WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2019 10:30 A.M.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE HOUSE WILL COME

TO ORDER.

IN THE ABSENCE OF CLERGY, WE WILL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT

OF SILENCE.

(WHEREUPON, A MOMENT OF SILENCE WAS OBSERVED.)

VISITORS ARE INVITED TO JOIN THE MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE

OF ALLEGIANCE.

(WHEREUPON, ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY LED VISITORS AND

MEMBERS IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.)

A QUORUM BEING PRESENT, THE CLERK WILL READ THE

JOURNAL OF TUESDAY, APRIL 9TH.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE TO

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

DISPENSE WITH THE FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL OF TUESDAY, APRIL 9TH

AND THAT THE SAME STAND APPROVED.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WITHOUT OBJECTION,

SO ORDERED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: THANK YOU, MR.

SPEAKER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND STAFF AND

GUESTS IN THE CHAMBERS A QUOTE FROM FRANCES PERKINS. YOU MAY

KNOW, MR. SPEAKER, THAT FRANCES PERKINS WAS THE WOMAN WHO SERVED

THE LONGEST TERM AS A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR COMMISSIONER. THIS

INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH ME ON -- A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO BY OUR OWN

COLLEAGUE, MR. ENGLEBRIGHT. AND HER QUOTE IS VERY REALLY GOOD, MR.

SPEAKER. IT SAYS THAT, "A GOVERNMENT SHOULD AIM TO GIVE ALL THE PEOPLE

UNDER ITS JURISDICTION THE BEST POSSIBLE LIFE." AGAIN, THAT'S FROM

FRANCES PERKINS, WHO SERVED THE LONGEST TERM EVER IN THE OFFICE OF --

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, THE MEMBERS DO HAVE ON THEIR

DESKS A MAIN CALENDAR. AFTER ANY INTRODUCTIONS AND/OR HOUSEKEEPING,

WE WILL TAKE UP RESOLUTIONS ON PAGE 3, AND THEN WE WILL WORK OFF BILLS

ON DEBATE FROM THE MAIN CALENDAR.

THAT'S A GENERAL OUTLINE, MR. SPEAKER. IF THERE ARE ANY

INTRODUCTIONS AND/OR HOUSEKEEPING, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE

TIME.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. WE DO

HAVE AN INTRODUCTION BY MR. ASHBY.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MR. ASHBY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I RISE TODAY

FOR THE PURPOSES OF AN INTRODUCTION TO INTRODUCE STUDENTS FROM HOOSIC

VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL IN MY DISTRICT. IT'S A CROSS-SECTION OF STUDENTS,

GRADES 9 THROUGH 12 HERE TODAY LEARNING ABOUT STATE GOVERNMENT, AND

LEARNING ALL ABOUT OUR CAPITOL.

SO, IF YOU COULD PLEASE AFFORD THEM ALL THE CORDIALITIES

OF THE HOUSE, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MR. ASHBY, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE WELCOME YOU

THESE FINE STUDENTS FROM HOOSIC VALLEY TO THE NEW YORK STATE

ASSEMBLY. WE EXTEND TO YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR, HOPE THAT

YOUR TRIP WILL BE BOTH ENTERTAINING AND EDUCATIONAL - IT CAN BE BOTH -

AND THAT YOU HAVE A GOOD DAY AND RETURN HOME SAFELY. THANK YOU SO

VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU FOR VISITING US.

(APPLAUSE)

RESOLUTIONS ON PAGE 3. THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 275, MS.

JAFFEE.

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM APRIL 2019, AS CHILD ABUSE

PREVENTION MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. JAFFEE ON THE

RESOLUTION.

MS. JAFFEE: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THERE IS NO

TEST OF SOCIETY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT OF HOW IT TREATS CHILDREN, ITS

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MOST PRECIOUS RESOURCE. THE CHILDREN OF TODAY ARE THE CITIZENS AND

LEADERS OF TOMORROW. THEIR HEALTH, WELL-BEING AND DEVELOPMENT ARE OF

PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND AS

SUCH, IT IS THE SENSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY THAT EVERY CHILD MERITS

ENCOURAGEMENT, PROTECTION, SUPPORT OF ALL. CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION

MONTH IS A TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILIES AND

COMMUNITIES WORKING TOGETHER TO PREVENT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, TO

PROMOTE SOCIAL, EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES. DURING

THE MONTH OF APRIL AND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, COMMUNITIES ARE

ENCOURAGED TO SHARE CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT PREVENTION AWARENESS

STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES AND PROMOTE PREVENTION ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

WE ARE -- BY CALLING ATTENTION TO THIS SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM OF

CHILD ABUSE, THE OBSERVATION OF CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH

EXEMPLIFIES A WORTHY COMMITMENT TO THE CHILDREN OF NEW YORK STATE,

ENCOURAGES IMPROVEMENT IN THE QUALITY AND AVAILABILITY OF PERTINENT

PROGRAMS, LAWS AND SERVICES AND PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE

AWARENESS ABOUT ALL ASPECTS OF THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE. IT IS IMPERATIVE

THAT THERE BE GREATER AWARENESS OF THIS IMPORTANT MATTER, AND MORE --

AND MORE MUST BE DONE TO INCREASE ACTIVITY OF THE LOCAL AND STATE,

NATIONAL LEVELS, SUPPORTING OUR FAMILIES, ASSURING OUR CHILDREN ARE IN

SAFE AND POSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS. AND THAT'S WHY WE MUST ASSURE THAT

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND, CERTAINLY, THE

WORK THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IS ESSENTIAL.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING

AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS ADOPTED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 276, MS.

MALLIOTAKIS.

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM APRIL 2019, AS PRIMARY IMMUNE

DEFICIENCY DISEASES AWARENESS MONTH IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL

THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS

ADOPTED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 277, MS.

WALSH.

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM APRIL 11, 2019, AS SUBMARINE DAY IN

THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBSERVANCE OF NATIONAL

SUBMARINE DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL

THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS

ADOPTED.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NO. 278, MR.

ORTIZ.

LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING GOVERNOR

ANDREW M. CUOMO TO PROCLAIM MAY 5-11, 2019, AS COMPOST

AWARENESS WEEK IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE RESOLUTION, ALL

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTION IS

ADOPTED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, IF WE CAN

TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE MAIN CALENDAR ON PAGE 12, CALENDAR NO. 152,

MR. QUART'S. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, MR. SPEAKER, WE'LL GO TO PAGE

13 ON CALENDAR NO. 161, WHICH IS ALSO A MR. QUART BILL. AND WE'LL GO

IN THAT ORDER, MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

PAGE 12, CALENDAR NO. 152, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A02904, CALENDAR NO.

152, QUART, WEPRIN. AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE LAW, IN RELATION TO

PROHIBITING CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES FROM REQUIRING PRIOR

AUTHORIZATION FOR CERTAIN MEDICATIONS USED IN THE TREATMENT OF

SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS; AND TO REPEAL CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF SUCH LAW

RELATING THERETO.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS

REQUESTED, MR. QUART.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE ON DEBATE. PLEASE,

QUIET IN THE CHAMBER. CLEAR THE AISLES.

MR. QUART: GOOD MORNING. THIS BILL ADDS A NEW

SECTION OF LAW, PARAGRAPH 31(A) OF SECTION 3126 OF THE INSURANCE LAW

TO ELIMINATE THE NEED OF PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FOR INITIAL OR RENEWAL

PRESCRIPTION OF MEDICATION USED FOR THE TREATMENT OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE

DISORDER, TYPICALLY OPIOID-TYPE MEDICATION.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD

THE SPONSOR YIELD?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. QUART, WILL YOU

YIELD?

MR. QUART: OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. QUART.

MR. QUART: THANK YOU.

MR. GOODELL: BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT THIS BILL JUST

SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND, UNDER CURRENT LAW, AM I CORRECT THAT YOU CAN GET A

SUPPLY OF MEDICATION TO ASSIST YOU IN DETOX -- IN GETTING OFF FROM

DRUGS? YOU CAN GET A FIVE-DAY SUPPLY, EMERGENCY SUPPLY WITHOUT

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION?

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. GOODELL: AND SO WHAT THIS BILL WOULD DO IS

SAY THAT YOU CAN GET A PERMANENT SUPPLY, IF YOU WILL, WITHOUT PRIOR

AUTHORIZATION.

MR. QUART: WELL, I WOULDN'T AGREE TO THE WORD

"PERMANENT," BUT A SUPPLY LONGER THAN THE DURATION YOU SUGGESTED.

