New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house to order?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: The house will come to order.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinsky]: Colleagues. Good

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of silence. Visitors are invited to join members in the pledge of allegiance. Appreciate that extra enthusiasm this morning, mister Angelino. Thank you. Acorn being present, the clerk will read the journal of Wednesday, January 28. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Madam speaker, I move to dispense with the further reading of the journal of Wednesday, January 28 and that the same stand approved.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Without objections, I will read.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Thank you. Colleagues, Erin Chambers with us as well as guests, I wanna, provide a quote for today. This one is coming from Maya Angelou. This is not the first time and we will not be the last that we'll hear words from Doctor. Maya Angelou. Her words for us today, you may not control all the events that happened to you, but you can decide not to be reduced by them. Again, these words by Maya Angelou. Madam speaker, colleagues have on their desk a main calendar. And after you have done any housekeeping or introductions, we're gonna begin our floor work today by taking up calendar resolutions on page three. Then we're gonna take up the following bills on debate. Rules report 13 by mister Hevesy, rules report 45 by mister Bronson, and rules report 61 by miss Warner. These announcements are all we have right now. There may be a need for further floor activity. If there is, madam speaker, we'll be pleased to make you aware of that. For sure, the majority conference will definitely have a conference as soon as we finish our work on the floor today. And as always, we'll consult with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to determine what their needs may be. As a general outline, madam speaker, where we're going today, let us begin with housekeeping and or introductions. Thank

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: you, Thank you. Well, we have neither this morning. So, we're going right into our resolutions. Page three, calendar resolutions. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number eight ninety eight, Ms. Rosenthal, legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim January 26 through the 2026 as date of privacy week in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Oh, wait a minute. Have Ms. Rosenthal would like to speak on the resolution. Ms. Rosenthal, on the resolution.

[Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise to speak on this resolution proclaiming January 26 through January 30 as Data Privacy Week in the State of New York. Data Privacy Week is a global initiative that aims to raise awareness of the ever increasing use of our personal data and educate consumers on when and how their personal data is collected and learn the steps they can take to protect themselves. With every website we visit, every mobile app we download or purchase that we make, information is being collected about us, our habits and our interests. All of this info has allowed companies to build digital profiles of each one of us using that data to recommend new products or services, figure out what real it will show us next and ultimately how our data can make their business more profitable. Even something as simple as going to the grocery store may now mean your biometric info like facial scan, fingerprints, voice print and other identifiers are being collected and used for whatever purpose business deems necessary. Data Privacy Week aims to raise awareness of risks and encourages individuals to carefully review data they share and be proactive in determining what info they are comfortable providing when signing up for new websites, apps and services. By declaring this week Data Privacy Week in the State of New York, we can further this dialogue and underscore the growing urgency of protecting our personal data. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. The resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number eight ninety nine, miss Warner. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim January 2026 as stalking awareness month in the state of New York.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. Page five, rules report 13. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number ninety four eighty one, rules report 13, mister Hevesy, an act to amend the social services law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On a motion by Mr. Hevesy, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Hevesy.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Thank you, Ms. Walsh and my colleagues. It's good to see you. This bill is a chapter amendment to chapter six sixty eight of the laws of 2025. There are three amendments. I can go through them if you'd like. Okay. First, the first amendment is we remove confidentiality provisions related to the caller's information that duplicate existing statutes, so we pulled that out. Second is we had referenced if a supervisor if a supervisor decides that the person is not to take the call, they're going be referencing them to social services supports. We had specifically written in what line, the HEAR's line. We took that out and changed it for just general preventative and supportive services. And then the final piece, which I think is most relevant to our discussion, is we made an exception to the rule that if somebody calls and leaves their name anonymously, I'm sorry, refuses to leave their name with the state central registry, they still will not be able to leave a report unless the person receiving the call reasonably believes that the child is 18.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Ms. Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you Madam Speaker, will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I really appreciate the explanation. It is a mean compared to some of the chapter amendments that we're looking at, it's pretty tight in terms of like the three things that you talked about. And you're right, was interested to see that and glad to see that if the hotline suspects that the individual calling in is under the age of 18, that individual's hotline will be accepted even if it's made anonymously. Correct?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah, at an abundance of caution, we didn't want to close off after discussions with the Senate and the Governor, we didn't want to close off the opportunity for a child to self report abuse. So we're going to make that exception if the SCR technician believes reasonably believes it's a kid.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: And so it could be a self report of abuse or neglect. It could be also any other kind of report of abuse or neglect having to do with a sibling, a family member, a classmate, any kind of individual that you're reporting about doesn't have to even be under the age of 18.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: You're absolutely right.

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Yes, they can report on anybody. You are correct.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. All right. Very good. And the other two amendments made in the chapter seem to be more Technical. Technical maybe?

[Assemblymember Andrew Hevesi]: Yeah, one is just that you know we were very specific about some of the supports, so we decided not to do that. And the first piece is just we wrote extra confidentiality provisions that were duplicative of the existing statutes, we pulled them out. Simple as that.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, thank you very much.

