Senate Floor Session — Regular Session

The Senate will come to order. I ask everyone present to please rise and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)

Reading of the Journal.

Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read. Presentation of petitions. Messages from the Assembly. Messages from the Governor. Reports of standing committees. Reports of select committees. Communications and reports from state officers. Motions and resolutions. Senator Gianaris.

Good morning.

The Secretary will read.

I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Ayes, 52.

I offer the following amendments.

Also amendments are offered to the following Third Reading Calendar bills: By Senator Scarcella-Spanton, page 6, Calendar 225, Senate Print 8968; And by Senator Gianaris, page 12, Calendar 410, Senate Print 363A.

Please call on Senator Cooney for a very quick introduction.

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

Senator Gianaris.

An immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.

The Senate will stand at ease. (Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 11:17 a.m.) (Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 11:21 a.m.)

Mr. President, there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. Can we take that up, please.

Senator Stewart-Cousins, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bills: Senate Print 6570A, by Senator Harckham, an act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law; Senate Print 8512B, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Public Service Law; Senate Print 9963, by Senator Serrano, an act making appropriations for the support of government. All bills reported direct to third reading.

All those in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee, please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The report of the Rules Committee is accepted. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Is there a message of necessity and appropriation at the desk?

Move to accept the message.

Opposed, nay. (Response of "Nay.")

Lay it aside.

Let's take up the controversial supplemental calendar, please.

Senator O'Mara, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Good morning.

Through you, Mr. President. This extender, this budget extender legislation has $12.7 billion total, which includes 5.1 billion in new funding.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, this extender will bring us through Wednesday, April 22nd.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Different extenders, because of different timetables for payment, have different amounts in them. So there is an increase in this one over previous, but not necessarily because of the length of time, but more because certain payments are due.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. The three main issues that this additional funding covers are Medicaid, payroll, and school funding.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, this extender includes about $2.3 billion for schools.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. While it is difficult to give assurances until the budget is done, if the past is any indication, we usually build upon what was in the Executive Budget. So I would presume that that would be a base and that we would hopefully go up from there.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, I have no additional information on that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. No, I'm sorry, I don't have any additional information on that.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. I really cannot. I really don't have any additional information to add to that. And again, as this negotiation continues, all of these things I'm hoping will fall into place in due time, sooner rather than later. But you are correct that these are some of the many issues that have -- we continue to grapple with as we attempt to finalize this budget.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, no.

Does the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. Again, it's difficult to say. I would hope so, but it's -- unfortunately, I cannot answer.

Senator O'Mara on the bill.

Thank you, Senator O'Mara. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

On consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. There is a substitution at the desk. The Secretary will read.

Substitution so ordered. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. Today is April 20th. The budget was due on April 1st. So as my colleagues have said, three weeks late for a budget. Still no table targets, which really just once again showcases how inefficient having one party running our state has been. And for that, I'll be voting in the negative.

In relation to Calendar 699, voting in the negative: Senator Weik. Ayes, 57. Nays, 1.

Thank you, Mr. President. Going to more routine business now, there's a privileged resolution at the desk. Please take that up, read its title, and recognize Senator Brisport on the resolution.

Senate Resolution 1887, by Senator Brisport, memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Arab American Heritage Month in the State of New York.

