New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house back to order?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The house will come to order.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Members have on their desk an a calendar. I'd like to move to advance that calendar and take it up immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Peoples Stokes' motion, the a calendar is advanced. Page three, rules report 90. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10760, rules report 90. Mister Pretlow, enact making appropriations for the support of government.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: I hereby certify to an immediate vote Kathy Hochul, governor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Pretlow.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Absolutely. And good morning, everyone. Before us, we have two bills, two budget extenders. As we barrel our way toward a completed budget, we have a bill before us today that extends state operations through April 7. It contains funding for institutional and emergency payroll, unemployment insurance, Medicaid payments, OPWDD programs, veterans homeless housing and general state charges. We also have a bill before us, which is an Article seven bill that would extend certain provisions for funding of the Department of Motor Vehicles which would otherwise expire on April 1. Question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Thank you madam. Speaker, will the chairman yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The chair yield. Chair yields.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Thank you Mr. Partlow. Just a few questions. What is the time period this bill covers for state payments?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: This covers one week until April 7, next Tuesday.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: And how much does this bill appropriate?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: It's 1,040,000,000

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: May I ask what payments are included in this bill? What payrolls does this cover?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Well, have non personal service. Well, institutions, all of the state institutions are being paid. Do you want to break down?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Sure, if you don't mind real quick.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Okay, non personal services is $10,000,000 Department of Health is 6 and $16,400,000 Department of Labor payments for $135,000,000 which covers the unemployment insurance benefits, and $10,100,000 for Office of People with Developmental Disabilities. We also have the Department of Veterans Services for $36,000 and general state charges for $22,500,000

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Mr. Prentlow. So this bill goes until April 7, so you would anticipate that we will be back on April 7?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: I would anticipate we are definitely back by April 7.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: And if we don't have an actual budget, we will be

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: voting on another extender in that period of time?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: If we don't have an actual budget

[Speaker 0]: I know

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: how hopeful you are. Negotiate within the next week, we more than likely will have another extender.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: If we were to take up another extender, do you have any idea at this point how long that extender might last?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Absolutely. I don't have an idea. That is up to the governor.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Okay. I know this emergency extender also includes funding to support the national depart the national guard deployment in our state correctional facility. Is that correct?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Yes, sir.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Do we know currently what the current status is of the number of National Guard in our facilities?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: That number has not decreased very much since the last time we had this conversation. But we're working diligently to increase the workforce of our departments of corrections.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Do we know how much we are spending on that

[Unidentified Member]: or at least with this

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: overall? $55,000,000

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: year. For So I guess you divide that by seven.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Okay.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: How much does this state budget assume or this bill assume we will spend on the National Guard for the entire year, the $5.35 or is it moving forward? That's what we spent to date.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: $5.35 is

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: how much we expect

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: for the entire fiscal year.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: $535,000,000 is what we spent for the entire year.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: And

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: is there a plan in place to try to reduce the number of National Guard?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Well there is a recruitment effort going on now to increase the workforce at the DOCS facilities.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Okay. And I know last year there was funding included in the emergency spending bills to cover increased overtime for correctional officers. Is there any additional funding in this bill to cover that overtime? That's

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: something that's ongoing. We're not anticipating that right now.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Okay. Thank you Mr. Pradlow. I appreciate your time. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Certainly I will be supporting this extender is to keep the state government open, to ensure that our state employees are getting paid, and essential services are provided to New Yorkers. Keeping our government open is critical and nonnegotiate. But this is not what it should be. Seems like once again we're relying on temporary measures instead of delivering a complete and on time budget. This is not an isolated situation. It might seem like at the time, but we've this has become a pattern. Just over the last four years, in 2022, the budget was seven days late. In 2023, it was thirty two days late. In 2024, it was twenty days late. And last year, we record breaking under this governor thirty eight days late. What will it be this year? Just seems year after year we continue to miss this deadline. At some point we have to stop stop treating this as the new normal. We know the deadline. We know the calendar. We know the responsibilities that we continue to operate without an urgency and discipline that New Yorkers expect. With one party control, there should be efficiency. But right now, we're not really seeing that in this process here in New York. The later this process goes on, the less time there is for transparency. Late budgets compressed the time members in the public have to review legislation. The uncertainty created has significant consequences for school districts that are trying to put budgets together, have to go up for a vote in May. For local governments that have important infrastructure projects for roads and bridges because they're on a shortened construction season. All our communities, all these institutions are forced to make decisions without any clarity from the state of New York and that's unfortunate. They do not have the luxury of waiting like we seem to think we have. Passing in this extender is not success. It is a minimum requirement to avoid failure. Keeping government open is a floor, not the goal. We should not confuse keeping governor open with governing effectively. If this was a one year issue, again, that would be one thing. But when it happens year after year, it becomes to be a systematic problem that must be addressed. Last year when we last week when we passed the debt service bill, we asked for a financial plan, we asked for out year budget gaps, we asked for how much it's going to spend, what are we going to be doing in taxes. Hopefully those answers come sooner when we start taking up real budget bills because that is a necessity Those are critical questions that need to be answered as we move forward in this budgetary process. I hope my colleagues keep that in mind as we move forward to get us those details before we take up any more budget bills in the near future. Hopefully, as we talk about hope all the time, hopefully we start taking up those actual budget bills in the very near future. But again, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I will be voting for this extender. It's the right thing to do. And I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This section will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Eyes, one forty one. Nose, zero. DeVille is passed.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Rules report 91, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 10 761, rules report 91, mister Pretlow, an act to an act to support an act to amend.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: I hereby certify to an immediate vote Kathy Hochul, governor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Pretlow.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Absolutely. The additional Article seven bill extends certain provisions for funding for the Department of Motor Vehicles which would otherwise expire on April 1. It is a two year extender. It is taken directly from the governor's proposed budget and it does not raise fees in any way, but it allows the Department of Motor Vehicles the authority or the ability to collect funds and deposit those funds in the dedicated highway and bridge fund and then utilize those dollars for road repairs and other needed services.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Yes, madam speaker. Will the chairman yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the chair yield?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Absolutely. I think I've answered every

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Chair yield?

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: He could

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Mister Prelley, you answered two of my three questions. So I do have one more question. You answered why we're doing it. You answered what the fees are for. But I just have just curious. Do you know how much we collect in fees on this for this program on annual basis? That's that's my only question for you.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: I'm not sure of that number.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Alright. That's that's fine then, mister Pablo, and I appreciate your time. Thank you, madam speaker. That's it for me.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This section will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one forty five. Nays, zero.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, if you would please call the agriculture committee to the Speaker's conference room.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Agriculture committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room quietly. Agricultural committee members, please meet chair Lupardo in the Speaker's conference Room. Miss People Stokes for the purpose of an introduction.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings to introduce some guests that are in the chambers.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Could you hold on one moment, miss Stokes, please? Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for the purpose of introduction. We have some amazing young people in our chambers. So on behalf of our colleagues, missus Hyman, mister Anderson, and mister Vannell, we have with us a 110 district students and their staff members who are this is the civics day, and these are the government student government from all over the district in Queens. So would you welcome them to our chambers, offer them the privileges of the floor and the cordialities of our house?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Good morning, young people. I can't see you, but I can see you on my screen, and there's lots of you up there this morning. On behalf of miss People Stokes, miss Heinemann, members Anderson, Vannell, and the speaker, we welcome all of our young future, student government leaders here to our assembly chamber, the people's house. We extend to you the privileges of the floor. You are going to be seeing democracy and work at action here today. We hope you do enjoy the proceedings. Take notes. Ask your teachers lots and lots of questions. Bring this back to your friends and family. Let them know that you had a memorable visit to your New York State Capitol. Thank you all you future leaders for joining us today. Thank you. On the main calendar, page four, rules report eight. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number 900462, rules report eight, Ms. Simon. An act to amend a chapter of the laws of 2025. On

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: a motion by Ms. Simon, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is advanced, and explanation has been requested. Miss Simon.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill would postpone by one year the effective date of legislation that removed the 100 foot rule for new gas hookups at residential properties.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Lamondes?

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. Could you describe any changes since last year if there are any? Just summarize them please.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The effective date of the legislation was pushed back a year. We'd now be effective on 12/19/2025.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: And who benefits from this and who is penalized if any for either category?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: There's no penalty except to the people who are currently paying for the 100 foot rule and those people who are unhappy with it should be very happy that it's been delayed by a year.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: And so, therefore, would you say that this contributes to the affordability crisis that we're currently experiencing in New York or not?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Well, when it is effective, it will actually save New Yorkers $600,000,000 a year. So, it would improve the affordability crisis.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. Could you summarize the intended allocation costs for new customers going forward once this is implemented?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That's already been debated last year. Okay. So, there's no change except for the date.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So it would cost those new customers more. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Right now, it's costing everybody when somebody has a new hookup within a 100 feet of a of a gas main. This would only require the person who is asking for that new hookup, completely new hookup to pay for the new hookup. Beyond that, it doesn't increase anybody's cost and it saves New Yorkers who right now are footing the bill $600,000,000 a year.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So, again, with respect to allocation, so you're saying residential gas customers would save through the implementation of this?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Yes.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: As of the effective date, obviously.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Okay. Recognizing that our gas is 60% higher than the national average for residential energy and 50% higher than the national average for commercial energy. So, with that savings, with respect to the affordability crisis and the prices everybody's actually spending right now, would that savings be negligible or meaningful?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: All savings are meaningful and of course we could make it more meaningful if we passed additional laws and implemented them. However, we are only talking about the date here. The effective date is now 12/19/2026.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Understood. However, with respect to National Fuel letter of opposition, New York State Labors Pack letter of opposition citing increased cost for rate payers and decreased construction jobs. And because of those two things, their contribution to more a more unreliable grid. Would you say this is unfounded, these letters of opposition?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Entirely unfounded. Yes.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: And is this bill related to the CLCPA in any way?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: No.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: And even if it was, it's still a good bill and it will save New Yorkers money.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: I understand your perspective on it, but the letters of opposition which we don't have time to go into are very detailed and I believe very factually based. Nonetheless, would you say that the All Electric Buildings Act, the AEB specifically restricts new hookups or not?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That has nothing to do with this at all, number one. Number two, I would take issue with your acceptance of the articulation by opposition to this bill which I've read all last year and it is entirely inaccurate. Thank you.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: We disagree on that. Don't think those organizations

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Facts are would facts.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: I don't think they would have put them forward in writing and signed if if they thought that they were putting forth unfactual information. So You can believe that. Understood. Will repeal of the 100 foot rule cause undue financial harm to any demographics, any particular demographics as stated?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Colleagues, colleagues, colleagues, please I will say this and I will continue to say this as we discuss this, discuss this debate, we need to stay on the topic of this specific bill. Not the bill we passed last year, this specific bill which is in front of us today, which is extending the effective date of the recently enacted law. Questions and answers should be pertaining to today's bill, not last year's bill. Thank you.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Right. Madam speaker, the the reference in that question which I had not finished was as a result of a letter that was submitted on 06/11/2025 which was after session concluded.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: That has not germane to this bill.

