New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The senate will come to order. I ask everyone to please rise and recite the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection or prayer. Reading of the journal.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In senate, Monday, 02/09/2026, the senate met pursuant to adjournment. The journal of Sunday, 02/08/2026 is read and approved. A motion to senate adjourn.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Without objection, the journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions, messages from the assembly, messages from the governor, reports of standing committees, reports of select committees, motions communications and reports of state officers, motions and resolutions. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Good afternoon, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Good afternoon.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: At this time, I move to adopt the resolution calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: All those in favor of adopting the resolution calendar, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The resolution calendar is adopted. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Now please recognize senator Mayor for an introduction.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Mayor for an introduction.

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Thank you, madam president. I'm extremely proud to have a group of terrific high school students from Mamaroneck High School here today and the OCRA program. OCRA stands for original civic research and action, a program that was started by Joe Liberte, a teacher in the Mamaroneck High School who has built his whole, program on civic engagement by young high school students, showing that notwithstanding, as senator Billy said earlier today, this impression of young people is entirely inaccurate. We have students who are here to witness what happens in the state capital, to make sure their voices are heard, and to add learn how to advocate and advocate for the issues they care about. So I hope you will recognize them and give them all the cordialities of the house. I'm so pleased they could be here and see us in person in action.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: To the students representing the OCRA program, welcome to the state capital. Extend to you the cordialities of the house. Please rise and be recognized. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Madam president, I believe we're still on motions and resolutions. I have a motion on behalf of senator Ramos. On page eight, I offer the following amendments to calendar one thirty four, senate print fifty nine ninety, an as it said bill retains its place on third reading calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The amendments are received and the bill retains its place on a third reading calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: And I'm behalf of senator Mayor on page 12, for the following amendments to calendar one seventy six, senate twenty five ninety eight, and ask that the bill retain its place on the third reading calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Amendments are received and the bill retains its place on the third reading calendar. Let's take up the reading of the calendar. Secretary will read.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number one zero three, senate print forty thirty a by senator Fernandez enact too many a rhyming of conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this action will take effect on the ninetieth day and shall become a law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNRS Kruger Ort, Suhr Cuggins, Zelman.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Volition to count of one zero three, vote in a negative r. Senators Barrella, Chan, Gallivan, Grifo, Helming, Lanza, Obaracca, O'Mara, Ort, Rhodes, Steck, Tedisco, Walzwick, Weapon White. Eyes forty seven, age 15.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Count number one zero five, senate print forty five thirteen by senator Ramos, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two of this act of the Conpeco on one hundred and eightieth day of Travacama Law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo. Gene Arz Kruger Ort, Zuldkut, Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to counter one zero five vote in the negative are senators Ort and Walzik. I 60. Nays two.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Sorry. Senator Ramos explained her vote.

[Senator Jessica Ramos]: Yes. Thank you, madam president. I am, of course, voting to support my bill that creates a public review process for climate projects in communities that are frontline to the environmental crisis like mine in Queens. We suffered tremendously during hurricane Ida. They tried to put a peaker plant in, the part of Astoria I used to have prior to redistricting. We just want our communities to be able to have a say in what happens in them. We wanna make sure that we are able to either make projects better or to stop bad projects, when we can. So this is about equity. This is about making sure the voices in disadvantaged communities are heard. And we are hopeful that this is only going to strengthen our ability to meet our climate goals through the CLCPA and others so that we can make this a a leading state in the fight for sustainability. Thank you so much, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Ramos will be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Relations calendar one zero five voted in negative r. Senators Martin, Oort, and Walzik, ayes 59 and ayes three.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number one zero six, senate print forty five seventy four b by senator May enact too many environmental conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section four, this action will take effect one year after shall it become a law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNR's approval, Ort, Sulecup, and Zellner. Announce the results. Ayes, 62. The bill is passed. Calendar number 131, senate print twenty seventy six by senator mayor, enactment of labor law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this action will take effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR Skruger, Orksville, Cousin Zellner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: I 62. The bill is passed. Calendar number 138, senate print thirteen twenty nine by senator Parker, enactment of public service law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Aside. Lay

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number two thirty two, center print nine twenty five by senator Kavanaugh, enactment of the real property action and proceedings law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section six, action to confect on the ninetieth day, and shall become a law. Call the roll. Adabo. General Arskruger Fort, Sukun, Zellner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to counter two, 32, vote in a negative r. Senators Barello, Obraker, Palumbo, Steck, Todisco, and, Weber. Ayes, 56. Nay, six.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Accountant number 235, center print 4852 by senator Scufus. A nat to amend the executive law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Accountant number 248, CenterPrint4804 by senator Ryan. A nat to amend the vehicle and traffic law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section 13 is action to take effect on the one hundred and eighty day of shall become a law. Call the roll. Adabo. G and R's Kruger Ort, Sokut, and Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Ryan to explain his vote.

[Senator Sean M. Ryan]: Well, thank you, madam president. I just wanna rise today and speak in favor of this great piece of legislation, which takes on a very real and a very urgent need, to concern for our first responders. Across New York, police officers, firefighters, volunteer firefighters, our ambulance companies. In many, many communities, small communities, particularly in rural areas, we are heavily dependent on emergency responders. These are not individuals that are waiting around in a station. When an alarm sounds, they respond from home, they respond from work, or wherever they happen to be. In in in in an area of crisis, in a moment of crisis, those seconds matter. But unfortunately, the physical layout of many of these emerging emergency facilities creates unnecessary hazards. Many of these stations sit along busy roadways without traffic signals or warning devices to slow motorists. In other cases, volunteer parking volunteer parking is located across the street, forcing first responders to cross busy roads when running to the call. The reality of this is very troubling. Our first responders put themselves in danger before they even get to the emergency by having to dodge traffic. This bill offers a practical solution. It authorizes local governments and fire districts to install signage, roadway markings, and traffic control devices around emergency stations to better warn drivers and to protect our important first responders. It also strengthens enforcement by increasing penalties and establishing a mandatory one year license suspension after three convictions for a failure to yield. Let's please protect our first responders, and, and I urge this bill's passage. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Ryan to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye. 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Councilman number two fifty five, senate print one twenty two a by senator Clear, enact directing the departments of environmental conservation and health to establish environmental standards for ambient lead and lead contamination in soils.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section three. This action take effect on the ninetieth day if it shall come along.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo. Your honoris Kruger Ortz, who cut and zelna.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Cleer to explain her vote.

