive expense and they have had a supply chain for decades that has produced these foods for other states and other countries that have already banned it, that they continue to provide that food to us with those substances knowing that there's significant scientific evidence that they are in fact harmful for humans.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Respectfully, that's not

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That's a question.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: That's wasn't the

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: question so it at won't increase the cost because they already have the formulation and they already have supply chains that provide it without those chemicals. That part is not duplicative at the federal level because these three chemicals are not banned currently at the federal level even if they have been banned by other states.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Thank you for answering my question correctly that time because I did not even remotely ask about

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It doesn't matter that I answered your question.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: You did. I because it's different in New York state now with this law than it is under federal. You literally just said it. So I appreciate that. So would you also agree that manufacturers operating in other states would not be subject to the same specific requirements that we would now be instilling in New York state?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: They would be held accountable and held responsible to comply if they wanted access to sell food here.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Yes. Only if they're selling products in New York State.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Is what I just said.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Yep. Okay. So, how do you reconcile then the fact that we are unleveling the playing field with New York manufacturers and manufacturers say in Ohio or Pennsylvania?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I'm not saying that. You're saying that.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: We are unleveling. We you just admitted as such. We are unleveling the playing field.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: You know, that's not I said that.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Different level of

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: You can say what you would like. With all due respect.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Colleagues.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Please don't

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: put

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Colleagues. Words Colleagues. Let's let answer the question. Answer. Let's not go over on let's not talk on on top of each other, please. And let's give people a chance to answer the question, please. And let's keep it cordial. Thank you.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: The only request that I have is that you can make all the statements you want, but I would request that you not put words in my mouth that I did not say.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: I would respectfully ask the same because you were talking about expenses before and anyway, let me ask you a question. Have you ever had Perry's ice cream? You familiar with that?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I am.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Okay. Have you ever had double bubble gum? Or big league chew?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Probably about fifty years ago.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Okay. All products created in my district. Because Ford Gum Manufacturing is in my district. Perry's Ice Cream is in my district. Mhmm. That are both over a 100 employees, so they're going to be impacted by this. So, guess my question is if they were going to continue to operate in New York State, because they wouldn't be able to manufacture as they currently are, they may have to find all well, they would have to find

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Actually, yes they can.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: But they would have to find alternatives.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Oh, for the three chemicals that would be banned? Yes, ma'am. They would have to use alternatives.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Exactly. But a company in Ohio would not have to use those same alternatives. Is that accurate? Yes, they would. They would.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: If they wanted to sell here in New York, they would.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Not talking about New York State. I'm talking about anywhere. Just produce and operate as they currently are.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: We cannot control what other states do. There are many states that have that have put forward legislation on this across the political spectrum. We can't control that. Our job is to protect the health of New Yorkers.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: I would also say that in protecting the health of New Yorkers, need to protect the economic viability of businesses in New York.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Absolutely, the balance.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: That have been operating for over a hundred years. Absolutely. Just

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: to finish answering that question, if alternatives that exist that are cost competitive and they already exist and they are used in the industry, That needs to be added for the record because there is the implication that it would be wildly costly to these companies and I am suggesting that it would not. If these chemical alternatives already exist, they're already used in the industry, it would not be wildly expensive to change their formulations. If these companies have decided to not sell to any other state that has banned them, mean that is certainly their choice. We are joining other states that have already banned these chemicals.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: So by that, am I to assume that you have spoken to food scientists, food engineers, flavor chemists in drafting this legislation?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I have.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Good. Okay. That's that's good to know. If a the last question is if a New York manufacturer has to reformulate product and it does increase costs, is it possible, is it conceivable that that would increase prices?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: The evaluation and I will answer this as I have evaluated it and I have spoken to companies. The evaluation that we have done and the feedback that we have gotten from the companies that we have talked to, the percentage of the total cost that is specific to these chemicals and the total volume of chemicals is nominal. So, the complete impact on the total food they have said would not be affected significant or notably in any way. That was the feedback that we have gotten.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: We've gotten different feedback, but I appreciate

