1
TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 2026 10:44 A.M.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The House will
come to order.
Good morning, colleagues and guests.
In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.)
Visitors are invited to join the members in the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, Acting Speaker Hunter led visitors and
members in the Pledge of Allegiance.)
(Applause)
Thank you, Kim family.
2
(Laughter)
We love that.
A quorum being present, the Clerk will read the
Journal of Monday, March 30th.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, I move
to dispense with the further reading of the Journal of Monday, March
the 30th and that the same stand approved.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Without objection,
so ordered.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you so much.
Colleagues and guests that are in our Chambers, I'd like to share this
quote with you today. This one comes from Mother Theresa.
Well-known person who always spoke for peace. Her words for us
today: "The miracle is not that we do this work, but that we are happy
to do it." Again, words from Mother Theresa.
Madam Speaker, colleagues have on their desk a
main Calendar as well as a debate list. Before any housekeeping or
introductions, we're gonna be calling for the following committees off
the floor: Ways and Means and Rules. These committees are going to
produce an A-Calendar which we will take up today. We'll also be
calling for the following committees to meet as well: Agriculture,
Election Law, Housing and Labor. We will then take up the following
bills on debate: Rules Report No. 8 by Ms. Simon, Rules Report No.
69 by Mr. Bronson. There could be a need for additional floor work,
3
Madam Speaker. Should that happen, we'll be happy to advise at that
point. So this is the general outline of where we're going today. If we
could begin by calling the Ways and Means Committee to the
Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. Ways
and Means Committee members please meet Chair Pretlow in the
Speaker's Conference Room. Ways and Means Committee members,
please make your way quietly to the Speaker's Conference Room.
We have no housekeeping this morning, but we'll
start with an introduction from Ms. Forrest.
MS. FORREST: Good morning, Madam Speaker,
and everyone else. I rise to introduce you to West Jackson, President
of BRIC Arts Media. West has over 25 years of experience as a
leader, creative and executive in entertainment in academia. He came
to BRIC from Emerson College, where he -- business of creative
enterprises. He found and led Brooklyn Hip-Hop Festival and through
his ventures, Seven Heads Entertainment launched the careers of Mos
Def, Talib Kweli, Common and others.
A native of Boogie Down Bronx, he now calls
Brooklyn home and serves in my district. For over 40 years BRIC has
shaped Brooklyn's cultural and media landscape by presenting and
incubating artists, creators, students, media makers. Whether in --
Prospect Park Bandshell, presenting Celebrate Brooklyn!, all are
welcome, or welcoming our Brooklyn delegation to produce podcasts
to community members creating and provide -- producing community
4
television. BRIC builds Brooklyn's creative future. And in September
2025, BRIC made history as the first media and arts organization
accepted into New York City's prestigious Cultural Institution Group
[sic]. In this bold moment, BRIC redefines culture.
Please join me in acknowledging President West
Jackson and BRIC Arts Media.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On behalf --
MS. FORREST: Thank you, Madam Speaker --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- thank you. On
behalf of Ms. Forrest, the Speaker and all members, we welcome
BRIC's president, Mr. Jackson, here today to our Assembly Chamber
extending to you the privileges of the floor. We do hope you enjoy
our proceedings today. Many congratulations to you on your resick
[sic] -- recent historic Cultural Interest Group [sic] designation and all
of the wonderful work that you are doing in and around your
community. Thank you so very much for joining us today.
(Applause)
Mr. Alvarez for the purpose of an introduction.
MR. ALVAREZ: Good morning and thank you,
Madam Speaker, for allowing me to introduce some distinguished
guests. Today, I am proud to recognize a group of astounding
individuals whose dedication and hard work continues to make a
meaningful impact in our community. We have Herman Ramirez
(phonetic), Manwell Rase (phonetic), Bonager Lenodes (phonetic),
Manwell Octavio Perez (phonetic), Aniva Leveano (phonetic),
5
Raphael Osoria (phonetic), Johanna Cabrara (phonetic), Angel
Cabrara (phonetic), Melliga Hemenez (phonetic), Fransciso Rosado
(phonetic), Sandra Sesperez (phonetic) and Kweme Familia
(phonetic).
Each of these individuals has contribute they [sic]
voice, they [sic] platform and a passion to uplift others, share
important information and instructing the culture and fabric of our
community. Today we thank them not only for what they do, but for
who they are; leaders, communicators and peer [sic]of our
community.
Madam Speaker, please welcome them and extend
the cordiality of the floor. Thank you very much.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. On
behalf of Mr. Alvarez, the Speaker and all members, we welcome Dia
del Locutor to our Assembly Chamber and extend to you the
privileges of the floor. We thank you so very much for being trusted
voices in our community who deliver all of the media and news to
your residents. We thank you so very much today for joining us
today. Continue to do all of the great works that you are doing,
spreading the information to our communities. Thank you so very
much.
(Applause)
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, would
you please stand the House at ease until we complete our committee
6
work?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes' motion, the House stands at ease.
(Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the House stood at ease.)
***************************
(Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the House was called
back to order.)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The House will
come to order.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you. Members
have on their desk an A-Calendar. I'd like to move to advance that
calendar and take it up immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes' motion, the A-Calendar is advanced.
Page 3, Rules Report No. 90, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A10760, Rules Report
No. 90, Pretlow. An act making appropriations for the support of
government; and providing for the repeal of such provisions upon
expiration thereof.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Governor's
Message is at the desk.
The Clerk will read.
7
THE CLERK: I hereby certify to an immediate vote,
Kathy Hochul, Governor.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Mr. Pretlow.
MR. PRETLOW: Absolutely and good morning,
everyone. Before us we have two bills, two budget extenders, as we
barrel our way toward a completed budget. We have a bill before us
today that extends State operations through April 7th. It contains
funding for institutional and emergency payroll, unemployment
insurance, Medicaid payments, OPWDD programs, Veterans'
Homeless Housing and general state charges.
We also have a bill before us, it's an Article 7 Bill,
that would extend certain provisions for funding over the Department
of Motor Vehicles, which would otherwise expire on April 1st.
Question?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Palmesano.
MR. PALMESANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the Chairman yield for some questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the Chair
yield?
MR. PRETLOW: Absolutely.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Chair yields.
MR. PALMESANO: Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. Just a
few questions. What is the time period this bill covers for State
8
payments?
MR. PRETLOW: This covers one week until April
7th, next Tuesday.
MR. PALMESANO: And how much does this bill
appropriate?
MR. PRETLOW: It's 1.4 -- $1.04 billion.
MR. PALMESANO: May I ask, what payments are
included in this bill? What payrolls does this cover?
MR. PRETLOW: We have nonpersonal service --
well, institutionals. All of the State institutions are being paid. Do
you -- do you want a breakdown?
MR. PALMESANO: Sure. If you don't mind. Real
quick.
MR. PRETLOW: Okay. Nonpersonal services is
$10 million. Department of Health is $616.4 million. Department of
Labor, payments for $135 million, which covers the Unemployment
Insurance Benefits. And $10.1 million for Office of People with
Developmental Disabilities. We also have Department of Veterans'
Services for $36,000 and general state charges for $22.5 million.
MR. PALMESANO: Thank you, Mr. Pretlow. So
this bill goes 'til April 7th. So --
MR. PRETLOW: Yes.
MR. PALMESANO: -- you would anticipate that we
will be back on April 7th --
(Crosstalk)
9
MR. PRETLOW: I would anticipate we -- we're
definitely back by April 7th.
MR. PALMESANO: And if we don't have an actual
budget, we'll be voting on another extender on that period of time?
MR. PRETLOW: If we don't have an actual
budget --
MR. PALMESANO: I know how hopeful you are,
so...
MR. PRETLOW: -- negotiated within the next week,
we more than likely will have another extender.
MR. PALMESANO: If we were to take up another
extender, do you have any idea at this point how long that extender
might last?
MR. PRETLOW: Oh, absolutely. I don't have an
idea. That is up to -- through the Governor.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. I know this emergency
extender also includes funding to support the National Depart -- the
National Guard deployment in our State correctional facilities --
MR. PRETLOW: Yes.
MR. PALMESANO: -- is that correct?
MR. PRETLOW: Yes, sir.
MR. PALMESANO: Do we know, currently, what
the current status is of the number of National Guard in our facilities?
MR. PRETLOW: Well, that number has not
decreased very much since the last time we had this conversation, but
10
we're working diligently to increase the workforce of our Departments
of Corrections.
MR. PALMESANO: Do we know how much we're
spending on that or at least for -- with this, or overall?
MR. PRETLOW: $535 million for the year. So, I
guess, you divide that by seven.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. How much does this
budget -- State budget assume -- or this bill assume we will spend on
the National Guard for the entire year? The 535- or is it moving
forward? That's what we spent to date?
MR. PRETLOW: Yeah. 535 million is what we
spent for the entire year.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. And is there a plan in
place to try to reduce the number of National Guards --
MR. PRETLOW: Well, there's a recruitment efforts
going on now to increase the workforce at the DOCCS facilities.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. And I know last year
there was funding included in the emergency spending bills to cover
increased overtime for correctional officers. Is there any additional
funding in this bill to cover that overtime?
MR. PRETLOW: This -- that's something that's
ongoing. We're not anticipating that right now.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. Thank you,
Mr. Pretlow. I appreciate your time.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
11
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. PALMESANO: Yes. Certainly, I will be
supporting this extender. It's -- to keep the State Government open, to
ensure that our State employees are getting paid and essential services
are provided to New Yorkers. Keeping our government open is
critical and nonnegit [sic] -- but this is not what it should be. Seems
like, once again, we're relying on temporary measures instead of
delivering a complete and on time budget. This is not an isolated
situation. It might seem like at the time, but we -- this has become a
pattern. Just over the last four years, in 2022, the budget was seven
days late. In 2023, it was 32 days late. In 2024, it was 20 days late
and last year we record-breaking, under this Governor, 38 days late.
What will it be this year? It just seems year after year, we're -- we
continue to miss this deadline. At some point we have to stop and
start -- stop treating this as the -- the new normal. We know the
deadline. We know the calendar. We know the responsibilities, yet
we continue to operate without an urgency and discipline that New
Yorkers expect. With one party control, there should be efficiency,
but right, now we're not really seeing that in this process here in New
York. The later this process goes on, the less time there is for
transparency. Late budgets compress the time members and the
public have to review legislation. The uncertainty created has
significant inquence -- sequence -- consequences for our school
districts that are trying to put budgets together that have to go up for a
vote in May, for our local governments that have important
12
infrastructure projects for roads and bridges because they're on a
shortened construction season. All our communities. All these
institutions are forced to make decisions without any clarity from the
State of New York and that's unfortunate. They do not have the
luxury of waiting like we seem to think we have. Passing this
extender is not a success, it is the minimum requirement to avoid
failure.
Keeping government open is -- is a floor [sic], not the
goal. We should not confuse keeping governor [sic] open with
governing effectively. If this was a one year issue, again, that would
be one thing. But when it happens year after year, it becomes to be a
systematic problem that must be addressed. Last year, when we -- last
week when we passed -- passed the Debt Service Bill we asked for a
financial plan, we asked for out-year budget gaps, we asked for -- how
much it's gonna spend? What are we gonna be doing in taxes?
Hopefully those answers come sooner when we start taking up real
budget bills because that's -- is a necessity. And those are critical
questions that need to be answered as we move forward in this
budgetary process.
So I hope my colleagues keep that in mind as we
move forward, to get us those details before we take up anymore
budget bills in the near future. And hopefully, as we talk about
"hope" all the time, hopefully we start taking up those actual budget
bills in the very near future.
But, again, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I will be
13
voting for this extender. It's the right thing to do and I encourage all
my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Read the last
section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Rules Report No. 91, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A10761, Rules Report
No. 91, Pretlow. An act to amend -- an act to support -- an act to
amend Part U1 of Chapter 62 of the Laws of 2003, amending the
Vehicle and Traffic Law and other laws relating to increasing certain
motor vehicle transaction fees, in relation to the effectiveness thereof;
to amend Part B of Chapter 84 of the Laws of 2002, amending the
State Finance Law relating to the costs of the Department of Motor
Vehicles, in relation to the effectiveness thereof; and providing for the
repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Governor's
Message is at the desk.
The Clerk will read.
14
THE CLERK: I hereby certify to an immediate vote,
Kathy Hochul, Governor.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Mr. Pretlow.
MR. PRETLOW: Absolutely. The additional Article
VII bill extends certain provisions for funding for the Department of
Motor Vehicles, which would otherwise expire on April 1st. It is a
two-year extender. It is govern -- taken directly from the Governor's
proposed budget and it does not raise fees in any way, but it allows the
Department of Motor Vehicles the authority or the ability to collect
funds and to deposit those funds in the Dedicated Highway and Bridge
Fund [sic] and then utilize those dollars for road repairs and other
needed services.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Palmesano.
MR. PALMESANO: Yes, Madam Speaker. Will the
Chairman yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the Chair
yield?
MR. PRETLOW: Absolutely. But I think I've
answered every question he could --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Chair yields.
MR. PRETLOW: -- ask.
MR. PALMESANO: Mr. Pretlow, you answered two
of my three questions. So I do have one more question. You
15
answered why we're doing it, you answered what the fees are for, but I
just had a -- I'm just curious. Do you know how much we collect in
fees on this -- for this program on an annual basis? That's -- that's my
only question for you.
MR. PRETLOW: I'm not sure of that number.
MR. PALMESANO: All right. That's -- that's fine,
then, Mr. Pretlow. And I appreciate your time.
Thank you, Madam Speaker. That's it for me.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Read the last
section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, if you
would please call the Agriculture Committee to the Speaker's
Conference Room?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Agriculture
Committee members please make your way to the Speaker's
Conference Room quietly. Agriculture Committee members please
meet Chair Lupardo in the Speaker's Conference Room.
16
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes for purpose of an introduction.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings to introduce
some guests that are in the Chambers.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Can you hold on
one moment, Mrs. Peoples-Stokes --
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: If I could ask --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- please?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- yeah.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
(Pause)
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for the purpose
of an introduction. We have some amazing young people in our
Chambers. So on behalf of our colleagues Ms. Hyndman,
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Vanel, we have with us 110 district students
and their staff members who are -- this is the Civics Day and these are
the government -- student government from all over the district in
Queens.