[Unidentified Member]: Okay. Thank you.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Okay. Would this bill improve or decrease housing starts? Or and as well as out migration? Would it facilitate out migration or not?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: None of those issues are related to this bill.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Oh, when we talk about

[Unidentified Member]: energy This

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: bill is about the effective date and only that.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: We we we differ an opinion on that with respect to the affordability crisis and energy crisis that is that is underway. My last question, do you think that gas service today is significantly more efficient or with less detrimental effluent than it was fifty years ago. And I say this in the context of we're talking about the linkage between this bill and the CLCPA and gas efficiency?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: You may be talking about that. I am talking about the effective date of this bill. That is the only change to last year's bill that was enacted.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Okay. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. For all the all the issues discussed and those not discussed, which I was trying to get to, and in light of the affordability crisis that is underway in New York State has been and will be as long as the CPA CLCPA and the AEB are considered viable courses of action documents and acts, this bill will only contribute to increased unaffordability, higher out migration, and the letters of opposition prove that. Again, National Fuel, New York State Laborers PAC strongly oppose this. I would urge all colleagues to oppose this bill on the on the merits of what it will do to all ratepayers. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Gray?

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Certainly. Sponsor yields.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: Thank you very much, miss Simon. So you just mentioned there's a $600,000,000 savings.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Mhmm.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: Can you identify who's who's actually saving?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The rate payers of New York State who are currently paying when someone else gets a new gas main a new hookup within a 100 feet of an established gas main. So right now, you're paying for anybody in your neighborhood who decides to have a brand new hookup.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: So that cost is socialized in the in the utilities. Right? So How is that savings going to migrate to the ratepayers?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It won't be socialized to the ratepayers any longer.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: You expect the rates to decrease as a result of this?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: What I expect is that they will no longer be paying that $600,000,000. There have been other rate increases which are irrelevant to this particular savings. So we'll see how it works out. But it certainly won't be going up.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: So I would assume the premise of this bill then you oppose socializing costs like this?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The premise of this bill is rate payers throughout New York State should not be paying for somebody else's hookup. Okay. Right now, if it's a 101 Colleagues. Right? You pay.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The discussion that we're having now is not germane to this amendment in front of the house right now. It is relative to the effective date of a recently enacted law and I would ask both of you and any person who puts their light on to ask questions, it needs to be germane to the amendment that is in front of us today. Thank you.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: So one last question then. Why are we delaying this?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The governor wanted to delay it.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: And did she articulate

[Unidentified Member]: the We

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: have a chapter amendment before the floor and that's what we're voting on.

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: Thank you very much.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: I appreciate it. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Scott A. Gray, Assemblymember]: So what we hear today is that there's supposedly $600,000,000 in savings but there is no mention of how that is going to migrate to the ratepayers. In the same breath we have the Champlain Hudson power express and that is going to a specific load zone and it'92s benefiting a certain sector of New York and there is socialized cost for that DC connection. We consistently contradict ourselves within the chamber on, you know, whether we believe in socialized costs or whether we don't believe in socialized costs. We know Express New York was just announced by the governor. It takes 5656% longer for construction projects, and we're forty fifth in the in the country in construction cost. This will add to the construction cost of building homes. Gen z commonly will cite that home and housing cost is their main concern to affordability in New York state. Homeowners consistently say their affordability for utility cost is their main concern in New York. This bill does not address either one of those. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Lunsford.

[Jen Lunsford, Assemblymember]: Madam Speaker, could you please call the election law committee to the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Election law committee members, please make your way to the Speaker's Conference Room. Election law committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room, if you could make your way there quietly, please. And again, unlike some chapter amendments for which discussion of the underlying chapter may be warranted, the sponsor has made clear that the bill before the house makes no substantive changes to the underlying chapter. As such, questions and comments, that means on the bill as well, unrelated to delaying the effective date of the underlying chapter or authorizing the promulgation of regulations in advance of such effective date are not germane. I will interrupt each speaker if you are not being germane speaking on the actual bill in front of us today.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Madam speaker, point of order.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Point of order.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: I completely understand your point of view as far as if a chapter amendment, as in this case, is only seeking to change an effective date, that we have always in this body been able to discuss the underlying bill because it is a bill that is being changed by the chapter amendment. So if you're saying that the debate questions can only be limited to the the only the change that came in the chapter, I might be willing to agree with you there, but I think if you go on the bill, you're allowed to discuss the bill in chief and the chapter, and then because it's all part and parcel. And if you explain your vote, you can talk about what you ate for breakfast. You can talk about anything that informs your vote. So I really do object to the position that that you and the parliamentarian are taking regarding the scope of what our questioning could be. It's really curtailing our free speech and our ability to speak on these pieces of legislation in this chamber.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh, a point of order is a request to observe obviously the rules of procedure and parliamentary practice. So asking what rule do you believe is being violated today?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: I believe that by, well, I'd have to sit and look at the actual rule to tell you what's been violated. I'm telling you what my perspective is about what your scope of what our allowed questioning is in this body. It is a change. It is a change to what our normal practice and procedure has been.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Your point, miss Walsh, is not sustained today. Mr. Bologna. Oh, excuse me, Mr. Palmisano.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Yes, Madam Speaker, will the sponsor try to yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Simon, will you yield?

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: You, Miss Simon. I'm not 100% sure because I'm kind of in uncharted territory how far this will go. I wanna do deference to Madam Speaker. I'm sure she'll tell me if I cross that line. I want to bring up the point that you brought up in your discussion that you brought up about this being a cost savings of $600,000,000 Is that right? Is that fair because she brought that up?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Your

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: mic is on.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Okay, sorry. Now I have microphone. I'm sorry.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: That's okay.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: So the issue that was raised previously was debated previously extensively if you may recall. And is not germane to this bill before us which is simply a delay of the effective date.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Okay. So then based on your answer, you don't want to answer any questions relative to that $600,000,000 or you can't answer any questions related to that $600,000,000

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The $600,000,000 is not relevant to the date change and we are only debating the date change which is the only change Unlike some chapter amendments which might change other substantive areas, this one does not.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: All right. And I guess in that same venue, you probably don't want to answer the question about how when people in Long Island and New York City have dirty emitting boilers with oil, we're switching over to natural gas. So I guess that's not germane because of the defective date, but it's impacted by the underlining bill, correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: No. And I would submit it wasn't wouldn't have been germane to last year's debate either, but

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Oh, it's very germane, that's a whole other discussion. I'll certainly try to elaborate on that if I get the opportunity to do so. Is the premise behind this, I I know we have an effective date really just to really stop the use of natural gas? That

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: really is not even remotely relevant.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: And on that $600,000,000 I know it's not germane, you said that it's going to save ratepayers, but I think what's lost in that discussion, and I'm treading lightly, Madam Speaker, is that when you have when you make the system when you have fewer people getting on the system because you're making it more expensive for them to get on the system. And then those costs, the capital costs, the operational costs are shared with more users. So, when you have more users, then those costs are spread out over. So, in that sense, it will decrease costs for the existing users instead of increasing costs as you say. You wouldn't agree with that argument?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: No, I don't agree with the way you put that forward.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Okay. All right. I think I'll leave it at that Ms. Simon. I'll try to go on the bill for a little bit if I can.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Thank you,

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Thank you. Thank you, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Yes. Certainly, we're in a you know, the issue we're talking about, I know it's a chapter amendment, but the and I know we debated the bill last year, but the underlying premise behind this bill is far reaching impacts to the people we represent. Often hear about affordable and reliable energy, and this chapter amendment affects affordable and reliable energy. And it's even the date. We see the utility prices going through the roof for people. And I think the point, just to try to get on that point, you know, the sponsor was saying that this is going to save ratepayers $600,000,000 but I think what's missed is when you make it more expensive for people to get on the system because now they're going have to pay their own way instead of sharing those costs, That initial upfront under the current system is shared with everyone, but now you have more users on the system so when you have operational and capital costs that take place, now that is shared with more users. So you're going to decrease the cost for the existing users instead of increase the cost as the sponsor claims. I think that's something that needs to be taken into consideration when you look at the energy policies that are being advanced, similar bills like the all electric buildings act which is not this bill. I do think and the sponsor I just want to bring up that point that's significant is there are a number of people in New York City and Long Island that have these dirty oil emitting boilers and they want to convert to natural gas. And that's not going to be an option for them without paying more money. So now it seems like their only option would be to pay for all electrification. But all electrification is very, very expensive too. To convert your home or if you're on natural gas or other systems, it would cost up to 35,000 to $50,000 based on several estimates. And I think that's a concern that needs to be addressed and is not being addressed. Mean, and I know unfortunately the chamber doesn't like the word natural gas, but there was a poll recently, not too long ago, that says 71% of New Yorkers do not want to ban on natural gas, including 76% of independents. Two thirds of New Yorkers want a balance between natural gas and renewable resources including 74% of democrats. So people want energy choice and want energy affordability. Taking away the 100 foot rule is going to make energy more expensive unfortunately and I think that's my concern. It just seems like the policies that are being advanced in this house, talked about I don't have to go through the labor, what I said last week. I went through a whole litany of costs. I went through a whole litany of reliability issues and others, and I think that's where the concern I have and a number of my colleagues have and a lot of other people have on the impacts of this bill. Yes, we are changing the effective date and I'm glad it didn't take effect when it was supposed to, but really we should not just change it for a year, we should just stretch it out longer. That would be the appropriate thing to do because of the impact this is going to have on the constituents we represent. I could go on and on, but out of respect to the speaker and madam speaker and what she's trying to do with this, I think I was able to make enough points that the policies that keep it being implemented in this house are not looking out for the best interest of the constituents we represent, our families, our businesses, a whole litany of costs. Again, the whole system. We are looking at a quarter of 1,000,000,000,000 to half $1,000,000,000,000. So I'm not going go through them all. I told it before, so we said it. I will continue to say it when I have the opportunity to do so. I just think I wish we would take a look at this policy, this energy policy a little closer. I know it's something being discussed in the budget. This is germane to that. So let's talk about this. Let's look at if it's for an all of the affordable, all of the above approach, this is not an all of the above approach. You can say it, but the policies are not matching the words. So just like last year, Madam Speaker, I'm going again this year, I'm going be voting no on this bill because this is bad policy. This is not effective policy for the families, the businesses that we represent. And when you talk to businesses, when it comes to energy policy, they care about two things, affordable and reliable. If they can't get it here in New York, they're going go elsewhere. So with that, I'll leave my comments and just say I'm going be voting no. And I thank the sponsor for her time. And I appreciate the time here to talk a little bit about this issue. But I will again, will be voting no on this issue and urge as many of my colleagues as well to vote no on this as well. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Durso.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for some questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Thank you, miss Simon. So this is essentially, pushing the effective date back one year. Correct?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Yes.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: What was the date that this bill would have taken effect in the original bill in chief?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: 12/19/2025.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. And is it pushing it back exactly one year so it'll be the same date? So what is the effective date once this bill goes into effect?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: 12/19/2026.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. So now this bill was passed last year, obviously, with a robust debate, the original bill in chief, and the governor signed the original bill. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Yes. She did.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So what is the genesis of pushing back the timeline for a year? I'm sorry. What? Why are we pushing the timeline back for a year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I think I answered that question before. The governor asked for that amendment.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. So now in the discussions with the governor, if you're if you're able to say, what was her reasoning for pushing it back a year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: You know, she didn't call me personally. I can't say.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: But but you are carrying the bill, so I what is your reason for pushing it back a year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: So look, there the PSC has to create additional regulations to make clear how it is that the entities would change their billing practices to accommodate this law. So that's essentially the reason.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So you're saying when when we put told. I'm sorry, ma'am. I apologize. What did you say? I I I I apologize. I said that's