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Thank you, madam president. Special thanks to our leader, Andrea Stewart Cousins, and our fearless environmental conservation committee chair, Pete Harkom for bringing this, bill to the floor. You know, I have been working to eradicate the toxic substance known as lead for most of my entire adult life. We've made great strides, particularly in housing. But to truly finish the job, we must stop lead poisoning from all sources, direct and ambient, from soil, air, and water. So I proudly sponsor this bill because no amount of lead is safe in any form or fashion. Therefore, we must have the highest standards. Lead poisoning is a completely preventable condition and we must join in unison to forever eradicate lead from our homes, from our soil, and from our water supply. And this commitment must be a generational one with complementary policy, funds, and interventions that resolve revolve and are replenished each and every year for as long as it takes to make us as a whole healthy. Thank you to my colleagues in the Senate Dental Care Conference for always leading on these issues. I look forward to a day when we can live lead free. Senator Claire to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Ayes, 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number February, senate print 90 '73 a by senate Harcom. And that? Lay it aside. Council number 267, center print ninety seventy four by senator Harcombe. And that too many environment conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section four, this act will take effect on the thirtieth day if it shall become a law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo. G and R, Spruger, Ort, Zuka, and Zellner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to calendar February, voted in a negative r, senators Martins, Obraker, and Walzik, last 59 a three.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number two sixty nine, senate print ten sixty two by senator Serrano, an act of the arts and cultural affairs law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this action will take effect on a hundred 01/2020 update. It shall become a law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo. G and Rs Kruger Ort, Zuokan, Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Serrano to explain his vote.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Thank you very much, madam president. Today was, is Arts Day in Albany. We had a series of panel discussions with arts groups from throughout the state of New York, talking about how the arts are so important to their communities in so many different ways. This legislation, in a lot of ways, speaks to that need statewide. By creating arts and cultural districts throughout the state of New York, we will find ways to better nurture the growing arts communities in places throughout the state that historically have not had that level of support, from our state government. We all know that the arts are transformative. We know that the arts bring about so many important things. Yes, of course, they are a huge economic engine, but the arts have the ability to promote social discussion that many other mediums can't foster. And they do it in a way that unites us, something that we need now more than ever. So the arts are important on so many different levels, yet they're often overlooked, when we think about, all of the different priorities that we have to deal with as a state legislature. But I really believe that this legislation will go a long way in ensuring that local arts organizations in places, in in different areas throughout the state that historically don't have a lot of support will be able to form cultural districts that they can nurture the artist community there and have a really strong economic and social impact on those communities. I vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Serrano, to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Ayes, 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Council number two seventy, senate print thirteen seventy seven by senator Serrano, enact creating a legislative task force on outdoor environment environmental education.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section five is asked for the effect immediately.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNR, Krueger, Ort, Zuka, and Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye, 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Council number two seventy two, senate print 83 by senator Lou, an act to win the penal law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this act will take effect immediately.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNRS Kruger, Ort, Sukadens Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to calendar two seventy two voted a negative senator Brisport. I 61, nays one.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number two eighty, senate print one ninety five by senator Martinez enactment of public health law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this action should be expected immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR's Kruger, Ort, Zuka, and

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Zelner. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye, 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number two eighty two, senate print three fifty three by senator Rivera, enactment of public health law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Lay the side.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number 283, senate print twelve eighty seven b by senator Passard, an act on the public health floor.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this act shall be confected on the thirtieth day of the child become a law. Call the roll. Adabo, Gnars Kruger, Ort, Zellner. Announce

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye, '62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number February, center print six seventy two b by senator Hinchy. And that too many environmental conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section 10, this action to expect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNRS Kruger, Ort, Zuka, and Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Ayes, 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number February, center print eleven eighty b by senator. It's an act to amend the to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section three, this act will take effect on the thirtieth day of Chabakumar law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to counter two ninety two voting in the negative are senators Barrella, Chan, Gallivan, Grifo, Helman, Lanza, Murray, O'Meara, Ort, Steck, Walzwick, Weberton White, Ayes, 49. Nays, 13.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Comment number two ninety four, senate print ninety seventy two a by senator Harkin, enactment in the environmental conservation law.

[Senator Phil Steck]: It aside.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Lay it aside. Senator Serrano, that completes the reading of today's calendar.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Let's please go to the reading of the controversial calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Secretary will ring the bell. Secretary will read.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number one thirty eight, senate print thirteen twenty nine by senator Parker, enactment of public service law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Madam president, would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Yes, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: So in section two of your bill, it reads the the department, meaning the Department of Public Service, shall adjust each utility corporation's residential fixed charge upon such corporation's filing with the department of an amendment of a rate schedules pursuant to article four of this chapter to recover only the fixed charges and the operation and maintenance expenses directly related to metering, billing, service connections, and the provision of customer service. And it's that definition that I really would like to ask you about, those fixed charges, utilities can only bill for metering, billing connections, customer service, etcetera that you've lined out. So are systems benefit charges included in that definition?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: So as you know, the Democratic Conference of the State Senate has really been the leader in the state around utility affordability. For a number of years, we have really been suffering as a state, particularly our constituents, with very high and unexpected surges in their bills. The purpose of this legislation is to narrowly define what utility what utilities can add on and not create, you know, a whole bunch of extra charges to make bills, you know, balloon and us to create a some real deep affordability for constituents around those bills. So the system benefit charge, does not is not included in those particular charges. It's a separate charge.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are costs of mandated infrastructure from the state of New York included in the definition that you've provided there?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Definition, usually those things are decided within the context of rate cases.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? I do. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are customer benefit solar contributions, are they included in the definition that you've provided?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Not that I know of.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Yes, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Our state taxes included in the metering, billing, connections, customer service, fixed charges that you've outlined here in this definition?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Through you, madam president, they are not.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Madam president, how do yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are local taxes included in that definition?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Through you, madam president, local taxes are not included.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield. Are state and local surcharges?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are state and local surcharges included in the definition you provided here?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: No. There's not.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Madam president, yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are sales taxes included in that definition of metering, billing, connections, customer service?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Madam president, through you, they are not.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Are gross receipts taxes included in that definition of fixed charges on someone's bill?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Madam president, no.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Yes.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: What about the state assessment that people see on their bill? Is that included in those fixed charges?