So would you welcome them to our Chambers, offer
them the privileges of the floor and the cordialities of our House?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Good morning,
young people. I can't see you, but I can see you on my screen and
there's lots of you up there this morning.
On behalf of Mrs. Peoples-Stokes, Ms. Hyndman,
17
Members Anderson, Vanel and the Speaker, we welcome all of our
young future student government leaders here to our Assembly
Chamber, the People's House. We extend to you the privileges of the
floor. You are going to be seeing democracy in work at action here
today. We hope you do enjoy the proceedings. Take notes, ask your
teachers lots and lots of questions. Bring this back to your friends and
family. Let them know that you had a memoral -- memorable visit to
your New York State Capitol. Thank you, all you future leaders, for
joining us today.
Thank you.
(Applause)
On the main Calendar, page 4, Rules Report No. 8,
the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A09462, Rules Report
No. 8, Simon. An act to amend a Chapter of the Laws of 2025
amending the Public Service Law relating to the provision of gas
service to new customers, as proposed in Legislative Bills numbers
S08417 and A08888, in relation to the effectiveness thereof.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On a motion by Ms
Simon, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is
advanced.
An explanation has been requested.
Ms. Simon.
MS. SIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill
would postpone by one year the effective date of legislation that
18
removed the 100-foot rule for new gas hookups at residential
properties.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Lemondes.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: Certainly.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. Could you describe
any changes since last year, if there are any? Just summarize them,
please.
MS. SIMON: The effective date of the legislation
was pushed back a year. Would now be effective on December 19,
2025.
MR. LEMONDES: And who benefits from this?
And who is penalized, if any, for either category?
MS. SIMON: There's no penalty except to -- to the
people who are currently paying for the 100-foot rule. And those
people who are unhappy with it, it [sic] should be very that it's been
delayed by a year.
MR. LEMONDES: And so, therefore, would you say
that this contributes to the affordability crisis that we're currently
experiencing in New York or not?
MS. SIMON: Well, when it is effective, it will
19
actually save New Yorkers $600 million a year. So it would improve
the affordability crisis.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. Could you
summarize the intended allocation costs for new customers going
forward once this is implemented?
MS. SIMON: That's already been debated last year,
okay? So there's no change except for the -- the date.
MR. LEMONDES: So it would cost those new
customers more, correct?
MS. SIMON: Right now it's costing everybody when
somebody has a new hookup within 100 feet of a -- of a gas main.
This would only require the person who is asking for that new
hookup, completely new hookup, to pay for the new hookup. Beyond
that, it doesn't increase anybody's cost and it saves New Yorkers, who
right now are footing the bill, $600 million a year.
MR. LEMONDES: So, a -- again, with respect to the
allocation, so you're saying residential gas customers would save
through the implementation of this.
MS. SIMON: Yes.
MR. LEMONDES: Okay. In --
MS. SIMON: As of the effective date, obviously.
MR. LEMONDES: Okay. Recognizing that our gas
is 60% higher than the national average for residential energy and
50% higher than the national average for commercial energy. So with
that -- with that savings, with respect to the affordability crisis and the
20
prices everybody's actually spending right now, would that savings be
negligible or meaningful?
MS. SIMON: All savings are meaningful and, of
course, we could make it more meaningful if we passed additional
laws and implemented them. However, we are only talking about the
dead -- the date here. The effective date is now December 19th of
2026.
MR. LEMONDES: Understood. However, with
respect to National Fuel letter of opposition, New York State
Laborers' PAC letter of opposition citing increased costs for ratepayers
and decreased construction jobs, and because of those two things
their -- their contributions to more -- a more unreliable grid. Would
you say this is unfounded, these letters of opposition?
MS. SIMON: Entirely unfounded, yes.
MR. LEMONDES: And is this bill related to the
CLCPA in any way?
MS. SIMON: No. And even if it was, it's still a good
bill and it will save New Yorkers money.
MR. LEMONDES: I understand your perspective on
it, but the letters of opposition, which we don't have time to go into,
are very detailed and I -- I believe very factually based.
Nonetheless, would you say that the All-Electric
Buildings Act, the AEB, specifically restricts new hookups or not?
MS. SIMON: That has nothing to do with this at all,
number one. Number two, I would take issue with your acceptance of
21
the articulation by opposition to this bill, which I've read all last year
and it is entirely inaccurate. Thank you.
MR. LEMONDES: We disagree on that. I don't
think this organization would --
MS. SIMON: Well, facts are facts.
(Laughter)
MR. LEMONDES: I -- I don't think they would have
put them forward in writing and signed if -- if they thought that they
were putting forth unfactual information. So --
MS. SIMON: You can believe that.
MR. LEMONDES: -- would -- understood. Will
repeal of the 100-foot rule cause undue financial harm to any
demographics? Any particular demographics as stated --
(Crosstalk)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Colleagues,
colleagues, colleagues. Please -- I will say this and I will continue to
say this as we discuss this -- discuss this debate, we need to stay on
the topic of this specific bill. Not the bill we passed last year, this
specific bill, which is in front of us today, which is extending the
effective date of the recently enacted law. Questions and answers
should be pertaining to today's bill, not last year's bill. Thank you.
MR. LEMONDES: Right. Madam Speaker, the --
the -- the reference in that question, which I had not finished, was as a
result of a letter that was submitted on June 11, 2025, which was after
Session concluded.
22
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: That is not germane
to this bill.
MR. LEMONDES: Okay. Would this bill improve
or decrease housing starts, or -- and as well as out-migration? Would
it facilitate out-migration or not?
MS. SIMON: None of those issues are related to this
bill.
MR. LEMONDES: Well, when we talk about energy
--
MS. SIMON: This bill is about the effective date and
only that.
MR. LEMONDES: We -- we -- we differ in opinion
on that with respect to the affordability crisis and energy crisis that is
-- that is underway.
My last question, do you think that gas service today
is significantly more efficient or with less detrimental effluent than it
was 50 years ago? And I say this in the context of we're talking about
the linkage between this bill and the C -- CLCPA and gas sufficiency.
MS. SIMON: So you may -- so you may be talking
about that, I am talking about the effective date of this bill. That is the
only change to last year's bill that was enacted.
MR. LEMONDES: Okay.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. For all the -- all the
23
issues discussed and those not discussed, which I was trying to get to,
and in light of the affordability crisis that is underway in New York
State has been and will be as long as the CPAL -- CLCPA and the
AEB are considered viable courses of action, documents and acts, this
bill will only contribute to increased affordability -- unaffordability,
higher out-migration and the letters of opposition prove that. Again,
National Fuel, New York State Laborers' PAC strongly oppose this. I
would urge all colleagues to oppose this bill on the -- on the merits of
what it will do to all ratepayers.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Gray.
MR. GRAY: Thank you much -- very much, Madam
Speaker. Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: Certainly.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. GRAY: Thank you very much, Ms. Simon. So
you just mentioned there's a $600 million savings.
MS. SIMON: Mm-hmm.
MR. GRAY: Can you identify who's -- who's
actually saving?
MS. SIMON: The ratepayers of New York State who
are currently paying when someone else gets a new gas main -- a -- a
24
new hookup within 100 feet of an established gas main. So right now
you are paying for anybody in your neighborhood who decides to have
a brand new hookup.
MR. GRAY: So that cost is socialized in the --
MS. SIMON: Mm-hmm.
MR. GRAY: -- rate -- in the utilities, right? So how
is that savings going to migrate to the ratepayers?
MS. SIMON: It won't be socialized to the ratepayers
any longer.
MR. GRAY: Okay. So you expect the rates to
decrease as a result of this?
MS. SIMON: What I expect is that they will no
longer be paying that $600 million. There have been other rate
increases, which are irrelevant to this particular saving. So we'll see
how it works out, but it certainly won't be going up.
MR. GRAY: So -- so I would assume the premise of
this bill then you oppose socializing costs like this?
MS. SIMON: The premise of this bill is ratepayers
throughout New York State should not be paying for somebody else's
hookup.
MR. GRAY: Okay.
MS. SIMON: Right now, if it's 101 feet --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Colleagues --
MS. SIMON: -- right, you pay.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- the discussion
25
that we're having now is not germane to this amendment in front of
the House right now. It is relative to the effective date of a recently
enacted law and I would ask both of you and any person who puts
their light on to ask questions, it needs to be germane to the
amendment that is in front of us today.
Thank you.
MR. GRAY: So one last question then. Why is --
why are we delaying this?
MS. SIMON: The Governor wanted to delay it.
MR. GRAY: And did she articulate a reason?
MS. SIMON: Well, we have a chapter amendment
before the floor and that's what we're voting on.
MR. GRAY: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. GRAY: So what we hear today is that there's
supposedly $600 million in savings, but there's no mention of how
that's going to migrate to the ratepayers. And in the same breath, we
have the Champlain Hudson Power Express and that is going to a
specific loan zone and it's benefiting a certain sector of New York and
there is socialized costs for that -- for that DEC connection. So the --
we con -- consistently contradict ourselves within the Chamber on,
you know, whether we believe in socialized costs or whether we don't
believe in socialized cost. We know EXPRESS NY was just
announced by the Governor. It takes 56% -- 56% longer for
26
construction projects and we're 45th in the -- in the country in
construction costs. This will add to the construction cost of building
homes.
Gen Z commonly will cite that home and housing
cost is their main concern to affordability in New York State.
Homeowners consistently say their affordability for ult -- utility costs
is their main concern in New York. This bill does not address either
one of those.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Lunsford.
MS. LUNSFORD: Madam Speaker, could you
please call the Election Law Committee to the Speaker's Conference
Room?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Election Law
Committee members please make your way to the Speaker's
Conference Room. Election Law Committee members to the
Speaker's Conference Room. If you could make your way there
quietly, please.
And again, unlike some chapter amendments for
which discussion of the underlying chapter may be warranted, the
sponsor has made clear that the bill before the House makes no
substantive changes to the underlying chapter, as such questions and
comments, that means on the bill as well, unrelated to delaying the
effective date of the underlying chapter or authorizing the
27
promulgation of regulations in advance of such effective date are not
germane. I will interrupt each speaker if you are not being germane
speaking on the actual bill in front of us today.
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, point of order.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Point of order.
MS. WALSH: I -- I completely understand your
point of view as far as if a chapter amendment as in this case is only
seeking to change an effective date that ex -- we have always in this
Body been able to discuss the underlying bill because it is a bill that is
being changed by the chapter amendment. So if you're saying that the
debate questions can only be limited to the -- the -- only the change
that came in the chapter, I might be willing to agree with you there,
but I think if you go on the bill, you are allowed to discuss the
bill-in-chief and the chapter amendment because it's all part and
parcel. And if you explain your vote, you can talk about what you ate
for breakfast, you can talk about anything that informs your vote.
So I really do object to the position that -- that you
and the parliamentarian are taking regarding the scope of what our
questioning can be. It's really curtailing our free speech and our
ability to speak on these pieces of legislation in this Chamber.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. Ms.
Walsh, a point of order is a request to observe obviously the rules of
procedure and parliamentarian practice. So asking what rule do you
believe is being violated today?
MS. WALSH: I believe that by -- by curt -- well, I'd
28
have to sit and look at the actual rule to tell you what's been violated.
I'm telling you what my perspective is about what your scope of what
our allowed questioning is in this Body. It is a change. It is a change
to what our normal practice and procedure has been.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. Your
point, Ms. Walsh, is not sustained today.
Mr. Bologna.
Oh, excuse me, Mr. Palmesano.
MR. PALMESANO: Yes, Madam Speaker. Will the
sponsor try to yield for some questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Simon, will
you yield?
MR. PALMESANO: Thank --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. PALMESANO: -- thank you, Ms. Simon. I'm
not 100% sure because I'm kind of in uncharted territory how far this
will go. I want to do (indiscernible) to Madam Speaker. I'm sure
she'll tell me if I cross that line. I want to bring up the point that you
brought up in your discussion that you brought up about this being a
cost savings of six -- of $600 million; is that right? Is that fair because
she brought that up?
(Pause)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Your mic is on.
MS. SIMON: I'm sorry.
MR. PALMESANO: That's okay.
29
MS. SIMON: So the issue that was raised previously
was debated previously extensively, if you may recall --
MR. PALMESANO: Yes, I recall.
MS. SIMON: -- and is not germane to this bill before
us which is simply a delay of the effective date.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. So, then based on your
answer, you don't want to answer any questions relative to that $600
million? Or you can't -- you're saying -- answer any questions related
to that $600 million?
MS. SIMON: The $600 million is not relevant to the
date -- the date change, and we are only debating the date change
which is the only change, unlike some chapter amendments which
might change other substantive areas, this one does not.
MR. PALMESANO: All right. And I guess in -- in
that same venue you probably don't want to answer the question about
how when people in Long Island and New York City have dirty
emitting boilers with oil who are switching over to natural gas, so I
guess that's not germane because of the effective date but it's impacted
by the underlining bill, correct?
MS. SIMON: No. And I would submit it wasn't --
wouldn't have been germane to last year's debate either, but...
MR. PALMESANO: Oh, it's very germane, but that's
a whole other discussion. I'll certainly try to elaborate on that if I get
the opportunity to do so.
Is the premise behind this, I mean, I know we have an
30
effective date really to just really stop the use of natural gas?
MS. SIMON: That really is not even remotely
relevant.
MR. PALMESANO: And on that $600 million, I
know it's not germane, but it -- you said that it's going to save
ratepayers, but I think what's lost in that discussion - and I'm treading
lightly, Madam Speaker - is that when you have -- when you make the
system -- when you have fewer people getting on the system because
you're making it more expensive for them to get on the system, and
then those costs, the capital cost, the operational cost, are shared with
more users. So when you have more users, then those costs are spread
out (indiscernible). So in that sense it will decrease costs for the
existing users instead of increasing costs as you say. You wouldn't
agree with that article -- argument?