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I'm sure we have.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: I appreciate you answering all my questions, miss Calasat. On the bill, please.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: So On the bill.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Let me be clear. I I really do support food transparency and food safety, but and New Yorkers do need to know what they're putting in their bodies. But I do not believe that this bill is actually achieving that goal. This proposal creates a new layer of state bureaucracy on top of existing federal oversight, and it doesn't improve safe safety. I think it does duplicate regulation and drive up costs. And those costs are very real. This is not a minor change. This is a a expansion of government. And the reality is simple. Either it overwhelms an agency and creates delays or requires more staffing and it still costs taxpayers either way. Either way, New Yorkers still pay. But beyond the cost, there's a bigger issue here and that's that's competitiveness. This bill creates a separate New York only regulatory systems. That means manufacturers in New York State will face stricter requirements, higher compliance costs, and more uncertainty than competitors in other states. So, what happens? Production moves, investment moves, jobs move. So, we're left importing the same products back to New York State just at a higher cost. We're not leveling the playing field. We're tilting it against our own businesses in New York State. And, this is New York once again deciding that it just it knows better than the rest of the country, and it's building our own system from scratch. And, when we do that, we don't lead, we isolate ourselves. We raise costs, we drive out opportunity, and we ask residents to pay the difference. This bill just doesn't regulate ingredients, it regulates where jobs go. And under this framework, we're making it easier to produce everywhere else and harder to produce in New York State. And that's not leadership, That is self inflicted disadvantage. With that, I will be voting in the negative on this bill. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mister Dorso?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Thank you, mister speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just a couple of questions that are left.

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

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Of course, my dear. Yep.

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

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Thank you. So, miss Kells, just just to understand this a little better for my sake. So when we're talking about the three chemicals that are going to be banned under this legislation, correct? They are for anything that's being produced in New York State and or coming into New York State. Correct?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Being sold in New York State.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: In other words, if it's

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Produced and sold.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: I'm sorry? Yes.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It would be applicable to companies whether they produce here or they produce in another state and then sold here in New York State.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. So, obviously, as you know, there are plenty of companies that produce products in other states that we then ship into New York State. If we were going to have them shipped into New York State to be sold, they would have to meet these regulations.

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. Now, for the companies that are already producing these products in New York State, as you said, they would have to find some type of alternative, correct, to these three chemicals and produce the product in a different way. Correct?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. Now understanding you had said this is only applicable to really what you had said is larger companies. Correct? So if you had less than a 100 employees, right, this does not apply to

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: you. Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Is that for anybody that's shipping into New York State and or and on top of that, excuse me, anything that's being produced in New York State?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: I just want to make it It's the reporting requirements for that that you're referring to. The ban on the three chemicals

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That is a ban on the use of those three chemicals. When you're talking about the reporting requirements, is the just the straight transparency, that has the small business exemption.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: That's the only part that has a small business exemption, not the banning of the three chemicals? Correct. Okay.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Yeah. So that changes some of my questions. So I appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome. So with that analysis, right, and and that disclosure or or the reporting, excuse me, that doesn't have to be reported by companies with a 100 employees or less. Correct?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, for a yes. Okay. For that, but for a chemical to be if you have a distributor that is distributing a food that has that chemical, that chemical needs to be disclosed by the distributor.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: So and that and I think that's really what my my question is. So can you explain that to me saying we're we're banning those chemicals, right, or or has those chemicals, right, that the FDA is not approving. Even if you're a company under a 100 employees, you still have to disclose it, but you can use it and that's what I'm trying to understand.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, I'm just, again, distinguishing between your Yep. So, we're just talking about the disclosure. Okay. Right? So, for a food product to exist, because this is not like, you know, buying carrots, right? Or you know, home baked cookies. These are typically, you know, processed packaged foods that we're talking about.

