New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: All right, good morning everybody. I am New York State Senator Pete Harfam. Welcome to the Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Conservation. We're joined by our ranker, Senator Steck. We have Senator Serrano and Senator Kent and Harry Fitzpatrick. Thank you all for being here. We have a guest, Senator Helming, who we'll hear from shortly. We have a very busy agenda. If you don't see your senator here, that's because there are two other committee meetings at the same time. So believe me, they are hard at work right now. We have voting sheets for everyone, so we have a quorum. We have the vote totals, so we're copacetic there. I would say we have an incredibly long agenda today and we only have a half hour to get everything done because the health committee is meeting in here a half hour after we start. So just hoping we can all keep our comments brief. Whatever we talk about, you know, always happy to talk about anything in this committee, but if we can just keep our comments brief so we can get through the work at hand. Also want to thank staff for being here. We have Mike, Jose and Carissa from counsel. We have Malik and Nicole from finance. And from our team we have Marie, our committee coordinator and we have Sarah and we have Zara. So we can't do the good work that we do. We're joined by Senator Colombo. Welcome, sir. We can't do the good work that we do without all their amazing efforts. So with that, why don't we get rolling? Our first bill is Senate Bill thirteen forty three B by Senator Parker.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Back to men, the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing the clean fuel standard of 2026.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, this is a bill that we have seen in past before. Questions, comments, concerns? Motion? We have a motion. Alright, do we have a second? We have a second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any without rec? Any nays? A nay. One nay, so recorded. Alright, that bill is referred to finance. The next bill, 1464A by Senator Hartman.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: I'm acting on the environmental conservation law in relation to enacting the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, I know you've been waiting with bated breath for the reintroduction of this. Just very briefly, we have, as you know, passed this twice in the Senate before. However, we continue to remain committed to working with industry to help make this more implementable. This version, Chair Glick and I have made over 30 amendments to the bill, after meeting again, with industry to address concerns. So know people may still disagree with the bill but they certainly can't say that we've not gone backwards and forwards to try and accommodate the concerns of industry. So with that we'll take some questions. Senator Ken Zenery Fitzpatrick.

[Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick]: Thank you, chair. And I do applaud you for this because I know that you're you mean well. I know that you have been a very strong advocate for getting this done, but I do have concerns about the unintended consequences and the effect it will have on business. So for instance, non plastic non plastic primary packaging is exempt from the source reduction mandates. This is gonna increase the volume, the weight of the packages used, which is gonna increase our transportation costs, consumer costs, transportation emissions. So what we're doing on one side to save the environment, we're potentially going to make it difficult for the state to meet their carbon emission goals. I'm wondering if you considered that in.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: We did, but this was a concern from industry. They wanted to they didn't want to be double penalized. So they're saying, all right, we're going to make the extra effort to move away from plastic and then the substitute, you know, we're gonna be held, we're gonna be double penalized. So we wanted to be sensitive to the fact that we wanted to transition from plastic to more sustainable materials such as aluminum, glass, cardboard, those types of things. So have we done a carbon to carbon assessment per your question? I don't know that we have, I'll ask counsel if we have, but really the goal was to help industry wean off plastic due to the one, the carbon emissions from the production of plastic and the damage and dangers of microplastics.

[Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick]: I know that we're brief on time, but I do have concerns regarding unintended consequences such as, as you mentioned, glass bottles and jars. When we seal them with PVC lids to preserve freshness, now you're combining two items that can't be both be recycled. How is this going to affect our dairy industry? Because the slices between cheeses for food safety would not be recyclable according to our bill standards. And, of course, we have a robust ad market. Our our cheese industry here in New York is going to have to face that issue. There's 10 chemicals in 10 chemical categories that are banned from packaging. And have we looked at what other states are doing? Because I don't believe that they've included those on their list. I I think that we have some serious concerns about what this is going to do for our grade A milk products to meet the refillable reusable standards that are in this bill. I'm wondering if you have any comments on that.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: First of all, good questions. We have exempted 99 x percent of New York dairy and New York agriculture. When we went to the $5,000,000 threshold, that eliminated 99% of New York farms because 99% according, we've been joined by Senator Bacher, welcome sir. 99% of New York farms are below the 5,000,000 threshold and then we went the extra step further. We exempted dairy co ops. Thank you Senator Hinchy speaking about you right now. At Senator Hinchy's urging, we met with the dairy co ops and we exempted dairy co ops with 50 employees or less. So New York dairy is largely insulated from this bill. Your second point about chemicals, the reason we feel it's important is that these are known dangerous chemicals. They should not be in our food packaging. This is about protecting our kids. I'll give you an example. Remember the first year we had this bill and a big deal was made about Lunchables. Lunchables were on the Federal School Meals Program and Lunchables would be banned because of this bill. Well guess what happened? That year, the Federal School lunch program took Lunchables off. Why? Because the food had excess levels of lead and cadmium which are two of the chemicals that we're looking to ban. So we, one of the things that we did though is we gave them extra time. They now have up to six years to ban to begin the process and then we exempted, I think we took four off the list. So we've given them more time and it's fewer chemicals.

[Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick]: So overall, have you considered and have you been able to quantify what this will do to the cost of consumers in New York because of course affordability is on everybody's lips right now and if we are you know doing something laudable but causing such an increase in cost especially food that is such an important item for our New Yorkers have we quantified what this is gonna do to our market?

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Well, will share this with you. I will share three things. One, what's driving the cost of food now are both climate change, damage to crops, the severe weather events, as well as tariffs, fertilizer, tractors, and now we see fuel prices going up. But to this bill specifically, Consumer Reports, which is kind of the gold standard in America for consumer protection, has written repeatedly that this will not add consumer costs to consumers.

[Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick]: So my last question, Chair, is that have we considered allowing the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Organization to establish the goals and the market availability of what is actually available and recyclable instead of dictating it through this legislation?

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Well, they have a role in that. The producer responsibility organization, that's what their job is, is to identify where efficiencies can be made in the system, what investments. They will be the ones driving the investments in the system. System. And so they will be looking for efficiencies and because the fees are eco modulated, that means that the materials that are most sustainable, those companies pay the least and the materials that are the worst and the most harmful and the least recyclable, those pay the most. So we have a dread set. But always enjoy the conversation and answers. Thank you.

[Senator Dan Stec (Ranking Member)]: Chairman, if I could chime in briefly. Yeah. I certainly shared Senator Kansary Fitzpatrick's sentiments and concerns. I know that you've been working hard on this to try to answer some of the concerns. I just I still think that most of the concerns that are leading to my Novo are still unaddressed. You know, there was a study last year that says we're looking at potential increases to a family of four of 500 to $700 annually. The concerns for shelf life and spoilage of food because of change in use of packaging and technology wouldn't be as effective. And, you know, we all get memos to support an opposition. There are very few bills that I've opposition to. I won't bother to read the long list but you know, the Farm Bureau and if I be in the business council, these are organizations that I respect and I think that are middle of the road, you know, fair arbiters as to what their concerns are and like I said, think more work is still needed on this. But I appreciate your effort and your willingness to continue talking about it.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Thank you for the comments. I look forward to the really robust debate that we'll have on floor as we always do. The one thing I will say again is 99 plus percent of New York farms have been exempted. I think most organizations would take yes for an answer and would say thank you for that kind of responsiveness. The Farm Bureau has not, but I don't know how much more we can go than 99 X percent on anything. But I appreciate your concerns, always appreciate their concerns. Any other comments before we go ahead, Senator.

[Unidentified Majority Senator]: And again, and really nice about this committee is we do have robust conversations and you are very willing to listen to our positions and the positions of other industries. A lot of them are unchanged, so a lot of these changes that have been made, have been a significant amount, some of them actually were suggested to have gone in the wrong direction. There's a new industry that I met with this year. I used to be a co sponsor of this bill. I'm dying to become one again. I'm gonna be without wreck on this because I this idea needs to be addressed without question and I just would like to see it a little bit more incremental. But I met with the cleaning industry as far as the products that they need to use on a daily basis. What would their alternative be for this to pass? Because they basically are really in a tough spot to

