♪♪ >> From NJPBS Studios, this is "NJ Spotlight News" with Brianna Vannozzi.

>> Hello, and thanks for joining us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis.

Brianna Vannozzi is off.

Coming up, new e-bike regulations are about to take effect as two more teens have died in recent crashes, but one advocate says the new rules have unintended consequences.

Plus, Democratic Congressman Donald Norcross joins us to talk about a labor bill he pushed through on the House floor that addresses union contracts.

But first, I talked with Republican State Senator John Bramnick about his proposal to require more transparency from lawmakers and all the latest from Trenton.

That's next.

Major funding for NJ Spotlight News is provided in part by NJM Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

New Jersey lawmakers are in the final stretch of negotiations over Governor Mikey Sherrill's 60.7 billion dollar proposed state budget, with major questions over affordability, taxes, spending, and the state's long-term fiscal health.

For Republicans, it's also a moment to take stock ahead of a crucial election cycle and decide where their party's headed.

One of the GOP's most outspoken voices in Trenton is state senator John Bramnick, who is also pushing a new bill that would require every state lawmaker to hold mandatory town hall meetings and face their constituents.

Senator Bramnick joins me now as part of our Under the Dome series.

Senator, great to have you on the show.

Of course, we're right, we're nearing the end of budget season and we're going to get into all of that.

But I want to start by asking you about some legislation that you've put forward that would require legislators in the Assembly and the Senate to hold town hall meetings.

Why?

What does this require and why?

You can go to your town council meeting and ask questions.

You can go to your county commissioners You can go to your board of education and ask questions.

How are you going to get a hold of your legislator and ask questions of your legislator?

Well, I guess you can call the office.

Good luck with that, depending on who you call.

You can't go down to Trenton unless there's a committee meeting and there's a specific bill that you have a question about.

Why shouldn't you answer questions?

This comes at a time when Congressman Tom Kaine Jr.

has been missing from Washington for more than three months.

Let me just first ask you, there are rumors that maybe you intend to take his seat, to run for his seat.

Do you intend to run?

Well, first of all, he's running.

And second of all, as you know, if I was in Congress, I would vote my conscience.

Everyone knows that I don't do simply what Trump wants the Republicans to do.

So I don't think I'm the prime candidate if Tom decided not to run.

I don't think there's a lot of Republicans who would want to send somebody who would vote their conscience.

Yeah, let's talk about that because you've never shied away from being critical of the president.

What do you believe is the state of the GOP right now, here in New Jersey and then more broadly, nationally?

Well, as a trial lawyer, I'm going to use some evidence.

Jack Ciannarelli got clobbered by 14 points after we had eight years of a Democrat, highly unusual.

Joe Hathaway, great guy, was destroyed and beat by a left-wing Democrat.

I lost my two running mates, Nancy Munoz, Michelle Massacutas.

The evidence speaks for itself.

So those Republicans who criticize me, well, look at the evidence.

And the evidence is, if we don't start becoming the traditional Republican Party, there won't be any of us left.

And some of the MAGA people think, oh, you got to move to the right.

You do?

Doesn't look like that's working in New Jersey.

That may work in Florida.

It might work out in the West, in the Midwest.

It doesn't work here.

Every Republican governor who won actually was the moderate in the primary.

So, I mean, what do we, why are we fooling ourselves?

Just be traditional Republicans.

They want us to be fiscally conservative and have a heart.

And if we don't start showing our heart, we're going to get slaughtered.

Yeah.

What does a traditional Republican stand for right now in your mind and here in New Jersey?

Traditional Republican, fiscally conservative, big tent.

Remember what Governor Kaine said?

Politics of inclusion, not exclusion.

We're strong on crime, but that doesn't mean we have to be anti-immigrant.

There are plenty of people in this country that need a path to citizenship.

So why don't we try a path to citizenship with rigorous requirements?

You can't even mention that today.

You just have to be cold-hearted.

This is a destructive path for the Republican Party, and it's already been shown in elections.

And now look at independent polling for unaffiliated voters.

Sometimes it's 70-30 against Trump.

How do you think that works in New Jersey?

Not too well.

Let's talk about what's happening here in New Jersey.

Governor Sherrill proposed a record $60.7 billion budget.

It does fully fund the pension system.

It puts aside $12.4 billion for school funding, according to the funding formula, which has been tweaked and adjusted as it's gone over the years.

$4.2 billion proposed that number could change for property tax relief.

Before we see this final version of the budget, I just want to ask what you like, what you don't like about what the governor proposed.

