New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The senate will come to order. I ask everyone present to please rise and recite the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In the absence of clergy, let us bow our heads in a moment of silent reflection or prayer. Reading of the journal.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In senate, Sunday, 04/19/2026, the senate met pursuant to adjournment. The journal of Saturday, 04/18/2026 was read and approved. A motion to senate adjourn.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Without objection, the general stands approved as read. Presentation of positions, messages from the assembly, messages from the governor, report to standing committees, report to select committees, communications report to state offices, motions and resolutions. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Good morning, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Good morning.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: On behalf of senator Martinez, I wish to call up senator print one ninety four b recall from the assembly, which is now at the desk.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Secretary Reed.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Cabinet number 100 81, Senate Print 194 B by Senator Martinez enact to amend the general business law.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: I wish the bill was passed.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Call of

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: roll reconsideration. Adabo, Junaras Kruger Ort, Zuld Cut and Zellner, ayes 52.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The bill is restored to its place on the third reading calendar. I offer the following amendments. Amendments are received.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Also, amendments are offered to the following third reading calendar bills by senator Scarsillo Spanton, calendar two twenty five, and by senator Gennaro's, calendar four ten.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The amendments on those bills are received and those they will retain their place in a third reading calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Senator Gennaro. On senator Cooney for a very quick introduction.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Cooney for our introduction.

[Senator Jeremy A. Cooney]: Thank you, mister president. Good morning, everyone. I'm proud to be joined with students from SkillsUSA, a nationally recognized career and technical student organization serving students in high school and college post secondary programs across this country. I'd like to start by recognizing some of the representatives who are joining us here in the chamber, Genevieve, Ava, Brianna, as well as leaders, Jennifer and Theresa. We're proud to welcome this all woman representative team. Of course, we're very familiar with that here in this chamber being led by our historic first woman majority leader, Andrea Stewart Cousins. Thank you all for being here today. We recently celebrated SkillsUSA week, a time dedicated to uplifting 475,000 students nationwide, including thousands right here in New York, who are committed to mastering the skilled trades and preparing for real world careers. It's also a time to highlight the vital role that skilled trades play in our economy and the impressive work these students and students across our state do each day to develop personal, workplace, and technical skills grounded in academics. As The United States faces a projected talent shortage, widening the skills gap that could result in the loss of trillions of dollars by 2030, supporting programs like SkillsUSA is vital to ensuring our economic strength and sustained a skilled workforce. The students before us today represent exactly what SkillsUSA stands for, champions of their own futures, a workforce that is our future that New Yorkers can rely on. It is an honor to recognize the entire SkillsUSA community, not just during this special week, but not just today, but each and every day as they lead the way for collaboration and innovation of our skilled trades. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Cooney. To our guests, I welcome you on me on behalf of the senate. Thank you for all that you do. Please remain I I extend to you all of the privileges and courtesy of this house. Please remain standing and be recognized. Senator Generis. Present, there will

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: be an immediate meeting of the rules committee room three thirty two.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: An immediate meeting of the rules committee room three thirty two.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Senator, stand at ease.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator, we'll stand at ease. The senate will return to order. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Mister president, there's a report of the rules committee at the desk. Can we take that up?

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Secretary Reed. Senator Stuart Cousins from the Committee on Rules reports the following bills. Senate Print sixty five seventy eight by Senator Harkim, an act to amend the environmental conservation law. Senate Print eighty five twelve b by Senator Kruger, an act to amend the public service law. Senate Print ninety nine sixty three by Senator Serrano, an act making appropriations for government. All bills report direct to third reading.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Move to accept the report of the rules committee.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: All those in favor of accepting the report of the rules committee, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay, the report of the rules committee is accepted. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Please take up the supplemental calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Second, say we'll read.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number 699, senate print ninety nine sixty three by senator Serrano, and that make an appropriation for the support of government.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Is there a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: There is a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Move to accept the message.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: All those in favor of accepting the message, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The message is accepted and the bill is before the house.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Lay it aside.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Lay it aside. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of today's supplemental calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Let's take up the controversial supplemental calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Secretary, ring the bell. Secretary Reef.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number 699, senate print ninety nine sixty three by senator Serrano, an act making appropriation for the support of government.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator O'Meara, why do you rise?

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, mister president. If the, sponsor would yield for a couple questions on this budget extender.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Sure. Sponsor yields. Good morning.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Good morning.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Senator, here we are on our fifth budget extender. Three weeks late on the budget now. Can you tell us, at least initially, is included in this extender? How much does it total, and what period of time is it covering?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Mister president, this extender, this budget extender legislation has $12,700,000,000 total, which includes 5,100,000,000 in new funding.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Through you, mister president and the senator, we yield.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: What what is this what date does this extender, go through?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, this, this extender will bring us through Wednesday, April 22. Through

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: you, mister president, the senator will continue to yield. Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. So we're adding an additional, $5,100,000,000 in this extender. Being three weeks late, that's an extra $5,000,000,000 to get us through the next two days.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, different extenders because of different timetables for payment have different amounts in them. So there is an increase in this one over previous, but not necessarily because of the length of time, but more because certain payments are due.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Do you, mister president, if the senator will yield? Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. Can you outline for us then what the, 5,100,000,000 in in, spending authorization covers?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: President, the three main issues, that this additional funding covers are, Medicaid, payroll, and school funding.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Through you, mister president, if the senator will continue to yield Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Can you tell us the amount of, education funding that's that's being authorized here to go to our, local school districts?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, this extender includes about 2,300,000,000 for schools.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, mister president. Senator, continue to yield. Sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Senator, we're now three weeks late on this budget. We're at April 20. Our schools, have to put their budgets to a vote before their voters in about a month's time or less, and they have to have their budgets actually finalized before they go to a vote. So, what can we tell our school districts while this budget is late? What to expect, in school funding? Has has there been any type of agreement between the three sides on what school funding is gonna be or what what a minimum amount is gonna be so they can properly formulate their budgets?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Mister president, well, certainly, as you mentioned, there there is a sense of urgency, especially when it comes to this topic of school aid. However, we do have a little bit more time before that, that issue arises, And I feel pretty confident that we will complete this budget in time so that school districts can be able to, manage appropriately. As in years past, even with late budgets, we've been able to get it done before that critical moment.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. Mister president, the senator will continue to yield. Does the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: So do we have any basis that we can at least signal to our school districts what the base level of increase would be looking at and the governor came out with a 1% base, which is pretty anemic. And I think the one house has come up with 2%. What can we assure them at this point?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Mister president, while it is difficult to give assurances until the budget is done, if past is any indication, we usually build upon what was in the executive budget. So I would presume that that would be a base and that we would hopefully go up from there.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. Mister president, if the senator will continue to yield. With the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. Senator, it's been four or five major issues, at least, in the media that are holding up this budget process. Since the last extender last Thursday, can you, inform of inform us of any, progress that's been made on any of the, major open issues?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Thank you, mister president. I wish I could give you some more, but, I I do feel that, you know, as negotiations are ongoing, and that the overall sense of urgency, I think things are moving in the right direction. There have been productive conversations with all parties engaged. And, you know, budgets, as as you know, all of these budgets are a lot of work. They're hard work, and they certainly require a lot of negotiation and time. And this budget is no exception. So but I do feel, I feel good that things are moving in the in the right direction, and hopefully, we can land this plane sooner rather than later.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. Mister president, the senator will continue to yield. Will it sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yep. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: One of the major issues, to my understanding, has been, alterations to the CLCPA and the the timelines on that for feasibleness for it to be feasible and affordable. The governor stated last week that language had been provided to both houses' majorities, on proposed changes to that. Can you tell us what those proposals are?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, I have I have no no additional information on that.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. Mister president, the senator will continue to yield.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: One of the other major issues is the automobile liability insurance, changes that the governor's proposed and the senate and assembly majorities have had some responses to. Can you tell us where we are on specific language on that issue?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Mister president, no. I'm sorry. I I don't have any additional information on that.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, mister president. Or mister senator, thank you, mister mister president. Will the, senator continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Last week, it was indicated in the discussion on the floor here of this extender last Thursday that both sides wanted, seeker, reforms, which has been discussed a lot, in the press, and that it was felt to be close on agreement on the Seeker issues. Now can you tell us, is Seeker locked down at this point, that issue, and and what where are we? What what is the changes being proposed to Seeker?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, I really cannot I really don't have any additional information to add to that. And, again, as this negotiation continues, all of these things, I'm hoping, will fall into place in in due time sooner rather than later, but you are correct that these are some of the many issues that, have, continue we continue to grapple with as we attempt to finalize this budget.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. Mister president and senator,

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: we'll continue to yield. With sponsor yield?

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Yes. Sponsor yields. We have nine budget bills, that we have to get through that are outstanding. Have any one of those nine, been finalized to this point?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president, no.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Through you, mister president, the senator will continue to yield. Does the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yeah. The sponsor yields.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: What is your prognosis on when we will be nailing down these final nine budget bills so we can at least let the public know what's being discussed and we can start debate on those bills?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Through you, mister president. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, that I feel that things are moving in the right direction. I think discussions are ongoing. All parties involved are working very hard to try to come to agreement, and come up with bills that we could bring to a vote, that, the public can be proud of. It takes time to come up with a budget that speaks to all of the different needs, of the people of New York, and, we are certainly being, very, methodical in our approach here as, as we can see. However, I do sense a, there is a sense of urgency to get moving on this, and and I think things are coming together. But, no, to directly answer your question, I I am unable to provide any, dates or prognosis beyond that.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, mister president. The senator will continue to yield. Will the sponsor yield? Yep. The sponsor yields. Would you expect us to have, budget bills to be, actually working on by the end of next week?