MS. SIMON: No. I don't agree with the way you put
that forward.
MR. PALMESANO: Okay. All right. I'll -- I'll -- I
think I'll leave it at that, Ms. Simon, and I'll try to go on the bill for a
little bit if I can.
MS. SIMON: Thank you, sir.
MR. PALMESANO: Thank you. Thank you,
Madam Speaker.
On the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. PALMESANO: Yes. Certainly we're in a, you
31
know, the issue we're talking about, I know it's a chapter amendment,
but the -- and I know we debated the bill last year, but the underlying
premise behind this bill is far-reaching impacts to the people we
represent. We often hear about affordable and reliable energy and this
chapter amendment will effects [sic] affordable and reliable energy
and it's even to date. We see the utility prices going through the roof
for people. And I think the point -- just to try to get on that point, you
know, the sponsor was saying that this is going to save ratepayers
$600 million, but I think what's missed is when you make it more
expensive for people to get on the system, because now they're going
to have to pay their own way instead of sharing those costs, that initial
upfront under the current system is shared with everyone, but now you
have more users on the system so when you have operational and
capital costs that take place, now that is shared with more users. So
you're going to decrease the cost for the existing users instead of
increase the cost as the sponsor claims. I think that's something that
needs to be taken into consideration when you look at the energy
policies that are being advanced, similar bills like the All-Electric
Buildings Act, which is not this bill. But I do think -- and the sponsor,
I just want to bring up that point that's significant, is there are a
number of people in New York City, in Long Island that have these
dirty oil emitting boilers and they want to convert to natural gas and
that's not gonna be an option for them without paying more money.
So now it seems like their only option would be to pay for all
electrification, but all electrification is very, very expensive, too. To
32
convert your home over for -- if you're on natural gas or other systems,
would cost up to 35- to $50,000 based on several estimates, and I
think that's a concern that needs to be addressed and it is not being
addressed.
I mean -- and I know unfortunately the Chamber
doesn't like the word "natural gas," but there was a poll recently, not
too long ago, that says 71% of New Yorkers do not want a ban on
natural gas, including 76% of Independents. Two-thirds of New
Yorkers want a balance between natural gas and renewable resources,
including 74% Democrats. So people want energy choice and want
energy affordability. Taking away the 100-foot rule is going to make
energy more expensive unfortunately and I think that's my concern. It
just seems like the -- the policies that are being advanced in this
House, we've talked about -- I don't have to go through the labor, what
I said last week. I went through a whole litany of cost, I went through
a whole litany of reliability issues and others and I think that's where
the concern I have and a number of my colleagues have and a lot of
other people have on the impacts of this bill. Yes, we are changing
the effective date and I'm glad this didn't take effect when it was
supposed to, but really we should not just change it for a year, we
should just stretch it out longer. That would be the appropriate thing
to do because of the impact this is going to have on the constituents
we represent.
I could go on and on, but out of respect to the
Speaker and Madam Speaker and what she's trying to do with this, I
33
think I was able to make enough points that the policies that keep
being implemented in this House are not looking out for the best
interest of the constituents we represent; our families, our businesses,
a whole litany of costs. Again, the whole system. We're looking at a
quarter-of-a-trillion to half-a-trillion dollars, so I'm not going to go
through them all. I told you before. So we said it, I'll continue to say
it when I have the opportunity to do so. I just think -- I wish we
would take a look at this policy, this energy policy a little closer. I
know this is something we discussed in the budget. This is germane
to that, so let's talk about this. Let's look at if it's for all the affordable,
all-of-the-above approach, this is not an all-of-the above approach.
You can say it, but the policies are not matching the words.
So just like last year, Madam Speaker, I'm gonna
again this year, I'm gonna be voting no on this bill because this is bad
policy. This is not effective policy for the families, the businesses we
represent, and when you talk to businesses when it comes to energy
policy, they care about two things: Affordable and reliable. If they
can't get it here in New York, they're going to go elsewhere.
So with that, I'll leave my comments and just say I'm
going to be voting no, and I thank the sponsor for her time and I
appreciate the time here to talk a little bit about this issue. But I,
again, will be voting no on this issue and urge as many of my
colleagues as well to vote no on this as well.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
34
Mr. Durso.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Would
the sponsor yield for some questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. DURSO: Thank you, Ms. Simon. So this is
essentially effect -- pushing the effective date back one year, correct?
MS. SIMON: Yes.
MR. DURSO: What was the date that this bill
would've taken effect in the original bill-in-chief?
MS. SIMON: December 19, 2025.
MR. DURSO: Okay. And is it pushing it back
exactly one year? So it would be the same date --
MS. SIMON: Exactly.
MR. DURSO: So what is the effective date once this
bill goes into effect?
MS. SIMON: December 19, 2026.
MR. DURSO: Okay. So now, this bill was passed
last year, obviously with a robust debate, the original bill-in-chief and
the Governor signed the original bill, correct?
MS. SIMON: Yes, she did.
MR. DURSO: So what is the genesis of pushing
back the timeline for a year?
35
MS. SIMON: I'm sorry, what?
MR. DURSO: What -- why are we pushing the
timeline back for year?
MS. SIMON: I think I answered that question before.
The Governor asked for that amendment.
MR. DURSO: Okay. So now in the discussions with
the Governor, if you're -- if you're able to say, what was her reasoning
for pushing it back a year?
MS. SIMON: You know, she didn't call me
personally. I can't say.
MR. DURSO: But -- but you are carrying the bill.
So I -- what is your reason for pushing it back a year?
MS. SIMON: So look, their -- the PSC has to create
additional regulations to make clear how it is that the entities would
change their billing practices to accommodate the -- this law. So
that's essentially the reason.
MR. DURSO: So you're saying when -- when we put
--
MS. SIMON: That's what I was told.
MR. DURSO: I -- I'm sorry, ma'am. I apologize.
What did you say? I -- I -- I -- I apologize.
MS. SIMON: I said that's what I was told, you know.
I'm not -- I'm not in her head.
MR. DURSO: Okay. So -- so what you're saying is
that when we voted on the original bill-in-chief, not everything was
36
set or in place yet when we put that bill into place.
MS. SIMON: That is often the case. You pass a law
and then regulations follow.
MR. DURSO: Got it. So we passed the bill in the
Senate and the Assembly, the Governor signed it, but we just weren't
ready for it so now we're pushing it back a year.
MS. SIMON: If it had been signed earlier, that might
have been the case, but it wasn't.
MR. DURSO: Okay.
And now you had said originally with one of my
other colleagues was -- was asking a question, there is no changes in
the bill other than the timeline, correct?
MS. SIMON: That's -- that's correct.
MR. DURSO: So just to ask you a question, I mean,
I know you're saying there's no changes in the bill, but we discussed it
last year. So there's no added labor protections in this bill, correct?
MS. SIMON: No --
MR. DURSO: No.
MS. SIMON: -- because there are no changes except
for the effective date.
MR. DURSO: Okay. And as you said, just to have it
on the record, the reason why we're pushing it back for a year is for
the PFC to get regulations in place.
MS. SIMON: They have to regulate how it is the
utility will conform its billing practices in order to accommodate the
37
law.
MR. DURSO: Do we know how long that takes for
them to do?
MS. SIMON: It shouldn't take very long at all.
MR. DURSO: So would you say that a year is
enough time?
MS. SIMON: More than enough.
MR. DURSO: More than enough. So now when --
when did the Governor originally sign the bill?
MS. SIMON: December 19, 2025.
MR. DURSO: And when did we vote on it in the
Assembly?
MS. SIMON: June.
MR. DURSO: June.
MS. SIMON: Late May.
MR. DURSO: So between June and December the
PSC could not get their act together and get the regulations put in
place. So what's to say that they could do it this time?
MS. SIMON: First of all, that really is not at the
level of legislation, okay? It's -- it's -- that goes to the regulatory body
subsequent to the Governor signing it. And so in between, they're not
going to be passing regulations. They can't until the Governor signs
the bill. That's the way this works. So now they can do that. It's
really very straightforward.
MR. DURSO: So they -- they can't put in regulations
38
until the Governor signs the bill, the Governor signed the bill, but now
they have to put the regulations in place, so we're pushing back the
timeline. Which one is it?
MS. SIMON: I think you just answered your own
question.
MR. DURSO: I actually didn't.
MS. SIMON: No? The Governor --
MR. DURSO: What I'm asking --
MS. SIMON: So let me explain the timeline.
MR. DURSO: Sure. I'd appreciate that.
MS. SIMON: The Governor signed the bill. It would
have been effective immediately. There was a concern that the PSC
would need to develop regulations and would need some time to do
that, not a lot, but some time to do that. And so the Governor
suggested that we push it back by a year, it's exactly a year. And by at
that time, in fact, the PSC will have done the work that they need to
do, which as you know is very straightforward and minimal.
MR. DURSO: Understood. Do we -- do we know or
have you had the discussions on what some of those regulations would
be that would have to be put in place?
MS. SIMON: The regulations that control how it is
that the utilities bill, right? That's something that comes in under PSC
all the time.
MR. DURSO: So it's gonna -- so we need a year for
them essentially to get that in place.
39
MS. SIMON: I don't believe they need a hearing, but
you can ask the quest -- that question of the PSC.
MR. DURSO: Okay. So in that time and obviously
we -- we had robust debate on the bill the last time --
MS. SIMON: Right, mm-hmm.
MR. DURSO: Now that we are amending the bill -
and I understand that the amendment of the bill is just a timeline -
wouldn't it have been in good practice now as we're amending it to put
some of those labor protections in this bill that weren't in it pri --
prior?
MS. SIMON: First of all, most of the utility workers
are already have labor protections. Those who have them, have them.
So there's nothing that is taking that away, number one and number
two, I disagree. We're just talking about the date.
MR. DURSO: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Simon.
Madam Speaker, on the bill, please.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. DURSO: So I -- I appreciate the sponsor giving
her answers. Again, as the sponsor said, she's carrying this bill. I
know the Governor says she want [sic]to push it back for a year to
give the PSC time, that's what we're saying. We could say whatever
we want, we know that's not the case. My -- my concern with this is
and I brought them up the last time, was that the number of workers
that could be put out of work due to this bill, the bill-in-chief and the
one-year extension of it makes me very concerned. Right now in New
40
York State the average gas utility worker makes roughly $120,000 a
year, national average is about $69,000. This is going to cut down on
those labor protections for those workers that work for companies
such as Con Ed, National Grid because what we're not doing is
keeping that work within those entities. We're actually farming it out
to whether it's private, whether it's other companies, whether it's
out-of-state workers and when we sit here and talk about affordability,
affordability every day, not just with your utility costs, but it's also
with jobs. And a way that we don't make New York State more
affordable isn't by cutting jobs and that's exactly what this bill does.
Now the Governor can state that it's about the PSC
and putting regulations in place, just weird that it comes after the
November date that it goes into effect and the Governor herself has
stated that she's for an all above [sic] approach. This is not an all
above approach, this is cutting natural gas out of everybody's utilities.
I'll be voting no, Madam Speaker, and I expect my
colleagues to do the same.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, would
you please call the Housing Committee to the Speaker's Conference
Room?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Housing Committee members to the Speaker's
41
Conference Room. Housing Committee members to the Speaker's
Conference Room.
We will go to our next speaker, but just as a
reminder, members have been reminded many times that comments
relative to broader policy issues are not germane to the pros -- to the
proposal before the House. Energy policy, labor policy broadly is not
germane to this bill.
Mr. Bologna.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: Certainly.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Ms. Simon.
MS. SIMON: You're welcome.
MR. BOLOGNA: So I -- I know you said repeatedly
but just for posterity sake, this chapter does not change the underlying
policy, it just changes the effective date by one year, correct?
MS. SIMON: It doesn't change the underlying
legislation.
MR. BOLOGNA: Correct.
MS. SIMON: It just changes the effective date.
MR. BOLOGNA: And again, for posterity sake, this
was at the Governor's request, correct?
42
MS. SIMON: That's the way chapter amendments
happen.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. So -- and again, Mr. Durso
asked this, but I'm really trying to hone in on the one-year aspect of
this. Is there something happening maybe like after Halloween,
before Veteran's Day, early November, that we don't know about and
we don't even want to talk about? Is there something that's happening
during that time that would be prudent to push it beyond that?
MS. SIMON: I think that's speculative.
MR. BOLOGNA: Oh, okay. Okay. Well, I'm here
to speculate, so that's -- that's -- I'm going to turn over every stone
here.
So to this policy, though, builders and homeowners --
now this is -- this is not changed in the chapter. This is in the
bill-in-chief, but this is not changed in the chapter. Under this policy,
builders and homeowners seeking new gas services will be required to
pay the full cost of connecting their home to the gas system, and in
case -- in the case of a new subdivision, those infrastructure costs will
ultimately be incorporated into the sale price of the homes, correct?
MS. SIMON: If you say so.
MR. BOLOGNA: I mean, that's a pretty big
distinguishment. I mean, that's a --
MS. SIMON: I'm not a builder. I'm not making that
deal.
MR. BOLOGNA: Well, I -- can we agree --
43
(Crosstalk).
MS. SIMON: And if it's done before the effective
date, that would not happen.
MR. BOLOGNA: Can we agree that the possibility
exists? That the builders will pass that cost on to homeowners. Is that
-- it that possibly a conceivable outcome?
MS. SIMON: There are many possibilities in this
world. Right now we're debating the effective date of something we
debated in great detail last year and passed.
MR. BOLOGNA: Oh, I know. I know and I --
please don't misunderstand that my questioning of the overall bill. I
appreciate the fact that we recognized the flaw in the timeline. What I
am pointing out is that we didn't recognize multiple flaws throughout
the -- throughout the bill.
So just to be clear, this -- the policy doesn't eliminate
the cost. It simply just transfers it to someone else of that -- of that
infrastructure.
MS. SIMON: What it does, let me repeat this
because I think I repeated it many, many times in --
MR. BOLOGNA: I'm sure you have.