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: try

[Unidentified Majority Senator]: and maintain cleaning supplies that are dangerous chemicals as well. And for example, paper container of some kind. So how would you reconcile that particular issue? I get the exemptions for the Farm Bureau, the Doctor. Dairy. That's just a concern and they even said, look, they support other EPR bills like Maryland and California's fails to get out of the gate again because they continue to make amendments because it's completely unworkable and too aggressive. This is more aggressive than that. I love us being aggressive on this issue, but I don't know if there are any, or if we want to talk about it offline, but that's something where

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: they can Yeah, I'll be just share with you very briefly, that some of those chemicals that is guided by federal statute, In fact, what we did in the legislation was we clarified that nothing in this bill overrides federal statute for packaging. So we went the extra mile. We had already had that in the bill. It was considered ambiguous by some. We went the extra mile and we clarified that first.

[Unidentified Majority Senator]: That's good to know. Okay.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: And I would say that of the 30 plus changes we made, none of them were at the behest of the environmental coalition. They were all at the behest of individual companies. So you may not see some of the things that the bigger groups like the Business Council and AmeriPen wanted structurally, but within the body of this bill are all these things that we did for individual companies. But I will say two of the things that we did that Consumer Brands and the Business Council and AmeriPen wanted, we eliminated the Toxic Task Force and we also eliminated the Inspector General. So those were two major, major concessions that we gave to those groups.

[Unidentified Majority Senator]: Sure and I appreciate that, Chairman. Again, it just impacts such an overreaching bill that I think that's why we still got inches of opposition to it but I do appreciate your time and the ability to make some comments. I think it's still a work in progress, but thank you.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: No, we thank everybody for your comments and your input. Senator Cavanaugh.

[Senator Brian Kavanagh]: Just very briefly, time is short. Want to let the moment go by without saying, you know, this is it's long overdue. This is a really profoundly important change that will reduce the costs that our local governments and New Yorkers indirectly are paying to address the massive amount of packaging that is produced. It will protect people from toxins and this strategy of industries telling people that if you make these changes that will protect New Yorkers, it will vastly increase costs, will pass those costs along to consumers. It is an old tactic, it happens to be a tactic they're currently using to try to kill a bill that passed this house unanimously that relates to the content of actual food and many of the organizations that my colleague suggested are middle of the road on this issue have taken some very strong anti consumer positions on this and many other things. This is something we need to get done and I just want to thank you for bringing it forward and your leadership on this.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Thank you. Alright, so shall we, because we have a lot to do, why don't we close down the discussion again? Look forward to a very robust debate on the floor as we always do. I will entertain a motion at this time. Move the bill. We have a motion, we have a second. Thank you very much. All in favor, aye. Aye. Without rec. Without rec. One without rec, nays. Two nays, so recorded. All right, this is referred to finance. Our next bill is 2712 by our ranker, Senator Steck, would you like to say something?