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise too to thank our sponsor for this resolution. And I have the privilege to represent a wide diversity of the Arab American diaspora. Whether they are immigrants from Morocco, from Palestine, from Jordan, from Syria, from Iraq, from Kuwait, from Egypt, from many of the nations where -- around the globe where Arabs come from, they've all settled in -- not just throughout New York City, but particularly in many of the neighborhoods that I get to represent in Brooklyn. Senator Salazar mentioned Bay Ridge. That's probably the newest wave of Arab immigrants we have here in my district. But it begins even a century earlier when we saw the first wave of Syrian and Lebanese immigrants who settled in downstate Brooklyn, establishing shops, establishing restaurants, becoming the first pioneers of their communities to settle here in the United States. I am incredibly proud to represent that full spectrum of Arab American neighbors who live in New York City. And one of my favorite things every year, in fact, on Good Friday -- as many of you know, I'm Greek Orthodox. On Good Friday, at the church that I attend, we do a procession where we walk around the church. And two blocks away there is an Antiochian Orthodox Church, Lebanese, Arab American, Christians, also celebrating Good Friday. Our two congregations come together and we chant the Good Friday hymns not just in English and not just in Greek, but also in Arabic. And it is such a beautiful picture of what makes New York City so great, and that you have all these diverse cultures, all of these diverse nationalities coming together and sharing in this common experience together. That is what makes our city and our state such a beautiful place to welcome so many others, whether they came here 100 years ago or they came here just yesterday. And so I want to thank again Senator Brisport for reminding us of the importance of Arab American Heritage Month. I see some of my constituent groups that are here today: The Arab American Association, the Arab American Family Support Center. And I'm proud to support this resolution. Thank you.

The question is on the resolution. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. (Response of "Aye.")

The resolution is adopted. Senator Gianaris.

The resolution is open for cosponsorship. Should you choose not to be a cosponsor, please notify the desk. Senator Gianaris.

The Secretary will read.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 311, Senate Print 5340C, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Education Law.

Lay it aside. (Pause; off the record.)

I believe that Calendar 311 was laid aside in error. Senator Lanza would like to remove that lay-aside, and let's take that bill up.

Calendar Number 311, Senate Print 5340C, by Senator Stavisky, an act to amend the Education Law.

Section 4. This act shall take effect on the 180th day after it shall have become a law.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 454, Senate Print 2708A, by Senator May, an act to amend the Public Service Law.

Lay it aside.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Ayes, 58.

Calendar Number 493, Senate Print 5280A, by Senator Sepúlveda, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.

Section 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

In relation to Calendar 543, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Oberacker, Stec, Walczyk and Weik. Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.

Calendar Number 613, Senate Print 4188B, by Senator Comrie, an act to amend the Penal Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Lay it aside.

Calendar Number 671, Senate Print 1116, by Senator Gounardes, an act to amend the Executive Law.

Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Lay it aside.

All right. On to the controversial calendar, please.

Calendar Number 186, Senate Print 114, by Senator Cleare, an act to amend the Banking Law.

Mr. President, I believe the sponsor just stepped out for a moment. Let's stand at ease until she comes back.

The Senate will return to order. Senator Gianaris.

Senator Borrello, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

It's my understanding it's made it -- through you, Mr. President -- into third reading on some occasions.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

To make sure that our banks are not investing in private prisons in general outside of New York State.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

No. Through you, Mr. President, no.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

No. There's still a great concern about investing in private prisons outside of New York State. You know, you and I have talked about previous corruption scandals where people were being sentenced and sent to private prisons. And we don't want our banks to be a part of that. We don't want to be investing in that kind of situation. Among other things that are going on in these private prisons, wherever they are.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Right. Through you, Mr. President, right.

Senator Borrello on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Borrello. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bell. Senator Serrano.

Upon consent, the bill is restored to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

Thank you, Mr. President. A point of information. It was stated that there are no private prisons in New York State. I have one in my district. I just wanted to state that. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. While this bill has come to the floor on many occasions, today is probably one of the most important times in recent history. That is because on the federal level, under the Trump administration, the use of private prisons for incarceration and detention is on the rise. In January 2025, a Trump executive order rescinded the Biden directive that required the Justice Department not to renew contracts with private prison firms. Increased ICE activity virtually guarantees the for-profit companies who operate private prisons a pipeline of revenue. However, in New York, we're going to take the opposite course and the high road. This bill sets a very clear moral and policy principle which follows upon the fact that we already prohibit the operation of private prisons in New York State, per Section 121 of the Correction Law. Senate Bill 114 extends this principle further by prohibiting any state-chartered banking institution from providing financing or investing in the stocks, securities, or other obligations of an entity that owns or operates a private correctional facility. New York has been wise enough to ban the very existence of private prisons in the state, and thus it is completely logical to prohibit banks chartered by the very same state from investing in an activity that we have declared is not only prohibited but morally unacceptable. As we stand here today, over 115,000 people in this country are in private prisons, and the number being detained by ICE only adds to this alarming figure. In my public service career I have helped numerous constituents who had family members in private prisons, and the experience was exceptionally burdensome. It is often impossible to make contact with your loved ones, set up visits, or perform any kind of wellness check. There's no accountability, no care or compassion. Safety, health, labor and other standards are lax. New York banks should not be allowed to profit from institutions that the state itself deems impermissible to even exist, plain and simple. I proudly vote aye, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