[Assemblymember David DiPietro]: Thank you.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Those are the questions that I've got. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the bill,

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I am glad to see that that that the chapter amendment says that if you have a caller who's suspected to be under the age of 18, that that caller's hotline of abuse or neglect and those concerns can be anonymous. I think that's great. I do not believe in any way though that that addresses the really major concerns that I expressed last year during debate and that I have with this bill. This bill will essentially, if you're over the age if they believe that you're over the age of 18, will eliminate anonymous reporting. And I think that that is fundamentally what we want for when you're hotlining abuse or neglect cases. I think that it's going to have a chilling effect on people who may want to hotline. I have spoken with my local Department of Social Services, my local CPS workers. As you know, I used to be an assistant county attorney handling CPS cases and foster care cases for a few years. So this is something that I've lived with. This has been part of my career. And I feel very, very strongly that this bill is going to do a lot of harm. Problems that remain. Let's talk about that again as a refresher. If you are a neighbor and you live next door or near a family and you have real concerns about abuse or neglect of the children in that household, but you do not want to provide your name and phone number and contact information because you fear retribution. You've got live next door to these people. There will be if you don't give your contact information, you call in, there will be no obligation on the part of the State Central Registry to refer your worries, your hotline, your concern about abuse and neglect for further investigation to the local Department of Social Services. None. Same for a grandparent. Let's say that you're a grandparent and you have real concerns about the condition that your grandchildren are in, but you don't want to get alienated from being able to remain part of that child's life. And this is something that I have seen in cases that I've handled. You don't want to get alienated from those grandchildren because you feel like on balance it's more important that you remain a part of that child's or children's life. So you will not be able to anonymously hotline your concerns. You will have to provide your information or those concerns will not be investigated by local DSS or social services. Let's say that you are a member of the PTA at school. Let's say that you are another parent at school and you're making observations. You're not a teacher. You're not a mandated reporter because you're not a teacher. You're not a doctor. You're not part of that class of people that are mandated reporters. You're just an individual making observations within the school setting. Again, are going to have to if you want to actually get your hotline concerns accepted and referred for investigation. You will have to give your name and number. I think that this bill will chill those types of reports and those reports are tremendously important. Last week there was something that I read that I thought really crystallized what my concern is and I'd like to share it with all of you. It was published on 01/22/2026 and it was an opinion piece and it was actually in the New York Post. It says, Lizette So to Domenich's emaciated 14 year old sons, whom she wanted to stay babies forever, would probably be dead were it not for several anonymous calls to the Administration for Children's Services. An investigator responding to those calls in October found that one of the boys weighed fifty four pounds, the other forty one. They were 14 years old. Both were well below the normal height for their age. The anonymous calls came into the state central registry before December, which is of course before the effective date of this bill that we're discussing today. That hotline that came in from a neighbor, among others, from a neighbor would not have under this bill been referred for investigation. And the hotline basically, in my opinion, saved the lives of these poor boys. One of them is also autistic, but had never been evaluated or provided with any kind of services. And you'd say to yourself, well, what about mandated reporters? What about doctors? She didn't take the kids to the doctors. She was feeding them cereal and she was feeding them out of a bottle at age 14 because she was so mentally ill that she wanted to keep her children babies forever. She did not send them to school. She faked a home schooling plan for the boys. So there was no mandated reporters from school. I mean these kids would if these reports were not allowed to come in anonymously, I don't think that these kids would still be alive. It is a perfect example of what my fear is if this goes forward, even with the chapter, and like I said, a portion of the chapter I think was a move in the right direction. But the overall problem with this bill is that it's going to I guess what upsets me about it is that it places the interests of adults over the safety of kids. You know, in prior debate, the sponsor talked about concerns about misuse of the state central registry and hotlining. And that does occur. I readily admitted that last year. We do get false reports to the state central registry. We do have warring couples who are making fake calls. We do have this misused even by perpetrators of domestic violence. We do. And I think that we can work on that as a body to try to create legislation that will give more authority to family court judges and court personnel who spot it, who see it to do something about it when it's being misused. But to essentially with just that one carve out, eliminate anonymous reporting is just, my friends, it's just the wrong way to go. It's going to endanger kids. And I would also argue it's not even going to have the desired effect that the sponsor was originally looking for of trying to curb those malicious, malevolent misuse of the system, those types of hotline calls. Because here's what happens, and it happens every day. You've got, let's say you've got an angry ex who wants to get the other parent into trouble. All they have to do if they don't want to have to if they can't make an anonymous call anymore, you know what they're going to do? They're going to go and leak information or make a complaint to a mandated reporter. Somebody within the school, somebody within the doctor's office, and they're going to make the complaint through them. And then that mandated reporter then, in order to relieve themselves of their liability, they're going to have to discharge their liability by making that hotline call. So there's a work around this that people who want to do harm will do. They already do it and they'll just do it more. You're just going to be directing people more in that direction. So in conclusion, while I think that the chapter did do one thing, think that was great. As I said before, I think the overall problem with this bill remains. I've said it before, I'll say it again. I don't care if I'm the only no vote in this chamber. I don't think I will be, but I will not support this. I think that this was a big mistake. I urged the governor to veto this bill and she would not. So I will continue to be in the negative and I really implore my colleagues to consider what this bill does and the safety of our kids. So I will be in the negative. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So the minority conference will generally be in the negative again on this chapter amendment. But if there are is anybody that wishes to vote in the affirmative, they can do so now at their desks. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Miss People Stokes.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation as it has been amended with the chapter. And those who wanna be an exception, they should feel free to do so at their seats.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Glick, to explain her vote.