[Unidentified Assemblymember ('Mr. Burrows')]: So I

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: just want to make that very clear. You have a, let's say, a small, which I'm not sure they exist but we did want to just create the small exemption. We're talking about the chemical company itself as far as them requiring disclosure but for so no. If we have a company that is a chemical producer that is a 100 employees or less, would they be the ones required to do the disclosure to Ag and Markets? No. If it is if a food that has that chemical in it by a distributor and the distributor is over a 100, would they be responsible to report all of the GRAS chemicals that are in the foods that they are distributing? Yes.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Got it.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, it is the supply chain up to the retailer. Just think about it as like we're trying to parse it all out. Right. So it's not really how the supply chain works. Besides the fact that anyone who really wants to study the food supply, there are very few industries in the world that are as horizontally and vertically integrated as the food supply. In fact, if you look at all of the foods that exist in your supermarket, almost every single food packaged food that's sold in the supermarket is actually owned by 10 companies. For example, when we hear, well I'll just leave it there, 10 companies. But so think about it as the entire supply chain. The only entity that is not held accountable to this as long as the contract that they sign with their distributor or manufacturer says that the distributor or manufacturer will not sell a food to them where there isn't a that where grass substances aren't disclosed. That is the responsibility of the distributor manufacturer, not the responsibility of the retailer. That is the distinction that this makes. So think of supply chain and real retail.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: You say the retail, it's the company that's obviously giving out, you know, selling the the the food whether it's a small mom and pop shop. It's really upon the chemical company that's producing the chemical and then giving it to the the whoever's supplying the food that has to real okay.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So Exactly.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right. So now my question is that chemical company, if they have under a 100 employees, they don't have to report?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: They would not be the ones held accountable to do the reporting.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Who would be them?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So when they sell it to, let's say, a large manufacturer or a large distributor, they would be held accountable to disclose.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. So can I ask the question then is why is let's say there's a chemical company in New York, I don't know if there is, we're just using hypotheticals, that produces one of these chemicals? Because I mean really to produce a chemical, you don't need 2,000 employees. You could do it with 60, you could do it with 80. Right?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Well, don't know if either you or I are experts enough to say that that is in fact true. And I would say that most of the, which there are not many, but the chemical companies are pretty large companies. They are very very vertically and horizontally integrated. But yes, I will leave it there.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Sure. And and and understood that. I'm just really looking for the possibilities on that. So if there is if there's a chemical company that has 85 employees and they're selling that chemical to a distributor that has 85 employees, does anybody have to disclose it?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Not, they would be exempt. The small businesses would be exempt in that case.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. But they For

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: the disclosure of that chemical. I would suspect that it would be captured because this is also really important. If a chemical is already on the GRAS notification list in the formulation meaning the quantity that it is in this food that you're talking about, this individual product you're talking about, if it already exists on the list in ag and markets at the quantity and for the purpose that it's being used for in that product, it already exists. It wouldn't need to be reported again. If it was used in that product at a significantly different quantity or for a different purpose, then it would be different. But in most cases, if it's in the case where it's being used in the same way where it is used by something that's already reported on that list. They don't have to report it again.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. So now that's the analysis and that's the reporting side of this bill. And then the other side of it is right is these three chemicals.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Correct. Now these three chemicals will be banned from any business, right, any sale of food products regardless of size of the company. Correct? Doesn't make a difference. If it's produced in New York or if it's coming into New York. Correct?

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Now if you have a distributor in Pennsylvania or New Jersey or whatever it is, and they are selling to my company in New York. I don't own one. I'm just saying if I did. How does New York Ag and Markets and or that company have to report that to New York State that they're selling within the state with a food product that has that chemical in it?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That would need to be disclosed.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay. So but it's

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Oh, of the three chemicals that are banned?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Yeah. And and I but let me ask it another way and I apologize if I was confused myself.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Transparency or the ban? You tell me.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: We're going with the ban. Okay.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Norris]: We're

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: talking about ban.

[Assemblymember Angelo Santabarbara]: I so

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: if a company in Pennsylvania produces that food product and it has these chemical bans in it, right, and now I'm a company here and I'm ordering that food, right, or that product, that drink to come to

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: As a retailer.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: As a retailer. Mhmm. Right? That I'm going to distribute. Who is stopping essentially that truck, that distribute that distributor from bringing it to me and me distributing? Who is going to I I hate the sound who's gonna know?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: You're you're physically stopping them? So I mean they are they would be they would be perf they would be doing an action that's outside the law. That would be illegal. If it was discovered that that was illegal, that there was a product that was being sold that had a banned chemical in

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: it Right.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: They would be held liable to the penalties that I read to you earlier.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Who would be held liable? Would it be the

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: company The distributor that would be selling the food to a retailer in New York, that distributor would be held accountable. Okay. For selling a food into New York that has a banned substance in it.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right. So and and I'm just trying to understand how that what is the mechanism in place that? So in other words, if I bought a bread product, I'm just throwing something out there, right, that that had the chemicals in it, but it's produced in Pennsylvania or New Jersey or somewhere else, and I'm having shipped to me in New York State, Can you just explain to me

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Okay. So just you you are asking me the previous question. You are asking me if if a retailer or a distributor is selling a banned substance. Right. The distribute whoever is selling it, if it was discovered, if for anyone selling it, they would be held accountable for the banned substances.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: For the transparency side