In relation to Calendar 186, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Rhoads, Rolison, Ryan, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Also Senator Martins. Ayes, 36. Nays, 22.

Calendar Number 450, Senate Print 2224B, by Senator Krueger, an act to amend the Legislative Law.

I rise to go briefly on the bill and then would ask the sponsor to yield for some questions.

Thank you, Mr. President. We have in New York State a comprehensive lobbying regulation. The purpose of the regulation is to provide those regulated by the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government, as well as the public, a consolidated resource for understanding and complying with the requirements of our legislative law known as the Lobbying Act. Under current law, every lobbyist must file a biannual registration statement if they receive more than $5,000 or more in reportable compensation. This bill clarifies that to be if they receive five grand or more in reportable compensation or expenses, they must file a biennial registration statement. The purpose of the biennial registration statement is to memorialize the engagement of the lobbyist by the client and should reflect the current terms of the engagement at any point in time. When people donate to a nonprofit, they expect their money to fulfill the mission of that charity, not to be spent on lobbyists. And with that, Mr. President, I would ask the sponsor to yield.

I'm not the sponsor, but I'm happy to yield on behalf of Senator Krueger.

Through you, Mr. President. This bill allows nonprofits to spend $10,000 a year on lobbyists without having to file any reports, is that correct?

Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. Is there a size of -- you said very small. Is there a size requirement for the size of the nonprofit?

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. How did you arrive at the 33 if there's no threshold for the size?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Through you, Mr. President. So -- and this applies in 2026, in our current calendar year, so even retroactive for money that may have already been spent on lobbying. You're saying there's 33 nonprofits that have already exceeded the 5,000 threshold in lobbying efforts?

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

And just to be clear, that's 33 that have already exceeded the current statute of $5,000, so they're somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 in lobbying this year?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Nonprofits are prohibited from endorsing candidates or directly contributing to political campaigns. Is there anything in this legislation that would require a lobbyist that's lobbying for a nonprofit not to be able to contribute to political campaigns or endorse candidates?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

Some nonprofits receive tax money from the State of New York to implement various programs in our very benevolent state. They would -- if this bill goes into law, they would also be able to hire a lobbyist up to $10,000 on retainer for each year. Am I understanding that correctly?

Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

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

And would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Mr. President, on the bill.

Many nonprofits also have 501(c)(4)s. Those are -- those are their ability to really reach out and impact PACs, political action committees, to issue advocacy campaigns, lobby, that sort of thing. This bill would affect the 501(c)(3)s. There's been some reporting about 501(c)(3)s showing that nonprofits have illegally, directly from the nonprofit, directly into political campaigns. But there is also a loophole. Right now that loophole is that if $5,000 or less is spent on a lobbyist for your nonprofit, you're not subject to the same reporting requirements that the rest of the lobbying world is, in this fat regulation on comprehensive regulations for lobbyists in the State of New York, that exists in order to make sure that there is transparency on the funding that is spent in lobbying. And I know the people that work in these halls understand how these things work. This bill would expand that lobbying loophole for nonprofits, allowing up to $10,000 for a nonprofit -- we're talking about supposed to be going to charity, people that donate to a nonprofit believe that their money is going to the actual thing that the nonprofit stands for, not to be spent on a lobbyist. But if that nonprofit decides that it really needs to lobby, right now if they're spending over $5,000 on lobbying, it has to be publicly disclosed through our regulations. And the public, including the contributors to that nonprofit, have to see it. This bill would expand that up to $10,000. So you could funnel nonprofit money into lobbying firms that then show up to your campaign events, contribute to your campaigns. It is a loophole that eliminates transparency at the same time that we're seeing reporting that nonprofits have directly contributed to campaigns. That's already a mistake. And then by admission from the stand-in for the sponsor today, 33 have already exceeded that $5,000 threshold this year -- have already done the wrong thing, should have to disclose to the people that have donated to those nonprofits, to the people of the State of New York, who often their tax money is donated to those nonprofits and directed through our budgetary process. This bill is very bad for transparency and headed down a very dangerous road. And with that, I will be voting no, Mr. President, and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield for a couple of questions.