Well, you have to give her some credit because she's standing up to Democrats with respect to pork spending.

And to be honest with you, her problem is going to be more with the Democrats and the Republicans because they've been able to get some special grants, special funding, we call them pork projects or Christmas treat items.

She's saying no.

So let's see what happens over there.

What I don't like is I don't like the underfunding of schools.

The formula doesn't work.

It has to be based on the factors are so complicated now no one can figure it out.

But you don't underfund schools simply because they're in a suburban district or because they're in a Republican district.

That's my main criticism.

But otherwise she looks like tougher on the Democrats than she is on the Republicans.

Yeah, it's yet to be seen how they negotiate the final deal.

You know, anyone who thought that maybe this would be done early or less in the shadows than in years past, it's unclear what types of conversations are happening.

We as journalists, the public, doesn't see that there's been any progress there.

I do want to ask, do you think that there has been more transparency since this administration came in?

It's something the governor has promised.

Well, I think it's a little early to tell.

There hasn't been the real difficult decisions yet.

So we're going to have to see over the next few months with respect to budget negotiations, things that might go in a budget late at night.

So the jury's out on how transparent it is.

But as I said, the real fight is going to be between Democrats who expect certain extra funding and they don't get it.

So I wouldn't be shocked if there was a shutdown, to be honest with you.

I think they're testing each other out.

Think about it.

You've got people who've been down in Trenton for a long time, and then somebody comes from Washington.

So they're going to be testing each other out over the next couple weeks.

I don't know how that ends, but I think that Mikey Charles is trying to make some changes and I'm not sure those Democrats like it.

Yeah, we're going to be watching.

I want to ask you, you called out, you condemned actually comments that were made in Washington at the president's event over the weekend.

He had this UFC event, folks calling for violence against Michelle Obama, and you called that out.

Some criticized you saying that Democrats, you know, cheered and applauded when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

My bigger question to you is, how do we change the tone and the tenor of political discourse in our country right now?

Well, first, let me say, because I went on what used to be Twitter, and now it's X, and I said these comments about Michelle Obama are disgusting.

And people go, well, why don't you call out Democrats?

I said, because I'm trying to win elections here.

And when you have from the White House lawn this kind of disgusting and revolting comment by somebody who's standing at the White House, it's incumbent on Republicans to say, that's not our party.

Let's start with that.

Senator John Bramnick, thank you as always for being candid and sharing your perspective with us.

Thanks, Joanne.

I appreciate it.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed a bill called the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which is designed to speed up the process of finalizing labor contracts between new unions and their employers.

Democratic Congressman Donald Norcross, who represents the 1st Congressional District, was instrumental in the passage of this bill, and he joins me now to discuss.

Congressman, thanks for taking some time to talk to us today.

I want to talk to you about this bill that you pushed through on the House floor that has significant impact in terms of how labor contracts are negotiated.

Can you explain specifically what your bill requires from employers during the collective bargaining process?

First of all, thank you for having me on and having a discussion on something that's not talked about a whole lot in Washington, and that is, you know, the idea of working men and women having a voice at the table.

So very simply, if we look back at labor history, most people believe that winning a union election is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You now have a voice.

But actually, it's only the beginning.

So I introduced a bill called the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which talks about putting a deadline on the ability to get your first contract.

So very simply, this means that once you've been certified as a bargaining agent, within 10 days of that, you have to start bargaining.

Because obviously the idea here is to have a contract at the end that helps both the workers and the employer move on with their relationship.

Congressman, so often we've heard that employers enter into these negotiations but they tend to stall and it can take a year up to several years for that first contract to be negotiated.

Is that common practice in the industry?

Well you bring up the exact reason why we're having this discussion today is that there is no end to when negotiations have to be finished by.

On average 458 days from the time bargaining begins to a first contract and that's only the average.

Up in New York, Staten Island, Amazon workers almost four and a half years ago won an election.

They're still negotiating.

The next list goes on to Starbucks.

They're almost three years past it.

So the idea is simply set a deadline for you to come to a first contract.

Very clearly, ten days after you win the election, you start negotiating.

If within 90 days you don't get to a first contract, then you can call in a mediator.

Something that I will relate to is a marriage counselor bringing both sides together to try to work it out.

And then if both sides agree that they want to keep bargaining they can, but if they don't, ultimately this would go to what they call binding arbitration, where an independent panel would take in all the issues that are in front of them and set a first contract.

I want to ask you, this came after President Trump signed an executive order that excludes certain employees from several departments from collective bargaining practices.