AND THERE'S GOOD REASON -- POLICY REASONS FOR ELIMINATING THE PRIOR

AUTHORIZATION, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IF YOU WANTED TO ASK THAT

QUESTION.

MR. GOODELL: SURE. AND OBVIOUSLY, ONE REASON

THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WANT TO HAVE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION IS BECAUSE

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TREATMENT THAT'S PROVIDED IS THE MOST

EFFECTIVE, BOTH FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE AND FROM A HEALTH PERSPECTIVE.

WHY WOULD WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT REVIEW?

MR. QUART: WELL, THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS. BUT

THERE ARE OTHER REASONS AS WELL. I CAN'T -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO FOCUS

ON HOW THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT BY DIFFERENT INSURANCE

CARRIER WORKS AS AN OBSTACLE TOWARDS TREATMENT. IF YOU LOOK -- I'LL GIVE

YOU ONE EXAMPLE: THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNITEDHEALTHCARE, THEIR

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FORM, THREE TO FOUR PAGES, 15 TO 20 QUESTIONS. IT

ACTS AS A HINDRANCE TO PEOPLE WHO NEED THE MEDICATION WITHIN THE FIRST

72 HOURS. AND BY ESTIMATES OF DIFFERENT DOCTORS, DR. SARAH WAKEMAN,

ADDICTION SPECIALIST IN MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL, 72 TO 96 HOURS

BEFORE A PATIENT CAN GET INGESTIBLE BUPRENORPHINIC [SIC] TYPE

MEDICATION BECAUSE OF THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT. SO, I THINK

FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE IT WORKS AS A HINDRANCE TO MANY PEOPLE

ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS GETTING TREATMENT IN THE FIRST 72 TO 96 HOURS, WHICH,

OF COURSE, IS THE CRITICAL TIME PERIOD.

MR. GOODELL: BUT OUR LAW ALREADY ALLOWS

UTILIZATION OF DRUGS WITHIN THE FIRST 72 TO 96 HOURS BECAUSE WE PROVIDE

FOR FIVE DAYS WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. SO, WE'RE ALREADY WELL ABOVE

THAT. WE PROVIDE 120 HOURS, RIGHT?

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT REMOVAL OF THE

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION ELIMINATES THE INTERRUPTION OR THE DISRUPTION WHERE

THAT FIVE-DAY PERIOD WOULD END. SO THEN THE PERIOD COULD GO LONGER. I

DO UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENT POLICY CONCERN AS

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

WELL, IS THAT THE LACK OF DOCTORS THROUGHOUT THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY

THAT ACTUALLY CAN PRESCRIBE BUPRENORPHINIC [SIC], OR MEDICATIONS THAT

COULD BE INJECTED. I THINK THERE WAS A NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE FROM

2018 THAT SUGGESTED ONLY 5 PERCENT OF DOCTORS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY,

ABOUT 43,000 DOCTORS IN TOTAL, COULD ACTUALLY PRESCRIBE THIS MEDICATION.

SO, INTERRUPTING THAT FLOW EXACERBATES A PROBLEM OF A LACK OF -- A LACK

OF DOCTORS WHO COULD ACTUALLY PRESCRIBE THIS MEDICATION.

MR. GOODELL: DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON

WHAT PERCENT OF REQUESTS FOR THIS TREATMENT IS NOT CURRENTLY PROCESSED

WITHIN THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD?

MR. QUART: I DO NOT.

MR. GOODELL: NOW, THE NEW YORK HEALTH PLAN

ASSOCIATION RAISED A CONCERN THAT SOME DRUG TREATMENTS HAVE A

REQUIREMENT THAT THE PERSON BE COMPLETELY DETOXIFIED BEFORE THEY BEGIN

IT. PARTICULARLY, FOR EXAMPLE, VIVITROL. THEY -- THE PATIENT HAS TO

GO THROUGH A COMPLETE DETOXIFICATION AND HAVE NO OPIOIDS IN THEIR

SYSTEM BEFORE THEY CAN GO ON VIVITROL. PART OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL

PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHOEVER IS PRESCRIBING IT IS AWARE OF THOSE

RESTRICTIONS AND DOESN'T CREATE A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION FOR THE

PATIENT. DON'T WE WANT THAT SECOND-LEVEL REVIEW TO PROTECT THE PATIENT

FROM A POTENTIALLY FATAL MISTAKE?

MR. QUART: WELL, ANDY, YOU AND I HAVE SPOKEN

ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO VIVITROL OR ANY

INJECTABLE. WE'LL -- WE'LL TAKE IT IN -- IN THE AGGREGATE SENSE, NOT JUST

VIVITROL. I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS TO THAT POINT: ONE, VIVITROL

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

AND/OR INJECTABLES IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF TREATMENT FOR OPIOID

ADDICTION. BUPROPHONICS [SIC] OR BUPROPHONES [SIC] ARE AT LEAST FOUR TO

SIX MARKET-BASED INGESTIBLES, SO, THE FIVE-DAY REQUIREMENT, IT DOESN'T

LEAVE A PATIENT SUFFERING FROM OPIOID ADDICTION WITHOUT AN AVENUE OF

TREATMENT. THERE ARE MANY INGESTIBLES. AND I THINK THE MEDICAL

REVIEWS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS HAVE -- DR. EDWARD NUNEZ AND DR.

JOSHUA LEE IN A NOVEMBER 2017 ARTICLE SAID, ONCE INITIATED - TALKING

ABOUT OPIOID TREATMENT - BOTH MEDICATIONS - REFERRING TO INGESTIBLES AND

INJECTABLES - WERE EQUALLY SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. SO, THE CONCERNS ABOUT

VIVITROL ARE LEGITIMATE, BUT THEY'RE STILL AN AVENUE FOR INGESTIBLES,

SO THE CONSUMER CAN HAVE THE CHOICE, AND MORE -- MORE SPECIFICALLY,

THE DIFFERENT INSURANCE CARRIERS THAT ARE DEVELOPING THEIR POLICIES, THEY

HAVE THE CHOICE ON WHETHER -- ON TO HAVE A SORT OF BIFURCATED APPROACH,

OR TO AT LEAST ALLOW THE INGESTIBLE. SO IT'S NOT LEAVING THE PATIENTS

WITHOUT ANY REMEDY FOR TREATMENT.

MR. GOODELL: WELL, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES --

HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED A GREAT CONCERN THAT

THE OTHER DRUGS, OTHER THAN VIVITROL, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT,

HAVE THEIR OWN SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS OR RAMIFICATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE,

OBVIOUSLY, BRUPO -- BUPRENORPHINE OR -- OR SOME OF THE OTHER DRUGS ARE

THEMSELVES OPIOID-BASED AND HAVE ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES IN THEIR OWN.

AND SO, A LOT OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT

THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION PROCESS PROVIDES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE

THAT THE LONG-TERM TREATMENT THAT USES OPIOID-BASED DRUGS TO TREAT

OPIOID ADDICTION ITSELF DOESN'T CREATE NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS. HOW WOULD

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

YOU ADDRESS -- I MEAN, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO REDUCE THAT LEVEL OF

OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION TO ENSURE THAT THE USE OF OPIOID-BASED OR

MORPHINE-BASED DRUGS ARE NOT USED INAPPROPRIATELY WHILE WE'RE EVEN

TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ADDICTION?

MR. QUART: WELL, I'M -- I'M NOT -- THE PRIOR

AUTHORIZATION THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, IT'S NOT A PRECLUSION ON THE PATIENT

ACTUALLY GETTING THE MEDICATION. SO, IF THERE ARE SIDE EFFECTS, BOTH WITH

INGESTIBLES OR INJECTIONS, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE BORNE OUT BY THE PATIENT,

EVEN WITH A PRIOR AUTHORIZATION SCHEME. THE REASON TO REMOVE THE

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION SCHEME ARE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO GET

ANY SORT OF TREATMENT BE -- AT LEAST FOR 72 OR 96 FOR THE PRIOR -- BECAUSE

OF THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENT. EXACERBATED BY THE LACK OF

ACTUAL DOCTORS, I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD AFFECT -- EVEN BE WORSE IN

RURAL AREAS OF THE STATE RATHER THAN URBAN AREAS, BUT I -- I THINK THAT IS

THE ESSENCE OF THE PROBLEM WITH PRIOR AUTHORIZATION AND WHY SOME

STATES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY HAVE MOVED TOWARDS REMOVING THAT, I WOULD

REFER TO AS AN OBSTACLE.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU, MR. QUART, FOR YOUR

COMMENTS.

ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. QUART: THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: LAST YEAR -- I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR,

WE AMENDED THE LAW TO PROVIDE FOR A PRESCRIPTION FOR UP TO FIVE DAYS OF

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

VARIOUS DRUGS THAT CAN HELP PEOPLE WHO ARE DEALING WITH ADDICTION.

THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU'RE USING A DRUG-ASSISTED TREATMENT FOR DRUG

ABUSE, THERE ARE OTHER SERIOUS RAMIFICATIONS. MANY OF THOSE OTHER

DRUGS HAVE SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS. MANY OF THEM HAVE AN OPIOID BASE.

SO, IF YOU'RE GOING THROUGH A METHADONE PROGRAM, YEAH, IT ALLOWS YOU

TO FUNCTION; YOU'RE STILL ADDICTED. AND SO, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES

WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE HEALTH OF THEIR -- FOR THEIR PATIENT, AND TO

MAKE SURE THAT THE TREATMENT IS BOTH APPROPRIATE AND COST-EFFECTIVE,

THAT THEY'RE ON THE RIGHT TREATMENT PATH. NOW, SOME OF THEM LIKE

VIVITROL, THE PATIENT HAS TO BE COMPLETELY DETOXED BEFORE THEY CAN

GO ON IT. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY AN -- AN INSURANCE AUTHORIZATION,

PREAUTHORIZATION REVIEW, IS APPROPRIATE. ALL OF US, OF COURSE, ARE

CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF INSURANCE. ALL OF US ARE CONCERNED THAT THE

INSURANCE COVERAGE IS APPROPRIATE. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS

MENTIONED HERE TODAY THAT FIVE DAYS IS TOO SHORT OF A TIME TO GO THROUGH

THE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION. THERE'S -- SO, WE SAY, WELL, WE AUTHORIZED FIVE

DAYS, WE DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OF ANY PRIOR AUTHORIZATIONS THAT ARE

TAKING LONGER THAN THAT. THE INFORMATION SUGGESTS THE PRIOR

AUTHORIZATIONS TAKE THREE OR FOUR DAYS, NOT FIVE. IF WE NEED TO ADJUST

THE WINDOW FROM FIVE TO SIX, SEVEN, TO STILL ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR

PRIOR AUTHORIZATION, THAT MIGHT BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO ADDRESS THE

SITUATION. BUT THE -- THE DANGERS WE HAVE BY ELIMINATING PRIOR

AUTHORIZATIONS ALTOGETHER, WHICH IS WHAT THIS BILL DOES, AND THEREBY

ELIMINATES THAT LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT AND CLINICAL REVIEW, CREATES MORE

DANGERS THAN IT SOLVES.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

AND SO, MY -- I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS. BUT I DO

RECOMMEND THAT WE REVISIT THIS AND MONITOR TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE

FIVE DAYS ARE SUFFICIENT. IF THE FIVE DAYS THAT WE'VE ALREADY AUTHORIZED

IS NOT, A MORE APPROPRIATE APPROACH MIGHT BE TO EXPAND THAT FIVE-DAY

WINDOW RATHER THAN TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE ALL PRIOR AUTHORIZATION AND

ALL THE CLINICAL REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT THAT GOES WITH IT. THANK YOU SO

MUCH, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU.

READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE 60TH

DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

FIRST VOTE OF THE DAY, MEMBERS. IF YOU ARE IN YOUR

SEATS, PLEASE VOTE NOW. IF YOU ARE IN THE SOUND OF OUR VOICES, PLEASE

COME TO THE CHAMBER AND VOTE.

MR. DENDEKKER TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. DENDEKKER: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I

WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT

PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I -- I FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE

INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE PAYING FOR TREATMENT ARE GOING TO DO

CRITICAL REVIEWS BECAUSE THEY CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THE PATIENT'S

WELL-BEING AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE PROPER TREATMENT THAT

THEY NEED. I THINK IT'S JUST A WAY FOR THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO TRY TO

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

CONTROL THE COST OF -- OF THEIR EXPENSES, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE

PATIENT IS -- IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THAT REVIEW. HOLDING UP ANY TYPE

OF TREATMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO OPIOID ADDICTION, IS THE

ABSOLUTE WRONG THING TO DO. WE KEEP ON CONSTANTLY CUTTING BACK

TREATMENT AND PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE ADDICTED TO OPIOIDS AND

OTHER SUBSTANCES. AND I BELIEVE THAT IT IS A -- A GREAT BILL.

I THANK THE SPONSOR, AND I HOPE EVERYBODY WILL VOTE IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. DENDEKKER IN

THE AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. CAHILL TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. CAHILL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE PROHIBITION AGAINST NAMING MEMBERS WHILE WE'RE

EXPLAINING OUR VOTE, I JUST WANT TO EXTEND MY THANKS TO THE SPONSOR OF

THIS BILL, TO THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMITTEE AND

THE PREVIOUS CHAIR OF THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE COMMITTEE FOR THE GOOD

WORK THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING IN THE AREA OF REMOVING BARRIERS TO CARE

AND TREATMENT FOR OPIOID AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE. WE HAVE IN THE STATE OF

NEW YORK SOME OF THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF FATALITIES IN THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA FROM OPIOID ABUSE AND ADDICTION. EVERYTHING WE DO TO

REMOVE A BARRIER TO CARE IS HELPING REDUCE THAT NUMBER, AND MAYBE

ENDING A CRISIS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCING IN OUR BORDERS IN AN

UNPRECEDENTED WAY.

I APPLAUD THE SPONSOR'S GOOD WORK TO BUILD ON WHAT

WE DID IN THE BUDGET, AND I THANK HIM FOR HIS PATIENCE IN WORKING WITH

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

OUR COMMITTEE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW

EXACTLY RIGHT. AND I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. CAHILL IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MS. WALSH TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. WALSH: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I -- I'M

STRUGGLING WITH THIS BILL BECAUSE I -- I DID SUPPORT IT IN PREVIOUS YEARS,

AND I DO ABSOLUTELY SEE THE VALUE OF REMOVING ANY IMPEDIMENTS FOR

PEOPLE TO OBTAIN TREATMENT THAT THEY BADLY NEED. BUT I THINK THAT -- I'M

GOING -- I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL AGAIN THIS YEAR, BUT I'M CONCERNED

THAT BY REMOVING THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD, WE MAY HAVE AN UNINTENDED

CONSEQUENCE OF PEOPLE NOT REALLY GETTING THE TREATMENT THAT THEY NEED,

ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MR. GOODELL SAID. I THINK THAT I WOULD BE IN

FAVOR OF MORE OF ELIMINATING MAYBE THE FIVE-DAY PERIOD BUT HAVING

SOMETHING SHORTER THAN FOREVER TO -- SO THAT PEOPLE ARE SURE THAT THEY'RE

GOING TO GET THE TREATMENT. I THINK THE BIGGER PROBLEM, WHICH ON

DEBATE THIS -- IT CAME OUT ON DEBATE IS THAT THE REAL PROBLEM HERE IS WE

DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DOCTORS, ENOUGH PROVIDERS, ENOUGH PROGRAMS AND

GOOD ENOUGH TREATMENT. AND SO, WE'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING PEOPLE

WITH THE -- THE SUBOXONE OR THE METHADONE OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT

THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING, AND -- AND I -- I THINK THAT THAT WILL

TEMPORARILY, PERHAPS, ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, BUT I THINK WHAT WE REALLY

NEED TO DO IS TO ADDRESS THE BIGGER PROBLEM OF PROVIDING ENOUGH

TREATMENT. AND I ALSO HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS -- THIS -- THIS MEDICATION

DOES HAVE STREET VALUE, AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING MORE OF THAT

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

OUT THERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT GET THIS DRUG DON'T ALWAYS

TAKE IT IN THE WAY THAT IT'S INTENDED AND SOMETIMES PREFER TO CASH IT IN

TO -- TO MAKE SOME MONEY OFF OF IT.

SO, I WILL SUPPORT THE BILL, BUT I -- I -- I DO HAVE

CONCERNS ABOUT IT. I DO THANK THE SPONSOR, THOUGH. THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. WALSH IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. GOTTFRIED.