[Senator Kevin S. Parker]: Madam president, they are not.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Madam thank you. Madam president, the bill.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walterska, on the bill.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: This bill purports to reduce, and as the sponsor said, purports to reduce fixed charges on energy bills, but none of the fixed charges that the state mandates making up to somewhere between 3050% of your bill are even included in the definition of this legislation. And even if any fixed charges are, utility companies will raise rates to pay for the mandates through supply charges. In fact, if this bill does anything at all, it may actually reduce the cost for some the fixed charge that is on someone's vacation home or a residence that they don't live at, nobody's spending power at, or a vacant apartment building that has nobody living in it whatsoever. If there were any fixed charges and I tried to enumerate a number of them, I couldn't think of anymore because the state has put so many charges on your utility bills. But even if it did reduce anybody's energy bill, it would be reducing them for vacant part apartments and vacation homes. This do nothing bill will not lower the cost for New Yorkers in any type of real way, and I vote no. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing none, the debate is closed. Senator Serrano?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the non controversial calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the I'm sorry. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this act shall take effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR's Kruger Court, Stewart Cuddings, Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Martins to explain his vote.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, madam president. You know, I appreciate the debate. Certainly appreciated the questions and the answers, but there was a comment that was made during the debate. I'll be voting no, madam president, but it says the very high and unexpected surge in bills. That was said just during this last debate. Very high and unexpected surge in utility bills. When this chamber starts to consider the impact of policies on our rate payers, on our constituents, on their ability to pay for energy before we pass bills, and we have discussed this. On every one of the bills, the CLCPA, we have consistently warned about the impact on our ratepayers of paying for all of these costs and the implementation. Now someone can say, madam president, that the cost of solar is less than any other form. Sure. If solar is working. But that doesn't take into consideration all of the subsidies that have been paid, the infrastructure that is required, and the costs of not being able to access that when there are snow covered solar panels that don't allow for the transmission of electricity much like the last few weeks here in New York. I'll be voting no.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Martin's to be recorded in the negative. Senator Harkins to explain his vote.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you very much, madam president. I just wanna rise to vote yes. And I'm glad to hear my colleague mention that we should be cognizant of policies, especially when we see and the ISO, the independent system operator releases a report pinpointing the cost of natural gas for the surge in the price of electricity. I'll say that again. The independent system operator just released a report pointing to natural gas for the surge in electrical prices because, natural gas is no longer some homegrown energy efficiency. It's now an international commodity. So, wanted to put that on the record. I thank senator Parker for this bill. I'll be voting nine.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Harkom, to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation the count of one thirty eight, voting in the negative are senators Barrelo, Kensetha Fitzpatrick, Gallivan, Grifold, Lanza, Martins, Matera, Murray, Obrak, O'Mara, Ort, Rhodes, Tedisco, Walzer, and White. Eyes, 46, nine sixteen.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number February, senate print forty eight fifty two by senator Scoopers, and that too many executive law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Walzik, why do you rise?

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Madam president, I hope the sponsor would yield for some questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield? Of course. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Oh, what does this bill do?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Through you, madam president, this bill is very straightforward. It requires New York's code council to incorporate revisions, updates within eighteen months of revisions and updates being offered by international and national, code standards.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Thank you for that. The codes council, they they already meet four times a year. Is that

[Senator James Skoufis]: right? Through you, madam president, I take your word that that is accurate, that sounds accurate. I know they meet a number of times a year. I will note, given I think I know where you're going with this, that the most recent revision of the international standards took our state's code council five years to incorporate. That's why we're taking up this bill.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: They're already required in stat to update the code every three years though. Is that correct?

[Senator Jessica Ramos]: I

[Senator James Skoufis]: I think you heard the answer through my microphone, but through you, madam president, I'm advised by counsel that that is not correct.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Thank you for the clarification. Through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And one of the the ASHREA standards, that's already standard and they have to update our code to comply with that when it comes out, already currently. Is that correct?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Through you, madam president, that is correct. If you look under, I guess it's section b, line 47, you you see that in addition to that one organization, we are expanding that to a list of three standards.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yep. One of those three standards is the American National Standards Institute. Aren't we already more stringent in our building code than the American National Standards Institute?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Through you, madam president, my understanding confirmed by counsel is that that these standards, that these national or international standards can be considered as floors here in New York. And so, yes, it stands to reason that we may be more strict than some or all of these three.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Three madam president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields. Why are the

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: IESNA standards included in this new requirement?

[Senator James Skoufis]: President, what we're attempting to do with this legislation is really reflect the menu of options that are available to the state's code council. That particular organization and those standards are a very credible and renowned set of standards, and so we decided to add that to the set of three options.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yield.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yeah, so the IES is the group that gives some lighting standards recommendations. In 2010, the IES changed their name to the IES. They dropped the North America from IES NA, but in your legislation, you say the IES NA standard. Is that a 16 year old typo? President,

[Senator James Skoufis]: we'll we'll take that back and take a look. This is a bill that dates back to at least 2017, and I we will take that back and take a look.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Three of you, Madam President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yeah, I brought up some of these concerns in the housing committee where that probably should have rested, certainly would have if my vote carried the day there, And I hope you would continue that back, take that back. Will any of the changes proposed here require codes counsel to revert to a less stringent code than we already have?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Through you, madam president, the the answer is no. It just requires the council to make an adoption or at least a consideration of these standards.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: So how will this adaptation of a a new requirement with a couple of additional, codes and a requirement for codes council to adopt them within within eighteen months, how will that lower the cost of building new construction including houses in New York State?