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: what I was told. You

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: know? I'm not

[Unidentified Member]: in your head.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So what you're saying is that when we voted on the original bill in chief, not everything was set or in place yet when we put that bill into place?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That is often the case. You pass a law and then regulations follow.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Got it. So we passed the bill in the senate and the assembly. The governor signed it, but we just weren't ready for it. So now we're pushing it back a year.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: If it had been signed earlier, that might have been the case, but it wasn't.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. And now you had said originally with one of my other colleagues was was asking a question. There is no changes in the bill other than the timeline. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That's that's correct.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So just to ask you a question, I mean, know you're saying there's no change in the bills, we discussed it last year. So there's no added labor protections in this bill. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: No. Because there are no changes except for the effective date.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. And as you said, just to have it on the record, the reason why we're pushing it back for a year is for the PFC to get regulations in place.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: They have to regulate how it is the utility will conform its billing practices in order to accommodate the law.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Do we know how long that takes for them to do?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Shouldn't take very long at all.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So would you say that a year is enough time?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: More than enough.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: More than enough. So now when when did the governor originally sign the bill?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: 12/19/2025.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: And when did we vote on it in the assembly?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: June.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: June. So between June and December, the PFC could not get their act together and get the regulations put in place. So what's to say that they could do at this time?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: First of all, that really is not at the level of legislation. Okay? It's it's that goes to the regulatory body subsequent to the governor signing it. And so in between, they're not going to be passing regulations. They can't until the governor signs the bill. That's the way this works. So now they can do that. It's really very straightforward.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So they they can't put in regulations till the governor signs the bill. The governor signed the bill, but now they have to put the regulations in place so we're pushing back the timeline. Which one is it?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I think you've just answered your own question.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: I actually didn't. I No.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The governor

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: so let me explain the timeline.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: I appreciate it.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The governor signed the bill. It would have been effective immediately. There was a concern that the PSC would need to develop regulations and would need some time to do that. Not a lot, but some time to do that And so the Governor suggested that we push it back by a year. It's exactly a year. And by that time, in fact, the PSC will have done the work that they need to do, which as you know is very straightforward and minimal.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Understood. Do we do we know or had you had discussions on what some of those regulations would be that would have to be put in place?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The regulations that control how it is that the utilities bill. Right? That's something that comes in under PSC all the time.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So it's gonna so we need a year for them essentially to get that in place?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I don't believe they need a hearing, but you can ask the that question of the PSC.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. So in that time and, obviously, we we had robust debate on the bill the last time.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Right.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Mhmm. Now that we are amending the bill, and I understand that the amendment of the bill is just the timeline, Wouldn't it have been in good practice now as we're amending it to put some of those labor protections in this bill that weren't in a prior?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: First of all, most of the utility workers are already have labor protections. Those who have them. So there's nothing that is taking that away, number one. And number two, I disagree. We're just talking about the date.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Okay. Thank you, miss Simon. Madam speaker, on the bill, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: So I I appreciate the sponsor giving her answers. Again, as the sponsor said, she's carrying this bill. I know the governor says she want to push it back for a year to give the PFC time, if that's what we're saying. We could say whatever we want. We know that's not the case. My my concern with this is, and I brought them up the last time, was that the number of workers that could be put out of work due to this bill, the bill in chief, and the one year extension of it makes me very concerned. Right now, in New York State, the average gas utility worker makes roughly a $120,000 a year. National average is about 69,000. This is going to cut down on those labor protections for those workers that work for companies such as ConEd, National Grid, because what we're not doing is keeping that work within those entities. We're actually farming it out to whether it's private, whether it's other companies, whether it's out of state workers. And when we sit here and talk about affordability, affordability every day, not just with your utility cost, but it's also with jobs. And a way that we don't make New York State more affordable is by cutting jobs, and that's exactly what this bill does. Now the governor could state that it's about the PFC and putting regulations in place. Just weird that it comes after the November date that it goes into effect. And the governor herself has stated that she's for an all above approach. This is not an all above approach. This is cutting natural gas out of everybody's utilities. I'll be voting no, madam speaker, and I expect my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, miss Peoples' jokes.

[Speaker 0]: Speaker, would you please call the housing committee to the Speaker's Conference Room?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Housing committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. Housing committee members to the Speaker's Conference Room. We will go to our next speaker. But just as a reminder, members have been reminded many times that comments relative to broader policy issues are not germane to the pros to the proposal before the house. Energy policy, labor policy broadly is not germane to this bill. Mister Bologna.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Certainly.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you, miss Simon.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: You're welcome.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: So I I know you've said repeatedly, but just for posterity's sake. This chapter does not change the underlying policy. It just changes the effective date by one year. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It doesn't change the underlying legislation.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Correct.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It just changes the effective date.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: And again, for posterity sake, this was at the governor's request. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That's the way chapter amendments happen.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Okay. So and again, mister Durso asked this, but I'm just I'm really trying to hone in on the one year aspect of this. Is there something happening maybe like after Halloween, before Veterans Day, early November that we all know about, we don't want to talk about? Is there something that's happening during that time that would be prudent to push it beyond that?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I think that's speculative.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Oh, okay. Okay. Well, I'm here to speculate. So that's that's I'm gonna turn over every stone here. So to this policy though, builders and homeowners now this is this is not changed in the chapter. This is in the bill in chief, but this is not changed in the chapter. Under this policy, builders and homeowner owners seeking new gas services will be required to pay the full cost of connecting their home to the gas system. And in in the case of a new subdivision, those infrastructure costs will ultimately be incorporated into the sale price of the homes. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: If you say so.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: I mean, that's a pretty big distinguishment. I mean, that's a

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: I'm

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: not a builder. I'm not making that deal. Well,

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: can we agree that

[Speaker 0]: it is a possibility

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: effective date, that would not happen.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Can we

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: agree that the possibility exists that the builders will pass that cost on the homeowners? Is possibly a conceivable outcome?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: There are many possibilities in this world. Right now, we're debating the effective date of something we debated in great detail last year.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Oh, know. Know. And I please don't misunderstand my questioning of the overall bill. I appreciate the fact that we recognize the flaw in the timeline. What I am pointing out is that we didn't recognize multiple flaws throughout throughout the bill. So just to be clear, policy doesn't eliminate the cost. It simply just transfers it to someone else of that of that infrastructure.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: What it does let me repeat this because I think I repeated it many, many times in May. And that is that right now, you are paying the cost for the guy down the street who creates a brand new hookup. Not somebody who moves into something where there is already a hookup, right? And right now, if that person built a home or had a new hookup a 101 feet from the gas main, they would pay for it themselves. If it was 99 feet, you and I would be paying for it. You and I will no longer pay for that.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: I'm and I'm

[Michael Tannousis, Assemblymember]: so happy choice.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That's their decision. They can

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: I'm so happy you brought that up. So what we're saying is is that the savings that we're giving folks is significant, but not significant enough to not delay it a year. That's what we're saying. So we're we're gonna give you these savings, but we're gonna delay it a year.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: So here's the thing. I didn't make this suggestion. This is a suggestion of the governor. I would suggest that you might be happy about it.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: That that's that's fair. So also in the bill in chief belt, that is something that's not changed in this particular piece of legislation. You stated that false

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Not germane, sir. Bill in chief, not germane.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: Madam speaker, point of order.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: State your point.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: So under rule five section six c, it talks about maintaining decorum and and debate pertaining to the subject matter before the house. None of our members have steered away from the subject matter before the house. So I have I believe that the chair is incorrect and I ask that that question to overrule the chair's decision be put before the house.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Okay. Peeblesstokes, why do you rise?

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, with all due respect to to my colleagues, we're not asking them necessarily to agree with what you have said in your request, but we are asking them to honor it. You are the chair. You are the speaker. You are sitting in that seat. And what you suggest to us to do should be honored. That's what we're asking.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: So to clarify, I can't ask a question about why something wasn't changed?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: One moment mister Bologna, please. We have a point of order.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: He's gonna ask me about a negative. Like I'm gonna prove a negative. Okay. I'm ready.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: I'm I'm I'm seething.

[Charles D. Fall, Assemblymember]: Can tell you I'm gonna lose this phone.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The ruling of the chair has been appealed. The question is, does the ruling of the chair stand, Mr. Ra? Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference opposes the ruling of the chair on this matter and would call for a party vote in opposition to it.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, with all due respect, colleagues can oppose it if they'd like, but the fact of the matter is you are the chair and you have made a decision. That is what should be followed. The majority conference will be in favor of your ruling.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The clerk will record the vote.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I'm really what? Good trouble. Good trouble, Bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Excuse me?

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: It's not a slow roll

[Unidentified Member]: call, what you're gonna call this.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It's a party call. A party roll call. It's only Tuesday. Just saying. Are

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes one zero one, nays 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The ruling in the chair stands. Mister Bologna, would you like to finish your comments? Questions?

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: Please.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: You know what, madam speaker? I'm gonna go on the bill if that's alright. I appreciate the fact that it seems that my colleagues are committed to their current level of understanding of this piece of legislation. What I find interesting about this debate is when it comes to solar panels, wind projects, renewables, we all share the cost because it serves the greater public. But when it comes to connecting homes to natural gas, suddenly the philosophy changes. We rediscover the virtues of rugged individualism. But apparently, the warmth of collectivism stops at the gas line. That's apparently where it stops at the gas meter. So, let me be clear about what this policy actually does. It does not eliminate the cost of infrastructure. It simply shifts it onto the homeowner and the developer. In the real world, when developers build homes or subdivisions, those costs don't just disappear. They're simply built into the price of the home itself, which is ironic considering that we all seem to agree that we're in the midst of a housing affordability crisis. We're told that this measure would save hundreds of millions of dollars for ratepayers. Yet, if those savings are so significant, it raises an obvious question. Why are we delaying the policy?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bologna, please take your seat. Members who fail to adhere to the requirements of order and a will be asked to do so. Thank you. Mister Riley.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor please yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Certainly.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: So, miss Simon, how critical is the PSC rule making to the process of this bill and the original bill? How critical?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but the PSC will figure out how it is that companies will need to change their billing practices to conform to the law. They do this on a regular basis.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: Okay. So the reason why I asked that is because in the actual bill, it states one year after it shall have become a law effective immediately, the addition, amendment, and or appeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and completed on or before such effective date. So the reason why I read that is because we've told that it's just about this bill is just about the effective date, but it specifically states the addition, amendment, or repeal of any rule. So what rules would this bill take place?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: The rules that the PSC has with regard to how utilities bill their customers would be amended. That is very simple.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: So do you know what specific amendment?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That is up to the PSC. They would make an amendment that conforms with this law. The original bill and the with the delayed extent you know, effective date.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: Mhmm. So the original bill plays a role with this bill. Correct?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: They always do, sir. This is an amendment. This is a chapter amendment to a bill that's been passed and signed and none of those other things are changing in any way, shape, or form.