MR. GOTTFRIED: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. YOU

KNOW, A FEW YEARS AGO WE PASSED LEGISLATION STRENGTHENING THE

REQUIREMENT THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES PAY FOR DRUG TREATMENT, AND AT

THE BILL SIGNING, GOVERNOR CUOMO SAID, THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS NOT

YOUR FRIEND, THEY'RE NOT YOUR UNCLE, THEY'RE NOT YOUR DOCTOR. THEY'RE A

BUSINESS, AND IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING, THEY WON'T. HE

WAS 100 PERCENT RIGHT. AND THIS BILL IS ONE MORE SMALL STEP, IMPORTANT

STEP, IN TRYING TO FORCE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO TREAT NEW YORKERS AS IF

THEY CARED ABOUT OUR HEALTH AND OUR LIVES.

I'M HAPPY TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. GOTTFRIED IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. MCDONALD.

MR. MCDONALD: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. I DO

SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE I DO RECOGNIZE THAT INDIVIDUALS SUFFERING WITH

ADDICTION NEED TO HAVE A COURSE THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW. AND AT THE SAME

TOKEN, LISTENING TO THE DEBATE AND POINTS BROUGHT UP BY MR. GOODELL,

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

THIS REMINDS ME OF THE FACT THAT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION DOES SERVE A USEFUL

PURPOSE. FIVE TO SEVEN DAYS FOR SOMEBODY WHO'S TRYING TO DEAL WITH

ADDICTION IS NOT ENOUGH. AND IT REMINDS ME OF THE FACT THAT TWO OR

THREE YEARS AGO WE PASSED IN THIS HOUSE A BILL TO ENHANCE THE PRIOR

APPROVAL PROCESS SO THAT THESE ISSUES, THE PATIENT'S CONCERNS, PROVIDER'S

CONCERNS, THE INSURANCE PLANS' CONCERNS CAN ALL BE ADDRESSED IN A

TIMELY MANNER. AND SADLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES AND

THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAS NOT BUDGED OR MOVED ON THIS ISSUE, AND

IF ANYTHING, THIS BILL REMINDS ME THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND REVISIT

IT THIS SESSION.

THANK YOU.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. MCDONALD IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

PAGE 13, CALENDAR NO. 161, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A05944, CALENDAR NO.

161, QUART, EPSTEIN, GOTTFRIED. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PENAL LAW, IN

RELATION TO GRAVITY KNIVES.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS

REQUESTED, MR. QUART.

MR. QUART: THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION AMENDS PENAL

LAW 265.01, SUBSECTION 1, TO REMOVE THE WORDS "GRAVITY" AND "KNIFE"

FROM THAT SECTION OF LAW.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. RA.

BUT WE WILL ASK -- WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION

AROUND THE HALL. I DON'T KNOW WHY, FOLKS. WE'VE GOT PEOPLE STANDING

OVER AGAINST THE WALL OVER THERE TALKING. IS THERE A PURPOSE? WOULD

YOU MOVE THEM, TAKE THEM OUT OF THE -- THE ROOM? THEY DON'T NEED TO

BE THERE.

PROCEED, MR. RA.

MR. RA: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE SPONSOR

YIELD?

MR. QUART: OF COURSE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE SPONSOR YIELDS.

MR. RA: THANK YOU. SO, I WANT TO GO THROUGH A

COUPLE OF THINGS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, NUMBER ONE, THIS -- THIS IS A

DIFFERENT BILL THAN THE ONE THAT WAS VETOED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND IT

TAKES KIND OF A DIFFERENT APPROACH, I THINK, TO SOLVING THE SAME

PROBLEM, BUT ALSO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN THE RECENT COURT DECISION --

MR. QUART: FOR SURE.

MR. RA: -- THAT IS IMPACTED BY THIS AS WELL. BUT IF WE

COULD START WITH JUST -- YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS BILL THAT WE DID A COUPLE

OF YEARS AGO THAT THE GOVERNOR ULTIMATELY VETOED WAS TO TIGHTEN THE

DEFINITION. THIS, INSTEAD, JUST TAKES THE TERM OUT OF THE --

MR. QUART: RIGHT.

MR. RA: -- PENAL LAW ENTIRELY. CORRECT?

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT. THAT -- THAT BILL WHICH

YOU REFERRED TO PASSED THIS HOUSE 120 TO 1. I WON'T MENTION THE ONE

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

PERSON WHO DIDN'T VOTE FOR THAT BILL, BUT --

MR. RA: I THINK I KNOW WHO THAT WAS.

MR. QUART: YES. I'M HOPING FOR UNANIMITY THIS

YEAR. BUT THE BILL REMOVES THE TERM "GRAVITY KNIFE" FOR A SIMPLE

REASON: THAT GRAVITY KNIVES HAVE NOT BEEN MANUFACTURED -- ACTUAL

GRAVITY KNIVES HAVE NOT BEEN MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR AT

LEAST THE LAST QUARTER CENTURY, SO THEY ARE NOT IN -- THEY ARE NOT IN PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION. ACTUAL GRAVITY KNIVES, NOT WHAT HAS BEEN PURPOSELY

MISINTERPRETED AS A GRAVITY KNIFE, MOSTLY IN NEW YORK CITY.

MR. RA: OKAY. AND I -- I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE

ACTUAL GRAVITY KNIFE -- JUST FOR -- FOR OUR COLLEAGUES WHO -- WHO MAY

NOT HAVE BEEN HERE WHEN WE'VE DEBATED THIS PREVIOUSLY, THE ORIGINAL

PROVISION, I THINK WHICH DATES BACK TO THE 1950S WAS WITH REGARD TO A

-- I GUESS A SPECIFIC GERMAN PARATROOPER TYPE OF KNIFE THAT -- THAT WE

WERE AIMING TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF.

MR. QUART: THAT -- THAT IS ACCURATE. THE ORIGINAL

LEGISLATION I THINK CAME BACK -- CAME FORTH IN EITHER 1952 OR 1953,

POST-WORLD WAR II, IN RESPONSE TO AT THAT TIME -- DURING WORLD WAR II,

GERMAN PARATROOPERS USE -- USING AN ACTUAL GRAVITY KNIFE SIMILAR TO A

SWITCHBLADE-TYPE DEVICE TO CUT THEMSELVES OUT OF TREES OR SOMETHING

LIKE THAT. SO THE LEGISLATURE, IN THE EARLY 1950S, CRIMINALIZED GRAVITY

KNIVES. WHAT HAS HAPPENED, MOSTLY IN THE LAST 15 TO 20 YEARS, MOSTLY

IN NEW YORK CITY, UNDER THE NY -- UNDER COMMISSIONER RAY KELLY,

FORMER COMMISSIONER, IS THAT REGULAR FOLDING KNIVES, WORK TOOLS, ANY

KNIFE THAT CAN BE BOUGHT AT ANY HARDWARE STORE, MOSTLY IN NEW YORK

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

COUNTY, IN THE COUNTY I RESIDE IN, HAS BEEN PURPOSELY MISINTERPRETED AS

A GRAVITY KNIFE TO PENALIZE WORKING PEOPLE, ANY PERSON WHO SIMPLY HAS

A WORK TOOL OR -- OF SUCH NATURE ON -- ON THEIR BODY. SO, IT HAS BEEN

MISINTERPRETED, MOSTLY RECENTLY, TO CRIMINALIZE CONDUCT WHICH IS NOT

CRIMINAL IN NATURE.

MR. RA: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, MOVING

ALONG. THERE WAS RECENTLY A -- A COURT DECISION WITH REGARD TO THIS

STATUTE AND, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY KIND OF TURNED UPON AN ISSUE THAT WE'VE

DISCUSSED IN THE PAST WITH REGARD TO THIS STATUTE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING

YOU JUST MENTIONED. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE PURCHASING A -- A KNIFE AND --

AND NOT THINKING THAT THEY'RE DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL OR POSSESSING

SOMETHING THAT'S ILLEGAL, AND THEN AT THE TIME MAYBE THEY'RE STOPPED

WITH IT, DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, THE ACTIONS OF A -- OF AN OFFICER, THEY

MIGHT -- THEY MIGHT BE INTERPRETED TO BE VIOLATING THE LAW BECAUSE OF

WHETHER OR NOT... I THINK THEY CALL IT THE "WRIST FLICK TEST," AS TO WHETHER

OR NOT THE -- THE KNIFE WOULD -- WOULD OPEN, AS OPPOSED TO JUST -- I -- I

THINK THE ORIGINAL IDEA WAS GRAVITY, MEANING JUST -- IT WOULD JUST OPEN,

AS OPPOSED TO THIS WRIST FLICK TEST, WHICH WAS EVALUATED IN THIS COURT

DECISION. SO, AS A RESULT OF THAT -- THAT DECISION THAT SAID OUR CURRENT

STATUTE WAS -- WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, I'M -- I'M JUST CURIOUS.