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: I'm not talking about that anymore. Just just the substance. Yes.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So just the substances Yes. Whoever is found selling, independent of who it is, it's an illegal substance. Understood. So think of it as in any context, if there's any illegal substance right now in existing law and you try to sell it in New York, it is found to be illegal. If it is discovered that you're selling it, you'd be held accountable.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Whether it be, you know, someone outside the state, you know, just It's it's been

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: it's illegal to sell it.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It's illegal to Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: It would be like selling an illegal drug.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Correct.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Right? So my question is, obviously, when we're talking about an illegal drug, it's much easier to see. If someone has a bag full of drugs, and I'm not gonna name a specific type or anything like that, you could see it. I know. If there is a bread product or some kind of cake or some kind of drink that has those banned substances in it, whose job is it to go out to those retailers to see if it is actually on the shelves?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: That is not in the context of this bill. We are setting up the legal structure. You know, at some point, if we want to have a state agency set up to do independent testing, I know counties, so I was a county legislator. We had a department that would go out and evaluate products and that is possible. Independent entities do periodic testing to evaluate like chemical concentration. So, you know, those are those are mechanisms, but someone going out and hunting down and evaluating what everyone is selling, that is not in the purview of this bill.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: So as you said, maybe in the future we'll have an agency that will do that.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: And we may not.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: But we may not. So we're gonna so what you're saying right now is we may pass a bill that there's no way of enforcing the law?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: It's not that there's no way of enforcing. There is a way of enforcing.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: What we are doing in this bill, the context of this bill, is to establish it as a ban. That is what this bill does.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. We're just

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: And I understand your question, and that is outside what this bill does. This establishes it as a substance that is not allowed to be used.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: So maybe in the future then, who would you foresee being the one that would enforce this?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: Well, mean I can give you one example. There was a CNN article that just came out, I'm not sure if you read it, where an independent entity found five toxic chemicals that haven't been disclosed, that were independently by entities determined to be GRAS according to what they felt. Not disclosed, they found it, They did an analysis. There are entities that are already doing this. So to say that it doesn't exist and it is not enforceable is simply not true. Would it be done by the government? This bill does not have that written in this nor is required in the future for it to be enforceable.

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: Understood. Thank you, miss Kausa. I appreciate the answers. Mister speaker, on

[Unidentified Assemblymember (sponsor of A10710; name mis-transcribed as 'Delon/Jalon')]: the bill? Mhmm.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: On the bill?

[Assemblymember Michael Durso]: With I I thank you, ma'am, again for your for your comments. Just quickly with the the couple of seconds I have left. I think we all wanna keep any dangerous chemicals and food additives out of any of the foods that we are going to put into our body, and I appreciate the sponsor for for pushing the legislation forward. My concern is twofold. One is what it's gonna do to some of the delivery industries that my brothers and sisters in the Teamsters unions are concerned about, which is going to be taking product off the shelf, losing jobs, and losing the the the distributing of those products. Also, as the sponsor just said, we have no enforcement mechanism or agency in place to enforce this law that we're going to put forward. So for that being said, we're creating a harder way for businesses to employ people, to have more people employed, to keep the prices down on food and other products that we sit here in this chamber and complain about every single day about the rising cost. We're just gonna make them go higher. And by the way, we have no way of enforcing or checking for it. So for those reasons, mister speaker, I'll be a no on this bill. Thank you.

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

[Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the March.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minority conference will be generally speaking in the negative on this piece of legislation but if there are affirmative votes, you may cast them now at your seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mr. Paul.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Majority conference will support this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so at their desk.

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

[Assemblymember Chantel Jackson]: Thank you, mister speaker. As you know, because you're a Bronx site, The Bronx is the unhealthy county county of the 62 counties here in the state of New York. A number of the reasons why we are unhealthy is because of the food that we consume. A lot of the food that we consume, the government regulates. A lot of it should not even be allowed to be in our cupboards, on our plates, however it is. And so, I wanna thank this the sponsor of this bill because we know based on research that a number of these chemicals that we're utilizing to preserve food, to make it a certain color is not healthy especially for children in their brain development. So, I want to say thank you again to the sponsor of this bill and I'll be voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Miss Jackson in the affirmative. Mister Burrows.