[Assemblymember Deborah J. Glick]: I just want to commend the sponsor for this measure. I think society has changed and people have become more empowered by anonymity and say all manner of absurd and hurtful things. And I think it has bled into this system and caused damage to families and to children. So I withdraw my request and vote in the affirmative.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Ms. Gulick in the affirmative. Miss People Stokes to explain her vote.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Thank you, madam speaker. I I too would like to come in and sponsor this legislation because I think it was a very difficult decision to get to a place where you notice you need to change some procedures that had been in place for the protection of everyone because people were abusing it and using it. Unfortunately, we do live in a society where folks are taught from the top all the way down that you can be disrespectful, you can tell lies, you can accuse people of things, you can create conspiracies, it's okay. Well, I think it's very right for this sponsor to come up with some legislation to try to curtail that. Hopefully, we will get better as a people and as a society soon, but right now, I wanna commend him for having the courage to say this has to stop and by putting in this legislation. So it's my pleasure to be voting for it.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Miss Peoples' notes in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Ayes, 97. Noes, 30.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: The bill is passed. Page six, rules report 45. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number ninety four sixty four, rules report 45, mister Bronson, an act to amend the labor law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Bronson.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: This is a chapter amendment to a bill we passed last year with a three way negotiated terms to adjust the language. The bill would apply prevailing wage requirements for traditional public works projects that will include not only on-site custom fabrication but also off-site custom fabrication.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Ms. Walsh?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes I will Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Thank you very much. And I'll confess that this when you look at a chapter amendment and you see just a sea of red and green and you try to parse it out, you know, I walked away with some questions. And so I'd like to kind of walk through a little bit of the chapter because I'm also finding that I'm getting a number of messages from businesses in my community, in my district. And maybe some folks here do get those too. And I think having a little bit of an exchange now, I know it's a chapter amendment, but having an exchange now might kind of clarify and address some of the concerns that I've been receiving.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, so one of the things I noticed is that there are certain carve outs that have been introduced to the chapter amendment in terms of so for example, if it's out of state off-site fabrication, is that no longer subject to prevailing wage? Because that's the way I read it.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: That's not correct. Out of state would still be covered. If you look at the phrase that was removed from the original legislation, it's out of state where the custom fabrication constitutes a significant portion of the building or work. That phrase has been adjusted with our new definition of custom fabrication. However, if you look at line 13 on the first page or in another jurisdiction, that anticipates also including out of state custom fabrication?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. So just to recap, and I appreciate your answer, if it's out of state custom fabrication, it will still be subject to prevailing wage so long as it oh, does it need to constitute a significant portion of the building or work or that looks like that's been outlined out.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yeah, sorry for interrupting you. That was a definition that we originally had which the governor's team and the Department of Labor had some concerns of the interpretation of that definition. So instead, we used a different definition of custom fabrication.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: And the new definition is custom fabrication which exempts from the definition anything otherwise stocked or readily available. So the idea here is that the custom fabrication has to be unique to the specifications of the public works project. So I actually think this is an improvement on the prior way we had drafted the bill so that we're giving more clarity of what custom fabrication will be included, whether it's done from a public works project located in Rochester, New York, but the work is being done in Albany County or if it's work being done out of state.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah. I see your point because under the the original language, if you had to prove somehow that it constituted a significant portion of the building or work, that would be subject to some proof of interpretation where now you're referring to a definition that I'm seeing on page two starting at around line 17 or 18 and continuing to 20. Is that the section that that's replacing?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, that's the section that's replacing the prior language we were just talking about.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Very good, thank you so much. Okay, so if the project is affordable housing, that is a carve out now that will no longer be subject to prevailing wage?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Good catch on your part. Okay. The interesting thing is this bill only applies to what I will call traditional public works projects.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: And those are projects where a governmental entity under case law interpretation would be required to be the contracting entity asking for demolition renovation or construction work of some type including road work. There was a concern from the executive that we had included we had changed public works, nontraditional public works, to be private developers who are contracting and receiving up to 30% of taxpayer dollars to subsidize the project. That has an exemption related to affordable housing. And so there we put in that exemption here just to be clear that we're not capturing the affordable housing piece of it. But under traditional public works, affordable housing under case law typically would not be included anyway.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, but it's being clarified here that it is not.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: We put express language in for clarification.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, and would you say similarly with manufactured home parks?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yeah, that would include manufactured homes, it would include modular homes, that kind of thing.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. So, alright. And if it's just a regular old single family home, that would not be prevailing wage anyway.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: So that's prevailing wage under the traditional public works project nor under the 242A.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. So as far as commercial construction, if it's in state but off-site, is the intention to exempt off-site but in state work from the prevailing wage or not?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I'm not sure I understand the question. Could you repeat it?