THIS APPROACH AS OPPOSED TO MAYBE TIGHTENING THE DEFINITION, WHICH --

I MEAN, WE KNOW THE PREVIOUS ATTEMPT TO TIGHTEN THE DEFINITION DID NOT

-- YOU KNOW, WAS -- WAS VETOED. BUT ARE -- ARE THERE KNIVES THAT ARE

MAYBE INTENDED TO BE ILLEGAL THAT -- THAT WOULD BE KIND OF CAUGHT UP IN

GETTING RID OF THIS ENTIRELY FROM THE LAW?

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MR. QUART: NOT AT ALL. UNDER THE NEW YORK CITY

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, KNIVES ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER FOUR INCHES. WHAT

IS HAPPENING UNDER THE EXISTING GRAVITY KNIFE STATUTE IS THAT KNIVES OF

ONE INCH, TWO INCH OR 3.9 INCHES THAT A POLICE OFFICER CAN OPEN BY A

FLICK OF THE WRIST TEST, HOW MANY TIMES THE OFFICER CAN TRY AND FLICK THAT

KNIFE OPEN WAS NOT -- IS NOT CODIFIED IN LAW. BUT AN OFFICER WHO COULD

TAKE A TWO- OR THREE-INCH WORK TOOL, FLICK IT OPEN BECAUSE A BOLT ON THE

KNIFE IS LOOSE, THAT COULD THEN BECOME, UNDER A MIS -- MISINTERPRETATION

OF THE STATUTE, AN ILLEGAL -- AN ILLEGAL KNIFE, A GRAVITY KNIFE. SO, THAT IS

WHAT JUDGE CROTTY, IN HIS DECISION TWO WEEKS AGO LOOKED AT. HE

LOOKED AT THE AMBIGUITY OF THE STATUTE, THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON

LOOKING AT THIS LAW AND HOW IT'S APPLIED COULD ACTUALLY KNOW WHETHER

HE OR SHE WAS CARRYING A KNIFE THAT WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. AND THAT'S THE

DRAGNET WE FIND OURSELVES IN. OF COURSE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT

WHO IS GETTING PENALIZED HERE. OVER -- DIS -- MOSTLY IN NEW YORK

COUNTY, BUT OUT THROUGHOUT THE NEW YORK CITY AREA. THIS IS NOT

APPLIED MOST -- AS BEST I COULD TELL, IN UPSTATE NEW YORK OR NASSAU,

SUFFOLK, WESTCHESTER, ROCKLAND COUNTY. ONLY IN NEW YORK CITY,

MOSTLY IN NEW YORK COUNTY. SO, TO ADD TO THE DISCRIMINATORY NATURE

AND WHO'S GETTING ARRESTED - AND IT'S MOSTLY PEOPLE OF COLOR - IT'S ALSO

DISCRIMINATORY BY GEOGRAPHY. SO, I THINK ALL THOSE FACTORS ARE WHAT

JUDGE CROTTY LOOKED AT TWO WEEKS AGO, RULING -- RULING THE STATUTE

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS APPLIED TO THAT ONE INSTANCE.

MR. RA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. QUART.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR. RA.

MR. RA: SO -- SO, THIS PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, ISSUE AS

-- AS WE -- WE JUST MENTIONED ON DEBATE HAS COME UP A NUMBER OF

TIMES IN DIFFERENT INSTANCES, AND -- AND REALLY, THE -- THE ISSUE HERE, AND

MY PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT -- THAT THERE

HAS BEEN CONCERNS EXPRESSED TO -- TO THIS BODY, AND MYSELF PERSONALLY,

FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT ABOUT CERTAIN TYPES OF KNIVES THAT -- I MEAN, THE

WHOLE PURPOSE OF ORIGINALLY OUTLINING THIS -- OUTLAWING THIS, I THINK,

WAS THESE ARE -- WERE KNIVES YOU COULD OPEN VERY QUICKLY, AND IT COULD

SUBJECT SOMEBODY TO -- TO DANGER VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE OF HOW QUICKLY

THIS CAN BE DEPLOYED AND USED FOR -- FOR, YOU KNOW, TO -- TO ATTACK

SOMEBODY, WHETHER IT WAS A POLICE OFFICER OR SOMEBODY ELSE. BUT ALSO,

OVER TIME, WE'VE SEEN PROSECUTIONS THAT, IN MANY INSTANCES, WERE --

WERE DONE, YOU KNOW, WITH SOMEBODY WHO REALLY WASN'T INTENDING TO

DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, WAS, YOU KNOW POSSESSING THE KNIFE FOR -- FOR

PURPOSES OF, YOU KNOW, THEIR -- THEIR JOB, WHETHER IT WAS CONSTRUCTION

-- I BELIEVE THE INDIVIDUAL ACTUALLY IN THE -- IN THE CASE THAT DECLARED

THIS STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE WAS -- WAS A CHEF. SO -- SO I -- I

THINK THIS IS THE THING THAT WE HAVE TO BALANCE WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS IS,

YOU KNOW, THE -- THE OVERALL PUBLIC SAFETY AIM OF THE ORIGINAL STATUTE

AND -- AND THE WAY IT HAS BEEN APPLIED, UNFORTUNATELY, TO PEOPLE WHO

AREN'T, YOU KNOW, HAVE -- HAVE NO MALICIOUS INTENT IN POSSESSING THIS

DEVICE, HAVE PURCHASED IT, YOU KNOW, AT A LOCAL HARDWARE STORE WITH THE

INTENT OF USING IT FOR WORK, NOT -- NOT WITH THE INTENT OF -- OF UTILIZING IT

IN ANY TYPE OF CRIME OR -- OR TO -- TO ATTACK ANYBODY. AND CERTAINLY, THE

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

RECENT COURT DECISION DOES HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON -- ON HOW WE

APPROACH THIS, BECAUSE THEY DID BASICALLY SAY OUR -- OUR STATUTE WAS

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND DID NOT PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE TO THE

PUBLIC AS TO WHETHER THEIR CONDUCT WAS -- WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. BUT --

BUT AGAIN, I -- I THINK IT'S THE BALANCING OF THOSE TWO ISSUES THAT -- THAT

REALLY IS WHAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BILL LIKE

THIS. AND CERTAINLY, I THINK GOING INTO THE FUTURE WE HAVE TO, YOU

KNOW, MAKE SURE IF -- IF WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH -- WITH PEOPLE

POSSESSING CERTAIN TYPES OF KNIVES FOR, YOU KNOW, CRIMINAL PURPOSES,

THAT DO, PERHAPS, SUBJECT -- SUBJECT OUR OFFICERS TO DANGER, THAT -- THAT

MAYBE WE GO BACK AND -- AND FIND A PROPER, VERY CONCISE AND CLEAR

TERM TO -- TO BALANCE THE PUBLIC SAFETY WITH -- WITH PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO --

TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEIR CONDUCT IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL.

THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, MR. RA.

MR. REILLY.

MR. REILLY: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, SIR.

MR. REILLY: I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IDEA OF

THE GRAVITY KNIFE AND WHAT I HEARD DURING THE DEBATE ABOUT HOW THE

SIMPLE FLICK OF A WRIST -- I WILL TELL YOU THAT DURING MY TIME IN THE -- IN

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A POLICE OFFICER AND AS A SUPERVISOR, I WANT TO

COMMEND THE SPONSOR FOR THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE IT CLARIFIES WHAT WE

ACTUALLY HAVE TRANSITIONING FROM THIS CHAMBER, FROM THE CAPITOL TO THE

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

STREETS OF NEW YORK, FOR OFFICERS THAT ARE ENFORCING THE LAWS. THERE

ARE MANY TIMES WHEN I WAS SITTING ON THE DESK AS A SUPERVISOR, AND A

POLICE OFFICER WOULD COME IN WITH AN ARREST AND THEY WOULD SAY A

GRAVITY KNIFE. JUST ABOUT THE DEBATE THAT WE HAD HERE TODAY, AS I

LISTENED, I LIVED THAT FIRSTHAND AND I LOOKED AT IT AND I SAID, WOW, WE

HAD PEOPLE THAT WERE ARRESTED FOR SMOKING MARIHUANA IN PUBLIC, AND

THEY WERE ON THEIR BREAK DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THEY HAD A KNIFE ON

THEM THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY A SWITCHBLADE, AND I HAD TO SAY AND TELL

OFFICERS THAT, NO, THAT CHARGE ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THEN WE

WOULDN'T -- AND THEN WE WOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ARREST FOR THE

GRAVITY KNIFE.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, I -- I JUST WANT TO APPLAUD THE SPONSOR

AND SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT DURING THE

DEBATES THAT WE'VE HAD ON THIS FLOOR, THE TRANSITION FROM HERE TO THE

STREETS. SO, THANK YOU AND I WILL BE VOTING AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. LENTOL.

