Asm. Brian Manktelow

Expressed disappointment that the budget does not adequately address corrections officer retention and support, warning that bringing in young officers without retaining experienced staff would be 'a train wreck waiting to happen.'

Expressed disappointment that budget does not adequately address corrections officer retention and support; warned that recruiting young officers without retaining experienced ones would be 'a train wreck waiting to happen.'

Stated support in principle for paying state debts but voted no to signal that debt reduction is not happening fast enough. Argued that families and businesses reduce debt rather than accumulate it, and that faster debt paydown would free resources for schools, housing, and other priorities.

Manktelow stated he opposes the bill not because he doesn't want to pay state debts, but because the state is not reducing debt fast enough. He argued that in seven years, the legislature has never held the line on the budget or seriously discussed cutting spending to save taxpayers money.

Questioned why the bill excludes other weapons like crossbows if suicide prevention is the goal, and argued that if the bill is truly about saving lives, it should address all methods. Noted that New York suicide numbers have declined through other measures like secure storage.

Researched the Code Council and found it meets only quarterly, creating delays for projects needing approval. Called the Code Council's responsiveness into question after attempting to reach them by phone.

Questioned the practical mechanics of the system, particularly whether individuals could circumvent detection by splitting purchases across multiple credit cards to avoid triggering the $10,000 suspicious activity threshold.

Highlighted that the bill's $10,000 threshold is easily circumvented by using multiple credit cards or purchasing across state lines, and questioned whether the MCC code requirement would actually achieve its stated public safety objectives.

Questioned the mechanics of the system, asking whether individuals could circumvent detection thresholds by using multiple credit cards and whether the $10,000 threshold would be tracked per card or across cards.

Argued the bill unfairly excludes family farms that don't fit the criteria, violating principles of equality and fair opportunity for all New Yorkers to participate in procurement.

The bill prevents family farms that don't fit the criteria from participating. A husband-and-wife farm that has provided quality food their whole life cannot compete. The bill contradicts the principle of equality and fair opportunity for all New Yorkers.

As a farmer with pesticide licenses, explained that EPA pesticide labels already specify where pesticides can and cannot be applied based on water sources and environmental impacts. Expressed concern about consistency when town boards change membership and questioned whether sponsor consulted with farmers or agricultural communities, particularly in Western New York's predominantly agricultural regions.

As a farmer with pesticide licenses, emphasized EPA and DEC labels already specify where pesticides can and cannot be applied based on water sources. Expressed concern about consistency when town boards change, lack of consultation with farming communities, and that bill gives power to local officials without expertise or continuity. Noted sponsor had not consulted farmers or western New York agricultural communities.

The bill lacks a proactive education and notification plan for bus companies, particularly out-of-state operators. Families and children from Pennsylvania or other states could be ticketed without prior knowledge of New York's requirement, and the bill contains no funding for outreach.

Expressed concern about unfunded mandates on town and village clerks, particularly regarding State forms (like fishing licenses) administered by municipalities, and questioned how local officials would implement the requirement.

Questioned eligibility criteria including whether out-of-state purchases qualify, dealer eligibility, and municipal/non-profit participation. Noted apparent contradictions between sponsor's statements limiting eligibility to individuals and bill text language including commercial users and public entities.

Questioned lack of clarity on eligibility criteria and complained that the bill discriminates against car dealerships and commercial businesses while allowing municipalities and individuals to participate. Argued for a level playing field for all market participants.

Voted against the bill due to prison closures affecting corrections officers and rural communities, comparing the situation to farm management where employees must be prioritized.

Voted against the bill due to prison closures, arguing the state should repurpose facilities and support corrections officers and their families rather than close prisons.

Questioned the lack of transparency regarding budget negotiations, arguing that all 150 Assembly members should be involved rather than one or two people. Expressed frustration that constituents are receiving layoff notices while leadership provides only vague updates about ongoing negotiations.

Questioned whether the Norwegian study is sufficiently robust, cited skepticism from environmental groups including Audubon New York and the American Bird Conservancy, and asked why New York should not conduct its own pilot study given different bird migration patterns.

Argued for consistency in holding power producers accountable for bird deaths the same way farmers were held accountable under the neonicotinoid restrictions, questioning whether the end justifies the means given supply chain concerns in Congo.

The bill puts New York dealers at a competitive disadvantage compared to dealers in Pennsylvania and other neighboring states. If safety is the goal, this should be a federal law, not a state-only requirement that harms local businesses.

Raised practical concerns about waiver process implementation, noted the required IPM training course does not yet exist, and questioned how enforcement will work. Expressed worry that tight farm margins cannot absorb crop failures during the transition period.

Questioned how commissioners will determine seed availability and financial hardship thresholds, noting October decision date precedes actual market knowledge. Explained farmer seed-ordering process and timing challenges. Used analogy of seed germination to explain importance of seed treatments for uniform crop emergence and yield protection.

Raised practical concerns about farmers needing to contact DEC or soil and water conservation offices to perform routine stream maintenance, and questioned whether agricultural producers should have a carve-out from the permitting requirements given their time-sensitive needs.

As a 30-year farmer, argued neonics are much safer than older chemicals like Furadan which created dust hazards and environmental contamination. Neonics are applied as wet slurries with no dust, are safer for handlers, and provide essential protection against wireworms and seedcorn maggots, particularly for early sweet corn planting.

Questioned the basis for the 17-19 percent estimates, expressed concern that the bill places disproportionate burden on rural Upstate communities lacking the political power to resist, and sought clarity on whether water bodies and farmland currently counted toward the percentage would be specified before passage.