[Senator José M. Serrano]: You, mister president. Again, it's, it's difficult to say. I would hope so. But it's it's, unfortunately, I can I cannot answer?

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Thank you, senator. On the bill, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator O'Meara. On the bill. Yeah.

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: Here we are on our fifth budget extender, three weeks late, on the budget, to date, with, as we can see, little to no information being shared by the majorities, with us in the minority or more importantly with, New Yorkers. You know, this is probably the most important thing that we do, each year in Albany is set the state budget. We need to do it in a timely manner. As I've said, so our school districts, can set their budgets so that they can reliable, reliably, have a figure, of state aid coming so they can set their budgets and not have to, perhaps set property taxes higher than they would need to be, if they knew what was coming, in state aid. So, it is just still, very concerning to me our side of the aisle that, we have little to no information to be discussing, on this. It seems that the rank and file members of the majority don't have any information either. And that's concerning that, everything still continues to be, three people in a room behind closed doors with, no discussion or detail on what the hang ups are, what's actually being considered from one side or the other, which would be helpful, in informing the public of where this budget is is headed and and the major policy issues that are outstanding. The the the five or six issues that are out there are significant issues and should involve public input, public response to what's being proposed so that we can more accurately debate these issues, know where our constituents stand on these issues, and more importantly, have an informed vote, on the budget itself. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator O'Meara. Are there any of the senators wishing to be heard, seeing, and hearing none? Debate is closed. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Mister president, let's restore this to the noncontroversial calendar, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Upon consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. There was a substitution at the desk. Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section two, this action to defect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR, Spruca, Ort, store cut and sewner.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator White to explain her vote.

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Thank you, mister president. Today is April 20. The budget was due on April 1. So as my colleagues have said, three weeks late for a budget, still no table targets, which really just once again showcases how inefficient having one party running our state has been. And for that, I'll be voting in the negative.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator White to be recorded in the negative, announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to counter six ninety nine, voting in negative. Senator White, eyes fifty seven days one.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Bills passed. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of the controversial supplemental calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Thank you, mister president. Going to more, routine business now. There's a privilege resolution at the desk. Please take that up, read its title, and recognize senator Brisport on the resolution.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Secretary will

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: read. Senate resolution eighteen eighty seven by senator Brisport memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Arab American Heritage Month in the state of New York. Senator Briskport

[Senator Jabari Brisport]: on the resolution. Thank you, mister president. The great Palestinian poet, Mossab Abutowa, whom we are honored to have with us today, wrote these words. What is home? Is the shade of trees on my way to school before they were uprooted. It is my grandparents black and white wedding photo before the walls crumbled. It is my uncle's prayer rug where dozens of ants slept on wintery nights before it was looted and put in a museum. It is the oven my mother used to bake bread and roast chicken before a bomb reduced our house to ashes. It is the cafe where I watched football matches and played, my child stops me. Can a four letter world word hold all of these? When I think about this poem, I I think not only about the limitations of words to adequately hold on to a legacy, but also about their tremendous importance in the attempt to do so. That is precisely what makes erasure such a powerful and common tool of oppression. Sometimes erasure happens when a bomb strikes a library like the Edward Said public library founded by mister Abu Toa himself and now reduced to ash. Sometimes it happens when a gang of ICE agents snatch a young Palestinian man like Mahmoud Khalil away from his families for for speaking truths our government did not want heard. Sometimes it happens as simply as a publisher choosing to omit mention of Arab American contributions from our students' textbooks. To erase the arts, the voices, the history of a people makes it that much easier to erase the people themselves. We are seeing that playbook used again in real time. Today, as we recognize Arab American Heritage Month in New York, I hope we will all take the occasion to commit ourselves to fighting that erasure, to seeking out, listening to, and amplifying the Arab voices being silenced. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Brisport. Senator Fahey on the resolution.

[Senator Patricia Fahy]: Thank you. Thank you, mister president. I'd like to, commend the sponsor for offering this resolution and to, also speak on it to say that, this is a wonderful opportunity to commend, all Arab Americans and, and recognize the heritage month. Right here in the Capital Region, we have one of the largest and faster growing Arab American communities in the country. Many are incredible entrepreneurs, educators, health care workers, engineers, and public servants, and they have strengthened the Capital Region in multiple multiple ways. That entrepreneurial spirit, the cultural tradition, my children went to the Albany schools and they have just enriched the incredible diversity of those schools. We have seen an explosive growth here in, Arab American, residents, especially in the last few years, which have been stunning. And I think it makes this resolution more important than ever because on the the other the flip side of this, we've also seen an a truly unfortunate rise in hate, in bias, and certainly in harmful rhetoric. So I think it's more important now that we stand firm against any forms of discrimination and and and talk about the positive and extraordinary contributions. We have seen, again, an exponential rate of rate of of complaints, particularly, in our Muslim community with anti Muslim and anti Arab, incidents. So I think it's, it's a good reminder that New York and this country are best when we focus on dignity, on respect, inclusion, and the incredible value that the diversity and inclusion brings to our community and the commitment that we have in this state and in this country on advancing opportunities for all and reminding each of us that hate should have absolutely no home here or anywhere else. So I am so proud to join, my colleagues and join all my community members in recognizing Arab American Heritage Month and celebrate those extraordinary contributions of so many here in our community and in New York as a whole. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Fahey. Senator Salazar on the resolution.

[Senator Julia Salazar]: Thank you, mister president. New York is home to over 300,000 Arab Americans. It's the third largest population of Arab Americans in The United States. From Astoria in Queens to Bay Ridge, we can see clearly that entire neighborhoods have developed and flourished because of the contributions of Arab American immigrants and their generations who have built their lives here in New York. Thought leaders like Edward Said, who Senator Brisport mentioned, the Palestinian American scholar and author of Orientalism and the Question of Palestine, have played a major part in New York's global academic and literary influence. The Yemeni small business owners who run thriving restaurants and convenience stores in my district and across the city and state make our local economies diverse and resilient and community oriented. Arab American hospitality, literature, cuisine, they've enriched our lives for the better even as Arab American communities have faced immense challenges. Many of our Arab American neighbors were forced to leave their homelands due to war, occupation, oppression, and systemic violence, sometimes as a result of US foreign policy. Far too often, we have seen elected officials at various levels of government perpetuate bigoted tropes and inflammatory language about our Arab American neighbors. It makes it all the more important that we celebrate Arab Americans through resolutions like this one. Even today, Arab New Yorkers are still disproportionately surveyed and discriminated against simply because of their heritage. And yet their communities have persevered and given back to our state. Organizations like the Arab American Association of New York and American Family Support Center are consistently providing comprehensive services to those in need regardless of their identity. We know that Arab Americans in our state deserve our celebration and respect, and I thank senator Brisport for recognizing these communities through this resolution. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Salazar. Senator Garnardis on the resolution.

[Senator Andrew Gounardes]: Thank you, mister president. I rise to to thank our sponsor for this resolution, and, I have the privilege to represent a wide diversity of the Arab American diaspora, whether they are people immigrants from Morocco, from Palestine, from Jordan, from Syria, from Iraq, from Kuwait, from Egypt, from many of the nations where around the globe where Arabs, are come from. They've all settled in not just throughout New York City, but particularly in many of the neighborhoods that I get to represent in Brooklyn. Senator Salazar mentioned Bay Ridge. That's probably the newest wave of Arab immigrants we have here in my district, but it begins even a century earlier when we saw the first wave wave of Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who settled in Downtown Brooklyn, establishing shops, establishing restaurants, becoming the the first pioneers of their communities to settle here in The United States. I am incredibly proud to represent that full spectrum of Arab American neighbors who live in New York City. And one of my favorite things every year, in fact, on Good Friday, as many of you know, Greek Orthodox, on Good Friday at the church that I attend, we do a procession where we walk around the church, and two blocks away, there is an Antiochian Orthodox Church, Lebanese, Arab American Christians also celebrating Good Friday. Our two congregations come together, and we chant the Good Friday hymns not just in English and not just in Greek, but also in Arabic. And it is such a beautiful picture of what makes New York City so great and that you have all of these diverse cultures, all of these diverse, nationalities coming together and sharing in this common experience together. That is what makes our city and our state such a beautiful place to welcome so many others, whether they came here a hundred years ago or they came here just yesterday. And so I wanna thank again senator Brisport for, reminding us of the importance of Arab American Heritage Month. I see some of my constituent groups that are here today, the Arab American Association, the Arab American Family Support Center, and I'm proud to support this this resolution. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Gennardis. To our guests from the Arab Arab American community, we thank you for your leadership, and we I welcome you on behalf of the senate. We extend to you all of the privileges and courtesy of this house. Please rise and be recognized. The question is on the resolution. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The resolution is adopted. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Senator Brisport would like to open that resolution for cosponsor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The resolution is open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Let's take up the calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Secretary Reed.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number 168, senate print one fourteen by senator Clear enactment of banking law. Lay it aside. Calendar number 311, senate print fifty three forty c by senator Sebiski, enactment of education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Number four fifty, center print twenty two twenty four.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: One second. Second. Oh. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: I believe that the, that calendar three eleven was laid aside in Harris. Senator Lanza would like to remove that lay aside, and let's take that bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Lay aside has been removed. Secretary will read.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number three eleven, senate print fifty three forty c by senator Savicki, an act to amend the education law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Session four, this action will take effect on the one hundred and eightieth day of child become a law. Call the roll. Dabo, GNR's Cooper, or Svikanth Zellner.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Announce the results. In relation