MR. LENTOL: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. WOULD THE

SPONSOR YIELD? THE GENTLEMAN YIELD TO A QUESTION?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. QUART, WILL YOU

YIELD?

MR. QUART: HAPPY TO YIELD.

MR. LENTOL: YES, MR. QUART --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. QUART IS HAPPY TO

YIELD.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MR. LENTOL: SO, I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU WHETHER

OR NOT SOMEBODY WAS IN POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE WHICH THE POLICE

OFFICER SAID WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. AND THAT I'M ASSUMING WHAT

YOU'RE DRIVING AT IS A PER SE VIOLATION OF THE LAW, THAT IS THAT MERE

POSSESSION OF THAT WEAPON WOULD CONSTITUTE A CRIME. IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT. I'M GLAD YOU POINTED IT

OUT, ASSEMBLYMEMBER.

MR. LENTOL: SO -- SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. SO,

IF SOMEBODY IS IN POSSESSION OF A KNIFE IN HIS POCKET AND HE TAKES IT

OUT AT THE OFFICER'S REQUEST AND IT TURNS OUT TO BE WHAT HE BELIEVES TO BE

A GRAVITY KNIFE AND HE HASN'T USED THAT WEAPON UNLAWFULLY AGAINST

ANOTHER PERSON, THAT WOULD NOT BE A CRIME UNDER THE LAW, RIGHT? UNDER

THIS BILL --

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. LENTOL: -- UNDER THIS BILL THAT YOU'VE

SUGGESTED? HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, IF THE PERSON DID TAKE THAT

KNIFE OUT AND USED IT UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON, THAT WOULD BE

A CRIME, WOULD IT NOT?

MR. QUART: IT WOULD.

MR. LENTOL: SO, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE WOULD BE

PROTECTED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD POSSESSION OF A GRAVITY KNIFE

SO LONG AS HE NEVER TOOK IT OUT OF HIS POCKET, AND IF HE DID AND USED IT

UNLAWFULLY AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON, HE WOULD STILL BE GUILTY OF EITHER A

MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY. IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. QUART: THAT'S CORRECT.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MR. LENTOL: THANK YOU, MR. QUART.

MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

LENTOL.

MR. LENTOL: I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE

MISUNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON WHEN WE TRY TO DECRIMINALIZE

SOMETHING LIKE A KNIFE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT DOESN'T POSSESS

THOSE QUALITIES THAT MAKE IT A PER SE WEAPON. WHICH MEANS TO SAY, THAT

ON ITS FACE THAT WEAPON SHOULD BE DECLARED ILLEGAL. LIKE A GUN, FOR

EXAMPLE. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF WEAPONS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA, THAT GREY

AREA, THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT JUST MERE

POSSESSION OF THEM SHOULD BE DECLARED CRIMINAL AND ILLEGAL. AND THIS

IS ONE OF THOSE WEAPONS THAT HAS FALLEN INTO THAT CATEGORY, AS MR. REILLY

SUGGESTED, SHOULD NOT BE DECLARED ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE, BUT OF COURSE, IF

USED ILLEGALLY AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

SO, I APPLAUD THE SPONSOR FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL AND

CLARIFYING THE LAW, AND I ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MR. QUART TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. QUART: MR. SPEAKER, TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN MY

VOTE. TWO WEEKS AGO, JUDGE CROTTY, IN FEDERAL COURT, SET FORTH UNDER A

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

CERTAIN SET OF FACTS THAT THE GRAVITY KNIFE STATUTE IN NEW YORK WAS

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, AMBIGUOUS AND REJECTED THE STATUTE. AND

WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS THE THIRD TIME OVER THE LAST HALF DECADE TO PASS

THIS LEGISLATION. THE LEGISLATION REMOVING THE WORDS "GRAVITY" AND

"KNIFE" FROM THE PENAL LAW IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH JUDGE CROTTY'S

ANALYSIS THAT THE LAW IS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. MORE TO THE POINT,

WHEN THE SENATE TAKES UP THIS BILL AND LIKELY PASSES IT, WE WILL BE

SENDING THIS BILL DIRECTLY TO THE GOVERNOR. AND IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE --

OF COURSE IT'S MY EXPECTATION THAT CONSISTENT WITH JUDGE CROTTY'S RULING,

WITH A FEDERAL COURT RULING THAT THE NEW YORK STATUTE IS AMBIGUOUS,

AND THAT ALL THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON PEOPLE OF COLOR THROUGHOUT

NEW YORK CITY, ESPECIALLY IN NEW YORK COUNTY, THAT THE GOVERNOR

WILL DO THE ONLY REASONABLE THING AND FINALLY SIGN THIS LEGISLATION.

I REMOVE MY REQUEST TO SPEAK AND I VOTE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. QUART IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. TAYLOR.

MR. TAYLOR: GOOD MORNING, MR. SPEAKER. I WANT

TO THANK THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION. AS HE'S POINTED OUT, IN

MANHATTAN, IN PARTICULAR IN THE NORTHERN END OF HARLEM/WASHINGTON

HEIGHTS, THERE IS AN EPIDEMIC OF YOUNG FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN CAUGHT

WITH THIS, AND ON OCCASION WHEN WE TRY TO INTERVENE OR HAVE A

CONVERSATION, SOMEONE IN POSSESSION OF THIS, NO OTHER TYPE OF HISTORY,

GOOD PERSON, GOING TO SCHOOL, ALL OF THOSE WONDERFUL THINGS, THERE IS

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ALMOST A YEAR JUST TO GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS BECAUSE THE

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WON'T LET IT GO.

SO, I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION

AND I'LL BE VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. TAYLOR IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

MR. LAVINE TO EXPLAIN HIS VOTE.

MR. LAVINE: SO, IT SUDDENLY OCCURS TO ME THAT A

QUESTION NOW IS BEFORE US. WE APPARENTLY HAVE HAD OVER THE YEARS

MANY PEOPLE ARRESTED AND CHARGED AND CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF WHAT

MAY OR MAY NOT BE, JUDGING BY WHAT WE DO TODAY, AN -- AN ILLEGAL,

QUOTE, UNQUOTE, "GRAVITY KNIFE." SO, PERHAPS AT SOME POINT IN THE

FUTURE - AND I WANT TO COMMEND THE SPONSOR OF THIS BILL - WE OUGHT TO

CONSIDER TAKING SOME STEPS TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF THOSE WHO HAVE

BEEN CONVICTED UNDER THIS STATUTE IN THE PAST. AND I HAVE A RECOLLECTION

OF BEING A YOUNG PUBLIC DEFENDER AND REPRESENTING SOMEONE WHO WAS

CHARGED WITH MANY -- QUITE A FEW MISDEMEANORS, INCLUDING POSSESSION

OF A WEAPON UNDER THE PENAL LAW, AND THAT WEAPON WAS A TINY LITTLE

REPLICA OF A PISTOL -- OF A REVOLVER THAT WAS ON A KEY CHAIN. NOW, I

DON'T REMEMBER WHATEVER HAPPENED, BUT I DO REMEMBER A VERY

VIGOROUS DEBATE WITH A JUDGE AS TO WHETHER THAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTED A

WEAPON. SO, THIS IS THE WORLD AND THE REALITY THAT WE FACE, AND

HOPEFULLY, SOME DAY BEFORE TOO LONG, WE CAN BEGIN TO REPAIR THE LIVES

OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SO DAMAGED BY CONVICTIONS FOR THIS CHARGE,

WHICH WAS NEVER, EVER INTENDED TO BE A CRIME.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. LAVINE IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

MR. GOODELL.

MR. GOODELL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.

SPEAKER. IT IS MY PLEASURE ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLYMEMBERS KEVIN

BYRNE AND DIDI BARRETT TO INTRODUCE EDWARD AND CONNIE HUSSEY.