[Unidentified Assemblymember ('Mr. Burrows')]: Excuse me. I just want to commend the sponsor of this bill. I think one of the most important things that we should all think about is that we can't move forward in anything, any activity without our health. We look around the world, there are other countries that ban many of the substance that we allow in our foods. New York being very near the bottom at every one of these chemicals that are harmful to our bodies, if we say we care about our bodies then we have to ban substances that don't work well within our bodies. So, think this piece of legislation is something that's going to be great for us all regardless if you vote for it or not. It will be something that I think that in the long run we would all be happy that will become law and for that I am voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mr. Burrows in the affirmative. Mr. Anderson.

[Assemblymember Khaleel M. Anderson]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to express my support for this piece of legislation. As a chair of the Food Farm Nutrition Policy Task Force, I find it critically important to make sure that we pass legislation to ensure that the food that we consume as New Yorkers is healthy, affordable and of course does not have additives which could cause a variety of different harms. It is well documented whether you look at the National Library of Medicine or a number of different entities that there are certain connections between food additives and neurodivergent instances or issues such as ADHD or hyperactivity and so forth. And so, think that the sponsor of this legislation is making a well fated attempt to ensure that we can regulate our foods in a better way. I support that attempt and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I will be voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mister Anderson in the affirmative. Miss Kellis?

[Assemblymember Anna Kelles]: So, I did want to just read one section. Misunderstood a little bit of the question. In the bill, the commissioner may institute such action at law or in equity as may appear necessary to enforce compliance with Sections 199, 190, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Is it a clear standard mechanism of going through every single food? No. Is there an enforcement mechanism in the bill? Does the commissioner have authority to investigate broad authority to enforce this bill? So, I just want to make sure that's clear. And, you know, a few other points. This bill, GRAS is about transparency. When a company says that they are going it is going to cost them a significant amount of money to comply with this, when we are simply asking them to provide the information that they already collected meeting the federal guidelines, we should find that suspect. The fact that the industry has put so much effort into blocking us from seeing what's in our food supply should in and of itself be a concern. We're simply saying, just tell us what's in our food. We want to take care of our children. We want to make sure that they're healthy. And if we don't know what is in our food supply, you're taking away our power and our right to protect our children and to protect our families. We are saying we simply want to know. That's all this is doing. With the foods, the chemicals that we are banning, as I've stated, there are cost competitive alternatives. They have been banned by other states and other countries. Supply already exists. Formulations already exists with the alternatives in them. This will not be a profound burden on the companies. And if they are saying that it is and they are putting their profits over the health of our our people, we should find that suspect. Obviously, I stand in support of this legislation.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Miss Kellis in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Oops. Sorry. Apologies. Mister Yeager to explain his vote. Thank

[Unidentified Assemblymember ('Mr. Yeager/Yeger')]: you, mister speaker. If a product is dangerous to consume, we should all leave the chamber right now, go to our local store and remove them from the shelves in service to the public. This bill has a provision in it that says that if a product is on the shelf right now and we pass this bill and the governor signs it into law, the store can continue selling it for no longer than three years. So a product is either dangerous and we should all run and take it off the shelves or it's not dangerous and three years worth of selling this product into the communities in our state that we're trying to protect is acceptable. We have to make a decision whether or not we believe what we're reading. And this bill to me seems inconsistent. We're saying that a product is dangerous. We're saying that stores can continue selling it for another three years after enactment. I vote no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Mister Yeager ending in the negative.

[Unidentified Assemblymember ('Mr. Yeager/Yeger')]: Every once in a while, I sit on my couch in the office.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: Are there any other votes? Announcement results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one zero six. Nays, 32.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker, male)]: The bill is passed.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Mister Fall. Madam speaker, would you please call on mister Slater for the purposes of a motion to discharge? Mister Slater.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you, madam speaker. I move to discharge the committee on ways and means from further consideration assembly bill number a twenty seventeen sponsored by myself for the purpose of bringing the same before the house for its immediate consideration and request permission to explain it.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The motion is in order. On the motion, mister Slater.