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: to calendar three eleven, voting in negative are senators Galvin, Grifle, Helming, Lanza Martinez, Orton Palumbo, eyes 50. Oh, sorry. In relation to calendar three eleven, voted in a negative r, senators Galvin, Grifold, Lanza, Martinez, Ort, Colombo, and White. Ayes, 51, nays, seven. Bills passed. Calendar number four fifty, center print 2224 b by senator Kruger, enactment of legislative law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: County number 454, Senate Print twenty seven zero eight a by Senator May, enactment of public service law.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: Lay it aside.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Comment number 45, senate print thirty one forty seven by senator Cooney, an act to amend the insurance law. Read the last section. Section two, this action of the confederate on the thirtieth date shall become a law. Call the roll. Dabo, GNR Spooker, Ortiz Vucahn Zellner. Announce the results. Ayes, 58. Those pass. Comment number four ninety three, center print fifty two eighty eight by Senator Sepulveda, enactment of real property tax law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section four, this action will be effect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, junior Ort, Svuld Cuttens, Zelner. Announce the results. Aye. 58. Bills passed. Cotton number 543, center print 5598 a by senator May. And that to amend the general business law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section four, this action taken effect on the one hundred and eighty of day. Shops come aloft. Call the roll. Adabo, GNR Spooker Oort, Stewart Cuddings, Zelner.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to calendar, pardon me, five forty three voted in a negative r, senators Barrella, Oborac, or Steck, Walzik, and White, eyes 53. Nays five. Bills passed. Calendar number six thirteen, senate print forty one eighty eight b by senator Comer, an act from the penal law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section two, this act will take effect immediately.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Call the roll.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Adabo, GNR, Scruger, Ortz, Wilkut, and Zelner. Announce the results. Ayes 58. Bills pass. Convil number 654, senate print twenty seventy eight by senator Mayor, enactment of labor law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Lay it aside.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number 671, senate print eleven sixteen by senator Grenard is an act from the executive law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section two, this acts with effect immediately. Call the roll. Dabo, Junaris Kruger Ort, Sue Cuggins, Zelner. Announce the results. Ayes, 58. Bills passed. Calendar number 672, senate print twenty five forty six by senator Myra, enact from the real property actions of proceedings law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: They They decide. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of today's calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Alright. On to the controversial calendar, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Secretary will ring the bell. Secretary will read.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Calendar number 186, senate print one fourteen, my senator clear, an

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: act of the banking law. Senator Generis. President, I

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: I believe the sponsor just stepped out for a moment. Let's, stand at ease until she comes back.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The senate will stand at ease momentarily. Senator senator will return the order, senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Okay. Mister president, let's proceed with the debate, please.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Barrella, why do you rise?

[Senator George Borrello]: Thank you, mister president. With the, sponsor yield for a question.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Through you, mister president, do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: Through you, mister president, we've we've, been through this bill, I think, six years now, I think since my first year in the senate. I'm just curious what the status is in the other house and why this bill continues to come up and pass this chamber but hasn't seemed to go any further.

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: It's my understanding it's made it, through you, mister president, to third reading on, some occasions.

[Senator George Borrello]: President, sponsor, continue to yield.

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: We sponsor yield. Through you, mister president. Do.

[Senator George Borrello]: Sponsor yields. So New York State already restricts, banks, institutions from actually investing in private prison contractors, contractors that provide private prison services, within New York State. In other words, New York State doesn't allow private prisons essentially. So what is the intent of this bill if it it doesn't occur here in New York State?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: That our banks are not investing in private prisons in general, outside of New York

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: State. Sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: For you, mister president, yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: Through you, mister president, are you aware of of any state chartered banks that are currently investing in private prison contractors?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: No. Okay. Through you, mister president. No.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Okay.

[Senator George Borrello]: Mister president, will sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Will you, yes.

[Senator George Borrello]: Sponsor yields. So we don't allow them here in New York State. We don't have any state chartered banks because this only can impact state chartered banks. We don't have any purvey over federally chartered institutions. We don't have any state chartered banks that are actually invested in private prisons outside of New York State. So isn't this bill really just trying to regulate what happens in states outside of New York?

[Senator Rachel May]: Yeah.

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: There is some renewed pressure, with with what we we have limited ability to regulate, what happens federally with immigration, but there has been some renewed, activity in terms of us investing in private facilities that detain people.

[Senator George Borrello]: Madam president, sponsor continue you. We sponsor you?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Through you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor you. Yes.

[Senator George Borrello]: So, well, this bill's been around long before, you know, we've had any immigration enforcement of any of any kind or of any significance, honestly, in in the previous four years. So you're saying now this bill's intent has shifted to be more about immigration enforcement?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Still, there's still a great concern about investing in private prisons, outside of New York State. You know, you and I have talked about, previous corruption scandals, where people were being sentenced and sent to private prisons. And we don't want our banks to be a part of that. We don't want to be investing in that kind of situation, among other things that are going on in these private, prisons, wherever they are.

[Senator George Borrello]: Sponsor continue to yield. Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: I do. Sponsor yield? Mister president.

[Senator George Borrello]: So really then, we're just saying to banks within New York State, we're gonna tell you where you're going to invest your and how you're going to invest your money. And essentially outside of New York State, we're trying to essentially impede their ability. Isn't that kind of a slippery slope now that we're gonna be telling banks how they should be investing their money outside of the state that we govern?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: No. I don't think so. I think that, you know, there's a moral issue here, where we invest our money. And I think that private prisons are just not a place that we should be investing our money.

[Senator George Borrello]: Mister president, sponsor continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Through you, mister president, I do.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The sponsor yields.

[Senator George Borrello]: When you say our money, I mean, we're not talking about government money. Right? We're talking about people that have given their money to a bank or another state chartered institution. And, you know, so we're really talking about regulating how a private entity invests money provided to them by private citizens, not by the government. Correct?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Through you, mister president. Right. Okay.

[Senator George Borrello]: Mister president, on the bill. Senator Barrella on the bill. Thank you, mister president. Thank you senator Clear once again for this, this debate. I wanna also mention that senator Clear has been very instrumental in personal advocacy for something that she believes in. She believes that indeed financial institutions should not be investing in private prisons and she's been very effective. She's gotten some action through her advocacy. I believe Some national chartered banks that we have absolutely no control over have actually voluntarily decided not to invest because of her advocacy. So I commend you for that, even if I would disagree with it. But at the end of the day, that's the way to go about this because, again, this targets a very narrow group of people, state chartered banks. We've lost 40% of our state chartered banks just in my time here in the senate in six years. People just choose to banks choose to no longer deal with the heavy regulation of New York State, and they choose to then become federally chartered institutions or to discontinue doing business in New York State altogether. This is just another nail in that coffin, essentially. People having the choice of having more opportunity to find banks that are willing to invest in them, to provide them with mortgages and car loans and business loans. The harder that we are on our state chartered banks, are community banks, our local banks, the harder that we are on them, the less that they're are going to provide critical finances here in New York State, critical support. But also, this is about interstate commerce in a lot of ways. This bill is saying we're going to tell a bank in New York State where and how they can invest their money, not New York State government taxpayer money, the money that's given to them by private citizens and how they can invest that. And that's a very slippery slope because what's next? Are we gonna tell people that, you can't invest in certain food companies because we don't like the way, the food that they manufacture and sell and distribute? Are we going to tell we're no longer gonna allow people to invest in car companies because they make, internal combustion engines instead of electric vehicles? The list goes on and on what a slippery slope this bill really is. So once again, I'll be a no on this bill, and, we will see what happens next. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Morello. Are there any of the senators wishing to be heard, seeing, hearing none? Debate is closed. Secretary ring the bell. Senator Serrano.

[Senator José M. Serrano]: Mister president, upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Upon consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section two, this act should take effect immediately. All the roll. Adabo, Genaris Cooper, Ort, Stewart Cotton, Zome.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Sanders to explain this vote.

[Senator James Sanders Jr.]: Thank you, mister president. A a a point of information, it was stated that there are no private prisons in New York State. I have one in my district. Just wanted to state that. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Sanders, will recorded in the affirmative. Senator Clea to explain her vote.