I'm going to list some of them, departments of state, defense, treasury, veterans affairs, there are more.

But I'm curious your thoughts there and if you think the president was right to sign that executive order.

So fundamentally what Donald Trump has done is changed the way that relationships are going on between the employer and the employee.

Almost 1 million federal employees had their collective bargaining rights stripped from them.

There was a fair vote, they chose to join a union and he just literally because of an executive order stripped those rights from them.

I had Secretary Trent, excuse me, Secretary of Defense Hegseth at my committee and I point right to him and ask the question were there any items or issues that he can point to across this entire globe of issues that he said no.

No issues whatsoever in the Department of Defense with collective bargaining agreements.

Yet you see what the president did.

He stripped the rights away from him.

So we have one huge bill we do each year called the NDAA.

And I was able to get a vote on restoring those rights for all those workers.

It was bipartisan.

We had three members of the Republican caucus vote with us.

And that has come out of the House of Representatives side with it included.

And we'll be going to conference shortly.

I do want to ask you, I want to pick back up on the Faster Labor Contracts Act because you pushed this through.

The House Speaker didn't bring this to the floor.

You took a move, an unusual step to force the vote here.

How did you do it?

Something called a discharge petition.

Obviously the Democrats are in the minority.

The GOP, the Republicans control the entire agenda going on.

There's a little known procedure called discharge petition, that if we can get 218 members of Congress to sign it, then it bypasses the committee where there hasn't been a hearing because they don't want it and goes right to the floor for a vote.

Well, every Democrat member signed it and we had seven Republicans come and join us because they're hearing the same thing we are.

Workers need a voice at the table.

When our country just got its first trillionaire, it's time to think about the people who created that wealth, the ones who go to work each and every day.

So the discharge of the position passed... I want to jump in here Congressman, we only have a little time left.

This has to move through the Senate.

You did work across the aisle with Senator Josh Hawley on this, and we do know that Senator Cory Booker is a sponsor as well.

Do you think this will get the votes it needs to get to the President's desk?

And by the way, with a veto-proof majority?

It's a great question.

Nobody thought we would ever do it in the House, and we did it.

The idea that the Senate has been a little busy lately with obviously the items that are before them, but they now have three Republicans signed on to it and a half dozen Democrats.

We have a call in to Senator Booker to try to talk to him about the strategy along with Josh Hawley because again it's going to take bipartisan.

Remember the Teamsters have been very active in this issue and certainly there is a relationship with many on both sides of the aisle.

So hopefully with our advocacy people calling from each of their states that are senators that will have a fair shot at leveling the playing field because at the end of the day, running at the clock is not the way to do this.

And we should note that the Teamsters have made it clear they have members who are from all political parties, independents, republicans, and democrats.

Of course, they are pushing for this to move.

Congressman Donald Norcross, thanks for coming on and sharing this with us today.

Thank you.

It's summertime in the Garden State, kids are getting out of school, and you may be noticing more e-bikes in your area.

They've become a popular way for people to get around, but they've also contributed to many fatal accidents in the state over just the last year.

In fact, just this week, a teen died in an e-bike crash in South Hampton Township.

Earlier in June, a 15-year-old from Middletown died after suffering severe injuries in an e-bike accident, and a 13-year-old from Scotch Plains died from an e-bike crash last year.

In January, former Governor Phil Murphy signed a law that creates regulations around e-bike usage.

Many are applauding the measures, but some advocates are pushing back.

I recently spoke with Debra Kagan, Executive Director of the New Jersey Bike and Walk Coalition, to share her opinion.

Debra, thanks so much for being with us today.

Now, the legislature passed a bill that former Governor Murphy signed into law on January 19th of this year.

The law requires that all e-bikes be registered, that they be licensed and insured, but it also removes the tiered system for e-bikes.

Can you just first help us understand, I know you have some objections to some of this, can you help us understand what class one bikes are?

Sure, thank you for having me on Joanna.

We formerly had three classes of e-bikes.

Class one, which were e-bikes that are pedal assisted without a throttle that can't go over 20 miles an hour.

Class two, which had a throttle and also cannot go over 20 miles an hour.

And then a class three, which would be pedal assisted with a motor that could go up to 28 miles per hour.

And the new law has changed those classifications to low speed electric bikes, which are closer to what was class one and motorized bicycles, which includes those with a throttle that go up to 20 miles an hour and over 20 miles an hour.

Do you believe that that was the right move for residents of New Jersey?