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Yeah, well I think in a way the question needed to be reworded because of your answer previously about out of state work, if it's so if it's is the intention to exempt off-site but in state work from prevailing wage or not? No.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: No. No. The the intention here and as you well know, under our New York State Constitution, a worker is working on a public works project, then our constitution requires that they get paid prevailing rate. The what has happened is on some of these projects, what used to be done right on-site and where the worker, it may be an electrician or it could be a carpenter, it could be a sheet metal worker. If they were doing fabrication, it typically happened on-site. Our world has changed partly just because technology has changed, but partly because there are developers who are trying to manipulate the system. So they're doing prefabrication, off-site fabrication, and escaping the prevailing rate requirement under our constitution. So what this bill, the original bill and the chapter amendment is trying to address is to say in adherence to our New York State constitution, this work is being done for the public works project. Therefore, the workers should be getting paid the prevailing rate. So the way this will work is if say the project is in Rochester, New York, there's a fabrication area in Albany, then that fabrication, if it's specific to the public works project and just not standard fabrication, then those workers will get paid the Rochester prevailing rate.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: And I appreciate that explanation and that that does help me to get my my mind around it. What about transportation of people and the that apparent carve out for certain types of projects? I was thinking like roads, road construction, bridge construction. But could you just talk about how the chapter amendment addresses the transportation of people part of the chapter amendment and just kind of explain that if you would.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: So this is an area I wish that we didn't agree to, but you know in order to get a chapter, sometimes you have to agree. The executive was concerned about having this 100% apply to all transportation work. And so there was a request that we narrow it and what we try to do is carve out some transportation work but not all of it and to make sure that the work that involves electrical work, plumbing, heating, cooling, ventilation or mechanical insulation work in rest area transit stations and depots would all still be included, but there would be some transportation that would be excluded.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Alright. Could you talk a little bit about the reporting requirements the both in the original bill and then whatever gets changed with this chapter amendment?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: So we wanted to make sure that we adhered to the reporting requirement that was in current law. And so we changed language to make sure that would happen. I think that a lot of people had raised concerns about how do we report this, how do we maintain as you know under law you have to maintain your payroll records, you have to report that to the fiscal person, the fiscal officer outside of New York City, that would be the commissioner of the Department of Labor in New York City, that would be the New York City controller. So we put in language to help folks marshal their way through the reporting requirements.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. One of the concerns that has been reaching me through different emails and communications from small business owners is just the logistical difficulties in record keeping, particularly for smaller businesses. For example, I represent a fire suppression company in my district that does alarm systems and they do some off-site fab and then go and install it on-site. I have another company in my district that does prefabricated kitchens and countertops and built ins and things like that and then those get put into the final commercial I guess it would be probably a commercial application or maybe a large residential place. I mean, could you just speak to that issue of, you know, this may impact them and particularly the reporting?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I acknowledge the concern, especially if they're not a company that typically does public works project. I will answer it a couple of ways. The first is the intent in making the changes was to align this with what already existed for reporting on public works projects. So to make sure that there wasn't something different for off-site custom fabrication. The second is to recognize that it's only going to be included if it's truly custom fabrication for the specifications of that public works project. So if say the fire suppression company is doing fabrication of you know their mechanisms that could apply to 10 different sites and not specific to that site, it's not going to be included under this. The, and if it's that scenario where there's no unique specification for what they're doing and all they're ultimately going to do is fabricate, go to the site, install, that's not intended to be included. If however, it's unique to the site, then it will be included and they are going to have to submit payroll records and follow the reporting requirements that exist. The reason for that is because again under our New York State constitution these workers are entitled to get paid prevailing rates with benefits and they if that's the case then we want to make sure we have the Department of Labor or the New York City Controller's Office has that information and they are then making sure that the person is getting paid properly.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: I really appreciate that clarification. So let me just give you an example. I don't know if it's going to be a good one. Let's see how it goes. I'm hearing you say is that if it's really an item that's almost like an off the shelf item, like it's a standard whatever widget that's on the shelf that they can just pull off and they're going to go and you know, it's been fabricated, it's been made, but it's rather like a standard product, then it's going to be treated one way versus something that's being developed specifically for a set of All right, so example, my colleague's district very close to mine, have GlobalFoundries. GlobalFoundries, let's say that they are putting in a kitchen for their office, know, the people that utilize the factory, they're putting in a kitchen. And my guy in my district who makes kitchens, he's doing a 33 inches cabinet and a 24 inch cabinet and you know he makes all those. It's not like he's building something extra special. He's going to take component parts that he already has that he makes, you know like you could get it at know Curtis Lumber, I don't want to start naming companies, but you know it's a standard size or something like that. Would that be, how would you view that?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yeah, it's hard for me to give a direct answer to examples. What I'll say is the language that we put in the bill is does not custom fabrication does not include components, portions, modules or materials that are otherwise stocked, so as you said on the shelf, or readily available absent a specified public work project. So if this company is fabricating instruments, you know, piping, sheet metal, electrical boxes, and that's not unique to this public works project, then it's not going to be covered under this bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Bronson. I appreciate it. Madam Speaker, just briefly on the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Mary Beth Walsh]: So this is the fun that we deal with, colleagues, when we get to chapter amendments. Right? We get a bill and we debate and vote on the bill and then the governor wants a chapter amendment and the chapter amendment looks like Christmas day because it's just red lined and green lined and it's all, you know, it's hard. It's hard. I mean I'm an attorney by training. I struggled with this. Just to understand what this bill was exempting and what was still in there and what it wasn't. So I greatly appreciate the sponsor's willingness to really break it down for me and explain to me. I will then in turn be able to take the transcript maybe from this debate and get it over to people that are making inquiries to my office about how this is going to impact them. So if you liked the original bill, you might not really like this chapter because it's creating a lot of carve outs. And as the sponsor said, sometimes when you're dealing with a 2nd Floor and you want to see something not get vetoed, want to see something get passed, you've got to you know, you've got to sometimes make changes to the bill that you would prefer not to have made. So some members may feel that way. Some members who opposed the bill originally may be satisfied with the changes that were made, maybe feel that it's been adjusted to a point where they can now accept it. And so there's going to be you know, it's going be an interesting vote. We'll see how it goes. I will say that the ABC continues to oppose this bill and AFL CIO likes the bill enough in its current form to support it. So I imagine we'll see a variety of votes, but I very much appreciate the sponsor's willingness to entertain my questions. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Mister Tate?