[Senator James Skoufis]: You, madam president, I don't know that it has any meaningful bearing whether that these standards are adopted five years later versus eighteen months later, ideally sooner, as it relates to cost. What I am more concerned about in advancing this bill is protecting your and my constituents. As you know, embedded in our building code, at the core of our building code, are safety standards. Likewise, I'm interested in protecting your and my firefighters who run into smoke filled buildings and rely on code enforcement and strict building codes so that amidst the smoke in these houses and buildings, they are not bumping into walls that should not exist illegally in especially apartment buildings. So that is really the reason why we are looking to make sure that these standards are adopted expeditiously, is to make sure that we have safe construction here in New York State.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: How, you know, and I I appreciate your wanting safety as we already pointed out in this debate. Our code is already more stringent than all of these codes, including the additional codes that you're bringing in. But I'm curious how lighting standards would make it more safe for a firefighter if you're using the Illuminating Engineering Society or of North America, would be a code that's 16 years old.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Madam President, a couple of things. First, certainly, in addition to safety standards within our building code, there are plenty of standards that speak to efficiency and other factors in construction. So it's not an either or, they all exist. As far as lighting, I think if you were to ask most of your firefighters and most of your fire departments, they would absolutely tell you that lighting is a safety matter. And making sure that there is efficient and I should say sufficient lighting within our our buildings here in New York State absolutely is relevant to safety in addition to efficiency, energy efficiency.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yeah. I'm not sure the old the sixteen year old code and whether the LED light bulbs versus an incandescent would really make a difference when we're talking about lighting standards and our our standard already being more stringent than that. But I I did wanna point to a section of your bill on on page two from the top. Talk about the State Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The legislature hereby directs that the state energy conservation construction code be adopted to protect the health, safety, and security of the people of the state and to assure a continuing supply of energy for future generations. And that such code mandate that economically reasonable energy conservation techniques be used in the design and construction of all public and private buildings in the state. And that is true now in law except for two lines. You have added in the state's climate leadership and community protection act, and you have removed in this bill that anything be economically reasonable. Why is the why is the, word economically removed from statute in your proposal here today?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Madam president, I I'd like to first note, this is the fourth time, assuming it does pass after this debate, this is the fourth time this bill will have passed this chamber. I know that my colleague is a voracious reader of these bills and voracious debater and this has never been brought up before and so I question what took you so long to have this conversation. Nevertheless, I'm happy to answer the question. The CLCPA in the statute, in the scoping plan section of the CLCPA statute, it already requires that the code council consider the CLCPA. This is an incidental update to the statute. This is an incidental change. Basically a codification of what already exists, and similarly the deletion of economically is incidental. If you look several lines down, lines 14 through 19, this is one of a number of examples where the code council shall, they must consider cost effectiveness among other considerations.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yeah. The same question. Would ask back again, why specifically did you remove economic reasonable from what the code should be considering the codes council should be considering?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Madam president, whether that word is there or not does not have any impact as to the council's discretion and ability to consider cost effectiveness. It's an incidental change, as I noted before.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: And through you, madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yeah. It's the it's pretty glaring and on my sheet of paper, it is it struck out and and highlighted in red economically. If it's incidental, then why even remove that? That what this suggests to me, and this is why I ask it, is people are very concerned about the cost of energy and the feasibility in paying for all of the mandates under New York CLCPA. And what you've taken here is a couple of code changes that seem semi, maybe not even relevant whatsoever to the state of New York. And you've subbed in in a little line, New York CLCPA and the codes council will, within eighteen months, publish a new code under the CLCPA without considering how much this is going to cost. So I say again, why would you remove economically reasonable? How unreasonable should the housing costs and construction costs be in New York State?

[Senator James Skoufis]: Through you, madam president, most of that commentary is not germane to this bill. You answered or you rather you asked several questions that are not germane to this bill, and I have answered the I believe the core of your question. I will answer it for a third time, which is that, again, despite or in light of striking that word or not, there is no impact whatsoever as to whether the council can maintain its discretion and ability to consider cost effectiveness. And again, I will point you to lines 14 through 19, literally just several lines under the wording question we're talking about. As far as whether the public looks at this bill language or not, and I suspect that there aren't too many people of the 19 and a half million who will examine this markup that we are examining here, but to the extent that people have concern about that line being struck, Even though it has no relevance to the council's ability to consider cost effectiveness, they will have that concern because elected officials like yourself will try and, despite the facts, despite my answers, go onto social media and cause a firestorm of craziness with misinformation and untruths. And we've seen that even in just recent weeks on your social media page where you talk about hostile amendments and give people all sorts of ideas and grief and misconstrue what happens on this floor. To the extent anyone is going to be concerned about this word that has no impact or relevance whatsoever on the council's discretion, it's because you will mislead them and convince them otherwise.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Through you, madam president, with the sponsor yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: With the sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Yes.

[Senator Andrew J. Lanza]: Well, you

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: could have just called me a liar, but I didn't write this bill, and I didn't remove I didn't bring a bill into this chamber, ignore the suggestions that were given in the housing committee, and bring a bill into this chamber that removes economically reasonable. You might call that a lie, but you wrote the bill. Misinformation, disinformation, you wrote this bill. You sponsored it. You brought it into this chamber. And what it means by your own admission here today is that you're taking the CLCPA, you're bringing that to the codes council, you're forcing them to do the to redo the code on a faster timeline, you've removed the

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Excuse me, senator, could you not address the the senator? Either of you. Could you address the

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: chair? Sure. Not you. On the bill, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Wasek, on the bill.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Let me try and be informative with, misinformation. The problem is it's too costly in New York State. We have a robust code. Our code council meets four times a year. We take international building standards. We go above and beyond them. Bringing in lighting standards from 2010 and pretending like that's going to make the life safer for firefighters is not going to change a thing in New York State. Bringing in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act and then removing economically reasonable from the codes council when they consider changes to New York State Building Code, that has an impact on everyday New Yorkers. I know why it's done. We still don't know how much it's going to cost to have the CLCPA fully implemented in New York State. The comptroller, a year and a half ago, said $340,000,000,000. Well, we are just ripping the lid off and saying even if it's economically unreasonable, the codes council still has to do it. So as we have a housing shortage in New York State, housing's housing gets more expensive when you pass bills like this. I'll be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing none, the debate is closed. Senator Serrano?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section four, this action will take effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR, Scruggar, or Zucker, and Zelman.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Scufus, explain his vote.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank you, madam president. I always appreciate debate. I appreciate inquisitive questions and the back and forth, but in this instance I fail to understand why questions are asked if you're just going to ignore the answers. I stated literally at least three, if not four times, that what my colleague just remarked upon multiple times is just patently, factually, evidentially not true. And yet, I imagine this will be a clip on a social media page in the coming days, and he will somehow, and I'm not gonna use the l word, but he will misconstrue, he will misinform his own constituents. The reason why we're passing this bill is very straightforward. We are requiring the code counsel to adopt national and international standards in a timely manner. Senator Everything we just heard a moment ago has nothing to do with this bill. Thank you. I vote yes.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Scufus, to be in the affirmative. Senator Lanza?

[Senator Andrew J. Lanza]: It would it would be nice if we can keep the personalities out of the debate on this floor as best we can.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. I did ask our colleagues to do that. Not one. I did say both, and I pointed to both. Thank you. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to the count of two thirty five vote in a negative r, senators Ashby, Barello, councilor A. Fitzpatrick, Chan, Grifle, Helming, Lansing, Martins, Matera, Murray, Obrak, O'Meara, Ort, Palumbo, Rhodes, Steck, Tedisco, Walls Of Weber And White, eyes 42, age 20.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Madam president, for my friend, senator Steck, I absolutely look forward to a few friendly questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senators.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Can we keep it cordial?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you.