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Thank you, mister president. While this bill has come to the floor on many occasions, today is probably one of the most important time in recent history. That is because on the federal level under the Trump administration, the use of private prisons for incarceration and detention is on the rise. In January 2025, a Trump executive order rescinded the Biden directive that required the Justice Department not to renew contracts with private prison firms. Increased ICE activity virtually guarantees the for profit companies who operate private prisons a pipeline of revenue. However, in New York, we're going to take the opposite course in the high road. This bill sets a very clear moral and policy principle which follows upon the fact that we already prohibit the operation of private prisons in New York State per section one twenty one of correction law. Senate Bill one fourteen extends this principle further by prohibiting any state chartered banking institution from providing financing or investing in the stocks, securities, or other obligations of an entity that owns or operates a private correctional facility. New York has been wise enough to ban the very existence of private prisons in the state and thus it is completely logical to prohibit banks chartered by the very same state from investing in an activity that we have declared is not only prohibited but morally unacceptable. As we stand here today, over 115,000 people in this country are in private prisons. And the number being detained by ICE only adds to this alarming figure. In my public service career, I have helped numerous constituents who had family members in private prisons and the experience was exceptionally burdensome. It is often impossible to make contact with your loved one's setup visits or perform any kind of wellness check. There's no accountability, no care or compassion, safety, health, labor, and other standards are lax. New York banks should not be allowed to profit from institutions that the state itself deems impermissible to even exist, plain and simple. I proudly vote I and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Clear to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Religious calendar one eighty six vote in the negative r. Senators Ashby, Gorello, Kansas City, Fitzpatrick Chan, Gallatin, Grifle, Helming, Lanza, Matera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ort, Rose, Raulston, Ryan, Steck, Tedisco, Wozart, Weber, White, also Senator Martins. Ayes, 36. Nays, 22. Votes passed. Calendar number four fifty, senate print twenty two twenty four b by senator Krug or Natt to amend the legislative law. Senator Walzik, why do

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: you rise?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: I rise to go briefly on the bill and then would ask the sponsor to yield for senate

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Walzik on the bill.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president. We have in New York state a comprehensive lobbying regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to provide those regulated by the commission on ethics and lobbying in government, as well as the public at Consolidated Resource for Understanding and Complying with the requirements of our legislative law known as the Lobbying Act. Under current law, every lobbyist must file a biannual registration statement if they receive more than $5,000 or more in reportable compensation. This bill, clarifies that to be if they receive $5 or more in reportable compensation or expenses, they must file a biennial registration statement. The purpose of the biennial registration statement is to memorialize the engagement of the lobbyist by the client and should reflect the current terms of the engagement at any point in time. When people donate to a nonprofit, they expect their money to fulfill the mission of that charity, not to be spent on lobbyists. And with that, mister president, I would ask the sponsor

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: to yield. Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: The sponsor, but I'm happy to yield. Kruger.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator May yields instead of, senator Kruger. Senator Wolsing.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president. This bill allows nonprofits to spend $10,000 a year on lobbyists without having to file any reports. Is that correct?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Mister president, this bill changes the expenditure threshold currently at, $5,000 to 10,000. It it simply allows very small nonprofits to be exempt from the requirement if they spend less than $10,000.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Sergeant mayor, do you

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: yield? Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sergeant yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, president, is there a size of nonprofits? You said very small. Is there a size requirement for the size of the nonprofit?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Mister president, no. There aren't, but there are, according to our reports, only 33 nonprofits that would fall within this category statewide.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Attorney yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, how did you arrive at the 33 if there's no threshold for the size?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Through you, mister president, that's the COLIG reporting of the, number of lobbyists who were between the 5,010 threshold.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield? With sponsor yield?

[Senator Patricia Fahy]: Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. Through you, mister president. So and this applies in 2026 in our current calendar year, so even retroactive for money that may have already been spent on lobbying. You're saying there's 33 nonprofits that have already exceeded the $5,000 threshold in lobbying efforts?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Through you, mister president, according to the reports we have from COLIG, there are 33 small nonprofits who have spent between 5 and $10,000 who would be impacted by this change.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yield. And just to be clear, that's 33 that have already exceeded the current statute of, $5,000. So they're somewhere between 5 and $10,000 in lobbying this year?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: That's those who have filed who would be impacted by this change in law. Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield? Would the sponsor yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. Nonprofits are, prohibited from endorsing candidates or directly contributing to political campaigns. Is there anything in this legislation that would require a lobbyist that's lobbying for a nonprofit not to be able to contribute to political campaigns or endorse candidates?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Mister president, there's no change in the current law other than changing the threshold.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And would the sponsor continue to yield? Would the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields? Some nonprofits receive tax money from the state of New York to implement various programs in our, very, benevolent state. They would if this bill goes into law, they would also be able to hire a lobbyist up to $10,000 on retainer for each year. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Through you, mister president, as I stated previously, there is no change other than the threshold number from five to 10,000.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Cordell Cleare]: Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. And that means that that lobbying up to $10,000 wouldn't have to be filed and follow the rest of the regulations, so there would be no public disclosure on how that money was spent in the lobbying efforts. Am I understanding that correctly if this bill becomes law?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Through you, mister president, the threshold would only apply if more than $10,000 was spent on lobbying.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And would the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Sponsor yields. Some nonprofits are also global in their nature. While they, are hosted here in The United States, they can in fact receive foreign monies. Is there any prohibition in this legislation that would say if you've received foreign monies into your nonprofit, that you can't, lobby in the state of New York and not disclose it up to $10,000 as we've already established?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: To you, mister president, I recognize that, my colleague is is trying to imply other changes. There is no other change other than 5,000 to 10,000.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Mister president, on the bill. Senator Walzik, the bill. Many nonprofits also have five zero one c fours. Those are those are their ability to really reach out and impact PACs, political action committees, do issue advocacy campaigns, lobby, that sort of thing. This this bill would affect the five zero one c threes. There's been some reporting about five zero one c threes showing that nonprofits have illegally directly from the nonprofit directly into political campaigns, but there is also a loophole. Right now, that loophole is that if $5,000 or less is spent on a lobbyist for your nonprofit, you're not subject to the same reporting requirements that the rest of the lobbying world is in this fat regulation on comprehensive regulations for lobbyists in the state of New York that exists in order to make sure that there is transparency on the funding that is spent in lobbying. And I know the people that work in these halls understand how these things work. This bill would expand that lobbying loophole for nonprofits, allowing up to $10,000 for a nonprofit. We're talking about supposed to be going to charity. People that donate to a nonprofit believe that their money is going to the actual thing that the nonprofit stands for. Not to be spent on a lobbyist, but if that nonprofit decides that it really needs to lobby, right now if they're spending over $5,000 on lobbying, it has to be publicly disclosed through our regulations and the public, including the contributors to that nonprofit, have to see it. This bill would expand that up to $10,000. So you could funnel nonprofit money into lobbying firms that then show up to your campaign events, contribute to your campaigns. It is a loophole that eliminates transparency at the same time that we're seeing reporting that nonprofits have directly contributed to campaigns. That's already a mistake. And then by admission from the stand in for the sponsor today, 33 have already exceeded that $5,000 threshold. This year have already done the wrong thing, should have to disclose to the people that have donated to those nonprofits, to the people of the state of New York who often their tax money is donated to those nonprofits and directed through our budgetary process. This bill is very bad for transparency and headed down a very dangerous road. And with that, I will be voting no, mister president, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: You, senator Walzik. Are there any of the senators wishing to be heard? Senator Martins, why do you rise?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, mister president. It's a sponsor we'd yield for, an a couple of questions.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Mayor, do you yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator yields? So

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: is there anything in this bill that would prevent several not non for profit five zero one c threes to each contribute up to 5,000 or $10,000 in a cumulative effort to influence policy?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: You, mister president, I believe that under current law, the concept of cumulative lobbying is is not authorized. You would have to file each not for profit would have to file their own lobbying expenses, which I would point out is a significant amount of work for small not for profits as we know in our communities, but each not for profit is required under the law to file its own disclosure.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Senator, mister president, through you

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: if the sponsor would continue to yield. Will the senator yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Yes.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: We keep

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: using the term small not for profit, But this really has nothing to do with the size of the not for profit. It merely has to do with the amount that they're willing to absorb in lobbying efforts. Right? Do you,

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: mister president, the reason I am using the word small is because the expenses associated with the filing are a burden on small not for profits. Small being either small in staff, small in assets, or in other ways, small. That is why my understanding senator Krueger sponsored this bill to address the concerns of small not for profits in each of our communities who are burdened with using the contributions they receive in order to hire someone to do these complicated forms. We are simply saying that the activities of up to $10,000 are such in the current time where they should not require you to go out and hire someone to do the form. This is a modest amount of money and it is not required to be disclosed under this bill up to $10,000.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, mister president. On the bill. Senator Martin's on the bill. Thank you. You know, it's a bit of a slippery slope when we when we talk about things like this because you always have to set a threshold. And the threshold was set at $5,000, and I think for a reason. When we start talking about small not for profits as opposed to large not for profits, all based on how much they're willing to spend to influence policy, we're missing the mark. It has nothing to do with the size of the not for profit, mister president. It has everything to do with the public disclosure that should be expected when we are looking at a 200 this year, nearly $270,000,000,000 budget with an increase in spending in the billions year over year. What kind of accountability do we expect to have and should the public expect? And is this the time when we should be loosening that kind of oversight? Small not for profits, large not for not for profits really have very little to do with this issue. It's how much they're willing to expose themselves to scrutiny. So you can have a very large not for profit that chose not to involve themselves in lobbying because they didn't wanna go through the effort. But we've just, through this bill, would increase that threshold and double it from 5,000 to 10,000 just because we don't wanna be a burden to small not for profits. But it has nothing to do with the size. It has to do with the scrutiny and oversight that this law was initially supposed to provide. I'm concerned, although the spirit of the law, I'm concerned that we will have lobbying efforts for multiple five zero one c threes, each one lobbying up to that $10,000 threshold, aggregating it in order to influence public policy, again, without having the necessary oversight. And here's the reality. If you wanna come here, if you wanna influence policy, if you wanna use your not for profit money or for profit money to influence how we spend money in the state capital, taxpayer funds, yeah, you should be open to that scrutiny. Why not? Why should we be lessening it just for the sake of those 33, which miraculously, I guarantee you, will multiply as we lessen that threshold. We're basically inviting people to go out there and spend money lobbying up to $10,000. And why would we do that without providing any oversight at all? It's bad policy, mister president. I'll be voting no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Martins. Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: We've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last session.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Session five is asked to take cup on the sixtieth day. It shall

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: come along. Call the roll.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Dabo, GNR Skooker, or Sukadan Zona. Senator Mayor, to explain her vote.