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Thank you, madam speaker. Would the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes. I will, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Well, it's you and I on this bill again, Harry. It's always pleasure. Listen. Just a couple questions here. First of all, have you ever worked on a bridge or a paving project?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I had to do some paving repair work on my driveway. Does that count?

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: That's exactly the answer I expected. Have you?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Have you?

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I have. Okay. I have. For twenty five years of my professional life, that's what I did. I was general manager of a heavy highway construction company that also had stone quarries and blacktop plants.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: And if I may, sir, were you paid the prevailing rate when they were Absolutely.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: You you there's no other way you can do it. If you're gonna do state DOT work, you have to pay prevailing rate. However, there are some issues with this bill, and and I've and I'm not gonna go through you and I have debated this bill at least twice. I don't think it's necessary to go back through all the questions. However, you had mentioned a couple things. And over the years, as as technology has gotten better in heavy highway construction, there are different parts and pieces for pavers, for rollers, for different types of equipment, and even the different courses of material that you're putting on the road. There are different what we call paver plates, and I'm

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: sure

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: you're probably not familiar with that. But because of laws like this, it is now cheaper to go out of state and buy those parts to use on the paving projects than to have our people back at the shop make them. Now, I know you brought up to Mary Beth that the company in North Carolina would still be responsible for prevailing rate, but I would like to know how the state of New York is going to tell Joe's Fabrication Company in North or South Carolina that they're going to pay their employee prevailing rate. That is a I'm just wondering how you're going to do that.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: It would be a contractual obligation and that's exactly how the state of New Jersey enforces their out of state prevailing rates. So as you know, on these projects, companies bid for the projects. They need to identify and set forth with the Department of Labor whether or not it's a public works project and then they enter a contract.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: But that's That

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: contract will include will be required to include custom fabrication prevailing rates.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: But that's the problem. When you get into a road construction project or a bridge bridge project for that matter, things change throughout the job. There are things that are found during the job that weren't part of the bid package. Okay? There are fabricate there are items that may need to be fabricated in an emergency situation. Number one, for safety. Number two, because the job is now changed. Okay? That was not figured in the bid. Okay? There are things now, there are stuff that may need to be fabricated. You may have bid the job and we'll just use the figure. We bid the job for $30,000, right? And, when you got done and then you had to figure in all the prevailing weight for now, all the fabrication that you had to do in the job, it raised the bid cost by another $25,000. Are you expecting a New York State construction company that's in good standing with DOT to take a hit like that in a project. I don't see anything in this legislation that allows for them to go back and say, okay. We had to spend an extra $25,000 on prevailing rate for fabrication that we didn't know was gonna be in the job because of this emergency situation. I don't see anything in that legislation. This is the first time in my life that I actually agree with governor governor Hochul and that she gutted this bill because it's a terrible bill. Doesn't do any good for anybody. And I'll tell you even more even what's worse, Harry, is if I was the accountant or or the the payroll clerk at at at the company, I'd be looking for you. Because this is going to be a payroll payroll nightmare. A payroll nightmare. For somebody that is working usually on commercial materials in the shop, and then all of a sudden, they work on something for forty five minutes for one job and we gotta pay in prevailing rate? That that's a problem. Especially when you have a company that's got three or 400 employees.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Well, sir, I I hope you believe and I know you took a pledge to uphold the New York State constitution. The New York State constitution expressly states that if someone's working on a public works project that they get paid prevailing rate. I suggest to you that these construction companies will be able to work this out. And furthermore, I will point out that your premise is erroneous. We have many, many, many studies and I'll quote one that was a survey from February 2011 that indicated that there was no statistically significant cost differential between highway projects covered by prevailing wage and those without such requirements.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Well, Harry, I would say Harry, I would say

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I may if I can answer.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Harry, I would ask say

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: a question and allow the answer, not overtalk time.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Answer went on long enough. No. I study's erroneous. Your study's erroneous. If you know anything about the heavy highway construction industry, two a study from back to 2011, things have changed a lot, Harry. A lot. This is what aggravates me is when people bring bills to the floor and they don't know anything about the bill or about what is going on in that type of business. And you don't. You don't. This is brought forth by somebody else, not even you. We know where it came from. Okay? And they have no thought for the people that are actually doing the work or the people that own the companies that do the work.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: With with all due respect, sir, I have been working on off-site fabrication bills since I was on staff here in 2004. That's over two decades of work on custom fabrication and prevailing rate. And I will also suggest to you that the studies are very consistent all the way through. I picked one study, we have other studies. Study after study after study after study after study, let me finish please. All of them, all of them conclude there is not a significant increase when prevailing rate is paid on projects. The reason, the reason, although if you take only the analysis of wages, regular wages versus prevailing rate, of course there's a differential there. However, the difference is made up in cost savings in many, many ways. Number one, projects are typically done on time. Number two, skilled workers with apprenticeships are paid well and are doing a better job. Number three, less change orders during the construction project. Number four, less remedial corrective steps have to take after the project's done. When you factor all that in, then there's not a significant increase. Furthermore, furthermore, the benefit to our localities and to our workers when people are paid a prevailing rate, a middle class wage, they are typically local workers paid by taxpayer dollars and their wages go back into the economy because they're local workers spending money in those economies. That helps the worker, it helps the contracting companies, it helps the localities because of all the taxes those people are paid by buying goods and sales tax, by paying property taxes, by paying income taxes. The benefit of prevailing rate is a benefit that is undeniable and yes, it is important for us to do this.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: That's all fine and good, Harry, until everybody starts to go to North and South Carolina to buy these fabricated pieces of equipment and then we're paying prevailing rate to the workers in North and South Carolina because it's cheaper. Because there's a lot more to this than just this bill. A lot of the economics in New York State play with the play into this. I've been in the business. I don't care how many fabrication bills you've worked on. You've never cut or welded or fabricated anything in your life. I have. Okay? I've done the I know. But you stand there like you know everything about it.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: You know what talking