[Senator Phil Steck]: The sponsor would please yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Phil Steck]: I absolutely, madam president. Thank you, madam president. What is wrong with this bill? No. I'm just kidding. This came there's no reason this can't be a little fun. In all seriousness, the sponsor yield for a few questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Thank you all. Senator, PFAS is something that certainly this state and every other state in the in the country has been trying to wrestle with and and and make improvements on. So I understand where you're coming from with your intent on the bill. I'm sure this won't come as no surprise to you. A lot of opposition memos and concerns specifically about the effect that it's going to have on cookware. And I know you've talked to I just you're aware of those and I I I believe the think the PFAS Action Network has spoke with you, asked you about conforming the definition in your bill to be con to conform with the EPA standards under the Biden administration that are still in effect to make it more manageable. And they point to other states and jurisdictions that have had some, some issues with it and have have gone there and also pulled back. Are you are you willing to consider something similar to that?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you, madam president. Thank you, to the senator for the question. You know, we, as states, are, cannot, pass legislation weaker than the federal government, but we can stronger. And and that was, the original author's intent. Remember this legislation was carried, by our former colleague, senator Hoyleman Siegel, for a while, and I'm I'm proud to pick it up, is is that we wanted to have, as strongest protection for New Yorkers as we can, particularly, as we see the federal government, has weakened PFAS regulations in other areas and has weakened other environmental regulations that we wanted to set the bar in a high fashion, and that we wanted to include cookware. You remember the first, the first version did not. Part of that was because there was litigation in Minnesota, and we saw, that litigation dismissed. So that was no longer a concern.

[Senator Phil Steck]: If the sponsor continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Absolutely.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Alright. Thanks, senator. So, a series of questions that I I I just wanted to, to ask here along to show a train of thought here. You're aware that multiple major health and regulatory authorities, including the, the FDA, the American Cancer Society, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have repeatedly evaluated, these these chemicals with the nonstick coatings and publicly concluded they are safe for intended use in cookware and for food contact, applications. You're aware of that?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president, I I am. And for every organization that says they're safe, there are other organizations that say they're not safe. There are studies that show when, when Teflon is heated just as low as 350 degrees, it becomes a threat, to trans, transmit PFAS to food that's being cooked. Also, that it vaporizes, gets into the air. And so, you know, we take very seriously that PFAS, the NIH estimates that annually PFAS costs our healthcare system, between 37 and $59,000,000,000. And what we are also seeing from places like Cusick Falls in New York and places all over New York state that now have to invest tens of millions of dollars, to remediate, PFAS from our drinking water system is that rather than you know, include PFAS in consumer products and then fight to justify it safe, we need to stop including it in the production cycle in the first place to keep it out of our water supply when there are perfectly fine alternatives like stainless steel, ceramic, and cast iron, just to name three?

[Senator Phil Steck]: Thank you. The sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Thank you. So are you aware that several jurisdictions have recently decided to exclude floor polymers or nonstick cookware applications from proposed bans or restrictions and these include such cowboy anti health, jurisdictions like California, New Mexico, Vermont, Canada, France, and Illinois?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president, I am aware of that, but there are also Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont that now have included, cookware. So there is a growing, body of states. More states are banning it than those who are choosing not to.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Sponsor continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yield? Yes, madam president. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Thank you. There's there's one specific, concern that was brought up under under the bill here, starting next year. On the cookware PFAS, cookware appears to be defined as refers to durable items used in homes, restaurants, institutional settings and commercial kitchens for preparing, dispensing or storing food, foodstuffs or beverages. These items are designated for indoor and outdoor use and include pots, pans, skillets, grills, baking sheets, molds, trays, bowls, camping gear and cooking utensils. And there's concern with the language of and include because it certainly suggests or raises concern about this isn't an exclusive list, but the list is beyond what's listed there. So you do you share or how would you address those that are concerned that, that the language that says and include doesn't

[Senator Pete Harckham]: exclude others? Madam president, let me just confer with counsel one quick quick sack. We'll get in answers.

[Senator Phil Steck]: Okay. Thank you.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president. Thank you for the question, senator. We're it it's not just the the actual cookware itself. We're also thinking in terms of the production, the disposal, and the end of life cycle. And again, the goal is to eliminate PFAS from the broadest, spectrum of categories that we can because it's not just the PFAS on the product, it's in the production and it's also in the end of life cycle when we're talking about landfill leachate, and leaking into our aquifers and fragile drinking water systems. And again, we we talk about Hoosick Falls with the two settlements combined, it was over $92,000,000. And we we see municipalities all across the the state spending millions of dollars, to remediate PFAS of different sorts, in public drinking water, and whether that's from the the production side or the end of life cycle side. And, you know, then we we look at, you know, some other examples. New Jersey just settled with DuPont for $2,000,000,000. So this is not good for the businesses and it's not good for our municipalities.

[Senator Phil Steck]: On the bill, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Steck on the bill.

[Senator Phil Steck]: I thank senator, for answering the questions. To just circle back, the and include language raises concerns about what products will be incorporated into this ban could potentially include any product in the kitchen, including several major appliances such as your microwave, your stove, and your refrigerator. Again, I I don't doubt the the sponsor's intent here to try to to address something. I do question the precision of the language, the unintended consequences that I pointed out, the numerous other states that again are are are inclined to head down this path and have started down this path and have found that, for a variety of reasons, it's, it's unmanageable that you're talking about potentially 15,000 different, compounds that we would try to manage and frankly, having every state do its own thing and requiring manufacturers to try to make a product that's going to be, saleable in New York State and then another one that's, that can be sold in Illinois and another one that can be sold in Texas. I, you know, I question the wisdom of the economics of that, the science. It seems like, once again, New York has identified an issue and has gone far far, farther than need be, to try to get a hold of something when, again, we can, benefit from the experience of other states, other jurisdictions, other countries. I don't know that the EPA has a reputation, or certainly the American Cancer Society has a reputation for being cavalier on public health. But they have expressed concerns with overly applying a ban to apply to all cookware. There's debate as to whether these alternatives are truly alternatives. You know, certainly tried and true technology, but not the same as as as the cookware that we're talking about here. I think that the bill just goes too far. It's not the first time that I think I've seen this in Albany, and I will be voting no and encourage my colleagues to do the same until, ours is a little more in line with what the federal government and other states are doing, as far as the definition. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Serrano?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: We've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section five is asked to take effect 01/01/2028.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNR's Kruger Ort, Sokut and Zoner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Harkom to explain his vote.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you very much, madam president. And I I just wanna assure you that I was being sincere and so is senator Steck at the beginning when we said we would have a cheerful debate. I have nothing but the highest regard, for senator Steck. I always appreciate a good vigorous debate. But I think it is it is so important that not a day goes by where we don't learn more about the dangers of PFAS. And as counsel mentioned to me in in the midst of the debate and reminded me that it's not just about the product itself. It's the production cycle, it's the product, and it's the end of life cycle. And we need to think broadly about that as it costs our municipalities tens of millions of dollars a year. And according to the NIH, it's costing us anywhere from close to $59,000,000,000 annually in health care costs. You know, the dangers from PFAS are real. And and so, I I understand there is a reluctance to take a broad approach and someone to take a more incremental approach. But I would argue as New York goes, so goes the rest of the nation. We're proud of this bill. We wanna thank former senator Hoyleman Siegel, now the Manhattan borough president for his work on the bill, and I'm proudly voting aye. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Harkom to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator May to explain her vote.