Yes.

So is there anything in this bill that would prevent several not-for-profit 501(c)(3)s to each contribute up to $5,000 or $10,000, in a cumulative effort to influence policy?

Thank you, Senator. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

You keep using the term "small not-for-profit." But this really has nothing to do with the size of the not-for-profit, it merely has to do with the amount that they're willing to absorb in lobbying efforts. Right?

Thank you. Mr. President, on the bill.

Thank you. You know, it's a bit of a slippery slope when we talk about things like this, because you've always got to set a threshold. And the threshold was set at $5,000, and I think for a reason. When we start talking about small not-for-profits as opposed to large not-for-profits, all based on how much they're willing to spend to influence policy, we're missing the mark. It has nothing to do with the size of the not-for-profit, Mr. President, it has everything to do with the public disclosure that should be expected when we are looking at a 200 -- this year nearly $270 billion budget. With an increase in spending in the billions year over year, what kind of accountability do we expect to have and should the public expect? And is this the time when we should be loosening that kind of oversight? Small not-for-profits, large not-for-profits really have very little to do with this issue. It's how much they're willing to expose themselves to scrutiny. So you can have a very large not-for-profit that chose not to involve themselves in lobbying because they didn't want to go through the effort. But we've just -- through this bill would increase that threshold and double it from 5,000 to 10,000 just because we don't want to be a burden to small not-for-profits. But it has nothing to do with the size. It has to do with the scrutiny and oversight that this law was initially supposed to provide. I'm concerned, although the spirit -- I'm concerned that we will have lobbying efforts from multiple 501(c)(3)s, each one lobbying up to that $10,000 threshold, aggregating it in order to influence public policy -- again, without having the necessary oversight. And here's the reality. If you want to come here, if you want to influence policy, if you want to use your not-for-profit money or for-profit money to influence how we spend money in the State Capitol, taxpayer funds, yeah, you should be open to that scrutiny. Why not? Why should we be lessening it just for the sake of those 33, which miraculously I guarantee you will multiply as we lessen that threshold. We're basically inviting people to go out there and spend money lobbying up to $10,000. And why would we do that without providing any oversight at all? It's bad policy, Mr. President. I'll be voting no.

We've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Section 5. This act shall take effect on the 60th day after it shall have become a law.

Senator Mayer to explain her vote.

Senator Mayer to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Rhoads to explain his vote.

Senator Rhoads to be recorded in the negative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Senator Walczyk, why do you rise?

Senator May, do you yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. As my colleague is no doubt aware, this bill was vetoed last year. And in the process, in the ensuing year, a lot of additional transmission technologies have been tested all over the country. And so we expanded this bill to include a number of additional -- rather than just the grid-enhancing technologies that were discussed last time, advanced transmission technologies in general are comprehended in this bill.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

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

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

The savings would be much greater than any investments that would be made. But ... (Pause.)

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

I will.

Through you, Mr. President. This also requires an implementation plan. And who would pay for the upgrades once it's implemented?

Would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

Through you, Mr. President. Page 3, line 1: "The commission shall review implementation plans submitted under paragraph A of this subdivision and, where consistent with the public interest, direct the timely deployment of the technologies identified in such implementation plans." If the PSC is directing a utility to implement their plan, how is that voluntary?