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Mister president, I find it somewhat concerning that this great fear about these small not for profits, what I call small, and I think everyone would agree most of them are quite small, is is somehow a travesty to those who contribute. First place, this original limit that we have of 5,000 was enacted twenty one years ago in the laws of 2005. I would say given the current rate of inflation, any change a modest change that affects 33 not for profits is perfectly reasonable and respective of the fact that people contribute and don't want their money to be spent on the hiring of a specialist to file the forms. Let me tell you the names of a number of the groups that fall within this. Adirondack North Country Association, Epilepsy Foundation of Northeastern New York, National Multiple Sclerosis Society of New York, A Place for Rover Inc, Saint Michael's Protestant Episcopal Church, Catholic Charities Community Services of the Archdiocese of New York, Friends of the Earth, unique people services, justice innovation, Chautauqua County Humane Society, Mount Pleasant Cottage School, Union Free School District, Cerebral Palsy Associations of New York State Inc. Of the very many organizations that are required to file, these 33 that I or have before me should not be burdened by the requirement of filing simply because they hire someone to come up to Albany and work on one bill in a modest amount of time and spend less than $10,000. This makes sense. This is timely, and this is absolutely supportive of both the small not for profits and those that contribute to them. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Mayor, to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Rhodes will explain this vote.

[Senator Steven Rhoads]: President, many of my colleagues have made, excellent points on this side of the aisle. What concerns me is the apparent hypocrisy that's coming out of this chamber with respect to transparency. Less than a month ago with lightning speed, we passed through the senate, and it also passed through the assembly, hope, landing on the governors' desk, a bill requiring five zero one c threes and really even private individuals who simply want to come up and express their opinion with respect to nominations that come before this chamber, not even policy, nominations that come before this chamber to go through the expense of actually filing as a lobbying organization. That was incredibly important for the purposes of transparency. Yet here we are turning around and saying groups that actually spend money on lobbyists, that will actually show up at campaign fundraisers, that will actually donate to individual politicians. Now we're saying, well, we really don't need the transparency for that. It is nonsense. Either we are for transparency or we are against it, and it seems as though the majority in this chamber decides that it wants to pick winners and losers as to when disclosure for the people of the state of New York is important and when it's not. I'll be voting no on this legislation. Thank you, mister president.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Rhodes, to be recorded in a negative. Announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to counter four fifty voted in a negative are senators Ashby Barello, Kansas City, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Grifo, Helming, Lanza Martins, Matera, Murray, Oberecho, Romero, Orpolumbo, Rolls, Rosman, Steck, Todisco, Walls of Weapon, White, eyes 30 pardon me, thirty six days oh. Also, Senator Scufus, eyes 35, eyes 23. Bills passed. Counter number 454, center print twenty seven zero eight eight by senator May, enactment of public service law.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Walzig, why do

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: you rise? Mister president, with the sponsor yield. Senator May, do you yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: I do. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president. This bill passed the energy committee, last month, then was amended pretty significantly. Can you describe your reasoning for the changes?

[Senator Rachel May]: Mister president, as my colleague is no doubt aware, this bill was vetoed last year. And in the process in the in the ensuing year, a lot of additional, transmission technologies have been, tested all over the country, and so we expanded this bill to include a number of additional rather than just the grid enhancing technologies that were specified last time, advanced techno tradition advanced transmission technologies in general are comprehended in this bill.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. The sponsor yields. Through you, mister president. So I'm I'm seeing this was a NYSERDA study bill before. Now utilities have to make an implementation plan. They have to both study and make an implementation plan to upgrade their infrastructure and their transmission under the new version of this bill that's changed pretty significantly in the last few weeks. Who pays for that plan?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president. Another part of the veto message last year was to say that they were already doing these things, and what we know is that they are not actually taking into account these, these advanced transmission technologies. Are, right now, ratepayers pay a lot to utilities for their increasing, investments in new infrastructure, which is a main way that utilities make money for their shareholders, they don't spend nearly enough time or energy on trying to make the grid more efficient. And that's the purpose of this is to move electrons faster and more efficiently to get rid of some of the bottlenecks that drive costs up. So while there would be costs associated with this, the savings would be significantly estimated in the tens of millions of dollars a year to rate payers around the state.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield the sponsor yield? Yep. Sponsor yields. So who would pay for that plan?

[Senator Rachel May]: The savings would be much greater than any investments that would be made. Thank you, mister president. The the cost of the studies is estimated at about $250,000. But as I said, the the returns are in the millions, and that would be a saving for ratepayers.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Will the sponsor yield? I will. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, this also requires an implementation plan. And, who would pay for the upgrades once it's implemented?

[Senator Rachel May]: Mister president, the the implementation plan would is not required to be fulfilled is my understanding. Voluntary, but the idea is we want the utilities to be doing this kind of study so that they can save money for ratepayers, as I said before. So, again, it will be voluntary if the if there are outlays.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Would the sponsor yield?

[Senator Rachel May]: I do.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: The sponsor yields? Through you, mister president. Page three, line one. The commission shall review implementation plans submitted under paragraph a of the subdivision and where consistent with the public interest direct the timely deployment of the technologies identified in such implementation plans. If the PSC is directing a utility to implement their plan, how is that voluntary?

[Senator Rachel May]: Mr. President, so these kind these studies will be done in the context of a rate increase request, and the the idea is to get them to do, as it says, consistent with the public interest, investments that will actually save money compared to the large scale infrastructure investments that they would be proposing otherwise.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Spons yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: And through you, mister president, so just to get it on the record, the public interest would not include CLCPA, any guidance there. It would. So you're saying this bill is specifically targeted at cost effectiveness. This plan could only be directed by the PSC to be implemented by utility if it actually reduces the cost for the rate payer. Is that the case? Mister president, yes. Through you, mister president, will the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: This this bill still includes a NYSERDA study that was vetoed when you and that study is due a year after the implementation of law. The the utility piece also goes into effect a year after the implementation. Why would we pay for a NYSERDA study, which is also paid for by rate payers? At the same time, we're expecting the utilities to create an implementation plan, do their own study, also paid for by the rate payers. Why does the NYSERDA piece still exist in your bill if they're both running concurrently and on the same timeline?

[Senator Rachel May]: Mister president. So the idea is NYSERDA is creating criteria for future rate case implementation plans. The rate case implementation plans would trigger the, the actual PSC implementation of this. So either way, we are trying to insert into all of these processes cost savings that are not being realized right now.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield? The sponsor yields. Why would you need NYSERDA criteria if this is optional for utilities to do?

[Senator Rachel May]: President, these there is a large array of these technologies, and figuring out which ones are appropriate in which areas of New York State, in which to which utility systems in New York State to which, and and just which technologies as they are rapidly evolving are the most cost effective to implement is something that should be done overall so that it can be applicable to the specific implementation.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Will the sponsor yield? I will. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Through you, mister president, as as you mentioned earlier, this bill was vetoed in the past, and from that veto message one nineteen, adding this new requirement along with an additional reporting requirement creates a duplicative and expensive process for utilities and ultimately rate payers at the conclusion of that veto message. On page two of your bill, utilities would, in their implementation plan, they would own and operate battery storage facilities. Am I reading that correctly?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president, battery storage is one of the options that, is comprehended under advanced transmission technologies, and so that could be an option.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. And through you, president, utilities must implement plans for data center growth at the cost of ratepayers as well?

[Senator Rachel May]: President,

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: yes. Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield? Sponsor yield? We do. Sponsor yields. How does having rate payers pay for utilities to upgrade the grid to prepare for data center growth? How does that reduce the cost for rate payers?

[Senator Rachel May]: Three, mister president. First of all, upgrade the grid is is a loaded term, I would say, because we're not talking about building whole new extremely expensive transmission, infrastructure, which may be necessary in in New York State, but we are trying to avoid some of those huge expenses by directing the PSC and the utilities to find cheaper ways to move those electrons around the system, which may include, any number of software and hardware interventions in the in the transmission system as it exists now?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Would the sponsor continue to yield? Would the sponsor yield? Would. Sponsor yields. Data centers specifically are known to use a lot of power. That's a lot of the concerns of ratepayers across the state of New York. Many of them saying do not bring data centers here. Our prices are already 50% higher than the national average. We can't afford to bring these things online until we create some actual production and reduce the cost. So that's why I pointed out in your bill the increased flexibility and optionality in long term planning, including for data center growth and other major load growth. How can we read that line in your bill? The requirement that utilities, under this law be directed by the PSC to implement data center growth in the state of New York, how could rate payers anticipate that that's going to lower their energy bill?