MS. SIMON: -- in May and that is that right now,
you're paying the cost for the guy down the street who creates a brand
new hookup. Not somebody who moves into something where there's
already a hookup, right? And right now if that person built a home or
had a new hookup 101 feet from the gas main, they would pay for it
44
themselves. If it was 99 feet, you and I would be paying for it. You
and I will no longer pay for that.
MR. BOLOGNA: I'm -- and I'm so happy you --
MS. SIMON: That's their choice, that's their
decision. They can --
MR. BOLOGNA: I'm so happy you brought that up.
So what we're seeing is, is that the savings that we're giving folks is
significant, but not significant enough to not delay it a year. That's
what we're saying. So we're --
MS. SIMON: I'm sorry --
MR. BOLOGNA: -- going to be giving you savings,
but we're going to delay it a year.
MS. SIMON: So here's the thing: I didn't make this
suggestion. This was a suggestion of the Governor. I would suggest
that you might be happy about it.
MR. BOLOGNA: That -- that's -- that's fair. So also
in the bill-in-chief, though, that is something that's not changed in this
particular piece of legislation, you stated that fossil --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Not germane, sir.
Bill-in-chief, not germane.
MR. RA: Madam Speaker, point of order.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: State your point.
MR. RA: So under Rule V, Section 6 (C), it talks
about maintaining decorum and per -- and debate pertaining to the
subject matter before the House. None of our members have steered
45
away from the subject matter before the House. So I ob -- I -- I
believe that the Chair is incorrect and I ask that that question to
overrule the Chair's decision be put before the House.
(Pause)
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes, why do you rise?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, with
all due respect to -- to my colleagues, we're not asking them
necessarily to agree with what you have said in your request, but we
are asking them to honor it. You are the Chair, you are the Speaker,
you are sitting in that seat and what you suggest to us to do should be
honored. That's what we're asking.
MR. BOLOGNA: So to clarify, I can't ask a question
about why something wasn't changed?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: One moment, Mr.
Bologna --
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: -- please. We have
a point of order.
(Pause)
The ruling of the Chair has been appealed. The
question is, does the ruling of the Chair stand?
Mr. Ra.
(Pause)
Ms. Walsh.
46
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference opposes the ruling of the Chair on this matter
and would call for a Party vote in opposition to it.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, with
all due respect, colleagues can oppose it if they'd like, but the fact of
the matter is, is you are the Chair and you have made a decision. That
is what should be followed. So the Majority Conference will be in
favor of your ruling.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The ruling in the Chair stands.
Mr. Bologna, would you like to finish your
comments, questions?
MR. BOLOGNA: Please. You know what,
Madam Speaker? I'm going to go on the bill if that's all right.
I appreciate --
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. BOLOGNA: Oh, sorry. I appreciate the fact
that it seems that my colleagues are committed to their current level of
understanding of this piece of legislation. What I find interesting
47
about this debate is when it comes to solar panels, wind projects,
renewables, we all share the cost because it serves the greater public.
But when it comes to connecting homes to natural gas, suddenly the
philosophy changes. We rediscover the virtues of rugged
individualism, but apparently the warmth of collectivism stops at the
gas line. That's apparently where it stops, at the gas meter.
So let me be clear about what this policy actually
does. It does not eliminate the cost of infrastructure, it simply shifts it
on to the homeowner and the developer. In the real word, when
developers build homes or subdivisions, those costs don't just
disappear. They're simply built into the price of the home itself,
which is ironic considering that we all seem to agree that we're in the
midst of a housing affordability crisis. We're told that this measure
would save hundreds of millions of dollars for ratepayers, yet if those
savings are so significant, it raises an obvious question; why are we
delaying the policy?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Bologna,
please take your seat.
Members who fail to adhere to the requirements of
order and decorum will be asked to do so. Thank you.
Mr. Reilly.
MR. REILLY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will
the sponsor please yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
48
MS. SIMON: Certainly.
MR. REILLY: So, Ms. Simon, how critical is the
PSC rulemaking to the process of this bill and the original bill? How
critical?
MS. SIMON: I'm not quite sure I understand your
question, but --
MR. REILLY: So --
MS. SIMON: -- the C -- PSC will figure out how it is
that companies will need to change their billing practices to conform
to the law. They do this on a regular basis.
MR. REILLY: Okay. So the reason why I ask that is
because in the actual bill it states: One year after it shall have become
a law effective immediately, the addition, amendment and/or appeal of
any rule or regulation necessary for the implementation of this act on
its effective date are authorized to be made and completed on or
before such effective date. So the reason why I -- I read that is
because we've been told that it's just about -- this bill is just about the
effective date, but it specifically states the addition, amendment or
repeal of any rule. So what rules would this bill take place?
MS. SIMON: The rules that the PSC has with regard
to how utilities bill their customers would be amended. That's very
simple.
MR. REILLY: So do you know what specific
amendment?
MS. SIMON: That's up to the PSC. They would
49
make an amendment that conforms with this law, the -- the original
bill and the -- with the delayed extend -- you know, effective date.
MR. REILLY: So the original bill plays a role with
this bill, correct?
MS. SIMON: They always do, sir. This is an --
MR. REILLY: That's --
MS. SIMON: -- amendment -- this is a chapter
amendment --
MR. REILLY: That's --
MS. SIMON: -- to a bill that's been passed and
signed and none of those other things --
MR. REILLY: That's --
MS. SIMON: -- are changing in any way, shape or
form.
MR. REILLY: Thank you.
MS. SIMON: You're welcome.
MR. REILLY: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. REILLY: So that's specifically the argument
here is these bills are cohesive. It's the chicken before the egg.
They're all playing together here, and the idea that the effective rules
the addition, the amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation
necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date are
authorized to be made and completed on or before such effective date.
50
That goes to show that the original bill-in-chief plays a role in this bill.
You can't talk about regulations that are going to be added, that are
going to be amended if you don't talk about what was done in the past
to get us to that point. So the idea that you can't discuss how the
original bill impacted us getting to this point is just silliness.
Stifling debate that the public can't hear, they can't
have someone talk about is not democracy. It's not what we do in this
House. We have debates so that policy can be rectified, it can be
completed in an open and transparent way. Whether you're changing
a date or changing a -- an addition to a policy, an amendment and/or
appeal of any rule. So I think it is very troubling that we've been
trying to stifle this debate.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Glick.
MS. GLICK: Will the sponsor yield for a question?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: Certainly.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MS. GLICK: Would we say that there are utility that
-- that a gas line falls under utility?
MS. SIMON: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Glick, please
keep your comments germane to the bill in front of us, please.
51
MS. GLICK: All right. If -- in -- in a year from now,
homeowners would have to pay for the gas hookup, is that what this --
this delays it a year.
MS. SIMON: Yes, for a new hookup. A brand new
hookup.
MS. GLICK: But it doesn't delay any of the other
things like sewer or waterlines.
MS. SIMON: No.
MS. GLICK: Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Pirozzolo.
MR. PIROZZOLO: Good day, Madam Speaker.
How are you today?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Good day.
Fabulous, thank you.
MR. PIROZZOLO: (Laughter) I would like to speak
on the bill if I may.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. PIROZZOLO: All right. So the problem that I
think my conference has is that what we have here is what we call a
bad bill. It was a bad bill last year, it's a bad bill this year, it's going to
be a bad bill next year where we're going to have to delay it once
again.
I find it very odd and striking that the request for this
bill is coming from the Governor who is going to need to delay a lot of
bad bills this year, because she has even recognized that the energy
52
mandates that she has put forward do not work within the time frame
or the costs that she has thought. So I want to just let everybody know
that this is a bad bill, we're seeing it's a bad bill just by the fact that
we're asking to delay it and I would think that everybody should vote
no.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, if you
would please call the Labor Committee to the Speaker's Conference
Room.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Labor Committee
to the Speaker's Conference Room. Please meet Chair Bronson in the
Speaker's Conference Room, please.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
Mr. Gandolfo.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. SIMON: I'm sorry, I thought we were voting.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: We had an
additional question.
MS. SIMON: Okay. Thank you. Yes.
53
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you. So as I was
preparing to read this pretty short bill, I looked at some of the
comments made on the bill-in-chief last year and I believe one of the
comments the sponsor made was that the repealing of the 100-foot
rule helped us meet our climate goals. Does delaying the
implementation of the bill-in-chief help us meet our climate goals?
MS. SIMON: Probably less so than if it was effective
earlier.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So -- and the Governor
made no inclinations other than the PSC rulemaking process as to why
she would like to delay it for one year?
MS. SIMON: That is the only conversation we've
had.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. And also one of the
comments made from the sponsor last year was that every ratepayer is
subsidizing new hookups with the 100-foot rule in place. So by
delaying this another year why should we allow everyone else to
subsidize new gas hookups for an additional year?
MS. SIMON: I think you have to pick one and right
now, the effective date is being delayed to the extent that there is a
concern about even doing this bill. You know, you got to -- you got to
pick a side here, and we're on the side of improving people's lives and
lowering utility bills.
MR. GANDOLFO: So delaying the implementation
54
of the repeal of the 100-foot rule, that improves people's lives and
makes things more affordable?
MS. SIMON: For a short period of time.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So would that imply that
in one year when it is implemented, that maybe that might affect
people's utility bills?
MS. SIMON: I'm sorry, could you say that again?
MR. GANDOLFO: So would that then imply that
when this is implemented in one year, that might -- it might have the
opposite effect on affordability and utility bills?
MS. SIMON: It would have the effect of increasing
affordability when it is effective in December of 2026.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So right now, it -- it's
going to I guess then --
MS. SIMON: Right now, with the -- it's status quo.
MR. GANDOLFO: Status quo. So in a year, it will
increase affordability. So right now, does it decrease affordability?
MS. SIMON: It's not quite a year, it's December
2026. This is -- we're March, right?
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. In -- in eight months. So
in the meantime we're not doing anything on affordability because
originally in the debate on the bill-in-chief, this bill was called a huge
--
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Gandolfo, the
bill-in-chief is not relevant to today's bill.
55
MR. GANDOLFO: It's going to connect back when I
talk about how we're delaying it year which is in this bill,
Madam Speaker, respectfully.
So the bill was originally called a huge step in the
right direction in affordability and a healthier New York. So why
would we want to push that off another year?
MS. SIMON: I think that I've been pretty clear that I
didn't ask for this.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay -- well, you're carrying --
it's your bill, it's your name on there.
MS. SIMON: It's my bill, I didn't ask that -- that it be
delayed by a year. That's all I'm saying.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So you -- will you be
voting no?
MS. SIMON: I -- I will be voting yes.
MR. GANDOLFO: Oh. Okay, interesting.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
MS. SIMON: Because it's a good compromise.
Thank you.
MR. GANDOLFO: On the bill, please.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. GANDOLFO: Madam Speaker, I think this is a
clear attempt at delaying a -- a bill that will not be good for New
Yorkers until after Election Day, 2026. I will be voting no.
Thank you very much.
56
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: On the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MS. WALSH: Eliminating the 100-foot rule in one
year after Election Day raises housing costs at the worst possible time,
shifts thousands of dollars per project, estimated to be 3,000 to
$15,000 per connection onto the homeowners, developers. New York
already faces a housing affordability crisis and this adds even more
upfront costs.
You can't claim to be fighting a housing crisis while
actively making it more expensive to buy or to build a home.
Eliminating it forces individual homeowners to shoulder costs that
were previously shared, effectively functioning as a targeted fee on
new housing. It discourages new home development and reduces
project viability and initial construction costs can be recovered over
time when new customers are added and operational costs are spread
across more users.
The Governor in her approval memorandum, which
then resulted in the chapter amendment, directed the Public Service
Commission to require applicants for a gas service connection to a
residential building to pay the material and installation costs for gas
utility service, but she requested and the sponsor's indicated that the
request came at the sole res -- request of the Governor to push this off
for another year. But certainly, the approval memo talks about a lot of
57
things: Utility rates increasing across the country, costs for New
Yorkers, real estate developers paying for the material and installation
cost for the first 100 feet of facilities necessary to provide gas service.
The approval memorandum goes deeply into the bill-in-chief and it
resulted in a request for the chapter amendment. In other words, the
Governor's saying, I won't sign the bill-in-chief in its current form
unless we do this chapter amendment kicking it down the road.
So I think that the time that we've spent here debating
and speaking on this bill proves the overall point and what I find so
troubling about the direction that it appears that the -- that the
Chamber has taken to try to stifle debate. When we're talking about a
chapter amendment, we're obviously talking about the underlying
legislation that the chapter is changing. It's all part and parcel, it's all
linked together. We do not discuss the chapter amendment in a
vacuum. And so what I find upsetting is that on the heels of the rules
changes that were passed early this year, which further truncated the
amount of debate that the Minority is able to -- to essentially cutting
our debate time in half, to now take a position that we are gonna have
to even be more silenced or attempt to silence us is something that I
can't agree to.
So I don't like the chapter because I think that the
chapter amendment is basically the Governor saying, I don't want to
be burdened with this difficult issue in an election year. So I'm going
to kick it down the curb just like I did with congestion pricing. So I'm
going to vote no on this chapter amendment. I voted no on the
58
bill-in-chief and, you know, I -- I really hope that going forward with
all of the debates that we have to do that we're going to not limit the
Minority's need to point out what is wrong and troubling about all of
these bills. I will be in the negative on this chapter.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A slow call -- a
slow roll call has been requested.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Mr. Lemondes to explain his vote.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to
explain my vote. I think it's necessary again to reiterate the fact that
there were multiple entity opposition letters, limitations on debate, the
shift is a result of election year politics, as well as the contribution to
increased financial instability for commercial and residential
ratepayers. This bill contributes nothing to help New Yorkers at a
time when the financial crisis is getting worse every day as a result of
policies like these.
Thank you. I vote no.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Lemondes in
the negative.
Mr. Bologna to explain his vote.
59
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
fact is, getting off fossil fuels is safer and healthier for everybody,
policy is good for children, other living things. That exact quote was
said last year by the sponsor during debate. If it is safer and healthier,
than why are we debate -- are we kicking this down the road for a
year? I don't under -- understand. None of this makes sense. The
policy from the get-go is a bad policy. The chapter is clearly a
political stunt.