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

And through you, Mr. President. So just to get it on the record, the public interest would not include CLCPA, any guidance there, it would -- so you're saying this bill is specifically targeted at cost effectiveness. This plan could only be directed by the PSC to be implemented by a utility if it actually reduces the cost for the ratepayer? Is that the case?

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

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

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

I do.

Why would you need NYSERDA criteria if this is optional for utilities to do?

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

I will.

Through you, Mr. President. As you mentioned earlier, this bill was vetoed in the past, and from that veto message 119, adding this new requirement along with an additional reporting requirement creates a duplicative and expensive process for utilities and ultimately ratepayers at the conclusion of that veto message. On page 2 of your bill, utilities would -- in their implementation plan, they would own and operate battery storage facilities. Am I reading that correctly?

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

Yes.

And through you, Mr. President, utilities must implement plans for data center growth at the cost of ratepayers as well?

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield.

I do.

How does having ratepayers pay for utilities to upgrade the grid to prepare for data center growth, how does that reduce the cost for ratepayers?

Would the sponsor continue to yield.

I will.

Data centers specifically are known to use a lot of power. That's a lot of the concerns of ratepayers across the State of New York, many of them saying, Do not bring data centers here, our prices are already 50 percent higher than the national average. We can't afford to bring these things online until we create some actual production and reduce the cost. So that's why I pointed out in your bill the increased flexibility and rationality in long-term planning, including for data center growth and other major load growth. How can we read that line in your bill, the requirement that utilities under this law be directed by the PSC to implement data center growth in the State of New York -- how could ratepayers anticipate that that's going to lower their energy bill? (Pause.)

Mr. President, briefly on the bill.

Yeah, on page 2 of your bill it absolutely does stipulate -- line 36, "including for data center growth." It is absolutely stipulated in this bill. Forcing utilities to pay for upgrades in the area where a data center may be preparing for that growth, that would be at the cost of the ratepayers. This bill would require them to bring it into their next rate case when they're asking for an increase in how much your bill is going to go up and how much money they're going to get additionally out of New Yorkers that are paying for electric and natural gas in our state -- would require them to pay more in order to prepare for data center growth. At least that's how it's written. I didn't write the bill. And with that, Mr. President, would the sponsor yield?

I would.

Through you, Mr. President. How do you expect giving our utility companies -- NYSEG, National Grid, Con Ed -- more control over power and battery storage will lower energy bills?

Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

I do.

How much -- if your bill becomes law, how much can utility ratepayers expect their energy bills to go down?

Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to yield?

Yes.

I just want to go back to an earlier part of our discussion -- through you, Mr. President. The cost-effectiveness, if the PSC is looking at this, would that include just specific to ratepayers? Or would they think about global costs, health benefits, the planet, carbon emissions and the impact on human life and the cost savings in some of the ways that individuals have calculated the costs? I know it can get pretty funny here. But I just want to be sure, especially as we're establishing legislative intent, you're talking about specifically the PSC cannot direct utilities to implement a plan unless it directly affects lowering cost rates. Am I reading you correctly?

Thank you. Mr. President, on the bill.

New York State's energy prices are 50 percent higher than the national average. And you might ask: Could it get worse? Yup. In the 1990s we had some of the highest rates in the nation. Believe it or not, we were even less competitive in the 1990s, and we didn't even have the CLCPA yet. All the green-energy subsidy that you're seeing on your bills right now did not exist, and we were leading nationally in high energy costs anyway. Then, utilities had a monopoly so they could control both production and distribution. And what we did is the Public Service Commission -- believe it or not, there was a time they looked out for the ratepayers at the Public Service Commission -- they decoupled production and delivery. So our utility companies became in charge of the lines. Other independent power producers became competitive, because they had to compete through the NYISO for the daily rates of producing energy for our grid. It made us more competitive. This bill will force utilities to raise rates. It allows them to monopolize battery storage. It forces them to raise rates to bring on data center growth. And the NYSERDA study that was vetoed for being duplicative and costing ratepayers money that they were already spending on these things, still exists in this bill. So the ratepayers will be getting hit twice. Their utility company, when they go to the PSC with a rate case, will have to come up with a plan ready to be implemented, ready for the PSC to tell them, yes, do this plan for more batteries and data-center growth and upgrading your transmission lines the way that we said. At the same time, NYSERDA will be taking both your tax money and your ratepayer money and be studying the thing that they're already in charge of doing at the utility end. Could it get worse? Yeah. If you support bills like this, rates will continue to go up. I'll be voting no and hope my colleagues will do the same. Thank you.