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: Thank you.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: You're welcome. Thank you.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: On a bill, madam speaker?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: So that's specifically the argument here is these bills are cohesive. It's the chicken before the egg. They're all playing together here. And the idea that the effective rules, the addition, the amendment, and or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are authorized to be made and completed on or before such effective date. That goes to show that the original bill in chief plays a role in this bill. You can't talk about regulations that are going to be added, that are going to be amended if you don't talk about what was done in the past to get us to that point. So the idea that you can't discuss how the original bill impacted us getting to this point is just silliness. Stifling debate that the public can't hear, they can't have someone talk about is not democracy. It's not what we do in this house. We have debates so that policy can be rectified. It can be completed in an open and transparent way. Whether you're changing a date or changing a an addition to a policy, an amendment, and or appeal of any rule. So I think it is very troubling that we've been trying to stifle this debate. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Glick.

[Deborah J. Glick, Assemblymember]: Will the sponsor yield for question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Certainly.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Deborah J. Glick, Assemblymember]: Would we say that there are utility that a gas line falls under utility?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Gullett, please keep your comments germane to the bill in front of us,

[Deborah J. Glick, Assemblymember]: please. Alright. If in a year from now, homeowners would have to pay for the gas hookup? Is that what this delays it a year? Yes.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: For a new hookup. A brand new hookup.

[Deborah J. Glick, Assemblymember]: But it doesn't delay any of the other things like sewer or water lines? No. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Pierzzolo. Good

[Sam Pirozzolo, Assemblymember]: day madam speaker. How are you today?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Fabulous. Thank you.

[Sam Pirozzolo, Assemblymember]: I would like to speak on the bill if I may.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Sam Pirozzolo, Assemblymember]: Alright. So the problem that I think my conference has is that what we have here is what we call a bad bill. It was a bad bill last year. It's a bad bill this year. It's gonna be a bad bill next year. We're gonna have to delay it once again. I find it very odd and striking that the request for this bill is coming from the governor who is going to need to delay a lot of bad bills this year because she has even recognized that the energy mandates that she has put forward do not work within the time frame or the cost that she has thought. So I want to just let everybody know that this is a bad bill. We're seeing it's a bad bill just by the fact that we're asking to delay it, and I would think that everybody should vote no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss People Stokes?

[Speaker 0]: Speaker, if you would please call the labor committee to the Speaker's Conference Room.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Labor committee to the Speaker's Conference Room. Please meet chair Bronson in the Speaker's Conference Room, please. Read the last section.

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Gandalfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you. Madam speaker, would the sponsor please yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Will the sponsor yield?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Oh. I'm sorry. I thought we were revoked.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: We had additional question.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Okay. Thank you. Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you. So, as I was preparing to read this pretty short bill, I looked at some of the comments made on the bill in chief last year. And I believe one of the comments the sponsor made was that the repealing of the 100 foot rule helped us meet our climate goals. Does delaying the implementation of the bill in chief help us meet our climate goals?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Probably less so than if we it was effective earlier.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So and the governor made no inclinations other than the PSC rule making process as to why she would like to delay for one year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: That is the only conversation we've had.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. And also, one of the comments made from the sponsor last year was that every rate payer is subsidizing new hookups with the 100 foot rule in place. So by delaying this another year, why should we allow everyone else to subsidize new gas hookups for an additional year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I think you have to pick one. And right now, the effective date is being delayed to the extent that there is a concern about even doing this bill. You know, you got to pick a side here. And we're on the side of improving people's lives and lowering utility bills.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: So, delaying the implementation of the repeal of the 100 foot rule that improves people's lives and makes things more affordable?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: For a short period of time.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So, would that imply that in one year when it is implemented that maybe that might affect people's utility bills?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I'm sorry. Could you say that again?

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: So would that then imply that when this is implemented in one year that it might have the opposite effect on affordability and utility bills?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It would have the effect of increasing affordability when it is effective in December 2026.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So right now, it it's going to, I guess, then

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Right now, it does it's status quo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Status quo. So in a year, it will increase affordability. So right now, does it decrease affordability?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: It's not quite a year. It's December 2026. This is Or March.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Eight months. So, the meantime, we're not doing anything on affordability because originally in the debate on the bill in chief, this bill was called a

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister huge Gandolfo, the bill in chief is not relevant to today's bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: It's gonna connect back when I talk about how we're delaying it a year, which is in this bill, madam speaker, respectfully. So the bill was originally called a huge step direction in affordability and a healthier New York. So, why would we wanna push that off another year?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I think that I've been pretty clear that I didn't ask for this.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Well, your it's your bill. That's your name

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: on It's my bill. I didn't ask that that it be delayed by a year. That's all I'm saying.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So, you will you be voting no?

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: I I I will be voting yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Oh, okay. Interesting. Thank you, madam

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: speaker. Good Thank you.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: On the bill, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Madam speaker, I think this is a clear attempt at delaying a bill that will not be good for New Yorkers until after election day twenty twenty six. I will be voting no. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Eliminating the 100 foot rule in one year after election day raises housing costs at the worst possible time, shifts thousands of dollars per project estimated to be 3,000 to $15,000 per connection onto the homeowners, developers. New York already faces a housing affordability crisis, and this adds even more upfront costs. You can't claim to be fighting a housing crisis while actively making it more expensive to buy or to build a home. Eliminating it forces individual homeowners to shoulder costs that were previously shared, effectively functioning as a targeted fee on new housing. It discourages new home development and reduces project viability, and initial connection costs can be recovered over time when new customers are added and operational costs are spread across more users. The Governor, in her approval memorandum, which then resulted in the Chapter Amendment, directed the Public Service Commission to require applicants for a gas service connection to a residential building to pay the material and installation costs for gas utility service. But she requested and the sponsors indicated that the request came at the sole request of the governor to push this off for another year. But certainly, the approval memo talks about a lot of things. Utility rates increasing across the country, costs for New Yorkers, real estate developers paying for the material and installation costs for the first 100 feet of facilities necessary to provide gas service. The approval memorandum goes deeply into the bill in chief and it resulted in a request for the chapter amendment. In other words, the governor is saying, I won't sign the bill in chief in its current form unless we do this chapter amendment kicking it down the road. So I think that the time that we've spent here debating and speaking on this bill proves the overall point and what I find so troubling about the direction that it appears that the that the chamber has taken to try to stifle debate. When we're talking about a chapter amendment, we're obviously talking about the underlying legislation that the chapter is changing. It's all part and parcel. It's all linked together. We do not discuss the chapter amendment in a vacuum. And so what I find upsetting is that on the heels of the rules changes that were passed earlier this year, which further truncated the amount of debate that the minority is able to to essentially cutting our debate time in half, to now take a position that we are gonna have to even be more silenced or attempt to silence us is something that I can't agree to. So I don't like the chapter because I think that the chapter amendment is basically the governor saying, don't wanna be burdened with this difficult issue in an election year. So I'm going to kick it down the curb just like I did with congestion pricing. So I'm going to vote no on this chapter amendment. I voted no on the bill in chief and you know I really hope that going forward with all of the debates that we have to do, that we're going to not limit the minorities' need to point out what is wrong and troubling about all of these bills. I will be in the negative on this chapter. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A slow call a slow roll call has been requested. The clerk will record the vote. Mister Lamandes, to explain his vote.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. To explain my vote, I think it's necessary again to reiterate the fact that there were multiple entity opposition letters, limitations on debate, the shift as a result of election year politics, as well as the contribution to increased financial instability for commercial and residential ratepayers, this bill contributes nothing to help New Yorkers at a time when the financial crisis is getting worse every day as a result of policies like these. Thank you. I vote no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Lamonte is in the negative. Mister Peroniot to explain his vote.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The fact is getting off fossil fuels is safer and healthier for everybody. Policy is good for children and other living things. That exact quote was set last year by the sponsor during debate. If it is safer and healthier, then why are we are we kicking this down the road for a year? I don't I understand. None of this makes sense. The policy from the get go is a bad policy. The chapter is clearly a political stunt. I will be in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bologna on the negative. Mister Tanussis to explain his vote.

[Michael Tannousis, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. I know there's been quite a bit of discussion regards to this bill and what we're allowed to say in regards to the bill in chief or not. The most important takeaway about this bill is the date. Why is this being moved? Why does the governor want to move this date? It is plain and simple that the reason why she wants to move the date is because we have an affordability problem here in New York. That is why. And she is running for election in November. So it's important to note, we cannot just run to pass bills without knowing what effect they will have on our constituents. I guarantee after the November election, we will see a push for more bad bills just like this one. I vote no. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, mister Tanousas in the negative. Mr. Palmisano to explain his vote.

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker, my colleagues. This is a sad day today unfortunately in this chamber. You might be able to hide behind your mainness here on the floor, but you cannot hide and run from your record. These costly, unaffordable, unreliable, certainly not feasible energy mandates that new yorkers don't want and they certainly don't want to pay for. Dismantling energy choice, making energy more unaffordable, your own memo last couple weeks ago from your own agencies came out and showed all the cost increases, increase up to more than $4,000 to heat your home, dollars 2.23 increase in the gallon of gas, dollars 2.41 increase in diesel prices, 46% increase in utility prices for small and commercialized businesses, and a 60% increase in delivery truck operations. These are your policies. You might be able to hide behind your mainness on the floor, but you cannot hide behind your record. You own this and so does the governor. I continue to vote no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Palmisano in the negative.

[Unidentified Member]: Ladies and gentlemen, can I have your attention, please? Could everyone please be seated? Thank you. Everyone, please be seated. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Simon to explain her vote.

[Jo Anne Simon, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. This bill, in chief was a great bill, and this one allows utilities to conform their billing practices, which is a very good thing. We wanna make sure that the gas companies get it right and that we give them the time to do that. The 100 foot rule only impacts, I wanna clarify the record, residential hookups, not commercial businesses who pay cheaper rates than residential customers in the first place. So I am very happy that we're passing this bill today. It's a good bill, and I thank you, madam speaker, for voting in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Simon, the affirmative.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would you please call on our colleagues that are with us by Zoom?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: McClurg will call on Zoom attendees.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ms. Matanez, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Assemblymember Marcella Matanez, I vote yes.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Miss Martinez in the affirmative. Mister Smith, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote.

[Doug Smith, Assemblymember]: Assemblyman Doug Smith, disappointed in the proceedings, I vote no. Thank you.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Mister Smith in the negative. Miss Solaj, for the record, please state your name and how you wish to vote.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mikael Solaj, and I wish to vote in the affirmative.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Miss Solaj in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 80. Nayos, 61.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page four, rules report 69, clerical Reid.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Senate eighty eight zero seven, rules report 69, senator Krueger. An act to amend the insurance law and the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, mister Bronson.