[Senator Dan Stec (Ranking Member)]: I sure would. I suspect that as this is one of the three bills that I was allocated to force to a committee vote. Today seems to be that day that these bills are all getting voted on in committee and depending on the nature of them, if they get referred to another committee, that's an easy way to allow it to move forward. But ultimately a lot of these bills including I suspect mine here today will not reach the floor for debate. So I will take a couple minutes to talk about it because I won't get that opportunity on the floor. But this bill would delay the implementation of the CLCPA for ten years. It would give DEC an opportunity to have a circuit breaker so that if they see utility costs are rising that they could further hit the pause button. We've seen the executive seems to like to do once in a while she needs to. But most importantly, we do what was denied and never happened eight years ago when the CLCP was voted on which was it would require a cost benefit analysis be performed. Now, I've said in on every NCON budget hearing since 2019, actually since before then and I and others have asked the Public Service Commission and others in the administration for a cost benefit analysis. State has never done one and maybe kind of did one here in February. I don't know exactly where that came from because it wasn't in the governor's initial budget in January, it wasn't in her thirty day amendments. But somehow the day before Epic Fury started, NYSERDA puts out a memo that says that when fully implemented, the CLCPA is going to increase cost of upstate electric rates for residents up to $4,000 a year and add $2 on top of whatever the price of gas is at the pump and that deadline to implement the CLCPA is coming. People are seeing their electric bills skyrocket and we're 50% above the national average, so we can't say it's terrorists, we can't say it's the war or Washington DC because New York is an outlier at 50% more than the national average and it's only gonna get worse. So we should have done a cost benefit analysis before we voted on this in 2019. This is one of those bills where instead of doing a study, York likes to study everything but not when it comes to this religion. And I think that we need to make sure that the only cost benefit analysis that I'm aware of that's been done was by the Empire Center years ago where they're saying this is gonna cost $300,000,000,000. So when we're talking about affordability and we've got a Santa poll that says one in three New Yorkers plan to leave the state in the next five years, We need to be looking in the mirror and the cost of energy in the state is one of the reasons why people are leaving. This cost analysis is long overdue. I thank the governor for taking this up again very suddenly, not in our 30 amendments, but apparently this is one of the main issues that's biweekly on our budget. Better late than never, so welcome to the party governor. But I really think that this is the most rational and most responsible thing that this body could do would be to actually do a cost benefit analysis and delay the implementation until we get it under control or we will have a state of 12,000,000 people instead of 18,000,000 people.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Well, thank you for putting this in. As the senator mentioned, this is on the agenda because of Senate Rule seven, section two, subsection C motion for committee consideration. I will share the governor is doing much of what you want, enrolling back the years of the COCPA. I will share a couple other things. One of the reasons New York's energy prices are so much higher than other states is we have a much higher reliance on fossil fuels. In fact, NYSERDA and the New York Independent System Operator have both plainly said that the surge in utility prices is due to the price of natural gas and our overreliance. You look at states that have lower utility bills like Texas as they have a much higher portfolio of renewals. 95% of the world, new generation last year was in renewables. It could be argued that the entire scoping plan was a cost benefit analysis, but we can agree to disagree there. But thank you for trying to advance us. Thank you for your comments, always welcome. Likewise. And with that, we'll entertain a motion. We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor? Aye. All right, nays? Nay. All right, any without rec?

[Unidentified Majority Senator]: Without rec. Alright,

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: we have one without rec. We have a number of nays so unfortunately this will not be moving forward but obviously we always welcome the discussion. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Reicher. Alright, our next bill, 3,652 by Senator Bork. This again was on the agenda because of Senate Rule seven. Motion for committee consideration.

[Senator Dan Stec (Ranking Member)]: I'll move.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Motion, oh, let's allow it. Sorry, I'm

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: I'm The act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to prohibiting certain restrictions on motor vehicle sales.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we have motion, we have a second. All in favor? Aye. All right, we have three ayes, nays?

[Senator Dan Stec (Ranking Member)]: Nay.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: All right, we have nays, any without record. All right, so that bill unfortunately will not be referred to energy. Our next bill is 5,611 by Senator Matera, and again this was a motion for committee consideration.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: I'd like to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing a climate action cost council and to amend the environmental conservation law, the public service law, the public authorities law in relation to limiting the number of rules and regulations that may be promulgated annually regarding certain climate goals.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, do we have questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion, we have a motion, we have a second, we have a second? Second. We have a second? All right, all in favor? Aye. All right, three ayes, all opposed? Aye. All right, the opposed carries. Any without rep? Alright, that will not be referred to energy. Alright, next bill, 7,970 A by Senator Fahey.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Enact to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to enacting the Mohawk River Basin Management Act.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Great, great bill. Would you like to say a word on your bill?