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Mister Tague.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: No. It's my turn.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Mister Tague.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Answering his question.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Mister Tague. It's I am the speaker here today, mister Tague, and we will keep our comments on debate courteous and respectful.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I thought it was very respectful. I'm telling the truth. What else would you like me to do? I'm telling

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Ask a question.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I asked him a question. Has he ever

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Wait for his response.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: Ever were were fabricated.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: You're not being you're not being respectful, sir. And I'll you're not. Please. Come on. You asked the question he was answering. You may not like to answer.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I've been I've been hearing

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: understand you don't even like the bill, but you do have to be respectful, please.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I am being respectful. I'm telling the truth. You want me to stand here and lie? I'm telling the truth.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: A lie.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I'm telling the truth.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Do that. I'm asking you to treat him like you prefer to be treated.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I've always treated very well. I'm speaking nothing but the truth. They're facts, and that's the way it is.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Would you like to be on the bell, sir? You have four minutes left.

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you, mister Tague. Mister Manktilo.

[Assemblymember Brian D. Manktelow]: Thank you madam speaker. I'm glad I'm next. Would the sponsor yield?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, I will madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember Brian D. Manktelow]: Thank you. Thank you Harry. Just I got a couple of questions involving agriculture. I know we've talked a little bit about this over the years. In a situation where some of our farms are using USDA funds, state funds, maybe some local dollars through an IDA through the county. Would this affect that type of a project at all?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: No. This bill is about labor law two twenty, which I will refer to as traditional public works projects. Those are projects where a governmental entity is a party to the contract requiring renovations, demolition, and and construction. What you're referring to is what we captured under labor law two twenty four a, which is if there is taxpayer subsidies of a project, loosely speaking, of 30% or more of the total project cost, then it would be captured. In most situations that you're referring to in the agriculture, it wouldn't be covered. Custom fabrication does not cover private, public, two twenty four a public works projects.

[Assemblymember Brian D. Manktelow]: So if if a farm gets 70% of the dollars for a project doing that they're doing on the farm, the fabrication work is being done outside of the state, our farmers would be clear and free and clear from from this?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: It does not cover that scenario. That is the two twenty four a public work scenario with public subsidies to the the contract and the construction. This bill does not cover 02/24 a.

[Assemblymember Brian D. Manktelow]: Alright. I appreciate the answer. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam speaker, thank you for the time.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Mister DiPietro.

[Assemblymember David DiPietro]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill, please.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the bill. So

[Assemblymember David DiPietro]: as a builder, as a construction owner, built many buildings, commercial, residential. I mean, if you love socialism, you love communism, this bill's for you. If you love bigger government, if you love the unions, if you love putting small business out of business, you love this job. You love this bill. Let me give you an example. Three weeks ago in my district, 10 miles from my home, one of my good friends who's a realtor had me come and sit with a company that was going to expand. They had a contract for 18 acres, and they were going to expand their fabrication company, build a new building. They called me up. I sat with them and a realtor. Two days before the closing, pulled out because of this bill. Specifically, because of this bill, but what it was gonna do to their company. They're not expanding anymore. They're looking to leave the state. So just on the construction of the new building alone on 18 acres just cost a 140 jobs. 140 jobs not happening because of this bill. Now the amendment on this does nothing. This isn't gonna create any jobs. This amendment because the schools that are getting hurt, the businesses that are flying because of the original bill, so this amendment is whitewash. This I was at a breakfast less than two weeks ago for town, highway workers, superintendents, the throughway people that build on the throughways, the major companies, over 400 people were at this breakfast. And their number one concern, even though this bill was passed, was rescind it, please. Don't vote for the chapter amendment. Stand on your feet and don't go with this. Fight this. This is killing us. Not just us on on highway construction or new builds. It's killing school districts. It's killing small businesses. A lot of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle from my disc from my Western New York were there. They heard it. So what happens here, you know, give a real life example, most truck drivers in our area make 30 to $35, and that's a good wage. That's a good wage. Now if you take that's a dump truck, a normal 10 wheel. If you go from Erie County over to Cat County, now you've got a logistics nightmare because now you have to pay that gentleman who drove over the county line the prevailing wage, which now can jump to a $120 an hour. Big deal? Maybe, maybe not for some, but for small business, it's a huge deal. But the also, the nightmare is how do you track this? Because it's gonna be, are you on one hour of time, or is their whole day have to be paid because they crossed that county line for one hour? It's a logistical, clerical nightmare for these businesses, and it's putting people out of business. And I just told you just one example that I was just personally involved with. This, you know, this legislation, one of the claims made was that this was gonna be fiscally responsible, and it's not. It's fiscally reckless. It claims that the state they don't have any fiscal implications on this, but this legislation would clearly result in significant cost increases for all affected construction projects and would have a chilling effect on economic development in New York State, resulting in fewer jobs. And I didn't write that. The people who lost those jobs wrote that because they're getting ready to move out of New York State, another job killer. It attacked small business. And before we talk about small business, I was the ranker, mister speaker madam speaker, on small business committee for ten years. The only bill in ten years you know how many what are the most number of meetings that we had on small business in ten years? One a year. And And it was always due to a study on MWBE, which we never got the results of anyway. We never did one thing on the small business committee to help hinder anybody in small business. None of it. Because this state did not care about small business, because this state just overlooked small business, because the governor or whoever it was never gave small business the time of day. And that's why you've seen, for the last thirty years, on average, over 250,000 people a year leave this state. And in the last five years, you're looking at over four to 450,000 a year. They're moving out of here in droves because they, excuse me, because they can't afford it. And this bill and this amendment does nothing. What we needed to do was go back and just take this whole bill out of out of out of out of existence. But, again, if you don't like small business, this bill's great. If you like socialism and you like bigger government, fantastic. If you think this is fair for the worker, tell me how a 140 jobs being lost was fair to those workers that will never get that job. And that's just one project in my district. And there's more because the people who have been looking at this, who actually do this work and actually have to deal with it, are citing so many different places and reasons why this doesn't work. What happens? You've got this amendment, and all this amendment is, madam speaker, it's like making a hot diaper sandwich and spraying a little Lysol on it. It does nothing. I'm urging all my colleagues to vote no on this because it's an affront to small business of something that I was with small businessmen for over thirty five years. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Miss Bailey?