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Amendment which would align the protections to be provided by New York State's shield law with its original purpose and intent. It would provide professional liability insurance with the same protection already provided to medical malpractice insurance related to legally protected health activities. The bill would further clarify New York's protections against out of state legal actions seeking information related to legally protected health activity that is lawful here in New York State. It would also strengthen these protections by revising notice timelines, clarifying requirements for compliance with court orders enforcing enforceable in New York, and clarifying the enforcement authority of the attorney general.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Let's dive into specifically, you gave a good overall explanation as far as what the chapter amendment seeks to do. Let's talk a little bit more specifically about what technical changes are being made here. There's a time frame change to five days for notifying the attorney general. Could you talk about that please?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Yes. Originally we had that there would be a seventy two hour requirement through discussions with the governor's office. It was determined that having a five business day would allow folks to comply with the law more easily.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. So the notice itself, it so it I know that the time frame is being extended, how could you

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: just talk a little bit about what it is notifying the attorney general about? Notifying the attorney general that you have received a request for information in various forms from an entity outside of the state of New York.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. So could you give, like, a real world example of how that might come into play?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Sure. A real world example would be a hospital that provided either reproductive care or gender affirming care, which are legally protective health activities here in New York State. There is another state that makes those activities unlawful and there is an attempt by that state to prosecute either the hospital or some other entity or individual and are seeking a subpoena or some other information request that would then require that hospital to put on notice the Attorney General's office that they've received the request as well as the individual who actually received the health care, let them know as well.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: And so the purpose of this technical change is to allow the Attorney General additional time in order to appropriately react to such a notice request?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Actually, it allows the health care provider additional time that their attorneys could look at the legal instrument, look at the situation, and have five business days versus seventy two hours to get that information to the attorney general's office.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: I see. Okay. And then also, it looks like the bill clarifies that a provider can't face an adverse action regarding their liability insurance or medical malpractice insurance because of providing gender affirming care. What was the rationale behind making that change?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Well, it was the malpractice insurance was under the bill in chief. We expanded it for any type of professional liability. What facilitated it, that makes it conform to other parts of the original bill in chief, but also because under the original bill in chief, we expanded various different types of health care providers to be included in the protection. And they may not have malpractice, they may have professional liability insurance.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: So it was just to clarify that regardless of whether it was medical malpractice or some other form of professional liability policy, we wanted to include all of that in in addressing it here.

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: Yes. So if any if an out of state, if a different state or someone from out of state is looking for information that could impact their professional liability situation, we would want to make sure they were included, yes.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. And do you know who, if you know, where that request for change in the chapter came from? Who was requesting that? Or was that just something that you as sponsors spotted?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: Sure. Well, we through

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: the conversations, as you know, we have conversations with the executive branch as we're trying to get our pieces of legislation that have passed both houses. You have conversations about that. And through walking through that, it was determined that making this change would offer conformity throughout

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: decreases the penalty amount from $15,000 to $10,000 per violation for intentionally, knowingly, willingly, or recklessly complying with an out of state inquiry in violation of these protections. Do you any why was that change made? Do you know?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: My belief is that was the request of the executive branch.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Alright. And do you have I mean here we are looking at this at this, but as far as the the bill's broader legal effect, how has the current law been working? Obviously, we're making some changes here with this chapter amendment, but any information about how that has been working so far?

[Harry B. Bronson, Assemblymember]: It has been working. We have an example of a particular case where the Shield Act was used to protect a physician in complying with an information subpoena.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Very good. Thank you very much Mr. Bronson.

[J. Gary Pretlow, Assemblymember]: Thank

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: you. Madam Speaker on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: So this the bill in chief which created a shield laws for access to gender affirming care or reproductive health care passed at the very end of session last year by a vote of 94 to 50. So there was bipartisan opposition. As we've just discussed, the chapter amendment makes technical changes to several parts of the underlying law, but it doesn't really, I think, change it in a way that will make it more palatable for anyone that was in the negative last year. So I will continue to be voting no on this bill, and I would certainly encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. As I, stated when debating the bill, the minority conference is going to be in the negative on this bill and would encourage no votes. If anybody wishes to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this legislation. However, there may be some that desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? And that's the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 95. Noes, 50.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. I miss Peoples Stokes for the purpose of an introduction.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for the purposes of an introduction. Our colleague, Brian Cunningham, has guests from his district. These are two outstanding leaders who are transforming lives through the power of music, mentorship, and opportunity. Marvin Cook and Brandon Walker, the founders and chief executive officers and chief operating officer of Excellent Sound Academy. Excellent Sound Academy is a New York City based nonprofit dedicated to developing the next generation of artists, producers, and music industry professionals through hands on education, mentorship, and real world performances. Through their work, ESA has already served over 200 emerging artists across New York City. Marvin Cook brings not only the talent but the vision as a musician and with billboard charting success and Grammy recognized achievements, he uses his platform to give back and invest in the next generation. Brandon Walker brings strong leadership in business, technology, and community engagement. They are together, they are addressing a critical gap we all recognize, and that is the decline of arts and education in our schools. Madam Speaker, would you please welcome these stellar gentlemen and citizens to our chambers, offer them the cordialities of the house and the privileges of the floor. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. On behalf of miss Peoples Stokes, miss and mister Cunningham, and the speaker, all members, we welcome you, Brandon and Marvin, to the Assembly Chamber, our people's house, extending to you the privileges of the floor. Hope you've been able to enjoy some of the proceedings that you were here able to hear today. And thank you so much for all of the outstanding work that you've been doing for our next emerging artists, the next generation of artists through your not for profit excellence sound academy. So thank you so very much for being here today and continued best wishes and good success. Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, if we can continue with our debate list, we're gonna go to calendar number 69, which is on page 10 by mister Rivera, followed by calendar number 21. It's on page seven by mister Kim, And calendar number one fifteen, which is on page 19 by myself, a member of People Stokes. Thank you in that order.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. On our debate calendar, page 10, calendar number 39. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one zero six seven, calendar 39, mister Rivera, an act to amend the insurance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mister Rivera.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you. Before us is a bill that's been before the house before. The primary intention of it would be to protect renters who are exposed to lead based paint by prohibiting the exclusion of coverage for losses or damages caused by exposure to lead paint from liability coverage provided to rental property owners. There's an exclusion that exists in insurance law that was placed at some point in the 90s and that exclusion prevents individuals from seeking damages on lead essentially being poisoned by lead. So, this would look to remove that exemption.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Gandalfa.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you madam speaker. Would the sponsor please yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Unidentified Member]: I will.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you very much. So, thank you for your explanation. So, first question on this bill, by eliminating the exclusions for wet based paint exposures, is there any concern that this might have an unintended impact of making it less likely for building owners and landlords to proactively address potential lead paint issues?

[Unidentified Member]: I think the opposite. I think if there is the risk by which further costs could be held upon them, they're going to want to expedite encapsulation or mediation as much as possible.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: But right now, if this were to pass and be signed into law, they could then rely on the insurance company to pay the damages ultimately protecting their bottom line if insurance is gonna cover it. Is that

[Unidentified Member]: Well, if the exemption no longer exists, then a tenant could seek damages and the insurance policy would cover it.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: So, right now they would seek damages against the landlord and with the exclusion in place the landlord would be on the hook for the damages, is that?

[Unidentified Member]: Well, truthfully in many scenarios you have a situation where tenants are really reluctant to pursue anything with their landlords because

[Philip A. Palmesano, Assemblymember]: you know

[Unidentified Member]: tenants have fewer protections than homeowners and they're gonna be reluctant to seek damages especially knowing that it'll be a long chase, knowing that they're not gonna be able to deal directly with an insurance company most likely prevents them from pursuing this. And also frankly the fear of retribution from a landlord that now has to pay out of pocket. So I think there's a problem that we're going through right now where we have a huge number of folks that are they or their children are suffering from lead poisoning and they're not pursuing this one because afraid of sort of the responsible landlord knowing that the landlord is gonna have to come out of pocket for it, and two knowing that you know without the coverage they might not be able to obtain sufficient funds to handle the medical expenses that they're now responsible for.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. And now, lead based paint unfortunately, it's a condition that exists in older housing stock. But it's not exactly a fortuitous risk. It's in the building or it's not and it's generally known that it's a problem. So, I have a concern that maybe insurance companies can't accurately price in that risk and as a result you might see a premium increase for building owners across the board. Is is that a concern that you have about pricing in the risk?

[Unidentified Member]: I I guess what I'd say is sort of two things. One, you know, there's states all over this country where this exemption doesn't exist, so it's not foreign. I'd also say that up until the nineties, this was this exemption didn't exist and there were people paying premiums on their homeowners policies with this coverage when the insurance industry and then the governor of the day decided to create this exemption. It's not as if the rest of us got a reduction in our premiums now that the insurance companies weren't on the hook to cover as much. And frankly, know, I've had conversations with folks in the insurance world. I haven't gotten the clear straight answers around if this would increase premium cost and how much that would be. I think you know if we chase the narrative of all this might cost more and put that above the health and financial stability of families, then you know and there's other problems we should be thinking about.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Well I don't think it's only a question of will it cost more. There's also the question of will insurers continue to insure in some of these areas with older housing stock or if they'll pull out of the market completely. So if, let's say, major insurance carriers as a result of this decide to pull out of the market no longer write these policies, What can building owners and landlords turn to then as an alternative coverage?

[Unidentified Member]: Well, think because this would be applied across the board, I find it hard that insurance companies will suddenly pack up their bags and leave New York State. You know, the sort of the catch 22 about it all is the unique thing about New York State is that and it's not solely sort of in my neck of the woods in Upstate New York or in Buffalo where I represent, but New York has the greatest number of housing units. It has the highest percentage of pre 1950 housing and the oldest housing inventory among all 50 states. This is a problem that we are plagued with in this state and as long as we are allowing you know insurance companies to not cover this, We're going to continue to see not just the effect of lead paint, but also the financial burden that's placed on families that are more often than not already cash strapped. We see that at least in my neck of the woods, the overwhelming majority of people of children that end up having lead paint poisoning, you know eighty percent of them are come from properties where they're rentals. So you know we have to do as much as we can to protect these children and those numbers are undeniable. And you know are we worried about insurance industry leaving New York State? I'm not. I think that we will forever be a state where business is going to thrive. I don't subscribe to the narrative of anything other than that. I think that you know like I said these policies are written this way all over the country. We are we are not alone in pursuing this.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: I mean I'm not speaking in terms of pulling out of the state entirely, but for example, the area that I represent a lot of insurers are reducing the amount of policies they're writing due to the risk associated with living closer to the water. Is there a concern that in pockets of New York State that have older housing stock that is more likely to have lead based paint and exposures to lead based paint that they might no longer write policies in those regions or for older buildings?