Mr. President, upon consent, we've agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar.

Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 90th day after it shall have become a law.

Senator May to explain her vote. Excuse me. Senator Harckham to explain his vote.

Senator Harckham to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Skoufis to explain his vote.

Senator Skoufis to be recorded in the affirmative. Senator Walczyk to explain his vote.

Senator Walczyk to be recorded in the negative. Senator May to explain her vote.

Senator May to be recorded in the affirmative. Announce the results.

The bill is passed.

Senator Murray, why do you rise?

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President. The sections that you were referring to refer to convictions of criminal penalties under the Labor Law. So the person is convicted in a criminal court of violations of the Labor Law. And that would prompt the next part of the process.

Will the sponsor yield?

The sponsor yields.

Through you, Mr. President, yes, that's correct.

Thank you. Senator Murray on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Murray. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

This bill has been -- we have agreed to restore this bill to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

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

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

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

In relation to Calendar 654, voting in the negative are Senators Borrello, Gallivan, Murray, Oberacker, Stec and Weik. Ayes, 52. Nays, 6.

Calendar Number 672, Senate Print 2546, by Senator Myrie, an act to amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law.

Yes, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a few questions.

Yes.

Thank you. Senator, I know that the bill deals with abandoned properties, multifamily dwellings in our communities. How is it determined that a property is abandoned?

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

Is there any definition in the statute or in the underlying statute that clarifies what criteria the municipality should use in determining whether a property is abandoned, whether it's just vacant? And frankly, is it the same thing, vacant and abandoned, in your mind?

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

Is there any requirement that the municipality determine that the property is actually vacant before they initiate a proceeding? Or is it specifically with regard to the state of repair of the property?

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

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

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

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

Thank you. Mr. President, through you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

So if the property owner is current on their mortgage obligation, making their payments every month, what would be the basis for a lender to foreclose in order to prevent perhaps losing a property?

I'll clarify. Mr. President, through you, if I can continue to --

If you have a property owner that continues to make their payments on a mortgage and a municipality determines, whether correctly or incorrectly, that the property is abandoned so as to start this sequence, there's a notice that goes to the lender. They're being paid on their mortgage, and yet this would require them to start a foreclosure proceeding in order to protect their interest in the property -- that is, the amount that they lent -- or risk losing the property. What would their basis be for a foreclosure proceeding if they'd been paid on their mortgage? (Pause.)

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

Yes.

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

Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.

Yes.

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

Senator Martins.

Senator Martins on the bill.

Thank you, Senator Martins. Are there any other Senators wishing to be heard? Seeing and hearing none, debate is closed. Senator Gianaris.

The bill will be restored, upon consent, to the noncontroversial calendar. Read the last section.

Call the roll. (The Secretary called the roll.)

In relation to Calendar 672, voting in the negative are Senators Ashby, Borrello, Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick, Chan, Gallivan, Griffo, Helming, Lanza, Martins, Mattera, Murray, Oberacker, O'Mara, Ortt, Palumbo, Rhoads, Rolison, Stec, Tedisco, Walczyk, Weber and Weik. Ayes, 36. Nays, 22.

Is there any further business at the desk?

Can I have my colleagues' attention for a moment. There were a series of committee meetings that were scheduled for early this afternoon. They are being rescheduled as follows. Insurance and Social Services will now be meeting at 2:30. The Housing and Investigations Committees will now be meeting at 3:00 p.m. And that is because there will be an immediate meeting of the Majority Conference in Room 332.

I move to adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 21st, at 3:00 p.m.