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Ms. Bailey')]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for a quick question?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Ms. Bailey')]: Thank you very much. Mine is I just need clarification. Hopefully you can help me with the definition because I'm a little bit confused. But on page two, line 21 where it talks about any highway structure vehicle watercraft, the exclusions in there. My question specifically would be, would that be the surface area or would that also include the culverts? Would that be considered part of this the highway structure to transport individuals?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I believe that would be excluded.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Ms. Bailey')]: Culverts would be excluded Yes, from that part of

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: the highway structure, yes.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Ms. Bailey')]: Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Mr. Bologna?

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor yield for just a couple quick questions?

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: I will, madam speaker.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Sponsor yields.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you, Mr. Bronson. I had just a couple of quick questions with regards to the out of state. I'm going to give you a scenario and maybe you can kinda tell me how this would apply. So let's say a new community building, you know, is being bid out and, you know, a contractor gets that job or a company gets that job, and they want to to put in custom soffits on that community building. Right? And the only way that they can get the custom soffits is a a prefab company in in North Carolina has a proprietary, you know, a proprietary design that they use, and they're the only place in the country that has it. Now when we were talking earlier, they would have to engage in an agreement with that. They Basically, would be contractually done. If they refuse to pay prevailing wage at their site, they're not eligible for that. How am I trying to say this? They're not eligible to be used on that project. Correct?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: As being able to bid on the public works project and to be a contractor on that public works project, you would have to enter into a contract that includes what prevailing rate jurisdiction jobs would be on there, including what off-site custom fabrication would be part of the public works. But I will go back though, it's only if that's unique to this particular project. If these are standard items that are fabricated and can be put on all kinds of different other projects, that is not going to be included. It has to be specific to the public works project. It does not include things that are stocked or things that are readily available notwithstanding the public works project.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: So if something is prefab to spec that would not apply in other words, if if some if they're prefabricating soffits or a system specific to that building that would apply that would fall under the the jurisdiction of

[Assemblymember Chris Tague]: the If

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: they're not otherwise made notwithstanding that project. So if the specification says widget x Yeah. But widget x is not unique to that project, widget x goes into a 100 other projects, the fabricating company makes them, they shelve them, they keep them in stock, that is not covered under this piece of legislation.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. And there is there's nuance here because if you have a whole bunch of widgets at at 12 feet, but this particular project needs one eleven feet, they can prefab that. Is Does that does that fall under this? Is that you see what I'm saying?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Yeah. You're delving into the details of the implementation of the law. We can't put every detail in statute and we rely on the agency to do an implementation of this. We believe the language that we use that says it doesn't include stock or otherwise readily available unless specified by this project. You know, I can't answer that question specifically. My guess is it would not be included merely because it's 11 feet versus 12 feet. But the you know we have to rely on the agency to develop guidelines and to interpret all of these things that that the you know the contractors can rely on, our municipalities, local governments and the state can rely on, as well as our workers and their representatives can rely on.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you very much. The second question I had with regards to, and I think it's read it out here. So a significant portion I think you spoke about that with one of our colleagues earlier. A significant portion of the project that is now removed from this piece of legislation. Correct?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: It's removed. We instead put in the other language that I was just talking about, which is components, portions, modules, or materials that are otherwise stocked or readily available absent a specified public work project. So through the negotiations, we felt that was a better way to capture what we meant by off-site custom fabrication versus a substantial portion of the project.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. And then that as you said earlier that would fall under the discretion of eventual regulations that are put to to kind of monitor this?

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Guidelines and direction from the Department of Labor, yes. Certainly we got to work our way through some of this, but I anticipate that we'll be able to do that.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.

[Assemblymember Harry B. Bronson]: Thank you, sir.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you. Mister Durso. Thank

[Assemblymember Michael J. Durso]: you, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: On the bill.