[Unidentified Member]: I'd say the scenario you're giving is a bit you know sort of apples and oranges because you know flood insurance and houses near water that's a perpetually sort of unique problem. This is literally everywhere. Know there's old housing in every city, in every county, in every town, in every village, in public housing, and non public housing, it's everywhere. So, to think that suddenly coverage is going be lost across the tens of the hundreds of thousands of units, it's kind of hard to imagine.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Well, mean it's but it's more concentrated in certain areas. But, could move on from that. So, if now my question on this now, in twenty six months, this is when that would take effect. When it takes effect, would it terminate existing policies and force insurers to write new policies or would it just get rid of the exclusions contained in existing contracts?

[Unidentified Member]: My position is that it would take out the exclusions.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Is there any concern? I know we had a discussion yesterday, not you and I, but as a body about the contracts clause and how the state could be coming in and altering existing contracts between parties?

[Unidentified Member]: Well, I think giving more than two years for providers to work it out with their policyholders, I think it's sufficient time more than two years. Think that's enough time.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, the bill please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you Madam Speaker. I know this is an issue that the sponsor is passionate about. A lot of bills that deal with wet paint exposure have his name attached to them and I think the intent is there. My concern is that this could have the opposite effect whereas insurance carriers will pull out of the market in certain regions of the state to reduce their risk since lead based paint exposure isn't a fortuitous risk, it's a condition that exists within a lot of the housing stock. And if the insurers pull out, the building owners, the landlords are going to have nowhere to turn to get insurance policies, which could in turn reduce the housing availability and cause even more of a housing crunch in regions that probably do need more housing availability. So for that, madam speaker, I will be opposing this bill, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no as well. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Molotour.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Does the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr. Rivera, who does the insurance coverage benefit? Or who will it benefit?

[Unidentified Member]: I would say it's two fold. I think providing additional coverage to its policyholders is a benefit to the policy holder. But I also would say in this scenario, it would also benefit the tenant who resides in said home.

[Unidentified Member]: So a tenant is injured or has somebody in their home who's injured as a result of lead, a lead poisoning, they could sue the landlord, right? And the landlord would then be defend if this coverage existed, the landlord would be defended by the insurance company. Is that correct?

[Unidentified Member]: That would be the scenario in the the case of any injury that's taking place on that person's property. Let it be lead. Let it be anything else. If I reside in someone's home and I'm a tenant and for some reason you know God forbid there's some sort of shoddy electrical work and I'm electrocuted on the premises through no fault of my own. The landlord would be treated the same way in this scenario as that scenario. There's a responsibility of the landlord has to provide safe housing for tenants within reason and this would just be another one of those things that they should ensure that the families that reside in their properties are safe from.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you mister Rivera. On the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Member]: So if you're really concerned about landlords renovating their property and getting rid of the lead on their property before renting it to a tenant, you would not be in support of this particular legislation because this legislation would protect deadbeat landlords. In other words, if you were a landlord who didn't really care about your property at all and someone rented from you and then they were poisoned by lead, you could just say well my insurance will cover it. So you have no incentive to actually renovate your property. This bill I think actually does the exact opposite of what it is intending to do. And at the same time, it will increase costs for everyone who are is paying into the the rental insurance market. So I will be voting against this bill, and I'd encourage all my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be, generally speaking, in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are those who wish to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Peebles Stokes?

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, the majority conference is in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that will be desire to be an exception. We'd hope not, but just in case, they can do so at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one zero one. Nos, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page seven, calendar number 21. The clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly Number 622 c, calendar 21, mister Kim. Enact to amend the insurance law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Mr. Kim.

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: Thank you. This bill will require large group health insurers to cover acupuncture treatment upon the prescription of a healthcare provider.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Gandolfo.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would the sponsor please yield for a couple of questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you for that. So, this would mandate health insurance plans provide coverage for acupuncture treatment. Would that require a prescription?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: That would require a prescription of a healthcare provider.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So, a patient couldn't just go to an acupuncturist without the prescription of their or a healthcare provider and still get reimbursed for the services they would need the prescription from one of their medical providers?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: From a healthcare provider, yes.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. And now, does this apply to private insurers or would this also apply to the Essential Plan?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: This is for private insurers, large group insurers.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Does the Essential Plan cover this currently?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: It does not. Okay.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: So, why would we require private insurers to cover this while the state isn't covering it in the essential plan?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: The original version required the state to do so, which will cost the state more money. But this would only require the private insurance companies to do so. By the way, many insurance companies already have sort of covering acupuncture because it saves them money for the companies. We're just making this into a law requiring the larger companies.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. So, some insurers are already Okay. Providing

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: It is saving them a lot of money by doing so.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Now, is there any word or analysis from DFS on how this might impact health insurance premiums for medium and large size?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: We have the ability for the insurance companies under this law to set co payments and co sharing mechanisms so they can decide what the appropriate amount is for co payments.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay. Now, the coverage extend beyond let's say I know people use acupuncture for a lot of different conditions. Is it limited to any kind of conditions or pain management or does it go beyond to let's say I think I've read that people use acupuncture to treat amnesia, not amnesia, insomnia.

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: I think people seek acupuncture to get to the root cause of many of the illnesses including anxiety, depression sometimes. So depending on the healthcare provider and what they can prescribe to the individual, this would cover.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Okay, so anything that was prescribed by the healthcare provider would be covered. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Madam Speaker, on the bill, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. An issue that I have with this bill, it's another it's another insurance mandate. We do this frequently as a legislature. We keep mandating insurance companies to cover more and more types of treatments, even some that it's a little difficult to measure the effectiveness of the underlying condition that it's meant to treat. And by doing so, maybe taken by itself, it's not that big of a hit to insurance premiums, but when we do it across the board repeatedly, it raises premiums for everybody. And it specifically, it does disproportionately affect small and medium sized businesses who may be forced to purchase coverage that they don't need or don't want, as well as their employees. So, for that reason, I will be voting in the negative and I would encourage my colleagues to vote negative as well. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Peebles Stokes?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, minister. Could the sponsor yield for a question?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The sponsor yields.

[Speaker 0]: Understanding the medical importance of what this procedure could do for a patient, Are there existing insurance companies today that provide acupuncture as something in their ability for the patient to get?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: There currently insurance

[Speaker 0]: companies that already

[Michael Durso, Assemblymember]: provide Yes,

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: there is. Some are already starting to cover because they find that doing so would save the insurance companies actually a lot of money down the line instead because acupuncture is so effective, efficient and affordable in managing people's pains.

[Speaker 0]: So, I feel like I'm pretty sure that they did some research. They did some studies to tell the difference between their patients having access to this kind of service and its ability to save on the cost of insurance. Are any of those studies available?

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: I'm sure we can make it available but insurance companies at that level won't do the underwriting or financing if they don't deem that they can make money by doing so. So, doing it organically already, they're proving to us that it's not only effective but it's efficient and cost saving for the industry.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Thank you.

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Madam Speaker, on the bill, I

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Speaker 0]: I realize that sometimes it is a problem or a concern when we are constantly asking people to do things or requiring them to do things that they don't want to do because they feel like it has a bottom line on their profit. But at the end of the day, it's more important for us to have healthy people than it is for insurance companies to be more profitable. And I know that's a very controversial topic and conversation to have, but it's an important one because the longer people can extend a quality of life, the more cost effective it is for an insurance business. And so I wanna commend, you know, the sponsor of this bill. I think it's a great piece of legislation, and I hope that we will all consider it in the light that it's given and it's provided not about business, but about saving healthy lives. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Read the last section.

[Jen Lunsford, Assemblymember]: This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh?

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be the negative on this piece of legislation. But But if there are members who wish to vote yes, now would be the time to do so at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. Majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. However, there may be some that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Gandalfa, to explain his vote.

[Jarett Gandolfo, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker, to explain my vote. I don't exactly think opposition to this bill can be characterized as looking out for the bottom lines of insurance companies. When we complain that health insurance costs too much and yet continually put new mandates on insurance companies, that raises the cost to everyone who buys an insurance policy. It's passed along to the consumer through increased premiums. Now, we're also not we're not mandating that the state provides this coverage through the essential plan, we're mandating that private insurers do. So, if it's really about saving lives and this is such a necessary thing to cover, why isn't New York State covering it? So, there's a lot of reasons someone might oppose this bill, and I can assure you it's not looking out for profits of someone we don't even know. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Gandolfo in the negative. Mr. Kim.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you

[Ron Kim, Assemblymember]: so much for allowing me to explain my bill. I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill that we've been carrying for many years. The original version did require this practice acupuncture to be covered by the essential benefit. Due to this current circumstance, became very difficult for the state to cover it. But I do agree with my colleagues in the other aisle that that should be the larger mission to make acupuncture and its service an essential benefit for the state of New York. But for this bill, for now, it will provide acupuncture by allowing private insurance companies to cover it. Acupuncturists, in my opinion, are healthcare providers in our community. Acupuncturists are required to go through three years of intense medical schooling. Some of them have doctorates in healthcare. It's something that's deeply personal for me and many others in my community. My dad, before he passed away, of excruciating months of pain fighting cancer. Instead of over relying on the drugs that was prescribed to him, he constantly sought acupuncture to manage some of his pains related to cancer. I know that in my community and others, not just immigrant and Asian communities, but across the state, across this country, more and more people are relying on acupuncture and holistic healing to deal with some of their deepest pains. And we should take necessary steps to make it accessible and available to all those constituents throughout the state of New York. So with that, I vote affirmative. Want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you, Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim, in the affirmative. Mr. Chang, to explain his vote.

[Lester Chang, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to sponsor the bill. I also co sponsored this bill. Acupuncture services in the Far East invented in China thousands of years ago. And I'm also a recipient of having this treatment in acupuncture for my chronic lower back pains of my twenty years of military services. And also, the Veterans Administration also approved acupuncture as treatment. And this is a non drug type of treatment and it's harmless as far as I can see and it's reversible. Also it gives people an option to use acupuncture. And, it's not that expensive. Even though I pay out of pocket, it's not really that expensive but at least it affords to people an option a non drug, non drug type of prescription to relieve pain and some other ailments as well. So I support this bill and I vote on affirmative. Thank you very much Madam Speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you Mr. Chang. Mr. Chang in the affirmative. Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I think bills like this can be hard because we want to be able to help people. We want to be able to make sure that people can get the treatment that they need. The trouble that I've got with the bill is that it is, it's not so much this bill, it's all the bills that came before it and all the bills that are coming after it. I think that it is just every time we create a new mandated benefit, the cost of the individual mandates might be small, but collectively they increase health insurance premiums, they make coverage more expensive for employers and consumers. I just can't in good conscience support this bill even though I know that there are people who receive benefit from acupuncture as the two previous speakers alluded to. But I think that we have to draw the line somewhere. I'm choosing to draw it on this bill. I'll be voting no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh in the negative. Mr. Saj to explain his vote.