[Senator Rachel May]: This does not stipulate data center growth. It just means that there needs to be a plan for growth in general, which we anticipate to be accelerating because of things like AI at data centers and and, let's say, the the Micron project in Central New York. The, there are a lot of pressures on the grid right now and a lot of pressure, as I've said multiple times, to build out a lot of new expensive infrastructure. This is, directing the the various players to figure out if there are ways to do it more cheaply.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, briefly on the bill. Senator Waltsky on the bill. Yeah. On on page two of your bill, it absolutely does stipulate line 36, including for data center growth. It is absolutely stipulated in this bill, forcing utilities to pay for upgrades in the area where a data center may be preparing for that growth, and that would be at the cost of the rate payers. This bill would require them to bring it into their next rate case when they're asking for an increase in how much your bill is going to go up and how much money they're going to get additionally out of New Yorkers that are paying for electric and natural gas in our state would require them to pay more in order to prepare for data center growth. At least that's how it's written. I didn't write the bill. And with that, mister president, would the sponsor yield? The sponsor yield? Hey. What? Sponsor yields. Through you, mister president, how do you expect giving our utility companies, NYSEG, National Grid, ConEd, more control over power and battery storage will lower energy bills?

[Senator Rachel May]: Mister president, let me first address the previous comments, which is this bill does not stipulate data center growth in New York. It just recognizes that data centers are growing everywhere and putting pressure on our grid here in New York as elsewhere in the country. So planning for them is only sensible. In terms of battery storage, right now, one of the biggest expenses to utility rate payers comes from peak energy that we when there is a heat wave or some other peak demand event, the utilities are buying energy at very high costs, usually from out of state, and passing that cost on to ratepayers. Battery storage allows them to bank the energy against those kinds of events so that they can bring those peak costs down and save ratepayers an enormous amount of money. This is something we heard last week about, there were several debates about about utility related bills, and someone mentioned that utility rates are lower in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also has old, utility infrastructure, but they use these technologies, and it has brought down rates as much as 40% in some places. So all of these technologies together have the impact of of shifting us away from peak energy costs and distributing those costs, in ways that they are much lower for the rate payers.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue to yield? The sponsor yield? Spons yields. How much if, if your bill becomes law, how much can, utility rate payers expect their energy bills to go down?

[Senator Rachel May]: For you, mister president, there are various estimates. As I mentioned before, tens of millions of dollars a year are one of the estimates we've heard, as I said, in Pennsylvania. We they've seen 40% decreases in some markets. I I can't say exactly, but I can say that this issue of of peak energy, especially now that global, fossil fuel energy costs have gone up so dramatically that, the savings could be very significant.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Mister president, would the sponsor continue deal? Sponsor yield? Sponsor yields. I just wanna go back to a earlier part of our discussion through you, mister president. The cost effectiveness, if the PSC is looking at this, would that include just specific to rate payers? Or would they think about global costs, health benefits, the planet, carbon emissions and the impact on human life and the cost savings and some of the ways that individuals have calculated the costs. I know it can get pretty funny here but I just wanna just wanna be sure especially as we're establishing legislative intent, you're talking about specifically the PSC cannot direct utilities to implement a plan unless it directly affects lowering cost rates. Am I reading you correctly?

[Senator Rachel May]: Through you, mister president, that's correct. And there is an enumeration of some of the considerations that can be taken.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you. Mister president, on the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Walzik, on the bill.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: New York state's energy prices are 50% higher than the national average. And you might ask, could it get worse? Yep. In the nineteen nineties, we had some of the highest rates in the nation. Believe it or not, we were even less competitive in the nineteen nineties and we didn't even have the CLCPA yet. All the green energy subsidy that you're seeing on your bills right now did not exist and we were leading nationally in high energy costs anyway. Then utilities had a monopoly so they could control both production and distribution. And what we did is the Public Service Commission, believe it or not, there was a time where they looked out for the ratepayers at the Public Service Commission. They decoupled production and delivery. So our utility companies became in charge of the lines. Other independent power producers became competitive because they had to compete through the NISO for the daily rates of producing energy for our grid. It made us more competitive. This bill will force utilities to raise rates. It allows them to monopolize battery storage. It forces them to raise rates to bring on data center growth. And the NYSERDA study that was vetoed for being duplicative and costing ratepayers money that they were already spending on these things still exists in this bill. So the rate payers will be getting hit twice. Their utility company, when they go to the PSC with a rate case, will have to come up with a plan ready to be implemented, ready for the PSC to tell them, yes, do this plan for more batteries and data center growth and upgrading your transmission lines the way that we say it. At the same time, NYSERDA will be taking both your tax money and your rate payer money and be studying the thing that they're already in charge of doing at the utility end. Could it get worse? Yeah. If you support bills like this, rates will continue to go up. I'll be voting no and hope my colleagues will do the same. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Are there any of the senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Senator Liu. Mister president, upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: On consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section three, this action took effect on the ninetieth day of shall become a law. Call the roll. Adabo, Jean Arz Kruger, or Sukhan Zama.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator May, to explain her vote. Excuse me. Senator Harkom, to explain his vote.

[Senator Peter Harckham]: Thank you very much, mister president. I rise to thank senator May for this important piece of legislation. I I I won't even address the just utter fabrication that we just heard as to what this bill represents, the utter fabrication about the CLCPA. What I will say quite simply is there are several studies out there that show our grid operates at 50% efficiency. 50% efficiency. We talk a lot in this chamber about getting taxpayers their value for their money. Any business or any system operating at 50% efficiency is not good for ratepayers or taxpayers. All this bill is saying is let's study how we can utilize the new technologies the rest of the country and the rest of the world are using to make the grid more efficient, more cost effective, and less expensive. And the rest we heard was folly. I strongly support this bill. I thank the sponsor.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: I'll be voting aye. Senator Harkins, it will be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Scufus to explain this vote.

[Senator James Skoufis]: Thank you very much, mister president. Whether you wanna use the word fabrication, I was gonna use mischaracterization. That's a lot of what we heard during this debate. Unfortunately, this bill is very simple. It's very modest. It requires a study. It can require a study. It doesn't even have to require a study when there's a capital improvement being sought. It requires an analysis. It can require an analysis. But to be clear, this bill does not in any way, shape, or form promote data centers. And to be clear, as the sponsor noted in her remarks, this just is an acknowledgment that data centers are cropping up throughout New York State, and they pose a severe challenge, and and this bill presents a modest way of perhaps reconsidering how to approach this type of challenge. I I encourage my colleague from across the aisle to instead spend some time on, for example, what we heard reported this morning, just today, and that is that we have an IDA in this state, the Rockland County IDA, that issued $77,000,000 in tax breaks, half of which, by the way, would have been state revenue. For what? To support, to promote a data center that creates one single job. The largest per job subsidy, not just in New York State history, in our nation's history. We should spend less time mischaracterization a good bill like this. And if we actually care about our rates and actually care about our grid and how much energy is being pulled from it by these data centers, I suggest we start there instead. I vote yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Scoopers, it be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Walzik to explain this vote.

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Thank you, mister president. Maybe I I should have kept this on debate a little bit longer. When the commission reviews the plan, there's also a line in this bill that says, direct the timely deployment of the technologies identified in the plan. That's not an option. And

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: part

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: of that plan in includes data center growth. So let me just be clear. I'll be a no, mister president, but don't like to say that it's mischaracterized. I didn't write this bill. Those are the changes that you're writing into law today. I'll be voting no.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you. Senator Waldzik, to be recorded in the negative. Senator May, to explain her vote.

[Senator Rachel May]: Thank you, mister president, and I wanna thank my colleagues who spoke in favor of this bill. New York State and the entire Northeast has a energy affordability problem because our our grid is so old and desperately in need of upgrades of various kinds. We, we only hear from the utilities now about building out more of the grid because that is where they make money that they can, share with their shareholders. And when we ask them to be more efficient in their use of the grid to, employ technologies that will actually deliver energy more cheaply to their ratepayers, they are typically pretty resistant of that, which is why you do need to either goad them or require them to at least study the the idea of what could be more efficient, especially in a in a, proceeding where they're proposing a rate hike. It I it is only appropriate for us to direct them and give them some guidance about the various technologies that could be used to make a difference in this case. I think this is the only responsible way to treat our ratepayers to make sure that we are are directing, the people who are delivering the energy to know and study and if when possible, employ the latest technologies that can maybe sense where the grid is hotter and cooler and direct the the electrons to move in the right direction so that by the path of least resistance. Resistance. That is the whole idea here, and it, it works. It is working in many parts of the country. I I suspect there is a subtext here about battery storage that that we didn't, pursue very much in debate, but I just wanna say New York State takes very seriously the fact that there have been some some battery storage fires in the past. This the governor put together a a panel of experts from all over the country to study that problem and come up with new, fire safety codes for battery storage in New York State that are now the strongest in the entire country, And I believe that is one of many technologies that are available to us to actually steer our energy costs away from the high peak energies that we are all paying for right now. So I'm proud of this bill. I hope that it I hope that it will overcome the veto that occurred last time. I hope that all of the evidence of how much good advanced transmission technologies are doing elsewhere in the country will really move the needle and convince the governor this time that it's worth signing this bill into law. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce your votes.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to count of four fifty four voted in the negative r, senators Ashby, Barello, Kansas City and Fitzpatrick, Griffith, O'Helming, Lands and Martins, Matera, Murray, Obrak, O'Mara, Ort, Rhodes, Steck, Walton, and White. Senators Todisco and Galvin. Ayes, 40 nays, 18. The bill is passed. Calvin number six fifty four, senate print twenty seventy eight by senator mayor. An act of the labor law. Senator Murray,

[Senator George Borrello]: why do

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: you rise?