[Senator Patricia Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick]: Long time in the works. So appreciate appreciate the consideration. Appreciate getting this moving.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: All right. Thank you. Motion. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a second. All in favor. Aye. Any without rec? Any nays? Alright, that is referred to findings.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Okay, our next bill, 8,933 by Senator Helman.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: An act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to prohibiting the use of perfluorical perchloroquine and polychloroquine substances and photovoltaic modules.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, again is on as a motion for committee consideration and here to take a few brief moments to discuss her bill is Senator Helmi.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Thank you, Chairman. So when I was looking at bills to force through committee under Article seven, I wasn't looking for those big grandiose bills. I was looking for things that are significantly important to people in my district and to all the people of the state of New York and this one definitely rose to the top. This bill is very simple. It says that we should not have PFAS in our solar panels. This body, especially a lot of the bills originated here, has taken great strides to not only pass through committee bills to ban PFAS and things from clothing, feminine products and so many other items. And those have of course been signed into law already because we all know these are forever chemicals. You can't get rid of them and they're extremely dangerous. During a prior discussion, I heard Chairman Yu say how important it is that we protect our kids from these known dangerous chemicals. That's what this bill does because when you think about the solar panels that are being put out there and that they come into contact with rain water, precipitation, everything else and then it reaches into wherever they're located. So if it's a home based solar panel, those PFAS containing materials could easily get into somebody's drinking water into their wells. Many people in the state are on wells. The large scale solar projects are located in areas again where they have the potential to leach into the soil, they're taken up by plants that are grown, animals, they get into our waterways. So I think it's a very common sense bill. It goes along with, like I said, several other bills that this body has taken up and passed. And I will point this out too, through my research, University of Michigan has done quite a bit and others, PFAS is not required for a solar panel to be functional. It's put on as an extra protectant and I don't believe solar panels manufactured here in our state have PFAS containing. It's the ones that are imported from China. That's the concern. So this basically says, again it's simple, that no person shall sell, offer for sale or manufacture in this state any solar panel that contains PFAS contained materials.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we thank you very much for the bill Senator. I thank you for the sentiment. You're absolutely right. We want to get PFAS out of every stream that we have. Our research shows that there is not a lot of PFAS in the solar industry, but there is some and to your point, we don't want PFAS anywhere in the environment stream. However, the time frame in this bill would essentially cut off the solar industry at its knees. We can't, you know, as we just pointed out, we're prolonging the toxin requirement in the PREA law because of the time it takes to change supply chains, design and manufacturing, which can be done in the solar industry. So are you

[Senator Pam Helming]: saying that it's okay for us to knowingly allow the installation of PFAS containing solar on our soils knowing that it's getting to water, knowing that the DEC has said that PFAS getting into water is one of the most dangerous things that could happen to human beings.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Right.

[Senator Pam Helming]: That the EPA has come out.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: With due respect, Senator.

[Senator Pam Helming]: And I just want to finish with this too. So I I was alerted to this by one of my towns. They actually have a ban on PFAS containing solars in their community, town of Avon, and they have large solar arrays in their community. And guess what? This works. This works. It didn't cut anyone off at the knees. It protected their community. It's common sense.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Senator, there is no evidence and no study of PFAS having leached from solar panels. But to your point

[Senator Pam Helming]: That's not true.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Well, we have not seen that. We have not seen that evidence. If you have evidence you want to show us, that's fine. But this is not a realistic timetable in order for the industry to make accommodation.

[Senator Pam Helming]: For China to make changes to their process of coating the solar panels? Is that what you're saying? Are you saying that there are manufacturers in New York State right now that are putting PFAS into solar panels?

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: No, I'm saying Senator is that the industry will come to a grinding halt if we implement this with your deadline of next year. So some might say, I doubt your sincerity in this bill in protecting the environment, but some would suggest this is a poison pill to stop solar.

[Senator Pam Helming]: A poison pill? This is to stop PFAS from getting into groundwater and from harming

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: people. I don't disagree. You've made your point, Senator. I don't disagree. That is not a worthy goal. This bill will shutter the solar industry and not give it time to make the accommodations that you're looking for.

[Senator Pam Helming]: Is that what the solar industry has shared with you?

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Pam Helming]: That they'll be shuttered if you ban PFAS. So they're admitting that there's PFAS in solar, but you're saying there's no study that shows that

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: PFAS You is in made your point.

[Senator Pam Helming]: And you made yours as well, Mr.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: We take a motion.

[Senator Pam Helming]: If you're a republican and you want to support the environment, it's a big X.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright.