[Nader J. Sayegh, Assemblymember]: On the vote, Madam Speaker, I just wanted to compliment the sponsor. And I think each and every one of us need to realize that when we look at medical care, we look at western medicine, sometimes we deal with trying to deal with the causes of injuries or treatments. But as the sponsor stated and some of the colleagues stated, Eastern medicine that's been around at least five thousand years recognizes the importance of many courses of treatment similar to acupuncture that really relieve pain and serve to be preventive to more serious injuries and discomfort. So I think there's a realization all of us need to catch up with in trying to recognize that sometimes we got to go out of the envelope or the box to include services that are beneficial for proper healthcare. So I support in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mr. Saj, in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Jen Lunsford, Assemblymember]: Ayes, one zero four. Nays, 42.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 19, calendar number one fifteen, the clerk will read.

[Jen Lunsford, Assemblymember]: Assembly number 3682 a, calendar number one fifteen, miss People Stokes, an act directing the departments of environmental conservation and health.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On a motion by miss People Stokes, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, this bill will require the Department of Environmental Conservation as well as the Department of Health to update and adopt new standards for dust, lead hazards, as well as soil lead hazards, and ambient air quality of lead standards. It's a simple request that asks them to look at the standards that we now have and see if there's a possibility that they can be changed and or lowered.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh.

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

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 0]: Of course.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The sponsor yields.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you so much. So many of us voted on this legislation in 2022 when Mr. Engelbreich carried a very I think a similar bill or maybe the same bill just with changes. It passed almost unanimously at that time, but that was vetoed by the governor. In part, the governor stated that New York's existing lead standards appropriately covered this specific lead level consistent with the most up to date scientific understanding of the harmful impact of lead. So my question is, has the bill changed since the 2022 version, since the Governor's veto?

[Speaker 0]: Well actually the governor also vetoed the point that they did not want to have a report done. So this bill does exclude the report, but it does continue to ask for the upgrade in the standards.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Has since 2022, has the CDC come out with any recommendations regarding lead levels that cause New York's current standards into question?

[Speaker 0]: I think these new CDC rules came out in 2012 where they actually said that there was no known safe standard of lead to being a child. No known state. So if we know that there is no safe standard, the possibility of lowering it could help perhaps help some young people

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. We're

[Speaker 0]: going to be good citizens.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean to talk over you. No problem. Apologies. Isn't it true that New York State doesn't currently have its own standards for levels of lead in dust or soil or ambient air quality standards for lead instead relying on the standards established by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency or EPA?

[Speaker 0]: Yes. It does have its own standards and we're asking them to take a look at them and consider reviewing and reducing.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: In the 2022 veto, the governor stated that she she found that New York's existing lead standards were appropriately appropriately covered the specific lead level consistent with the most up to date scientific understanding of the harmful impact of lead. Do you agree with the governor that New York's existing lead standards are appropriate where they are now?

[Speaker 0]: I do not.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: And that's point one five micrograms per cubic meter?

[Speaker 0]: I do not.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Is there a concern that the EPA might not continue to retain this standard?

[Speaker 0]: It could be that they would lower the standards again as well. But the fact of the matter is we still see the increasing numbers of young people who are not only poisoned by lead but negatively impacted their whole neurological systems and thereby impacting their ability to be educated. And we can only look at the numbers of special ed classes that have been added across the board to our education system to provide for the needs of these children that we have allowed to be poisoned.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: I think we can all agree that lead levels do result in injury to some children, educational impacts as well. I appreciate that. I have seen that there have been announcements from the EPA administrator of several different actions proposed but I didn't see anything having to do with changing the national ambient air quality standards regarding lead. Do you have any different information

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: on that?

[Speaker 0]: Well, just to go back to your previous question, I do want to mention that we think the lead soil standards are higher in New York state than they are federally. So ours are at 200 400, I'm sorry, and the federal government is at 200. At minimum, we should be able to go to to 200 or lower. And so the state can no longer do a lower air quality the state can do a lower air quality number for air quality than is required by the federal government. We can do it if we choose to and so I'm asking that we do it.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Yeah, the state can always opt to do more or have a different standard. Okay, so you mentioned I think at the beginning, I just want to clarify for myself that in a previous version of the bill there had been a report but now that's not going to be required any longer?

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Alright. So what is deadline there in this bill for doing the review that you are calling for them to do? When actually do they have

[Speaker 0]: is in one hundred and eighty days.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. And do you believe that that's a reasonable timeframe for them to be making that recommendation?

[Speaker 0]: I do think so.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers to my questions.

[Speaker 0]: You're very welcome.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: So I do think that the point that Madam Majority Leader just made about the difference between the 200 and the 400 and wanting to make sure that those standards were consistent. I mean New York can always decide to do more. I was wondering as I prepared for this debate whether there was a feeling or the impetus behind the bill might have been a concern about what may or may not be happening at the federal level. And I was kind of thinking this. So on my desk I'll share that I have a sign that says worry about the things that are actually happening, not the things that might possibly happen. Because if you're an anxious person, you need to focus on what's actually happening in that moment instead of what you think might possibly happen. So there had been a lot of talk previously amongst my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the need to kind of Trump proof New York after the second term. And I think that this legislation arguably could fall into that category. As far as I can tell, there's been no movement at the federal level to deregulate in the area of lead. And I'm really glad about that, by the way. Our vote in 2022 confirms that we almost unanimously believe that lead can be hazardous to our health, particularly to our children's health and development. I expect that we'll continue to support this legislation, but I would even venture to guess that maybe the governor might sign it this time if only to oh no, don't want to say that, never mind. I would just say as we thoughtfully consider legislation to come before us, maybe we should worry about the things that are actually happening instead of all the things that might possibly happen. It might just make us all a little less anxious and we could all use that today. And maybe not overburden our state agencies who as we know already have a lot to do on their plates. So I will personally be supporting this legislation because I think periodically it makes sense to take a look at our standards and figure out if they are appropriate or not. There may be some folks who feel differently as I believe coming through committee we did have some no votes coming through environmental conservation. So with that, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Thank you. Read the last section. This action will take effect on the ninetieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: So generally speaking, a party vote is being requested in the negative on behalf of our conference as I indicated. I'll be in the affirmative, but if there are other members who wish to vote yes, they may certainly do so now with their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference is gonna be in favor of this piece of legislation. There may be a few that would desire to be an exception. They should feel free to do so with their seats.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one zero nine. Nays, 37.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples' jokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, if we can now go back to our debate calendar and start with calendar number two thirty one. So on page 31, that was by miss Tapia. And we're gonna go to calendar 50. That one's on page 10 by miss Rosenthal. And then calendar six, which is on page six, that one is by miss Paulin. In that order. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Page 31, calendar number two thirty one, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirty three zero four b, calendar two thirty one, miss Tapia. An act to amend the banking law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Miss Tapia.

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill prohibits state regulated financial institutions and ATM operators from charging consumer facing surcharges when individuals access public benefits using an electronic benefit transfer, an EBT card. Public benefits are intended to help people meet basic needs. Fixed charges at the point of access reduce the value of that assistance before it can be used for food, housing, and other essentials. This bill ensures that the full value of public assistance reaches the people it was intended to support and prevents the diversion of benefit funds through point of use, surcharges and fees.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mister Bologna?

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few quick questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. I do. The sponsor yields.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you so much, miss Tapia. Now if I understand correctly, the genesis of this legislation brings us back to COVID. Correct? During I think it was KeyBank was was a provider. Could you kind of explain just a little bit of how we got here and what what was the the genesis of your writing the bill?

[Unidentified Member]: I think that was the key

[Speaker 0]: banks?

[Unidentified Member]: I think previously I think they were.

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: Oh no, yeah. That happened during the pandemic and the key bank which was to have the contract with the state of New York was charging many of the other people that were receiving getting detained. Mean, but when the pandemics came, all of that was changed and the key band is not doing it anymore. And there are many other banks that are not doing that anymore because I mean we discussed that and then and then they they just stop it. The Chase Bank, other banks, I mean Citibank, many other banks are not charging already those those charges.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: And just for clarification, KeyBank is now no longer a vendor?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: No. It's the the the fed the federal banks are are are just no part of this. Only the state banks are the one who had to do with this bill.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Got it. So and that's because of our jurisdiction. We we we are able to regulate state banks, and we're not able to regulate federal banks. Is that an accurate statement?

[Speaker 0]: That's correct. That's correct.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Okay. So having said that, do you have any concern that by putting restrictions on state chartered institutions that are not federally chartered institutions, you're creating an un uneven playing field that might disincentivize state chartered institutions from coming in and banking underserved communities?

[Unidentified Member]: There are a number of national banks that are charging surcharges, and this bill only applies to the small subsection transactions, just EBT transactions?

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: Yeah. There there's still some banks that are still doing some charges, state banks, but the majority already are not doing that.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Okay. But again, just to be clear, are we able to if a federally if there is a federally chartered ATM or someplace that someone wants to get a get cash out of, this wouldn't apply to them. Is that am I understanding that correctly? Yeah.

[Yudelka Tapia, Assemblymember]: It doesn't apply to any federal

[Michael Reilly, Assemblymember]: Okay. Fund.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: So it's just the state's chartered ATMs and and Yes. Things you can get cash out of if you will. Okay. I understand. And then just one more question, and this is more of a clarification. This only applies to electronic benefit transfer cards. It does not apply to anyone else. Right? There's no other person?

[Sam Pirozzolo, Assemblymember]: That's correct. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Thank you very much, Tapia. On the bill, Madam Speaker.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Unidentified Member (referred to as 'Mr. Bologna'/'Mr. Peroniot' in transcript)]: Well, I do agree that we can all wanna make sure that that people aren't being taken advantage of. And, generally, if you're on an EBT card, you're going to a to an ATM to take out very small amounts of money and the percentage of which those fees get added up. So I I understand the intent behind the bill, and I commend the intent. However, over the course of the past few years here, I have seen the state really create more regulations for state chartered institutions. And, frankly, state chartered banks and state chartered credit unions are kind of becoming an endangered species in New York State. So I I have growing concerns that we're really unleveling the playing field for state chartered institutions to compete with large federally chartered banks. And that is really starting to impact both underbanked communities, whether it's rural or suburban. So I have a number of concerns there. And the other this is an issue of fairness. I mean, again, we talk about affordability a lot in the in this chamber, and that's something we should be talking about. But, ultimately, what we're doing is, like, if you are, you know, a you know, an electronic benefit transferred card user, we're exempting you from paying fees, but not anyone else. So I think that there really is an issue of fairness here. So for those two reasons, and again, while I commend the intent of the legislation, I will be in the negative on on that for those reasons.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. Anyone who wishes to vote yes may do so now at their seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Charles D. Fall, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of legislation. Those that would like to vote in a different direction, they could do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one zero one. Nays, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page 10, calendar number 50. Clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number thirteen eighty eight a, calendar 50, Ms. Rosenthal, an act to amend the environmental conservation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested. Ms. Rosenthal.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Thank you. This bill would prohibit the sale of pavement products containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons above 1,000 parts per million.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Simpson.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Madam Speaker, would the bill sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Okay so we've had different variations of this bill over the years. This one lowers it even further, the allowable amounts of PAH in coal tar, correct?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Yes.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: It also extends it another year. Am I correct in that analysis?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: It takes effect in one year, yes.