I will be in the negative.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Bologna in the
negative.
Mr. Tannousis to explain his vote.
MR. TANNOUSIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
know there's been quite a bit of discussion in regards to this bill and
what we're allowed to say in regards to the bill-in-chief or not. The
most important takeaway about this bill is the date. Why is this being
moved? Why does the Governor want to move this date? It is plain
and simple that the reason why she wants to move the date is because
we have an affordability problem here in New York. That is why.
And she is running for election in November. So it's important to
note, we cannot just run to pass bills without knowing what effect they
will have on our constituents. I guarantee after the November
election, we will see a push for more bad bills just like this one.
I vote no. I encourage all my colleagues to do the
same. Thank you very much.
60
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Tannousis in the negative.
Mr. Palmesano to explain his vote.
MR. PALMESANO: Thank you, Madam Speaker,
my colleagues. This is a sad day today, unfortunately, in this
Chamber. You might be -- be able to hide behind germaneness here
on the floor, but you cannot hide and run from your record. These
costly, unaffordable, unreliable, certainly not feasible energy
mandates that New Yorkers don't want and they certainly don't want
to pay for, dismantling energy choice, making energy more afford --
unaffordable. Your own memo last -- couple weeks ago from your
own agencies came out and showed all the cost increases -- increase
of up to 4 -- more than $4,000 to heat your home, $2.23 increase in a
gallon of gas, $2.41 increase in diesel prices, 46% increase in utility
prices for small and commercialized businesses and a 60% increase in
delivery truck operations.
These are your policies. You might be able to hide
behind germaneness on the floor, but you cannot hide behind your
record. You own this and so does the Governor. I continue to vote
no.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Palmesano in
the negative.
Ms. Simon to explain her vote.
MS. SIMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This
bill-in-chief was a great bill. And this one allows utilities to conform
61
their billing practices which is a very good thing. We want to make
sure that the gas companies get it right and that we give them the time
to do that. The 100-foot rule only impacts, I want to clarify the
record, residential hookups, not commercial businesses who pay
cheaper rates than residential customers in the first place.
So I am very happy that we're passing this bill today.
It's a good bill and I thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm voting in the
affirmative.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Simon in the
affirmative.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, would
you please call on our colleagues that are with us by Zoom?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will call
on Zoom attendees.
THE CLERK: Ms. Mitaynes, for the record, please
state your name and how you wish to vote.
MS. MITAYNES: Assemblymember Marcela
Mitaynes, I vote yes.
THE CLERK: Ms. Mitaynes in the affirmative.
Mr. Smith, for the record, please state your name and
how you wish to vote.
MR. SMITH: Assemblyman Doug Smith, at this
point in the proceedings I vote no.
Thank you
THE CLERK: Mr. Smith in the negative.
62
Ms. Solages, for the record, please state your name
and how you wish to vote.
MS. SOLAGES: Michaelle Solages and I wish to
vote in the affirmative.
THE CLERK: Ms. Solages in the affirmative.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Are there any other
votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Page 4, Rules Report No. 69, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Senate No. S08807, Rules Report No.
69, Senator Krueger. An act to amend the Insurance Law and the
General Business Law, in relation to procedures for protections of
legally protected health activities.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Mr. Bronson
MR. BRONSON: This bill is a chapter amendment
which would align the protections to be provided by New York State's
Shield Law with its original purpose and intent. It would provide
professional liability insurance with the same protection already
provided to medical malpractice insurance related to legally-protected
health activities. The bill would further clarify New York's
protections against out-of-state legal actions seeking information
related to legally-protected health activity that is lawful here in New
63
York State. It would also strengthen these protections by revising
notice timelines, clarifying requirements for compliance with court
orders enforcing -- enforceable in New York and clarifying the
enforcement authority of the Attorney General.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the
sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MR. BRONSON: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MS. WALSH: Let's dive into specifically you -- you
gave a good overall explanation as far as what the chapter amendment
seeks to do. Let's talk a little bit more specifically about what
technical changes are being made here. There's a timeframe change to
five days for notifying the Attorney General. Could you talk about
that, please?
MR. BRONSON: Yeah. So originally we had that
there would be a 72-hour requirement through discussions with the
Governor's office. It was determined that having a five business day
would allow folks to comply with the law more easily.
MS. WALSH: Okay. So the notice itself, it -- so it --
I know that the timeframe is being extended, but how -- could you just
talk a little bit about what it is notifying the Attorney General about?
MR. BRONSON: Notifying the Attorney General
64
that you have received a request for information in various forms from
an entity outside of the State of New York.
MS. WALSH: Okay. So could you give like a real
world example of how that might come into play?
MR. BRONSON: Sure. Real world example would
be a hospital that provided either reproductive care or gender
affirming care which are legally-protective health activities here in
New York State. There's another state that makes those activities
unlawful and there's an attempt by that state to prosecute either the
hospital or some other entity or individual and are seeking a subpoena
or some other information request that would then require that
hospital to put on notice the Attorney General's Office that they've
received the request, as well as the individual who actually received
the -- the healthcare, let them know as well.
MS. WALSH: And so the purpose of this technical
change is to allow the Attorney General additional time in order to
appropriately react to such a -- a -- a notice request?
MR. BRONSON: Actually, it allows the healthcare
provider additional time so that their attorneys could look at the legal
instrument, look at the situation and have five business days versus 72
hours to get that information to the Attorney General's Office.
MS. WALSH: I see. Okay. And then also it looks
like the bill clarifies that a provider can't face an adverse action
regarding their liability insurance or medical malpractice insurance
because of providing gender affirming care. What -- what was the
65
rationale behind making that change?
MR. BRONSON: Well, it was -- the malpractice
insurance was under the bill-in-chief. We expanded it for any type of
professional liability. What facilitated it that makes it conform to
other parts of the bill in -- the original bill-in-chief, but also because
under the original bill-in-chief, we expanded various different types of
healthcare providers to be included in the protection and -- and they
may not have malpractice, they may have professional liability
insurance.
MS. WALSH: So it was just to clarify that regardless
of whether it was medical malpractice or some other form of
professional liability policy, we wanted to include all of that in -- in
addressing it here.
MR. BRONSON: Yes. So if any -- if -- if an
out-of-state -- if a different state or someone from out-of-state is
looking for information that could impact their professional liability
situation, we would want to make sure they were included, yes.
MS. WALSH: Okay. And -- and do you know who,
if you know, where that request for change in the chapter came from?
Who was requesting that? Or was that just something that you as the
sponsor spotted as a change?
MR. BRONSON: Sure. Well, we through the --
through the conversations, as you know we have conversations with
the Executive Branch as we're trying to get our pieces of legislation
that have passed both Houses. You have conversations about that and
66
through -- through walking through that, it was determined that
making this change would offer conformity throughout the -- the act
that we envisioned.
MS. WALSH: Thank you. And also the chapter
amendment decreases the penalty amount from $15,000 to $10,000
per violation for intentionally, knowingly, willingly or recklessly
complying with an out-of-state inquiry in violation of these
protections. Do you -- any -- why was that change made? Do you
know?
MR. BRONSON: My belief is that was a request of
the Executive Branch.
MS. WALSH: Okay. All right. And do you have -- I
mean here we are looking at this -- at this, but as far as the -- the bill's
broader legal effect, how has the current law been working?
Obviously we're making some changes here with this chapter
amendment, but any -- any information about how that has been
working so far?
MR. BRONSON: It -- it has been working. We have
an example of a particular case where the Shield Act was used to
protect a physician in complying with an information subpoena.
MS. WALSH: Okay. Very good. Thank you very
much, Mr. Bronson.
MR. BRONSON: Thank you.
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
67
MS. WALSH: So this -- the bill-in-chief which
created a Shield Law for access to gender affirming care or
reproductive healthcare passed at the very end of Session last year by
a vote of 94 to 50, so there was bipartisan opposition. As we've just
discussed, the chapter amendment makes technical changes to several
parts of the underlying law, but doesn't really I think change it in a
way that will make it more palatable for anyone that was in the
negative last year.
So I will continue to be voting no on this bill and I
would certainly encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I
stated when debating the bill, the Minority Conference is going to be
in the negative on this bill and would encourage no votes. If anybody
wishes to vote yes, they may do so now at their seats.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you,
Madam Speaker. The Majority Conference is going to be in favor of
68
this legislation; however, there may be some that will desire to be an
exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
And Mrs. Peoples-Stokes for the purposes of an
introduction.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt our proceedings for the purposes
of an introduction. Our colleague, Brian Cunningham, has guests
from his district. These are two outstanding leaders who are
transforming lives through the power of music, mentorship and
opportunity. Marvin Cooke and Brandon Walker, the Founders and
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Excellent
Sound Academy.
Excellent Sound Academy is a New York City-based
nonprofit dedicated to developing the next generation of artists,
producers and music industry professionals through hands-on
education, mentorship and real world performances. Through their
work, ESA has already served over 200 emerging artists across New
York City. Marvin Cooke brings not only the talent, but the vision as
a musician and with Billboard charting success and Grammy
69
recognized achievements. He uses his platform to give back and
invest in the next generation. Brandon Walker brings strong
leadership in business, technology and community engagement. They
are -- together they are addressing a critical gap we all recognize and
that is the decline of arts and education in our schools.
Madam Speaker, would you please welcome these
stellar gentlemen and citizens to our Chambers, offer them the
cordialities of the House and the privileges of the floor. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you. On
behalf of Mrs. Peoples-Stokes and Mr. Cunningham and the Speaker,
all members, we welcome you, Brandon and Marvin, to the Assembly
Chamber, our People's House extending to you the privileges of the
floor. Hope you've been able to enjoy some of the proceedings that
you were here -- able to hear today and thank you so much for all of
the outstanding work that you've been doing for our next emerging
artists, the next generation of artists, through your not-for-profit
Excellence [sic] Sound Academy. So thank you so very much for
being here today and continued best wishes and good success.
(Applause)
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, if we
can continue with our debate list. We're going to go to Calendar No.
69 which is on page 10 by Mr. Rivera, followed by Calendar No. 21,
it's on page 7 by Mr. Kim and Calendar No. 115 which is on page 19
by myself, Member Peoples-Stokes.
70
Thank you. In that order.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
On our debate Calendar, page 10, Calendar No. 39,
the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A01067, Calendar No.
39, Rivera, Benedetto, Bronson, Clark, Colton, Conrad, De Los
Santos, Dinowitz, Glick, González-Rojas, Hevesi, Jackson, Jacobson,
Lunsford, McDonough, Meeks, Peoples-Stokes, Reyes, Rosenthal,
Seawright, Septimo, Simon, Steck, Taylor, Stirpe, Stern, Walker,
Kelles, Burdick, Santabarbara, Shimsky, Cunningham, Zinerman,
Otis, Sayegh. An act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
prohibiting the exclusion of coverage for losses or damages caused by
exposure to lead-based paint.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Mr. Rivera.
MR. RIVERA: Thank you. Before us is a bill that's
been before the House before. The primary intention of it would be to
protect renters who are exposed to lead-based paint by prohibiting the
exclusion of coverage for losses or damages caused by exposure to
lead paint from liability coverage provided to rental property owners.
There's an exclusion that exists in Insurance Law that was placed at
some point in the '90s and that exclusion prevents individuals from
seeking damages on lead -- essentially being poisoned by lead. So this
would look to remove that exemption.
71
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Gandolfo.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor please yield for some questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MR. RIVERA: I will.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you very much. So thank
you for your explanation. So my first question on this bill, by
eliminating the exclusions for lead-based paint exposures, is there any
concern that this might have an unintended impact of making it less
likely for building owners and landlords to proactively address
potential lead paint issues?
MR. RIVERA: I think the opposite. I think if there
is the risk by which further cost could be held upon them, they're
going to want to expedite encapsulation or remediation as much as
possible.
MR. GANDOLFO: But right now, if this were to
pass and be signed into law, they can then rely on the insurance
company to pay the damages, ultimately protecting their bottom line if
insurance is going to cover it. Is that --
MR. RIVERA: Well, if the exemption no longer
exists, then a tenant could seek damages and the insurance policy
would cover it.
MR. GANDOLFO: So right now, they would seek
72
damages against the landlord and with the exclusion in place, the
landlord would be on the hook for the damages? Is that --
MR. RIVERA: Well, truthfully in many scenarios
you have a situation where tenants are really reluctant to pursue
anything with their landlords because, you know, tenants have fewer
protections than homeowners and they're going to be reluctant to -- to
seek damages, especially knowing that it will be a long chase,
knowing that -- that -- that -- that they're not going to be able to deal
directly with an insurance company, most likely prevents them from
pursuing this and also, frankly, the fear of retribution from a landlord
that now has to pay out of pocket. So I think there's a -- a problem
that we're going through right now where we have a huge number of
folks that are -- they or their children are suffering from lead
poisoning and they're not pursuing this one because afraid of -- of sort
of the response of a landlord knowing that the landlord is gonna have
to come out of pocket for it and two, knowing that, you know, without
the coverage they might not be able to obtain sufficient funds to
handle the medical expenses that they are now responsible for.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. And now, lead-based
paint, unfortunately it's a condition that exists in older housing stock,
but it's not exactly a -- a fortuitous risk. It's in the building or it's not
and it's generally known that it's a problem. So I have a concern that
maybe insurance companies can't accurately price in that risk and as a
result, you might see a premium increase for building owners across
the board. Is -- is that a concern that you have about pricing and the
73
risk?
MR. RIVERA: I -- I guess what I would say is sort of
two things. One, you know, there's states all over this country where
this exemption doesn't exist so it's not foreign. I'd also say that up
until the '90s, this was -- this exemption didn't exist and there were
people paying premiums on their homeowners' policies with this
coverage when the insurance industry and then the Governor of the
day decided to create this exemption. It's not as if the rest of us got a
reduced -- or a reduction in our premiums, now that the -- the
insurance companies weren't on the hook to cover as much.
And frankly, you know, I've had conversations with
folks in -- in the insurance world. I haven't gotten a clear, straight
answers around if this would increase premium costs and how much
that would be. I think, you know, if we chase the narrative of all of
this might cost more and put that above the health and financial
stability of families, then, you know, then there's other problems we
should be thinking about.