[Assemblymember Matt Slater]: Thank you, madam speaker. This is a simple and very common sense measure, one that updates New York's tax code to reflect economic realities. Under current law, for those who may not know, New Yorkers over the age of 59 can exempt up to $20,000 in private pension, annuity, and retirement income from our state taxes. The thing is, that threshold was set in 1981. That's the same year that the IBM personal computer was introduced, and when the median home cost around our state was $70,000 and the price of the pump was $1 and a quarter a gallon. So here we are forty plus years later and we're still using that same number from 1981 despite the fact that we're we're living in a vastly different economy with rising costs and a retirement system that has fundamentally changed. And this isn't abstract for me. Like many New Yorkers, I think about this through my own family. My mom is approaching retirement. She did everything right. She worked. She saved. She planned. And like so many people in that position, she's asking a very simple question. Did I save enough to stay here in New York? That's not a question anyone who did everything right should have to ask. But when you look at the numbers, the system hasn't kept up. $20,000 in 1981 is equivalent to well over $60,000 today when adjusted for inflation. Yet we are telling seniors that $20,000 is enough in one of the most expensive states in the country. At the same time, retirees today aren't relying solely on traditional pensions. Many depend on IRAs, four zero one k's, and other retirement plans. A 2017, this bill before us, updates this outdated policy by expanding the exemption to reflect how people actually save for retirement today and increasing it in a responsible and phased in way. This isn't radical policy. We're simply catching up. And frankly, we're already behind. And, madam speaker, that's exactly why this bill should not remain in committee. This is not a theoretical issue. It's one we all hear about in our districts every single day. A motion to discharge is about giving this full body the opportunity to debate and vote on an issue that directly impacts affordability. And if we're serious about addressing the cost of living in New York, then this is a conversation we should be having on the floor, not one that remains in committee. New York consistently ranks among the least affordable states in the nation, driven in large part by our high tax burden. And that lack of affordability is having real consequences. Between 2020 and 2024, New York lost nearly 1,000,000 residents, second to only California. As a percentage of population, we lost more than any other state. A national analysis ranked New York as one of the worst states to retire in, primarily due to affordability. These are individuals who have spent decades working here, decades raising their families here, paying taxes here. And when they retire, they choose to leave. And I'm sure you hear it like I do, neighbors talking less about if they'll leave New York and more about when. When you ask them why, it's because they're on fixed incomes, because property taxes are way too high, because energy costs are way too high, and because everyday expenses from groceries to health care are higher than in most of the country. And the data backs these claims up. According to AARP, nearly half of older New Yorkers are cutting back on basic necessities just to pay their utility bills. And more than one in five are going into debt to keep up. At the same time, the median income for a senior in New York is about $60,000 while the cost of basic care can exceed that entirely. That's not sustainable. And when seniors look at neighboring states, the contrast is clear. To our neighbors in New Jersey, retirement income exemptions are significantly higher than here in New York. In Pennsylvania, retirement income is largely not taxed at all. And in states like Florida, there is no state income tax, period. So when retirees are making decisions about their future, they're not just comparing weather temperatures, they're comparing policies. And right now, New York is losing in that comparison. And we talk a lot in this chamber about affordability. Well, this is one of the most direct ways that we can address it. If we allow retirees to keep more of their income, they are more likely to stay in their homes, remain close to their families, and continue contributing to their local economies, and of course, our great communities. And let's be clear, it's not just about fairness, it's about fiscal reality. At a time when New Yorkers are facing some of the highest cost of living in the nation, the very least we can do is modernize a tax provision that hasn't changed since the early nineteen eighties, since before the king of pop ever became the king of pop. This bill simply says if you worked your whole life, saved responsibly, and are now living on a fixed income, we should not be taxing you based on prices from 1981. And that's a conversation this body deserves to vote on. So I urge my colleagues to support this motion. Allow a twenty seventeen to come to the floor. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Miss Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, madam speaker. For all of the excellent reasons just raised by my colleague, the minority conference will be supportive of a motion to discharge in this case and urge a yes vote. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Thank you madam speaker. I want to remind my colleagues that the proper procedure of dispensing bills is through the committee process. Today we've been asked to have a bill bypass this process. The vote on a motion to discharge is a procedural vote, not on the merits of the bill itself. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this motion and voting no.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested on a motion by mister Slater. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 45. Nays, 93.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: The motion is lost. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions be taken up together. On the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. No housekeeping, mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: Madam speaker, can you call on miss Clark for an announcement?

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

[Assemblymember Sarah Clark]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am here to announce majority conference immediately following session in the Speaker's Conference Room. Majority conference immediately following session.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Thank you, majority conference, majority members, speakers conference room adjournment of session. Mister Fall.

[Assemblymember Charles D. Fall]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 11AM, Wednesday, April 22, tomorrow being a session day.

[Presiding Officer (Madam Speaker)]: Mister Fowles, motion the house stands adjourned.