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Okay.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Has the EPA issued any bans on this material at all?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: No, no. They have classified PAHs as probable human carcinogens. And some time ago, they were going to deal with coal tar, but they hadn't. In 2021, that was my bill to ban use of coal tar above 10,000 parts per million.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Okay, but they haven't banned coal tar

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: in No, but many states and localities have above a certain percentage.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Above the 1,000 per kilogram or is it 10,000? What are the other bands?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Lately it's been the 1,000.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Okay, lately as of this year or?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: The past couple of years. Let's see.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Oh, what year? Varies

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: but Minnesota, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois and Washington have bans. And then Texas, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, many localities have banned.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: So I think we can agree that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are bad and have been linked to causing cancer.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Correct.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Is coal tar the only source of polycylic aromic hydrocarbons? Well,

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: the only substance we're dealing with in this bill.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Right, but it is found in many other areas such as cooking, outdoor barbecuing,

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: food that we we're not

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: touching that with this bill. This bill is just about pavements.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Correct. And I just am trying to assess why we are focusing on one product and trying to establish a foundation of why we would ban the use of one product versus other sources, many sources that we all consume, use every day.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Okay, it's product with the highest percentage of PAHs and also some of the other things you are referring to, you can choose whether to ingest or use. But with this, the choice is taken away. So that's why because it's the highest level of coal tar and PAHs in a product above everything else you might be thinking of, that's why we are tackling this one here.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Right, so do I have a choice when I go to Home Depot on what I purchase as far as one that contains the PAH or it doesn't? Do we make alternatives? Are there alternatives available?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: Yes, there are absolutely alternatives. Asphalt based sealants. They do have a level of PAH but substantially lower. And they are on the market, they are used all over the place and they are readily available.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Okay. Do you have you reviewed or seen studies that particularly focus on this one product that we may purchase that we have a choice to use or not in our driveways as far as it?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: I mean I've seen public health statements from the CDC and I've spoken with various environmental advocates. I've talked to a lab. So I have many sources that say that coal tar is not there are alternatives to coal tar.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: Okay. And just one more question. Any reason why the EPA didn't ban or control the use of this product?

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: I don't know. I don't know. I wish they had and it wouldn't have to be done state by state. But since it wasn't, that's why many states have passed their own laws about it.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: All right, thank you Ms. Roosevelt for answering my question. On the bill, Madam Speaker?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[Matt Simpson, Assemblymember]: While I think that this bill is attempting to address a significant issue a risk in every persons life in making choices, there are choices available out there if you want to seal your driveway with a product that doesn' contain this product you have the ability to do that. This bill would take my choice away as everyone else'92s choice away. It'92s been proven that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are expose exposing us through many different things even our own cooking in our home when we charbroil a steak or we cook a hamburger we cook outside we have family over and we have a barbecue We are exposing our family members to this type of hydrocarbon that is causing a risk to our life. I don't think we should ban one specific item. We should look at ways to reduce this item in in our exposure without bans and still leave people choices to make.

[Unidentified Member]: Thank you, madam speaker.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the three hundred and sixty fifth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The minority conference will be generally speaking in the negative on this piece of legislation. Should anyone wish to vote yes, now would be the time to do so at your seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Miss mister Faul.

[Charles D. Fall, Assemblymember]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be in favor of this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote no, they can do so at their desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The clerk will record the vote. Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote.

[Linda B. Rosenthal, Assemblymember]: To explain my vote, PAHs, a group of chemicals that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood or other organic substances exist in many foods and other products. They might affect a person or a family individually if they choose to grill and barbecue and broil, etcetera. However, PAHs, when they are used for driveways, in airports, in playgrounds, the PAHs affect everyone who inhales or is exposed to the PAHs. And so the goal is to minimize the exposure that people have to PAHs through coal tar sealants. Obviously we can't ban all exposure, but this year will go a long way toward protecting people and their health. And I vote in the affirmative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Ms. Rosenthal, in the affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, one zero one. Ayes, 45.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Page six, calendar number six, clerk will read.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Assembly number one seventy three a, calendar six, miss Pollan. And I to amend the not for profit corporation law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: An explanation has been requested, Ms. Pollan.

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Yes, thank you. The bills subject certain local development corporations and similar not for profit corporations that engage in municipal economic development to greater governmental accountability and public transparency.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Mr. Lamondes.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: I'd be happy to.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Sponsor yields.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you, Amy. Could you comment on how does this bill strengthen what's currently in place to the benefit of our citizens?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Absolutely. The ABO was put in place in 2009 to monitor LDCs that work alongside government or work with government or authorized by government to do functions that would be better done by a public authority. And they were given the oversight in the law to monitor them and to make sure that they were behaving correctly and to work cooperatively with them so that they would be transparent to the public.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. So if I understand correctly, currently, those organizations are not required to disclose info via FOIL or meeting and or meetings are are not open to the public if they don't want them to be?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Actually, there was a court decision that did require them to comply with FOIL and to comply with open meetings, but many of them still don't. So, this would put clarity that they are legally bound to do that.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So, for the criteria preventing LDCs from being subject to public procurement laws with public money and competitive bids. Do you think this is good or bad?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Well, obviously I like my bill, right? But I do believe that municipal governments should not be skirting the law. They should be complying with the law because it is public funds.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So, is and what's driving that? Is this urgency, emergency circumstances, what?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: So, what happened in there was a controller report in 2011 which is the basis of many of these reforms that showed that there were some LDCs that were directly authorized by several governments. They pointed to four of them in that report. And it showed that they were indeed not doing things that were appropriate for, you know, where to pertain to public dollars and so it drove them to suggest that there needed to be some reforms in the law. When I became corpse chair, I think you were the ranker at the time, we put forward or we did a public hearing in 2019 which again pointed to several complaints by even current elected officials that were not officials when the particular LDC was formed that were complaining that those LDCs were indeed inappropriately hiding information from the public, purposefully camouflaging activities that should have been done by the municipal government and or that they should have been disclosed, transparent and certainly subject to FOIL?

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So, the revision of the bill now, it would, if I understand you correctly, it would open that competitive process more so than it has been in the past, correct?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Well, we're not really saying that an LDC can't do what they did prior to this bill becoming law. What we are saying is that it will be more transparent to the public. The public hearings will be longer and more available from seven days to twenty one days for the public to participate. So, we're not really denying the authority from doing anything that they could do. We're just saying that you are municipally formed so that you should be doing something more appropriate to what the public would expect using public dollars.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. So, what I'm driving at specifically is would this enable or inhibit the use of sole source contracting more so than it has It in the

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: wouldn't change it.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: They would be able to still use sole source contracts at their discretion?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: I don't know what authorities are allowed to do because that's not part of the provisions of the bill, but whatever they can do, they would be able to do.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: So, I raise that because the sole source contracting method, although important in some circumstances, can be very detrimental and abusive in others. So, going to the economic development council who's in opposition of this, could you comment on the concern of the approval authority shifting from the Department of State to the New York State Budget Office director?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Well, if you look at that section of law that we amend, it's actually a W. And the reason it's a W is because there are so many LDCs and corporations that are formed under that section of law that have requirement to have an approval process. Even cemeteries which is under the jurisdiction of the same committee. So there are already, I don't know what's W in the alphabet. Whatever, W, X, Y, Z. So I guess 23 other types that are already approved by another entity in addition to the Department of State. And remember, the authority's budget office is under the Department of State. So, we're not really taking authority away from the Department of State. We're just allowing for an appropriate authority's budget office that was given the mission of having jurisdiction over LDCs that are affiliated with municipal government to be able to have a review of the LDC before it's formed.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. So, would you then agree or disagree that this bill, if passed, would undermine local control and economic development?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: I don't believe that at all because currently under the law, the ABO has the same authority it had before to have oversight over these LDCs. The problem was that they didn't know because the LDCs were not letting them know. They would have to wait. That's what we learned at the hearing. They'd have to wait to know whether or not an LDC was formed because the other part of the statute, which is already existing, said they had to file their yearly reports and their annual reports with the LDC and they weren't doing that. In fact, if you look at the ABO's website, you see there's already so many LDCs that they know about that are not sending in their annual report, that they happen to figure out were LDCs. So all this is doing is giving the ABO the knowledge to of who the LDCs are out there that are affiliated with municipal governments for them to be able to say they're not handing in their annual reports, they're not complying with the other aspects of the law that they're required to comply with. It would just basically give them that knowledge.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: But having said that, doesn't that further enable the abusive nature if taken that way of more sole source authority?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: I'm not really understanding your point because it's not about we're not changing again anything in the law. I guess I'm just going to ask you a question. Do you mean an LDC is allowed to do sole source?

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: What I mean is the it appears to me that this bill will enable more use of sole source with less oversight.

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: Why would it do that?

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: That's a that's a that's a good question. That's that's a great question. I wouldn't want them to I wouldn't want them to be able to do that.

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: No. I I don't see anything in the bill that would allow that.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Okay. And then last, why would the New York State School Board Association support this when the Economic Development Council and the Council of Mayors oppose it?

[Amy Paulin, Assemblymember]: So that's an interesting question when I look back at the memos myself. I think that, you know, although I haven't had a current conversation with the school boards, they probably I mean, remember IDCs are under the ABO. Maybe they think IDCs should, to my knowledge all IDCs were automatically they would know about. So, I'm not sure. But I can tell you that originally NYSAC and NI both opposed it and NYSAC withdrew their opposition when we amended the bill to allow for a longer lease. That was their only opposition and therefore you don't see an opposition memo from NYSAC. NICOM still opposes it. They don't oppose the lease time which I know that the New York State Economic Development Council does. But the Economic Development Council aren't making these, you know, the counties and the municipal governments are. So I think on that point we made an amendment that adjusts for any concern at the local level. You know obviously there are some local governments that are abusing you know, they're making an authority to do something that is not appropriate. And those maybe drove NICOM to the decision. I don't know. But we were able to address NISAAC's concerns and the school board supports it. So, the local governments that have this authority are not opposed in my view except for an NICOM and I don't know what their motive is because their memo was so short and it didn't have a lot of specificity.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Amy, thank you for responding. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: On the bill.

[John Lemondes Jr., Assemblymember]: Thank you. As a result of Economic Development Council and ICOM's maintained opposition to this bill, I would recommend that all the entire body oppose it as well. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: A party vote has been requested. Miss Walsh.

[Mary Beth Walsh, Assemblymember]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The minority conference will be in the negative on this piece of legislation. If there are those who wish to vote yes, now would be a great time to do so at your seats. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. Ms. Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority the conference is in favor of this piece of legislation. However, if you want to be an exception, please do so at your seat.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Assembly Reading Clerk]: Ayes, 99. Nose, 47.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: The bill is passed. Miss Peoples Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, do you have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: We have no housekeeping. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together on the resolutions. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

[Speaker 0]: Aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted. Miss People Stokes.

[Speaker 0]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10AM, Wednesday, April 1. Tomorrow will be intercession day.

[Presiding Officer (Acting Speaker)]: Miss Pipo Stokes' motion, the house stands adjourned.