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, mister president. Would the sponsor yield for a few questions?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The sponsor yield?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Yes.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Sponsor yields. Thank you. Through you, mister president. So under this section, I'm just trying to get some clarification as to the process. Under this, under section two subdivision one, section f and I, it says upon notification that an employer has been convicted of failing to pay the wages of an employee pursuant to subdivision one of section 198 a of this article, failing to pay minimum wage or overtime pay pursuant to section 662 of this article, or wage theft under section one fifty five point zero five of the penal law. It's saying conviction. It's my understanding that under the penal law, that would be criminal. But the first two would be labor law, which would be an administrative hearing. Is that correct? Or or does it go everything go to criminal court?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Through you, mister president, the, sections that you're referring to refer to convictions of criminal penalties under the labor law. So the person is convicted in a criminal court of violations of the labor law, and that would prompt the next part of the process.

[Senator Dean Murray]: President, would sponsor continue to yield? Will the sponsor yield?

[Senator Mark Walczyk]: Yes.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yields.

[Senator Dean Murray]: So for clarification, they will go through the criminal court process completely and have to be convicted. It's not an administrative hearing, through the Department of Labor. Is that correct?

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Mister president, yes. That's correct.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. I'm the bill.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you. Senator Murray on the bill.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, senator mayor, for that clarification. My concern here is is only that there there remains some confusion. I'm a little concerned about the smaller businesses. Over the past couple of years, under labor law section one ninety and one ninety one, we've had the frequency of pay issue, the issue of manual labor. And when those claims were filed, attached to that many times was wage theft, which which isn't really attached to that. I understand what the attorneys were trying to do, but it had a terrible, impact on small businesses throughout the state. Now in the last budget, either last year or the year before, we recognized that and took some action to minimize the penalties to the companies because the confusion still remains under exactly what qualifies as manual labor in regard to the frequency of pay. My concern here is we never did clarify that. The commissioner never actually I have a bill that actually would require the commissioner to clarify exactly which positions qualify as manual labor for the purposes of paying the employees. Let me be clear. Wage theft is abhorrent. It it should never occur. If these workers work hard, they earn their pay, they deserve to be paid properly, period. And if an employer doesn't do that on purpose, then they need to be convicted and penalized, and they should have their license stripped. My concern is with the confusion still there under the frequency of pay issue, there can be mistakes. And so I wanna be be careful that we're not under a first incident where it might have truly been a mistake that someone is now gonna lose their license. We already are one of the most business unfriendly states in the entire country. I don't wanna add to that. So for that reason, I'd like to see a little more discussion on this, a little more clarity, and really, I'd like the commissioner to step forward and clarify the frequency of pay issue before we go this step. So I'll be voting no. Thank you,

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: mister president. Senator Murray. Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Mister president, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: This bill has been we have agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the

[Senator Thomas F. O’Mara]: last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section eight is action to defect immediately. Call the roll. Adabo, Gnarrus Kruger, or Sukhan Zama.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator mayor, to explain her vote.

[Senator Shelley B. Mayer]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you to my colleague for asking questions. This bill has nothing to do with a mistake. This bill has to do when people, employers, particularly employers who disadvantage other small companies don't pay people what they're owed, and there are criminal charges, criminal charges filed by a district attorney. This bill was prompted by a case in in my county where individuals tried to get the money they were owed administratively from a small contractor. In May 22, this contractor was arrested for failing to pay wages. He changed the name of his company and then was arrested a second time and a third time, each time failing to pay wages in and there were criminal charges. He changed the name of his business while the first two cases were pending and avoided recognition as a defendant in these separate wage theft cases. These are criminal cases, not administrative cases. Now he has been charged a fourth time by the district attorney of Westchester County. Thank you to her. These individuals are people who are paid such small amounts. Let me just tell you how small the amounts are. One employee was hired at a daily rate of $160. He's owed $8,400 for work over three years. Another employee was to be paid $900 a week for demolition, painting, carpentry, and drywall, was either not paid or his paychecks bounced for a total of 19,000. We are talking about working people thinking they are gonna get paid for a day's work, an honest wage. They have done everything right. They went to the Department of Labor. They went to the district attorney. The district attorney one district attorney bought three cases, another one bought a fourth case. There were simply not a way to ensure this doesn't happen, and it really hurts the other small businesses who are simp who basically, in my opinion, should call out this kind of contractor rather than defending him. They should call out these bad actors. This bill actually sets a penalty and gives courts the power to stop them from doing business. We need to protect our neighbors who are doing these low wage jobs, make sure they get paid for a day's work. That's what this bill does. I vote aye.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Mayor, to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Murray to explain his vote.

[Senator Dean Murray]: Thank you, mister president. And in that scenario, I agree with you a thousand percent. And in in most, I would say, I would agree a thousand percent. As I said, there is no place for those types of bad actors. Absolutely no place. Now let me give you an example that happened in my district. Two sisters saved all their lives, worked through fast food restaurants, saved up enough money to finally open their own Dairy Queen establishment. They got caught up in this frequency of pay issue. On top of it, wage theft charges were put on top, which really didn't apply. But when it went through the system, they got caught up in it. It didn't get to the criminal court where they were convicted because their attorneys urged them to settle everything and we'll agree to drop this, that, and the other. My concern is maybe we could make the language, hone it in a little bit to protect the people that truly are trying to do it right, that aren't trying to rip off their workers, that aren't trying to be bad actors, and it still can happen in this case. What I'd like to see is that we hone the language a little bit more to protect our small business owners as well. Because if we do take the licenses away in a case where a mistake was made, we're putting people out of work as well. So I'd like there to be a little more discussion on this bill. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Senator Murray to be recorded in the negative. Senator Martins to explain this vote.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, mister president. I rise to support the bill. I wanna thank the sponsor, for the bill. Look. We have a tremendous problem in New York State when it comes to wages, when it comes to paying people what they are due, whether it's certified payrolls on public jobs and holding them to the task, or whether it is people who time and again open businesses to close them just to avoid liability. And we see it not only in the wage area, we see it also with workers' comp, also involving employees where they routinely will close their businesses in order to avoid liability. So this is a step in the right direction. I would love, mister president, to see legislation on this floor, and hopefully, somebody will think about this, where we actually hold those prop those those business owners, corporate owners, personally liable for these wages, not just removing their licenses, not just suspending their licenses, but when someone steals from their employees, let's hold them personally accountable so they can't just keep creating and opening new businesses in order to avoid the responsibility they have to those who work for them? I'll be voting aye. Senator Martins, to be recorded in

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: the affirmative, announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to calendar six fifty four, voting in negative r, senators Barrella, Gallivan, Murray, Oberrecker, Steck, and White. Ayes, 52. And aye, six. The bill is passed. Calendar number 672, center print 2546 by senator Myra, annexed in the real property accident proceedings law. Senator Martins?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. Do you ask? President.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: If the sponsor would yield for a few questions Will the sponsor yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Yes. Sponsor yields. Thank you.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Senator, I know that the the bill deals with abandoned, properties, multifamily dwellings in our communities. How is it determined that a property is abandoned?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president. So this bill would amend a section of law, where the process is if you initiate a foreclosure proceeding, that you would then stop the city or locality from taking possession of that property. And the gap that this bill is trying to amend, is that you cannot use the initiation of that proceeding to prevent you from making the necessary repairs. The city, the locality initiates the proceeding to try to possess that property because it has fallen into disrepair. And so to answer your question directly, it is a determination between the city and the locality on what disrepair means.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you. Mister president, through you, if the sponsor will continue to yield

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: With the sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Is there any definition in, the statute or in the underlying statute that clarifies what criteria the municipality should use in determining whether property is abandoned, whether it's just vacant. And and frankly, is it the same thing vacant and abandoned in your mind?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: To to to you, mister president, on the first question, outside of this section of law, the disrepair is defined as, or abandoned rather is injured in life, safety, and health is the standard that is used when making that determination. And to your second question on whether abandoning is the same or different, than vacant, I do think that there is a distinction, but that distinction, is made by the locality.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield? Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields. Is there any requirement, that the municipality determine that the property is actually vacant, before they initiate a proceeding, or is it specifically with regard to the state of repair of the property?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Mister president, yes, the city does have to make a determination on whether or not someone is present. It is subject to a vacate order, and that vacate order is often accompanied by a determination that there was some danger to life, health, etcetera. And so there is a process to to make sure that that's not the case. Think part of what you may be getting at is for owner occupied homes or multi dwellings, what sort of goes into that analysis. And I will say for the record that New York amended for not multi dwellings but for one to four home dwellings in 2016, what what we call, colloquially the zombie law, that has brought down, the amount of disrepair in these types of homes. This was done in response to the 2008, housing crisis where there was a lot of abandonment by banks for this category of homes. This is trying to meet that standard and that gap for multi dwellings. We have some of the same problems, particularly in New York City with a host of multi dwelling buildings that have been either abandoned or there's confusion around the ownership. And they have subsequently had many many code violations that are currently being litigated and gone after. And this is, an attempt to make this process as clear as possible, but also have someone be responsible, and not be able to use the court, to protect them from making repairs.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you. Mister president, through you, the sponsor would continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: yields. So as I understand it, the law currently allows for the municipality to to deem a property abandoned, but then couldn't be stopped from acquiring the property if a lender starts a foreclosure proceeding. And this would change that to require the lender to actually do certain things in addition to starting a foreclosure proceeding. Right?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, that that's correct mostly. So it's not just that the procedure would be stopped. It would give the option, for them to appoint a receiver. And if that receiver does not take the appropriate action within ninety days, then the city, can come in and claim ownership.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Through you, mister president, it's a

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: sponsor of continued yield? Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yield.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: So let's say the lender and when we're talking about a lender, we're dealing with with anyone, not just institutional lenders, we're just somebody who who lent money and is is secured by that property. If the lender receives a notice from the municipality that the property has been abandoned, does it require that the lender or or that the borrower be in foreclosure and the property be in foreclosure or in arrears? If they are being paid on their debt, on their mortgage, is that a requirement of this in order for the municipality to take action?