EDWARD HUSSEY IS THE TREASURER OF ANDERSON FAMILY PARTNERS, WHICH

IS AFFILIATED WITH THE ANDERSON CENTER FOR AUTISM. AND BOTH MR. AND

MRS. HUSSEY ARE UP HERE SHARING THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THEIR EXPERIENCE AND

THEIR BACKGROUND WITH ALL OF US HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE AND OTHERS UP IN

CAPITOL BUILDING.

AND IF YOU WOULD EXTEND THE CORDIALITIES OF OUR

CHAMBER ON BEHALF OF BOTH ASSEMBLYMEMBERS BYRNE AND BARRETT, I

WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: CERTAINLY. ON BEHALF

OF MR. BYRNE AND MRS. BARRETT, THE SPEAKER AND ALL THE MEMBERS, WE

WELCOME YOU HERE TO THE NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY. WE EXTEND TO

YOU THE PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR, AND THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'RE

DOING TO HELP FAMILIES DEAL WITH THIS GROWING ISSUE. YOUR KNOWLEDGE,

YOUR EXPERIENCE IS INVALUABLE IN HELPING OTHER PEOPLE, AND THAT IS THE

BEST THAT WE CAN EVER HOPE FOR IN LIFE. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. YOU

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

ARE ALWAYS WELCOME HERE.

(APPLAUSE)

PAGE 10, CALENDAR NO. 126, THE CLERK WILL READ.

THE CLERK: ASSEMBLY NO. A00714, CALENDAR NO.

126, PAULIN, DINOWITZ, GALEF, OTIS, SEAWRIGHT, COLTON, D'URSO, ORTIZ,

BARRON, RODRIGUEZ, DE LA ROSA. AN ACT TO AMEND THE PUBLIC SERVICE

LAW, IN RELATION TO FILLING GAS SAFETY REPORTS.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: AN EXPLANATION IS

REQUESTED, MS. PAULIN.

MS. PAULIN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER. THE BILL

WOULD REQUIRE GAS CORPORATIONS TO PRODUCE AN ANNUAL GAS SAFETY REPORT

FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC

SAFETY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MR. PALMESANO.

MR. PALMESANO: YES, MR. SPEAKER. WILL THE

SPONSOR YIELD FOR SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE?

MS. PAULIN: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO.

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU --

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. PAULIN YIELDS,

MR. PALMESANO.

MR. PALMESANO: THANK YOU, AMY. I HAVE A -- A

FEW QUESTIONS ON THE LEGISLATION, IF I COULD GO THROUGH SOME OF THEM

WITH YOU. FIRST, RIGHT NOW, DOESN'T THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

CURRENTLY HAVE THE ABILITY RIGHT NOW TO ENACT THESE REQUESTS, THE

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CURRENT ORDER AND RULEMAKING

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

PROCESS? RIGHT NOW, DO THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW

UNDER THE CURRENT RULEMAKING PROCESS?

MS. PAULIN: THEY DO. AND THEY DO REQUIRE GAS

LEAK INSPECTIONS TO BE REPORTED TO THEM. BUT THEY DON'T REQUIRE THE

DETAIL THAT WE'RE OUTLINING IN THE LAW. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF

YOU WERE AT THE HEARING FOLLOWING THE HORRIBLE TRAGEDY IN -- IN

MANHATTAN WHEN THERE WAS THAT GAS EXPLOSION, BUT IF YOU WERE THERE,

YOU WOULD'VE HEARD THE -- THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T KNOW

REALLY WHAT THE -- THE INSPECTIONS WERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,

WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE GAS INSPECTIONS IN TERMS OF DETERMINING WHAT

THE LEAKS WERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FOLLOW-THROUGH WAS ON THE

PART OF THE GAS COMPANIES. AND, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS IF THEY HAD KNOWN

THAT AND THEY HAD SEEN THE -- THE LEVEL OF RISK IN THAT COMMUNITY, THAT

TRAGEDY MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVERTED. SO, THIS BILL WAS CREATED FOLLOWING

THAT TRAGEDY. AND, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT DETAIL,

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT THINKS IT'S VALUABLE, WE THINK IT'S

VALUABLE AFTER THE HEARING THAT THIS BODY CONDUCTED.

MR. PALMESANO: AND I -- I UNDERSTAND WHY --

WHAT THE INTENTION BEHIND THE LEGISLATION, I DO, JUST RELATIVE -- REGARDING

THE GAS UTILITIES, RIGHT NOW, THOUGH, THEY ARE STILL REQUIRED TO SUBMIT

INFORMATION ON VARIOUS SAFETY METRICS WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION SAYS -- CONSIDERS IT KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, CORRECT?

AND IF THE UTILITY FAILS TO MEET THOSE PERFORMANCE LEVELS AS ESTABLISHED

IN EACH (INAUDIBLE) PROCEEDINGS, THE UTILITY MUST SUBMIT AN ACTION PLAN

TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S UNDER CURRENT LAW THAT THEY HAVE TO

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

DO IT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. GRANTED, UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU

SAID IN YOUR COMMENTS.

MS. PAULIN: SO, SOME OF THE DETAIL, FOR EXAMPLE,

THAT WAS EXPOSED AT THAT HEARING HAD TO DO WITH EMPLOYEES VERSUS

CONTRACTORS, AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF THAT DETAIL WOULD BE EXPOSED IF

THIS -- IF THIS WAS ENACTED INTO LAW. AND WE LEARNED AGAIN AT THAT

HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS -- PERHAPS THE SUPERVISION MIGHT BE

LACKING IF IT IS A CONTRACTOR, SO -- SO JUST TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE, YOU

KNOW, WHAT THE REPAIR WORLD LOOKS LIKE, SO TO SPEAK. THIS -- AGAIN, THIS

-- WE BELIEVE THIS DETAIL WOULD BE IMPORTANT.

MR. PALMESANO: SURE. AND SO AS YOU SAID, RIGHT

NOW EACH GAS CORPORATION TRANSMITTING NATURAL GAS IS REQUIRED TO

CONDUCT AN ANNUAL LEAK INSPECTION, AT LEAST ANNUALLY, AND MORE

FREQUENTLY IF ORDERED SO BY THE PSC RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT LAW,

RIGHT?

MS. PAULIN: THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A LEAK

INSPECTION. THEY AREN'T REQUIRED TO TELL US WHAT THEY DO AFTERWARDS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DOES.

MR. PALMESANO: BECAUSE ALSO WITH THE LEAK

INSPECTION THEY'RE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A REPORT -- THE PSC IS REQUIRED TO

SUBMIT A REPORT AFTER EVERY SUCH INSPECTION. NO MATTER HOW MANY

REPORTS THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ASKS THEM TO DO, THEY HAVE TO

ISSUE A REPORT AFTER EACH INSPECTION, WHICH THE PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION RIGHT NOW HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE AND DETERMINE,

CORRECT? UNDER CURRENT LAW.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

MS. PAULIN: THEY -- THEY HAVE -- AGAIN, THEY HAVE

THE AUTHORITY AND THEY -- THEY ACTUALLY REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, THE GAS LEAK

INSPECTIONS TO BE REPORTED TO THEM. BUT IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO SAY,

OKAY, THIS IS THE GAS LEAK INSPECTION, AND THEN, THIS IS WHAT WE DID

ABOUT IT. AND THAT -- AND THAT INFORMATION IS LACKING, AND WE'RE -- WE'RE

SAYING TO THE DEPARTMENT, WE THINK YOU NEED TO HAVE THIS. SO -- AND --

AND WE DO, FOLLOWING SOME OF THE TRAGEDIES THAT WE'VE SEEN.

MR. PALMESANO: AND UNDER THE CURRENT

REGULATIONS OF LAW, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WE'VE ALREADY

ESTABLISHED, DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW TO IMPLEMENT THESE

REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IN THIS LEGISLATION. AND IN ADDITION,

THEY HAVE SUPERVISION ALL OVER THE GAS CORPORATIONS, ALL THEIR DUTIES, ALL

THEIR POWERS AS FAR AS TO INVESTIGATE THEIR PLANS AND METHODS USED BY

THE CORPORATIONS IN MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION. THEY HAVE THAT

AUTHORITY RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT LAW, CORRECT?