MR. GANDOLFO: Well, I don't think it's only a
question of will it cost more. There's also the question of will insurers
continue to insure in some of these areas with older housing stock or if
they'll pull out of the market completely. So if, let's say, major
insurance carriers as a result of this decide to pull out of the market
and no longer write these policies, what can building owners and
landlords turn to then as an alternative coverage?
MR. RIVERA: Well, I think because this would be
74
applied across the board, I find it hard that insurance companies will
suddenly pack up their bags and leave New York State. You know,
the -- sort of the Catch-22 about it all is the unique thing about New
York State is that -- and it's not solely sort of in my neck of the woods
in Upstate New York or in Buffalo where I represent, but New York
has the greatest number of housing units. It has the highest percentage
of pre-1950 housing and the oldest housing inventory among all 50
states. This is a problem that we are plagued with in this State and as
long as we are allowing, you know, insurance companies to not cover
this, we're going to continue to see not just the effect of lead paint, but
also the financial burden that's placed on families that are more often
than not already cash-strapped. We see that, at least in my neck of the
woods, the overwhelming majority of people, of children that end up
having lead paint poisoning, you know, 80% of them are -- come from
properties where there are rentals.
So, you know, we have to do as much as we can to
protect these children and those numbers are undeniable. And, you
know, are we worried about insurance industry leaving New York
State? I'm not. I think that we will forever be a State where business
is going to thrive. I don't subscribe to the narrative of anything other
than that. I think that, you know, like I said, these policies are written
this way all over the country. We are -- we are not alone in -- in
pursuing this.
MR. GANDOLFO: I mean, it -- I'm not speaking in
terms of pulling out of the State entirely. But, for example, the area
75
that I represent, a lot of insurers are reducing the amount of policies
they're writing due to the risk associated with living closer to the
water. Is there a concern that in pockets of New York State that have
older housing stock that is more likely to have lead-based paint and
exposures to lead-based paint that they might no longer write policies
in those regions or for older buildings?
MR. RIVERA: I -- I'd say the scenario you're --
you're giving is a bit, you know, sort of apples and oranges because,
you know, flood insurance and -- and houses near water, that's a
perpetually sort of unique problem. This is literally everywhere, you
know. These -- there's old housing in every city, in every county, in
every town, in every village, in -- in public housing and -- and
nonpublic housing. It's everywhere. So to -- to think that suddenly
coverage is going to be lost across the tens of hundreds of thousands
of units, it's -- it's kind of hard to imagine.
MR. GANDOLFO: All right. Well, I mean it's -- it's
everywhere but it's more concentrated in certain areas, but we can
move on from that.
So if -- now my question on this now, in -- in 26
months, this is when that would take effect, when it takes effect would
it terminate existing policies and force insurers to write new policies,
or would it just get rid of the exclusions contained in existing
contracts?
MR. RIVERA: My position is that it would take out
the exclusions.
76
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. Is there any concern, I
know we had a discussion yesterday, not you and I but as a Body,
about the Contracts Clause and how the State could be coming in and
altering existing contracts between parties?
MR. RIVERA: Well, I think giving more than two
years for providers to work it out with their policyholders, I think is
sufficient time. More than two years, I -- I think that's enough time.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, on the bill, please.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: On the bill.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
know this is an issue that the sponsor is passionate about. A lot of
bills that deal with lead paint exposure have his name attached to
them and I think the intent is there. My concern is that this could have
the opposite effect whereas insurance carriers will pull out of the
market in certain regions of the State to reduce their risk since
lead-based paint exposure isn't a fortuitous risk, it's a condition that
exists within a lot of the housing stock. And if the insurers pull out,
the building owners, the landlords are going to have nowhere to turn
to get insurance policies which could in turn reduce the housing
availability and cause even more of a housing crunch in regions that
probably do need more housing availability.
So for that, Madam Speaker, I will be opposing this
bill and I would encourage my colleagues to vote no as well.
Thank you.
77
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Mr. Molitor.
MR. MOLITOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will
the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Does the sponsor
yield?
The sponsor yields.
MR. MOLITOR: Thank you, Mr. Rivera. Mr.
Rivera, who does the insurance coverage benefit, or who will it
benefit?
MR. RIVERA: I would say it's twofold. I think
providing additional coverage to its policyholders is a benefit to the
policyholder, but I also would say in these -- in this scenario, it would
also benefit the tenant who resides in said home.
MR. MOLITOR: So if -- if a tenant is injured or has
somebody in their home who's injured as a result of lead -- of lead
poisoning, they could sue the landlord, right, and the landlord would
then be defend -- if this coverage existed, the landlord would be
defended by the insurance company; is that correct?
MR. RIVERA: That would be the scenario in the --
in the case of any injury that's taken place on that person's property.
Let it be lead, let it be anything else. If I reside in someone's home
and I'm a tenant and for some reason, you know, God forbid there's
some sort of shoddy electrical work and I'm electrocuted on the
premises through no fault of my own, the landlord would be treated
78
the same way in this scenario as that scenario. There's a responsibility
that the landlord has to provide safe housing for tenants within reason
and this would just be another one of those things that they should
ensure that the families that reside on their properties are safe from.
MR. MOLITOR: Thank you, Mr. Rivera.
On the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: On the bill.
MR. MOLITOR: So if you're really concerned about
landlords renovating their property and getting rid of the lead in their
property -- on their property before renting it to a tenant, you would
not be in support of this particular legislation, because this legislation
would protect deadbeat landlords. In other words, if you were a
landlord who didn't really care about your property at all and someone
rented from you and then they were poisoned by lead, you could just
say, well, my insurance will cover it. So you have no incentive to
actually renovate your property.
This bill I think actually does the exact opposite of
what it's intending to do. And at the same time it will increase costs
for everyone who are -- is paying into the insure -- the rental insurance
market. So I will be voting against this bill and I'd encourage all my
colleagues to do so as well.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Read the last
section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.
79
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be, generally speaking, in the negative on
this piece of legislation, but if there are those who wish to vote yes,
they may do so now at their seats.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: The Majority
Conference is in favor of this piece of legislation; however, there may
be some that will be -- desire to be an exception. I would hope not,
but just in case, they can do so at their seats.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Page 7, Calendar No. 21, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A00622-C, Calendar
No. 21, Kim, Colton, Lucas, Reyes, Chang, Stern, Shimsky,
Levenberg, Kay, Simone, Lavine, Rozic, Lee, Cunningham, Lunsford,
Cruz, Raga, Steck, Weprin, Jacobson, Santabarbara, Sayegh. An act
to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to health insurance coverage
80
for acupuncture services.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: An explanation has
been requested.
Mr. Kim.
MR. KIM: Thank you. This bill would require large
group health insurers to cover acupuncture treatment upon the
prescription of a healthcare provider.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Mr. Gandolfo.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor please yield for a couple of questions?
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Will the sponsor
yield?
MR. KIM: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: The sponsor yields.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you for that. So this
would mandate health insurance plans to provide coverage for
acupuncture treatment. Would that require a prescription?
MR. KIM: That would require a prescription of a
healthcare provider.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So a -- a patient couldn't
just go to an acupuncturist without the prescription of their or a
healthcare provider and still get reimbursed for the services? They
would need the prescription from one of their medical providers?
MR. KIM: From a healthcare provider, yes.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. And now, does this apply
81
to private insurers or would this also apply to the Essential Plan?
MR. KIM: This is for private insurers, large group
insurers.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. Does the Essential Plan
cover this currently?
MR. KIM: It does not.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So why -- why would we
require private insurers to cover this while the State isn't it covering it
in the Essential Plan?
MR. KIM: The original version required the State to
do so which would cost the State more money, but this would only
require the private insurance companies to do so. And by the way,
many insurance companies already have started covering acupuncture
because it saves them money for the companies. So we're just making
this into a law requiring the larger companies to --
MR. GANDOLFO: (Crosstalk) okay. So some
insurers are providing the coverage. Okay.
MR. KIM: It is saving them a lot of money by doing
so.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. Now is there any word or
analysis from DFS on how this might impact health insurance
premiums for large -- medium and large size?
MR. KIM: We have the -- the ability for the
insurance companies under this law to set co-payments and co-sharing
mechanisms so they can decide what, you know, what their
82
appropriate amount is for co- pays.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. And now, is -- does the
coverage extend beyond let's say -- I know people use acupuncture for
a lot of different conditions. Is it limited to any kind of conditions,
pain management or does it go beyond to let's say, I think I've read
that people use acupuncture to treat amnesia -- or not amnesia,
insomnia.
MR. KIM: I -- I think people seek acupuncture to get
to the root cause of many of the illnesses including anxiety, depression
sometimes --
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay.
MR. KIM: -- so depending on the healthcare
provider and what they can prescribe to the individual this would
cover.
MR. GANDOLFO: Okay. So -- all right. So
anything that was prescribed by the healthcare provider would be
covered. Okay. All right, Thank you.
Madam Speaker, on the bill, please.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: On the bill.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. An
issue that I have with this bill, it's in another -- it's another insurance
mandate. We do this frequently as a Legislature. We keep mandating
insurance companies to cover more and more types of treatment, even
some that it's a little difficult to manage the effectiveness of the
underlying condition that it's meant to treat. And by doing so, maybe
83
taken by itself it's not that big of a hit to insurance premiums but when
we do it across the board repeatedly, it raises premiums for everybody
and it specifically -- it does disproportionately effect small and
medium-size businesses who may be forced to purchase coverage that
they don't need or don't want, as well as their employees.
So for that reason, I will be voting in the negative and
I would encourage my colleagues to vote negative as well.
Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Mrs.
Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a question?
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Will the sponsor
yield?
MR. KIM: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: The sponsor yields.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Understanding the
medical importance of what this procedure could do for a -- a patient,
are there existing insurance companies today that provide acupuncture
as something in their ability for the patient to get?
MR. KIM: Well, there -- are there currently
insurance companies --
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Are -- are there any
insurance companies that already provide this?
MR. KIM: Yes, there is [sic]. Some are already
84
starting to cover because they find that doing so will save the
insurance companies actually a lot of money down the line, instead --
because acupuncture is so effective, efficient or affordable in
managing people's pains.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: So I'm -- I feel like I'm
pretty sure that they did some research, they did some studies to tell
the difference between their patients having access to this kind of
service and its ability to save on -- and the cost of insurance.
MR. KIM: Yeah.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Are those studies
available?
MR. KIM: I -- I -- we don't -- I'm sure we can make
it available. But insurance companies of those -- at that level won't do
the underwriting or financing if they don't deem that they can make
money by doing so. So they're -- by provide -- by doing it organically
already, they're -- they're proving to us that it's not only effective, but
it's efficient and a cost saving for the industry.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Okay. Thank you.
MR. KIM: Thank you.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, on the
bill. I --
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: On the bill.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- realize that sometimes
it's a problem or a concern when we are constantly asking people to
do things or requiring them to do things that they don't want to do
85
because they feel like it has a -- a bottom line on their profit. But at
the end of the day, it's more important for us to have healthy people
than it is for insurance companies to be more profitable. And I -- I
know that's a very controversial topic and conversation to have, but
it's an important one. Because the longer people can extend a quality
of life, the more cost-effective it is for an insurance business.
And so I want to commend, you know, the sponsor of
this bill. I think it's a great piece of legislation, and I hope that we will
all consider it in the light that it's given and is provided and not about
business, but about saving healthy lives. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Read the last
section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 90th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be in the negative on this piece of
legislation, but if there are members who wish to vote yes, now would
be the time to do so at their seats. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. The Majority Conference is gonna be in favor of this piece
86
of legislation; however, there may be some that would desire to be an
exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Mr. Gandolfo to explain his vote.
MR. GANDOLFO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, to
explain my vote. I don't exactly think opposition to this bill can be
characterized as looking out for the bottom lines of insurance
companies. When we complain that health insurance costs too much
and yet continually put new mandates on insurance companies, that
raises the costs to everyone who buys an insurance policy. It's passed
along to the consumer through increased premiums.
Now, we're also not -- we're not mandating that the
State provides this coverage through the Essential Plan, but we're
mandating that private insurers do. So if it's really about saving lives
and this is such a necessary thing to cover, why isn't New York State
covering it?
So there's a lot of reasons someone might oppose this
bill, and I can assure you it's not looking out for profits of someone we
don't even know. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Mr. Gandolfo in the negative.
Mr. Kim to explain his vote.
MR. KIM: Thank you so much for allowing me to
87
explain my bill. I want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill
that we've been carrying for many years.
The original version did require this practice,
acupuncture, to be covered by the Essential Benefit [sic], but due to
the current circumstances it was -- it became very difficult for the
State to cover it. But I do agree with my colleagues on the other aisle
that that should be the larger mission to make acupuncture a service
and essential benefit for the State of New York. But for this bill, for
now, it will provide acupuncture by allowing private insurance
companies to cover it. And acupuncturists, in my opinion, are
healthcare providers in our community. The -- the acupuncturers [sic]
are required to go through three years of intense medical schooling,
some of them have doctorates in healthcare. And it's something that's
deeply personal for me and many others in my community. My dad,
you know, before he passed away of -- of -- excruciating, you know,
months of pain fighting cancer, instead of over relying on -- on -- on
the -- on the drugs that were prescribed to him, he constantly sought
acupuncture to manage some of his pains related to cancer. And I
know that in my community and others, not just immigrant Asian
communities, but across the State, across this country, more and more
people are relying on acupuncture and holistic healing to deal with
some of their deepest pains, and we should take the necessary steps
and make it accessible and available to all those constituents
throughout the State of New York.
So with that I vote in the affirmative and I want to -- I
88
want to thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you, Mr.
Kim.
Mr. Kim in the affirmative.
Mr. Chang to explain his vote.
MR. CHANG: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and
thank you to the sponsor of the bill. I also cosponsored this bill.