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Through you, mister president. Give me one second.

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Mister president, it would not always be a requirement that there be some issue of payment. It could be, the case this does make reference to the mortgagee, or or the lienholder. But the underlying principle here is, to ensure that the repairs are done, and the lienholder or the mortgagee would have had to invoke, this sort of protection provided by the law, when a foreclosure proceeding has been commenced.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, mister president. Do you have the sponsor

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: to continue to yield? The sponsor yield? Yes.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Sponsor yields. So if if the property owner is current on their mortgage obligation, making their payments every month, what would be the basis for a lender, to foreclose in order to prevent perhaps losing, a property?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, just to clarify the question, are you saying in the event that someone is present in the home and making payments or the payments are being otherwise made?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: I'll clarify, mister president, through you if I can continue to By all means. If if you have a property owner that continues make their payments on a mortgage and a municipality determines whether correctly or incorrectly that the property is abandoned so as to start this sequence, there's a notice that goes to the the lender. They're being paid on their mortgage, and yet this would require them to start a foreclosure proceeding in order to protect their interest in the property. That is the amount that they lent or risk losing the property. What would their basis be for a foreclosure proceeding if they'd been paid on their mortgage?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president. So, two things. One, if the lienholder, having received the payments and the person making the entity making the payments believes that there was some impropriety in this determination, the lienholder has an option to take possession, and make those repairs themselves. But perhaps more importantly in the policy point is, if there are conditions that are posing a threat to health, safety, posing some danger to to life in that respect, we're saying that all of the tools of government should be utilized and to impose some sort of pressure, to ensure that these repairs are made. And that's why the options aren't just that the city can take possession, but that there can be repairs made by the lienholder, themselves.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: The sponsor would continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yield? Yes. Sponsor yields.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: So that that is that's part of my concern, senator, in in the in the fact that if the person or institution that lent the money that's secured by the property has been paid, there is no basis, would think, other other than the document, the mortgage, and the terms between them and the person they lent money to that would allow for them to foreclose. I didn't see anything in this bill that would give them the right as a mortgagee to actually be able to intervene, notwithstanding the fact that they were made whole and have been paid and actually take possession of the property, unless I missed it. Can you speak to that?

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, I'm just gonna read, in the bill, starting on line 17, where it says, and this is the amendment, takes possession of the premises as provided in the mortgage and brings the building into compliance. And so within the four corners of what the contract had been, that is what allows for this this possession taking. But I take your point that you are concerned about what sort of pressures are being exerted even outside of that contractual agreement. And I think that is a policy difference that we have in that we are hoping to exert pressure to get repairs done that are posing, threats to to people's health and safety.

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: For you, mister president, if the sponsor will continue to yield?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Sponsor yield?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Yes. Sponsor yields. So let's say we have a private transaction, an individual decides to lend friend some money so that they can buy a property, and they agree they're gonna put a mortgage on the property. The terms of the mortgage are standard. You pay, the person pays, and as a result, there is no need to foreclose. Standard terms in a in a mortgage don't normally allow for foreclosure absent, a default in payment. And therefore, in the four corners of the document, there is no mechanism for that individual. In this case, I'm I'm framing it as a private individual to actually intervene in order to protect their investment. So I'm I'm questioning whether or not there should be, in the absence of something within the four corners of the document that traditionally doesn't include a provision such as this allowing for them to intervene, shouldn't something be in this bill that would allow them that opportunity to do so? Because the risk here is that they will actually lose the money that they invested and were counting on to be repaid.

[Senator Zellnor Myrie]: Through you, mister president, I think if I'm understanding my colleague, the trouble and concern that you have, is with, not necessarily the fact that repairs need to be made, but that the triggering process in which the mortgage payer would be subject to foreclosure because the repairs have not been made are extra contractual, and that there should be some other mechanism to trigger the repair making process. Did I understand that correctly? Through you, mister president. Senator Martins?

[Senator Jack M. Martins]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you, senator. On the bill. Senator Martins on the bill. And and that's that's precisely the point, and I thank you for clarifying that. Because we can identify the problem. We all have zombie buildings in our communities that become a blight on the community in the past. We have adopted legislation here, that have allowed and empowered municipalities to intervene, spend money, acquire the property, make those repairs, and put those those costs on the property as liens. And eventually, when the property is sold, the municipality will get that money back. There are ways of being able to do that where you can ask the municipality to actually intervene in order to protect the property, protect the community, and and to make the property safe. And, obviously, mister president, there are issues with that having to do with privacy issues, property ownership issues. Anytime somebody walks onto somebody else's property, there are concerns there. But we all understand, because we've seen it, that there are zombie properties in our communities that we want to do something about. The question is, who is the right person or entity that should be expected to do something about it? Now it's great for us to be able to identify groups, identify the problem, but then we point to somebody and say, now we're gonna make it your problem in order for you to fix it. And sometimes that's where we go astray. Because as as well intentioned as we may be, the idea that we're just gonna pick somebody out of the air and say that's the person who's gonna be responsible for fixing fixing this mess is perhaps misguided. Now we all think about lenders in the context of banks and they're they've got money in large financial institutions, but that's not always the case. And even when it is the case, that's not what they signed up for. Now we did pass legislation in this body that says that when we do have situations such as this, the bank when they the borrower, the property owner falls behind on payments has to go and do inspections, make sure it's occupied. If it's not occupied, they have a responsibility to start foreclosure proceedings, and they have not a responsibility to maintain and secure the property. That already exists. But now we're going a step further and we're saying, even if that property is not in default, if the person continues to make their payments and the municipality determines that the property, for their own reasons, mister president, is abandoned, which isn't clear. Now may it may be, you know, that we have a different concept of gardens. We've had debates on this floor about that as well, whether we have natural plantings as opposed to grass and how we maintain properties. But if the municipality determines that the property is abandoned, all of a sudden, we have a responsibility on the lender, be they institutional or private, to now have to do something when there has been no default under that mortgage. And they have to start a foreclosure proceeding. On what terms, mister president? I don't know. Because the person's making the payments on that mortgage, and yet it's now their responsibility. Because if the municipality takes the property, they're out of luck. And the money that they invested in order to and and secured with that property is at risk. So although I understand the legislation, I understand the intent, I'm just questioning whether or not the group that we have identified in order to put pressure in order to resolve this issue is actually the group that we should be considering in context of what we currently have in the law. And so perhaps, rather than just picking a bank or a financial institution and decide that's the person we're gonna make pay. Why? Because. Because that's really the answer. Right? Why are they responsible? Because we said so. Perhaps they're not the right entity because they don't have the ability to intervene unless there's actually been a default under the document. And so, mister president, as we have in the past, perhaps this is another opportunity for us to reconsider this line and maybe look at empowering our local municipalities and allowing them to go in there and intervene and making sure that they can secure any expense that they have with regard to securing the property, even going so far as demolishing the property in order to clear a blight, and they are able to then secure that with a lien on the property. So when the property is eventually sold, they can recoup that money and actually provide protection for the local community. In real terms, they make the decision that it's abandoned. Let them then take the next step to actually secure the property and and and make it right. So, senator, I appreciate the bill. I appreciate the sentiment. I just think we may be slightly off. I'm more than happy to work with you, if you if you're willing in terms of looking for an alternative, but under the current construct, mister president, I'd have to vote no. Thank you.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Thank you, senator Martens. Are there any other senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Generis.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Mister president, we have also agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Bill, the bill will be restored upon consent to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: Section two, this action take effect on the one hundred twentieth day. It shall become a law. Call the roll. Dabo, GNR, Spruker, or sue Cuddens, Zelman.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: Announce the results.

[Secretary Reed (Secretary of the Senate)]: In relation to calendar six seventy two voted in a negative are senators Ashby, Barello, Kenzary, Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Grifle, Helming, Lands and Martins, Matera, Murray, Obaracu, O'Mara, Orkolumbo, Rolls, Roslyn Steck. The disco was at Weber and White. I have 36, ninety twenty two.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The bill's passed. Senator Generis, that completes the reading of today's controversial calendar.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: Is there any further business at the desk?

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: There is no further business at the desk.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: If I can have my colleagues' attention for a moment, there were a series of committee meetings that were scheduled for early this afternoon. They are being rescheduled as follows: insurance and social services will now be meeting at 02:30, housing and investigations committees will now be meeting at 3PM, and that is because there will be an immediate meeting of the Majority Conference Room 332.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: The committee meetings were rescheduled as noted. Please, listen to and reach out to your respective committee chairs. And there will be an immediate meeting of the majority conference in Room 332.

[Senator Michael Gianaris (Deputy Majority Leader)]: 21st at 3PM.

[Presiding Officer (Acting President of the Senate)]: On motion to senate stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 21 at 3PM. And it's playoff time, so go New York. Go New York. Go.