MS. PAULIN: THEY -- THEY HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, AND

AS MUCH AS I LIKE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AND I DO, THEY'RE NOT

PERFECT. NOBODY IS. CERTAINLY NOT ALL THE AUTHORITIES ARE PERFECT, AND SO

THEREFORE, AS THE OVERSIGHT BODY, WE ARE -- WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THEM

AND WE MAKE DETERMINATIONS ABOUT WHEN WE THINK THEY NEED TO DO

MORE OR LESS, AND HERE'S A CASE WHERE I THINK WE BELIEVE THEY NEED TO

DO MORE.

MR PALMESANO: OKAY. AND ALSO, GAS PIPELINE

SAFETY IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER THE MINIMUM

PIPELINE SAFETY STANDARDS UNDER THE U.S. CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS,

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

CORRECT?

MS. PAULIN: YES.

MR. PALMESANO: AND THOSE REGULATIONS MUST BE

AT LEAST AS STRINGENT -- OUR REGULATIONS IN THE STATE ALSO MUST BE AT LEAST

AS STRINGENT AS THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS OR ELSE THE STATE REGULATIONS WILL

BE HELD TO BE PREEMPTED, RIGHT?

MS. PAULIN: YES, I BELIEVE YOU'RE RIGHT --

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

MS. PAULIN: I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE, BUT IT

SOUNDS GOOD.

MR. PALMESANO: OKAY.

(LAUGHTER)

AND ALSO, THE OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR

INTERSTATE GAS AND HAZARDOUS LIQUID PIPELINES IN NEW YORK ALSO ARE

BASED ON INSPECTIONS PERFORMED BY THE PSC, SO THIS ALL KIND OF TIES IN

TOGETHER, CORRECT?

MS. PAULIN: MM-HMM.

MR. PALMESANO: SO, THANK YOU, AMY, FOR YOUR

TIME. I APPRECIATE IT.

MS. PAULIN: THANK -- THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MR. PALMESANO: MR. SPEAKER, ON THE BILL.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: ON THE BILL, MR.

PALMESANO.

MR. PALMESANO: YES, MR. SPEAKER. I CERTAINLY

UNDERSTAND AND APPLAUD THE INTENTIONS BEHIND THE LEGISLATION, AND I

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

UNDERSTAND WITH THE TRAGEDY THAT HAPPENED IN HARLEM WITH THE GAS

EXPLOSION, CERTAINLY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE STRONG, STRICT SAFETY

REGULATIONS IN PLACE. BUT I THINK WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THE PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION ALREADY HAS THE ABILITY RIGHT NOW UNDER CURRENT

LAW TO ENACT THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE OR WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THIS

LEGISLATION. THERE'S ALREADY -- ALREADY SUFFICIENT OVERSIGHT THROUGH THE

RATE-MAKING PROCESS, THROUGH CURRENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, REGULAR

SCHEDULED MEETINGS AND ANNUAL SAFETY AUDITS PERFORMED BY GAS SAFETY

STAFF AND GAS COMPANIES TO PARTICIPATE IN RIGOROUS MANAGEMENT AUDITS

AND -- AND STAFFING IS PERFORMED TO KIND OF INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THESE

REQUIREMENTS. YOU KNOW, THIS SEEMS SOMEWHAT DUPLICATIVE AND

REPETITIVE. I THINK THERE'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

MORE REPORTING AND REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A

CONCERN. WE ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT THE GAS PIPELINE SAFETY IS CONTINUALLY

REVIEWED AND EXTENSIVELY REGULATED, BOTH AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE

LEVEL. MR. SPEAKER AND MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK THIS LEGISLATION IS REALLY

UNNECESSARY. IT'S DUPLICATIVE, THERE'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. WHEN YOU PUT MORE REGULATIONS, MORE

REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S A COST THAT HAS TO BE BORNE BY THAT. THAT'S GOING

TO BE ULTIMATELY BORNE BY THE RATEPAYERS OF THIS STATE. WE ALREADY HAVE

SOME OF THE HIGHEST UTILITY COSTS IN THE COUNTRY. AND WHEN WE DO THAT,

WHEN WE PUT MORE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT

ALREADY CAN BE ADJUST -- ADDRESSED IN THE CURRENT LAW, SOMETHING THE

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION CAN ALREADY DO UNDER CURRENT LAW. I THINK

WHEN WE LOOK AT PUTTING MORE REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

GOING TO DRIVE UP UTILITY COSTS AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE SOME OF THE

HIGHEST UTILITY COSTS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, THAT CAN BE BAD FOR OUR

MANUFACTURERS, IT CAN BE BAD FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, IT'S GOING TO BE BAD

FOR OUR FARMERS, OUR -- IT CAN BE BAD FOR OUR SENIORS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE

BAD FOR OUR RATEPAYERS.

SO, BASED ON THAT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS A

DUPLICATE -- DUPLICATIVE AND THE AUTHORITY IS ALREADY IN THE LAW THROUGH

THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION TO ENACT THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE

BEING PUT FORTH IN THIS LAW, I THINK FOR THOSE -- THOSE REASONS AND THE

FACT THAT THIS WILL CERTAINLY LEAD TO HIGHER UTILITY COSTS FOR RATEPAYERS,

MANUFACTURERS AND OTHERS, I'LL BE VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE AND I'LL BE

URGING MY COLLEAGUES TO DO THE SAME. THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: READ THE LAST SECTION.

THE CLERK: THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE CLERK WILL

RECORD THE VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

MS. GLICK TO EXPLAIN HER VOTE.

MS. GLICK: I'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO BE VOTING IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE. REGULATIONS ARE FREQUENTLY IGNORED BY CORPORATIONS. WE

NEED A STATUTE. I INVITE PEOPLE TO COME TO 2ND AVENUE AND 7TH STREET IN

MY DISTRICT WHERE THERE USED TO BE THREE BUILDINGS. NOT ONLY DID A GAS

EXPLOSION TAKE OUT ONE BUILDING, BUT THE SUBSEQUENT FIRE TOOK OUT TWO

OTHERS. AND SO, THERE WERE NOT JUST THE TWO PEOPLE KILLED IN THE GAS

EXPLOSION, BUT THE SCORES OF PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR HOMES FOREVER AND

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

WERE LEFT WITHOUT A PLACE TO LIVE. AND SO, I THINK WHAT WE CAN DO TO

ENSURE THAT GAS CORPORATIONS MAKE A CLEAR EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE

INSPECTING THEIR FACILITIES APPROPRIATELY, IT MAKES -- IT MAKES A LOT OF

SENSE.

I WITHDRAW MY REQUEST AND VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MS. GLICK IN THE

AFFIRMATIVE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER VOTES? ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS PASSED.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, DO WE

HAVE ANY FURTHER HOUSEKEEPING OR RESOLUTIONS?

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: WE HAVE BOTH

HOUSEKEEPING AND RESOLUTIONS.

ON BEHALF OF MR. ENGLEBRIGHT, BILL NO. A02501,

ASSEMBLY BILL RECALLED FROM THE SENATE. THE CLERK WILL READ THE TITLE

OF THE BILL.

THE CLERK: AN ACT TO AMEND THE ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSERVATION LAW.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: MOTION TO RECONSIDER

THE VOTE BY WHICH THE BILL PASSED THE HOUSE. THE CLERK WILL RECORD THE

VOTE.

(THE CLERK RECORDED THE VOTE.)

THE CLERK WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESULTS.

NYS ASSEMBLY APRIL 10, 2019

(THE CLERK ANNOUNCED THE RESULTS.)

THE BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE AND THE AMENDMENTS ARE

RECEIVED AND ADOPTED.

NUMEROUS FINE RESOLUTIONS WHICH WE WILL TAKE UP

WITH ONE VOTE. ON THE RESOLUTIONS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING

AYE; OPPOSED, NO. THE RESOLUTIONS ARE ADOPTED.

(WHEREUPON, ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION NOS. 279-292

WERE UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED.)

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES.

MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: MR. SPEAKER, I MOVE

THAT WE STAND ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, APRIL 11TH, TOMORROW BEING A

LEGISLATIVE DAY, AND THAT WE RECONVENE AT 2:00 P.M. ON APRIL 29TH, THAT

MONDAY BEING A SESSION DAY.

ACTING SPEAKER AUBRY: THE ASSEMBLY STANDS

ADJOURNED.

(WHEREUPON, AT 11:34 A.M., THE ASSEMBLY STOOD

ADJOURNED UNTIL THURSDAY, APRIL 11TH, THURSDAY BEING A LEGISLATIVE

DAY, AND TO RECONVENE ON MONDAY, APRIL 29TH AT 2:00 P.M., THAT BEING

A SESSION DAY.)