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you, madam president. I wanna thank senator Harkom for this bill. Earlier today, we passed my bill about measuring and reporting PFAS emissions into our waterways from from industrial and, waste management sources. And the only reason we need that is because is getting into the environment upstream through products that are being sold in the stores and through the way we use those products in our lives. Almost pretty much everyone in this room has got PFAS in our bodies, in our organs. It's found in mother's milk. We need to get these products out of our stores. And I, as a cook and a mom, I wanna know that I'm using products when I'm cooking that are free of PFAS so that I'm not poisoning my family. We're not talking about taking anyone's cookware away. We're just talking about making sure that what's being sold going forward is safe, and I think that is our job. I am proud that we're voting for this. I, again, thank senator Harkom for this bill, and I vote aye.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to calendar two sixty six, voting in negative r, senators Chan, Grifo, Lanza, Obraker, Ort, Rhodes, Steck, Walzik, and White. Also, senator Todisco. Ayes 52. Next 10.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number two eighty two, senate print three fifty three by senator Rivera, an act to win the public health law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Lanza, why do you rise?

[Senator Andrew J. Lanza]: Madam president, I believe there's an amendment at the desk. I waive the reading of that amendment and ask that you recognize senator Barello.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator Lanza. Upon review of the amendment in accordance with rule six section four b, I rule it non germane and out of order.

[Senator Andrew J. Lanza]: Accordingly, madam president, I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask that senator Borrella be heard on the appeal.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. I want the appeal has been made and recognized. Senator Borrella may be heard.

[Senator George Borrello]: Thank you, madam president. Well, I'm hoping that my words here today, combined with the suit that I'm wearing, will convince you that this bill is indeed germane to the bill in chief.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Nice suit. Thank you.

[Senator George Borrello]: So today we're here to talk about this bill that is about having the Senate approve the Medicaid director, which I think is a good idea. I think this chamber should absolutely be approving someone who has control of what is now approaching nearly half of New York State's budget. That's right. Right now, Medicaid accounts for a $115,000,000,000 of a $260,000,000,000 budget proposal. So what our bill actually calls for, this amendment, is for us to actually qualify and ensure that the people that are getting Medicaid benefits are actually exist and are qualified. And also we need to do a comprehensive audit. Medicaid has gotten out of control here in New York State and is costing New York State tax taxpayers literally billions of dollars. On top of that, it's estimated by the Empire Center that only about five and a half million New Yorkers actually qualify for Medicaid, yet eight and a half million New Yorkers actually receive Medicaid. That's a $3,000,000 delta there. On top of that, our Medicaid director has refused a FOIL request fully. It took nine months for the Empire Center to get an answer from the Department of Medicaid onto whether or not everyone's qualified, those actually receiving benefits. And the last million people he would he refused to actually identify are qualified, and are actually eligible for Medicaid. It's called the Medicaid Missing Million Report. You should look it up. A million people. If each one of those million cost us just $10,000 a year, that's $10,000,000,000. Addressing that alone and finding that fraud, if it is indeed fraud, would actually eliminate all of the money that we have are losing from the federal government. I know that's a big topic for the governor. All this money the federal government's cutting back, that's because they don't wanna continue to support the fraud, waste, and abuse in New York State's Medicaid system. So we need to do this. We need to do a forensic audit of a Medicaid system. We need to verify that everybody's actually receiving benefits, actually is qualified. And by the way, I would imagine that a lot of those folks are not people that aren't qualified, they're actually fraudulently submitted service requests. In other words, providers, health care providers who are fraudulently fraudulently submitting payments and are getting receiving and receiving payments for fraudulent work that was never provided. That's probably a couple billion dollars a year right there alone. We need to do this now. It is unbelievable that it has swelled as much as it had, and it is now nearly half of New York state's budget. Medicaid alone. If any part of our budget needs to be evaluated and cleaned up, it's Medicaid. And that's why this amendment to this bill is germane and needs to be done as soon as possible. The taxpayers of New York state deserve transparency, honesty, and to restore integrity to the most expensive system in New York State and most expensive system in The United States Of America, New York State's bloated and fraudulent Medicaid system. Thank you, madam president.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Thank you, senator. I wanna remind the house that the vote is on the procedures of the house and the ruling of the chair. Those in favor of overruling the chair signify by saying I. Land? A show of hands has been requested and so ordered.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye 22.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye 22. The ruling of

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: the chair stands and the bill in chief is before the house. Senator Serrano.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section two, this action took effect in the January 1. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR Scuga or Stuart Cuddings, Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Aye. 62.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Calendar number 294, senate print ninety seventy two a by senate Harcom, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Murray, why do you rise?

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, madam president. Would the sponsor yield for some, friendly and hopefully informative questions?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: For The sponsor yield.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Do you, madam president, for my friend, senator Murray, anything?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, madam president. Senator senator, I wanna just kinda cover who is covered under this bill and how they are covered. So let's start with the with the who. If I gave you an example, two companies, one is a concrete crushing company that makes $999,000,000 in revenue. The other is solar panel manufacturing company that makes 1 and a