[Senator Pam Helming]: From the democrats.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? All in favor? Aye. Alright. All opposed? Alright. That bill will not be a tenancy. All right, our next bill. Senator, Senate 90 two-six Senator Lanta, this is a bill that we've had before and we've passed before.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Actman Chapter three zero six, laws of 2011 authorizing owners of residential real property of high risk brush fire areas in the borough of Staten Island to cut and remove reach from their property in relation to the effectiveness thereof.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we have a motion? I move. We have a second? All in favor? Aye. We have any without a check? Alright, that bill advances to the floor, to the calendar. Next bill, 9280, Senator May.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Enact in relation to enacting the New York Open Water Data Act.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we have questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion? We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor? Aye. Any without rec? Any nays? Nay. All right, one nay. So recorded. All right, 9462, Senator Harker.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to deer management permits and to repeal certain provisions of such law relating thereto.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion. Alright, we have a second. All in favor? Aye. Alright, that bill will advance, oh I'm sorry, any without rec? Any nays? Alright, next bill, 9,463, Senator Harkin.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: An act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to establishing the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to manage Atlantic Bonito and False Alba court.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, questions, comments, concerns? I'll move with the Thank you sir. Second, all in favor, aye. Aye. Alright, the next, 90 four-79A, Senator Harper.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next, in the Environmental Conservation Law in relation to the definition of tidal wetlands.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright questions, comments, concerns. Do we have a motion? Sure. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Alright, all in favor? Aye. Aye. You're gonna ask for negative questions. Any dates? I'm sorry. Without rec? I'm without rec. All right, yeah, without rec. All right, I think we are now getting into the fish portion of our agenda. A whole school of it. A whole school of bills. No pun intended. Just for speed sake, I may do my generous rules impression, but we've got to be out of here in a couple minutes. In fact, we're overtime, so ninety five-eighty eight, Senator Harper.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Nachman, Chapter three seventy eight Laws of 2014, amending the environmental conservation law relating to taking of sharks in relation to the expiration thereof.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Next bill. 138. Senator Hinchy.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Act to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to extending the authority of the Department of Environment Conservation Management Lena Codd.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Motion second. All in favor? Aye. And if someone has a nay somewhere along the line, just chime in. That advances 139. Senator Martinez.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Acting in the environmental conservation law in relation to extending the authority of Department of Environment Conservation Management Lena occurring.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Motion second. All in favor. Aye. All right. Next 140. Senator Martinez.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next amendment. Environmental Conservation law in relation to extending the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation Management. Black Sea Bass.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: All right. Motion All in favor? Aye.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: One

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: to extending authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation, manage blue black herring. Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Next one hundred hundred and and forty forty two two by by Senator Senator May. May.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next, Next, environmental mainly environmental conservation conservation law law in in relation to extending authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the management of fluke summer fowler.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. And just for the public that's watching at home while we're racing through these bills, these are standard extenders that we do every year before the end of session. 01/1943, Senator May.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to the extended authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation, Maniscal.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. 144, Harcom.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to commercial food fish licenses.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, we have a motion second. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright, 145, Senator Fernandez.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to extending for the Department of Environmental Conservation to restrict the taking of fish, shellfish crestacea and special management areas.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. Alright, 146. Senator Bino.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to extending authority of Department of Conservation to manage the American Eagle.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor. Aye. Next 147. Senator Bino.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to extending the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to manage Atlantic and short nose sturgeon.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. 161 Senator Fahey.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Maximum environmental conservation law in relation to extending the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation to manage sharks.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. Next, 162, Senator Fahey.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next, amending the environmental conservation law in relation to extending the authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation Manning the squid.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. Next, 171, Senator Batcher.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next, amend the environmental conservation law in relation to the outstanding authority of the Department of Environmental Conservation Management. Welcome, Conk.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Motion second. All in favor? Aye. Final bill and final fish bill, 172 by Senator Biden.

[Committee Counsel/Clerk (unidentified)]: Next to amend the environmental conservation law in relation to the extended authority of the Department of Conservation Management, Winter Flounder.

[Senator Pete Harckham (Chair)]: Alright, motion second. All in favor? Aye. Alright, that does it for this week's edition. Thank you all so much. Thank you members.