[Assemblymember Michael J. Durso]: So I I wanna thank the sponsor for this bill. I know it was a lot of hard work, especially with the amendments. Again, a proud cosponsor of the original bill, which I actually think still didn't go far enough and nor do I think the amendments do. But I will say this, unfortunately well, fortunately, I I believe that some of my colleagues in this chamber agree with how I feel. I will sit here and say that just for everybody's understanding, I am not a communist. I am not a socialist, but I sure as hell support this bill, and I support the men and working women of labor. Once again, I may not know everything, but I do know this. I am a proud union member. I have worked for unions. Two, specifically. Right? And I understand this bill, and I understand what PLAs and prevailing wage does to protect the men and women that work in labor and the men and women of this state. Unfortunately, maybe some people don't understand that. What they don't understand is that when you have prevailing wage and you have a PLA, as mister Bronson said, the money stays in this state. The money stays here. And every single person that works on one of these projects is an American citizen. They pay taxes. Everything that we sit here and say that we want. Everything that we sit here and say that that we're all about is keeping the money here, keeping the work here. Well, guess what? This freaking bill doesn't. So, if you're gonna sit here and disagree with that, that's fine. And everybody can have their opinion. And I understand by region, everybody has to do what they have to do. But if you're gonna crap all of everybody else that believes in this bill, keep your comments to yourself and understand what it actually does. This protects men and women in the state that work for a living. You should try it sometime.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Read the last section. Colleagues, please let us be respectful in this chamber. Please read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: This act shall take effect on the January.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Clerk will record the vote. Mr. Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinsky]: So I think I may have a unique sort of perspective on the bill. There were 20 of us that voted no when this came up. I was one of the 20 folks that voted no. I would still vote no on the underlying bill in chief. I'm very concerned about how it affects businesses in my district. And every time we do a chapter amendment, everybody's got to make their own judgment call. Does the chapter amendment change enough? Does the chapter change too little? Does the chapter amendment address what your concerns are? I've already spoken this session about a chapter amendment that I thought was a good chapter amendment but didn't address what my concern was with the bill. However, I will be voting up on this chapter amendment and the reason is line 21 of the chapter amendment says, the provisions of this paragraph shall not include any highway, structure, vehicle, or watercraft used to support transporting persons. That is a massive change to the underlying bill and dramatically addresses the concerns of myself, concerns of people in my district, and the businesses that engage in building highways, bridges, transportation structures. So, while I am proud of my vote no on the underlying piece of legislation, I think the chapter amendment is a significant improvement, a massive change, a positive change, and I gladly vote yes on the chapter amendment.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Mr. Sempolinsky in the affirmative. Mr. Bologna.

[Assemblymember (unidentified, referred to as 'Mr. Bologna')]: Thank you madam speaker. Am a negative vote on this. Just for philosophical differences, I I disagreed with the bill in chief just because I generally believe in market solutions. I mean, flat out, I believe in market solutions. I I believe that that someone who does a job that agrees to do a job for a certain amount, that's that's capitalism. That's how the market works. I do that's just philosophically what I believe. I do like the fact, as mister Sempolitsky pointed out, that this bill does kinda chip away at some of the transportation portions of this. But, again, just from a philosophical standpoint, that's just not how I see the world, so that is why I'm a negative.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Mister Bologna in the negative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Ayes, one twenty six, noes, seven.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: The bill is passed. Page six, rules report 61. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Assembly number 9433, rules report 61, Ms. Warner, enact to amend the general municipal law.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Clerk will record the vote. Mister Sempolinsky to explain his vote.

[Assemblymember Joseph M. Sempolinsky]: Thank you, madam speaker. So I wanted to make some comments in this bill. I've been in discussion with mister Morenollo, mister Molitor this morning because and my comments affect their districts just as much, and I think we're all on the same page. We're troubled by a lack of an explicit prohibition on these particular gaming machines within the gaming exclusivity zone of the Seneca Nation. There have been prior bills that have been vetoed in the past because they were viewed to violate the gaming compact. The current version of the bill does state that machines may not be placed where they would violate a tribal compact. However, it leaves the determination of whether a violation exists to the gaming commission. We feel at least in the case of the Seneca Nation, that this termination should not be as discretionary and that discretionation discretion could unnecessarily lead to the potential for costly litigation. The existing Seneca Gaming Compact clearly protects against electronic gaming devices, not merely slot machines. This is particularly concerning given the gaming commission is also involved in the nation's long overdue compact negotiations. There's concern that the discretion given the gaming commission could be used as leverage against the nation and undermine the path to a fair and equitable compact. Such a fair compact would benefit all my constituents and the constituents of the colleagues I mentioned earlier. However, with this caution and concern on the record, I will vote yes in the interest of advancing the legitimate and positive goals of the legislation and urge that the statute be enforced so as to protect the inviolability of all tribal compacts. Thank you very much.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Thank you, mister Sempolinsky in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk (unidentified)]: Ayes, one thirty three. Nose, zero.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes?

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Madam speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions? We

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: have neither. Miss People Stokes.

[Majority Leader Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes]: Madam speaker, on behalf of our colleague, miss Clark, I would like to announce that there's going to be an immediate meeting in the speaker's comp no. Hearing Room C, immediate for members of the majority conference. Look to see you there shortly. I now move that the assembly stand adjourned until Friday, January 30, tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we reconvene at 2PM on Monday. Nope. We reconvene at 2PM on Tuesday, February 3. Being a session day and my late daughter's birthday.

[Acting Speaker (presiding officer, unidentified female)]: Okay. Thank you. There will be an immediate majority conference in Hearing Room after the adjournment of session. Immediate conference, majority conference, Hearing Room C on Ms. Peoples Stokes' motion. The house stands adjourned.