[Senator Pete Harckham]: half billion. Which of those two or would they both be covered under this bill? It depends. If the concrete manufacturer has net worldwide sales less than $1,000,000,000 and and they're less than or they're less than, yeah, they're less than a billion dollars and then they're just not included. No one under a billion dollars is included. The solar panel company must also, in addition to the billion dollar threshold, must have at least a million dollars in direct revenues in New York State. So if they operate in New Jersey or Connecticut, but have no operations in New York, they would not fall under the the guidelines of of this bill.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. Madam president, will the sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. So on the on the bill language, I'm looking at, section seventy four zero one zero one under definitions. That would be section three line 21. Scope one emissions means all direct greenhouse gas emissions that stem from sources that a reporting entity owns or directly controls regardless of location, including but not limited to fuel combustion activities. The next section, line 25, scope two emissions means indirect greenhouse gas emissions from consumed electricity, steam heating, or cooling purchased or acquired by a reporting entity regardless of location. So I'll go back to my example. We have the concrete crushing company that's located in Albany, and again, their revenue was under 1,000,000,000, so they're not covered. Doesn't matter. But the solar panel manufacturing company now say they're they're manufacturing in Florida, but they have a distribution center here in New York, and their revenue, as we said, was over over $1,000,000,000. And, yes, 1% of that is generated here in New York. Does that qualify under this bill? Would they still would both end of the would both sections have to report under this bill?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Would because we're talking about global emissions. Right? Because we understand emissions don't recognize state borders. This is a a global or a planetary issue, and and that's why they they would qualify.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Madam president, would sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. And I think you covered it under that answer, but I'm gonna ask it to get it on the record anyway. We're gonna use that same example, but the solar panel company is manufacturing now in China. But they have the distribution center here in New York with 1% of their revenue coming from New York. Still required to report both New York and China?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: They are. And, it it's a good question because the a lot of the companies that are covered under this, are multinationals. I would say not all of them, but but, you know, when you're talking companies over a billion dollars, you know, a lot of those are multinationals. So those are covered, for instance, in the EU, and the EU actually goes a step further and and requires a qualitative climate change analysis in addition to those emissions, which our bill does not do. Our bill, is really to get public transparency so that consumers can make educated decisions from the companies that they patronize, and that institutional investors, who have a certain social investing filter can also make those qualified and educated decisions. And because the EU and now California are doing this and many institutional investors, pension funds, as I mentioned before, who have a social screen on their investment, are requiring many of the large companies to do this anyhow. And so a lot of the companies are doing this. We are just saying we need you to report in New York and those who are not yet, doing this, we add them to the list.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Madam president, would sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Yes.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: And thank you for that for that answer. Now if this same company, we'll stick with the solar panel manufacturing company, if they fail to report emissions that occur outside of New York, can they be punished under this bill? And how would they be punished?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president, yes, they they would be, for, for the reason that we mentioned before that this is a global issue and it's also a transparency issue for consumers and investors here in New York. So they would be, but I should also note that under scope three emissions, number one, there's a a year lag in the reporting, and then the penalties would for, scope three would not take, effect until 2032, assuming that the bill is is passed this year.

[Senator Dean Murray]: And the president, what sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Yes.

[Senator Dean Murray]: The sponsor yields. Since we're on the scenario, I'm gonna bring that company out of China and back to The United States. So they're gonna be manufacturing in Florida the purpose

[Senator Pete Harckham]: We like that. We wanna bring those Chinese companies to The United States.

[Senator Dean Murray]: We like the manufacturing part. I don't know about the panel penalizing them. But so them being in Florida, does New York have the right to regulate interstate commerce? Is isn't that what we're doing here?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president. Madam president, as as I thought, this was a contested issue in in the California litigation and the courts dismissed this. So, there were three three different, allegations brought in the California lawsuit. Two of them were dismissed and and this was one of them.

[Senator Dean Murray]: And the president, would sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. Now that's that's the California bill. I'd like to discuss this bill, and and and go back to the original question is, aren't we, regulating interstate commerce with this bill? If we're gonna penalize Florida and New York say, for example, under this this situation, this man solar panel manufacturing company, their main headquarters is Florida. That's where they do most of the business, but they have a distribution center in New York that generates 1% or more of revenue. But their main headquarters is Florida. We're still punishing a Florida company. New York is doing this. Isn't that exactly what, regulating interstate commerce is?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Because they're doing business in New York, and this is designed to protect New York consumers and New York investors so that New Yorkers can make, qualified decisions.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Madam president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Does the sponsor yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Yes. The sponsor yield.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. And senator, you had mentioned that it is a global problem, that that the pollution or such is a global problem, national problem. But again, I go back to aren't we then aren't we we're through this legislation, isn't wouldn't this be considered national legislation or federal? This this is exactly what the definition of regulating interstate commerce would be if we are if we are passing laws that will govern another state and the commerce between the states.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: President, we are not governing, another state. We are we are not, punishing other states. We are asking for transparency, for New York consumers and New York investors to make educated decisions.

[Senator Dean Murray]: We continue to yield. Does the sponsor

[Senator Pete Harckham]: yield? Yes.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: So I'm gonna go with the the California. Now when California introduced theirs, they had given us an estimate that about 4,000 companies would be required to report. Do we have an estimate over as to how many companies would be affected by this bill?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Madam president, we don't have that exact number. What we can say is that a number of the companies will be the same. There will be a lot of overlap. The other thing we should say is that these are huge companies that have the ability and the wherewithal to comply with this, madam president. These are not your mom and pops. These are not even, you know, your regional companies. You know, with a billion dollars in revenue, you know, this is a sizable sizable company.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Does

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: the sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: So I I do wanna talk about the penalty aspect of it. And yes, I I understand we're reaching larger companies with with deeper pockets, but the bill has civil penalties for willful violation, including non filing, late filing, or any other compliance issues of up to $100,000 per day, up to 500,000 per filing year. Why are these penalties so high and won't that have an impact on these very consumers we're talking about?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam president. Number one, as we said, many companies are already complying with this either through the EU or will be in California. There are software packages that help companies comply with this. This is not the heavy lift it might have been, ten years ago. And and so the reason the penalties are so high is when you're talking about a pension fund who is gonna be investing billions of dollars in a company, based on a certain value set, they have a right to have true transparency. You know, unfortunately, what we have seen far too often is many companies make grandiose, but unfortunately not always true statements about their commitments to sustainability. And and so the statement sounds great, but then when you look under the hood, know, either either they're not complying with what they're doing or they're backtracking. Some would call that greenwashing. I would like to, you know, give some companies a benefit and a doubt on that. But this is this is about protecting, you know, investors who are investing in some cases billions of dollars in these companies on a value proposition or what's called a social screen. And and they should have the transparency as to New York consumers to know that, that the company that that they're they're buying products from is indeed who who they say they are.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. Madam president, would sponsor continue to yield?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. And I just have one more kind of a technical question. New York State DEC just finalized its part two fifty three GHD reporting rule. How do the reports under this bill compare to those under part two fifty three?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Thank you, madam president. Thank you for that question. There will be a little overlap, but not always exclusively overlap, because we're, you know, that is really on, local emitters and and some of those folks are not gonna have a billion in revenue, or or they will and and they will comply with both. But but we don't expect there will be a huge amount of crossover because again, we're talking about, you know, the multinational corporations in many cases.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you. Madam president, on the bill.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Murray, on the bill.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, senator. I appreciate that. And I and I appreciate what what you're kind of trying to accomplish here. I I appreciate that and I get it, but I I do have a problem with the aspect of New York saying I mean, listen. We have we have state lines. We have boundaries. We have borders. They need to be respected. We don't legislate other states. We if we wanna penalize a polluting company in New York that is polluting in New York, I get that. But to say you've got a company doing business in New York, but they have other areas or operations in either other states or even other countries to then reach that far out and say, well, you're polluting in China or you're polluting in France or Italy. We're gonna penalize you for that. I I think that's a little well, no, way out of our scope and out of our boundary. I'd like to see us just concentrate here on New York because I do believe that is the definition of interstate commerce, especially when we're talking about other states. So, for that reason and the fact that I think to a degree it is a bit duplicative with some of the, rules we already have in place, for that reason, I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Senator Barrella. Okay. Senator Martins?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: With the sponsor yield for a few questions.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Sure. Will the sponsor yield? Certainly.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank yields. I just want