Acupuncture is services in Far East invented in China
thousands of years ago. And I'm also a recipient of having this
treatment in acupuncture for my chronic lower back pains of my 20
years of military services. And also the Veterans Administration also
approved acupuncture as a -- as a treatment. And this is a non-drug
type of treatment and it's harmless, as far as I can see, and it's
reversible. But -- and also, it gives people an option to use
acupuncture. And it's not that expensive. Even though I pay out of
pocket it's not really that expensive, but at least it affords to people an
option, a non-drug, non -- non-drug type of prescription to relieve pain
and some other ailments as -- as well.
So I support this bill and I vote on the affirmative.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you, Mr.
Chang.
Mr. Chang in the affirmative.
Ms. Walsh to explain her vote.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So, I
89
think bills like this could be hard because we want to be able to help
people. We want to be able to make sure that people can get the
treatment that they need. The trouble that I've got with the bill is that
it is -- it's not so much this bill, it's all the bills that came before it and
all the bills that are coming after it. I think that it's just -- every time
we create a new mandated benefit, the cost of the individual mandates
might be small, but collectively, they increase health insurance
premiums, they make coverage more expensive for employers and
consumers.
I just can't in good conscience support this bill, even
though I know that there are people who receive benefit from -- from
acupuncture, as the two previous speakers alluded to. But I think that
we have to draw the line somewhere. I'm choosing to draw it on this
bill. I'll be voting no. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Ms. Walsh in the negative.
Mr. Sayegh to explain his vote.
MR. SAYEGH: On the vote, Madam Speaker. I just
wanted to compliment the sponsor. And I think each and every one of
us need to realize that when we look at medical care, we look at
Western medicine. You know, sometimes we deal with trying to deal
with the causes of injuries or treatments, but as the sponsor stated and
some of the colleagues stated, Eastern medicine that's been around at
least 5,000 years recognizes the importance of many courses of
treatment similar to acupuncture that really relieve pain and serve to
90
be preventative to more serious injuries and discomfort. So I think
there's a realization all of us need to catch up with, and trying to
recognize that sometimes we got to go out of the envelope or the box
to include services that are beneficial for proper healthcare.
So I support in the affirmative.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Mr. Sayegh in the affirmative.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Page 19, Calendar No. 115, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A03682-A, Calendar
No. 115, Peoples-Stokes, Schiavoni, Lasher, Colton, Torres, Lee, Otis,
Sayegh, Bores. An act directing the Departments of Environmental
Conservation and Health to establish environmental standards for
ambient lead and lead contamination in soils; and providing for the
repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: On a motion by
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate
bill is advanced.
An explanation has been requested.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, this
bill will require the Department of Environmental Conservation, as
well as the Department of Health, to update and adopt new standards
91
for dust lead hazards as well as soil lead hazards and ambient air
quality of lead standards. It's a simple request that asks them to look
at the standards that we now have and see if there's a possibility that
they can be changed and/or lowered.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Thank you.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the
sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: Will the sponsor
yield?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Of course.
ACTING SPEAKER KASSAY: The sponsor yields.
MS. WALSH: Thank you so much. So, many of us
voted on this legislation in 2022 when Mr. Englebright carried a very
sim -- I think a similar bill or maybe the same bill, just with changes.
It passed almost unanimously at that time, but that was vetoed by the
Governor. In part, the Governor stated that New York's existing lead
standards prop -- appropriately covered the specific lead level
consistent with the most up-to-date scientific understanding of the
harmful impact of lead. So my question is, has the bill changed since
the 2022 version since the Governor's veto?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Well, actually, the
Governor also vetoed the point that they did not want to have a report
done. So this bill does exclude the report. But it does continue to ask
for the upgrade in standards.
92
MS. WALSH: Okay. Has -- since 2022, has the
CDC come out with any recommendations regarding lead levels that
calls New York's current standards into question?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I think these new CDC
rules came out in 2012 where they actually said that there was no
known safe standard of lead to be in a child. No known safe -- so if
we know that there's no safe standard, the possibly of lowering it
could help -- perhaps help some young people --
MS. WALSH: Okay.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: -- grow up to be good
citizens.
MS. WALSH: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to talk
over you. Apologies.
Isn't it true that New York State doesn't currently
have its own standards for levels of lead in dust or soil or ambient air
quality standards for lead, instead relying on the standards established
by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Yes, it does have its
own standards, and we're asking them to take a look at them and
consider reviewing and reducing them.
MS. WALSH: In the 2022 veto, the Governor stated
that she -- she found that New York's existing lead standards were
appropriately -- appropriately covered the specific lead level
consistent with the most up-to-date scientific understanding of the
harmful impact of lead. Do you agree with the Governor that New
93
York's existing lead standards are appropriate where they are now?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I do not.
MS. WALSH: And that's .15 micrograms per cubic
meter.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I do not.
MS. WALSH: Okay. Is there a concern that the EPA
might not continue to retain this standard?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: It could be that they --
that they will lower the standards again as well. But the fact of the
matter is is we still see the increasing numbers of young people who
are not only poisoned by lead, but negatively impacted their whole
neurological systems and thereby impacting their -- their ability to be
educated. And we could only look at the numbers of special ed
classes that have been added across the board to our education system
to provide for the needs of these children that we've allowed to be
poisoned.
MS. WALSH: I think we can all agree that lead
levels do result in injury to some -- to some children, educational
impacts as well. I appreciate that.
I have seen that there have been announcements from
the EPA administrator of several different actions proposed, but I
didn't see anything having to do with changing the national ambient
air quality standards regarding lead. Do you have any different
information on that?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Well, just to go back to
94
your previous question, I do want to mention that we think the lead
soil standards are higher in New York State than they are federally.
So ours are at 200 -- 400, I'm sorry, and the federal government is at
200. At a minimum we should be able to go to 200 or lower. And so
the State can no longer do a lower air quality -- the State can do a
lower air quality -- number for air quality than is required by the
federal government. We can do it if we choose to, and so I'm asking
that we do it.
MS. WALSH: Yeah. The -- the State can always opt
to do more, or -- or -- you know, have a different -- have a different
standard. Okay.
So you mentioned I think at the beginning, I just want
to clarify for myself, that in a previous version of the bill there had
been a report, but now that's not going to be required any longer?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Right.
MS. WALSH: Okay. All right. So what -- is there --
is there a deadline in this bill for doing the review that you're calling
for them to do? When do they have to have that completed by?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Yes, there actually is; in
180 days.
MS. WALSH: Okay. And do you believe that that's
a reasonable time frame for them to be making that recommendation?
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I do think so.
MS. WALSH: Okay. All right. Thank you very
much. I appreciate your answers to my questions.
95
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: You're very welcome.
MS. WALSH: Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MS. WALSH: So, I do think that the point that
Madam Majority Leader just made about the difference between the
200 and the 400 and wanting to make sure that those standards were
consistent, I mean, New York can always decide to do more. I was
wondering as I prepared for this debate whether there was a -- a -- a
feeling or the impetus behind the bill might have been a concern about
what may or may not be happening at the federal level. And I was
kind of thinking of -- thinking of this. So on my desk I'll share that I
have a sign that says, "Worry about the things that are actually
happening, not the things that might possibly happen." Because if
you're an anxious person you need to focus on what's actually
happening in that moment instead of what you think might possibly
happen. So there had been a lot of talk previously amongst my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the need to kind of
Trump-proof New York after the second term, and I think that this
legislation arguably could fall into that category. As far as I can tell,
there's been no movement at the federal level to deregulate in the area
of lead, and I'm really glad about that, by the way.
Our vote in 2022 confirms that we almost
unanimously believe that lead can be hazardous to our health,
particularly to our children's health and development. I expect that
we'll continue to support this legislation. But I would even venture to
96
guess that maybe the Governor might sign it this time if only to -- oh,
no, I don't want to say that. Never mind. I would -- I would just say
as we thoughtfully consider legislation to come before us, maybe we
should worry about the things that are actually happening instead of
all the things that might possibly happen. It might just make us all a
little less anxious, and we could -- we could all use that today. And
maybe not overburden our State agencies who, as we know, already
have a lot to do on their plate.
So I -- I will personally be supporting this legislation
because I think periodically it makes sense to take a look at our -- at
our standards and figure out if they're appropriate or not. There may
be some folks who feel differently. As I believe, coming through
Committee we did have some no votes coming through Environmental
Conservation.
So with that, thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 90th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: So, generally speaking, a Party vote is
being requested in the negative on behalf of our Conference. As I
indicated, I will be in the affirmative, but if there are other members
97
who wish to vote yes, they may certainly do so now at their seats.
Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. The Majority Conference is gonna be in favor of this piece
of legislation. There may be a few that would desire to be an
exception. They should feel free to do so at their seats.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, if we
can now go to our debate Calendar and start with Calendar No. 231.
It's on page 31, that one's by Ms. Tapia. And they we're gonna go to
Calendar No. 50. That one's on Page 10 by Ms. Rosenthal. And then
Calendar No. 6, which is on page 6 and that one is by Ms. Paulin. In
that order. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Page 31, Calendar No. 231, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A03304-B, Calendar
No. 231, Tapia, Sayegh. An act to amend the Banking Law, in
relation to prohibiting fees for electronic benefit transfer services.
98
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Ms. Tapia.
MS. TAPIA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill
prohibits State-regulated financial institutions and ATM operators
from charging consumer-facing surcharges when individuals access
public benefits using an electronic benefit transfer, an EBT card.
Public benefits are intended to help people meet basic
needs. Fixed charges at the point of access reduce the value of that
assistance before it can be used for food, housing and other essentials.
This bill ensures that the full value of public assistance reaches the
people it was intended to support, and prevents the diversion of
benefit funds through point-of-use surcharges and fees.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Bologna.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the sponsor yield for a few quick questions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. TAPIA: Yes, I do.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. BOLOGNA: Thank you so much, Ms. Tapia.
Now, if I understand correctly, the genesis of this
legislation brings us back to COVID, correct, during -- I think it was
Key Bank was -- was the provider. Could you kind of explain this a
little bit of how we got here and what -- what was the -- the genesis of
99
your writing the bill?
(Pause/conferencing)
MS. TAPIA: That -- that happened during the
pandemic. The Key Bank, which was to have the -- the contract with
the State of New York was charging many of -- of the people that
were receiving and getting the payments -- I mean, when the
pandemics [sic] came, all of that was changed. And the Key Bank is
not doing it anymore, and there are many other banks that are not
doing that anymore. Because, I mean, we discussed that and then --
and then they just stop it. Chase Bank, other banks -- I mean,
Citibank, many other banks are now charging already those -- those
charges.
MR. BOLOGNA: And just for clarification, Key
Bank is now no longer a vendor?
MS. TAPIA: No, the federal banks are just no part of
this. Only the State banks are the one that have to do with this bill.
MR. BOLOGNA: Got it. So -- and that's because of
our jurisdiction. We are able to regulate State banks and we're not
able to regulate federal banks. Is that an accurate statement?
MS. TAPIA: That's correct.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. So having said that, do you
have any concern that by putting restrictions on State-chartered
institutions that are not federally-chartered institutions, you're creating
an un -- uneven playing field that might disincentivize State-chartered
institutions from coming in and banking underserved communities?
100
(Pause/conferencing)
MS. TAPIA: There's -- there's still some banks that
are still doing some charges, the State-chartered banks, but the
majority already are not doing that.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. But again, just to be clear.
Are we able to -- if a federally -- if there is a federally-chartered ATM
or someplace that someone wants to get -- get cash out of, this
wouldn't apply to them. Is that -- am I understanding that correctly?
MS. TAPIA: It doesn't apply to any federal bank.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. So it's just the
State-chartered ATMs and -- and things you can get cash out of.
MS. TAPIA: Yes.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. I understand. And then
just one more question, and this is more of a clarification. This only
applies to electronic benefits transfer cards. It does not apply to
anyone else, right? There's no other person.
MS. TAPIA: That's correct.
MR. BOLOGNA: Okay. Thank you very much, Ms.
Tapia.
On the bill, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. BOLOGNA: While I do agree that we can all --
we want to make sure that -- that people aren't being taken advantage
of, and generally if you're on an EBT card you're going to -- to an
ATM to take out very small amounts of money, and the percentage of
101
which those fees get added up. So I -- I understand the intent behind
the bill and I commend the intent. However, over the course of the
past few years here, I have seen the State really create more
regulations for State-chartered institutions and, frankly, State-
chartered banks and State-chartered credit unions are kind of
becoming an endangered species in New York State. So I -- I have
growing concerns that we're really unleveling the playing field for
State-chartered institutions to compete with large federally-chartered
banks. And that is really starting to impact both under-banked
communities, whether it's rural or suburban. So I have a number of
concerns there. And this is just an issue of fairness. I mean, again, we
talk about affordability a lot in -- in this Chamber, and that's
something we should be talking about. But ultimately what we're
doing is, like if you are, you know, a -- you know, an electronic
benefit transfer card user, we're exempting you from paying fees but
not anyone else. So I think that there really is an issue of fairness
here.
So for those two reasons, and again, while I
commend the intent of the legislation, I will be in the negative on -- on
that for those reasons.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 180th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
102
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be in the negative on this piece of
legislation. Anyone who wishes to vote yes may do so now at their
seats. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Fall.
MR. FALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Majority Conference will be in the affirmative on this piece of
legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction,
they could do so at their desks.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Page 10, Calendar No. 50, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A01388-A, Calendar
No. 50, Rosenthal, Kelles, Colton, Burdick, Seawright, Reyes,
Shimsky, Levenberg, Forrest, Raga, Otis. An act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to the definition of coal
tar and its use in pavement products.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
103
been requested.
Ms. Rosenthal.
MS. ROSENTHAL: Thank you. This bill would
prohibit the sale of pavement products containing polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons above 1,000 parts per million.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Simpson.
MR. SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Would the bill sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. ROSENTHAL: Yes.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. So we've had different
variations of this bill over the years. This one lowers it even further,
the allowable amount of PAH in coal tar, correct?
MS. ROSENTHAL: Yes.
MR. SIMPSON: It also extends it another year. Am
I correct in that analysis?
MS. ROSENTHAL: It takes effect in one year, yes.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Has the EPA issued any data
on this material at all?