No, we think that what happened with this legislation is that it conflated the low-speed e-bikes with the higher-speed e-motorcycles, or what we call e-motos.

And the low-speed e-bikes are not really the ones that are responsible for some of the safety issues that people have been identifying.

The fatal crashes that you mentioned before are really e-motos.

They were identified as e-motos and not e-bikes.

So there's been a lot of confusion about what an actual e-bike is.

This legislation targeted low-speed e-bikes, and what we'd like to see is that the restrictions for licensing and registration and insurance be removed from the low-speed, but that we have stronger regulations for the high-speed e-bikes.

Why do you believe that those regulations need to be removed?

There are so many people, I think this is an unforeseen consequence of this law, there's so many people who use low-speed e-bikes for basic transportation, people who have disabilities, who cannot get driver's licenses, people who deliver our food and use it for their livelihoods, seniors who now need it for basic transportation, families that are taking their kids now and want to use their cars less and take their families to school and around town on low-speed e-bikes.

Those e-bikes now, it's a burden, an economic burden now for a lot of people to have to meet these restrictions.

And so when we talk about licensing, I do want to be clear about what the state requires.

These motorized bikes are banned for kids age 15 and under.

If you are age 15 to 16, you need a motorized bike license, and those 17 and up need a valid driver's license.

One might argue, though, Debra, that if you cannot pass a driver's license test, then maybe it's also not safe to be riding a motorized bike.

You disagree with that?

There's definitely a need for education about safe cycling, and we think it's a good idea for young people to have that education.

Having a restricted license that requires you to have a driver's license is difficult for a number of reasons for many people.

I get emails all the time from people who have disabilities that they can't get a driver's license.

So, they are relying on being able to use a low-speed e-bike.

Do you believe that the state should handle... Let me ask it this way.

What do you believe should be the state's response?

Because you say you do think that we need to address this and these safety concerns.

What what is the answer for these folks in your mind?

I think there needs to be a clear distinction between what is a low-speed e-bike and what is an e-motorcycle.

Many parents are buying devices.

They don't really know that these devices sometimes can go 30, 40, 50 miles an hour.

And of course, that is dangerous for any young person to be on.

So I think there needs to be a clear distinction.

I think that when we are taking data for crashes across the state, we need to identify what are the devices so that we have good data on what is actually causing the problems with with crash and fatalities.

we need to be regulating how e-motorcycles are advertised, that they can't be advertised as e-bicyclists, that they must be clearly advertised for what they are and how fast they can go.

and all of this would be really helpful I think for law enforcement to understand the difference and where the danger really lies.

another element of this law was a ban of the modification kits that could turn a low-speed bike into a motorized bike and also there was a ban for one year of sales online.

do you think that those two moves were appropriate?

yes I'd like to see yes those were appropriate and we should be seeing more of that of that kind of regulation and less of the of the restrictions on the low speed e-bikes.

Certainly modification kits that people think they can buy actually make those devices illegal under the classification system.

So and it's it's been flooded market by with the ability to buy online.

We think it's much better if you buy locally.

You work with a local e-bike retail store to get what is the best bike for you or for your children and to make sure that you understand what that bike is capable of and how you can ride it safely.

Just a little bit of time left, but I have to ask you, and I know you're not part of law enforcement, but a lot of this does raise the question, how do you enforce it?

I see some of these kids zip by on the street and then they're off on a sidewalk and they can cut through neighborhoods.

It does raise the question, if an officer were to see something that looks concerning, how do you enforce it?

How do you find it and catch it?

You don't want to be in a high-speed chase, right?

A lot of concern there about how you enforce.

Yeah, I think this is clearly, there's a speeding issue here.

If we allow devices that can only go up to 20 miles an hour as the ones that don't need all these restrictions, then it becomes clear.

If someone is speeding over 20 miles an hour on one of these devices, then it's not a low speed e-bike.

That's not that difficult for enforcement to see.

I think that there's a lot of devices that we call e-motos that are not street legal.

Dirt bikes, pocket bikes, they shouldn't be on our roads.

So if we can educate our law enforcement to see the differences in what these devices are, I think it will be very helpful for them.

All right.

Deborah Kagan, Executive Director of the New Jersey Bike and Walk Coalition.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

- That's gonna do it for us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gaggis for the entire team here at NJ Spotlight News.

Thanks for being with us.

We'll see you right back here tomorrow.

(upbeat music) - New Jersey Education Association, making public schools great for every child, and RWJBarnabas Health.

Learn more at RWJBH.org.

[Music]