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: to understand a a couple of points, and I'm gonna discuss it in terms of jobs. And so if we have a multinational corporation and they do no manufacturing in New York, but I think we'd all agree, New York City is the capital of the world in many respects, there are many companies that enjoy the benefits of having headquarters in New York City, and they employ many people. And so through this bill, if that company, multibillion dollar company internationally, you know, positioned in many parts of the world, but with headquarters in New York. If they relocated their headquarters from New York City to Jersey City, would they have to comply with this requirement?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Through you, madam, president, good question. If they, were assuming because they're multinational, they have the billion dollar, threshold, do they do a million dollars worth of business in New York, a million dollars worth of revenue derived just from New York? And if they do, then the answer is yes.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Madam president, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Yes. Absolutely. The sponsor yields? Yes. But if they are in New York, they're located in New York, their headquarters are in New York, they're employing people in New York, they otherwise have no other presence in New York, would they have to comply with this law and this and this and this reporting requirement?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Do you, madam president, if they don't earn a million dollars so, let's say, to your your point senator that it's a multinational corporation, they're headquartered on Park Avenue, but all of their businesses in Europe and Central America and South America, They just have their headquarters in New York because they think that's where they should be because they have access to global capital and, you know, all of the things that New York has to offer. But they don't they don't have any sales in New York, they would not be. So if their markets are Europe and South America and other parts of the country, but as long as they don't have that million dollar sale threshold in new million revenue in New York, no, they are exempt from this.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Been through you if the sponsor will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: So let's let's take another example. Let's say, Amazon was looking to, build one of their national headquarters, and they're looking for a place to do it. Let's say they decide to build that or they're considering building one of those national headquarters here in New York, maybe even in Queens. And they they they promise that they're gonna bring $50,000 or 50,000 jobs, but they have an extensive system of sales in New York through their network, they would still have to comply with this law regardless of whether or not that headquarters was actually in New York. Correct?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: They would, most certainly have to comply because they sell they have more than a million dollars of revenue in New York. They're a billion dollar company, but they are already complying with this in the EU, I can assure you. They will qualify to do this under California. So either way, whether their headquarters is here or not, they would need to comply. But I I wanna go back to the issue of the cost of compliance and the fees, which Your apple, to use your example, talking about, a $237,000 cost, is, that was proposed, a survey of corporate entities by environmental resources management, in 2022 of companies that are already doing this. The the average cost was $237,000 And for a multinational corporation, that that's not a huge price tag, I would I would submit.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Madam president, through you if the sponsor will continue to yield.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Does the sponsor yield? Yes. Absolutely. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you. So our health care systems here in New York, whether they are a Northwell or an NYU Langone or any of the other health care systems that we have, would they have to comply with this law and provide a a report to the DEC as well?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: If they earn more than a billion dollars and have more than 1,000,000 in revenue from New York, they would, because their operations have have greenhouse gas emissions and climate impact. So for instance, one of the hospitals used to be in my district, not anymore with redistricting. They're a title five emitter. They do their own power generation for their their health care facility. The power they buy, we often talk on this floor about where we get our power. Is it clean power? Is it coal power? Is it coming from Pennsylvania? And those are always, you know, good discussions that we should be having. And then is is the the the third level, the scope three emissions is like where are there if we're using the hospital example, you know, where are their supplies coming from? When are their equipment coming from? And what are the greenhouse gas emissions there. Again, and we do this because greenhouse gas emissions don't recognize state boundaries. It impacts all of us. Thank you. And madam president,

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: if the sponsor would yield for just one more question.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Pete Harckham]: Certainly, madam.

[Senator Mark C. Walczyk]: Sponsor yield.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: To be clear, your bill speaks to sales and sales of either Revenue. Revenue. Revenue that either comes from sales, services, or products within the state and does not and would not include payroll or any expenses that a company has that is here within the state, even if it's over a million dollars, even if it's, frankly, what whatever that number is above that million dollars. It has nothing to do with their presence in New York. It has nothing to do with employment in New York, but only with that million dollar threshold with regard to revenue tied to tied to sales or, of services or products. Through you, madam president, you're absolutely correct.

[Senator Pete Harckham]: It's it's payroll. It's not payroll. It has to do with sales and products or services. But as as to your first example, they're in New York. They just want to be have access to global capital markets. They don't they don't do any any business here other than pay their employees. They are not covered under this.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: And madam president, I said that was my last one, but I do have one more. If the sponsor would yield for one more question. And I appreciate this. Really appreciate Yeah. Absolutely. And you we've used the word revenue as well. And I'm concerned, and I just want some clarity on that. You know, access. Senator, passive revenue, is that included in your definition or not? Through you, madam president, the language in the law, which

[Senator Pete Harckham]: is taken from other section, section 209 of the tax law. It says, does business in this state and is deriving receipts from activity in this state within the meaning of section 209 of the tax law.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Madam president, thank you. Senator, thank you. Thank you.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Okay. Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, the debate is closed. Senator Serrano?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the non controversial calendar.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Read read the last section.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Section five. This acts for the cathedral of one hundred eightieth day after Shah Bacama law.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Adabo, GNRS Cougar, Ort, Sukad, and Zelner.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: In relation to counter two ninety four voting in negative are senators Ashby Barello, Kansas City, Fitzpatrick Chan, Gallivan, Grifle Helming, Lanza, Martin Gutierrez, Murray, Obrak, O'Mara, Ork, Colombo, Rhodes, Robson Stett, Tedisco Walzwick, Reverend White, eyes 40, nays 22.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: The bill is passed. Senator Serrano, that completes the reading of the controversial code.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Is there any further business at the desk?

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: There is no further business at the desk.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: I've moved to adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, February 11 at 11AM.

[Acting President of the Senate (Presiding Officer)]: On motion, the senate stands adjourned until Wednesday, February 11 at 11AM.