MS. ROSENTHAL: No. No, they have classified
PAHs as probable human carcinogens, and some time ago they were
going to deal with the coal tar, but they hadn't. So in 2021 I -- that
was my bill to -- to ban use of coal tar above 10,000 parts per million.
104
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. But they haven't banned coal
tar in any --
MS. ROSENTHAL: No, but -- but many states and
localities have, above a certain percentage.
MR. SIMPSON: Above the 1,000 milligrams per
kilogram or is it 10,000 milligrams? Which -- what are the other
bans?
MS. ROSENTHAL: Lately it's been the 1,000.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Lately as of this year, or...
MS. ROSENTHAL: The past couple of years. Let's
see...
(Pause)
Illinois and Washington have bans, and then Texas,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Pennsylvania. Many localities have -- have banned.
MR. SIMPSON: All right. So I -- I think we can
agree that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are -- are bad and can --
and have linked to causing cancer.
MS. ROSENTHAL: Correct.
MR. SIMPSON: Is coal tar the only source of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons?
MS. ROSENTHAL: Well, it's only -- it's the only
substance we're dealing with in this bill.
MR. SIMPSON: Right. But -- but it is found in
many other areas, such as cooking, outdoor barbecuing. The food that
105
we eat.
MS. ROSENTHAL: Yes, but we're not -- we're not,
you know, touching that with this bill. This bill is just about
pavements.
MR. SIMPSON: Correct. And I -- and I just am
trying to assess why we are focusing on one product and -- and trying
to establish, you know, a foundation of why we would ban the use of
one product versus other sources. Many sources that we all consume,
use every day.
MS. ROSENTHAL: Okay. It's the -- it's the product
with the highest percentage of PAHs. And also, some of the other
things you're -- you're referring to, you can choose to whether to ingest
or use. But with this, the choice is taken away. So that's why,
because it's the highest level of coal tar. And PAH isn't a product
above everything else you might be thinking of. That's why we're
tackling this one here.
MR. SIMPSON: Right. So, do I have a choice when
I go to Home Depot of what I purchase, as far as one that contains the
PH -- PAH or it doesn't? Do -- do we make alternatives? Are there
alternatives available?
MS. ROSENTHAL: Yes. There are absolutely
alternatives; asphalt-based sealants. They do have a -- a level of PAH,
but substantially lower. And they're on the market. They're used all
over the place and they're readily available.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. Do you -- have you
106
reviewed or seen studies that particularly focus on this one product
that we may purchase that we have a choice to use or not in our
driveways as far as --
MS. ROSENTHAL: I mean, I've seen public health
statements from the CDC, and I've spoken with various environmental
advocates. I've talked to a lab. So I have many sources that say that
coal tar is not -- there are alternatives to coal tar.
MR. SIMPSON: Okay. And just one more question.
Any reason why the EPA didn't ban or control the use of this product?
MS. ROSENTHAL: I don't know. I don't know. I
wish they had, then it wouldn't have to be done state-by-state. But
since it wasn't that's why many states have passed their own laws
about it.
MR. SIMPSON: All right. Thank you, Ms.
Rosenthal --
MS. ROSENTHAL: Thank you.
MR. SIMPSON: -- for answering my questions.
MS. ROSENTHAL: Sure.
MR. SIMPSON: On the bill, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. SIMPSON: While I think that this bill is
attempting to address a significant issue, a risk in every person's life in
making choices, there are choices available out there. If you want to
seal your driveway with a product that doesn't contain this product,
you have the ability to do that. This bill would take my choice away,
107
as everyone else's choice away. It's been proven that polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons are expose -- exposing us through many
different things. Even our own cooking in our home when we
charbroil a steak or we cook a hamburger. We cook outside. We
have family over and we have a barbecue. We are exposing our
family members to this type of hydrocarbon that is causing a risk to
our life.
I don't think we should ban one specific item. We
should look at ways to reduce this item in -- in our exposure without
bans and still leave people choices to make.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 365th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be, generally speaking, in the negative on
this piece of legislation. Should anyone wish to vote yes, now would
be the time to do so at your seats. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mr. Fall.
MR. FALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
108
Majority Conference will be in favor of this piece of legislation. For
those that would like to vote no, they can do so at their desk.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The Clerk will
record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.)
Ms. Rosenthal to explain her vote.
MS. ROSENTHAL: PAH is a group of chemicals
that are formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, wood
or other organic substances exists in many foods and other products.
They might affect a person or a family individually if they choose to
grill and barbecue and broil, et cetera. However, PAHs, when they're
used for driveways and airports and playgrounds, they affect -- the
PAHs affect everyone who inhales or is exposed to the PAHS. And so
the goal is to minimize the exposure that people have to PAHS
through coal tar sealants. Obviously, we can't -- we can't ban all
exposure, but this here will go a long way toward protecting people
and -- and their health, and I vote in the affirmative.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Ms. Rosenthal in
the affirmative.
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Page 6, Calendar No. 6, the Clerk will read.
THE CLERK: Assembly No. A00173-A, Calendar
No. 6, Paulin, Otis, Jacobson, Shimsky, Alvarez. An act to amend the
109
Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, in relation to the applicability of open
meetings and Freedom of Information Laws to certain not-for-profit
corporations.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: An explanation has
been requested.
Ms. Paulin.
MS. PAULIN: Yes, thank you. The bill subjects
certain local development corporations and similar not-for-profit
corporations that engage in municipal economic development to
greater governmental accountability and public transparency.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Mr. Lemondes.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Will the sponsor yield?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Will the sponsor
yield?
MS. PAULIN: I'd be happy to.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: The sponsor yields.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you, Amy. Could you
comment on how does this -- how does this bill strengthen what's
currently in place to the benefit of our citizens?
MS. PAULIN: Absolutely. So, you know, the ABO
was put in place in 2009 to monitor LDCs that work alongside
government or work with government or authorized by government to
do functions that would be better done by a public authority, and they
were given the oversight in the -- in the law to monitor them and to
110
make sure that they were behaving correctly and, you know, and --
and to work cooperatively with them so that they would be transparent
to the public.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. So if I understand
correctly, currently those organizations are not required to disclose
info via FOIL or meeting -- and/or meetings are not open to the public
if they don't want them to be.
MS. PAULIN: Actually, there was a court decision
that did require them to be publicly -- to -- to comply with FOIL and
to comply with Open Meetings. But many of them still don't, so this
would put clarity that -- that they are legally bound to do that.
MR. LEMONDES: So with the criteria preventing
LDCs from being subject to public pro -- procurement laws with
public money and competitive bids, do you think this is good or bad?
MS. PAULIN: So -- well, obviously I like my bill,
right? But, you know, I do believe that a municipal government
should not be skirting the law. They should be complying with the
law because it is public funds.
MR. LEMONDES: So is -- and what's driving that?
Is this urgency, emergency circumstances, what?
MS. PAULIN: So what happened -- there was a
Comptroller report in 2011, which is the basis of many of these
reforms, that showed that there were some LDCs that were directly
authorized by several governments -- they pointed to four of them in
that report -- and it showed that they were, indeed, not doing things
111
that were appropriate or, you know, when it pertained to public
dollars. And so it drove them to suggest that there needed to be some
reforms in the law. When I became Corps Chair -- I think you were
the Ranker at the time -- we put forward -- or we did a public hearing
in 2019 which again pointed to several complaints by even current
elected officials that were not officials when the particular LDC was
formed that were complaining that those LDCs were, indeed,
inappropriately hiding information from the public purposely --
purposely camouflaging activities that should have been done by the
municipal government and/or that they should have been disclosed,
transparent and certainly subject to FOIL.
MR. LEMONDES: So the revision of -- of the bill
now. It would -- if I understand you correctly, it would open that
competitive process more so than it has been in the past, correct?
MS. PAULIN: Well, we're not really saying that an
LDC can't do what they did prior to this bill becoming law. What we
are saying is that it will be more transparent to the public. The public
hearings will be longer and more available from seven days to 21 days
for the public to participate. So we're not really denying the authority
from doing anything that they can do. We're just saying that you are
municipally formed, so that you should be doing something more
appropriate to what the public would expect using public dollars.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. So what I'm driving
at specifically is, would this enable or inhibit the use of sole-source
contracting more so than it has in the past?
112
MS. PAULIN: It wouldn't change -- it wouldn't
change it.
MR. LEMONDES: So they would be able to still use
sole-source contracts at their discretion?
MS. PAULIN: I -- I don't know what authorities are
allowed to do because that's not part of the provisions of the bill. But
whatever they can do, they would be able to do.
MR. LEMONDES: So I raise that because the sole-
source contracting method, although important in some
circumstances, can be very detrimental and abusive in others. So
going to the Economic Development Council, who's in opposition of
this, could you comment on the concern of the approval authority
shifting from the Department of State to the New York State Budget
Office Director?
MS. PAULIN: Well, if you look at that section of
law that we amend, it's actually a W. And the reason it's a W is
because there are so many LDCs and corporations that are formed
under that section of law that are -- that have requirement to have an
approval process. You know, even cemeteries, you know, which was
-- is under the jurisdiction of the same Committee. So there are
already -- I don't know, what's W in the alphabet? Whatever, W, X,
Y, Z. So I guess 23 other types that are already approved by another
entity in addition to the Department of State. And remember, the
Authorities Budget Office is under the Department of the State. So
we're not really taking authority away from the Department of State.
113
We're just allowing for an appropriate Authorities Budget Office that
was given the mission of having jurisdiction over LDCs that are
affiliated with municipal government to be able to have a review of
the -- the LDC before it's formed.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. So would you then
agree or disagree that this bill, if passed, would undermine local
control and economic development?
MS. PAULIN: I -- I don't believe that at all. Because
currently under the law, the ABO has the same authority it had before
to have oversight over these LDCs. The problem was that they didn't
know because the LDCs were not letting them know. They would
have to wait. That's what we learned at the hearing. They have to
wait to know whether or not an LDC was formed because the other
part of the statute, which is already existing, said they had to file their
yearly reports and their annual reports with the LDC and they weren't
doing that. In fact, if you look at the ABO's website you'd see there's
already so many LDCs that -- that they know about that are not
sending in their annual report that they happened to figure out were
LDCs. So all this is doing is giving the ABO the knowledge to -- of
who the LDCs are out there that are affiliated with municipal
governments for them to be able to say they're not handing in their
annual reports. They're not complying with the other aspects of the
law that they're required to comply with. It would just basically give
them that knowledge.
MR. LEMONDES: But having said that, doesn't that
114
further enable the abusive nature, if taken that way, of more sole-
source authority?
MS. PAULIN: I -- so I'm not really understanding
your point, because, you know, it's not about -- that's not -- we're not
changing, again, anything in the law. I guess -- I mean, I guess I'm
just gonna ask you a question. Do you mean an LDC is allowed to do
sole source?
MR. LEMONDES: What I mean is, the -- the -- the
-- it --it appears to me that this bill will enable more use of sole source
with less oversight.
MS. PAULIN: Why would it do that?
MR. LEMONDES: That's a -- that's a -- that's a good
question. That's -- that's a great question. I wouldn't want them to -- I
wouldn't want them to be able to do that.
MS. PAULIN: No, I -- I don't see anything in the bill
that would allow that.
MR. LEMONDES: Okay. And then last, why would
the New York State School Board [sic] Association support this when
the Economic Development Council and the Council of Mayors
oppose it?
MS. PAULIN: So that's an interesting question.
When I looked back at the memos myself, I think that -- you know,
although I haven't had a current conversation with the School Boards,
they probably -- I mean, remember, IDCs are under the ABO. Maybe
they think IDCs should -- you know, to my knowledge all IDCs were
115
automatically they would know about. So I'm not sure. But I can tell
you that originally NYSAC and NYCOM both opposed it, and
NYSAC withdrew their opposition when we amended the bill to allow
for a longer lease. That was their only opposition and, therefore, you
don't see an opposition memo from NYSAC. NYCOM still opposes
it. They don't oppose the lease time, which I know that the New York
State Economic Development Council does. But the Economic
Development Council aren't making these. Not -- you know, the
counties and municipal governments are. So I think on that point we
made an amendment that just for any concerns at the local level. You
know, obviously there are some local governments that are abusing --
you know, they're -- they're making an authority to do something that
is not appropriate, and those maybe drove NYCOM to the decision. I
don't know. But we were able to address NYSAC's concerns, and the
School Boards supports it. So the local governments that have this
authority are not opposed in my view except for NYCOM, and I don't
know what their motive is because their memo was so short and it
didn't have a lot of specificity.
MR. LEMONDES: Amy, thank you for responding.
Madam Speaker, on the bill.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On the bill.
MR. LEMONDES: Thank you. As a result of the
Economic Development Council and NYCOM's maintained
opposition to this bill, I would recommend to all -- the -- the entire
Body oppose it as well. Thank you.
116
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Read the last section.
THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 30th
day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: A Party vote has
been requested.
Ms. Walsh.
MS. WALSH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The
Minority Conference will be in the negative on this piece of
legislation. If there are those who wish to vote yes, now would be a
great time to do so at your seats. Thank you.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank you, Madam
Speaker. The Majority Conference is in favor of this piece of
legislation; however, if you want to be an exception please do so at
your seat.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: Thank you.
The Clerk will record the vote.
(The Clerk recorded the vote.).
Are there any other votes? Announce the results.
(The Clerk announced the results.)
The bill is passed.
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: Madam Speaker, do you
117
have any further housekeeping or resolutions?
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: We have no
housekeeping. We have a number of resolutions before the House.
Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together.
On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying
aye; opposed, no. The resolutions are adopted.
(Whereupon, Assembly Resolution Nos. 1115-1117
were unanimously adopted.)
Mrs. Peoples-Stokes.
MRS. PEOPLES-STOKES: I now move that the
Assembly stand adjourned and that we reconvene at 10:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, April the 1st, tomorrow being a Session day.
ACTING SPEAKER HUNTER: On Mrs. Peoples-
Stokes' motion, the House stands adjourned.
(Whereupon, the House stood adjourned until
Wednesday, April 1st at 10:00 a.m., that being a Session day.)
118